From karel@esatclear.ie Mon Nov 11 13:11:08 2002 From: karel@esatclear.ie (Karel) Date: Mon, 11 Nov 2002 13:11:08 GMT Subject: [blml] re-stayman Message-ID: <3dcfac6c.48a4.0@esatclear.ie> [snip ] However, if where you play, you find that players will always "assume" you have majors to bid like this [classically the perfect hand is 4=4=5=0] then you might alert the pass. >From the general thread to date I don't think anyone is arguing against alerting bids, they seem to be arguing against a full and complete explanation which is very poor wording IMO as it leads to (eg) David Burns example in a previous post (ie) a 2 page description. The wording used in this law as in many others from several threads needs to be looked at. A possible solution maybe a 2 step alert procedure (ie) bid : Alert ! Yes ?? It shows blah blah blah. Do you want a fuller explanation ?? Yes/No ... At least we now allow the opps to decide do they want a 2 page epilogue while still adhereing to the sentiment of the law as opposed to the technical meaning. As to the above example - you assuming anything about your local players methods & understandings or otherwise and alerting on that basis is surely precisely what the laws were designed against. K. -- http://www.iol.ie From karel@esatclear.ie Mon Nov 11 13:41:37 2002 From: karel@esatclear.ie (Karel) Date: Mon, 11 Nov 2002 13:41:37 GMT Subject: [blml] Re: [blm] Quickies Message-ID: <3dcfb391.4aa2.0@esatclear.ie> >AG : a direct cue-bid is self-alerting. Just ask what it means. [Karel - ok it is mosstttt unlikely that 2S is natural ... BUT ... IF a bid is not alerted (ie) 1NT P 2C :>> it IS natural. South gave E/W 4/5 seconds to wake up and alert the call. Why should the onus be on South to wake west up or to allow west the opportunity to tell east that he has forgotten the system ?? If a bid is alertable then the opps should alert it - the onus is not on you to chase them up to find out what it means. >AG : don't make me laugh. [Again ok its unlikely 2S is natural but what if just this one time it actually was natural Alain ?? Can you read the opps minds ?? Should you be required to ask the meaning of a bid which may wake an opponent up ?? ] >AG : mum. [Finally it is 100% clear cut that West KNEW 2S wasn't natural and failed to alert. She may not have known what it meant but her double, pretty amazing lead and no spade raise with J to 5 clearly indicated she knew 2S was not natural. She failed to alert. N/S were damaged. Let me put it another way - N/S did nothing wrong other than not ask about a bid they should have been told about - and yet they are the villians ... someone help me here pls ?? ] -- http://www.iol.ie From karel@esatclear.ie Thu Nov 14 13:47:37 2002 From: karel@esatclear.ie (Karel) Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2002 13:47:37 GMT Subject: [blml] Re: [blm] Quickies Message-ID: <3dd3a979.2f6c.0@esatclear.ie> [Snip ] > You may be interested in the following English Directive from the >Orange book. > >5.5 Misinformation > >5.5.1 If you claim to have been damaged because your opponents failed to >alert a call, and it is judged that you were aware of its likely >meaning, you would fail in your claim if you had had the opportunity to ask without putting your side's interests at risk. [Ok i was playing devils advote on the actual hand in that certainly over a major as pointed out by Adam, 2S as nat ... is highly unlikely. The actual hand is not a good example. 5.5.1 above is very apt - but it seems the onus is on you to decide (1) have the opps gone wrong (2) is it likely the call is natural or not. I would rather the opps were forced to alert a call regardless of certainty or not of the meaning (ie) - "Alert - We haven't discussed this sequence it may be natural or showing a 2 suiter". At least we now know that the opps are on unsure ground. - "Alert - We haven't discussed this but its not natural - probably a 2 suiter ". Now we know for certain the bid is a 2 suiter more info for us. Etc etc By alerting the opps have at least forefilled their obligation and given you some info. In the actual case - there was no alert when it was 200% evident that the bid wasn't natural. Ok South should have asked ... BUT ... West shouldn't be allowed to just walk away with no alert. So change the sequence to 1C(nat) 2C ?? Or 1C(precision) 2C ?? No alert - perfectly entitled to assume the opps bid is natural and bid accordingly. But now because the element of doubt is greater we are entitled to recourse ... pretty fine conditions. ] -- http://www.iol.ie From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Fri Nov 1 02:06:24 2002 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Fri, 1 Nov 2002 02:06:24 -0000 Subject: [blml] questions about future calls [was: Is Stayman alertable in WBF/EBL... References: <186.105b0551.2af28898@aol.com> Message-ID: <005401c2814b$4969dc80$239468d5@default> [Shoderb] Finally sucked me in on this. Which English meaning of "mad" did you have in mind? Since Ton, Grattan, and David are not sufficient "authority" for you as to what the Law permits, why not just stop using up the time of all those subscribers who must certainly have better things to do than read repetitive drivel? {Nigel Guthrie] How can we mad, stupid, ignorant, scumbag, players repair our legal misconceptions when the best counter-arguments that BLML authorities vouchsafe are "rubbish" "nonsense" and "drivel". From mikedod@gte.net Fri Nov 1 02:33:52 2002 From: mikedod@gte.net (mike dodson) Date: Thu, 31 Oct 2002 18:33:52 -0800 Subject: [blml] Is Stayman alertable in WBF/EBL events? References: <291002302.33476@webbox.com> Message-ID: <002c01c2814f$31e73270$0100a8c0@MikesDesk> From: "David Burn" > > Eric wrote: > > >David may very well be right about the intent of L20F, but he > is wrong to argue that the current wording does not lend itself > to alternate interpretation. > > >The key phrase here is "available but not made". There is no > verb in that phrase... > > True. Here at last is some textual analysis. And about time too. > I'd like to add textual analysis to the opening phrase of L20F "During the auction". The definitions call "auction" a process to determine a contract and lasts until a call is followed by three passes. L20F applies "during" or in the midst of a process. This suggests to me that "the opponents auction" includes both past and future. The only verb we have to offer a tense is "made" but for available calls it is used in the negative ("not made"). Future available calls have not been made but that's the kind of call L20F gives us the right to ask about! Its seems to me this is the only way to provide for the spirit of L40B in most games. L40B disallows the use of understandings that cannot be expected to be known or else are disclosed in accordance to regulation. Alerts followed by questions is one imperfect method of approaching the ideal of full disclosure. How can we have "prior" disclosure if we can't inquire about the future course of the auction. Even if L20F doesn't provide future tense questions, regulations under L40B should allow them lest an understanding be illegal for lack of disclosure. I've just looked for references to prior disclosure and can't seem to find them. Perhaps by law we haven't any right to know the oppenents system until they use it. Is the convention card which the SO may prescribe the only information I'm entitled? I've always thought of the convention card as a convenience, a short cut to the full set of information the opponents are entitled. Now it seems, its the only information they get and I need not even answer questions. They have no right to know what I'm playing till it comes up if they can't read it on my card. L75A says "fully and freely" but apparently only after an agreement is used (or not used) or if it can be found on the convention card. This isn't the game I thought I was playing. Mike Dodson From toddz@worldnet.att.com Fri Nov 1 02:54:13 2002 From: toddz@worldnet.att.com (Todd Zimnoch) Date: Thu, 31 Oct 2002 21:54:13 -0500 Subject: [blml] Full disclosure In-Reply-To: <007b01c2812c$fb05f150$0283403e@endicott> Message-ID: > -----Original Message----- > From: Grattan Endicott > Sent: Thursday, October 31, 2002 5:23 PM > Subject: Re: [blml] questions about future calls > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Tim West-meads" > > Possibly. Were you to ask 1000 bridge > > players/TDs "Do you have a right to know the > > systems/methods opps are playing?" and > > "Do you have a right to ask for this information > > during the auction if their CC is not available/ > > doesn't show it?" > > > +=+ But of course, whatever their belief, if the > rules of the game do not give them the right > they do not have the right to lose. +=+ This statement shocks me. Even David Burn has not suggested that a player is not entitled to this sort of information. He has instead claimed that access to the information is prohibited if the information does not appear on a CC and the auction has already started. What part of "full disclosure" makes it a misnomer? -Todd From dalburn@btopenworld.com Fri Nov 1 07:45:03 2002 From: dalburn@btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: Fri, 1 Nov 2002 07:45:03 -0000 Subject: [blml] questions about future calls References: <4.3.2.7.0.20021031170242.00aca210@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <002101c2817a$96ecf4e0$bb9b23d9@pbncomputer> I trust that, in view of the paramount nature of the Principle of Full Disclosure, Law 20 will be amended in the next revision so that the intolerable restriction on having to wait for my turn to call before asking questions will be removed. How can information be said to be "freely available" if I can't ask for it whenever I like? David Burn London, England From svenpran@online.no Fri Nov 1 07:55:20 2002 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Fri, 1 Nov 2002 08:55:20 +0100 Subject: [blml] Is Stayman alertable in WBF/EBL events? References: <291002302.33476@webbox.com> <002c01c2814f$31e73270$0100a8c0@MikesDesk> Message-ID: <000d01c2817c$100de8b0$70d8fea9@WINXP> From: "mike dodson" .......... > I'd like to add textual analysis to the opening phrase of L20F "During the > auction". The definitions call "auction" a process to determine a contract > and lasts until a call is followed by three passes. The Aution does not end with the three passes - see Law 17E. If there has been at least one bid then the auction lasts until the opening lead has been faced (simplified). This distinction is essential in several cases which I won't bother blml with here now. regars Sven From A.Kooijman@dwk.agro.nl Fri Nov 1 08:05:27 2002 From: A.Kooijman@dwk.agro.nl (Kooijman, A.) Date: Fri, 01 Nov 2002 09:05:27 +0100 Subject: [blml] questions about future calls [was: Is Stayman alertabl e in Message-ID: > > You are not allowed to know what your opponents might bid > > if, to ascertain it, you have to ask a question forbidden by > > L20F. > > If you believe that statement, do you also believe that > shuffling > the cards is forbidden by L20F? L20F grants rights and restricts > none. To me this kind of reasoning is similar to A telling that 2 + 2 = 4 after which B interrupts with : that doesn't say that it couldn't be 5 also. That might be interesting from a philosophical point of view, but in this context I find your statement quite boring and contra-productive. Give future ones a warning sign, then I can delete them at once. ton From svenpran@online.no Fri Nov 1 08:09:31 2002 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Fri, 1 Nov 2002 09:09:31 +0100 Subject: [blml] questions about future calls References: <4.3.2.7.0.20021031170242.00aca210@pop.starpower.net> <002101c2817a$96ecf4e0$bb9b23d9@pbncomputer> Message-ID: <001b01c2817e$021f8e00$70d8fea9@WINXP> From: "David Burn" > I trust that, in view of the paramount nature of the Principle of Full > Disclosure, Law 20 will be amended in the next revision so that the > intolerable restriction on having to wait for my turn to call before > asking questions will be removed. How can information be said to be > "freely available" if I can't ask for it whenever I like? I understand the clause "at his turn" is to prevent a defender the possibility to pass UI to his partner with a question at a time he really has no need for the information because he has no immediate action pending. Could the dilemma be resolved by adding text to Law 20 to the effect that once an explanation has been initiated then both opponents to the player giving the explanation may ask clarifying questions. An alert is considered to initiate an explanation of the alerted call. Grattan: Is this some idea to be noted? regards Sven From A.Kooijman@dwk.agro.nl Fri Nov 1 08:14:02 2002 From: A.Kooijman@dwk.agro.nl (Kooijman, A.) Date: Fri, 01 Nov 2002 09:14:02 +0100 Subject: [blml] Does L20F prohibit hypothetical questions? Message-ID: _______________________________________________ > > [Ton Kooijman] > And then my very personal opinion is that you > are allowed to do so, unless the sponsoring > organisation has regulations forbidding it. > You don't want my opinion about this strategy? > Next question, let us do it the Socratesian way. > I have to admit now already that I do not have > an answer for the problem that both sides only > know what to do when the opponents have made > their choice. A toss may be, or even/odd boards? > {Nigel Guthrie] > I recall this "Hen and Egg" problem being > discussed about 50 years ago. If in all this time, > the law has failed to ban players from changing > their offensive actions only after establishing > what opponent's defenses are, it makes you want > to throw up. The correct rule has always been > simple and obvious -- you must specify meanings > in chronological order -- actions before reactions. > If I understand you well I am willing to agree with 'simple' but 'obvious'? To me this seems to mean that a pair is not allowed to have the meaning of its 1C opening depending on opponents defence, even if that is a fixed defence, the 1C opening being the 'action' here. Do I understand you well? ton From s.f.kuipers@ngi.nl Fri Nov 1 08:17:47 2002 From: s.f.kuipers@ngi.nl (Simon Kuipers) Date: Fri, 01 Nov 2002 09:17:47 +0100 Subject: [blml] questions about future calls In-Reply-To: <3DA3C877008D9433@ocpmta3.be.tiscali.com> Message-ID: <4.3.2.7.2.20021101091324.05bdbe50@MDWexc1> At 09:11 01/11/2002, Sven Pran wrote: >I understand the clause "at his turn" is to prevent a defender the >possibility to pass UI to his partner with a question at a time he >really has no need for the information because he has no immediate >action pending. Well, it is every player's responsibility not to transfer UI to his partner. Just asking for a clarification does not imply UI sua generis. >Could the dilemma be resolved by adding text to Law 20 to the >effect that once an explanation has been initiated then both >opponents to the player giving the explanation may ask clarifying >questions. An alert is considered to initiate an explanation of the >alerted call. > >Grattan: Is this some idea to be noted? Note that this is already common practice among a lot of bridge players. Simon From A.Kooijman@dwk.agro.nl Fri Nov 1 08:53:47 2002 From: A.Kooijman@dwk.agro.nl (Kooijman, A.) Date: Fri, 01 Nov 2002 09:53:47 +0100 Subject: [blml] questions about future calls [was: Is Stayman alertabl e in WBF/EBL events?] Message-ID: On 10/30/02, Kooijman, A. wrote: > > >This is why I get tired in this group once in a while. How in heaven > >is it possible to get consensus when people don't even accept clear > >language and statements? You don't need to like people as Grattan and > >me (though I advise you to like at least Grattan out of > those two) but > >when both of us - being members of the WBFLC - dare to say that > >asking questions about future calls during an auction is not allowed, > >and when to support this statement we point to L 20F, why > then are you > >still asking for consensus? This is not a group that decides > about the > >meaning of the laws, lucky bridge world. What this group might do is > >giving input to those who are asked to make such decisions. That is > >why I asked you about your opinion of changing L20F, making it > >possible to ask about future calls. The only reaction came from David > >B. telling that he considers the present L20F satisfactory. No other > >opinions? Not interested? Just showing your distrust for even the > >mildest form of authority, Grattan's I mean? > > I think, sir, that you do me a disservice, just as you seem to think I > have done you and Grattan one. Don't worry, I don't take these things that personal. You may think about me what you want and even express that opinion in this group. I understood your contribution as: 'can anybody tell me what is going on here? I thought you were not allowed but now I tend to believe you are allowed to ask about future questions.' And that happened after a quite clear statement was made by members of the LC, and in that quality, that such questions are not allowed. You are right that we (LC members) give just personal opinions, but that is only true as long as we don't say otherwise. Here we did otherwise. One of my aims in contributing to this group is to have TD's confronted with rulings on the subject in discussion, making the right one when it happens tomorrow. I had the impression that you were not going to. That would be a pity for our game and that is what I tried to express. At last this tread has resulted in a majority (whatever that is worth) view that questions about relevant potential calls should be possible. That is in our agenda now. ton From A.Kooijman@dwk.agro.nl Fri Nov 1 08:57:16 2002 From: A.Kooijman@dwk.agro.nl (Kooijman, A.) Date: Fri, 01 Nov 2002 09:57:16 +0100 Subject: [blml] Relaying down the law on disclosure Message-ID: > > [Ed Reppert] > To the best of my knowledge, no one here has > said either of those last two things. At least, > not here. As for the first two, they are attacks > against the opinions expressed, not the person > expressing them. > [Nigel] > In my short expereince of BLML, I have seen > several accusations of ignorance and stupidity > some of them directed at me. > David Burn often says that his critics do not > understand even the simplest things. > Since we are not wilfully obtuse, I conclude > that we must all be stupid. > Several people have said of a submission > that it offers an opinion on a topic about > which the author knows nothing. Ignorance is > relative and although I do not claim to know > much I hope I know enough to offer an opinion. > I concede that "Nonsense" and "Rubbish" may be > attacks on opinions rather than their holders > but they are cheap, nasty, empty attacks. > IMO, in a discussion forum for adults, even a > short counter-example or counter-argument is > always preferable. > > OK then: 2 + 2 = 4 ton > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From A.Kooijman@dwk.agro.nl Fri Nov 1 09:22:39 2002 From: A.Kooijman@dwk.agro.nl (Kooijman, A.) Date: Fri, 01 Nov 2002 10:22:39 +0100 Subject: [blml] questions about future calls [was: Is Stayman alertabl e in Message-ID: Now I know such questions can create UI, I might even choose > not to ask if > I think the UI will restrict partner's actions. I can trust > my regular > partners not to take advantage of such UI. But even if UI is > created, and > taken advantage of so what? L73/16 will deal with it - just > as L73/16 > deal with UI created by asking about a call not made when > asking for an > explanation. > This is part of the tread that didn't get enough attention yet. So potentially it might become the longest we ever had. Is Herman keeping records about this also? It is less easy than Tim suggests. If I am asking a legitimate question the information arising from the answer should not be considered UI. Opponents are authorized to get a full explanation etc. etc. So only when it is likely that the reason to ask is influenced by less honest considerations UI is involved (don't hang me on these words, personal again). And since that distinction is not so easy to make the laws should try to minimize this problem. But this too is a matter of pros and contras so we need to find the balance. ton > Tim > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From dalburn@btopenworld.com Fri Nov 1 09:50:31 2002 From: dalburn@btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: 1 Nov 2002 01:50:31 -0800 Subject: [blml] questions about future calls Message-ID: <011102305.6631@webbox.com> Sven wrote: >I understand the clause "at his turn" is to prevent a defender the possibility to pass UI to his partner with a question at a time he really has no need for the information because he has no immediate action pending. Absolutely spot on, Sven. Despite the fact that information is supposed to be freely available, it isn't actually freely available at all, because there is the practical consideration of avoiding UI to consider. If that practical consideration doesn't exist, then there is no bar to making the information available. Law 20F doesn't exist behind screens, Herman. If you, on my side of the screen but on my left at the table, alert your own call, I can ask you about it even though it's not my turn. (At least, I ought to be able to - everyone does it anyway, and even if 20F isn't in the list of rules that don't operate with screens, then it should be.) By the same token, I could just about imagine allowing "future questions" behind screens, since the UI problem is removed and the time-wasting problem largely so. You would still have to be careful not to create a false inference in the mind of an opponent, though. >Could the dilemma be resolved by adding text to Law 20 to the effect that once an explanation has been initiated then both opponents to the player giving the explanation may ask clarifying questions. No. David Burn London, England From A.Kooijman@dwk.agro.nl Fri Nov 1 09:44:15 2002 From: A.Kooijman@dwk.agro.nl (Kooijman, A.) Date: Fri, 01 Nov 2002 10:44:15 +0100 Subject: [blml] questions about future calls Message-ID: > I trust that, in view of the paramount nature of the Principle of Full > Disclosure, Law 20 will be amended in the next revision so that the > intolerable restriction on having to wait for my turn to call before > asking questions will be removed. How can information be said to be > "freely available" if I can't ask for it whenever I like? > And if the LC doesn't follow this suggestion I want them to have the paradox of a player not knowing whether to alert his partner's call since he doesn't know the meaning of LHO's call, which he isn't allowed to find out yet, on which partners call is based being solved. ton > David Burn > London, England > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From A.Kooijman@dwk.agro.nl Fri Nov 1 09:58:45 2002 From: A.Kooijman@dwk.agro.nl (Kooijman, A.) Date: Fri, 01 Nov 2002 10:58:45 +0100 Subject: [blml] questions about future calls Message-ID: Sven: > > >Could the dilemma be resolved by adding text to Law 20 to the > effect that once an explanation has been initiated then both > opponents to the player giving the explanation may ask clarifying > questions? David: No. No indeed, since partner still has to make his call. But what about such questions after partner has made his call and before RHO has called? This solves my paradox as described in a previous message (not knowing whether to alert/not being able to explain since not knowing the meaning of LHO's call). Anxious waiting for David's reply. Treat me friendly please. ton From svenpran@online.no Fri Nov 1 10:03:20 2002 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Fri, 1 Nov 2002 11:03:20 +0100 Subject: [blml] questions about future calls References: <011102305.6631@webbox.com> Message-ID: <008901c2818d$e8b2a9b0$70d8fea9@WINXP> From: "David Burn" .......... > >Could the dilemma be resolved by adding text to Law 20 to the > >effect that once an explanation has been initiated then both > >opponents to the player giving the explanation may ask clarifying > >questions. > > No. > > David Burn > London, England Would you mind explaining why not? Sven From dalburn@btopenworld.com Fri Nov 1 10:15:58 2002 From: dalburn@btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: 1 Nov 2002 02:15:58 -0800 Subject: [blml] questions about future calls Message-ID: <011102305.8158@webbox.com> Ton wrote: >No indeed, since partner still has to make his call. But what about such questions after partner has made his call and before RHO has called? This solves my paradox as described in a previous message (not knowing whether to alert/not being able to explain since not knowing the meaning of LHO's call). >Anxious waiting for David's reply. Treat me friendly please. I'm not sure I fully understand the question, but I'll try. Are you referring to this kind of thing? West North East South 1NT 2C* 2H *Alerted by West, but South (who knows what East-West play and must therefore not ask a Kaplan question) merely doubles. **North, who does not know what East-West play, does not know whether to alert this or not (if 2C is, for example, majors, then 2H is a cue bid in his methods and is alertable; but if 2C is, for example, an unknown one-suiter, then 2H is natural and does not require an alert). In such a case, my view (and the EBU regulation) is that North should alert anyway. When West asks him what is happening, North can explain his problem: "if you play 2C as majors, then my partner has X; if you play it as a one-suiter, then my partner has hearts." West can then do whatever he likes, and at North's turn, he can discover what 2C actually means. If West does not ask, then if North discovers that 2H was in fact natural, he can unalert; West cannot claim damage from this, because he should have asked. David Burn London, England From dalburn@btopenworld.com Fri Nov 1 10:22:30 2002 From: dalburn@btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: 1 Nov 2002 02:22:30 -0800 Subject: [blml] questions about future calls Message-ID: <011102305.8550@webbox.com> Sven wwrote: [SP] >Could the dilemma be resolved by adding text to Law 20 to the effect that once an explanation has been initiated then both opponents to the player giving the explanation may ask clarifying questions. [DB] > No. [SP] >Would you mind explaining why not? Is it your turn to ask? If so, I will say this: suppose South bids something, North alerts, and West asks. East must not be allowed to interrupt North's explanation to West with a "clarifying question" or anything else, because of the possibility of illegal communication between East and West. The reason is, basically, the same as the reason why you can only ask at your turn. Now, many have argued that you ought to be allowed to ask questions about whatever you like whenever you like, even though this may transmit UI, because there are rules in place for dealing with UI. This is like saying that you ought to be allowed to drive on the wrong side of the road as long as you don't actually kill anyone. David Burn London, England From hermandw@skynet.be Fri Nov 1 10:28:33 2002 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 01 Nov 2002 11:28:33 +0100 Subject: [blml] questions about future calls References: <005301c2810f$76bd3880$bb9b23d9@pbncomputer> Message-ID: <3DC25751.3030703@skynet.be> Yes David, such stories have occured to me as well. David Burn wrote: > Rather a good way of not being doubled in some marginal bid has just > occurred to me. > > "If I bid two spades, can you double me for penalty in your system?" > "Yes." > "Thank you. Two spades." > I believe you would be right to call this illegal deception. Far more so than asking about the queen of trumps. Now I don't think we disagree in saying that asking a hypothetical question is a can of worms. But I don't believe that this is enough reason to prohibit them. > David Burn > London, England > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw@skynet.be Fri Nov 1 10:41:48 2002 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 01 Nov 2002 11:41:48 +0100 Subject: [blml] questions about future calls References: <011102305.6631@webbox.com> Message-ID: <3DC25A6C.60406@skynet.be> David Burn wrote: > > Law 20F doesn't exist behind screens, Herman. If you, on my side > of the screen but on my left at the table, alert your own call, > I can ask you about it even though it's not my turn. (At least, > I ought to be able to - everyone does it anyway, and even if > 20F isn't in the list of rules that don't operate with screens, > then it should be.) > I have taken the first set of regulations I put my hands on - Sorrento if this could matter. It says : The international code of duplicate laws is in effect except as specified below: ... Law 20 ... At any time a player may request, in writing, of his screenmate a full explanation of an opponent's call. The reply, also, is in writing. I don't see how this means that hypothetical questions are allowed behind screens. At least by some similar reasoning as before, they are equally disallowed. > By the same token, I could just about imagine allowing "future > questions" behind screens, since the UI problem is removed and > the time-wasting problem largely so. You would still have to > be careful not to create a false inference in the mind of an > opponent, though. > So David, you ARE in favour of being able to ask hypothetical questions, as long as the UI issues are resolved. Thank you. > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Fri Nov 1 10:55:00 2002 From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Date: Fri, 1 Nov 2002 10:55 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [blml] questions about future calls Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <002101c2817a$96ecf4e0$bb9b23d9@pbncomputer> David Burn wrote: > I trust that, in view of the paramount nature of the Principle of Full > Disclosure, Law 20 will be amended in the next revision so that the > intolerable restriction on having to wait for my turn to call before > asking questions will be removed. How can information be said to be > "freely available" if I can't ask for it whenever I like? I'm surprised you find the restriction intolerable (it's inconvenient if your alert/explanation of partner's action depends on the meaning of an imposing call but this inconvenience can be endured - try to be a bit more patient). I think most of us would be satisfied by having the information "freely available" when we need it. On the whole that will generally be at our own turn. Tim From A.Kooijman@dwk.agro.nl Fri Nov 1 10:34:22 2002 From: A.Kooijman@dwk.agro.nl (Kooijman, A.) Date: Fri, 01 Nov 2002 11:34:22 +0100 Subject: [blml] questions about future calls Message-ID: > > Ton wrote: > > >No indeed, since partner still has to make his call. But what > about such questions after partner has made his call and before > RHO has called? This solves my paradox as described in a previous > message (not knowing whether to alert/not being able to explain > since not knowing the meaning of LHO's call). > > >Anxious waiting for David's reply. Treat me friendly please. You did. Let us give an easier to follow example. LHO opens 2C and partner doubles. This shows clubs when 2C is just very strong and is for take out when it shows clubs or (other case) shows weak diamonds or is very strong. I agree that the EBU found a solution by alerting this in any case, but I don't like that solution. (let us not talk about doubles not being alerted at all anymore, it is the principle I am concerned about). The case is whether we could allow a question about the meaning of 2C once partner has made his call in stead of having to wait till it is your own turn. With 25B disappearing I don't see much problems to allow that. ton ton From svenpran@online.no Fri Nov 1 11:11:53 2002 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Fri, 1 Nov 2002 12:11:53 +0100 Subject: [blml] questions about future calls References: <011102305.8550@webbox.com> Message-ID: <00a001c28197$7c093c20$70d8fea9@WINXP> From: "David Burn" > > Sven wrote: > > [SP] > >Could the dilemma be resolved by adding text to Law 20 to the > effect that once an explanation has been initiated then both > opponents to the player giving the explanation may ask clarifying > questions. > > [DB] > > No. > > [SP] > >Would you mind explaining why not? > > Is it your turn to ask? If so, I will say this: suppose South > bids something, North alerts, and West asks. East must not be > allowed to interrupt North's explanation to West with a "clarifying > question" or anything else, because of the possibility of illegal > communication between East and West. The reason is, basically, > the same as the reason why you can only ask at your turn. I fully agree that East must not interrupt, and furthermore East must be very careful about what questions he asks and how. But questions like: "Excuse me, you said the NT call was strong - how strong please?" or: "Sorry, what was that you said?" All of which questions that goes directly on further clarifying the explanation given. I would certainly not suggest that East (in this case) is free to ask whatever he wants. I see a slight parallell to Law 20A: A player who does not hear a call distinctly may forthwith require that it be repeated. My suggestion could be something like: A player that does not hear an explanation clearly, or feels that the explanation is incomplete, may forthwith request that it be repeated or clarified. regards Sven From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Fri Nov 1 11:21:59 2002 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Fri, 1 Nov 2002 11:21:59 -0000 Subject: [blml] Re: What's partner's likely hand? Message-ID: <015501c28198$e8bfef20$259868d5@default> [My previous list..] [6] IMO "General Knowledge and Experience" is a red herring of which no mention should be made in disclosure laws like 75C. People are secretive enough without providing them with legal excuses. Do you remember my Puppet Stayman example? Rather that trying to follow a chain of unfamiliar inferences, should you be allowed to ask "From the evidence of the auction, but without reference to your own hand, please describe the kinds of hand that your partner may hold?"? From hermandw@skynet.be Fri Nov 1 11:29:32 2002 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 01 Nov 2002 12:29:32 +0100 Subject: [blml] questions about future calls References: Message-ID: <3DC2659C.3060101@skynet.be> Very good point, I hadn't thought of that. Kooijman, A. wrote: > > Let us give an easier to follow example. LHO opens 2C and partner doubles. > > This shows clubs when 2C is just very strong and is for take out when it > shows clubs or (other case) shows weak diamonds or is very strong. > I agree that the EBU found a solution by alerting this in any case, but I > don't like that solution. (let us not talk about doubles not being alerted > at all anymore, it is the principle I am concerned about). The case is > whether we could allow a question about the meaning of 2C once partner has > made his call in stead of having to wait till it is your own turn. With 25B > disappearing I don't see much problems to allow that. > Indeed - with 25B there is a reason not to ask yet. But without it, there is no such reason. Change L20 to "ask whenever it is his or his RHO's turn to call". > ton > > > ton > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Fri Nov 1 11:32:25 2002 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Fri, 1 Nov 2002 11:32:25 -0000 Subject: [blml] Does L20F prohibit hypothetical questions? Message-ID: <018001c2819a$5d3e35e0$259868d5@default> Ton Kooijman] If I understand you well I am willing to agree with 'simple' but 'obvious'? To me this seems to mean that a pair is not allowed to have the meaning of its 1C opening depending on opponents defence, even if that is a fixed defence, the 1C opening being the 'action' here. Do I understand you well? {Nigel Guthrie] Yes if you have a 1C opener with a peculiar meaning, then they may improvise a special ad hoc defence; but not vice versa. Marvin L French says that is how the ACBL rule. IMO the WBF should do the same if they haven't already done so. Although I suppose it may be difficult to police. And, I dare say that, in complex auctions, it may be hard to decide who must freeze their agreement first. [Sorry Ton meant to send this to BLML, too] From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Fri Nov 1 11:33:18 2002 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Fri, 1 Nov 2002 11:33:18 -0000 Subject: [blml] Relaying down the law on disclosure Message-ID: <018601c2819a$7b441000$259868d5@default> > [Nigel] > In my short expereince of BLML, I have seen > several accusations of ignorance and stupidity > some of them directed at me. > David Burn often says that his critics do not > understand even the simplest things. > Since we are not wilfully obtuse, I conclude > that we must all be stupid. > Several people have said of a submission > that it offers an opinion on a topic about > which the author knows nothing. Ignorance is > relative and although I do not claim to know > much I hope I know enough to offer an opinion. > I concede that "Nonsense" and "Rubbish" may be > attacks on opinions rather than their holders > but they are cheap, nasty, empty attacks. > IMO, in a discussion forum for adults, even a > short counter-example or counter-argument is > always preferable. [Kooijiman A] OK then: 2 + 2 = 4 [Nigel] (: I won't quibble with that :) As an example or argument it is an improvement on "Nonsense" or "Rubbish" or "Drivel". 0 = 1 + e ^ {i * pi) From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Fri Nov 1 11:34:43 2002 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Fri, 1 Nov 2002 11:34:43 -0000 Subject: [blml] questions about future calls [was: Is Stayman alertabl e in WBF/EBL events?] Message-ID: <018c01c2819a$aefda3c0$259868d5@default> [Ton Kooijiman] At last this thread has resulted in a majority (whatever that is worth) view that questions about relevant potential calls should be possible. That is in our agenda now. [Nigel Guthrie] I wonder if your reading of the BLML concensus is correct? If anything, put me in the status quo camp: although my feelings on disclosure are: [1] I am concerned that whatever the law is on this matter it should be so succinct and lucid that even an ordinary player such as I, can grasp its meaning. [2] I agree with David B that lofty aspirations (like propriety "law" 75) which are hard to enforce should have much less weight than practical laws. [3] Unless there are screens, I think specific questions should be discouraged -- and it is hard to ask about a particular future or hypothetical auction with a general question. [4] I believe there should be a worldwide standard CCs with strictly enforced rules about completion. (The default: a standard comprehensive system) [5] I like the way Richard Hills expressed it: LAW 20 tells you what you may ask; and LAW 75 advises them on how to answer. [Sorry ton, I meant to send this to BLML, too] From brian@wellsborocomputing.com Fri Nov 1 11:36:34 2002 From: brian@wellsborocomputing.com (Brian Meadows) Date: Fri, 01 Nov 2002 06:36:34 -0500 Subject: [blml] Relaying down the law on disclosure In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Fri, 01 Nov 2002 09:57:16 +0100, Ton wrote: > >OK then: 2 + 2 = 4 > OK, if it's silly season, I'll argue. 2 + 2 = 11. Show me where the laws mandate decimal. ;-) Brian. -- Software development and computer consulting Brian Meadows Tel: 570-724-5172 Wellsboro Computing Services, Inc. Fax: 413-480-2709 RR#5, Box 5A, Wellsboro PA 16901 ICQ: 1981272 http://www.wellsborocomputing.com From twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Fri Nov 1 11:45:00 2002 From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Date: Fri, 1 Nov 2002 11:45 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [blml] questions about future calls [was: Is Stayman alertabl e in Message-ID: In-Reply-To: > It is less easy than Tim suggests. If I am asking a legitimate question > the information arising from the answer should not be considered UI. UI from the *answer* is almost never a problem. It is only the WBF change with regard to "Kaplan" questions that means it is *ever* a problem - (Kaplan questions refer to calls already made of course and so are authorised under L20f - a different law has been used to forbid them). > Opponents are authorized to get a full explanation etc. etc. So only > when it is likely that the reason to ask is influenced by > less honest considerations UI is involved (don't hang me on these words, > personal again). UI is almost always related to information arising from the *question* itself - motive is irrelevant, the question may be completely legitimate but the UI still has to be dealt with. It is just as easy to create UI (either by design or accidentally) with questions about bids already made/not made as it is about systemic agreements that might become relevant. Tim From twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Fri Nov 1 11:45:00 2002 From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Date: Fri, 1 Nov 2002 11:45 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [blml] questions about future calls Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <011102305.6631@webbox.com> DALB wrote: > Absolutely spot on, Sven. Despite the fact that information is > supposed to be freely available, it isn't actually freely available > at all, because there is the practical consideration of avoiding > UI to consider. If that practical consideration doesn't exist, > then there is no bar to making the information available. Well at least this solves my problem most of the time. If I am playing with a regular partner there is no danger of UI being both made available and taken advantage of. Since UI is not a practical consideration I can ask about relevant (future) systemic agreements. Progress at last! Thanks David. From brian@wellsborocomputing.com Fri Nov 1 11:52:22 2002 From: brian@wellsborocomputing.com (Brian Meadows) Date: Fri, 01 Nov 2002 06:52:22 -0500 Subject: [blml] questions about future calls [was: Is Stayman alertabl e in WBF/EBL events?] In-Reply-To: <018c01c2819a$aefda3c0$259868d5@default> References: <018c01c2819a$aefda3c0$259868d5@default> Message-ID: <31q4suscp6to6tp52j109cl6fqo10b1ep0@4ax.com> On Fri, 1 Nov 2002 11:34:43 -0000, Nigel Guthrie wrote: >[4] I believe there should be a worldwide standard >CCs with strictly enforced rules about completion. >(The default: a standard comprehensive system) I'll argue with this one - if memory serves me correctly, there used to be a time when the EBU alerting rules referenced Acol(*). This made for some very silly alerts when you weren't playing Acol. You see the same thing in the OKBridge tournaments today, where the alerting rules are that you alert anything which isn't SAYC. Try to play anything but SAYC, or possibly 2/1 or SA, and you don't know where you stand. Take an example, 1NT (Acol, 12-14, and therefore alertable), 3NT from your partner. Now, is 3NT alertable or not in an OKBridge tourney? If it's bid on a balanced hand, then it's certainly likely to show a different HCP range from a 3NT response in SAYC. And if the answer is that 1NT - 3NT isn't alertable because the difference is obvious, then the question becomes where do you draw the line? (*) Perhaps Grattan will confirm that this was the logic given for removing all references to "Acol" from the EBU Alerting rules. I don't think DWS or DALB will have been involved with the L&EC for long enough, I have the idea it was in the late 70s or very early 80s. Brian. -- Software development and computer consulting Brian Meadows Tel: 570-724-5172 Wellsboro Computing Services, Inc. Fax: 413-480-2709 RR#5, Box 5A, Wellsboro PA 16901 ICQ: 1981272 http://www.wellsborocomputing.com From bbickford@charter.net Fri Nov 1 11:58:56 2002 From: bbickford@charter.net (Bill Bickford) Date: Fri, 1 Nov 2002 06:58:56 -0500 Subject: [blml] Record??? Message-ID: <085b01c2819e$0e9aff50$7e97c518@D2GX7R11> By my count there were 1,124 messages to BLML during the month of October. Is this a record???? Cheers.............................../Bill Bickford From dalburn@btopenworld.com Fri Nov 1 12:02:50 2002 From: dalburn@btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: 1 Nov 2002 04:02:50 -0800 Subject: [blml] questions about future calls Message-ID: <011102305.14570@webbox.com> TWM wrote: >Well at least this solves my problem most of the time. If I am playing with a regular partner there is no danger of UI being both made available and taken advantage of. Congratulations on your canonisation. Unfortunately, no one else is actually aware of it. I don't care who you are, or how splendidly ethical you tell me you are, any more than I care about someone who says "I would always remove partner's double with this hand, however slow it was". If you can ask a question, there is danger of UI being made available. If there is danger of UI being made available, there is danger that it will be used. This applies to me, to you, to the Pope, and to Edgar Kaplan. There are no exceptions. >Since UI is not a practical consideration I can ask about relevant (future) systemic agreements. Progress at last! No, you can't. It's not a question of what you're doing. It's a question of what you could be doing. David Burn London, England From dalburn@btopenworld.com Fri Nov 1 12:11:10 2002 From: dalburn@btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: 1 Nov 2002 04:11:10 -0800 Subject: [blml] Record??? Message-ID: <011102305.15070@webbox.com> Bill wrote: >By my count there were 1,124 messages to BLML during the month of October. >Is this a record???? Record - thing that goes round and round repeating itself, without making very much sense. I think you could be right. David Burn London, England' From john@asimere.com Fri Nov 1 12:28:18 2002 From: john@asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Fri, 1 Nov 2002 12:28:18 +0000 Subject: [blml] questions about future calls In-Reply-To: <011102305.14570@webbox.com> References: <011102305.14570@webbox.com> Message-ID: In article <011102305.14570@webbox.com>, David Burn writes > >TWM wrote: > >>Well at least this solves my problem most of the time. If I >am playing with a regular partner there is no danger of UI being >both made available and taken advantage of. > >Congratulations on your canonisation. Unfortunately, no one else >is actually aware of it. I don't care who you are, or how splendidly >ethical you tell me you are, any more than I care about someone >who says "I would always remove partner's double with this hand, >however slow it was". If you can ask a question, there is danger >of UI being made available. If there is danger of UI being made >available, there is danger that it will be used. This applies >to me, to you, to the Pope, and to Edgar Kaplan. There are no >exceptions. > >>Since UI is not a practical consideration I can ask about relevant >(future) systemic agreements. Progress at last! > >No, you can't. It's not a question of what you're doing. It's >a question of what you could be doing. > The whole question is one of MI vs UI. If providing MI is an infraction, and providing UI is not, then Law 20F is a nonsense. I find it sad that the law sanctions MI in favoUr of preventing UI. Sad. Very sad. Very very sad indeed. cheers John >David Burn >London, England > > > >_______________________________________________ >blml mailing list >blml@rtflb.org >http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > -- John (MadDog) Probst| . ! -^- |icq 10810798 451 Mile End Road | /|__. \:/ |OKb ChienFou London E3 4PA | / @ __) -|- |john@asimere.com +44-(0)20 8983 5818 | /\ --^ | |www.asimere.com/~john From rwilley@mit.edu Fri Nov 1 12:59:32 2002 From: rwilley@mit.edu (rwilley@mit.edu) Date: Fri, 1 Nov 2002 07:59:32 -0500 Subject: [blml] questions about future calls Message-ID: <1036155572.3dc27ab46a783@webmail.mit.edu> At the moment, there is a great deal of discussion on the mailing list regarding the best way to reconcile elements of Law 20 and Law 75. A number of people are suggesting that it is either necessary or strongly desirable to ammedn Law 20 to eliminate the perceived contradictions. I would like to advocate the opposite position. To the extent that it would be necessary to ammend either law, I would prefer to see a recognition of "chronological" principles formally added to the Laws. From dalburn@btopenworld.com Fri Nov 1 13:05:29 2002 From: dalburn@btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: 1 Nov 2002 05:05:29 -0800 Subject: [blml] questions about future calls Message-ID: <011102305.18330@webbox.com> Herman wrote: [DB] >By the same token, I could just about imagine allowing "future questions" behind screens, since the UI problem is removed and the time-wasting problem largely so. You would still have to be careful not to create a false inference in the mind of an opponent, though. [HdW] >So David, you ARE in favour of being able to ask hypothetical questions, as long as the UI issues are resolved. Thank you. Herman, your English is very good. It is certainly good enough to know the difference between "I could just about imagine" and "I am in favour of". I am not in favour of being allowed to ask hypothetical questions ever. I say only that there are certain conditions under which I would object to it less strongly than others. David Burn London, England From ehaa@starpower.net Fri Nov 1 13:29:45 2002 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Fri, 01 Nov 2002 08:29:45 -0500 Subject: [blml] questions about future calls In-Reply-To: <011102305.8158@webbox.com> Message-ID: <4.3.2.7.0.20021101081201.00bb98a0@pop.starpower.net> At 05:15 AM 11/1/02, David wrote: >In such a case, my view (and the EBU regulation) is that North >should alert anyway. When West asks him what is happening, North >can explain his problem: "if you play 2C as majors, then my partner >has X; if you play it as a one-suiter, then my partner has hearts." >West can then do whatever he likes, and at North's turn, he can >discover what 2C actually means. If West does not ask, then if >North discovers that 2H was in fact natural, he can unalert; >West cannot claim damage from this, because he should have asked. I don't know if the ACBL even has a regulation, but established common practice is for the dialog to go as follows: North alerts, West asks, North says "it depends on what 2C meant", West states what 2C meant, and North then states what 2H meant, without the need to offer the information as to what 2H might have meant if 2C had been something else. This seems a bit simpler (and less time-consuming) -- in the example auction one would probably encounter half a dozen different agreements about 2C in our local Thursday night game -- and doesn't seem to cause any problems that the EBU approach would avoid. It amuses me that when *I* overcall RHO's 1NT with 2C, the almost inevitable reaction from my LHO is to give me a funny look for a minute or two -- waiting for the alert -- until the light suddenly dawns and they blurt out something like, "You really play that shows clubs?" Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 From ehaa@starpower.net Fri Nov 1 13:49:01 2002 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Fri, 01 Nov 2002 08:49:01 -0500 Subject: [blml] questions about future calls In-Reply-To: <011102305.8550@webbox.com> Message-ID: <4.3.2.7.0.20021101083607.00bcdee0@pop.starpower.net> At 05:22 AM 11/1/02, David wrote: >Sven wwrote: > >[SP] > >Could the dilemma be resolved by adding text to Law 20 to the >effect that once an explanation has been initiated then both >opponents to the player giving the explanation may ask clarifying >questions. > >[DB] > > No. > >[SP] > >Would you mind explaining why not? > >Is it your turn to ask? If so, I will say this: suppose South >bids something, North alerts, and West asks. East must not be >allowed to interrupt North's explanation to West with a "clarifying >question" or anything else, because of the possibility of illegal >communication between East and West. The reason is, basically, >the same as the reason why you can only ask at your turn. > >Now, many have argued that you ought to be allowed to ask questions >about whatever you like whenever you like, even though this may >transmit UI, because there are rules in place for dealing with >UI. This is like saying that you ought to be allowed to drive >on the wrong side of the road as long as you don't actually kill >anyone. I was shocked to discover that so many members of BLML took David's obvious troll seriously and went after the offered red herring. Let's return to the context of the discussion, in which... I have heard nobody suggest that you should have the right to ask about whatever you feel like whenever you feel like. The discussion about the future of L20F concerns whether you should have the right to ask about information you do not already have and which might affect your next action before you are faced with choosing that action. The requirement that you hold your questions until it is your turn to call doesn't constrain that right, so there is no conflict between the objective of avoiding UI and the objective of obtaining complete disclosure. The WBF interpretation of L20F1 does, so there is. The first rule of political rhetoric is: When you're losing the debate, change the subject. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 From ehaa@starpower.net Fri Nov 1 14:13:14 2002 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Fri, 01 Nov 2002 09:13:14 -0500 Subject: [blml] questions about future calls [was: Is Stayman alertabl e in WBF/EBL events?] In-Reply-To: <31q4suscp6to6tp52j109cl6fqo10b1ep0@4ax.com> References: <018c01c2819a$aefda3c0$259868d5@default> <018c01c2819a$aefda3c0$259868d5@default> Message-ID: <4.3.2.7.0.20021101085747.00a98d20@pop.starpower.net> At 06:52 AM 11/1/02, brian wrote: >On Fri, 1 Nov 2002 11:34:43 -0000, Nigel Guthrie wrote: > > > > >[4] I believe there should be a worldwide standard > >CCs with strictly enforced rules about completion. > >(The default: a standard comprehensive system) > >I'll argue with this one - if memory serves me correctly, there >used to be a time when the EBU alerting rules referenced Acol(*). >This made for some very silly alerts when you weren't playing >Acol. Based on previous discussion, Brian is with the majority here. Bridge is just played too differently in different parts of the world for this to be practical, even if one likes the idea in theory. >You see the same thing in the OKBridge tournaments today, where >the alerting rules are that you alert anything which isn't SAYC. Which is rather stupid on OKB's part. I, for one, do not play on OKB. In order to do so ethically, I would be compelled to learn SAYC, a system about which I know just enough to know that I have no interest in learning it. (I don't believe that a system in which a response of 2S to 1NT cannot be passed but a rebid of 2NT by opener is systemically impossible can possibly be a logical or sensible one.) >Try to play anything but SAYC, or possibly 2/1 or SA, and you >don't know where you stand. Take an example, 1NT (Acol, 12-14, >and therefore alertable), 3NT from your partner. Now, is 3NT >alertable or not in an OKBridge tourney? If it's bid on a >balanced hand, then it's certainly likely to show a different HCP >range from a 3NT response in SAYC. > >And if the answer is that 1NT - 3NT isn't alertable because the >difference is obvious, then the question becomes where do you >draw the line? The answer is that 3NT isn't alertable because it means the same thing whether 1NT is weak or strong: it means that you want partner to declare 3NT. If you play a system in which it means something else, you must alert it. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 From ehaa@starpower.net Fri Nov 1 14:33:02 2002 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Fri, 01 Nov 2002 09:33:02 -0500 Subject: [blml] questions about future calls In-Reply-To: <011102305.14570@webbox.com> Message-ID: <4.3.2.7.0.20021101091431.00ba2230@pop.starpower.net> At 07:02 AM 11/1/02, David wrote: >TWM wrote: > > >Well at least this solves my problem most of the time. If I >am playing with a regular partner there is no danger of UI being >both made available and taken advantage of. > >Congratulations on your canonisation. Unfortunately, no one else >is actually aware of it. I don't care who you are, or how splendidly >ethical you tell me you are, any more than I care about someone >who says "I would always remove partner's double with this hand, >however slow it was". If you can ask a question, there is danger >of UI being made available. If there is danger of UI being made >available, there is danger that it will be used. This applies >to me, to you, to the Pope, and to Edgar Kaplan. There are no >exceptions. I don't care who you are, or how splendidly ethical you tell me you are... If you sit down at the table to play bridge, there is danger of UI being made available. If there is danger of UI being made available, there is danger that it will be used. This applies to me, to you, to the Pope, and to David Burn. There are no exceptions. And whether we keep or drop the constraints on the availablity of information imposed by the WBF's interpretation of L20F1 will not affect this by one whit. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 From ehaa@starpower.net Fri Nov 1 14:38:33 2002 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Fri, 01 Nov 2002 09:38:33 -0500 Subject: [blml] Record??? In-Reply-To: <011102305.15070@webbox.com> Message-ID: <4.3.2.7.0.20021101093529.00ad7b00@pop.starpower.net> At 07:11 AM 11/1/02, David wrote: >Bill wrote: > > >By my count there were 1,124 messages to BLML during the month >of October. > > >Is this a record???? > >Record - thing that goes round and round repeating itself, without >making very much sense. I think you could be right. Nah, a record has only one groove, with a start and an end. David must be thinking about a tape loop, or perhaps Ravel's Bolero. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 From ehaa@starpower.net Fri Nov 1 14:53:26 2002 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Fri, 01 Nov 2002 09:53:26 -0500 Subject: [blml] New virus alert Message-ID: <4.3.2.7.0.20021101094446.00bd03a0@pop.starpower.net> I have just received the following, and have verified that the message referred to was not sent by me. Either "Bugbear" is back or we have something new but very similar. /eric >X-Persona: >Return-Path: >Received: from mx02.mrf.mail.rcn.net ([207.172.4.51] [207.172.4.51]) > by fep03.mrf.mail.rcn.net with ESMTP > id > <20021101130013.QTYP363.fep03.mrf.mail.rcn.net@mx02.mrf.mail.rcn.net>; > Fri, 1 Nov 2002 08:00:13 -0500 >Received: from [206.80.106.194] (helo=server1.e-steiner.com) > by mx02.mrf.mail.rcn.net with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #4) > id 187bPJ-0001j2-00 > for ehaa@starpower.net; Fri, 01 Nov 2002 08:00:13 -0500 >Received: by server1.e-steiner.com with Internet Mail Service >(5.5.2653.19) > id ; Fri, 1 Nov 2002 05:00:12 -0800 >Message-ID: <93466ADE82EAD311B5040050DAD765E59C6F@server1.e-steiner.com> >From: NAV for Microsoft Exchange-SERVER1 >To: 'ehaa' >Subject: Norton AntiVirus detected and quarantined a virus in a message yo > u sent. >Date: Fri, 1 Nov 2002 05:00:04 -0800 >X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: ><93466ADE82EAD311B5040050DAD765E59C6F@server1.e-steiner.com> >MIME-Version: 1.0 >X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) >Content-Type: multipart/mixed; > boundary="----_=_NextPart_000_01C281A6.98E5B3A0" > >Recipient of the infected attachment: George Steiner\Inbox >Subject of the message: The Garden of Eden >One or more attachments were quarantined. > Attachment END.exe was Quarantined for the following reasons: > Virus W32.Klez.H@mm was found. From s.f.kuipers@ngi.nl Fri Nov 1 15:05:45 2002 From: s.f.kuipers@ngi.nl (Simon Kuipers) Date: Fri, 01 Nov 2002 16:05:45 +0100 Subject: [blml] New virus alert In-Reply-To: <3DAAAD3F00703563@ocpmta1.be.tiscali.com> Message-ID: <4.3.2.7.2.20021101160110.00d172d0@MDWexc1> At 15:55 01/11/2002, Eric Landau wrote: >I have just received the following, and have verified that the message >referred to was not sent by me. Either "Bugbear" is back or we have >something new but very similar. /eric > > >Recipient of the infected attachment: George Steiner\Inbox > >Subject of the message: The Garden of Eden > >One or more attachments were quarantined. > > Attachment END.exe was Quarantined for the following reasons: > > Virus W32.Klez.H@mm was found. The Klez virus is a rather old one - in virus terminology. Almost all virus scanners will protect you against it as the message above shows. No worry is necessary unless you are way back with your scanner updates. See e.g. http://www.symantec.com/avcenter/venc/data/w32.klez.h@mm.html Simon From dalburn@btopenworld.com Fri Nov 1 16:00:09 2002 From: dalburn@btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: 1 Nov 2002 08:00:09 -0800 Subject: [blml] questions about future calls Message-ID: <011102305.28810@webbox.com> Eric wrote: >I was shocked to discover that so many members of BLML took David's obvious troll seriously Were you? Experience of this list has shown often enough that nothing can be so obviously a joke that some people will not take it seriously. But whereas it was not meant literally, it was meant to bring out what seems to me an important aspect of the situation under discussion, that: there is a constraint on the time at which information is available to you (you may not ask except at a certain time); that constraint is generally accepted as a practical necessity even though it is in conflict with a principle (information must be "fully and freely available"); but people are saying that some other constraint that may also be a practical necessity is not acceptable because it conflicts with the same principle. This, it seems to me, is seriously muddled thinking. >and went after the offered red herring It wasn't really a red herring. It was just an attempt to point out that the words "fully and freely available" in L75 do not actually mean what they say; if they did, then you could ask not only about whatever you liked, but whenever you liked. Thus, relying on the "principle of full disclosure" (which does not exist) in order to show that L20F should be amended is not entirely sound. >Let's return to the context of the discussion, in which... This is another somewhat dubious rhetorical tactic - what it usually means is: "let's talk about what I want to talk about, instead of what you want to talk about", and that is what it means in this case also. >I have heard nobody suggest that you should have the right to ask about whatever you feel like whenever you feel like. Neither have I. At least, not until fairly recently, when people have been suggesting that you should in fact be allowed to ask "clarifying questions" when it is not your turn. But it appears to be generally accepted that "freely available" does not always mean "freely available", in that you do not have access to information except at certain times. Well, that is exactly what I have been arguing: you do not have access to certain aspects of the opponents' methods except at certain times; if you do not avail yourself of that access at those times, you do not have the right to it at other times. >The discussion about the future of L20F concerns whether you should have the right to ask about information you do not already have and which might affect your next action before you are faced with choosing that action. So it does. >The requirement that you hold your questions until it is your turn to call doesn't constrain that right, so there is no conflict between the objective of avoiding UI and the objective of obtaining complete disclosure. The WBF interpretation of L20F1 does, so there is. Exactly so. But all of the foregoing would be true whether you had the right or not (and you do not). It is simply my contention that you do not and should not have the right to ask certain questions at certain times (while you do and should have the right to ask them at other times, for I have never contended that you do not have the right to the information at all). >The first rule of political rhetoric is: When you're losing the debate, change the subject. These discussions are not contests, to be "won" or "lost". And it is possible that there can be more than one aspect to a question, however clear it may seem to those who think that they already know the answer. David Burn London, England From dalburn@btopenworld.com Fri Nov 1 16:05:11 2002 From: dalburn@btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: 1 Nov 2002 08:05:11 -0800 Subject: [blml] questions about future calls Message-ID: <011102305.29111@webbox.com> Eric wrote: >I don't care who you are, or how splendidly ethical you tell me you are... If you sit down at the table to play bridge, there is danger of UI being made available. By George, he's got it! That's why we try to stop people doing it, Eric. That's why we put screens across the table. That's why we advise players to bid and play in tempo. That's why we tell them not to ask questions when it's not their turn. And that's one of the reasons why we tell them not to ask hypothetical questions ever. >And whether we keep or drop the constraints on the availablity of information imposed by the WBF's interpretation of L20F1 will not affect this by one whit. No. I make it about 328.7 whits, but I could be wrong. David Burn London, England From gester@lineone.net Fri Nov 1 11:42:24 2002 From: gester@lineone.net (gester@lineone.net) Date: Fri, 1 Nov 2002 11:42:24 -0000 Subject: [blml] questions about future calls [was: Is Stayman alertabl e in WBF/EBL events?] References: <000a01c28040$90efeba0$0300a8c0@mshome.net> Message-ID: <001201c281c4$f0c1c8c0$5c1e2850@pacific> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws" Sent: Wednesday, October 30, 2002 6:17 PM Subject: Re: [blml] questions about future calls [was: Is Stayman alertabl e in WBF/EBL events?] > > > A concrete example to consider:- > Game all Dealer North imp scoring > The auction starts > 3H 3S P(1) 4H(2) > and on to a making 6S > > (1) South examines E-W convention card > and finds double of 4H is penalty > but no mention of the meaning of 4H > > (2) Explained at the appropriate time as a > UCB ie good raise to 4S but not necessarily > a H control > > At the end of play E comments "system > worked well - without your 4H bid > we may have missed this one". > > South calls the director and claims if he had > known what 4H would have meant he would > have bid it first. Chance of redress is virtually > zero. > +=+ This last comment I do not understand. If the SO prescribes a convention card Law 40E provides that partnerships are to list their conventions and other agreements on it. If this convention was not listed on their CC there is a clear infraction of Law 40E on the part of East-West. The Director should apply the law and, if he considers that N-S have been damaged in conseqience of the violation of law, he has to award an adjusted score. Since the understanding is special and not to be anticipated I do not see how he could not adjust the score. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From gester@lineone.net Fri Nov 1 12:09:29 2002 From: gester@lineone.net (gester@lineone.net) Date: Fri, 1 Nov 2002 12:09:29 -0000 Subject: [blml] questions about future calls References: <011102305.6631@webbox.com> Message-ID: <001301c281c4$f189aca0$5c1e2850@pacific> Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Friday, November 01, 2002 9:50 AM Subject: Re: [blml] questions about future calls > > Law 20F doesn't exist behind screens, Herman. If you, on my side > of the screen but on my left at the table, alert your own call, > I can ask you about it even though it's not my turn. (At least, > I ought to be able to - everyone does it anyway, and even if > 20F isn't in the list of rules that don't operate with screens, > then it should be.) > > By the same token, I could just about imagine allowing "future > questions" behind screens, since the UI problem is removed and > the time-wasting problem largely so. You would still have to > be careful not to create a false inference in the mind of an > opponent, though. > +=+ WBF Regulation says "At any time during the auction a player may request of his screen-mate, in writing, a full explanation of an opponent's call. The reply is also in writing." I have not checked on the European or EBU Conditions of Contest/Regulations but it would be unsurprising if they were similar. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Fri Nov 1 16:52:00 2002 From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Date: Fri, 1 Nov 2002 16:52 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [blml] questions about future calls Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <011102305.14570@webbox.com> > > TWM wrote: > > >Well at least this solves my problem most of the time. If I > am playing with a regular partner there is no danger of UI being > both made available and taken advantage of. > > Congratulations on your canonisation. Unfortunately, no one else > is actually aware of it. Why canonisation? Players are either ethical or not. I assume players to be ethical. Since you apparently regard that as something special I guess ethics aren't important to you. That I believe is your loss not mine. > If you can ask a question, there is danger > of UI being made available. If there is danger of UI being made > available, there is danger that it will be used. You tell me that I can ask questions, of a certain type, under L20F so the above obviously doesn't apply. When asking questions I regard it as sensible to minimize the UI I make available - I trust partner not to take advantage of the UI I do create. Players are expected to be aware that asking questions (any questions) can create UI - that is an inevitable consequence of disclosure. (Since the alternative is requiring 60+ pages of system notes per partnership it seems a practical compromise). > This applies > to me, to you, to the Pope, and to Edgar Kaplan. There are no > exceptions. > > >Since UI is not a practical consideration I can ask about relevant > (future) systemic agreements. Progress at last! > > No, you can't. It's not a question of what you're doing. It's > a question of what you could be doing. What a nice idea of justice. Punish people for what they could be doing rather than what they do. I could be doing all sorts of things (minimising the information on my CC and in any explanations I give, sending finger signals to partner, regularly partnering people who abuse UI, bugging the room in order to hear the post-mortems from other tables - the list is endless). I think most people would regard the fact that I am not doing these things as a fairly important distinction. Tim From twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Fri Nov 1 17:38:00 2002 From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Date: Fri, 1 Nov 2002 17:38 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [blml] questions about future calls Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <011102305.28810@webbox.com> David Burn wrote: > there is a constraint on the time at which information is available > to you (you may not ask except at a certain time); Although careful study of the words in L20F renders a (perhaps) surprising result as to when this restriction applies. A player may request a full explanation of the opponents' auction at his own turn to call - on that we are surely agreed. Following such a request: questions may be asked about calls actually made or about relevant calls available but not made - still agreed I think. There is no restriction whatsoever on *who* may ask such questions (providing only that the question takes place following a request for a review of the auction). I'm a little surprised that the lawmakers gave this degree of flexibility (although since they were Kaplan's words perhaps I shouldn't be). Yet another clear and unambiguous law - although some people seem to think the piece in parentheses reads "The player may ask questions about...". On reflection I think Kaplan got it right, if clarification is needed about the explanation of any call (even one made by the asking side) it does seem sensible to allow the question immediately. Otherwise when it is that player's turn the whole "explain the auction.." rigmarole is needed before one, maybe pretty minor, point is clarified. Since this approach reflects common practice I assume the WBFLC will make a note to have it changed before the next edition. Tim From dalburn@btopenworld.com Fri Nov 1 17:44:00 2002 From: dalburn@btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: 1 Nov 2002 09:44:00 -0800 Subject: [blml] questions about future calls Message-ID: <011102305.35040@webbox.com> TWM wrote: >Why canonisation? Players are either ethical or not. I assume players to be ethical. Since you apparently regard that as something special I guess ethics aren't important to you. That I believe is your loss not mine. Oh, they don't matter to me in the least. I cheat all the time. That is why I decided to stand for the English Laws and Ethics Committee, so that I could make regulations that made it easier for me to cheat. >What a nice idea of justice. Punish people for what they could be doing rather than what they do. When will people get it through their fat heads that there is no reason on Earth why the rules of a game should have anything to do with justice? The rules say, in so many words, in a number of different places, things like this: Whenever the Director deems that an offender could have known at the time of his irregularity that the irregularity would be likely to damage the non-offending side, he shall require the auction and play to continue, afterwards awarding an adjusted score if he considers that the offending side gained an advantage through the irregularity. Not "did know". "Could have known". This is a game, Tim, not a court. You will be punished if you do what a cheat would do, because if you do what a cheat would do, then you could be cheating, whether or not you actually are. >I think most people would regard the fact that I am not doing these things as a fairly important distinction. Dream on. David Burn London, England From toddz@worldnet.att.com Fri Nov 1 17:56:24 2002 From: toddz@worldnet.att.com (Todd Zimnoch) Date: Fri, 1 Nov 2002 12:56:24 -0500 Subject: [blml] ton, you may want to delete In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > -----Original Message----- > From: Kooijman, A. > > > > You are not allowed to know what your opponents might bid > > > if, to ascertain it, you have to ask a question forbidden by > > > L20F. > > > > If you believe that statement, do you also believe that > > shuffling > > the cards is forbidden by L20F? L20F grants rights > > and restricts none. > > To me this kind of reasoning is similar to A telling > that 2 + 2 = 4 after > which B interrupts with : that doesn't say that it > couldn't be 5 also. It's a specious analogy. First, in your example A makes a true statement of fact and the analogy immediately fails. L20F is incomplete. You could add a law to the book allowing players to ask about possible future auctions without rescinding any part of L20F because of contradiction. It does not specifically forbid such questions. It's a specious analogy. B can always interject with a different and true statement, for example, that doesn't say that it can't be congruent to 1 modulo 3 also. -Todd From toddz@worldnet.att.com Fri Nov 1 17:56:53 2002 From: toddz@worldnet.att.com (Todd Zimnoch) Date: Fri, 1 Nov 2002 12:56:53 -0500 Subject: [blml] questions about future calls In-Reply-To: <002101c2817a$96ecf4e0$bb9b23d9@pbncomputer> Message-ID: > -----Original Message----- > From: David Burn > Sent: Friday, November 01, 2002 2:45 AM > To: Bridge Laws Discussion List > Subject: Re: [blml] questions about future calls > > I trust that, in view of the paramount nature of the > Principle of Full > Disclosure, Law 20 will be amended in the next revision > so that the > intolerable restriction on having to wait for my turn > to call before > asking questions will be removed. How can information > be said to be > "freely available" if I can't ask for it whenever I like? You use the word "freely" in a way I am unfamiliar with. As long as we're trolling, which Law(s) govern the asking of questions before the auction begins? -Todd From Minke Fri Nov 1 17:56:15 2002 From: Minke (Nanki Poo) Date: Fri, 1 Nov 2002 17:56:15 +0000 Subject: [blml] Cats In-Reply-To: References: <008b01c2754d$5e9a5760$6601a8c0@james> Message-ID: I knew that Minke was no good!!!!!!! He was going to post the final cat list on BLML since our human is leaving BLML because there are too many unsheathed claws. But Minke has lost the last list! Please can someone send the last list to Minke who will make the final adjustments to it! Mrow *NP* -- Purrs and headbutts from: /\_/\ /\ /\ Nanki Poo =( ^*^ )= @ @ Minke ( | | ) =( + )= Pictures at http://blakjak.com/cat_pic2.htm (_~^ ^~ ~ From David Stevenson Fri Nov 1 17:56:33 2002 From: David Stevenson (David Stevenson) Date: Fri, 1 Nov 2002 17:56:33 +0000 Subject: [blml] Usenet bridge abbreviations Message-ID: Usenet Bridge Abbreviations ABF Australian Bridge Federation AC Appeals committee ACBL American Contract Bridge League AI Authorised information ArtAS Artificial adjusted score AssAS Assigned adjusted score ATF Across-the-field [matchpointing] ATTNA Appeal to the National Authority BBL British Bridge League [now defunct] BGB Bridge Great Britain BLML Bridge-laws mailing list BoD Board of directors [ACBL] BoG Board of governors [ACBL] BOOT Bid-Out-Of-Turn CD Convention Disruption C&E Conduct and ethics [often hearings] CC Convention card CHO Center Hand Opponent CoC Conditions of contest COOT Call-Out-Of-Turn CoP Code of practice CPU Concealed partnership understanding CTD Chief Tournament director DBF Danish Bridge Federation DIC Director in charge DP Disciplinary penalty EBL European Bridge League EBU English Bridge Union EHAA Every Hand an Adventure [a system] F2F Face-to-face [to distinguish from Online bridge] FOLOOT Faced Opening-Lead-Out-Of-Turn GCC General Convention Chart [ACBL] HUM Highly Unusual Method IB Insufficient Bid IBLF International Bridge Laws Forum LA Logical alternative L&EC Laws & Ethics Committee [English, Welsh or Scottish] LHO Left hand Opponent Lnn Law number nn LOL Little old lady [may be of either sex] LOOT Lead-Out-Of-Turn MB Misbid ME Misexplanation MI Misinformation MPC Major penalty card mPC Minor penalty card MSC Master Solvers' Club [The Bridge World] NA National Authority NABC ACBL North American Bridge Championships NBB Nederlandse Bridge Bond [Dutch Bridge League] NBO National Bridge organisation NCBO National Contract Bridge organisation NIBU Northern Ireland Bridge Union NO Non-offender NOs Non-offenders NOS Non-offending side OBM Old Black Magic OBOOT Opening-Bid-Out-Of-Turn OKB OKBridge OLB Online bridge [to distinguish from Face-to-face bridge] OLOOT Opening-Lead-Out-Of-Turn OOT Out-Of-Turn Os Offenders OS Offending side PLOOT Play-Out-Of-Turn POOT Pass-Out-Of-Turn PP Procedural penalty RA Regulating Authority RGB rec.games.bridge [newsgroup] RGBO rec.games.bridge.okbridge [newsgroup] RHO Right Hand Opponent RLB Real Life Bridge [to distinguish from Online bridge] RoC Rule of coincidence RoW Rest of World [apart from North America] RTFLB Read the [fabulous] Law book! SBU Scottish Bridge Union SO Sponsoring organisation TBW The Bridge World [magazine] TD Tournament director TDic Tournament director in charge TFLB The [fabulous] Law book! UI Unauthorised information WBF World Bridge Federation WBFLC WBF Laws Committee WBU Welsh Bridge Union YC Young Chelsea ZO Zonal organisation ZT Zero Tolerance [for unacceptable behaviour] Hand diagrams: ..3H 3H after a hesitation 3H! 3H alerted The above may also be found on my Bridgepage at http://blakjak.com/usenet_br.htm -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From David Stevenson Fri Nov 1 17:56:59 2002 From: David Stevenson (David Stevenson) Date: Fri, 1 Nov 2002 17:56:59 +0000 Subject: [blml] Fall Nationals Message-ID: I shall be in Phoenix for the Nationals, and in LA [no, Ed, not logical alternative: Los Angeles ] for a week before then. This year my wife, Liz, will be with me. She is also an EBU TD. I look forward to meeting friends old and new in Phoenix. Also, if anyone wishes to write to me during that time, especially if it is fairly urgent, you should copy your email to my travelling eddress, namely . -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From David Stevenson Fri Nov 1 17:55:54 2002 From: David Stevenson (David Stevenson) Date: Fri, 1 Nov 2002 17:55:54 +0000 Subject: [blml] BLML Message-ID: Recently I recommended that people would do better to have a particular type of software. Maybe I was right, maybe I wasn't, but what really amazed me was the ferocity of the attack from a very small number of people. It got me thinking about BLML in general. If you had asked me four or five years ago what BLML was all about I would have said that it was a group of people that wished to understand the laws of bridge better. I am really pleased it got an entry in the Bridge Encyclopaedia. If you asked me now I would say that the majority comprises a group of people that wished to understand the laws of bridge better. But there are minorities with other agendas. There are two or three people who like to play with words above all else. There are two or three people who like to prove they are better than anyone else. There are two or three people who have no wish for the game of bridge to thrive. There are two or three people who will never use two words when they can use twenty. There are two or three people who will use any method possible to belittle others. There are two or three people who are insufferably arrogant. There are two or three people whose impish sense of humour means they love to be a permanent devil's advocate. There are two or three people who will never ever change their view on anything. No, I do not meant there are about twenty people who are just a pain on this list, because some people come under two or more headings. But they are vociferous, and they have ruined this list. Marv has been known to say that all ACBL TDs should be required to read BLML. Five years ago I would have agreed with him - they would have learn to be better TDs. Now? Perhaps they would learn, or perhaps not. There is no guarantee that the current BLML would teach them at all. And many of them would be shocked by it. Looking back on it I enjoyed BLML for some years. However, it got more rumbustious and a competitive element came in. I have never forgotten where I had a disagreement with someone. We traded comments, and it looked as though my arguments were getting stronger - and suddenly the other person told everyone it was a waste of time discussing, I knew nothing, the whole thing was pointless, and so on. I believe that BLML changed at that moment. People who were losing arguments before then lost gracefully [or just shut up]. Now they fight. For the last year or so I have not enjoyed BLML. I believe I am more thin-skinned than someone in my position should be, but I have been so *very* upset by what people have said to me *again* and *again*. Of course, I retaliate, which is not good, but I find it difficult not to. One of Grattan's strengths can be seen when someone here is offensive to him: he never reacts to the offensiveness. I cannot do that - I react. Why have I continued for so long? Well, much of the reason has been the lurkers. I have had many encouraging emails over the years from people who do not post, but write to me to ask questions, and sometimes just to encourage me. I am sorry for them, but the level of upset has become too great. I hope that BLML improves, though I doubt it. I hope that if someone gives advice on software, posting, the internet, or something like that, that he will not be attacked. I hope that people will listen to others' arguments, and not consider it necessary to win everything. I hope that the arrogant people will be frozen out and not encouraged. Recently there have been posts which have typified the current attitude on the subject of whether someone has the right to know what the responses are to a call. For example, when asked to explain Lebensohl to an opponent I start by telling them that I am forced to bid 3C because that is what the convention says. It appears that not everyone agrees with this but instead of explaining why you should not say that it forces 3C they have argued that it would take too long to explain 5H responses to 1S. Of course the sensible people will realise that this has no relevance, but if you are determined not to lose an argument it is so clever to introduce something that you can argue is a similar case. I am not going to argue that case. I merely bring it up to show what typifies the current attitude on BLML, and the reason that BLML is no longer enjoyable nor useful. If you want to find out the meaning of a Law BLML is no longer the place to ask. People have other agendas. I am very sorry for the friends I have made here that I am leaving them. I hope to continue to have contact with them but not through BLML. It is no longer the place for discussion on the laws. If you want to contact me and you are not the undesirable element with its arrogance then I shall be very pleased to listen. Feel free to email me on . After January 1st I am changing a lot of eddresses because I get too much spam: just remove the "e" from the above eddress. Minke will post one more list of cats and it is up to others on the list whether anyone continues it. I shall also post the list of Usenet abbreviations which can always be found at http://blakjak.com/usenet_br.htm I shall also continue to be happy to receive articles for my Lawspage. I shall continue to post on RGB for the moment, and some of the discussions there are quite reasonable, and reach conclusions. I shall also post one more article here about the Fall Nationals. If anyone wants to ask a specific question on the Laws, and just wants an answer, not an argument, then the IBLF is available at http://blakjak.com/iblf.htm Also a direct question to me about the Laws should be addressed to especially if you want to quote the answer. Anything I write from that eddress is in the public domain. After the end of December insert a "1" between laws and @. Good-bye, and thanks to the majority for the discussions. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From henk@ripe.net Fri Nov 1 18:27:37 2002 From: henk@ripe.net (Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC)) Date: Fri, 1 Nov 2002 19:27:37 +0100 (CET) Subject: [blml] Fall Nationals In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Hi David, Sorry to see you leave BLML. > I shall be in Phoenix for the Nationals, and in LA [no, Ed, not > logical alternative: Los Angeles ] for a week before then. This year > my wife, Liz, will be with me. She is also an EBU TD. > > I look forward to meeting friends old and new in Phoenix. Although I originally planned this, I've decided to to skip Phoenix. By late November, I will have flown around the earth 3 times in 6 months, and I think that is enough travel for now. But I'm sure we'll meet at some other tournament. Henk > Also, if > anyone wishes to write to me during that time, especially if it is > fairly urgent, you should copy your email to my travelling eddress, > namely . > > -- > David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ > Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ > ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= > Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Henk Uijterwaal Email: henk.uijterwaal@ripe.net RIPE Network Coordination Centre WWW: http://www.ripe.net/home/henk Singel 258 Phone: +31.20.5354414 1016 AB Amsterdam Fax: +31.20.5354445 The Netherlands Mobile: +31.6.55861746 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ That problem that we weren't having yesterday, is it better? (Big ISP NOC) From henk@ripe.net Fri Nov 1 18:37:12 2002 From: henk@ripe.net (Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC)) Date: Fri, 1 Nov 2002 19:37:12 +0100 (CET) Subject: [blml] Usenet bridge abbreviations In-Reply-To: Message-ID: David, Do you plan to keep this in your crontab or do you want me to take this over? Henk > > > Usenet Bridge Abbreviations > > ABF Australian Bridge Federation > AC Appeals committee > ACBL American Contract Bridge League > AI Authorised information > ArtAS Artificial adjusted score > AssAS Assigned adjusted score > ATF Across-the-field [matchpointing] > ATTNA Appeal to the National Authority > BBL British Bridge League [now defunct] > BGB Bridge Great Britain > BLML Bridge-laws mailing list > BoD Board of directors [ACBL] > BoG Board of governors [ACBL] > BOOT Bid-Out-Of-Turn > CD Convention Disruption > C&E Conduct and ethics [often hearings] > CC Convention card > CHO Center Hand Opponent > CoC Conditions of contest > COOT Call-Out-Of-Turn > CoP Code of practice > CPU Concealed partnership understanding > CTD Chief Tournament director > DBF Danish Bridge Federation > DIC Director in charge > DP Disciplinary penalty > EBL European Bridge League > EBU English Bridge Union > EHAA Every Hand an Adventure [a system] > F2F Face-to-face [to distinguish from Online bridge] > FOLOOT Faced Opening-Lead-Out-Of-Turn > GCC General Convention Chart [ACBL] > HUM Highly Unusual Method > IB Insufficient Bid > IBLF International Bridge Laws Forum > LA Logical alternative > L&EC Laws & Ethics Committee [English, Welsh or Scottish] > LHO Left hand Opponent > Lnn Law number nn > LOL Little old lady [may be of either sex] > LOOT Lead-Out-Of-Turn > MB Misbid > ME Misexplanation > MI Misinformation > MPC Major penalty card > mPC Minor penalty card > MSC Master Solvers' Club [The Bridge World] > NA National Authority > NABC ACBL North American Bridge Championships > NBB Nederlandse Bridge Bond [Dutch Bridge League] > NBO National Bridge organisation > NCBO National Contract Bridge organisation > NIBU Northern Ireland Bridge Union > NO Non-offender > NOs Non-offenders > NOS Non-offending side > OBM Old Black Magic > OBOOT Opening-Bid-Out-Of-Turn > OKB OKBridge > OLB Online bridge [to distinguish from Face-to-face bridge] > OLOOT Opening-Lead-Out-Of-Turn > OOT Out-Of-Turn > Os Offenders > OS Offending side > PLOOT Play-Out-Of-Turn > POOT Pass-Out-Of-Turn > PP Procedural penalty > RA Regulating Authority > RGB rec.games.bridge [newsgroup] > RGBO rec.games.bridge.okbridge [newsgroup] > RHO Right Hand Opponent > RLB Real Life Bridge [to distinguish from Online bridge] > RoC Rule of coincidence > RoW Rest of World [apart from North America] > RTFLB Read the [fabulous] Law book! > SBU Scottish Bridge Union > SO Sponsoring organisation > TBW The Bridge World [magazine] > TD Tournament director > TDic Tournament director in charge > TFLB The [fabulous] Law book! > UI Unauthorised information > WBF World Bridge Federation > WBFLC WBF Laws Committee > WBU Welsh Bridge Union > YC Young Chelsea > ZO Zonal organisation > ZT Zero Tolerance [for unacceptable behaviour] > > > Hand diagrams: > > ..3H 3H after a hesitation > 3H! 3H alerted > > > > The above may also be found on my Bridgepage at > > http://blakjak.com/usenet_br.htm > > > > > -- > David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ > Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ > ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= > Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Henk Uijterwaal Email: henk.uijterwaal@ripe.net RIPE Network Coordination Centre WWW: http://www.ripe.net/home/henk Singel 258 Phone: +31.20.5354414 1016 AB Amsterdam Fax: +31.20.5354445 The Netherlands Mobile: +31.6.55861746 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ That problem that we weren't having yesterday, is it better? (Big ISP NOC) From johnson@CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca Fri Nov 1 19:01:43 2002 From: johnson@CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca (Ron Johnson) Date: Fri, 1 Nov 2002 14:01:43 -0500 (EST) Subject: [blml] BLML In-Reply-To: from "David Stevenson" at Nov 01, 2002 05:55:54 PM Message-ID: <200211011901.OAA17450@gcpdb.ccrs.emr.ca> David Stevenson writes: > (snippage) > > No, I do not meant there are about twenty people who are just a pain > on this list, because some people come under two or more headings. But > they are vociferous, and they have ruined this list. I hope I'm not among your list of offenders (though God knows I've said some things here that I regret) Even so, I largely agree with what you have to say here. BLML has not yet quite become unbearable, but I confess that I now mostly skim it. The noise to signal ratio is in general just too high. Can't say as I blame you for leaving, though I hope that on reflection you'll change your mind. (I trust that in this case a copy to the list and to you is acceptable) -- Ron From David.Barton@cwcom.net Fri Nov 1 19:13:25 2002 From: David.Barton@cwcom.net (David Barton) Date: Fri, 1 Nov 2002 19:13:25 -0000 Subject: [blml] questions about future calls [was: Is Stayman alertabl e in WBF/EBL events?] References: <000a01c28040$90efeba0$0300a8c0@mshome.net> <001201c281c4$f0c1c8c0$5c1e2850@pacific> Message-ID: <001601c281da$c2781b20$0300a8c0@mshome.net> > > > > > > A concrete example to consider:- > > Game all Dealer North imp scoring > > The auction starts > > 3H 3S P(1) 4H(2) > > and on to a making 6S > > > > (1) South examines E-W convention card > > and finds double of 4H is penalty > > but no mention of the meaning of 4H > > > > (2) Explained at the appropriate time as a > > UCB ie good raise to 4S but not necessarily > > a H control > > > > At the end of play E comments "system > > worked well - without your 4H bid > > we may have missed this one". > > > > South calls the director and claims if he had > > known what 4H would have meant he would > > have bid it first. Chance of redress is virtually > > zero. > > > +=+ This last comment I do not understand. If > the SO prescribes a convention card Law 40E > provides that partnerships are to list their conventions > and other agreements on it. If this convention was > not listed on their CC there is a clear infraction of > Law 40E on the part of East-West. The Director > should apply the law and, if he considers that N-S > have been damaged in conseqience of the violation > of law, he has to award an adjusted score. Since > the understanding is special and not to be anticipated > I do not see how he could not adjust the score. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > Well I can just see Grattan telling "Meckwell" that of course all 500 pages of their agreements have to appear on the reverse of a standard convention card, as he rolls back their successful slam on the grounds that they might not have bid it IF their opponents had chosen a different bid at some stage of the auction. Well perhaps not. David.Barton@cwcom.net From jimfox00@cox.net Fri Nov 1 19:09:33 2002 From: jimfox00@cox.net (jimfox00@cox.net) Date: Fri, 1 Nov 2002 14:09:33 -0500 Subject: [blml] BLML Message-ID: <20021101191010.OQYJ5053.lakemtao06.cox.net@smtp.central.cox.net> > Good-bye, and thanks to the majority for the discussions. > > David Stevenson Goodbye David. Good luck. Mmbridge From john@asimere.com Fri Nov 1 19:08:50 2002 From: john@asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Fri, 1 Nov 2002 19:08:50 +0000 Subject: [blml] BLML In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: In article , David Stevenson writes > > Recently I recommended that people would do better to have a >particular type of software. > > Maybe I was right, maybe I wasn't, but what really amazed me was the >ferocity of the attack from a very small number of people. It got me >thinking about BLML in general. > > If you had asked me four or five years ago what BLML was all about I >would have said that it was a group of people that wished to understand >the laws of bridge better. I am really pleased it got an entry in the >Bridge Encyclopaedia. > > If you asked me now I would say that the majority comprises a group of >people that wished to understand the laws of bridge better. But there >are minorities with other agendas. There are two or three people who >like to play with words above all else. There are two or three people >who like to prove they are better than anyone else. There are two or >three people who have no wish for the game of bridge to thrive. There >are two or three people who will never use two words when they can use >twenty. There are two or three people who will use any method possible >to belittle others. There are two or three people who are insufferably >arrogant. There are two or three people whose impish sense of humour >means they love to be a permanent devil's advocate. There are two or >three people who will never ever change their view on anything. > Hmm, a pity DWS is leaving. most of what I learnt I learnt for him, and most of what I learnt from him has made me a better director. Now, I suppose we'll be back to how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. snip > > Good-bye, and thanks to the majority for the discussions. > -- John (MadDog) Probst| . ! -^- |icq 10810798 451 Mile End Road | /|__. \:/ |OKb ChienFou London E3 4PA | / @ __) -|- |john@asimere.com +44-(0)20 8983 5818 | /\ --^ | |www.asimere.com/~john From twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Fri Nov 1 19:43:00 2002 From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Date: Fri, 1 Nov 2002 19:43 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [blml] questions about future calls Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <011102305.35040@webbox.com> David Burn wrote: > Oh, they don't matter to me in the least. I cheat all the time. > That is why I decided to stand for the English Laws and Ethics > Committee, so that I could make regulations that made it easier > for me to cheat. Well, if you do what a cheat would do, then you could be cheating, whether or not you actually are. Oops, sorry, those are your words not mine. > >What a nice idea of justice. Punish people for what they could > be doing rather than what they do. > > When will people get it through their fat heads that there is > no reason on Earth why the rules of a game should have anything > to do with justice? True. Although there is every reason why a game should have rules that are fair/just/whatever if those creating the rules wish the game to be popular. Indeed I would suggest that ordinary players *expect* the rules to be fair, and expect those in authority to strive for that effect. If you don't see the importance of fairness to the game I strongly suggest you reconsider your position on the L&EC. > The rules say, in so many words, in a number of different places, > things like this: > > Whenever the Director deems that an offender could have known > at the time of his irregularity that the irregularity would be > likely to damage the non-offending side, he shall require the > auction and play to continue, afterwards awarding an adjusted > score if he considers that the offending side gained an advantage > through the irregularity. > > Not "did know". "Could have known". This is a game, Tim, not > a court. You will be punished if you do what a cheat would do, > because if you do what a cheat would do, then you could be cheating, > whether or not you actually are. And the price of fish is what exactly? Nothing I have suggested in relation to asking questions is "what a cheat would do" - and any TD who thinks getting disclosure about opponents system is "gaining an advantage through an irregularity" should surrender the purple jacket forthwith. > >I think most people would regard the fact that I am not doing > these things as a fairly important distinction. > > Dream on. You could be right - although I have to say that I'd be surprised if club players regarded cheating so lightly. Those with whom I have spoken on the issue seem to feel lifetime bans are insufficient punishment. Tim From hermandw@skynet.be Fri Nov 1 20:42:52 2002 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 01 Nov 2002 21:42:52 +0100 Subject: [blml] questions about future calls References: <1036155572.3dc27ab46a783@webmail.mit.edu> Message-ID: <3DC2E74C.2010203@skynet.be> Well yes Richard, that might be also a solution, but I believe it is one that a minority would prefer. rwilley@mit.edu wrote: > At the moment, there is a great deal of discussion on the mailing list > regarding the best way to reconcile elements of Law 20 and Law 75. A number of > people are suggesting that it is either necessary or strongly desirable to > ammedn Law 20 to eliminate the perceived contradictions. > > I would like to advocate the opposite position. > To the extent that it would be necessary to ammend either law, I would prefer > to see a recognition of "chronological" principles formally added to the Laws. > The problem with this is that I have not yet heard anyone disagree with the principle that one should be allowed, at least, to decide whether or not to make a borderline call based on the opponent's methods. I deliberately put it this low. I'm not talking of changing announced methods, I'm not speaking of major differences. Just deciding whether or not this particular 8-count 7-card suit is worth opening at the three-level or not (substitute your own point range according to method). Either we allow the player to make his decision based on that information or we don't. But we cannot allow this and disallow something more grave (like actually changing the agreed point count) without coming up to problems that are not solvable. From there to allowing hypothetical questions is just one more step. So all those in favour of disallowing the thing I set out above please raise their hands. All the others should really be in favour of changing the current interpretation of L20F. > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw@skynet.be Fri Nov 1 20:49:19 2002 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 01 Nov 2002 21:49:19 +0100 Subject: [blml] oh sh*t Message-ID: <3DC2E8CF.9090709@skynet.be> my partner is playing some number of no-trumps. This is the diamond suit (from my point of view) Q72 A105 J83 K964 first diamond trick (the lead): 8910Q second diamond trick (some time later) 7JKA three tricks from the end there are just the two remaining diamonds left on the table, and a thirteenth heart. And LHO plays the 5 of diamonds! 2-3 and partner says : "the four, oh no the six" I played the four. Or should I have called the Vancouver AC and demanded an "oh sh*t" ruling? -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From brian@wellsborocomputing.com Fri Nov 1 21:31:43 2002 From: brian@wellsborocomputing.com (Brian Meadows) Date: Fri, 01 Nov 2002 16:31:43 -0500 Subject: [blml] BLML In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Fri, 1 Nov 2002 17:55:54 +0000, DWS wrote: > > Recently I recommended that people would do better to have a >particular type of software. > > Maybe I was right, maybe I wasn't, but what really amazed me was the >ferocity of the attack from a very small number of people. It got me >thinking about BLML in general. > Well, since DWS earlier posted a message about "getting abuse from Brian and David" on the subject of his mailer, presumably DALB and myself, since I can't remember another Brian posting to BLML, I assume I'm one of the targets of this e-mail. All I'm going to say is that DWS's suggestion of a "ferocious attack" is absolute bull, at least as far as my e-mails were concerned. Why he wants to use DALB and myself as an excuse to leave BLML, I have no idea. If anyone would like to make their own minds up, you have only to ask me (private e-mail, please, rather than on the list), and I'll forward you a copy of my e-mails to DWS on the subject. Brian. -- Software development and computer consulting Brian Meadows Tel: 570-724-5172 Wellsboro Computing Services, Inc. Fax: 413-480-2709 RR#5, Box 5A, Wellsboro PA 16901 ICQ: 1981272 http://www.wellsborocomputing.com From ehaa@starpower.net Fri Nov 1 22:13:49 2002 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Fri, 01 Nov 2002 17:13:49 -0500 Subject: [blml] Mail to mailman-owner not working In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <4.3.2.7.0.20021101170521.00ad52a0@pop.starpower.net> At 10:00 PM 9/30/02, mailman-owner@toybox.amsterdamned.org wrote: >If you have questions, problems, comments, etc, send them to mailman->owner@toybox.amsterdamned.org. Thanks! This morning, I sent a CC of my post re "New virus alert" to that address and got back: >X-Failed-Recipients: mailman-owner@toybox.amsterdamned.org >From: Mail Delivery System >To: ehaa@starpower.net >Subject: Mail delivery failed: returning message to sender >Date: Fri, 01 Nov 2002 09:53:15 -0500 > >This message was created automatically by mail delivery software (Exim). >A message that you sent could not be delivered to one or more of its >recipients. This is a permanent error. The following address(es) failed: >SMTP error from remote mailer after RCPT TO:: >host toybox.amsterdamned.org [193.0.0.161]: 550 relaying to owner@toybox.amsterdamned.org> prohibited by administrator Do we have a problem? Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Fri Nov 1 22:01:37 2002 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Fri, 1 Nov 2002 17:01:37 -0500 Subject: [blml] Cats In-Reply-To: Message-ID: We have asked our human to forward this to the list. On 11/1/02, Nanki Poo wrote: >Please can someone send the last list to Minke who will make the final >adjustments to it! Done. We nominate Petronius the Arbiter as the new keeper of the list. Mrow!! The Four (thefour@rochester.rr.com) From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Fri Nov 1 22:06:51 2002 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Fri, 1 Nov 2002 17:06:51 -0500 Subject: [blml] BLML In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On 11/1/02, David Stevenson wrote: > I am very sorry for the friends I have made here that I am leaving >them. I hope to continue to have contact with them but not through >BLML. It is no longer the place for discussion on the laws. And I, for one, am sorry to see you go. Whatever else it is, the list will be less for your absence. From john@asimere.com Fri Nov 1 22:27:37 2002 From: john@asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Fri, 1 Nov 2002 22:27:37 +0000 Subject: [blml] questions about future calls In-Reply-To: <3DC2E74C.2010203@skynet.be> References: <1036155572.3dc27ab46a783@webmail.mit.edu> <3DC2E74C.2010203@skynet.be> Message-ID: In article <3DC2E74C.2010203@skynet.be>, Herman De Wael writes >Well yes Richard, that might be also a solution, but I believe it is >one that a minority would prefer. > >rwilley@mit.edu wrote: > >> At the moment, there is a great deal of discussion on the mailing list >> regarding the best way to reconcile elements of Law 20 and Law 75. A number >of >> people are suggesting that it is either necessary or strongly desirable to >> ammedn Law 20 to eliminate the perceived contradictions. >> >> I would like to advocate the opposite position. >> To the extent that it would be necessary to ammend either law, I would prefer >> to see a recognition of "chronological" principles formally added to the Laws. >> > > >The problem with this is that I have not yet heard anyone disagree >with the principle that one should be allowed, at least, to decide >whether or not to make a borderline call based on the opponent's methods. > >I deliberately put it this low. I'm not talking of changing announced >methods, I'm not speaking of major differences. Just deciding whether >or not this particular 8-count 7-card suit is worth opening at the >three-level or not (substitute your own point range according to method). > >Either we allow the player to make his decision based on that >information or we don't. But we cannot allow this and disallow >something more grave (like actually changing the agreed point count) >without coming up to problems that are not solvable. > >From there to allowing hypothetical questions is just one more step. > >So all those in favour of disallowing the thing I set out above please >raise their hands. All the others should really be in favour of >changing the current interpretation of L20F. > I am a fierce proponent (as a player) of the concept that regardless of the UI produced, MI is not acceptable in any form. Tim West-Meads has argued cogently and well that he would like to know the opponents methods before taking an action (a view which as a player I support), and that the current regulations mean that there is a clear advantage in providing a minimalist cc. To provide all relevant info is impossible, as even well written 100 page system notes won't necessarily cover the bases. David Burn has argued cogently and well that there are times when you are entitled to information and there are times when you aren't. He has argued that there are times when you are entitled to all information and there are times when your entitlement is restricted. With the law as it stands David's position is unassailable. It's sad, very sad, but I see little alternative but to maintain the status quo. Even though MI is abhorent to me, the paranoids (we think everyone's a cheat) will have their day and will have their way. Law20F had better stay as it is. cheers john -- John (MadDog) Probst| . ! -^- |icq 10810798 451 Mile End Road | /|__. \:/ |OKb ChienFou London E3 4PA | / @ __) -|- |john@asimere.com +44-(0)20 8983 5818 | /\ --^ | |www.asimere.com/~john From HarrisR@missouri.edu Sat Nov 2 00:04:43 2002 From: HarrisR@missouri.edu (Robert E. Harris) Date: Fri, 1 Nov 2002 18:04:43 -0600 Subject: [blml] I'm tired of QAFC In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Alas, DWS is gone! I was away when the eternal thread about questions about future calls started. I didn't stay away long enough. TWM wrote (SNIP!) > >You tell me that I can ask questions, of a certain type, under L20F so the >above obviously doesn't apply. When asking questions I regard it as >sensible to minimize the UI I make available - I trust partner not to take >advantage of the UI I do create. Players are expected to be aware that >asking questions (any questions) can create UI - that is an inevitable >consequence of disclosure. (Since the alternative is requiring 60+ pages >of system notes per partnership it seems a practical compromise). Two years ago I downloaded the Pavlicek system notes. 176 pages describing what is largely a "Standard American" system. I started writing system notes for a partnership I have (again, SA, mostly) and pooped out at 20 pages. One of my partners (20 years ago) wrote out 12 pages (long hand) on our responses and rebids after one of us opened 1NT and there was no interference. I'd guess full system notes for even the simplest partnership would run at least 25 pages. So what if one is playing two boards against a nearly SA partnership that has a fully-developed system? Assume a chance comes up to interfere with one of their strong auctions and one needs to know how high to go (or maybe even what psyche to make) to best foul things up for them? How can one actually have L75 satisfied in this sort of situation without knowing the future calls available? (American convention cards don't have space for all the schemes for dealing with interference that a well-developed partnership will have.) It seems to me that the simple-minded reader of TFLB can find some sense of contradiction among L20, L75, and L40 and not feel fully satisfied by WBFLC official interpretations. (Just so the simple-minded sometimes find it hard to believe the decisions of the US Supreme Court in view of what the Constitution seems to say.) Of course the simple-mided reader might fell there is some sort of contradiction between the actual words of L40A and the official interpretation Of L40D allowing sponsoring organizations to ban psyches of certain conventional calls. On the whole, it would be nice if the Laws were drawn up, as nearly as possible, so as to allow the simlple-minded reader to understand them is the same way as they are understood by the WBFLC. Fortunately for BLML, I am the only simple-minded reader left, I guess. But I say, when the revision is made, let it be clear!!!! REH Robert E. Harris Phone: 573-882-3274. Fax: 573-882-2754 Department of Chemistry, University of Missouri-Columbia Columbia, Missouri, USA 65211 From grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk Fri Nov 1 23:36:52 2002 From: grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk (grandeval) Date: Fri, 1 Nov 2002 23:36:52 -0000 Subject: 'Fully and freely available' : was Re: [blml] questions about future calls References: <011102305.28810@webbox.com> Message-ID: <008e01c28206$07b7dce0$7ffb193e@4nrw70j> Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Friday, November 01, 2002 4:00 PM Subject: Re: [blml] questions about future calls > > > there is a constraint on the time at which information is available > to you (you may not ask except at a certain time); that > constraint is generally accepted as a practical necessity even > though it is in conflict with a principle (information must be > "fully and freely available"); but people are saying that some > other constraint that may also be a practical necessity is not > acceptable because it conflicts with the same principle. > +=+ 'fully' = In a full degree, completely, entirely 'freely' = unreservedly, without restraint 'available' = at one's disposal It seems to me that whoever inspired the inclusion of these words in Law 75 in their present context was reaching for some golden apple, et il est tombe' dans les ordures. The words themselves first appeared in the 1975 book, but compare what was written there: "It is improper to convey information to partner by means of a call or play based on a partnership agreement, whether explicit or implicit, unless such information is fully and freely available to the opponents." In 1987 the statement changed, and I have not yet traced in my papers any explanation for the change. It does appear, however, that compliance with the requirement now presented could well entail conveying one's entire system file to opponents, at the table or beforehand. (On disk, maybe, in the manner of P O handing in his system notes at European championships.) I shall be looking for some other form of words, more modest in scope, with which to express an achievable and acceptable level of disclosure. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ . From grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk Sat Nov 2 00:13:17 2002 From: grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk (grandeval) Date: Sat, 2 Nov 2002 00:13:17 -0000 Subject: [blml] BLML References: Message-ID: <008f01c28206$0a035380$7ffb193e@4nrw70j> Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Friday, November 01, 2002 5:55 PM Subject: [blml] BLML > > One of Grattan's strengths can be seen when someone > here is offensive to him: he never reacts to the offensiveness. > +=+ Not wholly true. If I react it may be with stiletto clad in the velvet cloth of irony. +=+ > Good-bye, and thanks to the majority for the discussions. > +=+ Sad. +=+ From grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk Sat Nov 2 00:16:10 2002 From: grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk (grandeval) Date: Sat, 2 Nov 2002 00:16:10 -0000 Subject: [blml] Does L20F prohibit hypothetical questions? References: <3DBFB6FF.2070800@skynet.be> <001401c2800c$67cc4b80$252a2850@pacific> <002201c2801f$d1736f60$70d8fea9@WINXP> Message-ID: <009001c28206$0ba56ac0$7ffb193e@4nrw70j> Grattan Endicott To: "blml" Sent: Wednesday, October 30, 2002 2:22 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Does L20F prohibit hypothetical questions? > From: > ...... > > Law 20 contains explicit wording as to what > > supplementary enquiries are authorized: the > > player may ask questions about calls actually made > > or about relevant calls available but not made. > > Having been informed that a bid shows a six card > > spade suit calls that might be made by agreement > > on a hypothetical hand with only five spades are not > > relevant. The expansion of the explanation should > > concern other calls that can be made on hands with > > the given feature(s). Q. "What other calls might be > > made on a hand with six spades, and why would he > > choose one rather than another.?" A. "He could > > pass if he felt the hand was not worth a bid or that > > his prospects of a good score were better if he > > passed; he could bid seven if he believed he could > > make thirteen tricks. He could ... etc. etc. " > > With all due respect I have a feeling that Grattan here > is on very dangerous land? > > The way I understand Law 20 it does not permit > specifying any particular hand and a question like > "what would he have called with that hand?" > +=+ I agree that he cannot postulate a hand and asked what he would bid on it. That is the point I make about there being no authorization of hypothesis.+=+ > What Law 20 permits is specifying a call different > from the one being explained but which would have > been a legal alternative to the call actually made; and > the question: "what would this call have indicated?" > +=+ It permits asking opponent what relevant, alternative calls are available and what may be inferred from his actual choice. The enquirer is not aurthorized to specify, the responder is the one to specify what calls were available (and not selected) for a hand with the features shown by the actual call.+=+ > > There is a difference, do I hear any support? > > Sven > +=+ Perhaps it is the way I have expressed it that is a problem. The alternative calls must be applicable to hands which have the features described by opponent in the case of the call actually made. If the explanation of the call actually made includes features that could not apply to them, they are not relevant, they are not alternative calls. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk Sat Nov 2 00:18:06 2002 From: grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk (grandeval) Date: Sat, 2 Nov 2002 00:18:06 -0000 Subject: [blml] questions about future calls References: <011102305.35040@webbox.com> Message-ID: <009101c28206$0cc2c1a0$7ffb193e@4nrw70j> Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Friday, November 01, 2002 5:44 PM Subject: Re: [blml] questions about future calls > > TWM wrote: > > >Why canonisation? Players are either ethical or not. I assume > players to be ethical. Since you apparently regard that as something > special I guess ethics aren't important to you. That I believe > is your loss not mine. > > Oh, they don't matter to me in the least. I cheat all the time. > That is why I decided to stand for the English Laws and Ethics > Committee, so that I could make regulations that made it easier > for me to cheat. > > >What a nice idea of justice. Punish people for what they could > be doing rather than what they do. > > When will people get it through their fat heads that there is > no reason on Earth why the rules of a game should have anything > to do with justice? > > The rules say, in so many words, in a number of different places, > things like this: > > Whenever the Director deems that an offender could have known > at the time of his irregularity that the irregularity would be > likely to damage the non-offending side, he shall require the > auction and play to continue, afterwards awarding an adjusted > score if he considers that the offending side gained an advantage > through the irregularity. > > Not "did know". "Could have known". This is a game, Tim, not > a court. You will be punished if you do what a cheat would do, > because if you do what a cheat would do, then you could be cheating, > whether or not you actually are. > > >I think most people would regard the fact that I am not doing > these things as a fairly important distinction. > > Dream on. > +=+ Hey guys, as someone said, this is a game. The epithet 'cheating' is harsh - when evidence of intent is lacking, we have something akin to an involuntary impropriety. On the other hand the thought that 'ethics aren't important' to a bridge personality of such probity as David is not on. This thread looks to have transferred to a terminal ward, in which we are losing patients. ~ G ~ +=+ From svenpran@online.no Sat Nov 2 00:47:53 2002 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sat, 2 Nov 2002 01:47:53 +0100 Subject: [blml] Does L20F prohibit hypothetical questions? References: <3DBFB6FF.2070800@skynet.be> <001401c2800c$67cc4b80$252a2850@pacific> <002201c2801f$d1736f60$70d8fea9@WINXP> <009001c28206$0ba56ac0$7ffb193e@4nrw70j> Message-ID: <008301c28209$7a5a25c0$70d8fea9@WINXP> ......... > > What Law 20 permits is specifying a call different > > from the one being explained but which would have > > been a legal alternative to the call actually made; and > > the question: "what would this call have indicated?" > > > +=+ It permits asking opponent what relevant, alternative > calls are available and what may be inferred from his > actual choice. The enquirer is not aurthorized to specify, > the responder is the one to specify what calls were > available (and not selected) for a hand with the features > shown by the actual call.+=+ OK I believe I got it now?: "This part of the auction is Stayman and his bid of 2H shows 4 hearts and says nothing about his spades" "What would 2D (instead of 2H) have shown?" is then an illegal question "What would he have called without 4 hearts?" is also illegal "What other calls could he have used and what would they have signalled" is legal (actually the only legal question for alternative calls not used although available) Is this correct (in your opinion - which I do respect)? regards Sven From dalburn@btopenworld.com Sat Nov 2 01:04:37 2002 From: dalburn@btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: Sat, 2 Nov 2002 01:04:37 -0000 Subject: [blml] questions about future calls References: Message-ID: <001d01c2820b$d1159960$bb9b23d9@pbncomputer> TWM wrote: > Well, if you do what a cheat would do, then you could be cheating, > whether or not you actually are. Oops, sorry, those are your words not > mine. So they are. Curiously enough, I meant every one of them (this would not necessarily be obvious). So I try not to do what a cheat would do. I don't ask questions when it's not my turn, and I don't ask certain questions even when it is my turn - for, even though such questions might be legally permitted and I might have every "demonstrable bridge reason" in the world for asking them, I don't think you should take the slightest risk of doing anything that might be construed either as illegal communication with partner, or as an attempt to mislead an opponent. I don't always succeed in doing these things, and to the extent that I don't appear to succeed, I expect to be ruled against. But that's bridge. > True. Although there is every reason why a game should have rules that > are fair/just/whatever if those creating the rules wish the game to be > popular. I don't agree with this at all. In order to make a game popular, you should make rules that every player can understand. They don't have to be just, or fair, or whatever - they just have to be comprehensible. When people play a game, they know that they are departing for a time from the real world, with its tangled concepts of equity, morality, ethical behaviour. That is precisely what makes games attractive. Players of games do not want to be bogged down in a morass of semantics, or judgements, or even social niceties. They just want to run fast, or hit balls hard, or collect two hundred dollars for passing Go. I would go so far as to say this: to the extent that the rules of a game are questionable, that game will not be popular - the same would not apply if the word "immoral" were substituted for the word "questionable". > Indeed I would suggest that ordinary players *expect* the rules > to be fair I do not think so. I think that ordinary players expect the rules to be (a) simple and (b) comprehensible, so that (c) they can be applied to any instance of the game anywhere in the world by even the least competent of referees. "Fairness", in the sense in which this concept applies in everyday life, is a very long way down the list. And exactly insofar as you attempt to make "fairness" a priority, you will fail in every one of objectives (a), (b) and (c) above. > If you don't see the importance of fairness to the game I strongly suggest > you reconsider your position on the L&EC. Oh, I have done so several times. But it is my belief that if the rules are (a) simple and (b) comprehensible and (c) consistent, then they will ipso facto be "fair" as far as the playing of a game is concerned. You cannot cheat at noughts and crosses. > And the price of fish is what exactly? It's how much fish costs. > Nothing I have suggested in > relation to asking questions is "what a cheat would do" Of course it is. A cheat would ask about Stayman when he wanted a club lead. A more sophisticated cheat would ask about Stayman when he didn't want a club lead. A yet more sophisticated cheat would ask questions about the queen of trumps when he had it himself. If you do anything at the bridge table other than make calls and plays in exactly even tempo, you could be doing what a cheat would do. > and any TD who > thinks getting disclosure about opponents system is "gaining an advantage > through an irregularity" should surrender the purple jacket forthwith. Oh, well. Bavin will have to give up his jacket, and I will have to give up going to meetings on Wednesday afternoons. The lunatics can have the asylum. > You could be right - although I have to say that I'd be surprised if club > players regarded cheating so lightly. Those with whom I have spoken on > the issue seem to feel lifetime bans are insufficient punishment. That's all right. They don't know they're cheating, poor dears. Why should they know? You can only know you're cheating if you know what the rules are. And even we don't know that. David Burn London, England From dalburn@btopenworld.com Sat Nov 2 01:13:11 2002 From: dalburn@btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: Sat, 2 Nov 2002 01:13:11 -0000 Subject: 'Fully and freely available' : was Re: [blml] questions about future calls References: <011102305.28810@webbox.com> <008e01c28206$07b7dce0$7ffb193e@4nrw70j> Message-ID: <002701c2820d$0316b240$bb9b23d9@pbncomputer> Grattan wrote: > I shall be looking for some other form of words, more > modest in scope, with which to express an achievable and > acceptable level of disclosure. Good on yer, mate, as Richard would say. Nobody (present company excepted) yet seems to have considered the notion that, rather than change Law 20, we should change Law 75. You see, Law 75 enshrines a "principle", while Law 20 is concerned with the rather more mundane issue of what people playing bridge are supposed to do. It is easy to argue from principles to practice; it is not (as I have found to my cost) so easy to argue the other way round. But in life, there are principles, and we should strive to put those into practice. In a game, there is no such obligation. That is the difference between life and games, and although it is not an immediately obvious one, it is crucial. David Burn London, England From nancy@dressing.org Sat Nov 2 02:09:13 2002 From: nancy@dressing.org (Nancy T Dressing) Date: Fri, 1 Nov 2002 21:09:13 -0500 Subject: [blml] BLML References: Message-ID: <004a01c28214$d6b4dfd0$6401a8c0@hare> How sad that you are leaving, David. As a what I consider a fairly novice director (15 years), working mostly with both novice directors, novice players, and what I would consider novice clubs (even though there are many life masters who have played for years) I find that I have learned much reading the comments from you and some of the others. I've learned to respect most of the opinions and always found you to be most helpful to me. The list will never be the same without your input. Thank you for all you have taught me and I hope someday to meet you personally. Best of luck always, Nancy ----- Original Message ----- From: "David Stevenson" To: Sent: Friday, November 01, 2002 12:55 PM Subject: [blml] BLML > > Recently I recommended that people would do better to have a > particular type of software. > > Maybe I was right, maybe I wasn't, but what really amazed me was the > ferocity of the attack from a very small number of people. It got me > thinking about BLML in general. > > If you had asked me four or five years ago what BLML was all about I > would have said that it was a group of people that wished to understand > the laws of bridge better. I am really pleased it got an entry in the > Bridge Encyclopaedia. > > If you asked me now I would say that the majority comprises a group of > people that wished to understand the laws of bridge better. But there > are minorities with other agendas. There are two or three people who > like to play with words above all else. There are two or three people > who like to prove they are better than anyone else. There are two or > three people who have no wish for the game of bridge to thrive. There > are two or three people who will never use two words when they can use > twenty. There are two or three people who will use any method possible > to belittle others. There are two or three people who are insufferably > arrogant. There are two or three people whose impish sense of humour > means they love to be a permanent devil's advocate. There are two or > three people who will never ever change their view on anything. > > No, I do not meant there are about twenty people who are just a pain > on this list, because some people come under two or more headings. But > they are vociferous, and they have ruined this list. > > Marv has been known to say that all ACBL TDs should be required to > read BLML. Five years ago I would have agreed with him - they would > have learn to be better TDs. Now? Perhaps they would learn, or perhaps > not. There is no guarantee that the current BLML would teach them at > all. And many of them would be shocked by it. > > Looking back on it I enjoyed BLML for some years. However, it got > more rumbustious and a competitive element came in. I have never > forgotten where I had a disagreement with someone. We traded comments, > and it looked as though my arguments were getting stronger - and > suddenly the other person told everyone it was a waste of time > discussing, I knew nothing, the whole thing was pointless, and so on. I > believe that BLML changed at that moment. People who were losing > arguments before then lost gracefully [or just shut up]. Now they > fight. > > For the last year or so I have not enjoyed BLML. I believe I am more > thin-skinned than someone in my position should be, but I have been so > *very* upset by what people have said to me *again* and *again*. Of > course, I retaliate, which is not good, but I find it difficult not to. > One of Grattan's strengths can be seen when someone here is offensive to > him: he never reacts to the offensiveness. I cannot do that - I react. > > Why have I continued for so long? Well, much of the reason has been > the lurkers. I have had many encouraging emails over the years from > people who do not post, but write to me to ask questions, and sometimes > just to encourage me. I am sorry for them, but the level of upset has > become too great. > > I hope that BLML improves, though I doubt it. I hope that if someone > gives advice on software, posting, the internet, or something like that, > that he will not be attacked. I hope that people will listen to others' > arguments, and not consider it necessary to win everything. I hope that > the arrogant people will be frozen out and not encouraged. > > Recently there have been posts which have typified the current > attitude on the subject of whether someone has the right to know what > the responses are to a call. For example, when asked to explain > Lebensohl to an opponent I start by telling them that I am forced to bid > 3C because that is what the convention says. It appears that not > everyone agrees with this but instead of explaining why you should not > say that it forces 3C they have argued that it would take too long to > explain 5H responses to 1S. Of course the sensible people will realise > that this has no relevance, but if you are determined not to lose an > argument it is so clever to introduce something that you can argue is a > similar case. > > I am not going to argue that case. I merely bring it up to show what > typifies the current attitude on BLML, and the reason that BLML is no > longer enjoyable nor useful. If you want to find out the meaning of a > Law BLML is no longer the place to ask. People have other agendas. > > I am very sorry for the friends I have made here that I am leaving > them. I hope to continue to have contact with them but not through > BLML. It is no longer the place for discussion on the laws. > > If you want to contact me and you are not the undesirable element with > its arrogance then I shall be very pleased to listen. Feel free to > email me on . After January 1st I am changing a lot > of eddresses because I get too much spam: just remove the "e" from the > above eddress. > > Minke will post one more list of cats and it is up to others on the > list whether anyone continues it. I shall also post the list of Usenet > abbreviations which can always be found at > > http://blakjak.com/usenet_br.htm > > I shall also continue to be happy to receive articles for my Lawspage. > I shall continue to post on RGB for the moment, and some of the > discussions there are quite reasonable, and reach conclusions. I shall > also post one more article here about the Fall Nationals. > > If anyone wants to ask a specific question on the Laws, and just wants > an answer, not an argument, then the IBLF is available at > > http://blakjak.com/iblf.htm > > Also a direct question to me about the Laws should be addressed to > especially if you want to quote the answer. Anything > I write from that eddress is in the public domain. After the end of > December insert a "1" between laws and @. > > Good-bye, and thanks to the majority for the discussions. > > -- > David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ > Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ > ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= > Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From dalburn@btopenworld.com Sat Nov 2 03:13:11 2002 From: dalburn@btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: Sat, 2 Nov 2002 03:13:11 -0000 Subject: 'Fully and freely available' : was Re: [blml] questions about future calls References: <011102305.28810@webbox.com> <008e01c28206$07b7dce0$7ffb193e@4nrw70j> Message-ID: <009a01c2821d$c6abb740$bb9b23d9@pbncomputer> Grattan wrote: > It seems to me that whoever inspired the inclusion of these > words in Law 75 in their present context was reaching for > some golden apple, et il est tombe' dans les ordures. Well, nobody could have anticipated that a bunch of noble and entirely impractical sentiments was somehow going to be made just as much a part of the rules as the bit that says spades are a higher-ranking suit than hearts. It is possible that, when the proposal was made that this bunch of noble and entirely impractical sentiments actually acquire the force of law, someone might have checked them to see whether or not this would create inconsistencies. But no one did check, and we are now dealing with the inconsistencies. If we're going to rectify this, it seems to me that the simplest thing to do is to acknowledge that the rules were there first, to put them back again, and to consign the b.o.n.a.e.i.s to the dustbin of history. David Burn London, England From john@asimere.com Sat Nov 2 03:54:23 2002 From: john@asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Sat, 2 Nov 2002 03:54:23 +0000 Subject: [blml] Does L20F prohibit hypothetical questions? In-Reply-To: <008301c28209$7a5a25c0$70d8fea9@WINXP> References: <3DBFB6FF.2070800@skynet.be> <001401c2800c$67cc4b80$252a2850@pacific> <002201c2801f$d1736f60$70d8fea9@WINXP> <009001c28206$0ba56ac0$7ffb193e@4nrw70j> <008301c28209$7a5a25c0$70d8fea9@WINXP> Message-ID: In article <008301c28209$7a5a25c0$70d8fea9@WINXP>, Sven Pran writes >......... >> > What Law 20 permits is specifying a call different >> > from the one being explained but which would have >> > been a legal alternative to the call actually made; and >> > the question: "what would this call have indicated?" >> > >> +=+ It permits asking opponent what relevant, alternative >> calls are available and what may be inferred from his >> actual choice. The enquirer is not aurthorized to specify, >> the responder is the one to specify what calls were >> available (and not selected) for a hand with the features >> shown by the actual call.+=+ > >OK >I believe I got it now?: > >"This part of the auction is Stayman and his bid of 2H shows >4 hearts and says nothing about his spades" > >"What would 2D (instead of 2H) have shown?" is then an >illegal question > >"What would he have called without 4 hearts?" is also illegal I think "Can he make a call higher than 2S" is also legal. > >"What other calls could he have used and what would they >have signalled" is legal (actually the only legal question for >alternative calls not used although available) > >Is this correct (in your opinion - which I do respect)? > >regards Sven > >_______________________________________________ >blml mailing list >blml@rtflb.org >http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > -- John (MadDog) Probst| . ! -^- |icq 10810798 451 Mile End Road | /|__. \:/ |OKb ChienFou London E3 4PA | / @ __) -|- |john@asimere.com +44-(0)20 8983 5818 | /\ --^ | |www.asimere.com/~john From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Sat Nov 2 04:09:42 2002 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Sat, 2 Nov 2002 04:09:42 -0000 Subject: [blml] BLML References: Message-ID: <007a01c28226$eaa141c0$359468d5@default> I understand David Stevenson's frustration in reading emails about rephrasing/changing laws; especially if the ideas were in their umpteenth incarnation; and especially, if his main interest is in interpreting the current law as is written (or as it was intended). In spite of being a frequent target of David Stevenson put-downs, I regret his departure. Inter alia, on BLML, David advised me to give up Bridge because of what seemed to him to be my low opinion of players' ethical standards. Now I wish his skin were as thick as mine and his boredom threshold as high as the rest of us. We all miss David Stevenson's lofty erudition. Perhaps, for once, we can take a unanimous stand to ask him to reconsider his decision. (: His cats may miss their correspondence with us, even if he does not :) From mikedod@gte.net Sat Nov 2 05:50:49 2002 From: mikedod@gte.net (mike dodson) Date: Fri, 1 Nov 2002 21:50:49 -0800 Subject: [blml] questions about future calls [was: Is Stayman alertabl e in WBF/EBL events?] References: <000a01c28040$90efeba0$0300a8c0@mshome.net> <001201c281c4$f0c1c8c0$5c1e2850@pacific> Message-ID: <013901c28234$d995d220$0100a8c0@MikesDesk> ----- Original Message ----- From: >David Barton wrote > > South calls the director and claims if he had > > known what 4H would have meant he would > > have bid it first. Chance of redress is virtually > > zero. > > > +=+ This last comment I do not understand. If > the SO prescribes a convention card Law 40E > provides that partnerships are to list their conventions > and other agreements on it. If this convention was > not listed on their CC there is a clear infraction of > Law 40E on the part of East-West. The Director > should apply the law and, if he considers that N-S > have been damaged in conseqience of the violation > of law, he has to award an adjusted score. Since > the understanding is special and not to be anticipated > I do not see how he could not adjust the score. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ Grattan, the assumption here seems to that the convention card is a comprehensive list of conventions played. In my experience (ACBL) this is far from the case. There many alertable calls, such as David's UCB, that will not be listed on even the most scrupulously filled card. Still "special and not to be anticipated" but as there is no 40E violation I must look elsewhere for protection or redress. I would like to think the regulations for disclosure in 40B may allow for broader inquiries than L20F. Would such regulations by a SO be illegal? Is the difference between what the authorities (you, Ton, DALB) say the LAW allows and what many (myself included) thought was normal full disclosure, a matter of law vs regulation? Mike Dodson From hermandw@skynet.be Sat Nov 2 08:29:55 2002 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Sat, 02 Nov 2002 09:29:55 +0100 Subject: [blml] Does L20F prohibit hypothetical questions? References: <3DBFB6FF.2070800@skynet.be> <001401c2800c$67cc4b80$252a2850@pacific> <002201c2801f$d1736f60$70d8fea9@WINXP> <009001c28206$0ba56ac0$7ffb193e@4nrw70j> Message-ID: <3DC38D03.70501@skynet.be> grandeval wrote: >> > +=+ I agree that he cannot postulate a hand and asked what > he would bid on it. That is the point I make about there > being no authorization of hypothesis.+=+ > Come on, Grattan, that is exactly the way many questions get asked behind screens. One player jots down a few hands and the screenmate indicated what call would be made on it. Why would that not be a valid way of asking the questions. > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw@skynet.be Sat Nov 2 08:37:03 2002 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Sat, 02 Nov 2002 09:37:03 +0100 Subject: 'Fully and freely available' : was Re: [blml] questions about future calls References: <011102305.28810@webbox.com> <008e01c28206$07b7dce0$7ffb193e@4nrw70j> Message-ID: <3DC38EAF.7010003@skynet.be> grandeval wrote: >> > +=+ 'fully' = In a full degree, completely, entirely > 'freely' = unreservedly, without restraint > 'available' = at one's disposal > It seems to me that whoever inspired the inclusion of these > words in Law 75 in their present context was reaching for > some golden apple, et il est tombe' dans les ordures. The I don't agree, Grattan. Yet again (like many a claim discussion) this is a problem that is only perceived on blml. Has anyone, ever, heard of a ruling since Lille in which the question of the permissibility of asking a hypothetical question has been at issue ? I doubt it. So the only "ordures" we have fallen into is this cesspool of blml and I can understand that even DWS has grown tired of it. > words themselves first appeared in the 1975 book, but > compare what was written there: "It is improper to convey > information to partner by means of a call or play based on > a partnership agreement, whether explicit or implicit, unless > such information is fully and freely available to the opponents." > In 1987 the statement changed, and I have not yet traced > in my papers any explanation for the change. It does appear, > however, that compliance with the requirement now presented > could well entail conveying one's entire system file to > opponents, at the table or beforehand. (On disk, maybe, in > the manner of P O handing in his system notes at European > championships.) > > I shall be looking for some other form of words, more > modest in scope, with which to express an achievable and > acceptable level of disclosure. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > Why, Grattan ? What is so wrong with a law that says "you are entitled to know everything, and in order to achieve that right you are allowed to ask whatever question you want (but be mindful of UI and illegal deception)". I honestly don't understand why there can be a discussion about this. > . > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From dalburn@btopenworld.com Sat Nov 2 09:24:19 2002 From: dalburn@btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: Sat, 2 Nov 2002 09:24:19 -0000 Subject: 'Fully and freely available' : was Re: [blml] questions about future calls References: <011102305.28810@webbox.com> <008e01c28206$07b7dce0$7ffb193e@4nrw70j> <3DC38EAF.7010003@skynet.be> Message-ID: <001c01c28251$9fc2c9a0$bb9b23d9@pbncomputer> Herman wrote: > I honestly don't understand why there can be a discussion about this. And if Herman doesn't understand it, then it cannot be. Let's call the whole thing off. David Burn London, England From cyaxares@lineone.net Sat Nov 2 09:09:00 2002 From: cyaxares@lineone.net (Grattan Endicott) Date: Sat, 2 Nov 2002 09:09:00 -0000 Subject: [blml] questions about future calls [was: Is Stayman alertabl e in WBF/EBL events?] References: <000a01c28040$90efeba0$0300a8c0@mshome.net> <001201c281c4$f0c1c8c0$5c1e2850@pacific> <013901c28234$d995d220$0100a8c0@MikesDesk> Message-ID: <003a01c28253$7daea850$804ee150@endicott> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws" Sent: Saturday, November 02, 2002 5:50 AM Subject: Re: [blml] questions about future calls [was: Is Stayman alertabl e in WBF/EBL events?] > > Grattan, the assumption here seems to be that > the convention card is a comprehensive list of > conventions played. In my experience (ACBL) > this is far from the case. There many alertable > calls, such as David's UCB, that will not be listed > on even the most scrupulously filled card. Still > "special and not to be anticipated" but as there > is no 40E violation I must look elsewhere for > protection or redress. > > I would like to think the regulations for > disclosure in 40B may allow for broader inquiries > than L20F. Would such regulations by a SO be > illegal? Is the difference between what the > authorities (you, Ton, DALB) say the LAW > allows and what many (myself included) thought > was normal full disclosure, a matter of law vs > regulation? > > Mike Dodson > +=+ Not that the CC is a comprehensive list but that according to the laws it should be. No-one should ignore David's scorn for the unreality of the law. My current view is that the CC should be a vehicle to convey basic system, essential info about special understandings, and awareness of understandings about which we may wish to learn more. This last listing contains those items that players know enough about to know whether they want to know more. In the meantime it seems to me that the onus is on players to inform rather than to enquire, so that if essential matter is not made available on the CC (or at least reference to its existence) the responsibility for any damage lies with the provider - but not to the extent that a player who could well have been expected to protect his back is entitled to redress for his own folly in not doing so. However, it is less than obvious what words will express this in a law book. Under the present law I would be disinclined to challenge any regulation under Law 40E1 so long as it took account of the word 'prior' in 40A. My inclination for future laws on CC disclosure is to enter essential minimum expectations in law and leave regulation to build on them. Of course I may well meet serious disagreements amongst my colleagues as to what should be the nature of the essential minimum, and since we are offering Zonal Orgs an input into our thinking we could well experience the turbulence as different tectonic plates collide. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk Sat Nov 2 10:45:23 2002 From: grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk (grandeval) Date: Sat, 2 Nov 2002 10:45:23 -0000 Subject: 'Fully and freely available' : was Re: [blml] questions about future calls References: <011102305.28810@webbox.com> <008e01c28206$07b7dce0$7ffb193e@4nrw70j> <3DC38EAF.7010003@skynet.be> <001c01c28251$9fc2c9a0$bb9b23d9@pbncomputer> Message-ID: <001d01c2825d$2d967640$16e7193e@4nrw70j> Grattan Endicott To: "blml" Sent: Saturday, November 02, 2002 9:24 AM Subject: Re: 'Fully and freely available' : was Re: [blml] questions about future calls > Herman wrote: > > > I honestly don't understand why there can be a > > discussion about this. > > And if Herman doesn't understand it, then it > cannot be. Let's call the whole thing off. > +=+ And players are actually doing things the laws do not authorize? What an outrageous suggestion - coming from Herman, too.... (Actually, David, I don't know why there is a disussion about it.) +=+ From twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Sat Nov 2 12:03:00 2002 From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Date: Sat, 2 Nov 2002 12:03 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [blml] questions about future calls Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <001d01c2820b$d1159960$bb9b23d9@pbncomputer> > TWM wrote: > > > Well, if you do what a cheat would do, then you could be cheating, > > whether or not you actually are. Oops, sorry, those are your words > not > > mine. > > So they are. Curiously enough, I meant every one of them (this would not > necessarily be obvious). So I try not to do what a cheat would do. I > don't ask questions when it's not my turn, and I don't ask certain > questions even when it is my turn - for, even though such questions > might be legally permitted and I might have every "demonstrable bridge > reason" in the world for asking them, I don't think you should take the > slightest risk of doing anything that might be construed either as > illegal communication with partner, or as an attempt to mislead an > opponent. I don't always succeed in doing these things, and to the > extent that I don't appear to succeed, I expect to be ruled against. But > that's bridge. My take on it is slightly different. I believe I have a duty to minimise the UI/deceptive nature of any questions I choose to ask (it is also in my self-interest not to make UI available to my partners). Like you I don't always succeed, although where UI has been created I am lucky to have had partners who have carefully avoided taking advantage (or the UI has been irrelevant since they have had no further decisions to make). If I fail, or a partner lets me down, I too expect to be ruled against. But that's bridge. > > True. Although there is every reason why a game should have rules > that > > are fair/just/whatever if those creating the rules wish the game to be > > popular. > > I don't agree with this at all. In order to make a game popular, you > should make rules that every player can understand. They don't have to > be just, or fair, or whatever - they just have to be comprehensible. > When people play a game, they know that they are departing for a time > from the real world, with its tangled concepts of equity, morality, > ethical behaviour. That is precisely what makes games attractive. > Players of games do not want to be bogged down in a morass of semantics, > or judgements, or even social niceties. They just want to run fast, or > hit balls hard, or collect two hundred dollars for passing Go. I would > go so far as to say this: to the extent that the rules of a game are > questionable, that game will not be popular - the same would not apply > if the word "immoral" were substituted for the word "questionable". With that I agree. I have played any number of games where the rules are "immoral" by the lights of society. However, where such games have been perceived by the players to give unfair advantage (say to the person playing first/last) the players have seen fit to modify the rules to remove that advantage. > > Indeed I would suggest that ordinary players *expect* the rules > > to be fair > > I do not think so. I think that ordinary players expect the rules to be > (a) simple and (b) comprehensible, so that (c) they can be applied to > any instance of the game anywhere in the world by even the least > competent of referees. Irregularities: Any irregularity shall cause the board to be scored as 0% (MPs), -24 (IMPs) for the offending side. However, if the offending player is of National Master status the scores will be 40% and -3. This meets a) b) and c) easily as far as I can tell. I think it would fail to meet people's perception of fairness. Sure it's a crude example but I think "fairness", or at least the perception thereof by ordinary players must be a key design criterion when rewriting the laws. a) and b) are pretty important to. I doubt that the rules of any game can meet c), although were I the sort of person to seek to put unobtainable principles into the law I might consider that a good one. "Fairness", in the sense in which this concept > applies in everyday life, is a very long way down the list. And exactly > insofar as you attempt to make "fairness" a priority, you will fail in > every one of objectives (a), (b) and (c) above. > > > If you don't see the importance of fairness to the game I strongly > suggest > > you reconsider your position on the L&EC. > > Oh, I have done so several times. But it is my belief that if the rules > are (a) simple and (b) comprehensible and (c) consistent, then they will > ipso facto be "fair" as far as the playing of a game is concerned. You > cannot cheat at noughts and crosses. And when bridge becomes as simple as noughts and crosses it will be impossible to cheat at that too. > > And the price of fish is what exactly? > > It's how much fish costs. > > > Nothing I have suggested in > > relation to asking questions is "what a cheat would do" > > Of course it is. A cheat would ask about Stayman when he wanted a club > lead. A more sophisticated cheat would ask about Stayman when he didn't > want a club lead. A yet more sophisticated cheat would ask questions > about the queen of trumps when he had it himself. If you do anything at > the bridge table other than make calls and plays in exactly even tempo, > you could be doing what a cheat would do. But these questions are "legal" under L20F. They are illegal under L72/3 and receive adjustments under L16 where necessary. Whether a question is about a call made/not made or a systemic agreement that may be relevant to you choice of action would is completely irrelevant to this type of cheating. > > and any TD who > > thinks getting disclosure about opponents system is "gaining an > advantage > > through an irregularity" should surrender the purple jacket forthwith. > > Oh, well. Bavin will have to give up his jacket, and I will have to give > up going to meetings on Wednesday afternoons. The lunatics can have the > asylum. Strangely I could have been convinced that they already do. From hermandw@skynet.be Sat Nov 2 12:29:01 2002 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Sat, 02 Nov 2002 13:29:01 +0100 Subject: 'Fully and freely available' : was Re: [blml] questions about future calls References: <011102305.28810@webbox.com> <008e01c28206$07b7dce0$7ffb193e@4nrw70j> <3DC38EAF.7010003@skynet.be> <001c01c28251$9fc2c9a0$bb9b23d9@pbncomputer> <001d01c2825d$2d967640$16e7193e@4nrw70j> Message-ID: <3DC3C50D.8080203@skynet.be> I don't like to be incompletely quoted and then left unanswered. grandeval wrote: > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "David Burn" >>Herman wrote: >> >> >>>I honestly don't understand why there can be a >>>discussion about this. >>> >>And if Herman doesn't understand it, then it >>cannot be. Let's call the whole thing off. >> >> > +=+ And players are actually doing things the laws > do not authorize? What an outrageous > suggestion - coming from Herman, too.... > > (Actually, David, I don't know why there is a > disussion about it.) +=+ > What I wrote was this : What is so wrong with a law that says "you are entitled to know everything, and in order to achieve that right you are allowed to ask whatever question you want (but be mindful of UI and illegal deception)". I honestly don't understand why there can be a discussion about this. David and Grattan have chosen to ignore the first sentence, left the second and brushed me off with a "well, if Herman fails to see it he must be blind". So maybe I AM blind. Please tell me what would be wrong with a law such as the one I proposed up there! -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From svenpran@online.no Sat Nov 2 13:57:58 2002 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sat, 2 Nov 2002 14:57:58 +0100 Subject: 'Fully and freely available' : was Re: [blml] questions about future calls References: <011102305.28810@webbox.com> <008e01c28206$07b7dce0$7ffb193e@4nrw70j> <3DC38EAF.7010003@skynet.be> <001c01c28251$9fc2c9a0$bb9b23d9@pbncomputer> <001d01c2825d$2d967640$16e7193e@4nrw70j> <3DC3C50D.8080203@skynet.be> Message-ID: <000701c28277$dc92ea10$70d8fea9@WINXP> From: "Herman De Wael" > I don't like to be incompletely quoted and then left unanswered. ......... > What I wrote was this : > > What is so wrong with a law that says "you are entitled to know > everything, and in order to achieve that right you are allowed to ask > whatever question you want (but be mindful of UI and illegal deception)". > I honestly don't understand why there can be a discussion about this. ......... > Please tell me what would be wrong with a law such as the one I > proposed up there! Honestly, this comes a long way towards how I have understood our present Bridge legislation, and until now I have had little problem separating relevant questioning from questioning to embarrass, annoy or deceive opponents or to illegaly pass UI to partner. IMO the problem is not the intention of the laws but the difficulty in expressing this intention accuratly in the law text. regards Sven From Laval_Dubreuil@uqss.uquebec.ca Sat Nov 2 16:09:22 2002 From: Laval_Dubreuil@uqss.uquebec.ca (Laval Dubreuil) Date: Sat, 2 Nov 2002 11:09:22 -0500 Subject: [blml] Law 14A Message-ID: Hi BLMLrs, Reading Law 14A "avec un oeil nouveau", I am surprised the Lawyers did not let any place for Director's judgment. As I read this Law, if a player already called with 12 cards, realised this miss and call before play commences, the Director has no choice but find the missing card, let auction be completed and score the deal as played. Let say the missing card was an Ace. The result can be good or bad for the offender (counting cards is mandatory according to Law 7B1). Nothing to do ??? Laval Du Breuil From toddz@worldnet.att.com Sat Nov 2 16:18:54 2002 From: toddz@worldnet.att.com (Todd Zimnoch) Date: Sat, 2 Nov 2002 11:18:54 -0500 Subject: 'Fully and freely available' : was Re: [blml] questions about future calls In-Reply-To: <001d01c2825d$2d967640$16e7193e@4nrw70j> Message-ID: > -----Original Message----- > From: grandeval > Subject: Re: 'Fully and freely available' : was Re: > > > Herman wrote: > > > > > I honestly don't understand why there can be a > > > discussion about this. > > > > And if Herman doesn't understand it, then it > > cannot be. Let's call the whole thing off. > > > +=+ And players are actually doing things the laws > do not authorize? What an outrageous > suggestion - coming from Herman, too.... Observation of truth is hardly an outrageous thing. Players are doing it without thought of scandal, at least as far as I've seen and presumably Herman and Tim West-meads have too. I have been playing duplicate bridge for about 3 years now and only in NA and have unreservedly accepted my previously-stated understanding of full disclosure. I recognize that my opinion may be under-informed or biased, but I am not ready to believe that I am not part of a larger body of people who share a similar view. I was taught and reinforced in this view by the people who taught me the game. -Todd From Laval_Dubreuil@uqss.uquebec.ca Sat Nov 2 16:26:13 2002 From: Laval_Dubreuil@uqss.uquebec.ca (Laval Dubreuil) Date: Sat, 2 Nov 2002 11:26:13 -0500 Subject: [blml] Place of Law 60 Message-ID: The Law 60 (Play after an illegal play) applies and is part of many Laws beginning with Law 53 (Lead of of turn accepted...if player next in rotation plays as Law 60A1 specifies). IMHO Law 60 should be just before Law 53. Laval Du Breuil Quebec City From schuster@eduhi.at Sat Nov 2 19:57:26 2002 From: schuster@eduhi.at (Petrus Schuster OSB) Date: Sat, 02 Nov 2002 20:57:26 +0100 Subject: 'Fully and freely available' : was Re: [blml] questions about future calls In-Reply-To: <008e01c28206$07b7dce0$7ffb193e@4nrw70j> Message-ID: <93VOLPN98TNJYVYSNIC8AC7OLUPYU.3dc42e26@pp-xp> 02.11.2002 00:36:52, "grandeval" wrote: >+=+ 'fully' = In a full degree, completely, entirely > 'freely' = unreservedly, without restraint > 'available' = at one's disposal >It seems to me that whoever inspired the inclusion of these >words in Law 75 in their present context was reaching for >some golden apple, et il est tombe' dans les ordures. The >words themselves first appeared in the 1975 book, but >compare what was written there: "It is improper to convey >information to partner by means of a call or play based on >a partnership agreement, whether explicit or implicit, unless >such information is fully and freely available to the opponents." Even then, the text went on "(see Law 40)" as it does now. To me, this means that Law 40 defines what "fully and freely available" means in this context: disclosed as required by the SO, or presumably known to the opponents. If there is a problem, it seems to be one of regulations, not the laws. Regards, Petrus From hermandw@skynet.be Sat Nov 2 20:26:46 2002 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Sat, 02 Nov 2002 21:26:46 +0100 Subject: 'Fully and freely available' : was Re: [blml] questions about future calls References: <93VOLPN98TNJYVYSNIC8AC7OLUPYU.3dc42e26@pp-xp> Message-ID: <3DC43506.10208@skynet.be> Petrus Schuster OSB wrote: > >>such information is fully and freely available to the >> > opponents." > > Even then, the text went on "(see Law 40)" as it does now. > To me, this means that Law 40 defines what "fully and freely > available" means in this context: disclosed as required by > the SO, or presumably known to the opponents. > If there is a problem, it seems to be one of regulations, > not the laws. Not necessarily. The Laws provide for two ways of insuring the fully and freely : disclosure (I presume this means CC, alerting and pre-alerting) and questions. Disclosure is left to the SO, questions are handled in L20. So worthy though your attempt at stopping this discussion may be, it hasn't worked. > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From moranl@netvision.net.il Sat Nov 2 20:30:07 2002 From: moranl@netvision.net.il (Eitan Levy) Date: Sat, 02 Nov 2002 22:30:07 +0200 Subject: [blml] Law 14A In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <5.1.1.6.1.20021102221640.009fe410@mail.netvision.net.il> At 11:09 02/11/02 -0500, you wrote: >Hi BLMLrs, > >Reading Law 14A "avec un oeil nouveau", I am surprised >the Lawyers did not let any place for Director's judgment. > >As I read this Law, if a player already called with 12 >cards, realised this miss and call before play commences, from the definitions: play 3. The period during which the cards are played play 4 The aggregate of the calls and plays on a board Law 14A refers to what happens before the "play period". I presume because of the use of the word "period" that law 14A refers to play 3, but perhaps we could tighten this up a bit, and find different terms for meanings 3 and 4 of play (and perhaps also for meanings 1 and 2). >the Director has no choice but find the missing card, let >auction be completed and score the deal as played. > >Let say the missing card was an Ace. The result can be >good or bad for the offender (counting cards is mandatory >according to Law 7B1). Nothing to do ??? I suppose it's 'rub of the green' like many other situations after irregularities. >Laval Du Breuil > Eitan Levy >_______________________________________________ >blml mailing list >blml@rtflb.org >http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From siegmund@mosquitonet.com Sat Nov 2 20:40:50 2002 From: siegmund@mosquitonet.com (Gordon Bower) Date: Sat, 2 Nov 2002 11:40:50 -0900 (AKST) Subject: [blml] A nice easy one Message-ID: Law 66B: Declarer or either defender may inspect but not expose his own last card played. Is declarer allowed to inspect dummy's last card played, taking care not to show either of the defenders? The answer seems to be "no," unless we interpret dummy's non-participation in the play to mean that declarer "owns" all 26 cards his side has. May the dummy inspect but not face the last card played from dummy, e.g., to remind himself who won the previous trick so he will be able to prevent declarer from leading from the wrong hand? The answer to this one seems to be a very clear "no" - which seems a little strange. Perhaps this has been explicitly forbidden to prevent dummy's manipulation or non-manipulation of the cards from being used to help his partner? Who knows... if it really IS as clear as it looks, maybe we have hit upon one Law that everyone on BLML interprets the same way! Naaah. GRB From thomas.dehn@arcor.de Sat Nov 2 21:19:01 2002 From: thomas.dehn@arcor.de (Thomas Dehn) Date: Sat, 2 Nov 2002 22:19:01 +0100 Subject: [blml] BLML References: Message-ID: <005101c282b5$858b8540$2e1090d4@rabbit> David Stevenson wrote: > Looking back on it I enjoyed BLML for some years. However, it got > more rumbustious and a competitive element came in. I have never > forgotten where I had a disagreement with someone. We traded comments, > and it looked as though my arguments were getting stronger - and > suddenly the other person told everyone it was a waste of time > discussing, I knew nothing, the whole thing was pointless, and so on. I > believe that BLML changed at that moment. People who were losing > arguments before then lost gracefully [or just shut up]. Now they > fight. [... lots of snippage...] I agree with David, BLML is not as useful today as it was in the early days, I notice myself deleting most threads unread. I also agree with David that the flame level is too high on BLML. However, David, I also have the impression that you sometimes felt attacked personally, or hurt, when somebody else just disagreed with you, and your reaction to the disagreement then was what feeded the fire. > I am very sorry for the friends I have made here that I am leaving > them. I hope to continue to have contact with them but not through > BLML. It is no longer the place for discussion on the laws. It is sad to see you go, because you are one of the most knowledgeable TDs, an expert for the laws of bridge. Maybe you can reconsider in a few months. Thomas From grabiner@alumni.princeton.edu Sat Nov 2 22:33:16 2002 From: grabiner@alumni.princeton.edu (David J. Grabiner) Date: Sat, 02 Nov 2002 17:33:16 -0500 Subject: [blml] Does L20F prohibit hypothetical questions? In-Reply-To: <003001c28043$628d8080$2a9868d5@default> References: <003801c28037$a5bed9a0$2a9868d5@default> Message-ID: <5.1.1.6.0.20021102172126.01a579a0@mail.comcast.net> At 01:37 PM 10/30/2002, Nigel Guthrie wrote: >[Nigel Guthrie] > In a previous email I said "The correct rule has > always been simple and obvious -- you must specify > meanings in chronological order -- actions before > reactions". > Let me hasten to qualify that. Most cases are > clear-cut. e.g. Richard plays "Business" rather > than "Sputnik" doubles. IMO opponents should not > be allowed to counter this by strenghtening their > overcalls. But consider this auction... > (1N) X (Pa) ? > Your passing opponent alerts because his partner > must redouble. As the next to bid, are you > allowed to distinguish the meanings of immediate > actions (before the redouble) from delayed actions > (after the redouble)? e.g bid immediately with a > weak hand and a long suit but delay if you want > to scramble? You could argue "No, because the > redouble comes after your immediate action" but > I would argue "Yes, as the pass was forcing." > In more complex auctions, I dare say that it > might be harder to echelon agreements. You are not allowed to ask what a 2D bid on the next round would mean as such, but it affects the meaning of the pass, and therefore you need to know what hands are included in the pass. A more common example occurs with strong jump shifts. When my auction goes 1D-2S, I can explain 2S as "Game-forcing, shows spades, and shows one of solid spades with or without extras, 18-19 balanced, or good spades with a big diamond fit." The opponents are not entitled to know that if partner's next bid is a jump to 4S, it shows solid spades, no outside singleton or void, and little outside, since this bid has not yet been made; they are entitled to know that responder might have that type of hand. From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Sat Nov 2 21:39:57 2002 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Sat, 2 Nov 2002 21:39:57 -0000 Subject: [blml] questions about future calls [was: Is Stayman alertabl e in WBF/EBL events?] References: <018c01c2819a$aefda3c0$259868d5@default> <018c01c2819a$aefda3c0$259868d5@default> <4.3.2.7.0.20021101085747.00a98d20@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <011801c282c3$0cb1aec0$499c68d5@default> [Nigel Guthrie] [4] I believe there should be a worldwide standard CCs with strictly enforced rules about completion. (The default: a standard comprehensive system) [Nigel 2] Here are some of the obvious advantages of a worldwide standard system [1] Simplified alert rules and laws [2] Worldwide "level playing field" for alerts. [3] Worldwide default CC. [4] Worldwide simple system for No Fear events. [5] System for No Fear pairs and teams World Championships -- these would be easy for spectators and the media to understand. [6] Ideal system for individual competition. [7] Complete set of understandings for casual partners even of a different nationalities. [8] Basis for more sophisticated system. [9] A default for a regular partnership when in undiscussed bidding territory i.e. where they have no agreement. [Brian Meadows] I'll argue with this one - if memory serves me correctly, there used to be a time when the EBU alerting rules referenced Acol(*). This made for some very silly alerts when you weren't playing Acol. [Eric Landau] Based on previous discussion, Brian is with the majority here. Bridge is just played too differently in different parts of the world for this to be practical, even if one likes the idea in theory. [Nigel 2] The EBU alert rules are still Acol-based. For example, we alert (natural) Weak Twos but don't alert conventional forcing Acol twos. American BLMLers tell us that ACBL alerts are based on Standard American. It is the same for other countries: My sister and I played in the "French Club" at the Young Chelsea. I complained to the TD because an opponent opened 1C unalerted with only 3 cards. The TD told me it was we who would have to alert our 1C because it showed 4+ cards. The point is that alerting systems protect home players against foreigners. In order to alert legally and have any idea what unalerted bids mean, a traveller must learn an entire different system for each location. Why must he endure this unecessary handicap? A worldwide standard system would provide a level playing field for everyone as far as alerting is concerned. And the laws on alerting would be short. The problem would be to get countries to agree. I would suggest a vote or a lottery among comprehensive simple candidate systems. I would not expect national officials to welcome the idea although I think most players would. [Brian] You see the same thing in the OKBridge tournaments today, where the alerting rules are that you alert anything which isn't SAYC. [Nigel 2] SAYC is along the right lines but may not be comprehensive enough to act as a basis for alert alert-law. [Eric] Which is rather stupid on OKB's part. I, for one, do not play on OKB. In order to do so ethically, I would be compelled to learn SAYC, a system about which I know just enough to know that I have no interest in learning it. (I don't believe that a system in which a response of 2S to 1NT cannot be passed but a rebid of 2NT by opener is systemically impossible can possibly be a logical or sensible one) [Nigel 2] Well to alert in the UK, you must learn Acol; in USA, Standard American; in France, Majeur Cinquieme. OK bridge sensibly chose an arbitrary standard system to avoid total chaos and allow any alerting at all. [Brian] Try to play anything but SAYC, or possibly 2/1 or SA, and you don't know where you stand. Take an example, 1NT (Acol, 12-14, and therefore alertable), 3NT from your partner. Now, is 3NT alertable or not in an OKBridge tourney? If it's bid on a balanced hand, then it's certainly likely to show a different HCP range from a 3NT response in SAYC. And if the answer is that 1NT - 3NT isn't alertable because the difference is obvious, then the question becomes where do you draw the line? [Eric] The answer is that 3NT isn't alertable because it means the same thing whether 1NT is weak or strong: it means that you want partner to declare 3NT. If you play a system in which it means something else, you must alert it. [Nigel 2] I agree with Eric. But I concede that Brian is right in so far that there will always be problems no matter what alerting rules you adopt [unless you ban alerts altogether]. From svenpran@online.no Sat Nov 2 22:56:34 2002 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sat, 2 Nov 2002 23:56:34 +0100 Subject: [blml] A nice easy one References: Message-ID: <003801c282c3$17ea7470$70d8fea9@WINXP> From: "Gordon Bower" > Law 66B: Declarer or either defender may inspect but not expose his own > last card played. This law is (surprisingly?) clear both in text and according to the (official) comments from 1992: > > Is declarer allowed to inspect dummy's last card played, taking care not > to show either of the defenders? NO > The answer seems to be "no," unless we interpret dummy's non-participation > in the play to mean that declarer "owns" all 26 cards his side has. > > May the dummy inspect but not face the last card played from dummy, e.g., > to remind himself who won the previous trick so he will be able to prevent > declarer from leading from the wrong hand? NO > The answer to this one seems to be a very clear "no" - which seems a > little strange. Perhaps this has been explicitly forbidden to prevent > dummy's manipulation or non-manipulation of the cards from being used to > help his partner? > > Who knows... if it really IS as clear as it looks, maybe we have hit upon > one Law that everyone on BLML interprets the same way! Naaah. If there is a need to inspect any of dummy's cards after the trick has been quitted the only legal way to do so is by summoning the Director. What is the problem? regards Sven From cyaxares@lineone.net Sun Nov 3 01:33:22 2002 From: cyaxares@lineone.net (Grattan Endicott) Date: Sun, 3 Nov 2002 01:33:22 -0000 Subject: 'Fully and freely available' : was Re: [blml] questions about future calls References: <011102305.28810@webbox.com> <008e01c28206$07b7dce0$7ffb193e@4nrw70j> <3DC38EAF.7010003@skynet.be> <001c01c28251$9fc2c9a0$bb9b23d9@pbncomputer> <001d01c2825d$2d967640$16e7193e@4nrw70j> <3DC3C50D.8080203@skynet.be> Message-ID: <001c01c282d9$2425db10$520ce150@endicott> Grattan Endicott To: "blml" Sent: Saturday, November 02, 2002 12:29 PM Subject: Re: 'Fully and freely available' : was Re: [blml] questions about future calls > I don't like to be incompletely quoted and then > left unanswered. > > What is so wrong with a law that says "you are entitled to > know everything, and in order to achieve that right you are > allowed to ask whatever question you want (but be > mindful of UI and illegal deception)". I honestly don't > understand why there can be a discussion about this. > > David and Grattan have chosen to ignore the first sentence, > left the second and brushed me off with a "well, if Herman > fails to see it he must be blind". > So maybe I AM blind. > > Please tell me what would be wrong with a law such as > the one I proposed up there! > +=+ It is quite true that I did not comment on your first sentence; indeed my irony referred to what you had said at about the same time in quite another message. The reason I did not comment is that I am holding back, as I have said, from expressing too much opinion about the possible content of future laws. I am at the nodal point of links between those most closely involved in the current Review of the laws - that is to say, the drafting sub- committee members and the eight Zonal Organizations. I do not see that this function is greatly assisted if the functionary goes public with specific personal opinions. I have been dealing with opinions as to the laws as they are; I have said something about the approach to future laws, but I do not wish to be sucked any deeper than that into public debate. The channel for conveying opinion to the subcommittee is from individuals to their NBOs, from NBOs to their respective Zonal Orgs, and from these to the drafting subcommittee. Returning to your question, the fact is that I do not think it a well grounded question. 'Right' or 'wrong' are not concepts relevant to the rules of a game, in my view, since the rules are whatever we make them. I look instead for the balance between the desirable and the undesirable; often a judgement as to the lesser evil. But whichever way we go, it is not 'right' or 'wrong', it is simply 'the rule'. In the case of questions asked, the forefathers determined that questions should be limited, that too great a freedom to ask questions created too much danger of abuse; in particular, as I see it, past judgement has been that questions based on hypothesis, especially hypotheses about future possibilities, present too great a risk of abuses in a game that is greatly to do with communication between partners. I do not recall anything so far in this thread, beyond mere assertion, that tends to overturn past judgement of what is desirable in this area of law. However, it is the case that with each fresh code the elastic has stretched a little further, and it may do so yet again in 2005, but I have no strong sense that wider freedom to ask questions is high on the agenda of formative opinion. The perception may change. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From mfrench1@san.rr.com Sun Nov 3 01:50:58 2002 From: mfrench1@san.rr.com (Marvin L. French) Date: Sat, 2 Nov 2002 17:50:58 -0800 Subject: [blml] questions about future calls [was: Is Stayman alertabl e in WBF/EBL events?] References: <018c01c2819a$aefda3c0$259868d5@default> <018c01c2819a$aefda3c0$259868d5@default> <4.3.2.7.0.20021101085747.00a98d20@pop.starpower.net> <011801c282c3$0cb1aec0$499c68d5@default> Message-ID: <002001c282db$ddb6f940$1c981e18@san.rr.com> From: "Nigel Guthrie" > It is the same for other countries: My sister > and I played in the "French Club" at the Young > Chelsea. I complained to the TD because an > opponent opened 1C unalerted with only 3 cards. > The TD told me it was we who would have to alert > our 1C because it showed 4+ cards. That's odd (both your complaint, and the TD response). I was surprised to have many opponents at the YC pre-Alert that they play "Reverse Benji." Alice and I just nodded our okay, not wanting to display our American ignorance by asking what it was, hoping the Alert process would protect us. I don't remember that it ever came up. I think Benji is an artificial 2C opening that shows an ACOL two bid in the majors, strong but not game-going, while an artificial 2D opening is forcing to game. Reverse Benji switches the meaning. Or do I have it all backward? I hope to play at the YC again, so I'd better get this straight before returning. Also, is the pre-Alert required? I would think that Alerting 2C/2D openings would be sufficient. Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California From john@asimere.com Sun Nov 3 05:11:17 2002 From: john@asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Sun, 3 Nov 2002 05:11:17 +0000 Subject: [blml] questions about future calls [was: Is Stayman alertabl e in WBF/EBL events?] In-Reply-To: <002001c282db$ddb6f940$1c981e18@san.rr.com> References: <018c01c2819a$aefda3c0$259868d5@default> <018c01c2819a$aefda3c0$259868d5@default> <4.3.2.7.0.20021101085747.00a98d20@pop.starpower.net> <011801c282c3$0cb1aec0$499c68d5@default> <002001c282db$ddb6f940$1c981e18@san.rr.com> Message-ID: In article <002001c282db$ddb6f940$1c981e18@san.rr.com>, Marvin L. French writes > >From: "Nigel Guthrie" > >> It is the same for other countries: My sister >> and I played in the "French Club" at the Young >> Chelsea. I complained to the TD because an >> opponent opened 1C unalerted with only 3 cards. it's played under FFB regulations, not EBU ones. I always play mini there, to let my opponents use the French defence which is obviously licensed by the French as they always ask when we cross the channel. >> The TD told me it was we who would have to alert >> our 1C because it showed 4+ cards. > >That's odd (both your complaint, and the TD response). > > I was surprised to have many opponents at the YC pre-Alert that they play >"Reverse Benji." Alice and I just nodded our okay, not wanting to display our >American ignorance by asking what it was, hoping the Alert process would >protect us. I don't remember that it ever came up. > >I think Benji is an artificial 2C opening that shows an ACOL two bid in the >majors, strong but not game-going, while an artificial 2D opening is forcing >to game. Reverse Benji switches the meaning. that's correct > >Or do I have it all backward? I hope to play at the YC again, so I'd better >get this straight before returning. Also, is the pre-Alert required? I would >think that Alerting 2C/2D openings would be sufficient. > It is normal in the UK to tell your opponents your basic method, so the pre-alert is just what we tend to do here. I'd usually say something like "5cM, mini 1st and 2nd; strong 3rd and 4th, 3 wk 2's". It isn't your job to tell your opponents but it is your opponents job to find this out, so you may just as well tell them. >Marv >Marvin L. French >San Diego, California > > > >_______________________________________________ >blml mailing list >blml@rtflb.org >http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > -- John (MadDog) Probst| . ! -^- |icq 10810798 451 Mile End Road | /|__. \:/ |OKb ChienFou London E3 4PA | / @ __) -|- |john@asimere.com +44-(0)20 8983 5818 | /\ --^ | |www.asimere.com/~john From cyaxares@lineone.net Sun Nov 3 02:30:17 2002 From: cyaxares@lineone.net (Grattan Endicott) Date: Sun, 3 Nov 2002 02:30:17 -0000 Subject: [blml] Full disclosure References: Message-ID: <001f01c28318$b6520ec0$7e8c403e@endicott> Grattan Endicott To: "bridge laws mailing list" Sent: Friday, November 01, 2002 2:54 AM Subject: [blml] Full disclosure > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Grattan Endicott > > Sent: Thursday, October 31, 2002 5:23 PM > > Subject: Re: [blml] questions about future calls > > > > +=+ But of course, whatever their belief, if the > > rules of the game do not give them the right > > they do not have the right to lose. +=+ > > This statement shocks me. Even David Burn has > not suggested that a player is not entitled to this > sort of information. He has instead claimed that > access to the information is prohibited if the > information does not appear on a CC and the > auction has already started. > > What part of "full disclosure" makes it a misnomer? > +=+ It was the alleged right to ask the question that I was saying could not be lost because it had not existed (as a matter of rule). You are not entitled during the auction to ask for an explanation of calls that have not yet happened. +=+ From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Sun Nov 3 09:37:16 2002 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Sun, 3 Nov 2002 09:37:16 -0000 Subject: [blml] questions about future calls [was: Is Stayman alertabl e in WBF/EBL events?] References: <018c01c2819a$aefda3c0$259868d5@default> <018c01c2819a$aefda3c0$259868d5@default> <4.3.2.7.0.20021101085747.00a98d20@pop.starpower.net> <011801c282c3$0cb1aec0$499c68d5@default> <002001c282db$ddb6f940$1c981e18@san.rr.com> Message-ID: <001c01c2831c$a52b5a80$639c68d5@default> [Nigel Guthrie] It is the same for other countries: My sister and I played in the "French Club" at the Young Chelsea. I complained to the TD because an opponent opened 1C unalerted with only 3 cards. [MadDog Probst] it's played under FFB regulations, not EBU ones. I always play mini there, to let my opponents use the French defence which is obviously licensed by the French as they always ask when we cross the channel. {Nigel 3] That is the point I was making. Alerted bids are based on the local system. So you have to learn a new system for each jurisdiction. The alert rules themselves may well differ too [see MadDog below]. What is the "French Defence" to mini? [Nigel] The TD told me it was we who would have to alert our 1C because it promises 4+ cards. [Marvin L French] That's odd (both your complaint, and the TD response). [Nigel 3] Perhaps that is another example of my contention? Do you regard a Canape bid on a three card suit as natural? Here it is alertable. I am intrigued as to what would you open with S:Axxx H:Qxxx D:xxx C:AK? and whether partner would alert? {Marvin] I was surprised to have many opponents at the YC pre-Alert that they play "Reverse Benji." Alice and I just nodded our okay, not wanting to display our American ignorance by asking what it was, hoping the Alert process would protect us. I don't remember that it ever came up. I think Benji is an artificial 2C opening that shows an ACOL two bid in the majors, strong but not game-going, while an artificial 2D opening is forcing to game. Reverse Benji switches the meaning. [MadDog] that's correct {Marvin] Or do I have it all backward? I hope to play at the YC again, so I'd better get this straight before returning. Also, is the pre-Alert required? I would think that Alerting 2C/2D openings would be sufficient. [Nigel 3] Albert Benjamin is a Scottish international and writes hilarious bridge articles. He does not employ his eponymous convention. [MadDog] It is normal in the UK to tell your opponents your basic method, so the pre-alert is just what we tend to do here. I'd usually say something like "5cM, mini 1st and 2nd; strong 3rd and 4th, 3 wk 2's". It isn't your job to tell your opponents but it is your opponents job to find this out, so you may just as well tell them. From schuster@eduhi.at Sun Nov 3 10:43:53 2002 From: schuster@eduhi.at (Petrus Schuster OSB) Date: Sun, 03 Nov 2002 11:43:53 +0100 Subject: [blml] I'm tired of QAFC In-Reply-To: Message-ID: 02.11.2002 01:04:43, "Robert E. Harris" wrote: >It seems to me that the simple-minded reader of TFLB can find some sense of >contradiction among L20, L75, and L40 and not feel fully satisfied by WBFLC >official interpretations. One (obvious?) way of avoiding such contradiction would seem to be putting it all in a single law captioned "Disclosure" (preferably in Chapter II, as both auction and play periods are affected). Regards, Petrus From schuster@eduhi.at Sun Nov 3 10:48:33 2002 From: schuster@eduhi.at (Petrus Schuster OSB) Date: Sun, 03 Nov 2002 11:48:33 +0100 Subject: [blml] Law 14A In-Reply-To: Message-ID: 02.11.2002 17:09:22, "Laval Dubreuil" wrote: >Hi BLMLrs, > >Reading Law 14A "avec un oeil nouveau", I am surprised >the Lawyers did not let any place for Director's judgment. > >As I read this Law, if a player already called with 12 >cards, realised this miss and call before play commences, >the Director has no choice but find the missing card, let >auction be completed and score the deal as played. > >Let say the missing card was an Ace. The result can be >good or bad for the offender (counting cards is mandatory >according to Law 7B1). Nothing to do ??? > Award a PP if you feel it is necessary. The outcome of the deal is not different from what would have happened if this player had missorted his 13 cards or miscounted his high-card strength, bid on what he thought he had and noticed his mistake before the lead. Regards, Petrus From t.kooyman@worldonline.nl Sun Nov 3 11:01:30 2002 From: t.kooyman@worldonline.nl (Ton Kooijman) Date: Sun, 3 Nov 2002 12:01:30 +0100 Subject: 'Fully and freely available' : was Re: [blml] questions about future calls References: <011102305.28810@webbox.com> <008e01c28206$07b7dce0$7ffb193e@4nrw70j> <3DC38EAF.7010003@skynet.be> <001c01c28251$9fc2c9a0$bb9b23d9@pbncomputer> <001d01c2825d$2d967640$16e7193e@4nrw70j> <3DC3C50D.8080203@skynet.be> <000701c28277$dc92ea10$70d8fea9@WINXP> Message-ID: <003b01c28329$449023b0$12dff1c3@LNV> Herman: > Please tell me what would be wrong with a law such as the one I > > proposed up there! Sven: > Honestly, this comes a long way towards how I have understood > our present Bridge legislation, and until now I have had little problem > separating relevant questioning from questioning to embarrass, > annoy or deceive opponents or to illegaly pass UI to partner. Some very good TDs don''t have that problems. But your description of the problem is wrong. We are not dealing with illegally passed UI but with legally passed UI when we allow such questions. And even that a good TD should solve satisfactory, but it is not a very nice solution for defender's side. What kind of weekend do we have? Normally I collect at most one message, but this time everybody seems to think we still are on a Thursday. I don''t support your statement below. It al has to do with the intenstion of the laws. What about an approach in which the laws do say that such question may only be asked if it does not create UI? This means that the call to be chosen will describe the hand accuretely whatever the answer is. ton > > IMO the problem is not the intention of the laws but the difficulty > in expressing this intention accuratly in the law text. From cyaxares@lineone.net Sun Nov 3 11:51:11 2002 From: cyaxares@lineone.net (Grattan Endicott) Date: Sun, 3 Nov 2002 11:51:11 -0000 Subject: 'Fully and freely available' : was Re: [blml] questions about future calls References: Message-ID: <001201c2832f$88b12ed0$ed52e150@endicott> Grattan Endicott To: "blml" Sent: Saturday, November 02, 2002 4:18 PM Subject: RE: 'Fully and freely available' : was Re: [blml] questions about future calls > > I have been playing duplicate bridge for about > 3 years now and only in NA and have unreservedly > accepted my previously-stated understanding of > full disclosure. I recognize that my opinion may > be under-informed or biased, but I am not ready > to believe that I am not part of a larger body of > people who share a similar view. I was taught and > reinforced in this view by the people who taught > me the game. > +=+ The laws do require full disclosure - full prior disclosure. The tool for this is the convention card. Some have thought that if the CC is deficient they are allowed to supply the deficiency by asking questions during the auction - even hypothetical questions, even to ask freely questions about later development of the auction after the point at which the question is asked. They are surprised, some shocked, to discover that the laws actually do not offer such a facility but, during the auction, only permit players to ask for explanations of calls that have been made up to the time at which enquiry is made. (which extends, of course, to the message conveyed by a call if, for example, it says "partner, do such and such a thing", as well as to negative or preclusive inferences). There is an onus to disclose, and permitted enquiry has limitations upon it. Failure to disclose a piece of information causes redressable damage if opponents stray because it has not been made available to them, provided it is not adjudged they have contributed to their own downfall. In some tournaments they are required to discover certain matters before commencing the round, and expectations, if expressed, that players will 'protect themselves to a large extent' (sic) may be interpreted to imply that they should enquire then about anything they *know* will affect the meanings of their own calls or that they *know* could affect their choice of action. (In which I would say they should not be expected to foresee esoteric partnership agreements.) Full disclosure, some point out, is not a practical possibility and the law that requires it "is a ass". I do not think anyone contests this view - the discussion is what to do about it, or nothing. Some have said "allow the hypothetical questions" or "allow any questions" and invoke Law 16 if this works "unfairly". There is weight also behind a view that the change might be in the specification of what is to be disclosed. And some would change very little. We can count numbers and weigh sources, and the answers are what we make of them. Views have also been expressed as to what is "fair". This subject is on two levels. There are opinions as to what treatment of players would be appropriate, what actions it would be fair to allow them; this is the abstract or conceptual view. On the other hand, there is a view of fairness that is germane to the game as it is currently ordered - the opinion that, given the present conditions of the game, a particular circumstance is fair, or not. The debate is about the desires of some to substitute the one for the other, and the fears of others that to do so would extend too much the scope for abuses. I do not believe there is an absolute answer to the problem; it is a matter for the judgment of those who settle the rules. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From hermandw@skynet.be Sun Nov 3 13:44:20 2002 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Sun, 03 Nov 2002 14:44:20 +0100 Subject: 'Fully and freely available' : was Re: [blml] questions about future calls References: <011102305.28810@webbox.com> <008e01c28206$07b7dce0$7ffb193e@4nrw70j> <3DC38EAF.7010003@skynet.be> <001c01c28251$9fc2c9a0$bb9b23d9@pbncomputer> <001d01c2825d$2d967640$16e7193e@4nrw70j> <3DC3C50D.8080203@skynet.be> <000701c28277$dc92ea10$70d8fea9@WINXP> <003b01c28329$449023b0$12dff1c3@LNV> Message-ID: <3DC52834.7060502@skynet.be> I do understand where you're coming from, Ton, and I'm beginning to understand that maybe there are reasons for not allowing too much, but ... Ton Kooijman wrote: > Herman: > >>Please tell me what would be wrong with a law such as the one I >> >>>proposed up there! >>> > > > Sven: > >>Honestly, this comes a long way towards how I have understood >>our present Bridge legislation, and until now I have had little problem >>separating relevant questioning from questioning to embarrass, >>annoy or deceive opponents or to illegaly pass UI to partner. >> > > Some very good TDs don''t have that problems. But your description of the > problem is wrong. We are not dealing with illegally passed UI but with > legally passed UI when we allow such questions. And even that a good TD > should solve satisfactory, but it is not a very nice solution for defender's > side. > Ton is right of course in pointing out that Sven is wrong in talking about "illegal" UI. However, I don't see the difference between legally and illegally passed UI. Every question that I pose contains UI to my partner, and while I am within my rights to ask them, they are still UI. There is not a single law in the book that says that the UI that I could now also pass by asking a (now forbidden) hypothetical question would be treated any different than it would be if the question were allowed. > What kind of weekend do we have? Normally I collect at most one message, but > this time everybody seems to think we still are on a Thursday. > Feeling enhanced here in Belgium where friday was a holiday. I'm on my third Saturday today. > I don''t support your statement below. It al has to do with the intenstion > of the laws. What about an approach in which the laws do say that such > question may only be asked if it does not create UI? This means that the > call to be chosen will describe the hand accuretely whatever the answer is. > What about an approach where L16 is explicitely mentioned with the phrase allowing hypothetical questions, thus pointing out to players what they may expect if they ask a hypothetical. > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Sun Nov 3 13:46:00 2002 From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Date: Sun, 3 Nov 2002 13:46 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [blml] Does L20F prohibit hypothetical questions? Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <5.1.1.6.0.20021102172126.01a579a0@mail.comcast.net> David Grabiner > A more common example occurs with strong jump shifts. When my auction > goes 1D-2S, I can explain 2S as "Game-forcing, shows spades, and shows > one of solid spades with or without extras, 18-19 balanced, or good > spades with a big diamond fit." The opponents are not entitled to know > that if partner's next bid is a jump to 4S, it shows solid spades, no > outside singleton or void, and little outside, since this bid has not > yet been made; they are entitled to know that responder might have that > type of hand. There certainly are entitled to know it. It is part of your systemic agreements and should be disclosed on the CC. The question is only about whether they are entitled to *ask* about it (assuming the information is not available on the CC). Tim West-Meads From twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Sun Nov 3 13:46:00 2002 From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Date: Sun, 3 Nov 2002 13:46 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [blml] questions about future calls [was: Is Stayman alertabl e in Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <003a01c28253$7daea850$804ee150@endicott> Grattan wrote: > In the meantime it seems to me that the > onus is on players to inform rather than to enquire, > so that if essential matter is not made available > on the CC (or at least reference to its existence) I'm sorry Grattan but what good is a "reference to its existence". If the CC says "2N response to 1S: game forcing, initiates a number of potential relay/asking sequences" it is of limited help if one is not permitted to ask what those sequences might be. Unless such a question is permitted the full information must be on the CC not just a reference. > the responsibility for any damage lies with the > provider - but not to the extent that a player who > could well have been expected to protect his back > is entitled to redress for his own folly in not doing so. A player cannot be expected to "protect his back" if it is considered illegal for him to ask the questions necessary for him so to do. > However, it is less than obvious what words will > express this in a law book. "you are entitled to know everything, and in order to achieve that right you are allowed to ask whatever question you want (but be mindful of UI and illegal deception)" comes pretty damn close. (I would change "everything" to "anything about the opposition agreements that may have relevance to the current hand", but Herman's offering is shorter). Tim From twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Sun Nov 3 13:46:00 2002 From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Date: Sun, 3 Nov 2002 13:46 +0000 (GMT) Subject: 'Fully and freely available' : was Re: [blml] questions about futu Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <003b01c28329$449023b0$12dff1c3@LNV> Ton wrote: > Some very good TDs don''t have that problems. But your description of > the problem is wrong. We are not dealing with illegally passed UI but > with legally passed UI when we allow such questions. And even that a > good TD should solve satisfactory, but it is not a very nice solution > for defender's side. What's with this "legally passed"/"illegally passed UI" distinction. 99% of UI is "legally passed" - whether it's a question, a response to an opponent's question or a hesitation with a justifiable bridge reason. These are all legal, they all create UI. We don't care if UI is created "legally" or "illegally" it doesn't affect the obligations on the recipient - or the adjustment we would consider necessary if the recipient fails to meet their obligations. And if TD's can't handle UI rulings who cares what questions are permitted, unethical players can just hesitate/bid fast, ask questions about calls already made, look pointedly at the opposing CC and create whatever UI they wish. Tim From twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Sun Nov 3 13:46:00 2002 From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Date: Sun, 3 Nov 2002 13:46 +0000 (GMT) Subject: 'Fully and freely available' : was Re: [blml] questions about futu Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <001201c2832f$88b12ed0$ed52e150@endicott> Grattan wrote: > Some have thought that if the CC is deficient they > are allowed to supply the deficiency by asking > questions during the auction > I do not > believe there is an absolute answer to the > problem; it is a matter for the judgment of > those who settle the rules. Can we ask that those who settle the rules take a couple of things into account. 1. In club bridge even experienced partnerships have CCs which are a basic scrawl on the front of a scorecard. In online bridge the CCs for such partnerships are between 20 and 60 characters long (including commas). 2. People who seek redress instead of asking appropriate questions are seldom welcome in such clubs for long. Tim From twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Sun Nov 3 13:46:00 2002 From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Date: Sun, 3 Nov 2002 13:46 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [blml] questions about future calls [was: Is Stayman alertabl e i Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <002001c282db$ddb6f940$1c981e18@san.rr.com> Marv wrote: > I think Benji is an artificial 2C opening that shows an ACOL two bid in > the majors, strong but not game-going, while an artificial 2D opening is > forcing to game. Reverse Benji switches the meaning. Minor technical point. The 2C is *any* suit, not just majors - it also includes a strong balanced option (21/22 is common). 2D also includes 23/24 balanced hands and so can played in 2N (like a standard Acol 2C). Tim From t.kooyman@worldonline.nl Sun Nov 3 13:56:05 2002 From: t.kooyman@worldonline.nl (Ton Kooijman) Date: Sun, 3 Nov 2002 14:56:05 +0100 Subject: 'Fully and freely available' : was Re: [blml] questions about future calls References: <011102305.28810@webbox.com> <008e01c28206$07b7dce0$7ffb193e@4nrw70j> <3DC38EAF.7010003@skynet.be> <001c01c28251$9fc2c9a0$bb9b23d9@pbncomputer> <001d01c2825d$2d967640$16e7193e@4nrw70j> <3DC3C50D.8080203@skynet.be> Message-ID: <00af01c28340$c9f7c8c0$12dff1c3@LNV> > >>Herman wrote: > >> > >> > >>>I honestly don't understand why there can be a > >>>discussion about this. > >>> David reacted: (a pity we don't have to make a distinction anymore). > >>And if Herman doesn't understand it, then it > >>cannot be. Let's call the whole thing off. > >> > >> > > +=+ And players are actually doing things the laws > > do not authorize? What an outrageous > > suggestion - coming from Herman, too.... > > > > (Actually, David, I don't know why there is a > > disussion about it.) +=+ > > Herman : > > What I wrote was this : > > What is so wrong with a law that says "you are entitled to know > everything, and in order to achieve that right you are allowed to ask > whatever question you want (but be mindful of UI and illegal deception)". > I honestly don't understand why there can be a discussion about this. > > David and Grattan have chosen to ignore the first sentence, left the > second and brushed me off with a "well, if Herman fails to see it he > must be blind". > So maybe I AM blind. > > Please tell me what would be wrong with a law such as the one I > proposed up there! Your willingness to accept other opinions is not always apparent, but you will call this quality tenacity, curiosity for the deepest motives, whatever. Since my main purpose in this thread up till now was to tell what the laws do say at the moment, I am not exhausted yet concerning your question about '' such a law'', so let me give you my personal thoughts about it. Every question is a source for UI. If I undestand it well this problem has resulted in one of the strangest regulations I have ever heard of. In the EBU you are ony entitled to ask about a call if you have a better reason than just curiosity: the choice of your own call has to depend on the answer given. I still hope I am wrong in this, but it illustrates the problem we have with legal questions and UI. In principle a legal question doesn't carry UI. Let me give you another example. Defender is not allowed to ask partner about a possible revoke. But he may ask declarer. When I told Edgar Kaplan that this creates the problem of informing your partner about such a revoke by asking declarer he admitted kind of a singularity but expressed his opinion that such a question was legal and couldn't be penalized. And we all know his opinion about questions asked to opponents with the purpose to inform partner. So I repeat: In principle a legal question doesn't carry UI. But combined with the statement I started with: 'every question is a source for UI' it becomes obvious that we have a big problem. And the next question then is how to control that problem. The choice seems obvious to me, restrict the possibilities for asking questions to the minimum. Now the only problem left is to decide what this minimum is and in my opinion this approach doesn't fit with being allowed to ask anything you want. The problems such an approach creates are much bigger than the advantage it gives. In our present approach your suggested warning for UI means that after such questions partner isn't allowed to choose a call that might be suggested etc. etc. anymore. So you are sawing at one of the principal legs of our law building. On the other hand some of the examples given demonstrate that there are cases where a player really might need more information about the possible developments in the auction from opponent's side. It seems worth to look at that. Is this a convincing answer to your question? ton From svenpran@online.no Sun Nov 3 14:08:02 2002 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sun, 3 Nov 2002 15:08:02 +0100 Subject: 'Fully and freely available' : was Re: [blml] questions about future calls References: <011102305.28810@webbox.com> <008e01c28206$07b7dce0$7ffb193e@4nrw70j> <3DC38EAF.7010003@skynet.be> <001c01c28251$9fc2c9a0$bb9b23d9@pbncomputer> <001d01c2825d$2d967640$16e7193e@4nrw70j> <3DC3C50D.8080203@skynet.be> <000701c28277$dc92ea10$70d8fea9@WINXP> <003b01c28329$449023b0$12dff1c3@LNV> <3DC52834.7060502@skynet.be> Message-ID: <006201c28342$6cafdca0$70d8fea9@WINXP> ......... > > Sven: > > > >>Honestly, this comes a long way towards how I have understood > >>our present Bridge legislation, and until now I have had little problem > >>separating relevant questioning from questioning to embarrass, > >>annoy or deceive opponents or to illegally pass UI to partner. > >> > > > > Some very good TDs don''t have that problems. But your description of the > > problem is wrong. We are not dealing with illegally passed UI but with > > legally passed UI when we allow such questions. And even that a good TD > > should solve satisfactory, but it is not a very nice solution for defender's > > side. > > > > > Ton is right of course in pointing out that Sven is wrong in talking > about "illegal" UI. May I just point out that while many legal actions result in UI where it is up to partner to avoid using it, there are also actions that violate Law 73B. The UI resulting from such actions is what I mean by "illegal" UI. And I was just trying to distinguish legal questions from those where the sole purpose would be in violation of Law 73B (or Law 74A2). Until now I have not had much problems with that. > However, I don't see the difference between > legally and illegally passed UI. Every question that I pose contains > UI to my partner, and while I am within my rights to ask them, they > are still UI. There is not a single law in the book that says that the > UI that I could now also pass by asking a (now forbidden) hypothetical > question would be treated any different than it would be if the > question were allowed. Oh yes, there is a great difference: "Legal" UI is dealt with under Law 16 if the "receiver" makes use of it. "Illegal" UI should be dealt with as a violation also of Law 73B whether or not the UI is used. But isn't this just quibbling? Sven From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Sun Nov 3 14:32:27 2002 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Sun, 3 Nov 2002 14:32:27 -0000 Subject: 'Fully and freely available' : was Re: [blml] questions about future calls References: <001201c2832f$88b12ed0$ed52e150@endicott> Message-ID: <003601c28345$dd3ade40$639c68d5@default> {Grattan Endicott] I do not believe there is an absolute answer to the problem; it is a matter for the judgment of those who settle the rules. {Nigel Guthrie] Were we discussing religious doctrine or absolute justice or some such then players might have more sympathy with Grattan's view; but like David Burn, we regard Bridge as a game (albeit a weird and wonderful game) -- and games thrive on simple rules that most can understand. Currently, some Bridge laws appear to be beyond the comprehension of mere bridge players and even most TDs -- only a few enlightened rhapsodes can appreciate their Delphic subtleties :) :) IMO, what is needed, instead, is clear statements: [1] Simple and enforceable is better than fair. [2] Any decision is better than none and [3] Sooner is better than later. From brian@wellsborocomputing.com Sun Nov 3 14:34:42 2002 From: brian@wellsborocomputing.com (Brian Meadows) Date: Sun, 03 Nov 2002 09:34:42 -0500 Subject: 'Fully and freely available' : was Re: [blml] questions about futu In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Sun, 3 Nov 2002 13:46 +0000 (GMT), Tim West-Meads wrote: > >1. In club bridge even experienced partnerships have CCs which are a basic >scrawl on the front of a scorecard. In online bridge the CCs for such >partnerships are between 20 and 60 characters long (including commas). > I don't know which online service you're talking about, Tim, but in my experience of OKBridge, I'd say that better than 50% of the regular partnerships I've played against have reasonable CCs *unless* they're playing one of the standard systems (SAYC or OKB 2/1) with very few tweaks. Of course, you're right that it's ridiculous to expect any CC to hold an adequate description of the full partnership agreements, but we've been here before - you'll no doubt recall both Grattan and DWS saying that the requirement to put everything on the CC has been used as a backdoor means to limit the number of agreements a pair can have. Brian. -- Software development and computer consulting Brian Meadows Tel: 570-724-5172 Wellsboro Computing Services, Inc. Fax: 413-480-2709 RR#5, Box 5A, Wellsboro PA 16901 ICQ: 1981272 http://www.wellsborocomputing.com From hermandw@skynet.be Sun Nov 3 15:13:34 2002 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Sun, 03 Nov 2002 16:13:34 +0100 Subject: 'Fully and freely available' : was Re: [blml] questions about future calls References: <011102305.28810@webbox.com> <008e01c28206$07b7dce0$7ffb193e@4nrw70j> <3DC38EAF.7010003@skynet.be> <001c01c28251$9fc2c9a0$bb9b23d9@pbncomputer> <001d01c2825d$2d967640$16e7193e@4nrw70j> <3DC3C50D.8080203@skynet.be> <00af01c28340$c9f7c8c0$12dff1c3@LNV> Message-ID: <3DC53D1E.9060305@skynet.be> Ton Kooijman wrote: >> >>Please tell me what would be wrong with a law such as the one I >>proposed up there! >> > > > Your willingness to accept other opinions is not always apparent, but you > will call this quality tenacity, curiosity for the deepest motives, > whatever. > Thanks - I appreciate that you feel that maybe under this tenacity there is more than just stubbornness. (I think that word should have 2 n's - seems right) > Since my main purpose in this thread up till now was to tell what the laws > do say at the moment, I am not exhausted yet concerning your question about > '' such a law'', so let me give you my personal thoughts about it. > > > Every question is a source for UI. If I undestand it well this problem has > resulted in one of the strangest regulations I have ever heard of. In the > EBU you are ony entitled to ask about a call if you have a better reason > than just curiosity: the choice of your own call has to depend on the answer > given. I still hope I am wrong in this, but it illustrates the problem we > have with legal questions and UI. > In principle a legal question doesn't carry UI. Let me give you another > example. Defender is not allowed to ask partner about a possible revoke. But > he may ask declarer. When I told Edgar Kaplan that this creates the problem > of informing your partner about such a revoke by asking declarer he admitted > kind of a singularity but expressed his opinion that such a question was > legal and couldn't be penalized. And we all know his opinion about questions > asked to opponents with the purpose to inform partner. > So I repeat: In principle a legal question doesn't carry UI. But combined > with the statement I started with: 'every question is a source for UI' it > becomes obvious that we have a big problem. > And the next question then is how to control that problem. The choice seems > obvious to me, restrict the possibilities for asking questions to the > minimum. > > Now the only problem left is to decide what this minimum is and in my > opinion this approach doesn't fit with being allowed to ask anything you > want. The problems such an approach creates are much bigger than the > advantage it gives. In our present approach your suggested warning for UI > means that after such questions partner isn't allowed to choose a call that > might be suggested etc. etc. anymore. So you are sawing at one of the > principal legs of our law building. > > On the other hand some of the examples given demonstrate that there are > cases where a player really might need more information about the possible > developments in the auction from opponent's side. It seems worth to look at > that. > > > Is this a convincing answer to your question? > It is not only the first complete answer I received as to why the law may not be the worst possible, it is even convincing as to it being the best possible. OK, I've understood, I won't object to the Law staying as it is. I would like though, to see some trace of it remaining (more than here on blml, that is) as it was totally unclear to me before this thread started that these questions are in fact illegal. Even now, I only accept that they are because you've told me - not because I believe the text is clear. > As far as I am concerned, this thread has ended with a satisfactory closure. Which does not mean I believe we have read the last of it, nor that I believe I have written the last on it. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Sun Nov 3 16:17:05 2002 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Sun, 3 Nov 2002 16:17:05 -0000 Subject: [blml] questions about future calls [was: Is Stayman alertabl e in WBF/EBL events?] References: <018c01c2819a$aefda3c0$259868d5@default> <018c01c2819a$aefda3c0$259868d5@default> <4.3.2.7.0.20021101085747.00a98d20@pop.starpower.net> <011801c282c3$0cb1aec0$499c68d5@default> <002001c282db$ddb6f940$1c981e18@san.rr.com> <001c01c2831c$a52b5a80$639c68d5@default> Message-ID: <005d01c28354$751cabe0$639c68d5@default> [MadDog Probst] I always play mini there, to let my opponents use the French defence which is obviously licensed by the French as they always ask when we cross the channel. {Nigel Guthrie] What is the "French Defence" to mini? [Nigel 4] Oh no! Don't tell me! is it: Overall = natural X = 15+ Ask and pass = 12-14? From Minke Sun Nov 3 16:03:46 2002 From: Minke (Nanki Poo) Date: Sun, 3 Nov 2002 16:03:46 +0000 Subject: [blml] Cats In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Ed Reppert writes >We have asked our human to forward this to the list. > >On 11/1/02, Nanki Poo wrote: > >>Please can someone send the last list to Minke who will make the final >>adjustments to it! > >Done. We nominate Petronius the Arbiter as the new keeper of the list. Thanks to the three people who sent a copy of the list. Mrow *NP* -- Purrs and headbutts from: /\_/\ /\ /\ Nanki Poo =( ^*^ )= @ @ Minke ( | | ) =( + )= Pictures at http://blakjak.com/cat_pic2.htm (_~^ ^~ ~ From Minke Sun Nov 3 16:21:41 2002 From: Minke (Nanki Poo) Date: Sun, 3 Nov 2002 16:21:41 +0000 Subject: [blml] Cats In-Reply-To: References: <008b01c2754d$5e9a5760$6601a8c0@james> Message-ID: List of cats Mark Abraham Kittini Michael Albert Bob, Icky Picky RB Karen Allison Stella, Blanche, Stanley Dave Armstrong Cookie Louis Arnon Dorus, Edna, Frits, Gussy Brian Baresch Lao, Gaea Olivier Beauvillain * Dodee Adam Beneschan Mango MIA Matthias Berghaus Lester RB David Blizzard Herbie, Mittens Mike Bolster Jess Vitold Brushtunov Chia Everett Boyer Amber Art Brodsky * Ralph RB, Fritz RB, Cinnamon RB, Izzy RB, Peppermint RB, Elmo RB, Misty RB Pur Byantara Begung Wayne Burrows Fritzi, Nico Konrad Ciborowski Kocurzak Miauczurny Mary Crenshaw Dickens, Cecil Ray Crowe Mo RB, Vegas, Aspen Claude Dadoun Moustique Hirsch Davis Shadow, Smokey RB, Loki, Snaggs, Rufus Mike Dennis Casino Laval Du Breuil Picatou Simon Edler Incy Michael Farebrother Shadow EL, Tipsy EL Wally Farley Andrew RB, Templeton, Scratcher, Joy, Panda RB, Shaure, Edmund Eric Favager Poppy, Daisy, Smiffie, Ollie, Monty, Fluffy Walt Flory Punkin, Sami Marv French Mozart Anna Gudge EMale, Bear RB, Taggie, Joss EL Dany Haimovici Shobo, Rosario, Shemaya, Hershey, Spotty, Shuri, Dossie, Kippy, Pushpush, Hershon RB Paul & Pat Harrington Dopi, Bridget, Depo RB Robert Harris Paws RB, Monte MIA, Conrad RB, Babe RB, Betty RB, Bobbsie RB, Caruso EL Damian Hassan Bast, Katie, Tepsi, Baroo, Scrap, +1 Craig Hemphill Spook, Snuffy, Snuggles, Squeak, Cub Scout Richard Hull Endora, Putty Tat, Bill Bailey Sergey Kapustin Liza Laurie Kelso Bugs, Sheba MIA Irv Kostal Albert, Abby, Truman, Tuppence RB, Bill RB, Cleo EL, Sabrina RB Jack Kryst Bentley, Ava RB John Kuchenbrod RaRe, Leo Patrick Laborde Romeo Eric Landau Glorianna, Wesley, Shadow, Query Paul Lippens Rakker, Tijger, Sloeber Albert Lochli Killer Demeter Manning Nikolai, Zonker Rui Marques Bibi, Kenji, Satann John McIlrath Garfield, Mischief Brian Meadows Katy Ted Merrette Zippy Bruce Moore Sabrena Tony Musgrove Mitzi, Muffin Sue O'Donnell Yazzer-Cat RB, Casey RB Henk Pieters Jip, Janneke, Ketie Rand Pinsky Vino, Axel Rose, Talia, Keiko John Probst Gnipper, Figaro Ed Reppert Ayesha, Gracie, The Sarge, Buzz Jack Rhind TC (the cat) Tommy Sandsmark Lillepus RB, Bittepus, Snoppen Michael Schmahl Sophie Norman Scorbie Starsky RB, Hutch Bob Scruton Squeeky Craig Senior Streak, Shaney, Rascal, Stubby, Precious, Smoke, Scamp, Bandit, Shadow, Smokey Ed Shapiro Shelby, Althea Flemming B-Soerensen Flora, Rose RB Ian Spoors Zeus WV Grant Sterling Big Mac RB, Flash David Stevenson Quango RB, Nanki Poo, Ting RB, Pish RB, Tush RB, Tao MIA, Suk RB, Sophie EL, Minke Helen Thompson Tom, Tabby, Bubba Les West T.C., Trudy Anton Witzen Beer, Miepje Tom Wood Nikolai, Zonker plus, of course Selassie, Petronius RB is a cat waiting at Rainbow Bridge, MIA is a cat missing in action, EL is a cat on extended leave [ie staying with someone else known] and WV is a welcome visitor [ie lives elsewhere but visits on a regular basis]. Anyone who wishes to see the story of Rainbow Bridge can ask David for a copy, or look at the article on his Catpage at http://blakjak.com/rbridge.htm The story and a picture of Selassie is at http://blakjak.com/slssie.htm This list is the final one from Nanki Poo and Minke. If someone else wishes to keep it going please do so. Schrodinger's cat does not appear, but it has been suggested that if Schrodinger's cat is not on the list then that means that Schrodinger's cat is on the list ... Miiiiiiiaaaaaoouuuuwwwwww !!!!!!!!! Mrow *MK* *NP* -- Purrs and headbutts from: /\_/\ /\ /\ Nanki Poo =( ^*^ )= @ @ Minke ( | | ) =( + )= Pictures at http://blakjak.com/cat_pic2.htm (_~^ ^~ ~ From mfrench1@san.rr.com Sun Nov 3 18:52:27 2002 From: mfrench1@san.rr.com (Marvin L. French) Date: Sun, 3 Nov 2002 10:52:27 -0800 Subject: [blml] questions about future calls [was: Is Stayman alertabl e in WBF/EBL events?] References: <018c01c2819a$aefda3c0$259868d5@default> <018c01c2819a$aefda3c0$259868d5@default> <4.3.2.7.0.20021101085747.00a98d20@pop.starpower.net> <011801c282c3$0cb1aec0$499c68d5@default> <002001c282db$ddb6f940$1c981e18@san.rr.com> <001c01c2831c$a52b5a80$639c68d5@default> <005d01c28354$751cabe0$639c68d5@default> Message-ID: <001001c2836a$2a1b4f00$1c981e18@san.rr.com> From: "Nigel Guthrie" > [MadDog Probst] > I always play mini there, to let my opponents use > the French defence which is obviously licensed by > the French as they always ask when we cross the > channel. > {Nigel Guthrie] > What is the "French Defence" to mini? > [Nigel 4] > Oh no! Don't tell me! is it: > Overall = natural > X = 15+ > Ask and pass = 12-14? > If I remember right, there are four degrees of information that can be transmitted to partner. In ascending order of strength, they are: Don't ask, pass Ask, pass Ask, act Don't ask, act I am skeptical about the name "French Defence," as it reminds me that during wars between their countries the French called VD the English Disease, while the English called it the French Disease. The ACBL has countered this once-common defense against 1NT openings by requiring that the range of every such opening be Announced by partner. Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California From mfrench1@san.rr.com Sun Nov 3 19:05:09 2002 From: mfrench1@san.rr.com (Marvin L. French) Date: Sun, 3 Nov 2002 11:05:09 -0800 Subject: [blml] questions about future calls [was: Is Stayman alertabl e in WBF/EBL events?] References: <018c01c2819a$aefda3c0$259868d5@default> <018c01c2819a$aefda3c0$259868d5@default> <4.3.2.7.0.20021101085747.00a98d20@pop.starpower.net> <011801c282c3$0cb1aec0$499c68d5@default> <002001c282db$ddb6f940$1c981e18@san.rr.com> <001c01c2831c$a52b5a80$639c68d5@default> Message-ID: <001a01c2836c$434e3260$1c981e18@san.rr.com> From: "Nigel Guthrie" > Do you regard a Canape bid on a three card suit as > natural? I don't respond to the word "natural," which is not used in the Laws other than in an obscure footnote. A call is either a convention or it isn't. This is not a convention, so it may not legally be barred by a governing authority. Someone tell that to the ACBL, please. > Here it is alertable. As is logical. > I am intrigued as to > what would you open with S:Axxx H:Qxxx D:xxx C:AK? > and whether partner would alert? I open 1S, of course, and there is no Alert required hereabouts. We show 4-card majors as our "general approach." Weak players are opening 1C with 4=4=3=2 distribution, Announced by partner as "Could be short." When I mischievously inquire as to the circumstances in which it could be short, I get no coherent reply, as they don't understand the question. Please try to snip more, Nigel. You don't have to reproduce large portions of a message that you are not commenting on. Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California From mfrench1@san.rr.com Sun Nov 3 19:41:12 2002 From: mfrench1@san.rr.com (Marvin L. French) Date: Sun, 3 Nov 2002 11:41:12 -0800 Subject: [blml] BLML References: <005101c282b5$858b8540$2e1090d4@rabbit> Message-ID: <001f01c28370$fa21f360$1c981e18@san.rr.com> From: "Thomas Dehn" > David Stevenson wrote: > > Looking back on it I enjoyed BLML for some years. However, it got > > more rumbustious and a competitive element came in. I have never > > forgotten where I had a disagreement with someone. We traded comments, > > and it looked as though my arguments were getting stronger - and > > suddenly the other person told everyone it was a waste of time > > discussing, I knew nothing, the whole thing was pointless, and so on. I > > believe that BLML changed at that moment. People who were losing > > arguments before then lost gracefully [or just shut up]. Now they > > fight. > [... lots of snippage...] > > I agree with David, BLML is not as useful today > as it was in the early days, I notice myself deleting most > threads unread. I also agree with David that the flame > level is too high on BLML. I wish that when someone has had his/her say on a subject, that they would refrain from repeating their opinion over and over again. It is not really necessary to have the last word, is it? > > However, David, I also have the impression that you sometimes > felt attacked personally, or hurt, when somebody else just > disagreed with you, and your reaction to the disagreement > then was what fed the fire. David was a bit too thin-skinned at times, but that's David. We all have our faults. I once sent an e-mail to every ACBL TD who had an address, suggesting that they give BLML a try. Hardly any did, but I remember one who jumped into the fray with some strong opinions that were not accepted here. Many BLMLers jumped on this guy, puncturing his self-assurance while inflating their own, and soon he was gone. It would be better if we could handle such people more delicately. Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Sun Nov 3 20:08:06 2002 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Sun, 3 Nov 2002 20:08:06 -0000 Subject: [blml] questions about future calls [was: Is Stayman alertabl e in WBF/EBL events?] References: <018c01c2819a$aefda3c0$259868d5@default> <018c01c2819a$aefda3c0$259868d5@default> <4.3.2.7.0.20021101085747.00a98d20@pop.starpower.net> <011801c282c3$0cb1aec0$499c68d5@default> <002001c282db$ddb6f940$1c981e18@san.rr.com> <001c01c2831c$a52b5a80$639c68d5@default> <001a01c2836c$434e3260$1c981e18@san.rr.com> Message-ID: <005401c28374$be617c20$459568d5@default> [Marvin L French] I don't respond to the word "natural," which is not used in the Laws other than in an obscure footnote. A call is either a convention or it isn't. [Nigel 4] Fair enough. I find "Natural", "Conventional", "Artificial" etc.. to be useful if ill-defined distinctions. And I do regard a bid of 1C on a 2 or 3 card suit as "Artificial." [Nigel] I am intrigued as to what would you open with S:Axxx H:Qxxx D:xxx C:AK? and whether partner would alert? [Marvin] I open 1S, of course, and there is no Alert required hereabouts. We show 4-card majors as our "general approach." [Nigel 4] (: I thought all Americans play 5 card majors :) I play 4 card majors too, but I would open 1H. [Marvin] Weak players are opening 1C with 4=4=3=2 distribution, Announced by partner as "Could be short." When I mischievously inquire as to the circumstances in which it could be short, I get no coherent reply, as they don't understand the question. Please try to snip more, Nigel. You don't have to reproduce large portions of a message that you are not commenting on. [Nigel 4] I try not to quote too much but am wary of quoting people completely out of context. If you review the offending email you will see that I commented on practically every paragraph that I quoted ... ... As I have done here. From johnson@CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca Sun Nov 3 20:08:02 2002 From: johnson@CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca (Ron Johnson) Date: Sun, 3 Nov 2002 15:08:02 -0500 (EST) Subject: [blml] questions about future calls [was: Is Stayman alertabl e in WBF/EBL events?] In-Reply-To: <001601c281da$c2781b20$0300a8c0@mshome.net> from "David Barton" at Nov 01, 2002 07:13:25 PM Message-ID: <200211032008.PAA23149@gcpdb.ccrs.emr.ca> David Barton writes: > > > +=+ This last comment I do not understand. If > > the SO prescribes a convention card Law 40E > > provides that partnerships are to list their conventions > > and other agreements on it. If this convention was > > not listed on their CC there is a clear infraction of > > Law 40E on the part of East-West. The Director > > should apply the law and, if he considers that N-S > > have been damaged in conseqience of the violation > > of law, he has to award an adjusted score. Since > > the understanding is special and not to be anticipated > > I do not see how he could not adjust the score. > > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > > > > > Well I can just see Grattan telling "Meckwell" that of course > all 500 pages of their agreements have to appear on the > reverse of a standard convention card, as he rolls back > their successful slam on the grounds that they might not have > bid it IF their opponents had chosen a different bid at some stage > of the auction. Heh. More like 1100 pages. And counting. And constantly changing. Rodwell's a perfectionist. Mind you, it's not the constructive auctions I'd be concerned with. At least as long as the opposition is of sufficiently high calibre (and Meckwell don't play much against non-experts). The explanations I've seen are generally everything that could be asked of them -- including implications of calls not made. Meckwell are in and out of the auction, often at extreme risk. And they don't get nailed nearly as often as they "should" -- in no small part because the opposition often doesn't understand the implication of the calls chosen within the context of the system. There are quite literally hundreds of pages of notes on scrambling. A second risk to the opposition is that they redouble for business very frequently and are on unusually firm ground (even for world class players) as to when it's business, when it shows doubt and when it's SOS. Information that I know I'd want. And there's no way this kind of information can be carried on a convention card of any size. From twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Sun Nov 3 21:32:00 2002 From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Date: Sun, 3 Nov 2002 21:32 +0000 (GMT) Subject: 'Fully and freely available' : was Re: [blml] questions about futu Message-ID: In-Reply-To: Brain Meadows wrote: > > > >1. In club bridge even experienced partnerships have CCs which are a > basic >scrawl on the front of a scorecard. In online bridge the CCs > for such >partnerships are between 20 and 60 characters long (including > commas). > > > > I don't know which online service you're talking about, Tim, but > in my experience of OKBridge, I'd say that better than 50% of the > regular partnerships I've played against have reasonable CCs > *unless* they're playing one of the standard systems (SAYC or OKB > 2/1) with very few tweaks. That still leaves a reasonable percentage who don't. In fact I play on EBUOnline/BPL. CCs are, when people remember, typed into a one-line text box before play starts. People ask detailed questions when they feel the need. This is quick, efficient and effective. Occasionally questions create UI problems (but these are more likely to be accepted L20F legal ones than allegedly illegal ones). Tim From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Sun Nov 3 22:50:17 2002 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 4 Nov 2002 08:50:17 +1000 Subject: [blml] Godel, Escher and Bridge Message-ID: <4A256C66.007C05D2.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> [snip] >>The game is, and remains, the sum of its rules. >> >>David Burn >>London, England [snip] >Remains the question how to formulate the laws in >such a way that TD's do what the lawmakers want them >to do. Then we first need to know the intentions of >those lawmakers and generally accepted principles >supported by a large majority of the players. You >probably know that we removed 25B in the draft? > >ton David Burn's assertion that bridge has no existence separate from its rules, logically implies that bridge did not exist before 1997, when its Laws came into force. I prefer ton's platonic philosophy, believing that the *ideal* of bridge continues to exist, whether or not L25B exists at a particular time. Best wishes Richard From brian@wellsborocomputing.com Sun Nov 3 22:32:46 2002 From: brian@wellsborocomputing.com (Brian Meadows) Date: Sun, 03 Nov 2002 17:32:46 -0500 Subject: 'Fully and freely available' : was Re: [blml] questions about futu In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Sun, 3 Nov 2002 21:32 +0000 (GMT), Tim West-Meads wrote: >In-Reply-To: >Brain Meadows wrote: >> > >> >1. In club bridge even experienced partnerships have CCs which are a >> basic >scrawl on the front of a scorecard. In online bridge the CCs >> for such >partnerships are between 20 and 60 characters long (including >> commas). >> > >> >> I don't know which online service you're talking about, Tim, but >> in my experience of OKBridge, I'd say that better than 50% of the >> regular partnerships I've played against have reasonable CCs >> *unless* they're playing one of the standard systems (SAYC or OKB >> 2/1) with very few tweaks. > >That still leaves a reasonable percentage who don't. Agreed - in most cases, they will have a highly abbreviated list of conventions in their stats, mostly for use with pickup partners ("Your stats, pd" is a common system agreement on OKBridge) but I would agree with you that this isn't good enough for anything approaching a regular partnership. >In fact I play on >EBUOnline/BPL. CCs are, when people remember, typed into a one-line text >box before play starts. This seems to me to be a serious shortcoming in the software. For those who do fill them in, OKBridge offers (I think) the full ACBL CC, with extra provision for additional notes if needed. >People ask detailed questions when they feel the >need. This is quick, efficient and effective. Occasionally questions >create UI problems (but these are more likely to be accepted L20F legal >ones than allegedly illegal ones). > No different from OKBridge in that respect. Brian. -- Software development and computer consulting Brian Meadows Tel: 570-724-5172 Wellsboro Computing Services, Inc. Fax: 413-480-2709 RR#5, Box 5A, Wellsboro PA 16901 ICQ: 1981272 http://www.wellsborocomputing.com From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Sun Nov 3 23:37:42 2002 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 4 Nov 2002 09:37:42 +1000 Subject: [blml] Is lebensohl describable? (was Is Stayman alertable?) Message-ID: <4A256C66.00805F7A.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> Alain wrote: [snip] >Imagine this : opening 2D, alerted, first >explained as "weak 2-bid in hearts, possibly >good 5-carder with a 4-card minor, or any GF" >(that's the way I play it). Now the opponent >asks umpteen more questions, the last being >"thus, it is forcing?", to which I answer >affirmatively. Then he passes. > >Based on AI from the fact that he shows huge >interest on getting a second round of bidding, >I may well decide to pass this forcing bid. [snip] >Would you pretend I misdescribed the system? >Should I answer "it is unconditionally forcing, >except after an opponent has shown interest", >which wouldn't be an acceptable gadget IIRC. Yes, I would give that answer if I am the sort of undisciplined player who is willing to risk playing a game-force in a partscore. The opponents *must* be given timely information about an implicit agreement to possibly violate an explicit agreement. On the other hand, on very rare occasions this sort of auction has occurred: Me LHO Pard RHO 1H Pass 1NT(1) Pass Pass (1) Alerted, RHO asks and is told "artificial game force" Despite the apparently commonality with Alain's violation of system, there is a big difference. Alain has caught an opponent unawares by a arguably misleading explanation - I have caught all three opponents unawares by a misleading opening bid. Best wishes Richard From axman22@hotmail.com Sun Nov 3 19:45:30 2002 From: axman22@hotmail.com (Roger Pewick) Date: Sun, 3 Nov 2002 13:45:30 -0600 Subject: 'Fully and freely available' : was Re: [blml] questions about future calls References: <011102305.28810@webbox.com> <008e01c28206$07b7dce0$7ffb193e@4nrw70j> <3DC38EAF.7010003@skynet.be> <001c01c28251$9fc2c9a0$bb9b23d9@pbncomputer> <001d01c2825d$2d967640$16e7193e@4nrw70j> <3DC3C50D.8080203@skynet.be> Message-ID: ----- Original Message ----- From: "Herman De Wael" To: "blml" Sent: Saturday, November 02, 2002 6:29 AM Subject: Re: 'Fully and freely available' : was Re: [blml] questions about future calls > I don't like to be incompletely quoted and then left unanswered. > > grandeval wrote: > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "David Burn" > >>Herman wrote: > >> > >> > >>>I honestly don't understand why there can be a > >>>discussion about this. > >>> > >>And if Herman doesn't understand it, then it > >>cannot be. Let's call the whole thing off. > >> > >> > > +=+ And players are actually doing things the laws > > do not authorize? What an outrageous > > suggestion - coming from Herman, too.... > > > > (Actually, David, I don't know why there is a > > disussion about it.) +=+ > What I wrote was this : > What is so wrong with a law that says "you are entitled to know > everything, If it can not be expected that players can comply with the letter of the law successfully, it is not a sensible law to have. The law mentioned above is an example. > and in order to achieve that right you are allowed to ask > whatever question you want I will point out that it is normal for humans to fall down in making their methods available. So, if that insensible law is indeed mandatory and since boys will be boys there needs to be a mechanism to deal with it so that a MI case can be avoided. What mechanism is left except unbounded questions for when the offender has ignored the other mechanisms? So, Herman is right, if the insensible law is mandatory then it must be sensible to have unbounded questions to make up for offenders. regards roger pewick > (but be mindful of UI and illegal deception)". > I honestly don't understand why there can be a discussion about this. > David and Grattan have chosen to ignore the first sentence, left the > second and brushed me off with a "well, if Herman fails to see it he > must be blind". > So maybe I AM blind. > > Please tell me what would be wrong with a law such as the one I > proposed up there! > Herman DE WAEL From dalburn@btopenworld.com Sun Nov 3 23:01:29 2002 From: dalburn@btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: Sun, 3 Nov 2002 23:01:29 -0000 Subject: [blml] Godel, Escher and Bridge References: <4A256C66.007C05D2.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> Message-ID: <002801c2838c$f2dc9e40$bb9b23d9@pbncomputer> Richard wrote: > David Burn's assertion that bridge has no existence > separate from its rules, logically implies that bridge > did not exist before 1997, when its Laws came into > force. Does it? I would have thought that contrct bridge did not exist before whenever in the mid-20s it was when Vanderbilt invented the rules. Since then, it has continued to exist various different forms. > I prefer ton's platonic philosophy, believing that > the *ideal* of bridge continues to exist, whether or > not L25B exists at a particular time. Oh, the rules are an approximation to an ideal, certainly. But the rules, not the ideal, define the game we play. David Burn London, England From David Stevenson Sun Nov 3 23:15:06 2002 From: David Stevenson (David Stevenson) Date: Sun, 3 Nov 2002 23:15:06 +0000 Subject: [blml] BLML In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi John >Hmm, a pity DWS is leaving. most of what I learnt I learnt for him, and >most of what I learnt from him has made me a better director. > >Now, I suppose we'll be back to how many angels can dance on the head of >a pin. Thanks for your comments. I may look into BLML in some months time to see whether it has improved. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From mfrench1@san.rr.com Mon Nov 4 04:52:06 2002 From: mfrench1@san.rr.com (Marvin L. French) Date: Sun, 3 Nov 2002 20:52:06 -0800 Subject: [blml] questions about future calls [was: Is Stayman alertabl e in WBF/EBL events?] References: <200211032008.PAA23149@gcpdb.ccrs.emr.ca> Message-ID: <003c01c283bd$ef7d0240$1c981e18@san.rr.com> From: "Ron Johnson" < > > A second risk to the opposition is that they redouble for business very > frequently and are on unusually firm ground (even for world class > players) as to when it's business, when it shows doubt and when it's SOS. > Information that I know I'd want. And there's no way this kind of information > can be carried on a convention card of any size. > That's what Alerts are for. If a redouble is not definitely to play, or if an SOS redouble does not arise in a standard SOS situation, it is Alertable in ACBL-land. I don't feel the need to know in advance what all their redoubles are going to mean. Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California From ardelm@bigpond.net.au Mon Nov 4 06:28:42 2002 From: ardelm@bigpond.net.au (Tony Musgrove) Date: Mon, 04 Nov 2002 17:28:42 +1100 Subject: Fwd: Re: [blml] BLML Message-ID: <5.1.1.6.0.20021104172835.00b82948@pop-server.bigpond.net.au> >Date: Mon, 04 Nov 2002 16:06:25 +1100 >To: BLML >From: Tony Musgrove >Subject: Re: [blml] BLML > >I am another who has learnt more in 6 years taking BLML than in the >previous 20 years at >the coalface. A great deal of that is due to the writings of DWS, who will >be hard to replace as a guru whose authoritative opinion was awaited with >interest. Of course, nowadays, owing to the law of diminishing returns, I >no longer learn too much that is new. However, I still derive a lot of >enjoyment out of the posts which I fear are attracting some of the DWS >spleen. I cant imagine a breakfast without seeking out a well turned >David (B) phrase, or a Grattan quotation (I thought he had run out when he >broke into Latin once). It took me 3 days to translate and then I only >scored "Close - but no cigar". They just don't make people who do good >irony these days. I just love the internecine bitchiness of the UK >contingent. And then after a couple of cups of coffee, I can attempt to >tackle the labrinthine erudition of Richard's posts. (Why do we still >have concentration camps in Oz?) >Any then there is the humour. I nearly died hearing of the >humanitarianism of President Bush Sr. and now we learn of a thin skinned >TD. Where will it ever end? >I am sure Richard is already posing the question.. If DWS looks in on BLML >in 6 months time >and finds it has improved in his absence...What will that mean?? > >Must off and take my tablet. Memo to DWS, yours do not seem to be working. >I suggest you check your dosage. > >Back to work from > >Tony (Sydney) > > > > >At 11:15 PM 3/11/02 +0000, you wrote: >>Hi John >> >> >Hmm, a pity DWS is leaving. most of what I learnt I learnt for him, and >> >most of what I learnt from him has made me a better director. >> > >> >Now, I suppose we'll be back to how many angels can dance on the head of >> >a pin. >> >> Thanks for your comments. I may look into BLML in some months time to >>see whether it has improved. >> >>-- >>David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ >>Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ >> ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= >> Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ >> >>_______________________________________________ >>blml mailing list >>blml@rtflb.org >>http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From john@asimere.com Mon Nov 4 07:16:22 2002 From: john@asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Mon, 4 Nov 2002 07:16:22 +0000 Subject: [blml] questions about future calls [was: Is Stayman alertabl e in WBF/EBL events?] In-Reply-To: <005d01c28354$751cabe0$639c68d5@default> References: <018c01c2819a$aefda3c0$259868d5@default> <018c01c2819a$aefda3c0$259868d5@default> <4.3.2.7.0.20021101085747.00a98d20@pop.starpower.net> <011801c282c3$0cb1aec0$499c68d5@default> <002001c282db$ddb6f940$1c981e18@san.rr.com> <001c01c2831c$a52b5a80$639c68d5@default> <005d01c28354$751cabe0$639c68d5@default> Message-ID: <+lFkXIAG7hx9Ewxu@asimere.com> In article <005d01c28354$751cabe0$639c68d5@default>, Nigel Guthrie writes >[MadDog Probst] > I always play mini there, to let my opponents use > the French defence which is obviously licensed by > the French as they always ask when we cross the > channel. >{Nigel Guthrie] > What is the "French Defence" to mini? >[Nigel 4] > Oh no! Don't tell me! is it: > Overall = natural > X = 15+ > Ask and pass = 12-14? > you missed ask and double :) > > >_______________________________________________ >blml mailing list >blml@rtflb.org >http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > -- John (MadDog) Probst| . ! -^- |icq 10810798 451 Mile End Road | /|__. \:/ |OKb ChienFou London E3 4PA | / @ __) -|- |john@asimere.com +44-(0)20 8983 5818 | /\ --^ | |www.asimere.com/~john From cyaxares@lineone.net Mon Nov 4 07:21:41 2002 From: cyaxares@lineone.net (Grattan Endicott) Date: Mon, 4 Nov 2002 07:21:41 -0000 Subject: 'Fully and freely available' : was Re: [blml] questions about future calls References: <001201c2832f$88b12ed0$ed52e150@endicott> <003601c28345$dd3ade40$639c68d5@default> Message-ID: <000f01c283d2$ef87cb20$4d33e150@endicott> Grattan Endicott To: "BLML" Sent: Sunday, November 03, 2002 2:32 PM Subject: Re: 'Fully and freely available' : was Re: [blml] questions about future calls > {Grattan Endicott] > I do not believe there is an absolute answer to > the problem; it is a matter for the judgment of > those who settle the rules. > {Nigel Guthrie] > Were we discussing religious doctrine or absolute > justice or some such then players might have more > sympathy with Grattan's view; but like David Burn, > we regard Bridge as a game (albeit a weird and > wonderful game) -- and games thrive on simple > rules that most can understand. > +=+ My view is that at present we have a game and it has rules. The game must be played according to its rules. We are not entitled to make up our own rules as we go, nor to reinterpret them against the interpretationsthat are authorized. The rules They are not as clear as we would like, the game has moved on, too since they were last brefashioned, but all this is a subject for the future; for the time being they are what they are - and a decision has been taken not to change them until 2005 or later, depending on completion of the Review. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From hermandw@skynet.be Mon Nov 4 08:20:47 2002 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 04 Nov 2002 09:20:47 +0100 Subject: 'Fully and freely available' : was Re: [blml] questions about future calls References: <011102305.28810@webbox.com> <008e01c28206$07b7dce0$7ffb193e@4nrw70j> <3DC38EAF.7010003@skynet.be> <001c01c28251$9fc2c9a0$bb9b23d9@pbncomputer> <001d01c2825d$2d967640$16e7193e@4nrw70j> <3DC3C50D.8080203@skynet.be> Message-ID: <3DC62DDF.8040003@skynet.be> Sorry Roger, but this is just nonsense: Roger Pewick wrote: > >>What I wrote was this : >>What is so wrong with a law that says "you are entitled to know >>everything, >> > > If it can not be expected that players can comply with the letter of the > law successfully, it is not a sensible law to have. The law mentioned > above is an example. > How can one comply (or not comply) with a law that merely grants a right? "You have the right of free speech". There is no way anyone can comply with this. It can be broken, but never complied with. > >>and in order to achieve that right you are allowed to ask >>whatever question you want >> > > I will point out that it is normal for humans to fall down in making > their methods available. So, if that insensible law is indeed mandatory > and since boys will be boys there needs to be a mechanism to deal with > it so that a MI case can be avoided. What mechanism is left except > unbounded questions for when the offender has ignored the other > mechanisms? So, Herman is right, if the insensible law is mandatory > then it must be sensible to have unbounded questions to make up for > offenders. > Roger is of course right in agreeing with me here. > regards > roger pewick > > >>(but be mindful of UI and illegal deception)". >>I honestly don't understand why there can be a discussion about this. >> > >>David and Grattan have chosen to ignore the first sentence, left the >>second and brushed me off with a "well, if Herman fails to see it he >>must be blind". >>So maybe I AM blind. >> >>Please tell me what would be wrong with a law such as the one I >>proposed up there! >> > > >>Herman DE WAEL >> > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From ted@milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov Fri Nov 1 18:52:47 2002 From: ted@milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov (Ted Ying) Date: Fri, 1 Nov 2002 13:52:47 -0500 (EST) Subject: [blml] BLML In-Reply-To: from "David Stevenson" at Nov 01, 2002 05:55:54 PM Message-ID: <200211011852.gA1Iqlm16913@milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov> David, Sorry to hear that you will be leaving BLML. I do agree with your arguments. I am one of those "lurkers" that periodically delurks to respond to a thread. Frequently, I have been personally attacked or insulted for expressing my opinion. I have been told that people hope they never play in any of my games, that I can't be very intelligent to think like that, that I clearly don't understand the laws and many other things. It's one of the reasons that I tend to wait for topics that I have strong opinions on before I respond. It's a shame that people have to feel afraid of that type of response before posting on a forum that should be for general discussion. Hopefully some of the more indendiary posters will take your note as a wake-up call. Unfortunately, like many other abusers, they probably won't recognize themselves and will think "oh, it's the other guy..." Thanks for your views on previous topics and I hope that at some point in the future, the tone lightens up enough to bring you back. -Ted Ying. > From: David Stevenson > Date: Fri, 1 Nov 2002 17:55:54 +0000 > > > Good-bye, and thanks to the majority for the discussions. > From HauffHJ@aol.com Sun Nov 3 08:15:56 2002 From: HauffHJ@aol.com (HauffHJ@aol.com) Date: Sun, 3 Nov 2002 03:15:56 EST Subject: [blml] (Kein Thema) Message-ID: <72.254a35d8.2af6353c@aol.com> --part1_72.254a35d8.2af6353c_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hallo friends of the bridge game. I understand the blml subsribers are interested in promotion of our game. There are several topics which will serve to this end. Here is one of the ways to better bridge. It refers to LAW 78, where lots of interpretation have strong effects in findig the winner and strategies in play. Bidding and play is in permanent evolution. The same goes for Scoring devices, as Electrical Data Processing grants the use of calculation methods yet not known, or known in theorie only. I put into your hands a scoring device (no pay). which gives choice to different evaluation methods. You can see the effects of different scoring methods by pushing configuration buttons, after input of any regular tournament data. By this letter, a actual subscriber of the BLML is authorised to use the programm "Scorer#1" free of license fee on two engines of your choice . You may download from www.scorer123.com. Keep this email as proof. You will find full information under www.bridgeassistant.com As to my person look under http://members.aol.com/HauffHJ If you wish to contact me in person please give as reference "law78blml", other emails will be spammed out. Paul Hauff, email HauffHJ@aol.com, street address: 61231 Bad Nauheim, Germany, Benekestr. 5 www.bridgeassistant.com www.scorer123.com - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - --part1_72.254a35d8.2af6353c_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Hallo friends of the bridge game.

I understand the blml subsribers are interested in
promotion of our game. There are several topics which will serve to this end.
Here is one of the ways to better bridge.
It refers to LAW 78, where lots of interpretation have
strong effects in findig the winner and strategies in play.

Bidding and play is in permanent evolution. The same goes for
Scoring devices, as Electrical Data Processing grants the use
of calculation methods yet not known, or known in
theorie only.

I put into your hands a scoring device (no pay).
which gives choice to different evaluation methods.
You can see the effects of different scoring methods
by pushing configuration buttons, after input of any
regular tournament data.

By this letter, a actual subscriber of the BLML  is
authorised to use  the programm "Scorer#1"
free of  license fee on two engines
of your choice . You may download  from
www.scorer123.com. Keep this email as proof.

You will find  full  information under
www.bridgeassistant.com
As to my person look under
http://members.aol.com/HauffHJ
If you wish to contact me in person please
give as reference "law78blml", other
emails will be spammed out.


Paul Hauff, email HauffHJ@aol.com,
street address: 61231 Bad Nauheim, Germany, Benekestr. 5
www.bridgeassistant.com
www.scorer123.com
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - --part1_72.254a35d8.2af6353c_boundary-- From Schoderb@aol.com Sun Nov 3 23:25:31 2002 From: Schoderb@aol.com (Schoderb@aol.com) Date: Sun, 3 Nov 2002 18:25:31 EST Subject: 'Fully and freely available' : was Re: [blml] questions about future calls Message-ID: <105.1ed8d09a.2af70a6b@aol.com> --part1_105.1ed8d09a.2af70a6b_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 11/3/2002 10:13:56 AM Eastern Standard Time, hermandw@skynet.be writes: > As far as I am concerned, this thread has ended with a satisfactory > closure. Which does not mean I believe we have read the last of it, > nor that I believe I have written the last on it. > > Wanna bet? =K= --part1_105.1ed8d09a.2af70a6b_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 11/3/2002 10:13:56 AM Eastern Standard Time, hermandw@skynet.be writes:

As far as I am concerned, this thread has ended with a satisfactory
closure. Which does not mean I believe we have read the last of it,
nor that I believe I have written the last on it.



Wanna bet?
=K= --part1_105.1ed8d09a.2af70a6b_boundary-- From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Mon Nov 4 01:15:37 2002 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 4 Nov 2002 11:15:37 +1000 Subject: [blml] Law 75 Message-ID: <4A256C67.00057D8A.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> --0__=LZa9JmtfOgMPSkgL4BN2vdrbTC8vllwy8DWdDSzJkQq0Tmrm6kKXzqsv Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline >>>+=+ In my experience when the game is at a level >>>higher than a social level or that in most clubs, the >>>mere assertion of players is not accepted as sufficient; >>>evidence on the CC or in the system file is normally >>>required. At the table the question of the sufficiency >>>of the evidence is one for the TD to judge, which he >>>will do in accordance with any guidelines or >>>training that he may have been given. >>> ~ Grattan ~ +=+ The American Nationals in Las Vegas were theoretically higher than a social level. Case Thirty-Seven: [snip] >>Despite the strangeness of South --0__=LZa9JmtfOgMPSkgL4BN2vdrbTC8vllwy8DWdDSzJkQq0Tmrm6kKXzqsv Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable Content-type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline 's bid, the Committee >>believed that North had explained his partnership's >>agreement accurately, and that South had simply taken a >>flyer. The statements made at the table by N/S to the >>Director, the length of their partnership, and their >>relative lack of experience all pointed to South's >>having taken an unusual action rather than his having >>made a systemic conventional bid of some type. The >>Committee found that there had been no MI and >>allowed the table result to stand. In commenting on the AC accepting the mere assertion of North, Bobby Wolff wrote: >A truly awful decision. Why give the benefit of the doubt >to possible offenders and why does that misbid versus >misexplanation continue to come up? [snip] >allowing such awful MI to go unpunished is harmful to our >game. Are Grattan Endicott and Bobby Wolff of one mind in this case Thirty-Seven? Or does Grattan wish to draw a distinction with Bobby Wolff's view, due to the use of the words "normally" and "judge" in Grattan's posting? Best wishes Richard = --0__=LZa9JmtfOgMPSkgL4BN2vdrbTC8vllwy8DWdDSzJkQq0Tmrm6kKXzqsv-- From ardelm@bigpond.net.au Mon Nov 4 05:06:25 2002 From: ardelm@bigpond.net.au (Tony Musgrove) Date: Mon, 04 Nov 2002 16:06:25 +1100 Subject: [blml] BLML In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5.1.1.6.0.20021104155107.00b54188@pop-server.bigpond.net.au> I am another who has learnt more in 6 years taking BLML than in the previous 20 years at the coalface. A great deal of that is due to the writings of DWS, who will be hard to replace as a guru whose authoritative opinion was awaited with interest. Of course, nowadays, owing to the law of diminishing returns, I no longer learn too much that is new. However, I still derive a lot of enjoyment out of the posts which I fear are attracting some of the DWS spleen. I cant imagine a breakfast without seeking out a well turned David (B) phrase, or a Grattan quotation (I thought he had run out when he broke into Latin once). It took me 3 days to translate and then I only scored "Close - but no cigar". They just don't make people who do good irony these days. I just love the internecine bitchiness of the UK contingent. And then after a couple of cups of coffee, I can attempt to tackle the labrinthine erudition of Richard's posts. (Why do we still have concentration camps in Oz?) Any then there is the humour. I nearly died hearing of the humanitarianism of President Bush Sr. and now we learn of a thin skinned TD. Where will it ever end? I am sure Richard is already posing the question.. If DWS looks in on BLML in 6 months time and finds it has improved in his absence...What will that mean?? Must off and take my tablet. Memo to DWS, yours do not seem to be working. I suggest you check your dosage. Back to work from Tony (Sydney) At 11:15 PM 3/11/02 +0000, you wrote: >Hi John > > >Hmm, a pity DWS is leaving. most of what I learnt I learnt for him, and > >most of what I learnt from him has made me a better director. > > > >Now, I suppose we'll be back to how many angels can dance on the head of > >a pin. > > Thanks for your comments. I may look into BLML in some months time to >see whether it has improved. > >-- >David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ >Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ > ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= > Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ > >_______________________________________________ >blml mailing list >blml@rtflb.org >http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From cyaxares@lineone.net Mon Nov 4 08:34:47 2002 From: cyaxares@lineone.net (Grattan Endicott) Date: Mon, 4 Nov 2002 08:34:47 -0000 Subject: [blml] BLML References: <5.1.1.6.0.20021104172835.00b82948@pop-server.bigpond.net.au> Message-ID: <004301c283dd$43bb13a0$4d33e150@endicott> Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Monday, November 04, 2002 6:28 AM Subject: Fwd: Re: [blml] BLML > >I am sure Richard is already posing the question. > > If DWS looks in on BLML in 6 months time and > > finds it has improved in his absence...What will > > that mean?? > > > > Must off and take my tablet. Memo to DWS, > > yours do not seem to be working. I suggest > > you check your dosage. > > +=+ David should be feeling more loved now than he did a week ago. He is thin skinned; but if you have heard Directors are not sensitive, vulnerable souls, put the thought aside - they feel, they herd together for protection and support, they kick themselves in frustration over their own failings, they weep in their bedrooms, in sum they could even be human. And if David suddenly feels hurt by the brutality of some reply, he should look again and know that he has thrust under the writer's guard and drawn blood. Blml is a turbulent, choppy channel at times, people ride hobby horses, tilt at each other, show their frailties and their incapacity to change. But so what? - its great success is in bringing out the misconceptions that subscribers have and subjecting them to rather more scrutiny than they merit. We do not remove them from their permanent owners, but at least the thinking clergy have notice of false prophecies. And, just once in a while, ton, kojak, or even I, will take a second look at the historical truths and ask ourselves if we could do better (without ever, of course, conceding that we were wrong). Come back, David, and we'll forgive you. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Mon Nov 4 10:16:01 2002 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Mon, 4 Nov 2002 10:16:01 -0000 Subject: [blml] questions about future calls [was: Is Stayman alertabl e in WBF/EBL events?] References: <018c01c2819a$aefda3c0$259868d5@default> <018c01c2819a$aefda3c0$259868d5@default> <4.3.2.7.0.20021101085747.00a98d20@pop.starpower.net> <011801c282c3$0cb1aec0$499c68d5@default> <002001c282db$ddb6f940$1c981e18@san.rr.com> <001c01c2831c$a52b5a80$639c68d5@default> <005d01c28354$751cabe0$639c68d5@default> <+lFkXIAG7hx9Ewxu@asimere.com> Message-ID: <003901c283eb$338802a0$959868d5@default> >{Nigel Guthrie] > What is the "French Defence" to mini? > Oh no! Don't tell me! is it: > Overall = natural > X = 15+ > Ask and pass = 12-14? {MadDog Probst] you missed ask and double :) [Nigel] (: Ahh right. In accord with Marvin's & your instructions I have updated my CC as follows :) Pass = 0-9 Ask & pass = 10-12 X = 16+ Ask & double = 13-15 Overall = Intermed Ask & overall = Weak From axman22@hotmail.com Mon Nov 4 12:16:26 2002 From: axman22@hotmail.com (Roger Pewick) Date: Mon, 4 Nov 2002 06:16:26 -0600 Subject: 'Fully and freely available' : was Re: [blml] questions about future calls References: <011102305.28810@webbox.com> <008e01c28206$07b7dce0$7ffb193e@4nrw70j> <3DC38EAF.7010003@skynet.be> <001c01c28251$9fc2c9a0$bb9b23d9@pbncomputer> <001d01c2825d$2d967640$16e7193e@4nrw70j> <3DC3C50D.8080203@skynet.be> <3DC62DDF.8040003@skynet.be> Message-ID: ----- Original Message ----- From: "Herman De Wael" To: "blml" Sent: Monday, November 04, 2002 2:20 AM Subject: Re: 'Fully and freely available' : was Re: [blml] questions about future calls > Sorry Roger, but this is just nonsense: I take it that players have the right to tell their opponents everything about the system they use; alternatively they need not exercise the right. That is what you have just said, is it not? What I was sure was being talked about was that players have an obligation by law to make available everything about their system. This entitlement, as you refer to it, imposes work and effort on others. Perhaps I can do no better than refer you to David Burn's thoughts on the difficulty that results from requiring everything to be spewed forth. > Roger Pewick wrote: > > > > >>What I wrote was this : > >>What is so wrong with a law that says "you are entitled to know > >>everything, > > If it can not be expected that players can comply with the letter of the > > law successfully, it is not a sensible law to have. The law mentioned > > above is an example. > How can one comply (or not comply) with a law that merely grants a > right? "You have the right of free speech". There is no way anyone can > comply with this. It can be broken, but never complied with. > >>and in order to achieve that right you are allowed to ask > >>whatever question you want > > I will point out that it is normal for humans to fall down in making > > their methods available. So, if that insensible law is indeed mandatory > > and since boys will be boys there needs to be a mechanism to deal with > > it so that a MI case can be avoided. What mechanism is left except > > unbounded questions for when the offender has ignored the other > > mechanisms? So, Herman is right, if the insensible law is mandatory > > then it must be sensible to have unbounded questions to make up for > > offenders. > Roger is of course right in agreeing with me here. I am not sure the world will view it as progress that Herman agrees with my views. What I have said is that to require everything to be made available to opponents by law is insensible. That means that it is not the right thing to require of players. I went further though. If the insensible premise is adopted then the insensibility can only be overcome by unbounded questions- overcome practically, that is. regards roger pewick > > regards > > roger pewick > > > > > >>(but be mindful of UI and illegal deception)". > >>I honestly don't understand why there can be a discussion about this. > >>David and Grattan have chosen to ignore the first sentence, left the > >>second and brushed me off with a "well, if Herman fails to see it he > >>must be blind". > >>So maybe I AM blind. > >> > >>Please tell me what would be wrong with a law such as the one I > >>proposed up there! > >>Herman DE WAEL > Herman DE WAEL From hermandw@skynet.be Mon Nov 4 12:30:19 2002 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 04 Nov 2002 13:30:19 +0100 Subject: 'Fully and freely available' : was Re: [blml] questions about future calls References: <011102305.28810@webbox.com> <008e01c28206$07b7dce0$7ffb193e@4nrw70j> <3DC38EAF.7010003@skynet.be> <001c01c28251$9fc2c9a0$bb9b23d9@pbncomputer> <001d01c2825d$2d967640$16e7193e@4nrw70j> <3DC3C50D.8080203@skynet.be> <3DC62DDF.8040003@skynet.be> Message-ID: <3DC6685B.9070905@skynet.be> Hello Roger, Roger Pewick wrote: > >>Sorry Roger, but this is just nonsense: >> > > I take it that players have the right to tell their opponents everything > about the system they use; alternatively they need not exercise the > right. That is what you have just said, is it not? What I was sure was > being talked about was that players have an obligation by law to make > available everything about their system. This entitlement, as you refer > to it, imposes work and effort on others. Perhaps I can do no better > than refer you to David Burn's thoughts on the difficulty that results > from requiring everything to be spewed forth. > > You are using the word right in a completely wrong context here, and in your previous message. PLayers don't have the right to tell everything - they might have an obligation to do so. That obligation is impossible to realize, and if that is what you are saying, we are in agreement. However, the laws do NOT actually speak of this obligation. Rather, they give a right to the opponents - that of knowing everything. In order to achieve that right, full questioning must be possible. [snip] > >>Roger is of course right in agreeing with me here. >> > > I am not sure the world will view it as progress that Herman agrees with > my views. > or vice versa. > What I have said is that to require everything to be made available to > opponents by law is insensible. agreed, but that was not what I meant by a right to full disclosure. > That means that it is not the right > thing to require of players. I went further though. If the insensible > premise is adopted then the insensibility can only be overcome by > unbounded questions- overcome practically, that is. > Again, we arrive at the same conclusion by somewhat different means. > regards > roger pewick > > >>>regards >>>roger pewick >>> >>> >>> >>>>(but be mindful of UI and illegal deception)". >>>>I honestly don't understand why there can be a discussion about >>>> > this. > > >>>>David and Grattan have chosen to ignore the first sentence, left the >>>>second and brushed me off with a "well, if Herman fails to see it he >>>>must be blind". >>>>So maybe I AM blind. >>>> >>>>Please tell me what would be wrong with a law such as the one I >>>>proposed up there! >>>> > >>>>Herman DE WAEL >>>> > >>Herman DE WAEL >> > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From axman22@hotmail.com Mon Nov 4 13:06:22 2002 From: axman22@hotmail.com (Roger Pewick) Date: Mon, 4 Nov 2002 07:06:22 -0600 Subject: 'Fully and freely available' : was Re: [blml] questions about future calls References: <011102305.28810@webbox.com> <008e01c28206$07b7dce0$7ffb193e@4nrw70j> <3DC38EAF.7010003@skynet.be> <001c01c28251$9fc2c9a0$bb9b23d9@pbncomputer> <001d01c2825d$2d967640$16e7193e@4nrw70j> <3DC3C50D.8080203@skynet.be> <3DC62DDF.8040003@skynet.be> <3DC6685B.9070905@skynet.be> Message-ID: Herman, I was talking of obligation and you said I was talking of rights; And, I was talking nonsense. So, in order to not talk nonsense the conclusion was that players have the right to make everything available about their system. I point to L75A's use of the word must and assert that it refers to an obligation upon players, as it creates a right of opponents by inference. regaards roger pewick + ----- Original Message ----- From: "Herman De Wael" To: "blml" Sent: Monday, November 04, 2002 6:30 AM Subject: Re: 'Fully and freely available' : was Re: [blml] questions about future calls > Hello Roger, > > Roger Pewick wrote: > > > > >>Sorry Roger, but this is just nonsense: > >> > > > > I take it that players have the right to tell their opponents everything > > about the system they use; alternatively they need not exercise the > > right. That is what you have just said, is it not? What I was sure was > > being talked about was that players have an obligation by law to make > > available everything about their system. This entitlement, as you refer > > to it, imposes work and effort on others. Perhaps I can do no better > > than refer you to David Burn's thoughts on the difficulty that results > > from requiring everything to be spewed forth. > > > > > > > You are using the word right in a completely wrong context here, and > in your previous message. PLayers don't have the right to tell > everything - they might have an obligation to do so. That obligation > is impossible to realize, and if that is what you are saying, we are > in agreement. However, the laws do NOT actually speak of this > obligation. Rather, they give a right to the opponents - that of > knowing everything. In order to achieve that right, full questioning > must be possible. > > > [snip] > > > > > >>Roger is of course right in agreeing with me here. > >> > > > > I am not sure the world will view it as progress that Herman agrees with > > my views. > > > > > or vice versa. > > > > What I have said is that to require everything to be made available to > > opponents by law is insensible. > > > agreed, but that was not what I meant by a right to full disclosure. > > > > > That means that it is not the right > > thing to require of players. I went further though. If the insensible > > premise is adopted then the insensibility can only be overcome by > > unbounded questions- overcome practically, that is. > > > > > Again, we arrive at the same conclusion by somewhat different means. > > > > regards > > roger pewick > > > > > >>>regards > >>>roger pewick > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>>>(but be mindful of UI and illegal deception)". > >>>>I honestly don't understand why there can be a discussion about > >>>> > > this. > > > > > >>>>David and Grattan have chosen to ignore the first sentence, left the > >>>>second and brushed me off with a "well, if Herman fails to see it he > >>>>must be blind". > >>>>So maybe I AM blind. > >>>> > >>>>Please tell me what would be wrong with a law such as the one I > >>>>proposed up there! > >>>> > > > >>>>Herman DE WAEL > >>>> > > > >>Herman DE WAEL > Herman DE WAEL From dalburn@btopenworld.com Mon Nov 4 13:14:29 2002 From: dalburn@btopenworld.com (dalburn@btopenworld.com) Date: Mon, 4 Nov 2002 13:14:29 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [blml] Re: 'Fully and freely available' Message-ID: <2991270.1036415669431.JavaMail.root@127.0.0.1> Herman wrote: >What is so wrong with a law that says "you are entitled to know everything, and in order to achieve that right you are allowed to ask whatever question you want (but be mindful of UI and illegal deception)". The same thing that would be wrong with a law that says: "you are allowed to drive wherever you like, but be mindful not to cause accidents." David Burn London, England From ehaa@starpower.net Mon Nov 4 13:24:29 2002 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 04 Nov 2002 08:24:29 -0500 Subject: [blml] questions about future calls In-Reply-To: References: <3DC2E74C.2010203@skynet.be> <1036155572.3dc27ab46a783@webmail.mit.edu> <3DC2E74C.2010203@skynet.be> Message-ID: <4.3.2.7.0.20021104081052.00ad1820@pop.starpower.net> At 05:27 PM 11/1/02, John wrote: >I am a fierce proponent (as a player) of the concept that regardless of >the UI produced, MI is not acceptable in any form. Tim West-Meads has >argued cogently and well that he would like to know the opponents >methods before taking an action (a view which as a player I support), >and that the current regulations mean that there is a clear advantage in >providing a minimalist cc. To provide all relevant info is impossible, >as even well written 100 page system notes won't necessarily cover the >bases. > >David Burn has argued cogently and well that there are times when you >are entitled to information and there are times when you aren't. He has >argued that there are times when you are entitled to all information and >there are times when your entitlement is restricted. > >With the law as it stands David's position is unassailable. It's sad, >very sad, but I see little alternative but to maintain the status quo. >Even though MI is abhorent to me, the paranoids (we think everyone's a >cheat) will have their day and will have their way. Law20F had better >stay as it is. ISTM that paranoia would lead to being against the status quo here. We currently disallow a particular class of questions which would be fairly uncommon in any case. Someone who is asking out of a genuine need for the answer in order to best choose an action is out of luck and has no recourse. Whereas someone who is asking in a deliberate attempt to convey UI to their partner can always find some other, legal, question that will do the job just as effectively. Only those who would ask for legitimate, ethical reasons are being disadvantaged. If the paranoids have any logical concern, it stems, as John points out, from the incentive the status quo provides to those willing to take any legal advantage to keep the amount of information disclosed on their CC to the least they can get away with. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 From jimfox00@cox.net Mon Nov 4 13:53:57 2002 From: jimfox00@cox.net (jimfox00@cox.net) Date: Mon, 4 Nov 2002 8:53:57 -0500 Subject: Fwd: Re: [blml] BLML Message-ID: <20021104135352.GSXX5053.lakemtao06.cox.net@smtp.central.cox.net> I respect David Stevenson's bridge abilities as much or more than anybody does. What I don't care for is these situations that frequently occur on newsgroups and discussion lists where longtime posters or members "quit" the group and then a bunch of other people (in postings to the group in which the person has just said they no longer wish to participate) do long-winded eulogies for them or try to persuade them to change their mind(s) . They are not dead. Just write to them privately. Notwithstanding the fact, of course, as always, I feel anyone is free to post what they like. Just my two cents to keep this group from heading toward "soap opera-dum" like many do. Its one of many forms of newsgroup "degeneracy" where talking about people seems to become more important than talking about ideas. Mmbridge From svenpran@online.no Mon Nov 4 14:18:47 2002 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon, 4 Nov 2002 15:18:47 +0100 Subject: [blml] Re: 'Fully and freely available' References: <2991270.1036415669431.JavaMail.root@127.0.0.1> Message-ID: <000b01c2840d$178be2c0$70d8fea9@WINXP> ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Sent: Monday, November 04, 2002 2:14 PM Subject: [blml] Re: 'Fully and freely available' > Herman wrote: > > >What is so wrong with a law that says "you are entitled to know > everything, and in order to achieve that right you are allowed to ask whatever question you want (but be mindful of UI and illegal deception)". > > The same thing that would be wrong with a law that says: "you are allowed to drive wherever you like, but be mindful not to cause accidents." > > David Burn > London, England Isn't that almost exactly what the law says in most countries (completed with a few more rules and regulations)? Since we are already off the subject: When the Norwegian road act received royal consent the minister read (as is customary) the law and came to §3: "Everybody shall travel with caution and be observant and careful so that no damage or danger is caused and so that other traffic is not unneccesarily hampered or disturbed. Travellers shall also pay respect to those who live or stay next to the road." The minister continued: "And then we have the next paragraph" to which the King interrupted: "Do we need anything more?" (Note: That §3 is included in almost every criminal charge on reckless driving etc. in Norway) regards Sven From ehaa@starpower.net Mon Nov 4 14:20:34 2002 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 04 Nov 2002 09:20:34 -0500 Subject: 'Fully and freely available' : was Re: [blml] questions about future calls In-Reply-To: <009a01c2821d$c6abb740$bb9b23d9@pbncomputer> References: <011102305.28810@webbox.com> <008e01c28206$07b7dce0$7ffb193e@4nrw70j> Message-ID: <4.3.2.7.0.20021104084245.00bb4870@pop.starpower.net> At 10:13 PM 11/1/02, David wrote: >Well, nobody could have anticipated that a bunch of noble and entirely >impractical sentiments was somehow going to be made just as much a part >of the rules as the bit that says spades are a higher-ranking suit than >hearts. It is possible that, when the proposal was made that this bunch >of noble and entirely impractical sentiments actually acquire the force >of law, someone might have checked them to see whether or not this would >create inconsistencies. But no one did check, and we are now dealing >with the inconsistencies. If we're going to rectify this, it seems to me >that the simplest thing to do is to acknowledge that the rules were >there first, to put them back again, and to consign the b.o.n.a.e.i.s to >the dustbin of history. The reason nobody anticipated that is that if one applies a modicum of common sense to one's understanding of those sentiments, it is not impractical at all. We're not talking of some absolute literal right to full and free disclosure at any time; nobody thinks TFLB entitles you to call someone who is at home asleep at 3:00 AM to inquire about their bidding system. We're talking about a common-sense right to full and free disclosure, which dictates that you are entitled to obtain whatever information you might need about the opponents' bidding system in order to choose your next action on a given deal by the time the choice must be made. AFAICT from the discussion so far, the only exception to the latter to be found in the current version of TFLB is the restriction at issue on asking hypothetical questions after the start of the auction that the WBF tells us is imposed by L20F. I am convinced from my personal experience that (at least in the circles I play in) at most a small fraction of 1% of players have any idea that such a restriction exists. Such questions are routinely (if infrequently) asked, and just as routinely answered, and no practical difficulties result. Players overwhelmingly assume that the rules *are* consonent with the "common sense" version of the principle of full and free disclosure, they act on that understanding, they see no practical difficulties whatsoever raised by their doing so, and they are entirely satisfied with both the legal and practical consequences of their misunderstanding. Removing the restriction on hypotheticals in L20F1 would bring all of TFLB into consistency with a fundamental principle that virtually all players today believe, albeit erroneously, to be fundamental to our laws. The practical consequences of doing so would be nil, so doing so can hardly be called "impractical". It is failing to do so that will have undesirable practical consequences, as bridge lawyers learn of the existence of this "L20F1 loophole" and refuse to answer questions that the less bridge-legally sophisticated around them believe to be perfectly legitimate, creating situations and hassles that we would, both practically and otherwise, be better off without. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 From dalburn@btopenworld.com Mon Nov 4 14:33:59 2002 From: dalburn@btopenworld.com (dalburn@btopenworld.com) Date: Mon, 4 Nov 2002 14:33:59 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [blml] 'Fully and freely available' Message-ID: <1819501.1036420439266.JavaMail.root@127.0.0.1> Sven wrote: > > The same thing that would be wrong with a law that says: "you are allowed to drive wherever you like, but be mindful not to cause accidents." > Isn't that almost exactly what the law says in most countries (completed with a few more rules and regulations)? I don't know. If the road ahead of you is empty in Norway, are you allowed to start driving on the left? Can you suddenly go twice as fast as the speed limit? Can you go through red lights? Or is this what you mean by "a few more rules and regulations"? You can't do what you like, even though it may be an infringement of your right to personal freedom, and even if by doing it you wouldn't hurt anyone. If you drive at 100 miles an hour on an empty road and don't hit anyone, you will still be prosecuted and fined. Similarly, if you ask a question about future possible events and don't pass UI or fool the opponents or waste any time, you will still be ruled against. I really don't understand what Eric is on about in his post, which is unusual, because he makes sense an awful lot of the time. If 99% of "Herman questions" don't waste time, or pass UI, or fool the opponents, it might (and in my opinion is) still be worth preventing the other 1% from being asked. David Burn London, England From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Mon Nov 4 14:49:46 2002 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Mon, 4 Nov 2002 14:49:46 -0000 Subject: [blml] Is Stayman alertable in WBF/EBL events? References: <4.3.2.7.0.20021029103008.00b9ae30@pop.starpower.net> <00c701c27f53$b54e0ec0$dd9468d5@default> <4.3.2.7.0.20021029075422.00baede0@pop.starpower.net> <4.3.2.7.0.20021029163803.00af8b60@pop.starpower.net> <007501c27f9c$9798e280$89a223d9@pbncomputer> Message-ID: <009201c28411$74748920$959868d5@default> How do alert rules vary among jurisdictions? I In your jurisdiction which of these calls would you alert (I think they're alertable in the UK)? II If an "Artificial" call is non-alertable is it part of local standard methods? III Do you alert other "Natural" calls? [1] Artificial Canapé opening but not reply e.g. (a) 1C on xxx Qxxx xxx AK - alertable (b) 1H on Kx Axxx AKQJxx x - alertable (c) but 1D(P)1S on KTxx - xxx KTxxxx - not alertable [2] Artificial Negative double e.g. 1H(1S)X (a) Sputnik - alertable (b) Penalty - not alertable [3] Artificial responsive double after a double or redouble. e.g. (1H)X(1S)X (a) Informative - alertable (b) Business - not alertable [4] Natural weak two opening bid e.g. 2H with xx AKJxxx xx xxx - alertable [5] Natural penalty double of opener below 4-level. e.g. (a) (3S)X Penalty - alertable (b) (4S)X Penalty - not alertable [6] Natural reply to 1N in C but not D/H/S e.g. if your bid suit is KQJxxx and out (a) 1N-2C - alertable (b) 1N-2D/H/S - not alertable [7] Natural pass after partner opens and RHO doubles -- that is usually weak BUT may be instead be 10+HCP with 3-card support. i.e. after 1H(X)P is alertable if it may show either e.g. (a) xxx xx Jxxx Jxxx - or (b) Qxxx Kxx Axx KQx [8] Natural weak raise except in competition. e.g. with xxx Jxxxx - xxxxx (a) 1H-3H - alertable (b) 1H(X)3H - not alertable [9] Natural 1N with a possible singleton; or less than ten points; but not with other special shape specifications i.e. 1N (a) Could have singleton honour - alertable. (b) 8-10 HCP - alertable. (c) Denies a four card major - not alertable. From ehaa@starpower.net Mon Nov 4 14:55:12 2002 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 04 Nov 2002 09:55:12 -0500 Subject: [blml] questions about future calls [was: Is Stayman alertabl e in WBF/EBL events?] In-Reply-To: <011801c282c3$0cb1aec0$499c68d5@default> References: <018c01c2819a$aefda3c0$259868d5@default> <018c01c2819a$aefda3c0$259868d5@default> <4.3.2.7.0.20021101085747.00a98d20@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <4.3.2.7.0.20021104093644.00bade10@pop.starpower.net> At 04:39 PM 11/2/02, Nigel wrote: >[Nigel Guthrie] > [4] I believe there should be a worldwide standard > CCs with strictly enforced rules about completion. > (The default: a standard comprehensive system) >[Nigel 2] >Here are some of the obvious advantages of a >worldwide standard system >[1] Simplified alert rules and laws >[2] Worldwide "level playing field" for alerts. >[3] Worldwide default CC. >[4] Worldwide simple system for No Fear events. >[5] System for No Fear pairs and teams World > Championships -- these would be easy for > spectators and the media to understand. >[6] Ideal system for individual competition. >[7] Complete set of understandings for casual > partners even of a different nationalities. >[8] Basis for more sophisticated system. >[9] A default for a regular partnership when > in undiscussed bidding territory i.e. > where they have no agreement. >[Brian Meadows] > I'll argue with this one - if memory serves me > correctly, there used to be a time when the EBU > alerting rules referenced Acol(*). This made for > some very silly alerts when you weren't playing > Acol. >[Eric Landau] > Based on previous discussion, Brian is with the > majority here. Bridge is just played too > differently in different parts of the world for > this to be practical, even if one likes the idea > in theory. >[Nigel 2] >The EBU alert rules are still Acol-based. >For example, we alert (natural) Weak Twos but >don't alert conventional forcing Acol twos. >American BLMLers tell us that ACBL alerts are >based on Standard American. >It is the same for other countries: My sister >and I played in the "French Club" at the Young >Chelsea. I complained to the TD because an >opponent opened 1C unalerted with only 3 cards. >The TD told me it was we who would have to alert >our 1C because it showed 4+ cards. >The point is that alerting systems protect home >players against foreigners. In order to alert >legally and have any idea what unalerted bids >mean, a traveller must learn an entire different >system for each location. Why must he endure >this unecessary handicap? Because 99.999999999% of players sitting down at the duplicate table are doing so in what is more or less familiar "home territory", while only 0.0000000001% of them are world travelers in foreign countries, so the rules are written to make things easier on the former group at the expense of the latter rather than the other way around. >A worldwide standard >system would provide a level playing field for >everyone as far as alerting is concerned. >And the laws on alerting would be short. The >problem would be to get countries to agree. >I would suggest a vote or a lottery among >comprehensive simple candidate systems. I >would not expect national officials to welcome > the idea although I think most players would. I would like Nigel to imagine that the WBF issues a pronouncement today that effective immediately, by law, all calls which deviate from their meanings in the Nairobi Diamond system must be alerted and the deviation explained on request. How long would it take him before he was prepared to return to duplicate? How many players in his circle wouldn't bother to make the necessary effort to master the Nairobi Diamond system, and would never return? Of course, if the WBF were to choose SAYC, or its Acol equivalent, instead of Nairobi Diamond, the percentage of players who could come back and play tomorrow would be considerably higher, but still only a small minority worldwide. >[Brian] > You see the same thing in the OKBridge > tournaments today, where the alerting rules are > that you alert anything which isn't SAYC. >[Nigel 2] >SAYC is along the right lines but may not >be comprehensive enough to act as a basis >for alert alert-law. The system that is both comprehensive enough to serve as the basis for an unambiguous set of alert rules and comprehensible enough to be thoroughly understood by more than its author and his lifelong regular partners doesn't exist. One of the reasons why bridge is such a fascinating game is that it never will. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 From A.Kooijman@dwk.agro.nl Mon Nov 4 15:01:00 2002 From: A.Kooijman@dwk.agro.nl (Kooijman, A.) Date: Mon, 04 Nov 2002 16:01:00 +0100 Subject: [blml] BLML Message-ID: > And, > just once in a while, ton, kojak, or even I, will > take a second look at the historical truths and > ask ourselves if we could do better (without > ever, of course, conceding that we were wrong). > Come back, David, and we'll forgive you. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ I join Grattan (in forgiving David) under one condition: I want to know in which of those awful categories of people David has put me and I want the answer in a private message. The reason is that David has told me similar things before and that I really have tried to improve. I don't want the whole world to read and laugh about my failures. ton From john@asimere.com Mon Nov 4 15:21:23 2002 From: john@asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Mon, 4 Nov 2002 15:21:23 +0000 Subject: 'Fully and freely available' : was Re: [blml] questions about future calls In-Reply-To: <105.1ed8d09a.2af70a6b@aol.com> References: <105.1ed8d09a.2af70a6b@aol.com> Message-ID: In article <105.1ed8d09a.2af70a6b@aol.com>, Schoderb@aol.com writes > In a message dated 11/3/2002 10:13:56 AM Eastern Standard Time, > hermandw@skynet.be writes: > >> As far as I am concerned, this thread has ended with a >> satisfactory >> closure. Which does not mean I believe we have read the last of >> it, >> nor that I believe I have written the last on it. > > > > Wanna bet? > =K= I'll give you a spread of 20-24 hrs, capped at 3 days :) -- John (MadDog) Probst| . ! -^- |icq 10810798 451 Mile End Road | /|__. \:/ |OKb ChienFou London E3 4PA | / @ __) -|- |john@asimere.com +44-(0)20 8983 5818 | /\ --^ | |www.asimere.com/~john From john@asimere.com Mon Nov 4 15:24:28 2002 From: john@asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Mon, 4 Nov 2002 15:24:28 +0000 Subject: [blml] questions about future calls [was: Is Stayman alertabl e in WBF/EBL events?] In-Reply-To: <003901c283eb$338802a0$959868d5@default> References: <018c01c2819a$aefda3c0$259868d5@default> <018c01c2819a$aefda3c0$259868d5@default> <4.3.2.7.0.20021101085747.00a98d20@pop.starpower.net> <011801c282c3$0cb1aec0$499c68d5@default> <002001c282db$ddb6f940$1c981e18@san.rr.com> <001c01c2831c$a52b5a80$639c68d5@default> <005d01c28354$751cabe0$639c68d5@default> <+lFkXIAG7hx9Ewxu@asimere.com> <003901c283eb$338802a0$959868d5@default> Message-ID: In article <003901c283eb$338802a0$959868d5@default>, Nigel Guthrie writes >>{Nigel Guthrie] >> What is the "French Defence" to mini? >> Oh no! Don't tell me! is it: >> Overall = natural >> X = 15+ >> Ask and pass = 12-14? >{MadDog Probst] > you missed ask and double :) >[Nigel] >(: Ahh right. In accord with Marvin's & your >instructions I have updated my CC as follows :) >Pass = 0-9 Ask & pass = 10-12 >X = 16+ Ask & double = 13-15 >Overall = Intermed Ask & overall = Weak > At the YC we play inverted French defence, where ask and pass shows 0-9, and the pass shows 10-12. This makes it easier to balance, and the TD can't rule UI. It's clearly a superior system. :) cheers john > > >_______________________________________________ >blml mailing list >blml@rtflb.org >http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > -- John (MadDog) Probst| . ! -^- |icq 10810798 451 Mile End Road | /|__. \:/ |OKb ChienFou London E3 4PA | / @ __) -|- |john@asimere.com +44-(0)20 8983 5818 | /\ --^ | |www.asimere.com/~john From ehaa@starpower.net Mon Nov 4 15:35:51 2002 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 04 Nov 2002 10:35:51 -0500 Subject: [blml] Does L20F prohibit hypothetical questions? In-Reply-To: <5.1.1.6.0.20021102172126.01a579a0@mail.comcast.net> References: <003001c28043$628d8080$2a9868d5@default> <003801c28037$a5bed9a0$2a9868d5@default> Message-ID: <4.3.2.7.0.20021104100837.00be1c30@pop.starpower.net> At 05:33 PM 11/2/02, David wrote: >You are not allowed to ask what a 2D bid on the next round would mean >as such, but it affects the meaning of the pass, and therefore you >need to know what hands are included in the pass. > >A more common example occurs with strong jump shifts. When my auction >goes 1D-2S, I can explain 2S as "Game-forcing, shows spades, and shows >one of solid spades with or without extras, 18-19 balanced, or good >spades with a big diamond fit." The opponents are not entitled to >know that if partner's next bid is a jump to 4S, it shows solid >spades, no outside singleton or void, and little outside, since this >bid has not yet been made; they are entitled to know that responder >might have that type of hand. Let us modify your agreement slightly by adding a fourth hand type: long but not solid spades, with extras. A 3S bid would show that hand type, while a jump to 4S would still promise solid spades. Now imagine that I'm sitting behind you with lots of hearts. If I know your agreements, I know that it would be futile to bid 3H, as it will not interfere with your ability to show your holding in accordance with your agreements, whereas if I bid 4H and, as is likely, it goes -P-P-4S, your partner won't know whether you have long non-solid spades with extras, or solid spades without extras in a hand unwilling to go past game. Should I be able to ascertain the information that would allow me to figure this out? We all agree that this is information to which I'm entitled, and which cannot be refused to me if I ask at the proper time. Not being prescient, however, I have not asked, as it didn't occur to me to do so until after you bid 2S and explained that it shows one of four specified hand types. (Notice that had it occurred to me to ask, it would also have occurred to me to ask a minimum of several hundred similar questions about other bids that might have come up, but didn't.) So now I naively ask whether you have a mechanism to disambiguate the solid-spade hands from non-solid-spades-with-extras hand, perhaps even more naively mentioning that I undertand that I am legally entitled to this information. Right now you are on firm legal ground if you reply, "You may be entitled to the information, but I shall not give it to you, as L20F1 says I don't have to. You should have asked for it before the auction started, ha ha, too bad." Is this good? Do we really *want* TFLB to be on your side here? Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 From ehaa@starpower.net Mon Nov 4 16:04:39 2002 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 04 Nov 2002 11:04:39 -0500 Subject: [blml] Full disclosure In-Reply-To: <001f01c28318$b6520ec0$7e8c403e@endicott> References: Message-ID: <4.3.2.7.0.20021104104352.00bbfed0@pop.starpower.net> At 09:30 PM 11/2/02, Grattan wrote: >+=+ It was the alleged right to ask the question >that I was saying could not be lost because it >had not existed (as a matter of rule). You are >not entitled during the auction to ask for an >explanation of calls that have not yet happened. +=+ We have been distracted into chasing a semantic red herring here. We are using "losing the right to ask hypothetical questions during the auction" to mean two entirely different things. One is something like, "Once upon a time we had the right to ask such questions during the auction, but we lost that right when the WBF took it away from us." We are told this is not true. So what? Who cares? The other is, "We have an undisputed right to ask such questions before the start of the auction, but according to L20F1 we lose that right when the auction begins." David B., Grattan and others have successfully convinced us that this is true, and the question still on the table is whether it would be wise or unwise of those revising the laws for 2005 to keep it so. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 From gester@lineone.net Mon Nov 4 16:12:07 2002 From: gester@lineone.net (gester@lineone.net) Date: Mon, 4 Nov 2002 16:12:07 -0000 Subject: 'Fully and freely available' : was Re: [blml] questions about future calls References: <011102305.28810@webbox.com> <008e01c28206$07b7dce0$7ffb193e@4nrw70j> <3DC38EAF.7010003@skynet.be> <001c01c28251$9fc2c9a0$bb9b23d9@pbncomputer> <001d01c2825d$2d967640$16e7193e@4nrw70j> <3DC3C50D.8080203@skynet.be> <3DC62DDF.8040003@skynet.be> <3DC6685B.9070905@skynet.be> Message-ID: <003e01c2841d$15ed81c0$3b1e2850@pacific> Grattan Endicott To: "blml" Sent: Monday, November 04, 2002 12:30 PM Subject: Re: 'Fully and freely available' : was Re: [blml] questions about future calls > > You are using the word right in a completely > wrong context here, and in your previous message. > Players don't have the right to tell everything - they > might have an obligation to do so. That obligation > is impossible to realize, and if that is what you are > saying, we are in agreement. However, the laws > do NOT actually speak of this obligation. Rather, > they give a right to the opponents - that of knowing > everything. In order to achieve that right, full > questioning must be possible. > +=+ Now that is the most convoluted misappreciation of bridge law that I have come across for a long time. What the law actually provides is that: 1. When a partnership has a partnership understanding it may not make a call based on it if it has not made a prior announcement of the understanding. 2. If a player wishes to make a call based on an understanding that it may not reasonably expect its opponents to understand, it must disclose the understanding in accordance with the regulations of the sponsoring organisation. (The unstated implication is that the requirement in 1 must be met in those regulations, but it should be noted that 40A only requires you be told of the existence of the understanding, the extent to which it shall be explained is something for the regulations to specify.) 3. The SO may prescribe a convention card. If it does, a partnership is to list its conventions and agreements on it. 4. During the auction period a player at his turn may request a full explanation of the opponents' auction. In supplementaries calls made or other calls that could have been relevant but were not made can be asked about. The auction only exists as far as it has gone. 5. When asked for an explanation a player should include in his reply all special information conveyed to him through partnership agreement or partnership experience. 6. Players have access to perusal of opponents' CC throughout the auction but each only at his own turn to call. The laws make no mention of giving a right of knowing to opponents. This right is an inferred right, ensuing from the duty of players to disclose. The onus is on players to disclose their understandings and no right is given to enquirers to pursue enquiry beyond the limits specified in the laws. The legislators have judged that, the convention card being the source of information generally, enquiry about calls made is sufficient supplement to achieve a practical satisfaction of a player's needs. If a side is damaged through the failure of its opponents to meet their duty of disclosure, the obligation laid on them in the laws, there is provision for score adjustment. I think the step you have missed in mounting your pedestal is that the *laws* do *not* call for provision to opponents of any information not relevant to the actual calls made in the auction, other than the general listing of agreements required in 40E. The right to know inferred in the laws is a limited right, a retrospective duty to have been informed of agreements before they are put to use, *in such manner as the SO specifies*, and a right to an expansion of that information in reply to enquiry about what has actually happened. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From gester@lineone.net Mon Nov 4 16:26:39 2002 From: gester@lineone.net (gester@lineone.net) Date: Mon, 4 Nov 2002 16:26:39 -0000 Subject: [blml] Full disclosure References: <4.3.2.7.0.20021104104352.00bbfed0@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <005801c2841f$16689340$3b1e2850@pacific> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" Sent: Monday, November 04, 2002 4:04 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Full disclosure > > The other is, "We have an undisputed right to ask > such questions before the start of the auction, but > according to L20F1 we lose that right when the > auction begins." > +=+ One would expect the regulations to allow enquiry about the CC where the laws are silent. It is assumed so. +=+ > > David B., Grattan and others have successfully > convinced us that this is true, and the question still > on the table is whether it would be wise or unwise > of those revising the laws for 2005 to keep it so. > +=+ Here all I can say is that I will seek to ensure that my preliminary draft is sufficiently provocative to ensure that my colleagues will have to make up their minds what they want :-) +=+ From johnson@CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca Mon Nov 4 16:46:05 2002 From: johnson@CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca (Ron Johnson) Date: Mon, 4 Nov 2002 11:46:05 -0500 (EST) Subject: [blml] questions about future calls [was: Is Stayman alertabl e in WBF/EBL events?] In-Reply-To: <003c01c283bd$ef7d0240$1c981e18@san.rr.com> from "Marvin L. French" at Nov 03, 2002 08:52:06 PM Message-ID: <200211041646.LAA25783@gcpdb.ccrs.emr.ca> Marvin L. French writes: > > > From: "Ron Johnson" < > > > > A second risk to the opposition is that they redouble for business very > > frequently and are on unusually firm ground (even for world class > > players) as to when it's business, when it shows doubt and when it's SOS. > > Information that I know I'd want. And there's no way this kind of > information > > can be carried on a convention card of any size. > > > That's what Alerts are for. If a redouble is not definitely to play, or if an > SOS redouble does not arise in a standard SOS situation, it is Alertable in > ACBL-land. I don't feel the need to know in advance what all their redoubles > are going to mean. You miss the point. It's not the meaning of the redouble, it's the fact that in the middle of what seems to be a scramble they can redouble for business. It's the Berkowitz/Cohen problem revisited. Obscure auctions, well defined but potentially counter-intuitive meanings) And it's complicated by the fact that if Meckwell practiced full disclosure (in the sense of a discussion of all alternatives) in the middle of a scramble they'd never finish a session. (The only time I've seen one live the explanation was "Scramble". But they'd already played 32 boards against the opponents and the atmosphere was pretty casual) Just to be clear, I'm not saying that questions about future calls would help. I know that in general I'd never anticipate the need (and I'm a bit of a systems buff) I was just reacting to the notion that a convention card is an adequate method of disclosing Meckwell's methods. And while Meckwell are at the extreme, any well established expert partnership is likely to have some agreements that are tough to explain simply and that you really need to know about in advance. Not a simple issue. I'm curious as to how much they submit to the Bermuda Bowl. If it's the full 1100+ pages, it would be a truly daunting task to prepare (And those 1100 pages are point form. Tough to decode the meaning in some of the cases I've seen published). We're talking about days to read the damned thing never mind parse it accurately. From toddz@worldnet.att.com Mon Nov 4 16:57:33 2002 From: toddz@worldnet.att.com (Todd Zimnoch) Date: Mon, 4 Nov 2002 11:57:33 -0500 Subject: [blml] A practical question about disclosure Message-ID: Having until now believed I had to answer all questions about my system and methods, I don't how to avoid answering questions I am not legally required to. As a player, what is the practical way I avoid answering questions about possible future auctions? I'm also unclear exactly which questions are disallowed. Which of the following questions are verboten? 1. Do you play Sandwich NT? 2. What does "Bergen Raises" mean? 3. If I double your weak NT, what is your escape sequence? (How would this question be different from 1 if escape sequences had names?) 4. (before making a double) After 1D - takeout X, does a major bid promise 4 or 5 cards for you? 5. (before cue bidding) Do your doubles of cue bids show strong suits or outside values? -Todd From ehaa@starpower.net Mon Nov 4 17:08:46 2002 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 04 Nov 2002 12:08:46 -0500 Subject: 'Fully and freely available' : was Re: [blml] questions about future calls In-Reply-To: <00af01c28340$c9f7c8c0$12dff1c3@LNV> References: <011102305.28810@webbox.com> <008e01c28206$07b7dce0$7ffb193e@4nrw70j> <3DC38EAF.7010003@skynet.be> <001c01c28251$9fc2c9a0$bb9b23d9@pbncomputer> <001d01c2825d$2d967640$16e7193e@4nrw70j> <3DC3C50D.8080203@skynet.be> Message-ID: <4.3.2.7.0.20021104113254.00b26f00@pop.starpower.net> At 08:56 AM 11/3/02, Ton wrote: >Every question is a source for UI. If I undestand it well this problem has >resulted in one of the strangest regulations I have ever heard of. In the >EBU you are ony entitled to ask about a call if you have a better reason >than just curiosity: the choice of your own call has to depend on the >answer >given. I still hope I am wrong in this, but it illustrates the problem we >have with legal questions and UI. >In principle a legal question doesn't carry UI. Let me give you another >example. Defender is not allowed to ask partner about a possible >revoke. But >he may ask declarer. When I told Edgar Kaplan that this creates the >problem >of informing your partner about such a revoke by asking declarer he >admitted >kind of a singularity but expressed his opinion that such a question was >legal and couldn't be penalized. And we all know his opinion about >questions >asked to opponents with the purpose to inform partner. >So I repeat: In principle a legal question doesn't carry UI. But combined >with the statement I started with: 'every question is a source for UI' it >becomes obvious that we have a big problem. >And the next question then is how to control that problem. The choice >seems >obvious to me, restrict the possibilities for asking questions to the >minimum. If the prohibition in L20F1 against asking specific types of questions is justified on the grounds that it minimizes communication of extraneous information "through questions asked" [L73B1], should we not also consider what questions the law should require us to ask, so that we can minimize communication of extraneous information "through questions... not asked"? And shouldn't we also have similar laws putting such specific restrictions on our "manner", our "remarks", our "gestures", and all the rest of it? How large and complicated will TFLB need to be when we are done? I makes a lot more sense to me to simply deal with extraneous information of all types as we do now by applying L73B as needed than by writing separate laws designed to keep each type of EI to the minimum possible, even more so than to have one particular separate law that attempts to do this for one particular type of EI only while happily leaving L73B to deal, presumably effectively enough, with all those other types. Is there something we're overlooking about L73B such that it can't deal acceptably with EI from questions about hypothetical developments in the auction that are asked in mid-auction while it can with all forms other EI? >Now the only problem left is to decide what this minimum is and in my >opinion this approach doesn't fit with being allowed to ask anything you >want. The problems such an approach creates are much bigger than the >advantage it gives. In our present approach your suggested warning for UI >means that after such questions partner isn't allowed to choose a call >that >might be suggested etc. etc. anymore. So you are sawing at one of the >principal legs of our law building. What Herman, Sven, I and others have been arguing is that there's no reason why the practical minimum shouldn't be anything you want to know and can find out without infringing any current rules, other than those that now govern the mechanics of disclosure, regarding use of UI, time limits, deception, harassment, or any of the other things for which any question, whether it is one which is currently legal or not, could be a vehicle. We just don't see any reason why those rules should be adequate to deal with situations arising from hypothetical questions asked other than during the auction, adequate to deal with situations arising from non-hypothetical questions asked during the auction, but somehow not adequate to deal with situations arising from hypothetical questions asked during the auction. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 From agot@ulb.ac.be Mon Nov 4 17:53:55 2002 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon, 04 Nov 2002 18:53:55 +0100 Subject: [blml] Relaying down the law on disclosure In-Reply-To: <4A256C63.000C3E06.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20021104184412.02461080@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 12:29 31/10/2002 +1000, richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: > >Others have more rigid standards, or they > >sometimes do not open a weak two when they hold > >one. Then the inferences are few. Nothing > >essential has been omitted if you don't alert. > >Disagree. I alert when I have *few* agreed >partnership inferences. I do not alert when I >have *zero* agreed partnership inferences. AG : there are such things as non-specifically-agreed-inferences. This is the kind that shouldn't be alerted. >That is why, in my partnership, I alert 2H in the >sequence above - to let the opponents know that >we have no systemic way to show 5-9 hcp and six >hearts as an opening bid. AG : taking the rules at the letter, this hasn't to be done : there is no convention or inference about your 2H bid. But I admit at doing just the same, in one partnerships, for delayed 3-level entries (3C/3D/3H bids are 2-suiters). The reason is , as always, you have to inform of what's useful, not of all once-in-a-millenary inferences (this means, usually more, sometimes less). > >One way to state it is : in the second case, the > >inference is that you thought, for some reason, > >that your weak 2 was flawed. Since this is not > >system, but bridge logic, it isn't alertable. > >Disagree. There is no universal "bridge logic". >You may be using Euclidean logic, while your >opponents' thoughts roam through non-Euclidean >spaces. AG : but you will usually the rules of 1-st order logic. Those are the only ones you need when you didn't agree about inferences : why didn't he open 2H ? Because he didn't hold a 2H opening. > Therefore, I explain the axioms of my >partnership's logic to the opponents. AG : let's say it another way . The reason for not opening a weak two bid is that you didn't think your hand was a weak two bid (BTW, this doesn't apply only to hands with hearts ; you won't open 2H on a 2182 16-count either). This is universal bridge logic. Of course, reasons why are different from partnership to partnership, but they might be non-agreed. And one rason might be strategical : I do hold a weak 2-bid, but I don't want to make one. Best regards, Alain. From agot@ulb.ac.be Mon Nov 4 17:59:07 2002 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon, 04 Nov 2002 18:59:07 +0100 Subject: [blml] Relaying down the law on disclosure In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20021104185523.0248e250@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 06:36 1/11/2002 -0500, Brian Meadows wrote: >On Fri, 01 Nov 2002 09:57:16 +0100, Ton wrote: > > > > >OK then: 2 + 2 =3D 4 > > > >OK, if it's silly season, I'll argue. 2 + 2 =3D 11. Show me where >the laws mandate decimal. ;-) AG : Some other examples. If a coup=E9 offers you 2+2 places, it doesn't offer you four. 2 cc of water plus 2 cc of ethylic alcohol make about 3.9 cc total volume. 2 hundred million mph + 2 hundred million mph don't make 4 hundred million= =20 mph (relativistic correction). From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Mon Nov 4 17:55:04 2002 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Mon, 4 Nov 2002 17:55:04 -0000 Subject: [blml] questions about future calls [was: Is Stayman alertabl e in WBF/EBL events?] References: <018c01c2819a$aefda3c0$259868d5@default> <018c01c2819a$aefda3c0$259868d5@default> <4.3.2.7.0.20021101085747.00a98d20@pop.starpower.net> <011801c282c3$0cb1aec0$499c68d5@default> <002001c282db$ddb6f940$1c981e18@san.rr.com> <001c01c2831c$a52b5a80$639c68d5@default> <005d01c28354$751cabe0$639c68d5@default> <+lFkXIAG7hx9Ewxu@asimere.com> <003901c283eb$338802a0$959868d5@default> Message-ID: <00cd01c2842b$54133400$959868d5@default> [MadDog Probst] At the YC we play inverted French defence, where ask and pass shows 0-9, and the pass shows 10-12. This makes it easier to balance, and the TD can't rule UI. It's clearly a superior system. :) [Nigel Guthrie] (: Thanks, that's a distinct improvement; but before I change my CC again, please confirm that it's licensed by the FFB :) From agot@ulb.ac.be Mon Nov 4 18:05:57 2002 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon, 04 Nov 2002 19:05:57 +0100 Subject: [blml] A practical question about disclosure In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20021104190003.024604b0@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 11:57 4/11/2002 -0500, Todd Zimnoch wrote: > Having until now believed I had to answer all questions about >my system and methods, I don't how to avoid answering questions I >am not legally required to. As a player, what is the practical >way I avoid answering questions about possible future auctions? >I'm also unclear exactly which questions are disallowed. Which of >the following questions are verboten? > >1. Do you play Sandwich NT? AG : allowed, but most people would answer "don't know what they are", including YT. >2. What does "Bergen Raises" mean? AG : allowed, provided the opponent plays them >3. If I double your weak NT, what is your escape sequence? (How >would this question be different from 1 if escape sequences had >names?) AG : It decides of what my double will mean. I ask it before the match. Afterwards, see item #4. >4. (before making a double) After 1D - takeout X, does a major bid >promise 4 or 5 cards for you? AG : gives out UI. (not useful if I intend to double anyway, and 50% chance giving huge amount of UI if not). Should be on the CC anyway. I would liek to disallow it, and let theoricians quarrel about whether it's right. Ethically, at least, it is. >5. (before cue bidding) Do your doubles of cue bids show strong >suits or outside values? AG : same response. Also dangerous, because a logician might answer 'yes'. (or 'no', BTW). I did it once : 1Ca alert + explanation, then : - do you play 4 card diamonds or longest minor ? - nope (ie, I play neither, 1D is strong) From ehaa@starpower.net Mon Nov 4 18:22:53 2002 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 04 Nov 2002 13:22:53 -0500 Subject: [blml] Godel, Escher and Bridge In-Reply-To: <002801c2838c$f2dc9e40$bb9b23d9@pbncomputer> References: <4A256C66.007C05D2.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> Message-ID: <4.3.2.7.0.20021104130726.00be11b0@pop.starpower.net> At 06:01 PM 11/3/02, David wrote: >Richard wrote: > > > David Burn's assertion that bridge has no existence > > separate from its rules, logically implies that bridge > > did not exist before 1997, when its Laws came into > > force. > >Does it? I would have thought that contrct bridge did not exist before >whenever in the mid-20s it was when Vanderbilt invented the rules. Since >then, it has continued to exist various different forms. The rules approved by the WBF in 1997 are very different from the rules invented by Vanderbilt in the 1920s. So are the rules of pachisi. If David were truly correct that a game is nothing more nor less than the sum of its rules, there would be no basis for calling the first and the second two different forms of the same game while calling the first and the third two different games. Yet there is; not even David, I'm sure, fails to understand or appreciate the distinction. There must be *something* beyond the literal words of TFLB that makes Vanderbilt's rules define something that we call bridge, makes the 1997 lawbook define something different that we also call bridge, but makes the rules of pachisi define something different that we do not call bridge. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Mon Nov 4 18:53:28 2002 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Mon, 4 Nov 2002 18:53:28 -0000 Subject: [blml] questions about future calls [was: Is Stayman alertabl e in WBF/EBL events?] References: <018c01c2819a$aefda3c0$259868d5@default> <018c01c2819a$aefda3c0$259868d5@default> <4.3.2.7.0.20021101085747.00a98d20@pop.starpower.net> <4.3.2.7.0.20021104093644.00bade10@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <014f01c28433$aa02bd60$959868d5@default> [Nigel Guthrie] In order to alert legally and have any idea what unalerted bids mean, a traveller must learn an entire different system for each location. Why must he endure this unecessary handicap? {Eric Landau] Because 99.999999999% of players sitting down at the duplicate table are doing so in what is more or less familiar "home territory", while only 0.0000000001% of them are world travelers in foreign countries, so the rules are written to make things easier on the former group at the expense of the latter rather than the other way around. [Nigel 2] Your figures exagerate slightly :). Furthermore, In most countries most people play a system other than the local "Standard". I live in the UK but I don't know or play Acol, so I sometimes get Alerts wrong. Marvin plays 4-card majors not "Standard American". So insisting on a local standard panders to less than half the local players. [Nigel] A worldwide standard system would provide a level playing field for everyone as far as alerting is concerned. And the laws on alerting would be short. The problem would be to get countries to agree. I would suggest a vote or a lottery among comprehensive simple candidate systems. I would not expect national officials to welcome the idea although I think most players would. [Eric] I would like Nigel to imagine that the WBF issues a pronouncement today that effective immediately, by law, all calls which deviate from their meanings in the Nairobi Diamond system must be alerted and the deviation explained on request. How long would it take him before he was prepared to return to duplicate? How many players in his circle wouldn't bother to make the necessary effort to master the Nairobi Diamond system, and would never return? Of course, if the WBF were to choose SAYC, or its Acol equivalent, instead of Nairobi Diamond, the percentage of players who could come back and play tomorrow would be considerably higher, but still only a small minority worldwide. The system that is both comprehensive enough to serve as the basis for an unambiguous set of alert rules and comprehensible enough to be thoroughly understood by more than its author and his lifelong regular partners doesn't exist. One of the reasons why bridge is such a fascinating game is that it never will. [Nigel 2] Given the choice of what to learn among "SAYC", "Acol" and the "Nairobi Diamond", most players would rush to choose the last, sight unseen -- provided it satisfied the simple, comprehensive criteria. Few people understand their own system let alone the system from which deviations need to be alerted; and this might still be the case after adoption of the "Nairobi Diamond" as standard; but there would obviously be a greater incentive to learn the "Nairobi Diamond" because it would be a common language; uniting bridge-players world-wide; and the first faltering step down the path of legal convergence. From David Stevenson Mon Nov 4 11:34:04 2002 From: David Stevenson (David Stevenson) Date: Mon, 4 Nov 2002 11:34:04 +0000 Subject: [blml] BLML In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: David Stevenson writes >Hi John > >>Hmm, a pity DWS is leaving. most of what I learnt I learnt for him, and >>most of what I learnt from him has made me a better director. >> >>Now, I suppose we'll be back to how many angels can dance on the head of >>a pin. > > Thanks for your comments. I may look into BLML in some months time to >see whether it has improved. Goodness knows why I wrote "Hi John"! It was meant to everyone on this thread, not just John. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ From t.kooyman@worldonline.nl Mon Nov 4 19:11:25 2002 From: t.kooyman@worldonline.nl (Ton Kooijman) Date: Mon, 4 Nov 2002 20:11:25 +0100 Subject: 'Fully and freely available' : was Re: [blml] questions about future calls References: <011102305.28810@webbox.com> <008e01c28206$07b7dce0$7ffb193e@4nrw70j> <3DC38EAF.7010003@skynet.be> <001c01c28251$9fc2c9a0$bb9b23d9@pbncomputer> <001d01c2825d$2d967640$16e7193e@4nrw70j> <3DC3C50D.8080203@skynet.be> <000701c28277$dc92ea10$70d8fea9@WINXP> <003b01c28329$449023b0$12dff1c3@LNV> <3DC52834.7060502@skynet.be> <006201c28342$6cafdca0$70d8fea9@WINXP> Message-ID: <007501c28438$5679e7e0$5fc0f1c3@LNV> me: > > > Some very good TDs don''t have that problems. But your description of > the > > > problem is wrong. We are not dealing with illegally passed UI but with > > > legally passed UI when we allow such questions. And even that a good TD > > > should solve satisfactory, but it is not a very nice solution for > defender's > > > side. > > > > > > > > > Ton is right of course in pointing out that Sven is wrong in talking > > about "illegal" UI. > > May I just point out that while many legal actions result in UI where it > is up to partner to avoid using it, there are also actions that violate > Law 73B. The UI resulting from such actions is what I mean by > "illegal" UI. > > And I was just trying to distinguish legal questions from those where the > sole purpose would be in violation of Law 73B (or Law 74A2). > > Until now I have not had much problems with that. > > > However, I don't see the difference between > > legally and illegally passed UI. Every question that I pose contains > > UI to my partner, and while I am within my rights to ask them, they > > are still UI. I don''t think so, see below There is not a single law in the book that says that the > > UI that I could now also pass by asking a (now forbidden) hypothetical > > question would be treated any different than it would be if the > > question were allowed. A problem with these discussions is that I don''t have enough time for it. So my language is often too concentrated. I tried to explain that when a question is permitted it normally should be treated as a neutral one and the information arising from it is legal, free available.The TD needs to be lenient towards the asking side, he needs a rather strong case before he can decide that an irregularity has occurred. L16 is not applicable in that normal situation. The question is authorized isn''t it? So, when we allow questions about possible future calls we introduce a field of legal information in a case I am not so sure we can handle it. Or if we can the disadvantage might still be bigger than the advantage. ton > > Oh yes, there is a great difference: > "Legal" UI is dealt with under Law 16 if the "receiver" makes use of it. > "Illegal" UI should be dealt with as a violation also of Law 73B whether > or not the UI is used. > > But isn't this just quibbling I didn''t have any intention to quibble. ton > > Sven > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From mikedod@gte.net Mon Nov 4 19:45:57 2002 From: mikedod@gte.net (mike dodson) Date: Mon, 4 Nov 2002 11:45:57 -0800 Subject: [blml] Full disclosure References: <4.3.2.7.0.20021104104352.00bbfed0@pop.starpower.net> <005801c2841f$16689340$3b1e2850@pacific> Message-ID: <003701c2843a$ccf87600$0100a8c0@MikesDesk> > Grattan Endicott ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > "Some had received a liberal education at > the College of Unreason, and taken the > highest degree in hypothetics, which are > their principal study." [Samuel Butler 1835-1902] > > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Eric Landau" > > The other is, "We have an undisputed right to ask > > such questions before the start of the auction, but > > according to L20F1 we lose that right when the > > auction begins." > > > +=+ One would expect the regulations to allow > enquiry about the CC where the laws are > silent. It is assumed so. +=+ I've been looking for wriggle room like this since this thread began. BUT: Does not the official interpetation of L20F make such regulation illegal? That which is not permitted is prohibitted. If questions of the convention card (alerts too!) are legal by regulation, L20F seems to have virtually no force at all. I can always tie my question to the convention card somehow. Mike Dodson From cyaxares@lineone.net Mon Nov 4 20:33:29 2002 From: cyaxares@lineone.net (Grattan Endicott) Date: Mon, 4 Nov 2002 20:33:29 -0000 Subject: [blml] Full disclosure References: <4.3.2.7.0.20021104104352.00bbfed0@pop.starpower.net> <005801c2841f$16689340$3b1e2850@pacific> <003701c2843a$ccf87600$0100a8c0@MikesDesk> Message-ID: <000201c28441$d0016c10$f48c403e@endicott> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" Sent: Monday, November 04, 2002 7:45 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Full disclosure > > > Grattan Endicott > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > > "Some had received a liberal education at > > the College of Unreason, and taken the > > highest degree in hypothetics, which are > > their principal study." [Samuel Butler 1835-1902] > > > > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Eric Landau" > > > The other is, "We have an undisputed right to ask > > > such questions before the start of the auction, but > > > according to L20F1 we lose that right when the > > > auction begins." > > > > > +=+ One would expect the regulations to allow > > enquiry about the CC where the laws are > > silent. It is assumed so. +=+ > > I've been looking for wriggle room like this since this thread began. BUT: > Does not the official interpetation of L20F make such regulation illegal? > That which is not permitted is prohibitted. If questions of the convention > card (alerts too!) are legal by regulation, L20F seems to have virtually no > force at all. I can always tie my question to the convention card somehow. > > Mike Dodson > +=+ I do not recall having seen anywhere a regulation that suggested you could ask about the CC during the auction. The words you quote were intended to refer to the situation before the auction commences, a situation where the laws are silent as to questions. The use to be made of a CC is in general a matter for regulation; the law says something about what shall be listed on it and something about when you may consult it. Nothing I can think of about asking questions in relation to it. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Mon Nov 4 21:38:38 2002 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 5 Nov 2002 07:38:38 +1000 Subject: [blml] Missing period Message-ID: <4A256C67.007574D5.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> In Chapter 1 of the Laws, *Auction* is carelessly defined. Although a cross-reference to L17E is included, a cross-reference to L17A is missing. Similarly, L16B and L24 are carelessly written. L16B includes the words "before the auction begins" instead of "before the auction period begins". L24 includes the words "during the auction" instead of "during the auction period". Therefore, if a card is exposed after players have looked at their cards, but before a call has been made, a literal-minded TD may make a ruling under L16B instead of under L24. Best wishes Richard From t.kooyman@worldonline.nl Mon Nov 4 20:44:11 2002 From: t.kooyman@worldonline.nl (Ton Kooijman) Date: Mon, 4 Nov 2002 21:44:11 +0100 Subject: [blml] Godel, Escher and Bridge References: <4A256C66.007C05D2.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> <4.3.2.7.0.20021104130726.00be11b0@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <00a701c28443$0a325060$5fc0f1c3@LNV> > At 06:01 PM 11/3/02, David wrote: > > >Richard wrote: > > > > > David Burn's assertion that bridge has no existence > > > separate from its rules, logically implies that bridge > > > did not exist before 1997, when its Laws came into > > > force. > > > >Does it? I would have thought that contrct bridge did not exist before > >whenever in the mid-20s it was when Vanderbilt invented the rules. Since > >then, it has continued to exist various different forms. > > The rules approved by the WBF in 1997 are very different from the rules > invented by Vanderbilt in the 1920s. So are the rules of pachisi. If > David were truly correct that a game is nothing more nor less than the > sum of its rules, there would be no basis for calling the first and the > second two different forms of the same game while calling the first and > the third two different games. Yet there is; not even David, I'm sure, > fails to understand or appreciate the distinction. There must be > *something* beyond the literal words of TFLB that makes Vanderbilt's > rules define something that we call bridge, makes the 1997 lawbook > define something different that we also call bridge, but makes the > rules of pachisi define something different that we do not call bridge. > > > Eric Landau Apart from his private comments to me, concerning my behaviour, I wouldn't be surprised if this kind of messages is not what David St. intended when he contributed to the success of blml. ton From ehaa@starpower.net Mon Nov 4 20:53:20 2002 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 04 Nov 2002 15:53:20 -0500 Subject: [blml] A practical question about disclosure In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <4.3.2.7.0.20021104154050.00be3b40@pop.starpower.net> At 11:57 AM 11/4/02, Todd wrote: > Having until now believed I had to answer all questions about >my system and methods, I don't how to avoid answering questions I >am not legally required to. As a player, what is the practical >way I avoid answering questions about possible future auctions? There isn't any. Not if by "practical way" you mean one which will make it clear to all that you are only exercising your legal rights, will not make your opponents feel hard done by, will avoid director calls, appeals committees and/or general brouhaha, will not burden you for life with the dreaded epithet of "bridge lawyer", and will leave you feeling welcome to return to the club next week. Which is why some of us have such strong feelings that there should be no legal but impractical way to avoid answering such questions either. >I'm also unclear exactly which questions are disallowed. Which of >the following questions are verboten? > >1. Do you play Sandwich NT? >2. What does "Bergen Raises" mean? >3. If I double your weak NT, what is your escape sequence? (How >would this question be different from 1 if escape sequences had >names?) >4. (before making a double) After 1D - takeout X, does a major bid >promise 4 or 5 cards for you? >5. (before cue bidding) Do your doubles of cue bids show strong >suits or outside values? Now we are in what is for us the far more comfortable realm of dealing with questions that can be answered without regard to what is practical. Which is where Todd's question belongs. Because the truly "practical" answer is, "It doesn't matter. Just ask 'em. Just answer 'em. Don't worry about it." Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 From dalburn@btopenworld.com Mon Nov 4 21:07:46 2002 From: dalburn@btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: Mon, 4 Nov 2002 21:07:46 -0000 Subject: [blml] 'Fully and freely available' References: <4.3.2.7.0.20021104135422.00be7510@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <006201c28446$3ae72840$bb9b23d9@pbncomputer> Eric wrote: > I make two assertions: > > (1) If 99% (the percentage doesn't matter, choose whatever you like) of > "Herman questions" don't do any of that bad stuff while 1% do, then the > *same* 99:1 (or whatever it is) ratio holds for "non-Herman questions", > which are currently quite legal. I take this to be true because it > makes sense, it satisfies Occam's razor, and nobody has suggested > otherwise. Well, perhaps it's about time someone did, for it doesn't make any sense to me at all. A "Herman question" is of the form: "Suppose I do X; what will you now do?" Every question of that form is an assertion that: "I am comtemplating doing X", which is certainly UI to partner. Or, if it be that a "Herman question" is being asked when the player is not in fact contemplating doing X, then: (a) there is no demonstrable bridge reason for the question; (b) it will certainly give rise to a false inference that could mislead an opponent. 100% of HQs are therefore either going to pass serious amounts of UI, or be illegal, or both. The same is not true of the vast majority of non-HQs, which are of the form "Please explain this auction" or "Why have you alerted that call?" (dangerously close to being illegal anyway, but certainly no more than the "expected" question in the face of an alert, and free from sinister connotations). > (2) The percentage of "Herman questions" that would be asked if they > were legal is very small (call it 1%; again, the exact percentage > doesn't matter) compared to the number of "non-Herman questions". I > know this to be true, because where I play nobody knows that they are > not legal, everyone asks them whenever they choose, and they do in fact > make up only a tiny percentage of the questions actually asked. This, I suppose, is a good thing, but - if it is true - then again it makes little sense to me. In the course of this thread, people have been falling over themselves to demonstrate that the HQ is an essential part of "full disclosure" without which players are going to be completely powerless to enter the competitive arena. If that isn't the case, why is there so much indignation at being told that you can't ask them? > Using 99%-1% in both cases This, for reasons that I hope to have explained under Eric's point (1) above, is the wrong figure by a huge margin. There is something seriously wrong with 100% of HQs; of the others, I would say that at least 80% had nothing wrong with them at all, while the remainder were slightly flawed. > we discover that if "Herman questions" were > legal, the legal questions would fall into the following four > categories in these proportions (subject to rounding error): > (a) 98.01% would be non-Herman questions that don't create problems. > (b) 0.99% would be non-Herman questions that do create problems. > (c) 0.99% would be Herman questions that don't create problems. > (d) 0.01% would be Herman questions that do create problems. These figures need major revision, but there are too many fireworks going off just outside for me to attempt the task at the moment. > What Herman and I are on about is that there has been absolutely no > rationale whatsoever put forth in this discussion to date (nor, I > expect, can we imagine one) that would make it worthwhile to prevent > the asking of questions in (c) in order to prevent the asking of > questions of (d) while not simultaneously also making it just as > worthwhile to prevent the asking of questions in (a) in order to > prevent the asking of questions in (b). Yet such a rationale would > seem to be needed in order to justify keeping L20F1 as currently > interpreted. There is such a rationale now; or at least I assert that what I have said above amounts to one. *Every* HQ is deeply flawed. Very few non-HQs are flawed at all. David Burn London, England From ehaa@starpower.net Mon Nov 4 22:24:06 2002 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 04 Nov 2002 17:24:06 -0500 Subject: [blml] 'Fully and freely available' In-Reply-To: <006201c28446$3ae72840$bb9b23d9@pbncomputer> References: <4.3.2.7.0.20021104135422.00be7510@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <4.3.2.7.0.20021104163147.00be7d60@pop.starpower.net> At 04:07 PM 11/4/02, David wrote: >Eric wrote: > > > I make two assertions: > > > > (1) If 99% (the percentage doesn't matter, choose whatever you like) >of > > "Herman questions" don't do any of that bad stuff while 1% do, then >the > > *same* 99:1 (or whatever it is) ratio holds for "non-Herman >questions", > > which are currently quite legal. I take this to be true because it > > makes sense, it satisfies Occam's razor, and nobody has suggested > > otherwise. > >Well, perhaps it's about time someone did, for it doesn't make any sense >to me at all. A "Herman question" is of the form: "Suppose I do X; what >will you now do?" Every question of that form is an assertion that: "I >am comtemplating doing X", which is certainly UI to partner. Or, if it >be that a "Herman question" is being asked when the player is not in >fact contemplating doing X, then: (a) there is no demonstrable bridge >reason for the question; (b) it will certainly give rise to a false >inference that could mislead an opponent. This is a very strong, and responsive, line of argument. Permit me to eliminate a bit of irrelevancy by redefining the term "Herman question" as being limited solely to questions asked when the asker doesn't know the answer but believes that the answer will affect his impending choice of action, which are the only ones affected by L20F, as the others are indisputably illegal under other laws. >100% of HQs are therefore either going to pass serious amounts of UI, or >be illegal, or both. The same is not true of the vast majority of >non-HQs, which are of the form "Please explain this auction" or "Why >have you alerted that call?" (dangerously close to being illegal anyway, >but certainly no more than the "expected" question in the face of an >alert, and free from sinister connotations). > > > (2) The percentage of "Herman questions" that would be asked if they > > were legal is very small (call it 1%; again, the exact percentage > > doesn't matter) compared to the number of "non-Herman questions". I > > know this to be true, because where I play nobody knows that they are > > not legal, everyone asks them whenever they choose, and they do in >fact > > make up only a tiny percentage of the questions actually asked. > >This, I suppose, is a good thing, but - if it is true - then again it >makes little sense to me. In the course of this thread, people have been >falling over themselves to demonstrate that the HQ is an essential part >of "full disclosure" without which players are going to be completely >powerless to enter the competitive arena. If that isn't the case, why is >there so much indignation at being told that you can't ask them? I don't think anybody is asserting that without the particular avenue of disclosure under debate they will "be completely powerless to enter the competitive arena", only that there will be situations in which they will find themselves disadvantaged in doing so relative to others whose opponents' disclosure via the legally available channels is more complete than theirs and, contra-positively, disadvantaged by their own attempts to disclose as completely as possible via those channels relative to those who make no such effort. > > Using 99%-1% in both cases > >This, for reasons that I hope to have explained under Eric's point (1) >above, is the wrong figure by a huge margin. There is something >seriously wrong with 100% of HQs; of the others, I would say that at >least 80% had nothing wrong with them at all, while the remainder were >slightly flawed. > > > we discover that if "Herman questions" were > > legal, the legal questions would fall into the following four > > categories in these proportions (subject to rounding error): > > > (a) 98.01% would be non-Herman questions that don't create problems. > > (b) 0.99% would be non-Herman questions that do create problems. > > (c) 0.99% would be Herman questions that don't create problems. > > (d) 0.01% would be Herman questions that do create problems. > >These figures need major revision, but there are too many fireworks >going off just outside for me to attempt the task at the moment. > > > What Herman and I are on about is that there has been absolutely no > > rationale whatsoever put forth in this discussion to date (nor, I > > expect, can we imagine one) that would make it worthwhile to prevent > > the asking of questions in (c) in order to prevent the asking of > > questions of (d) while not simultaneously also making it just as > > worthwhile to prevent the asking of questions in (a) in order to > > prevent the asking of questions in (b). Yet such a rationale would > > seem to be needed in order to justify keeping L20F1 as currently > > interpreted. > >There is such a rationale now; or at least I assert that what I have >said above amounts to one. *Every* HQ is deeply flawed. Very few non-HQs >are flawed at all. There is indeed, and I accept it, insofar as I understand what David means: Every HQ is deeply flawed in the sense that it perforce passes UI to partner. Now we are really getting somewhere. David has successfully reduced the argument to: Does this "deep flaw" that is inherent in HQs justify banning them? I still don't think so. If I ask an HQ, I am passing UI to partner, but in the vast majority of cases it will not matter. If I ask about their methods over my double, or my preempt, and then pass, partner knows only that I would have doubled, or preempted, had their auction meant something other than it did. Conversely, if I ask and then double, or preempt, partner knows only that I would have done something else had their auction meant something other than it did. But it didn't mean something other than what it meant, and I have therefore not demonstrated any uncertainty about my choice of call given what it did mean. Therefore the chance that something bad will happen -- i.e. either the UI will adversely constrain partner's choice of call, and I will get a bad result because he wasn't free to act as he otherwise would have, or it will not properly do so, and I will get a bad result when the TD and AC are through with me -- is very small. Of course it could happen, and if it does I will be sorry I asked the question. But then if it wouldn't have happened, and if I'd have chosen a more successful call had I known what the opponents' potential auctions might mean, I will be equally sorry, not to mention rather pissed off if it turns out that the same information that I had no legal way of getting was available to the guy with my hand at the next table because his opponents had taken the trouble to fill out their CC more completely than mine had. What I, and many others, are saying is, why not let me decide? If it turns out this is one of those rare occasions when my question might turn out to have potentially affected partner's subsequent actions, I will accept the consequences in good grace, as I do whenever I have, as I must on occasion no matter how much I try not to, given UI to partner. If the mechanism we have for dealing with UI works adequately for non-HQs it will work just as adequately for HQs. It will not be overburdened; the number of HQs will still be 1% or so of the total of HQs and non-HQs, so the 100% of the former that cause problems will still be a much smaller number than the much smaller percentage of the latter that do. I paid my money; why can't I take my chances? More to the point, why can't I take my chances with an HQ on exactly the same basis that justifies my doing so freely with a non-HQ? Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Mon Nov 4 22:29:58 2002 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Mon, 4 Nov 2002 17:29:58 -0500 Subject: [blml] Re: 'Fully and freely available' In-Reply-To: <2991270.1036415669431.JavaMail.root@127.0.0.1> Message-ID: On 11/4/02, dalburn@btopenworld.com wrote: >The same thing that would be wrong with a law that says: "you are allowed to drive wherever you like, but be mindful >not to cause accidents." I'm not so sure that such a law would be wrong. :-) We have roads, and we have, over time, evolved protocols for using those roads, some or all of which have become enshrined in law. But it is not the enshrining law, but the custom which says "drive on the right side" (or the left, in some places). If the principle of law were "you may do what you like, save it harms no one, but if you harm someone, you will, as much as possible, repair that harm", then the law expressed above would simply be a restatement of the principle - and it is, I think, a good principle to live by, so why not enshrine it in law, as we have enshrined others over the years? But perhaps this is a digression better suited to some other place than blml - in which case I suggest we leave off discussion of "rights" (save perhaps in the case of dummy's rights, made explicit in the laws) and go back to discussion of players' obligations. From mfrench1@san.rr.com Mon Nov 4 22:52:01 2002 From: mfrench1@san.rr.com (Marvin L. French) Date: Mon, 4 Nov 2002 14:52:01 -0800 Subject: [blml] A practical question about disclosure References: Message-ID: <001901c28454$cbd44280$1c981e18@san.rr.com> From: "Todd Zimnoch" > Having until now believed I had to answer all questions about > my system and methods, I don't how to avoid answering questions I > am not legally required to. As a player, what is the practical > way I avoid answering questions about possible future auctions? > I'm also unclear exactly which questions are disallowed. Which of > the following questions are verboten? > > 1. Do you play Sandwich NT? > 2. What does "Bergen Raises" mean? > 3. If I double your weak NT, what is your escape sequence? (How > would this question be different from 1 if escape sequences had > names?) > 4. (before making a double) After 1D - takeout X, does a major bid > promise 4 or 5 cards for you? > 5. (before cue bidding) Do your doubles of cue bids show strong > suits or outside values? None of the questions is verboten per se. Any misuse of UI created by a question is verboten. None of them get answered by me. I have a CC in plain sight, I know the Alert regulations, I explain my auction (to date) when asked to do so, and I don't teach bridge. Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Mon Nov 4 22:40:47 2002 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Mon, 4 Nov 2002 17:40:47 -0500 Subject: [blml] Godel, Escher and Bridge In-Reply-To: <4.3.2.7.0.20021104130726.00be11b0@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: On 11/4/02, Eric Landau wrote: >There must be >*something* beyond the literal words of TFLB that makes Vanderbilt's >rules define something that we call bridge, makes the 1997 lawbook >define something different that we also call bridge, but makes the >rules of pachisi define something different that we do not call bridge. Well, for one thing, pachisi isn't played with a deck of 52 cards. From dalburn@btopenworld.com Mon Nov 4 23:52:03 2002 From: dalburn@btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: Mon, 4 Nov 2002 23:52:03 -0000 Subject: [blml] 'Fully and freely available' References: <4.3.2.7.0.20021104135422.00be7510@pop.starpower.net> <4.3.2.7.0.20021104163147.00be7d60@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <007a01c2845d$2d664fe0$bb9b23d9@pbncomputer> I have just noticed that Eric's original message, from which I quoted below, seemed to be addressed only to me and not to the list. Apologies if it was meant to be a private message; I answered it before I looked closely at the header. Eric wrote: > This is a very strong, and responsive, line of argument. Permit me to > eliminate a bit of irrelevancy by redefining the term "Herman question" > as being limited solely to questions asked when the asker doesn't know > the answer but believes that the answer will affect his impending > choice of action, which are the only ones affected by L20F, as the > others are indisputably illegal under other laws. An essential component of what I have shamelessly been calling a "Herman question" without the great man's permission - though I trust he won't mind, or that if he does, a couple of litres of beer when we next meet will be considered sufficient recompense - is that it is a quesion of the form: "What are your methods if I take some action X at this point?" All other legal questions are non-H because, although the asker doesn't know the answer and it might affect his next call, he is asking not about the future development of the auction but about its development to date. I am sure that Eric understands the distinction, but this is not quite clear to me from what he says above. > I don't think anybody is asserting that without the particular avenue > of disclosure under debate they will "be completely powerless to enter > the competitive arena", only that there will be situations in which > they will find themselves disadvantaged in doing so relative to others > whose opponents' disclosure via the legally available channels is more > complete than theirs Fair enough. I tend to exaggerate now and again in order to make a point, as do many of us. But I'd better be careful - we don't want people leaving BLML in droves. > and, contra-positively, disadvantaged by their own > attempts to disclose as completely as possible via those channels > relative to those who make no such effort. It is also fair to say that if your opponents are not doing what they are supposed to be doing, there are avenues of redress open to you. As Eric has earlier pointed out, these avenues are complex and time-consuming, compared to the asking of a "simple" question; moreoever, less experienced players may not know that wrong has been done them and that they are entitled to pursue redress. All of that is a strong practical argument for just letting the players get on with it. But here is a forum where we are not really concerned with what the players do, but with what the Law is, with why it is the Law, and with whether or not it should continue to be the Law. As I have said elsewhere, if players think the rules are stupid, they do in practice ignore them and get on with the game. I've done it myself many times. When doing so, however, I have known and accepted that what I do is technically wrong, and have not sought to justify my action with the specious argument that "everybody else does it". > Now we are really getting somewhere. David has successfully reduced > the argument to: Does this "deep flaw" that is inherent in HQs justify > banning them? Bear in mind that the transmission of UI is not the only deep flaw that I perceive in HQs. I think that they could waste significant amounts of time, though I accept that they may not be common enough that this would be a serious drawback in practice. I also think that they might deceive an opponent, or - more importantly - might seriously disconcert an opponent, perhaps causing him to transmit UI to his partner in turn ("What will you do if I bid 3S?" "I don't know - we haven't discussed it" or "His double would then be for penalty" are not answers that I would feel comfortable about obliging my opponents to give). And furthermore, I think that Carthage ought to be destroyed. > I still don't think so. If I ask an HQ, I am passing UI to partner, > but in the vast majority of cases it will not matter. I am not sure about this. We know that we're not supposed to take advantage of UI. But with the best will in the world, we cannot say in every case that we have successfully made the required conscious effort to overcome the subconscious influence of the UI that we have received. In short, I think it appropriate for the Law to remove from players the ability to place their partners (or their opponents) in certain types of invidious position, rather than rely on the players to police themselves - and the HQ is, to my way of thinking, one of those cases where the Law should remove temptation. > What I, and many others, are saying is, why not let me decide? For the same reason that the law of the land does not let you decide how fast you're going to drive on an empty road. There are different laws in different lands, of course - the King of Norway seems to me a thoroughly enlightened chap, though his chauffeur may have reason to curse him on occasion - and we are now entering the realm of political and philosophical debate: to what extent should the State (or the WBFLC) allow people to control their own destinies? To that question, there is no "right" answer. If the issue surrounding Law 20 and Law 75 has indeed been reduced to these terms, then (to my way of thinking) further debate will serve little purpose, for we each have our own views on the question of individual liberty against collective responsibility. We have come a long way. We have generated an awful lot of heat for what many may feel is not much light, but (again, to my way of thinking) the exercise has been worth while. Ton and Grattan have something to think about; Herman at least gets some free beer and the distinction of having not only a School but a Question named after him; and I have learned that there may be something wrong with Law 14A, contrary to my previous belief. As soon as I have discovered what that is, I will return to the battlements. On this subject, however, I have said my last word. David Burn London, England From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Tue Nov 5 00:56:57 2002 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 5 Nov 2002 10:56:57 +1000 Subject: [blml] I don't teach bridge Message-ID: <4A256C68.0003C6C5.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> In the thread, "A practical question about disclosure", Marvin L. French wrote: >None of the questions is verboten per se. Any >misuse of UI created by a question is verboten. > >None of them get answered by me. I have a CC in >plain sight, I know the Alert regulations, I >explain my auction (to date) when asked to do >so, and I don't teach bridge. Marv's "I don't teach bridge" policy is usually highly commendable. One of the things I hate happening at the table, is when one opponent gives a gratuitous lesson to their partner. However, I apply one exception to the "I don't teach bridge" policy. If an inexperienced opponent voluntarily asks for my advice, I am happy to provide such advice to the best of my ability. Best wishes Richard From twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Tue Nov 5 00:05:00 2002 From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Date: Tue, 5 Nov 2002 00:05 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [blml] 'Fully and freely available' Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <006201c28446$3ae72840$bb9b23d9@pbncomputer> David (guess we have to get used to it) wrote: > Well, perhaps it's about time someone did, for it doesn't make any sense > to me at all. A "Herman question" is of the form: "Suppose I do X; what > will you now do?" That is a Herman question. In the auction: 2S (p) 2Na "Can I have an explanation of the auction please" 2S - Weak, 2N - Forcing enquiry, asking for further description of hand HQ: "What response structure are you using?" or "Do you have any agreements about responses after interference?" Non HQ: "Does the 2N promise any values?" IMO the Non HQ conveys more UI than the HQ. Tim From mfrench1@san.rr.com Tue Nov 5 03:41:13 2002 From: mfrench1@san.rr.com (Marvin L. French) Date: Mon, 4 Nov 2002 19:41:13 -0800 Subject: [blml] I don't teach bridge References: <4A256C68.0003C6C5.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> Message-ID: <006801c2847d$320a27e0$1c981e18@san.rr.com> Richard Hills wrote: > > In the thread, "A practical question about > disclosure", Marvin L. French wrote: > > >None of the questions is verboten per se. Any > >misuse of UI created by a question is verboten. > > > >None of them get answered by me. I have a CC in > >plain sight, I know the Alert regulations, I > >explain my auction (to date) when asked to do > >so, and I don't teach bridge. > > Marv's "I don't teach bridge" policy is usually > highly commendable. One of the things I hate > happening at the table, is when one opponent > gives a gratuitous lesson to their partner. > > However, I apply one exception to the "I don't > teach bridge" policy. If an inexperienced > opponent voluntarily asks for my advice, I am happy > to provide such advice to the best of my ability. > Certainly, me too. As Edgar Kaplan told me once, L75C's last sentence should be ignored when playing against the inexperienced. Or, for that matter, when playing against foreign players who may not be familiar with North American bidding practices. Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California . From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Tue Nov 5 04:56:35 2002 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Mon, 4 Nov 2002 23:56:35 -0500 Subject: [blml] 'Fully and freely available' In-Reply-To: <007a01c2845d$2d664fe0$bb9b23d9@pbncomputer> Message-ID: On 11/4/02, David Burn wrote: >we are now entering the realm of political and philosophical debate: >to what extent should the State (or the WBFLC) allow people to control >their own destinies? I would word that differently, at least in the former case: to what extent should the State be allowed to control people's destinies? From A.Kooijman@dwk.agro.nl Tue Nov 5 08:18:49 2002 From: A.Kooijman@dwk.agro.nl (Kooijman, A.) Date: Tue, 05 Nov 2002 09:18:49 +0100 Subject: [blml] 'Fully and freely available' Message-ID: Eric: > Permit me to > eliminate a bit of irrelevancy by redefining the term "Herman > question" > as being limited solely to questions asked when the asker > doesn't know > the answer but believes that the answer will affect his impending > choice of action, which are the only ones affected by L20F, as the > others are indisputably illegal under other laws. could you give me the 'other laws' supporting or even better proving this statement of being indisputably illegal? Not 73F2 I hope? As far as I understand the laws it could be considered illegal only to ask when the answer will affect the choice for the call to be made and I use 73B1 for that opinion. ton From siegmund@mosquitonet.com Tue Nov 5 08:41:11 2002 From: siegmund@mosquitonet.com (Gordon Bower) Date: Mon, 4 Nov 2002 23:41:11 -0900 (AKST) Subject: [blml] I don't teach bridge In-Reply-To: <006801c2847d$320a27e0$1c981e18@san.rr.com> Message-ID: Every so often you will come upon a player who, when asked about his bidding sequence, will explain it as "Just bridge." Now suppose I receive this (non-)explanation, play the hand according to what [insert any popular bidding textbook here] says it shows, and go down because that isn't what he had, and call the director claiming misinformation? I have a feeling that - especially if the explainer is a well-known strong player and the complainer is a Flight B type - the director will dismiss the complaint with a chuckle and keep the deposit. I don't happen to think this is right. If someone politely says, "no agreement, we will both have to try to work out what we think my partner has from looking at our own hands," that's fine, and I'd not expect you to reveal your own hand by speculating further. But if someone says "just bridge" or "I am not hear to teach you bridge" or words of similar effect, with no other comment (or with the traditional condescending sneer) you can be sure I will be very generous to the NOs. It's one of very few things that'll get you a near-automatic fine from me and make me consider ejecting you if I hear it happen twice in a day. (Please note, I have not played against Marv French, and I not saying this is what he does. It was merely the choice of words in his post that reminded me of it.) If the bidding goes 1D-Pass-1S and my opponent asks if the spade bidder can have hearts too, I think saying "just bridge" is "just plain rude" - general bridge knowledge or not, I can't imagine doing anything OTHER than saying "if he has 5 spades, yes, if only 4, no." If a UI problem re a heart lead comes up, fine, I'll call the director for that when the time comes. I can recall two times in my bridge life when I was regularly asked such questions. One was when I played a Polish-style club, and people asked us endless questions about our 11-18 HCP 1-of-suit openings and 8+HCP responses, querying every bid in a whole round instead of believing our "it's just like standard, only opener is 2 points weaker and responder is 2 points stronger" sumamry. The other was when I was a bright novice, and I would be quizzed about inferences in my system by stronger players, so they could get a feel about whether they could trust all of the "standard" inferences to apply to my formerly-unreliable-but-steadying bidding. Some people might think this rude; I don't think so; it was a fair question about what my system was. If I responded in my better 4-card major instead of always responding 1H when I had 4-4, that (in the US anyway) is nonstandard and disclosable, but something only a person who isnt good enough to know the disclosure rules would ever do. The players who wanted to know what my "so-called-standard" system really was had no choice but to ask. GRB From hermandw@skynet.be Tue Nov 5 09:01:31 2002 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 05 Nov 2002 10:01:31 +0100 Subject: [blml] Full disclosure References: <4.3.2.7.0.20021104104352.00bbfed0@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <3DC788EB.3040206@skynet.be> No Eric, I believe the true meaning of losing a right is a third one. We're not talking about the right to ask questions. We've agree that we never had that right (except perhaps from 1997 to 1999). We're talking about the right to know the answers. that is the right we "loose" when we are not allowed to ask the questions. And the question now is if we ever had the right to those answers in the first place. I believe L40 and L75 gave me that right, some people believe that L20 stated you never had that right. In my believe there is a "right to full disclosure" which is lost. In other people's mind, there never was such a thing as "full disclosure" since L20 already limits it. But all that is just semantics. Which was the subject of your contribution, so I felt I could add this. Eric Landau wrote: > At 09:30 PM 11/2/02, Grattan wrote: > >> +=+ It was the alleged right to ask the question >> that I was saying could not be lost because it >> had not existed (as a matter of rule). You are >> not entitled during the auction to ask for an >> explanation of calls that have not yet happened. +=+ > > > We have been distracted into chasing a semantic red herring here. We > are using "losing the right to ask hypothetical questions during the > auction" to mean two entirely different things. > > One is something like, "Once upon a time we had the right to ask such > questions during the auction, but we lost that right when the WBF took > it away from us." > > We are told this is not true. So what? Who cares? > > The other is, "We have an undisputed right to ask such questions before > the start of the auction, but according to L20F1 we lose that right when > the auction begins." > > David B., Grattan and others have successfully convinced us that this is > true, and the question still on the table is whether it would be wise or > unwise of those revising the laws for 2005 to keep it so. > > > Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net > 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 > Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw@skynet.be Tue Nov 5 09:03:56 2002 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 05 Nov 2002 10:03:56 +0100 Subject: 'Fully and freely available' : was Re: [blml] questions about future calls References: <011102305.28810@webbox.com> <008e01c28206$07b7dce0$7ffb193e@4nrw70j> <3DC38EAF.7010003@skynet.be> <001c01c28251$9fc2c9a0$bb9b23d9@pbncomputer> <001d01c2825d$2d967640$16e7193e@4nrw70j> <3DC3C50D.8080203@skynet.be> <000701c28277$dc92ea10$70d8fea9@WINXP> <003b01c28329$449023b0$12dff1c3@LNV> <3DC52834.7060502@skynet.be> <006201c28342$6cafdca0$70d8fea9@WINXP> <007501c28438$5679e7e0$5fc0f1c3@LNV> Message-ID: <3DC7897C.7090501@skynet.be> Yes, nice distinction, thank you Ton. Legal questions also contain UI, but at least the answer is AI. Illegal questions contain UI both in question and answer. Ton Kooijman wrote: > me: > > >>>>Some very good TDs don''t have that problems. But your description of >>>> >>the >> >>>>problem is wrong. We are not dealing with illegally passed UI but with >>>>legally passed UI when we allow such questions. And even that a good >>>> > TD > >>>>should solve satisfactory, but it is not a very nice solution for >>>> >>defender's >> >>>>side. >>>> >>>> >>> >>>Ton is right of course in pointing out that Sven is wrong in talking >>>about "illegal" UI. >>> >>May I just point out that while many legal actions result in UI where it >>is up to partner to avoid using it, there are also actions that violate >>Law 73B. The UI resulting from such actions is what I mean by >>"illegal" UI. >> >>And I was just trying to distinguish legal questions from those where the >>sole purpose would be in violation of Law 73B (or Law 74A2). >> >>Until now I have not had much problems with that. >> >> >>>However, I don't see the difference between >>>legally and illegally passed UI. Every question that I pose contains >>>UI to my partner, and while I am within my rights to ask them, they >>>are still UI. >>> > > I don''t think so, see below > > There is not a single law in the book that says that the > >>>UI that I could now also pass by asking a (now forbidden) hypothetical >>>question would be treated any different than it would be if the >>>question were allowed. >>> > > > > > > A problem with these discussions is that I don''t have enough time for it. > So my language is often too concentrated. > I tried to explain that when a question is permitted it normally should be > treated as a neutral one and the information arising from it is legal, free > available.The TD needs to be lenient towards the asking side, he needs a > rather strong case before he can decide that an irregularity has occurred. > L16 is not applicable in that normal situation. The question is authorized > isn''t it? > So, when we allow questions about possible future calls we introduce a field > of legal information in a case I am not so sure we can handle it. Or if we > can the disadvantage might still be bigger than the advantage. > > > ton > > > > > > > > >>Oh yes, there is a great difference: >>"Legal" UI is dealt with under Law 16 if the "receiver" makes use of it. >>"Illegal" UI should be dealt with as a violation also of Law 73B whether >>or not the UI is used. >> >>But isn't this just quibbling >> > > > I didn''t have any intention to quibble. > > ton > > > > > >>Sven >> >> >>_______________________________________________ >>blml mailing list >>blml@rtflb.org >>http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml >> > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw@skynet.be Tue Nov 5 09:11:27 2002 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 05 Nov 2002 10:11:27 +0100 Subject: 'Fully and freely available' : was Re: [blml] questions about future calls References: <011102305.28810@webbox.com> <008e01c28206$07b7dce0$7ffb193e@4nrw70j> <3DC38EAF.7010003@skynet.be> <001c01c28251$9fc2c9a0$bb9b23d9@pbncomputer> <001d01c2825d$2d967640$16e7193e@4nrw70j> <3DC3C50D.8080203@skynet.be> <3DC62DDF.8040003@skynet.be> <3DC6685B.9070905@skynet.be> <003e01c2841d$15ed81c0$3b1e2850@pacific> Message-ID: <3DC78B3F.3080001@skynet.be> gester@lineone.net wrote: > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Herman De Wael" > To: "blml" > Sent: Monday, November 04, 2002 12:30 PM > Subject: Re: 'Fully and freely available' : > was Re: [blml] questions about future calls > > > >>You are using the word right in a completely >>wrong context here, and in your previous message. >>Players don't have the right to tell everything - they >>might have an obligation to do so. That obligation >>is impossible to realize, and if that is what you are >>saying, we are in agreement. However, the laws >>do NOT actually speak of this obligation. Rather, >>they give a right to the opponents - that of knowing >>everything. In order to achieve that right, full >>questioning must be possible. >> >> > +=+ Now that is the most convoluted misappreciation > of bridge law that I have come across for a long time. Sorry Grattan, but I don't like your attitude here. I write what I believe the laws to imply and I don't think you should quelify that as "convoluted misappreciation". I was not the one that started the use of the word "right" in here, and I corrected someone else's use of the word. The players don't have the right to explain fully, it's the opponents who have the right to have the agreements explained to them. The extent of this right is at question, but re-reading my paragraph above I see that I have not made a statement as to that extent (other than re-iterating my views about it). If you want to correct my misappreciations, please do so on some other piece of drivel of mine. This one was a correction of some very bad use of the word "right" by someone else. Also, I don't need the law re-read to me. I know what it says and I believe what I believe it means. And that belief is different from yours. We knew that all along. > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw@skynet.be Tue Nov 5 09:15:19 2002 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 05 Nov 2002 10:15:19 +0100 Subject: 'Fully and freely available' : was Re: [blml] questions about future calls References: <105.1ed8d09a.2af70a6b@aol.com> Message-ID: <3DC78C27.401@skynet.be> John (MadDog) Probst wrote: > In article <105.1ed8d09a.2af70a6b@aol.com>, Schoderb@aol.com writes > >> In a message dated 11/3/2002 10:13:56 AM Eastern Standard Time, >> hermandw@skynet.be writes: >> >> >>> As far as I am concerned, this thread has ended with a >>> satisfactory >>> closure. Which does not mean I believe we have read the last of >>> it, >>> nor that I believe I have written the last on it. >>> >> >> >> Wanna bet? >> =K= >> > > I'll give you a spread of 20-24 hrs, capped at 3 days :) > I don't understand this - I said I would not have written the last of it. Do I win the bet ? -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw@skynet.be Tue Nov 5 09:27:24 2002 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 05 Nov 2002 10:27:24 +0100 Subject: [blml] 'Fully and freely available' References: <4.3.2.7.0.20021104135422.00be7510@pop.starpower.net> <4.3.2.7.0.20021104163147.00be7d60@pop.starpower.net> <007a01c2845d$2d664fe0$bb9b23d9@pbncomputer> Message-ID: <3DC78EFC.5030302@skynet.be> David Burn wrote: > I have just noticed that Eric's original message, from which I quoted > below, seemed to be addressed only to me and not to the list. Apologies > if it was meant to be a private message; I answered it before I looked > closely at the header. > I had been looking for it, yes. > Eric wrote: > > >>This is a very strong, and responsive, line of argument. Permit me to >>eliminate a bit of irrelevancy by redefining the term "Herman >> > question" > >>as being limited solely to questions asked when the asker doesn't know >>the answer but believes that the answer will affect his impending >>choice of action, which are the only ones affected by L20F, as the >>others are indisputably illegal under other laws. >> > > An essential component of what I have shamelessly been calling a "Herman > question" without the great man's permission - though I trust he won't > mind, I don't, let's abbreviate to HQ (Herman's Hypothetical Question). > or that if he does, a couple of litres of beer when we next meet > will be considered sufficient recompense - Sorry, I don't approve - can I have my litres then ? > is that it is a quesion of > the form: "What are your methods if I take some action X at this point?" Which is of course UI that I am contemplating action X. But what if the question be put about actions X,Y and Z ? Can there be absolutely no HQ's without UI ? > All other legal questions are non-H because, although the asker doesn't > know the answer and it might affect his next call, he is asking not > about the future development of the auction but about its development to > date. I am sure that Eric understands the distinction, but this is not > quite clear to me from what he says above. > > >>I don't think anybody is asserting that without the particular avenue >>of disclosure under debate they will "be completely powerless to enter >>the competitive arena", only that there will be situations in which >>they will find themselves disadvantaged in doing so relative to others >>whose opponents' disclosure via the legally available channels is more >>complete than theirs >> > > Fair enough. I tend to exaggerate now and again in order to make a > point, as do many of us. But I'd better be careful - we don't want > people leaving BLML in droves. > No, one was just right - at least we wont have to add (B)'s to David any more and DwS can mean what it should. > >>and, contra-positively, disadvantaged by their own >>attempts to disclose as completely as possible via those channels >>relative to those who make no such effort. >> > > It is also fair to say that if your opponents are not doing what they > are supposed to be doing, there are avenues of redress open to you. As > Eric has earlier pointed out, these avenues are complex and > time-consuming, compared to the asking of a "simple" question; > moreoever, less experienced players may not know that wrong has been > done them and that they are entitled to pursue redress. All of that is a > strong practical argument for just letting the players get on with it. > > But here is a forum where we are not really concerned with what the > players do, but with what the Law is, with why it is the Law, and with > whether or not it should continue to be the Law. As I have said > elsewhere, if players think the rules are stupid, they do in practice > ignore them and get on with the game. I've done it myself many times. > When doing so, however, I have known and accepted that what I do is > technically wrong, and have not sought to justify my action with the > specious argument that "everybody else does it". > > >>Now we are really getting somewhere. David has successfully reduced >>the argument to: Does this "deep flaw" that is inherent in HQs justify >>banning them? >> I now believe that it does. Provided that ban is retracted behind screens (which it is not at the moment !) > > Bear in mind that the transmission of UI is not the only deep flaw that > I perceive in HQs. I think that they could waste significant amounts of > time, though I accept that they may not be common enough that this would > be a serious drawback in practice. I also think that they might deceive > an opponent, or - more importantly - might seriously disconcert an > opponent, perhaps causing him to transmit UI to his partner in turn > ("What will you do if I bid 3S?" "I don't know - we haven't discussed > it" or "His double would then be for penalty" are not answers that I > would feel comfortable about obliging my opponents to give). And > furthermore, I think that Carthage ought to be destroyed. > > >>I still don't think so. If I ask an HQ, I am passing UI to partner, >>but in the vast majority of cases it will not matter. >> > > I am not sure about this. We know that we're not supposed to take > advantage of UI. But with the best will in the world, we cannot say in > every case that we have successfully made the required conscious effort > to overcome the subconscious influence of the UI that we have received. > In short, I think it appropriate for the Law to remove from players the > ability to place their partners (or their opponents) in certain types of > invidious position, rather than rely on the players to police > themselves - and the HQ is, to my way of thinking, one of those cases > where the Law should remove temptation. > > >>What I, and many others, are saying is, why not let me decide? >> > > For the same reason that the law of the land does not let you decide how > fast you're going to drive on an empty road. There are different laws in > different lands, of course - the King of Norway seems to me a thoroughly > enlightened chap, though his chauffeur may have reason to curse him on > occasion - and we are now entering the realm of political and > philosophical debate: to what extent should the State (or the WBFLC) > allow people to control their own destinies? > > To that question, there is no "right" answer. If the issue surrounding > Law 20 and Law 75 has indeed been reduced to these terms, then (to my > way of thinking) further debate will serve little purpose, for we each > have our own views on the question of individual liberty against > collective responsibility. > > We have come a long way. We have generated an awful lot of heat for what > many may feel is not much light, but (again, to my way of thinking) the > exercise has been worth while. Ton and Grattan have something to think > about; Herman at least gets some free beer and the distinction of having > not only a School but a Question named after him; and I have learned > that there may be something wrong with Law 14A, contrary to my previous > belief. As soon as I have discovered what that is, I will return to the > battlements. On this subject, however, I have said my last word. > I was more cautious, David, saying I did not believe I was going to have said my last word. And I still got a response "wanna bet?". > David Burn > London, England > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Tue Nov 5 10:43:22 2002 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Tue, 5 Nov 2002 10:43:22 -0000 Subject: [blml] questions about future calls [was: Is Stayman alertabl e in WBF/EBL events?] References: <018c01c2819a$aefda3c0$259868d5@default> <018c01c2819a$aefda3c0$259868d5@default> <4.3.2.7.0.20021101085747.00a98d20@pop.starpower.net> <011801c282c3$0cb1aec0$499c68d5@default> <002001c282db$ddb6f940$1c981e18@san.rr.com> <001c01c2831c$a52b5a80$639c68d5@default> <005d01c28354$751cabe0$639c68d5@default> <+lFkXIAG7hx9Ewxu@asimere.com> <003901c283eb$338802a0$959868d5@default> <00cd01c2842b$54133400$959868d5@default> Message-ID: <010b01c284b8$4dc992a0$b09868d5@default> [Nigel Guthrie] (: Ahh right. In accord with Marvin's & your instructions I have updated my CC as follows :) Pass = 0-9 Ask & pass = 10-12 X = 16+ Ask & X = 13-15 OverCall = Intermed Ask & overcall = Weak [MadDog Probst] At the YC we play inverted French defence, where ask and pass shows 0-9, and the pass shows 10-12. This makes it easier to balance, and the TD can't rule UI. It's clearly a superior system. :) [Nigel 2] (: Thanks, that's a distinct improvement; but before I change my CC again, please confirm that it's licensed by the FFB :) John, your variation seems to be a typical UK improvement. As I mentioned before, at Brighton and Bournemouth we all followed your suggested methods with Hesitations and Questions, in many other situations. e.g. RHO opens (4H) Immediate actions... P = Scattered values e.g. Axx Qx Axxx Jxxx X = T/O e.g. AQxx - KJxxx Axxx After a hesitation the meaning changes... ...P = Rubbish - if partner Xs or bids, he is on his own e.g. Qxx xx Jxxxxx xx ...X = Penalty e.g. Axx AKJ xxxxx xx {: We await the next edition of the Orange Book to obtain the final seal of approval :) From gester@lineone.net Tue Nov 5 13:05:46 2002 From: gester@lineone.net (gester@lineone.net) Date: Tue, 5 Nov 2002 13:05:46 -0000 Subject: 'Fully and freely available' : was Re: [blml] questions about future calls References: <011102305.28810@webbox.com> <008e01c28206$07b7dce0$7ffb193e@4nrw70j> <3DC38EAF.7010003@skynet.be> <001c01c28251$9fc2c9a0$bb9b23d9@pbncomputer> <001d01c2825d$2d967640$16e7193e@4nrw70j> <3DC3C50D.8080203@skynet.be> <3DC62DDF.8040003@skynet.be> <3DC6685B.9070905@skynet.be> <003e01c2841d$15ed81c0$3b1e2850@pacific> <3DC78B3F.3080001@skynet.be> Message-ID: <006401c284cc$3558c4c0$5b2a2850@pacific> Grattan Endicott To: "blml" Sent: Tuesday, November 05, 2002 9:11 AM Subject: Re: 'Fully and freely available' : was Re: [blml] questions about future calls > gester@lineone.net wrote: > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Herman De Wael" > > To: "blml" > > Sent: Monday, November 04, 2002 12:30 PM > > Subject: Re: 'Fully and freely available' : > > was Re: [blml] questions about future calls > > > > I was not the one that started the use of the word > "right" in here, and I corrected someone else's use > of the word. The players don't have the right to > explain fully, it's the opponents who have the right > to have the agreements explained to them. > +=+ But in the laws that right is only inferred from the obligation on the players to disclose fully. If you are going to give your opinions it will benefit those who might otherwise be misled if you start by consulting the text of the laws - with which you are evidently not wholly familiar. +=+ From gester@lineone.net Tue Nov 5 12:55:43 2002 From: gester@lineone.net (gester@lineone.net) Date: Tue, 5 Nov 2002 12:55:43 -0000 Subject: [blml] Convention cards and the questions of false prophets. Message-ID: <006301c284cc$344c36c0$5b2a2850@pacific> Grattan Endicott References: <4.3.2.7.0.20021104130726.00be11b0@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <4.3.2.7.0.20021105081410.00ad7930@pop.starpower.net> At 05:40 PM 11/4/02, Ed wrote: >On 11/4/02, Eric Landau wrote: > > >There must be > >*something* beyond the literal words of TFLB that makes Vanderbilt's > >rules define something that we call bridge, makes the 1997 lawbook > >define something different that we also call bridge, but makes the > >rules of pachisi define something different that we do not call bridge. > >Well, for one thing, pachisi isn't played with a deck of 52 cards. If we rewrote TFLB so that the only changes were to eliminate the aces from the deck and make book five (of 12 tricks) instead of six (of 13), would it still be bridge? Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 From ehaa@starpower.net Tue Nov 5 14:07:03 2002 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Tue, 05 Nov 2002 09:07:03 -0500 Subject: [blml] 'Fully and freely available' In-Reply-To: <007a01c2845d$2d664fe0$bb9b23d9@pbncomputer> References: <4.3.2.7.0.20021104135422.00be7510@pop.starpower.net> <4.3.2.7.0.20021104163147.00be7d60@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <4.3.2.7.0.20021105082453.00be5d20@pop.starpower.net> At 06:52 PM 11/4/02, David wrote: >I have just noticed that Eric's original message, from which I quoted >below, seemed to be addressed only to me and not to the list. Apologies >if it was meant to be a private message; I answered it before I looked >closely at the header. No problem. I slipped again (usually I catch it almost immediately; I must have been sleepy yesterday); it should have been public. >Eric wrote: > > > This is a very strong, and responsive, line of argument. Permit me to > > eliminate a bit of irrelevancy by redefining the term "Herman >question" > > as being limited solely to questions asked when the asker doesn't know > > the answer but believes that the answer will affect his impending > > choice of action, which are the only ones affected by L20F, as the > > others are indisputably illegal under other laws. > >An essential component of what I have shamelessly been calling a "Herman >question" without the great man's permission - though I trust he won't >mind, or that if he does, a couple of litres of beer when we next meet >will be considered sufficient recompense - is that it is a quesion of >the form: "What are your methods if I take some action X at this point?" >All other legal questions are non-H because, although the asker doesn't >know the answer and it might affect his next call, he is asking not >about the future development of the auction but about its development to >date. I am sure that Eric understands the distinction, but this is not >quite clear to me from what he says above. I do, but I wasn't clear. I intended to redefine the set of HQs to only those which met both your original definition and my added constraint. > > I don't think anybody is asserting that without the particular avenue > > of disclosure under debate they will "be completely powerless to enter > > the competitive arena", only that there will be situations in which > > they will find themselves disadvantaged in doing so relative to others > > whose opponents' disclosure via the legally available channels is more > > complete than theirs > >Fair enough. I tend to exaggerate now and again in order to make a >point, as do many of us. But I'd better be careful - we don't want >people leaving BLML in droves. > > > and, contra-positively, disadvantaged by their own > > attempts to disclose as completely as possible via those channels > > relative to those who make no such effort. > >It is also fair to say that if your opponents are not doing what they >are supposed to be doing, there are avenues of redress open to you. As >Eric has earlier pointed out, these avenues are complex and >time-consuming, compared to the asking of a "simple" question; >moreoever, less experienced players may not know that wrong has been >done them and that they are entitled to pursue redress. All of that is a >strong practical argument for just letting the players get on with it. That is precisely the reason I have strong feelings on this issue. I don't want to be the TD who is called to the table the first time someone in our game refuses to answer a HQ and find myself in the position of having to explain to his opponents, then to my fellow local TDs and the appeals committee, that the law is on his side. I worry they will think I've gone 'round the bend. >But here is a forum where we are not really concerned with what the >players do, but with what the Law is, with why it is the Law, and with >whether or not it should continue to be the Law. As I have said >elsewhere, if players think the rules are stupid, they do in practice >ignore them and get on with the game. I've done it myself many times. >When doing so, however, I have known and accepted that what I do is >technically wrong, and have not sought to justify my action with the >specious argument that "everybody else does it". To my way of thinking, "if players think [a rule] is stupid" that's one of the strongest possible reasons for changing it. > > Now we are really getting somewhere. David has successfully reduced > > the argument to: Does this "deep flaw" that is inherent in HQs justify > > banning them? > >Bear in mind that the transmission of UI is not the only deep flaw that >I perceive in HQs. I think that they could waste significant amounts of >time, though I accept that they may not be common enough that this would >be a serious drawback in practice. I also think that they might deceive >an opponent, or - more importantly - might seriously disconcert an >opponent, perhaps causing him to transmit UI to his partner in turn >("What will you do if I bid 3S?" "I don't know - we haven't discussed >it" or "His double would then be for penalty" are not answers that I >would feel comfortable about obliging my opponents to give). And >furthermore, I think that Carthage ought to be destroyed. I hear what David is saying here. As I said before, it is a strong argument that cannot be overlooked, notwithstanding that I still believe the weight of the arguments fall the other way. > > I still don't think so. If I ask an HQ, I am passing UI to partner, > > but in the vast majority of cases it will not matter. > >I am not sure about this. We know that we're not supposed to take >advantage of UI. But with the best will in the world, we cannot say in >every case that we have successfully made the required conscious effort >to overcome the subconscious influence of the UI that we have received. >In short, I think it appropriate for the Law to remove from players the >ability to place their partners (or their opponents) in certain types of >invidious position, rather than rely on the players to police >themselves - and the HQ is, to my way of thinking, one of those cases >where the Law should remove temptation. > > > What I, and many others, are saying is, why not let me decide? > >For the same reason that the law of the land does not let you decide how >fast you're going to drive on an empty road. There are different laws in >different lands, of course - the King of Norway seems to me a thoroughly >enlightened chap, though his chauffeur may have reason to curse him on >occasion - and we are now entering the realm of political and >philosophical debate: to what extent should the State (or the WBFLC) >allow people to control their own destinies? > >To that question, there is no "right" answer. If the issue surrounding >Law 20 and Law 75 has indeed been reduced to these terms, then (to my >way of thinking) further debate will serve little purpose, for we each >have our own views on the question of individual liberty against >collective responsibility. There is a sense in which, as David has argued, the "right" answer cannot be found because bridge is a game, and the concepts of "right" and "wrong" simply don't apply to its laws ("Right: 1. In accordance with or conformable to justice, law, morality, or another standard" [AHD]). There is another sense in which, when we discuss how the law might be written in the future, our only objective is to decide what is "right" ("Right: 3. Fitting, proper or appropriate"). >We have come a long way. We have generated an awful lot of heat for what >many may feel is not much light, but (again, to my way of thinking) the >exercise has been worth while. Ton and Grattan have something to think >about; Herman at least gets some free beer and the distinction of having >not only a School but a Question named after him; and I have learned >that there may be something wrong with Law 14A, contrary to my previous >belief. As soon as I have discovered what that is, I will return to the >battlements. On this subject, however, I have said my last word. I think there has been a great deal of light shed on the subject. Thanks to all who participated, and to David Burn in particular for keeping it going until we managed to pretty much say it all. I feel like I'd now be prepared to give a cogent summary of the arguments both for and against maintaining the WBF's current interpretation of L20F1, whereas before this thread started I didn't even realize that there was an issue to think about. In my book, that means it has been as enlightening a debate as one could hope for. The ultimate objective of such discussions is to help our lawmakers determine the future of our laws. We do that not by deciding which side comes out "on top" in the end, but by making sure that all sides have a place where they can put forth their arguments to be heard and considered by those who are willing to listen. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 From ehaa@starpower.net Tue Nov 5 14:28:03 2002 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Tue, 05 Nov 2002 09:28:03 -0500 Subject: Fwd: RE: [blml] 'Fully and freely available' Message-ID: <4.3.2.7.0.20021105092658.00ad3d10@pop.starpower.net> I goofed again and sent this privately by mistake. Apologies to Ton for the double post. >Date: Tue, 05 Nov 2002 09:26:41 -0500 >To: "Kooijman, A." >From: Eric Landau >Subject: RE: [blml] 'Fully and freely available' > >At 03:18 AM 11/5/02, Kooijman wrote: > >>Eric: >> >> > Permit me to >> > eliminate a bit of irrelevancy by redefining the term "Herman >> > question" >> > as being limited solely to questions asked when the asker >> > doesn't know >> > the answer but believes that the answer will affect his impending >> > choice of action, which are the only ones affected by L20F, as the >> > others are indisputably illegal under other laws. >> >>could you give me the 'other laws' supporting or even better proving this >>statement of being indisputably illegal? Not 73F2 I hope? As far as I >>understand the laws it could be considered illegal only to ask when the >>answer will affect the choice for the call to be made and I use 73B1 for >>that opinion. > >Others have argued similarly; that's really a whole separate >discussion. If you take that position, though, you must take it with >regard to all questions, not just HQs, so I don't think it's directly >relevant. > >And, yes, I do assert that L73F2 suffices to deal with David's concern >that HQs may be deceptive in nature. And that L16A suffices to deal >with UI, and that the CoC or local regs suffice to deal with time >problems, and so on. But the citations don't matter; my argument >doesn't depend on how well the laws deal with these concerns. My >point is that all of these types of problems can be generated by >non-HQs as well as by HQs. For any one of them, you can believe that >Lwhatever either is or isn't adequate to deal with the problem, but >you can't believe that it is adequate when the problem arises from a >non-HQ but inadequate when the problem arises from an HQ. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 From axman22@hotmail.com Tue Nov 5 14:41:32 2002 From: axman22@hotmail.com (Roger Pewick) Date: Tue, 5 Nov 2002 08:41:32 -0600 Subject: [blml] 'Fully and freely available' References: <4.3.2.7.0.20021104135422.00be7510@pop.starpower.net> <4.3.2.7.0.20021104163147.00be7d60@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: ----- Original Message ----- From: "Eric Landau" To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" Sent: Monday, November 04, 2002 4:24 PM Subject: Re: [blml] 'Fully and freely available' > At 04:07 PM 11/4/02, David wrote: > > >Eric wrote: -s- > > > (2) The percentage of "Herman questions" that would be asked if they > > > were legal is very small (call it 1%; again, the exact percentage > > > doesn't matter) compared to the number of "non-Herman questions". I > > > know this to be true, because where I play nobody knows that they are > > > not legal, everyone asks them whenever they choose, and they do in > >fact > > > make up only a tiny percentage of the questions actually asked. > > > >This, I suppose, is a good thing, but - if it is true - then again it > >makes little sense to me. In the course of this thread, people have been > >falling over themselves to demonstrate that the HQ is an essential part > >of "full disclosure" without which players are going to be completely > >powerless to enter the competitive arena. If that isn't the case, why is > >there so much indignation at being told that you can't ask them? -s- > > > What Herman and I are on about is that there has been absolutely no > > > rationale whatsoever put forth in this discussion to date (nor, I > > > expect, can we imagine one) that would make it worthwhile to prevent > > > the asking of questions in (c) in order to prevent the asking of > > > questions of (d) while not simultaneously also making it just as > > > worthwhile to prevent the asking of questions in (a) in order to > > > prevent the asking of questions in (b). Yet such a rationale would > > > seem to be needed in order to justify keeping L20F1 as currently > > > interpreted. > > > >There is such a rationale now; or at least I assert that what I have > >said above amounts to one. *Every* HQ is deeply flawed. Very few non-HQs > >are flawed at all. > > There is indeed, and I accept it, insofar as I understand what David > means: Every HQ is deeply flawed in the sense that it perforce passes > UI to partner. > > Now we are really getting somewhere. David has successfully reduced > the argument to: Does this "deep flaw" that is inherent in HQs justify > banning them? > > I still don't think so. If I ask an HQ, I am passing UI to partner, > but in the vast majority of cases it will not matter. I think David's analysis is not satisfactory. All questions not just HQ create extraneous information. So making UI the distinguishing factor I do not think is enough. The HQ is indeed flawed at its core. But the reason it is flawed is the response is based on judgment [judgment being a fleeting thing of great inconsistency]. I am permitted to take only one action during my turn and on a given hand I might take any of four or five one of them or something else, leaving to the last moment to select. The interjection of a hypothetical is, among other things, a disruption, a distraction, and because it is teaching bridge during a hand is an irritation. Legitimizing the HQ and thereby legitimizing such effects on the other side is unacceptable. I believe that what counts in bridge is the action that is taken- and isn't that the sense of the words 'effected only by means of the calls and plays themselves'. Hopefully the reason questions are permitted in the first place, and the only reason, is to make available one's agreements because there is no other way. The answering of HQ is severely prone to misleading the opponents; which in such situations is supposedly [by law] not the objective. That the HQ brings about certain problems that David has suggested is merely additional weight. regards roger pewick > Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net From gester@lineone.net Tue Nov 5 15:49:34 2002 From: gester@lineone.net (gester@lineone.net) Date: Tue, 5 Nov 2002 15:49:34 -0000 Subject: [blml] Godel, Escher and Bridge References: <4.3.2.7.0.20021104130726.00be11b0@pop.starpower.net> <4.3.2.7.0.20021105081410.00ad7930@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <000201c284e6$371283e0$3d182850@pacific> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" Sent: Tuesday, November 05, 2002 1:17 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Godel, Escher and Bridge >> > If we rewrote TFLB so that the only changes > were to eliminate the aces from the deck and > make book five (of 12 tricks) instead of six > (of 13), would it still be bridge? > +=+ I think 'bridge' is a generic term for a number of games. In order to define what bridge is, one could start by examining what features all of these games have in common. ~ G ~ +=+ From ehaa@starpower.net Tue Nov 5 16:41:22 2002 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Tue, 05 Nov 2002 11:41:22 -0500 Subject: [blml] 'Fully and freely available' In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <4.3.2.7.0.20021105113309.00adb9f0@pop.starpower.net> At 09:40 AM 11/5/02, Kooijman wrote: >In that case you better skip the statement. I consider it to be a >wrong one. >To repeat: Telling blml that the laws do say that a question can only be >asked when the answer will affect a choice of action is wrong. That might >not be your concern but it is mine. I wrote my remarks too hastily and was thinking in a context (set by David's assertion that HQs are particularly likely to give UI and/or prove misleading) that I failed to make explicit, which resulted in a statement that was far broader than I intended. Ton is quite right; I stand corrected. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 From mfrench1@san.rr.com Tue Nov 5 16:53:41 2002 From: mfrench1@san.rr.com (Marvin L. French) Date: Tue, 5 Nov 2002 08:53:41 -0800 Subject: [blml] I don't teach bridge References: Message-ID: <001001c284ec$81418be0$1c981e18@san.rr.com> Gordon Bower wrote: > > Every so often you will come upon a player who, when asked about his > bidding sequence, will explain it as "Just bridge." > > I don't happen to think this is right. If someone politely says, "no > agreement, we will both have to try to work out what we think my partner > has from looking at our own hands," that's fine, and I'd not expect you to > reveal your own hand by speculating further. But if someone says "just > bridge" or "I am not hear to teach you bridge" or words of similar effect, > with no other comment (or with the traditional condescending sneer) you > can be sure I will be very generous to the NOs. It's one of very few > things that'll get you a near-automatic fine from me and make me consider > ejecting you if I hear it happen twice in a day. > > (Please note, I have not played against Marv French, and I not saying this > is what he does. It was merely the choice of words in his post that > reminded me of it.) Please don't put words in my mouth, even by implication. What I say, when applicable, comes right from L75C: "We have no special partnership agreement about that call." That does not mean necessarily that I have to "work out" what I think my partner has. When she overcalls 1C with 3S (unAlerted), I know very well that my partner has the classic 6 (nv) or 7 (v) playing trick hand with a long suit and very few HCP. If pressed about "style," I might say something like, "My partner is a rather conservative bidder, don't expect anything unusual." People ask me why I don't just explain what I know about the 3S bid. The reason is this: The explanation is UI to partner, and if partner has made a mistake the UI will constrain any future action. My policy is not to create UI unless it is required by law or regulation. If playing in something like the LM pairs with a strong partner, I have no fear in regard to UI. However, if the meaning of a call is one that a LM from ACBL-land should know, I invoke L75C if it's applicable. Experienced players who have been too lazy to learn the game get no help from me. > > If the bidding goes 1D-Pass-1S and my opponent asks if the spade bidder > can have hearts too, I think saying "just bridge" is "just plain rude" - Agreed. L20F1 requires an answer to this one, as does L75. > general bridge knowledge or not, I can't imagine doing anything OTHER than > saying "if he has 5 spades, yes, if only 4, no." If a UI problem re a > heart lead comes up, fine, I'll call the director for that when the time > comes. > >. If I responded in my better 4-card > major instead of always responding 1H when I had 4-4, that (in the US > anyway) is nonstandard and disclosable, but something only a person who > isnt good enough to know the disclosure rules would ever do. The players > who wanted to know what my "so-called-standard" system really was had no > choice but to ask. My policy is to avoid bidding a very weak four-card major (especially over a double or as a passed hand) if there is a suitable alternative. That may mean bypassing weak hearts to bid 1S, or bypassing a weak major to bid notrump. This is neither ACBL-Alertable nor disclosable on the CC, but if we get the contract, the partner of the possible bypasser is supposed to disclose that possibility before the opening lead is made. If we are defending, declarer just has to ask if interested. Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California From agot@ulb.ac.be Tue Nov 5 17:23:04 2002 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Tue, 05 Nov 2002 18:23:04 +0100 Subject: [blml] I don't teach bridge In-Reply-To: <001001c284ec$81418be0$1c981e18@san.rr.com> References: Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20021105182041.00a47040@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 08:53 5/11/2002 -0800, Marvin L. French wrote: >My policy is to avoid bidding a very weak four-card major (especially over a >double or as a passed hand) if there is a suitable alternative. That may mean >bypassing weak hearts to bid 1S, or bypassing a weak major to bid notrump. >This is neither ACBL-Alertable nor disclosable on the CC AG : what about a general mention "weak suits may be bypassed" in the "general style" section ? I use it. At the very least, a mention like "feature-based style" will attract inquiries by competent opponents. From mfrench1@san.rr.com Tue Nov 5 18:02:06 2002 From: mfrench1@san.rr.com (Marvin L. French) Date: Tue, 5 Nov 2002 10:02:06 -0800 Subject: [blml] I don't teach bridge References: <5.1.0.14.0.20021105182041.00a47040@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <002301c284f5$77d818e0$1c981e18@san.rr.com> > Marvin L. French wrote:> > > >My policy is to avoid bidding a very weak four-card major (especially over a > >double or as a passed hand) if there is a suitable alternative. That may mean > >bypassing weak hearts to bid 1S, or bypassing a weak major to bid notrump. > >This is neither ACBL-Alertable nor disclosable on the CC > > AG : what about a general mention "weak suits may be bypassed" in the > "general style" section ? I use it. At the very least, a mention like > "feature-based style" will attract inquiries by competent opponents. > You know, I used to have that on my CC, but when the ACBL eliminated the requirement to Alert non-standard bypasses I did not put it on the new CC that became effective March 1, 2002. There is room for "Weak suits may be bypassed" in the GENERAL APPROACH section, so I'll add it there. Thanks for the suggestion. Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Tue Nov 5 22:07:41 2002 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 6 Nov 2002 08:07:41 +1000 Subject: [blml] I don't teach bridge Message-ID: <4A256C68.00781D02.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> Alain wrote: [snip] >At the very least, a mention like "feature-based style" >will attract inquiries by competent opponents. Quibble. I believe that mentions on the system card should be explicit enough to attract understanding from non-expert opponents. Best wishes Richard From svenpran@online.no Tue Nov 5 21:33:06 2002 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Tue, 5 Nov 2002 22:33:06 +0100 Subject: [blml] Convention cards and the questions of false prophets. References: <006301c284cc$344c36c0$5b2a2850@pacific> Message-ID: <000f01c28512$ee0f4980$70d8fea9@WINXP> What you wrote below Grattan is in my opinion very clear and directly to the point. Just one question: Do I understand you correct that in your opinion under those regulations a player that feels the need for further clarification on any information from the CC may in many (most) cases not during the auction ask such questions , but he is instead fully entitled to redress if the Director finds that his alleged need was indeed relevant and that he was damaged as a result thereof? regards Sven > +=+ The WBF regulations include the following > [with my comments in parenthesis]: > "Contestants are required to make full written > disclosure of their System and also to make a full > disclosureof the meaning of any call or play in > response to a proper question at the table from > an opponent." > > [To be 'proper' a question must conform > to the laws] > > "The full written disclosure referred to in the above > paragraph is made by the completion in due form > of the WBF Convention Card and Supplementary > Sheets as required." > ........................................................................... > "A Card will not be regarded as having been > completed in due form.................unless: > (a) all sections of the Card have been accurately > and legibly completed ............... > (b) the Card and Supplementary Sheets contain a > clear and sufficient explanation of the System used, > including, without limitation, all competitive agreements > and understandings, it being accepted by the WBF > that the full particulars of some sequences (such as > relays) which occur in later rounds of the auction, may > be omitted from the Card......." > .......................................................................... > "(a) If a player makes use of any conventional call > not sufficiently described on his Card (including > Supplementary Sheets), that player's partnership may > be subject to a procedural penalty for the infraction > and/or to disciplinary penalty as well as to score > adjustments to redress any damage." > (b) The onus of disclosure is on the user. Where there > is a claim of damage through inadequate disclosure, > the Tournament Director and the Tournament Appeals > Committee will give the benefit of any doubt to the > opponents." > [Although these regulations do not provide > for any questions about what is on the Card, > the Supplementary Conditions of Contest > for many championships do contain provision > for obtaining clarification/amplification of the > Card before the start of the event. Otherwise > questions are limited, as the laws allow, to > requests for explanations of the calls that have > been made in the auction. The onus is on the > player whose convention card it is to ensure > that what opponents need to know is on it.] > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > From willner@cfa.harvard.edu Tue Nov 5 21:38:46 2002 From: willner@cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Tue, 5 Nov 2002 16:38:46 -0500 (EST) Subject: [blml] Godel, Escher and Bridge Message-ID: <200211052138.QAA05516@cfa183.harvard.edu> > From: Eric Landau > If we rewrote TFLB so that the only changes were to eliminate the aces > from the deck and make book five (of 12 tricks) instead of six (of 13), > would it still be bridge? My opinion would be no, but I can see that others might disagree. > From: > +=+ I think 'bridge' is a generic term for a > number of games. In order to define what > bridge is, one could start by examining what > features all of these games have in common. Let me suggest the following list as a starting point: 1. The pack and the mechanical rules of play. 2. The principle of "no UI" (including no improper communication). 3. The scoring table. The above gives us whist, which (in contrast to Eric's imaginary game) does appear to me to be a form of bridge. I will omit "bridge whist" and jump to auction bridge, which might be characterized by the above three plus: 4. The mechanical rules of bidding. 5. The principle of full disclosure of partnership agreements. (Maybe this belongs to whist as well? Surely peters predate auction bridge.) 6. A different scoring table. Contract bridge differs from auction bridge only in the scoring table, as far as I can tell. Minibridge differs from contract in the scoring table and in how the auction is conducted. Perhaps there are other forms of bridge as well. Unless I have missed something, the Laws appear to me the practical embodiment of the above plus instructions on what to do when something goes wrong plus a few organizational matters. This does not, of course, in any way contradict David B.'s position that the game we play *on any specific occasion* is entirely embodied in its rules. From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Tue Nov 5 23:01:35 2002 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 6 Nov 2002 09:01:35 +1000 Subject: [blml] Godel, Escher and Bridge Message-ID: <4A256C68.007D0C9A.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> Steve Willner wrote: >Let me suggest the following list as a starting point: >1. The pack and the mechanical rules of play. >2. The principle of "no UI" (including no improper communication). >3. The scoring table. > >The above gives us whist, which (in contrast to Eric's imaginary >game) does appear to me to be a form of bridge. > >I will omit "bridge whist" and jump to auction bridge, which might >be characterized by the above three plus: >4. The mechanical rules of bidding. >5. The principle of full disclosure of partnership agreements. >(Maybe this belongs to whist as well? Surely peters predate >auction bridge.) Yes, peters and the Vienna Coup were invented during the nineteenth century heyday of whist, but are now part of the culture of Contract Bridge. Therefore, I support Steve's concept of bridge as an evolving continuum of games. [snip] >This does not, of course, in any way contradict David B.'s >position that the game we play *on any specific occasion* is >entirely embodied in its rules. Yes, I also support David Burn's position. At-the-table rulings *must* be based on the Laws of Bridge, *not* upon the Ideal of Bridge. However, the Ideal of Bridge is the only possible reference point for the WBF Laws Committee, when the WBF LC decides upon what the 2005 Laws of Bridge *should* contain. Best wishes Richard From ehaa@starpower.net Tue Nov 5 22:35:00 2002 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Tue, 05 Nov 2002 17:35:00 -0500 Subject: [blml] Godel, Escher and Bridge In-Reply-To: <200211052138.QAA05516@cfa183.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <4.3.2.7.0.20021105172444.00a88f00@pop.starpower.net> At 04:38 PM 11/5/02, Steve wrote: >Let me suggest the following list as a starting point: >1. The pack and the mechanical rules of play. Nope. Egdirb is clearly a form of bridge. >2. The principle of "no UI" (including no improper communication). Nope. Adjective bridge is clearly a form of bridge. >3. The scoring table. Nope. Our own FLB has changed the scoring table at least once since I started playing duplicate. My original question was posed to help us figure out whether there is anything about the game of bridge, above and beyond its rules, that would allow us to take an arbitrary set of rules and determine from them whether or not the game they define is something we would call "bridge". What the above suggests is that there is; we can violate what appear to be the most basic rules of the game as defined by TFLB and still get something that is recognizably bridge. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Wed Nov 6 00:47:06 2002 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 6 Nov 2002 10:47:06 +1000 Subject: [blml] I don't teach bridge Message-ID: <4A256C69.0002DF47.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> The second half of L75C states: >>>a player shall disclose all special information >>>conveyed to him through partnership agreement >>>or partnership experience, but he need not >>>disclose inferences drawn from his general >>>knowledge and experience. The Marv School interpretation of the L75C clause is: [snip] >>What I say, when applicable, comes right from >>L75C: "We have no special partnership agreement >>about that call." That does not mean necessarily >>that I have to "work out" what I think my partner >>has. When she overcalls 1C with 3S (unAlerted), I >>know very well that my partner has the classic 6 >>(nv) or 7 (v) playing trick hand with a long suit >>and very few HCP. If pressed about "style," I >>might say something like, "My partner is a rather >>conservative bidder, don't expect anything >>unusual." On the other hand, in the thread "Long on Ethics", the Grattan School interpretation of the L75C clause was: >Consider this proposition: "" On the first >occasion that something happens you may draw an >inference; maybe the second time it is still a >matter of evidence and reasoning. The third time it >happens you are on solid ground and it is a matter >of partnership agreement. > >Further, if you say to partner 'so in this >situation I cannot have four Spades' a conversation >that began with an inference has transmuted it into >an agreement."" I do not know whether the WBF LC intended the use of the Marv School or the Grattan School of interpretation when the WBF LC originally drafted L75C. I do not know how the David Burn School would interpret L75C, given that the David Burn School considers L75 merely the statement of an unattainable Utopia. What I do know is that: - whether or not my answer to an opponent's question is technically required, - whether or not an opponent's question is technically legal, - I wish to give my opponents as much disclosure about my methods as they want. Best wishes Richard From mfrench1@san.rr.com Wed Nov 6 02:18:04 2002 From: mfrench1@san.rr.com (Marvin L. French) Date: Tue, 5 Nov 2002 18:18:04 -0800 Subject: [blml] I don't teach bridge References: <4A256C69.0002DF47.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> Message-ID: <004801c2853a$bf704ac0$1c981e18@san.rr.com> Richard Hills wrote: > > The second half of L75C states: > > >>>a player shall disclose all special information > >>>conveyed to him through partnership agreement > >>>or partnership experience, but he need not > >>>disclose inferences drawn from his general > >>>knowledge and experience. > > The Marv School interpretation of the L75C clause > is: > > [snip] > > >>What I say, when applicable, comes right from > >>L75C: "We have no special partnership agreement > >>about that call." That does not mean necessarily > >>that I have to "work out" what I think my partner > >>has. When she overcalls 1C with 3S (unAlerted), I > >>know very well that my partner has the classic 6 > >>(nv) or 7 (v) playing trick hand with a long suit > >>and very few HCP. If pressed about "style," I > >>might say something like, "My partner is a rather > >>conservative bidder, don't expect anything > >>unusual." > > On the other hand, in the thread "Long on Ethics", > the Grattan School interpretation of the L75C > clause was: > > >Consider this proposition: "" On the first > >occasion that something happens you may draw an > >inference; maybe the second time it is still a > >matter of evidence and reasoning. The third time it > >happens you are on solid ground and it is a matter > >of partnership agreement. Grattan does not seem to think the word "special" in "special partnership agreement" has any meaning. That is, he interprets L75C as if the word were not there. I early learned from a teacher that double-jump overcalls are weak preemptive bids, common knowledge then and now. Although the meaning was transmitted to me by a teacher, s/he was just teaching me common knowledge, nothing special. My inexperienced partner in turn learned from me what the bid shows. This became thereby a partnership agreement, which is that we would follow what is common usage when making the bid. Does that mean the teacher and I have a special partnership agreement? No. Nor does it mean my partner and I have a special partnership agreement. It's nothing special, just an agreement as to what the commonly accepted meaning of a bid is. In short, if I have knowledge that comes from general knowledge and experience, sharing that knowledge with a partner does not make it a *special* partnership agreement. Nor is that knowledge "special information" (L75C). It's information, all right, but nothing special. That inexperienced partner once, just once, bid a non-vulnerable 3S over 1H with too many playing tricks (8). When I declined to disclose the meaning of 3S, partner was free to bid 4S later in the auction, which happened after the opponents bid a cold 4H. Had I explained earlier that the bid showed about six playing tricks, the 4S contract would have adjusted back to 4H. Those who think I should be forced to create UI even though L75C says I need not do so have a strange outlook on this aspect of the game. TDs who share that outlook might want to do what TD Max Hardy (who knew my feelings on the subject) did at my table once. "Was the three spade bid Alerted?" "No." "Then it must be weak, preemptive." And he walked away. No objection from me, as he had educated both partner and the opponents. No, I do not recommend that solution to TDs. > > > >Further, if you say to partner 'so in this > >situation I cannot have four Spades' a conversation > >that began with an inference has transmuted it into > >an agreement."" > > I do not know whether the WBF LC intended the use of > the Marv School or the Grattan School of > interpretation when the WBF LC originally drafted > L75C. I do not know how the David Burn School would > interpret L75C, given that the David Burn School > considers L75 merely the statement of an unattainable > Utopia. The "Marv School" was approved by Edgar Kaplan in a postcard communication with me, so I am on pretty good ground. > > What I do know is that: > > - whether or not my answer to an opponent's question > is technically required, > > - whether or not an opponent's question is > technically legal, > > - I wish to give my opponents as much disclosure > about my methods as they want. > Good for you. I expect my opponents to learn bridge on their own, as I had to do. Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California From cyaxares@lineone.net Wed Nov 6 09:08:21 2002 From: cyaxares@lineone.net (Grattan Endicott) Date: Wed, 6 Nov 2002 09:08:21 -0000 Subject: [blml] Convention cards and the questions of false prophets. References: <006301c284cc$344c36c0$5b2a2850@pacific> <000f01c28512$ee0f4980$70d8fea9@WINXP> Message-ID: <000901c28574$41ce60e0$db19e150@endicott> Grattan Endicott To: "blml" Sent: Tuesday, November 05, 2002 9:33 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Convention cards and the questions of false prophets. > What you wrote below Grattan is in my opinion very > clear and directly to the point. Just one question: > > Do I understand you correct that in your opinion under > those regulations a player that feels the need for further > clarification on any information from the CC may in > many (most) cases not during the auction ask such > questions , but he is instead fully entitled to redress > if the Director finds that his alleged need was indeed > relevant and that he was damaged as a result thereof? > > regards Sven > +=+ I incline to answer 'yes'. But that answer alone is insufficient. Under these Conditions of Contest the Card should indeed tell it all, but enquiry about a call that has been made is allowed by law, and there is the expectation that, at this level, a player who recognizes there may be something he ought to discover will protect himself. Behind screens there is no UI difficulty. The level of play and the sophistication of the regulations are relevant factors. At minimum, Law 40E calls for understandings to be listed; it is left to regulation to specify the amount of detail to be given on the Card. The WBF regulation, designed for play at the highest level where the most obscure agreements may occur, calls for exposure of the understandings in the maximum detail - enquiry is less necessary but also most prompted when there is an alert. For play at less exalted levels, and insofar as complex methods are permitted, the information demanded on the Card may be less, even much less, comprehensive. It becomes essential for players to alert meticulously and to explain with care in answer to enquiry the understandings and the agreed inferences. At such levels of play, also, the expectation that players will have the insight to protect themselves does not hold good to the same degree. Convention cards usually have an area in which to draw attention to unusual methods and use should be made of this to convey the news that there is something to find out about. The responsibility is one of disclosure and the opponents have no responsibility to supply any shortcomings in this by asking questions. Being alerted, their any question should receive a full volunteered response. What is overlooked by some who have contributed to this discussion is that the 'right' of knowledge is a right to be given the whole explanation, not a right or a necessity to go to lengths to obtain it. The law says you may ask for an explanation. When you ask you should get it, with all you need to know. At these levels, which include all the middle strata of day by day competition, players who adopt more complex agreements must be conscious of their duty to ensure that opponents are properly informed about them. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From svenpran@online.no Wed Nov 6 09:34:31 2002 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 6 Nov 2002 10:34:31 +0100 Subject: [blml] Convention cards and the questions of false prophets. References: <006301c284cc$344c36c0$5b2a2850@pacific> <000f01c28512$ee0f4980$70d8fea9@WINXP> <000901c28574$41ce60e0$db19e150@endicott> Message-ID: <000f01c28577$b5b20360$70d8fea9@WINXP> Thank you Although your initial "yes" if it had been unconditional would have scared me a bit, I felt very comfortable with your subsequent elaboration on the question. regards Sven ----- Original Message ----- From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "blml" Sent: Wednesday, November 06, 2002 10:08 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Convention cards and the questions of false prophets. > > Grattan Endicott +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > "A man who had a mind to sell his house, > and therefore carried a piece of brick in > his pocket, which he showed as a pattern > to encourage purchasers." - Jonathan Swift. > =================================== > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Sven Pran" > To: "blml" > Sent: Tuesday, November 05, 2002 9:33 PM > Subject: Re: [blml] Convention cards and the questions of false > prophets. > > > > What you wrote below Grattan is in my opinion very > > clear and directly to the point. Just one question: > > > > Do I understand you correct that in your opinion under > > those regulations a player that feels the need for further > > clarification on any information from the CC may in > > many (most) cases not during the auction ask such > > questions , but he is instead fully entitled to redress > > if the Director finds that his alleged need was indeed > > relevant and that he was damaged as a result thereof? > > > > regards Sven > > > +=+ I incline to answer 'yes'. But that answer alone > is insufficient. Under these Conditions of Contest > the Card should indeed tell it all, but enquiry about > a call that has been made is allowed by law, and > there is the expectation that, at this level, a player > who recognizes there may be something he ought to > discover will protect himself. Behind screens there is > no UI difficulty. The level of play and the sophistication > of the regulations are relevant factors. > At minimum, Law 40E calls for understandings > to be listed; it is left to regulation to specify the > amount of detail to be given on the Card. The WBF > regulation, designed for play at the highest level where > the most obscure agreements may occur, calls for > exposure of the understandings in the maximum > detail - enquiry is less necessary but also most > prompted when there is an alert. For play at less > exalted levels, and insofar as complex methods are > permitted, the information demanded on the Card may > be less, even much less, comprehensive. It becomes > essential for players to alert meticulously and to explain > with care in answer to enquiry the understandings and > the agreed inferences. At such levels of play, also, the > expectation that players will have the insight to protect > themselves does not hold good to the same degree. > Convention cards usually have an area in which to > draw attention to unusual methods and use should be > made of this to convey the news that there is > something to find out about. > The responsibility is one of disclosure and the > opponents have no responsibility to supply any > shortcomings in this by asking questions. Being > alerted, their any question should receive a full > volunteered response. What is overlooked by some > who have contributed to this discussion is that the > 'right' of knowledge is a right to be given the whole > explanation, not a right or a necessity to go to lengths > to obtain it. The law says you may ask for an > explanation. When you ask you should get it, with all > you need to know. At these levels, which include all > the middle strata of day by day competition, players > who adopt more complex agreements must be > conscious of their duty to ensure that opponents > are properly informed about them. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > From twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Wed Nov 6 11:02:00 2002 From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Date: Wed, 6 Nov 2002 11:02 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [blml] Convention cards and the questions of false prophets. Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <000901c28574$41ce60e0$db19e150@endicott> Grattan Endicott > What you wrote below Grattan is in my opinion very > > clear and directly to the point. Just one question: > > > > Do I understand you correct that in your opinion under > > those regulations a player that feels the need for further > > clarification on any information from the CC may in > > many (most) cases not during the auction ask such > > questions , but he is instead fully entitled to redress > > if the Director finds that his alleged need was indeed > > relevant and that he was damaged as a result thereof? > > > > regards Sven > > > +=+ I incline to answer 'yes'. But that answer alone > is insufficient. Under these Conditions of Contest > the Card should indeed tell it all, but enquiry about > a call that has been made is allowed by law, and > there is the expectation that, at this level, a player > who recognizes there may be something he ought to > discover will protect himself. Behind screens there is > no UI difficulty. The level of play and the sophistication > of the regulations are relevant factors. Regardless of "UI difficulty" HQs are either legal or not. The presence of screens doesn't affect that. I think that, if you wish to maintain your stand on the illegality of HQs, you could be clearer on the fact that players can *never* be expected to protect themselves if the information required is available only from an HQ. > For play at less > exalted levels, and insofar as complex methods are > permitted, This has very little to do with complexity of method. Thorough agreements are compatible with simple methods - and provide similar volumes of disclosable material. > the information demanded on the Card may > be less, even much less, comprehensive. It becomes > essential for players to alert meticulously and to explain > with care in answer to enquiry the understandings and > the agreed inferences. At such levels of play, also, the > expectation that players will have the insight to protect > themselves does not hold good to the same degree. Which is quite proper. > Convention cards usually have an area in which to > draw attention to unusual methods and use should be > made of this to convey the news that there is > something to find out about. Indeed. The opposing CC tells me that opps play weak 2s with an Ogust 2N enquiry. I am perfectly aware that different interpretations of Ogust responses (with or without interference) exist. Now I am not unhappy to find I have no *obligation* to discover what agreements opps actually have. I have a much bigger issue that you believe I should have no *opportunity* to discover this information. > The responsibility is one of disclosure and the > opponents have no responsibility to supply any > shortcomings in this by asking questions. Being > alerted, their any question should receive a full > volunteered response. Perhaps it should. I have never seen/heard a player give an explanation of the follow-up agreements when asked to explain the auction. > What is overlooked by some > who have contributed to this discussion is that the > 'right' of knowledge is a right to be given the whole > explanation, not a right or a necessity to go to lengths > to obtain it. The law says you may ask for an > explanation. When you ask you should get it, with all > you need to know. But when you don't? Under your interpretation the only recourse is to play on and ask for an MI adjustment latter. I suppose this gives a pretty risk free double shot but I don't believe this attitude is good for club bridge. Tim From twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Wed Nov 6 11:01:00 2002 From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Date: Wed, 6 Nov 2002 11:01 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [blml] 'Fully and freely available' Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <1819501.1036420439266.JavaMail.root@127.0.0.1> David wrote: > Similarly, if > you ask a question about future possible events and don't pass UI or > fool the opponents or waste any time, you will still be ruled against. Ruled against how? In the above circumstances there is almost no chance of the TD being called. If called he is 99%+ likely to consider the question legal (I allow 1% for readers of BLML). Even if he is considering an adjustment he will surely decide that the table result can't be better than the result that would have been obtained had the questioner remained silent and requested an MI ruling after the hand. To justify a PP a player would have to be aware of, and accept, the opinions of DB/Grattan/Ton as offered on BLML. Tim From gester@lineone.net Wed Nov 6 12:41:39 2002 From: gester@lineone.net (gester@lineone.net) Date: Wed, 6 Nov 2002 12:41:39 -0000 Subject: [blml] 'Fully and freely available' References: Message-ID: <000901c28591$fb939320$98242850@pacific> Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Wednesday, November 06, 2002 11:01 AM Subject: Re: [blml] 'Fully and freely available' > To justify a PP a player would have to be aware of, > and accept, the opinions of DB/Grattan/Ton as offered > on BLML. > +=+ A PP could be awarded regardless of my opinion or what the player knew of it, if the policy laid down by the NBO for the Director matched to my view of the Law. The player would not even need to know what guidance the NBO had given to the Director. The application of the law is the application of the law and it is not conditioned by the player's awareness or otherwise of what the law is. In England, for example, David Burn, in the chair of the Laws & Ethics Committee, could decide to place the subject on an agenda which might lead to initiation of a fresh policy, or refreshment of a current policy. When in the presence of the incumbent authority it could be a mistake to assert what would "have to be" the case :-) ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From A.Kooijman@dwk.agro.nl Wed Nov 6 13:07:17 2002 From: A.Kooijman@dwk.agro.nl (Kooijman, A.) Date: Wed, 06 Nov 2002 14:07:17 +0100 Subject: [blml] 'Fully and freely available' Message-ID: Tim: > > > To justify a PP a player would have to be aware of, > > and accept, the opinions of DB/Grattan/Ton as offered > > on BLML. Are you now trying to say that a TD only can apply the laws when he has assured himself that the players know the laws as well? Your consistency seems to be restricted to not being able to read and interpret the laws nor the messages sent in by these three musketeers (with the fourth waiting in Florida). And I really hope that David St. would have estimated your message more offensive than mine. ton From hermandw@skynet.be Wed Nov 6 14:06:04 2002 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 06 Nov 2002 15:06:04 +0100 Subject: [blml] 'Fully and freely available' References: <000901c28591$fb939320$98242850@pacific> Message-ID: <3DC921CC.20907@skynet.be> Come on Grattan, don't be silly. Would you award a PP to a beginner for something he did not know was wrong, or would you teach him? Until two months ago, no-one on this list, including you, Ton and Kojak had ever expressed the fact that HQ's were not allowed. (Remember what prompted this thread in the first place : Ton's question asking if L20F was sufficient for an interpretation that these things were in fact disallowed) And you would now award a PP to someone who dare ask such a question? Well, unless the askee be me - I would appeal your PP and ask any piece of written evidence stating that such a question is illegal. Written on paper that is. I doubt if you can find anything except a print-out of something from this thread. (And of course you are right that the TD has the power to award this PP if he so wishes - all I'm saying is that he should not) gester@lineone.net wrote: > Grattan Endicott ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > "Silence is wisdom when speaking is folly". > {Thomas Fuller} > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Tim West-meads" > To: > Sent: Wednesday, November 06, 2002 11:01 AM > Subject: Re: [blml] 'Fully and freely available' > > > >>To justify a PP a player would have to be aware of, >>and accept, the opinions of DB/Grattan/Ton as offered >>on BLML. >> >> > +=+ A PP could be awarded regardless of my opinion > or what the player knew of it, if the policy laid down by > the NBO for the Director matched to my view of the > Law. The player would not even need to know what > guidance the NBO had given to the Director. The > application of the law is the application of the law and > it is not conditioned by the player's awareness or > otherwise of what the law is. > In England, for example, David Burn, in the chair > of the Laws & Ethics Committee, could decide to place > the subject on an agenda which might lead to initiation > of a fresh policy, or refreshment of a current policy. > When in the presence of the incumbent authority it could > be a mistake to assert what would "have to be" the case :-) > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > And David Burn could decide to suspend GE and DWS from all bridge playing activities if he so wishes. He might well wish so, but I doubt if he'll actually do it. > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From toddz@worldnet.att.com Wed Nov 6 14:55:08 2002 From: toddz@worldnet.att.com (Todd Zimnoch) Date: Wed, 6 Nov 2002 09:55:08 -0500 Subject: [blml] 'Fully and freely available' In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > -----Original Message----- > From: Kooijman, A. > Sent: Wednesday, November 06, 2002 8:07 AM > To: 'gester@lineone.net'; Bridge Laws > Subject: RE: [blml] 'Fully and freely available' > > Tim: > > > To justify a PP a player would have to be aware of, > > > and accept, the opinions of DB/Grattan/Ton as offered > > > on BLML. > > Are you now trying to say that a TD only can apply the > laws when he has > assured himself that the players know the laws as well? I read this differently than Ton or Grattan. The TD may have the authority to award a PP, but the use of so severe a penalty may not be justified by the crime. At least in the ACBL TDs make an effort to warn players that they have broken a law and how and reserve PPs for repeat offenders or players who should already know better. -Todd From twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Wed Nov 6 15:07:00 2002 From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Date: Wed, 6 Nov 2002 15:07 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [blml] 'Fully and freely available' Message-ID: In-Reply-To: Ton wrote: > > > To justify a PP a player would have to be aware of, > > > and accept, the opinions of DB/Grattan/Ton as offered > > > on BLML. > > Are you now trying to say that a TD only can apply the laws when he has > assured himself that the players know the laws as well? In general I consider it very wrong to issue for a TD to issue a PP to a player who has broken a law through ignorance/differing interpretation, particularly in case like this where the "ignorance" is so widespread that the player is following standard practice when asking questions. Adjust if opponents are damaged (it doesn't matter what the player thinks the laws say, only how the TD interprets them). By all means issue a PP if you think the player should have known better. Explain the law if it is case of ignorance. Wait for formal guidance from the appropriate authority before giving a PP if it is a matter of ambiguity of interpretation. As far as I can tell the above is what our TDs actually do. Elsewhere in this thread you suggested it might be wrong to ask "only when it is going to affect your choice of call". The EBU says this is the only time any questions are permitted. I don't think any EBU TD would issue a PP to player who, in ignorance of EBU regs, read what you wrote and subsequently asked a question just because they wanted to know the answer. > Your consistency seems to be restricted to not being able to read and > interpret the laws nor the messages sent in by these three musketeers > (with the fourth waiting in Florida). I am not sure what you mean. You, David, Grattan, and indeed Kojak, offer opinions on the interpretation of the laws in this forum. It has been made clear in the past that these are merely opinions unless they are explicitly stated as formal reports of WBFLC decisions. I expect anybody reading this forum to weigh such opinions against the letter and spirit of the laws before making up their own minds. I would be horrified to think that people accept such opinions as being legally binding. Nor do I think the WBFLC would accept "If David, Ton, Grattan and Kojak" share the same opinion on BLML that opinion has the force of law. I can read L20F perfectly well. It is possible to interpret to say that HQs are not permitted. It is also possible to interpret "not made" as including "not yet made". I'm pretty sure that had an official ruling on this issue been made previously the thread could have been a whole lot shorter. > And I really hope that David St. would have estimated your message more > offensive than mine. It was not intended to be offensive. I believe that the opinion "you are not allowed to ask opponents about their system (rather than calls/auction)" has come as a great surprise to the vast majority of readers on this group. I am convinced it would come as a surprise to the vast majority of players. Due to the surprising nature of the opinion I consider it extremely unlikely that any TD would feel justified in issuing a PP to player who asked such a question. On the other hand there a number of readers of this group who have accepted that yours is the correct interpretation of the law. It would be entirely appropriate to penalise these people if they asked a question they believed to be illegal. Best wishes, Tim From twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Wed Nov 6 15:07:00 2002 From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Date: Wed, 6 Nov 2002 15:07 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [blml] 'Fully and freely available' Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <000901c28591$fb939320$98242850@pacific> Grattan Endicott > To justify a PP a player would have to be aware of, > > and accept, the opinions of DB/Grattan/Ton as offered > > on BLML. > > > +=+ A PP could be awarded regardless of my opinion > or what the player knew of it, if the policy laid down by > the NBO for the Director matched to my view of the > Law. Sure it could. But we are talking about a scenario where the NBO has no such policy. Indeed does any NBO actually *have* a policy requiring TDs to issue PPs to players who didn't realise they were doing something wrong? And yes, TDs can, of course, issue PPs without any justification whatsoever. The good news is that they don't seem to. Tim West-Meads From gester@lineone.net Wed Nov 6 15:20:28 2002 From: gester@lineone.net (gester@lineone.net) Date: Wed, 6 Nov 2002 15:20:28 -0000 Subject: [blml] 'Fully and freely available' References: <000901c28591$fb939320$98242850@pacific> <3DC921CC.20907@skynet.be> Message-ID: <001701c285a8$2e3aca80$30242850@pacific> Grattan Endicott To: "blml" Sent: Wednesday, November 06, 2002 2:06 PM Subject: Re: [blml] 'Fully and freely available' > Come on Grattan, don't be silly. > > Would you award a PP to a beginner for > something he did not know was wrong, or would > you teach him? > +=+ I write "could", a reference to the powers that the Director may use if he thinks fit. You come back with "would" as though I had said that whenever there is an infraction he must, regardless of circumstance. The solution may be for each of us to study the Meroitic language in order to share a common tongue. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From svenpran@online.no Wed Nov 6 15:58:05 2002 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 6 Nov 2002 16:58:05 +0100 Subject: [blml] 'Fully and freely available' References: <000901c28591$fb939320$98242850@pacific> <3DC921CC.20907@skynet.be> <001701c285a8$2e3aca80$30242850@pacific> Message-ID: <001101c285ad$4b933450$70d8fea9@WINXP> ----- Original Message ----- From: To: "Herman De Wael" ; "blml" Sent: Wednesday, November 06, 2002 4:20 PM Subject: Re: [blml] 'Fully and freely available' > > Grattan Endicott ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > "Silence is wisdom when speaking is folly". > {Thomas Fuller} > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Herman De Wael" > To: "blml" > Sent: Wednesday, November 06, 2002 2:06 PM > Subject: Re: [blml] 'Fully and freely available' > > > > Come on Grattan, don't be silly. > > > > Would you award a PP to a beginner for > > something he did not know was wrong, or would > > you teach him? > > > +=+ I write "could", a reference to the powers that > the Director may use if he thinks fit. You come back > with "would" as though I had said that whenever there > is an infraction he must, regardless of circumstance. > The solution may be for each of us to study the > Meroitic language in order to share a common tongue. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ And to Grattans own reply I shall add: Do not forget that a warning is the mildest form of a PP! When an irregularity deserves some reaction a warning is usually my first choice, especially if the irregularity is an excusable one, but the warning is still a PP. regards Sven From agot@ulb.ac.be Wed Nov 6 16:34:08 2002 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Wed, 06 Nov 2002 17:34:08 +0100 Subject: [blml] I don't teach bridge In-Reply-To: <4A256C68.00781D02.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20021106172839.02582ec0@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 08:07 6/11/2002 +1000, richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: >Alain wrote: > >[snip] > > >At the very least, a mention like "feature-based style" > >will attract inquiries by competent opponents. > >Quibble. I believe that mentions on the system card >should be explicit enough to attract understanding from >non-expert opponents. AG : I consider (or rather, the custom in the country where I play considers) the "general" section of the CC as the equivalent of pre-alerting. As such, the opponents will usually look at it before everything else (provided they care about looking at all). With regard to the hermetism of mentions, my experience is that clear-language pre-alerts are often bypassed, for opponents' worse, while more technical ones get you questions, for their best. They serve as a suggestion to ask, as does 'several strong hands' discussed before. What should be avoided above all is nonstandard convention names, because opponents might *believe* they know them - or perhaps *you* might believe you know them, with confusion-generating effects. Best regards, Alain. From gester@lineone.net Wed Nov 6 16:28:57 2002 From: gester@lineone.net (gester@lineone.net) Date: Wed, 6 Nov 2002 16:28:57 -0000 Subject: [blml] 'Fully and freely available' References: <000901c28591$fb939320$98242850@pacific> <3DC921CC.20907@skynet.be> Message-ID: <000e01c285b1$bb2eb060$b02a2850@pacific> Grattan Endicott To: "blml" Sent: Wednesday, November 06, 2002 2:06 PM Subject: Re: [blml] 'Fully and freely available' > > Until two months ago, no-one on this list, including you, > Ton and Kojak had ever expressed the fact that HQ's > were not allowed. > +=+ Goodness me.... are there really things we know about the laws that we have never actually expressed? - or not recently? Do you think there could even be more? And would there be a slight chance some of them are subjects one or all may have spoken to in some other arena? ~ G ~ +=+ From johnson@CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca Wed Nov 6 16:52:42 2002 From: johnson@CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca (Ron Johnson) Date: Wed, 6 Nov 2002 11:52:42 -0500 (EST) Subject: [blml] 'Fully and freely available' In-Reply-To: <001701c285a8$2e3aca80$30242850@pacific> from "gester@lineone.net" at Nov 06, 2002 03:20:28 PM Message-ID: <200211061652.LAA06014@gcpdb.ccrs.emr.ca> gester@lineone.net writes: > > > Grattan Endicott ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > "Silence is wisdom when speaking is folly". > {Thomas Fuller} > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Herman De Wael" > To: "blml" > Sent: Wednesday, November 06, 2002 2:06 PM > Subject: Re: [blml] 'Fully and freely available' > > > > Come on Grattan, don't be silly. > > > > Would you award a PP to a beginner for > > something he did not know was wrong, or would > > you teach him? > > > +=+ I write "could", a reference to the powers that > the Director may use if he thinks fit. You come back > with "would" as though I had said that whenever there > is an infraction he must, regardless of circumstance. > The solution may be for each of us to study the > Meroitic language in order to share a common tongue. I agree, the operative word is could. There is anothor way to look at this though. A procedural penalty need not be score based. It could be as severe as ~30 imps and a suspension until such time as a particular problem is fixed (As happened at the Albuquerque semi-finals.) It could be a formal reprimand. It could be a gentle explanation to a novice of their obligations under the Laws. In other words I don't think it will cause problems if a director is required to act formally (should rather than could) as long as his range of options is not constrained. From twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Wed Nov 6 17:22:00 2002 From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Date: Wed, 6 Nov 2002 17:22 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [blml] 'Fully and freely available' Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <001101c285ad$4b933450$70d8fea9@WINXP> Sven wrote: > And to Grattans own reply I shall add: Do not forget > that a warning is the mildest form of a PP! > > When an irregularity deserves some reaction a warning > is usually my first choice, especially if the irregularity is > an excusable one, but the warning is still a PP. I would have thought that an explanation of why it was irregular should be your first choice in these situations. You might even finish the explanation with a warning, like "Ok, now don't do it again." I would regard it as wholly unnecessary, and often counterproductive, to issue a formal PPw to someone who had obviously misunderstood the law. Tim From twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Wed Nov 6 17:41:00 2002 From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Date: Wed, 6 Nov 2002 17:41 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [blml] 'Fully and freely available' Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <000e01c285b1$bb2eb060$b02a2850@pacific> Grattan wrote: > > Until two months ago, no-one on this list, including you, > > Ton and Kojak had ever expressed the fact that HQ's > > were not allowed. > > > +=+ Goodness me.... are there really things we know > about the laws that we have never actually expressed? > - or not recently? Do you think there could even be > more? What are trying to prove Grattan? Herman wrote the above not as criticism of you for failing to share information but as an illustration that many people interpret the laws on asking questions rather differently. BLML is not a complete repository of all bridge laws knowledge but it is a fair bet that if a complex issue hasn't even been touched on in this group the level of shared understanding in the wider population will be near zero. Should the WBFLC eventually decide that HQ's should not be (or indeed are not) permitted there will be a need for a MASSIVE educational commitment. Currently HQ's are routinely asked, and answered, all over the world. You seemed to be suggesting that a policy of PP giving might be the way forward. Why else did you suggest that PPs "could be given" when I said they would not be *justified*? Tim From svenpran@online.no Wed Nov 6 17:57:46 2002 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 6 Nov 2002 18:57:46 +0100 Subject: [blml] 'Fully and freely available' References: Message-ID: <003c01c285be$1c169e40$70d8fea9@WINXP> From: "Tim West-meads" To: Sent: Wednesday, November 06, 2002 6:22 PM Subject: Re: [blml] 'Fully and freely available' > In-Reply-To: <001101c285ad$4b933450$70d8fea9@WINXP> > Sven wrote: > > > And to Grattans own reply I shall add: Do not forget > > that a warning is the mildest form of a PP! > > > > When an irregularity deserves some reaction a warning > > is usually my first choice, especially if the irregularity is > > an excusable one, but the warning is still a PP. > > I would have thought that an explanation of why it was irregular should be > your first choice in these situations. You might even finish the > explanation with a warning, like "Ok, now don't do it again." I would > regard it as wholly unnecessary, and often counterproductive, to issue a > formal PPw to someone who had obviously misunderstood the law. The only thing I don't understand is what made you believe that I do not explain why when I give a warning. And just to spell it out in detail: My warnings are usually exactly that - an explanation why and an expectation that they will not do it again. Sven From john@asimere.com Wed Nov 6 17:02:30 2002 From: john@asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Wed, 6 Nov 2002 17:02:30 +0000 Subject: [blml] 'Fully and freely available' In-Reply-To: <001101c285ad$4b933450$70d8fea9@WINXP> References: <000901c28591$fb939320$98242850@pacific> <3DC921CC.20907@skynet.be> <001701c285a8$2e3aca80$30242850@pacific> <001101c285ad$4b933450$70d8fea9@WINXP> Message-ID: In article <001101c285ad$4b933450$70d8fea9@WINXP>, Sven Pran writes > >----- Original Message ----- >From: >To: "Herman De Wael" ; "blml" >Sent: Wednesday, November 06, 2002 4:20 PM >Subject: Re: [blml] 'Fully and freely available' > > >> snip > >When an irregularity deserves some reaction a warning >is usually my first choice, especially if the irregularity is >an excusable one, but the warning is still a PP. > I reckon 90% of my PPs are warnings. Me: "Actually, you're not allowed by the Law to do ." Her: (UnPC to annoy the list) "Sorry, I didn't know that - I'll bear it in mind in future" is the most frequent response. YAY, WIN-WIN. cheers john >regards Sven > >_______________________________________________ >blml mailing list >blml@rtflb.org >http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > -- John (MadDog) Probst| . ! -^- |icq 10810798 451 Mile End Road | /|__. \:/ |OKb ChienFou London E3 4PA | / @ __) -|- |john@asimere.com +44-(0)20 8983 5818 | /\ --^ | |www.asimere.com/~john From brian@wellsborocomputing.com Wed Nov 6 18:44:51 2002 From: brian@wellsborocomputing.com (Brian Meadows) Date: Wed, 06 Nov 2002 13:44:51 -0500 Subject: [blml] 'Fully and freely available' In-Reply-To: <000e01c285b1$bb2eb060$b02a2850@pacific> References: <000901c28591$fb939320$98242850@pacific> <3DC921CC.20907@skynet.be> <000e01c285b1$bb2eb060$b02a2850@pacific> Message-ID: On Wed, 6 Nov 2002 16:28:57 -0000, Grattan Endicott wrote: > >+=+ Goodness me.... are there really things we know >about the laws that we have never actually expressed? >- or not recently? Do you think there could even be >more? > And would there be a slight chance some of them >are subjects one or all may have spoken to in some >other arena? Quite probably you have. The one thing which is almost certain, though, is that the chances of details of what you had to say reaching the humble club TD, let alone the players, are a close approximation to zero. You, Kojak, Ton and the rest of the WBFLC can speak to any part of the Laws you like in any arena you care - but if what you say isn't publicized sufficiently for it to filter down to grass roots level, you all really might as well save your breath, IMHO. If what you had to say on the subject of HQs came as a complete surprise to some of the readership of BLML, what chance for the poor sod who actually plays the game? Brian. -- Software development and computer consulting Brian Meadows Tel: 570-724-5172 Wellsboro Computing Services, Inc. Fax: 413-480-2709 RR#5, Box 5A, Wellsboro PA 16901 ICQ: 1981272 http://www.wellsborocomputing.com From twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Wed Nov 6 20:05:00 2002 From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Date: Wed, 6 Nov 2002 20:05 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [blml] 'Fully and freely available' Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <003c01c285be$1c169e40$70d8fea9@WINXP> Sven wrote: > > > And to Grattans own reply I shall add: Do not forget > > > that a warning is the mildest form of a PP! > > > > > > When an irregularity deserves some reaction a warning > > > is usually my first choice, especially if the irregularity is > > > an excusable one, but the warning is still a PP. > > > > I would have thought that an explanation of why it was irregular > > should be > > your first choice in these situations. You might even finish the > > explanation with a warning, like "Ok, now don't do it again." I would > > regard it as wholly unnecessary, and often counterproductive, to > > issue a formal PPw to someone who had obviously misunderstood the law. > > The only thing I don't understand is what made you believe that > I do not explain why when I give a warning. And just to spell it > out in detail: My warnings are usually exactly that - an explanation > why and an expectation that they will not do it again. Exactly what? An explanation+expectation not to repeat is what I would have expected. Surely that is *not* a PPw. Although Probst wrote: > I reckon 90% of my PPs are warnings. > Me: "Actually, you're not allowed by the Law to do ." > Her: (UnPC to annoy the list) "Sorry, I didn't know that - I'll bear it > in mind in future" is the most frequent response. > YAY, WIN-WIN. I agree with the win-win John - but what on earth makes you think you have issued a Procedural Penalty? Where is Law90, where is the reference to having assessed a penalty, right to appeal - surely a player has a right to know that PP has been issued (she may want to appeal). Tim From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Wed Nov 6 20:07:27 2002 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Wed, 6 Nov 2002 15:07:27 -0500 Subject: [blml] Godel, Escher and Bridge In-Reply-To: <4.3.2.7.0.20021105081410.00ad7930@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: On 11/5/02, Eric Landau wrote: >If we rewrote TFLB so that the only changes were to eliminate the aces >from the deck and make book five (of 12 tricks) instead of six (of 13), >would it still be bridge? No. So? From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Wed Nov 6 20:28:09 2002 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Wed, 6 Nov 2002 15:28:09 -0500 Subject: [blml] 'Fully and freely available' In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On 11/6/02, Tim West-meads wrote: >And yes, TDs can, of course, issue PPs without any justification >whatsoever. The good news is that they don't seem to. Hm. I read this as equivalent to "the policeman can, of course, shoot you when he stops you for speeding". At least in the US, where policemen are routinely armed. Is that what you intended? From twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Wed Nov 6 21:52:00 2002 From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Date: Wed, 6 Nov 2002 21:52 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [blml] 'Fully and freely available' Message-ID: In-Reply-To: > On 11/6/02, Tim West-meads wrote: > > >And yes, TDs can, of course, issue PPs without any justification > >whatsoever. The good news is that they don't seem to. > > Hm. I read this as equivalent to "the policeman can, of course, shoot > you when he stops you for speeding". At least in the US, where policemen > are routinely armed. Is that what you intended? Nope. Policemen are not empowered to shoot speeders (at least not when they have stopped). A TD actually is empowered to issue a PP for each and every breach of procedure, no matter how trivial. They don't, and would be hard pressed to justify doing so. Why did you give me a PP? Because I heard you wish your partner luck as you put down dummy. That is illegal communication, PP of 12IMPs. Within his authority, yes as far as I can tell. Justifiable - not IMO. Tim From svenpran@online.no Wed Nov 6 21:28:15 2002 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 6 Nov 2002 22:28:15 +0100 Subject: [blml] 'Fully and freely available' References: Message-ID: <005501c285db$6dd346d0$70d8fea9@WINXP> From: "Tim West-meads" ...... > Exactly what? An explanation+expectation not to repeat is what I would > have expected. Surely that is *not* a PPw. Surely that IS! OK, we disagree on whether a warning can be termed a PP. I consider yes, for one thing because we keep a record of all warnings issued during a tournament so that a repetition of the irregularity during the same event will be noticed as such. But I am not going to waste any more words on this, it isn't that important. regards Sven From svenpran@online.no Wed Nov 6 21:30:09 2002 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 6 Nov 2002 22:30:09 +0100 Subject: [blml] 'Fully and freely available' References: Message-ID: <005d01c285db$b1a09b60$70d8fea9@WINXP> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ed Reppert" To: "Sven Pran" Sent: Wednesday, November 06, 2002 9:31 PM Subject: Re: [blml] 'Fully and freely available' > On 11/6/02, Sven Pran wrote: > > >And to Grattans own reply I shall add: Do not forget > >that a warning is the mildest form of a PP! > > > >When an irregularity deserves some reaction a warning > >is usually my first choice, especially if the irregularity is > >an excusable one, but the warning is still a PP. > > I agree with this, but I have one little problem: a player, in > particular a novice, may well be unaware that the warning he has been > given *is* a PP. That it is should perhaps be part of the warning. It doesn't matter, because if he repeats the infraction in spite of my warning, nest time he will be served a severe PP with the additional message: You have been warned! regards Sven From john@asimere.com Wed Nov 6 23:52:10 2002 From: john@asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Wed, 6 Nov 2002 23:52:10 +0000 Subject: [blml] 'Fully and freely available' In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: In article , Tim West-meads writes >In-Reply-To: <003c01c285be$1c169e40$70d8fea9@WINXP> >Sven wrote: >> > > And to Grattans own reply I shall add: Do not forget >> > > that a warning is the mildest form of a PP! >> > > >> > > When an irregularity deserves some reaction a warning >> > > is usually my first choice, especially if the irregularity is >> > > an excusable one, but the warning is still a PP. >> > >> > I would have thought that an explanation of why it was irregular >> > should be >> > your first choice in these situations. You might even finish the >> > explanation with a warning, like "Ok, now don't do it again." I would >> > regard it as wholly unnecessary, and often counterproductive, to >> > issue a formal PPw to someone who had obviously misunderstood the law. >> >> The only thing I don't understand is what made you believe that >> I do not explain why when I give a warning. And just to spell it >> out in detail: My warnings are usually exactly that - an explanation >> why and an expectation that they will not do it again. > >Exactly what? An explanation+expectation not to repeat is what I would >have expected. Surely that is *not* a PPw. > >Although Probst wrote: >> I reckon 90% of my PPs are warnings. >> Me: "Actually, you're not allowed by the Law to do ." >> Her: (UnPC to annoy the list) "Sorry, I didn't know that - I'll bear it >> in mind in future" is the most frequent response. >> YAY, WIN-WIN. > >I agree with the win-win John - but what on earth makes you think you have >issued a Procedural Penalty? Because I would have been in a position to award a matchpoint fine, and chose not to. Me: "I think the Law would allow me to fine you for this as by Law your action is not permitted" Her: ~ as above ~ > Where is Law90, where is the reference to >having assessed a penalty, right to appeal - surely a player has a right >to know that PP has been issued (she may want to appeal). > >Tim > Law 83 applies. There is no appeal in almost all of these cases :) > > >_______________________________________________ >blml mailing list >blml@rtflb.org >http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > -- John (MadDog) Probst| . ! -^- |icq 10810798 451 Mile End Road | /|__. \:/ |OKb ChienFou London E3 4PA | / @ __) -|- |john@asimere.com +44-(0)20 8983 5818 | /\ --^ | |www.asimere.com/~john From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Thu Nov 7 02:20:17 2002 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 7 Nov 2002 12:20:17 +1000 Subject: [blml] Moulin Rouge Message-ID: <4A256C6A.000B668A.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> Matchpoint pairs, Dlr: N, Vul: EW You, South, hold: J3 AQT76 432 832 The bidding has gone: WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH 1NT(1) 2D 2H 3H Pass 3NT(2) Double Pass 4H Pass Pass 5D Pass Pass ? (1) 11-14 (2) Break in tempo What are your logical alternatives? Best wishes Richard From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Thu Nov 7 02:42:39 2002 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 7 Nov 2002 12:42:39 +1000 Subject: [blml] Appealing procedural penalties Message-ID: <4A256C6A.000D7284.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> In the thread, "Fully and freely available", Tim wrote: >>>Where is Law90, where is the reference to >>>having assessed a penalty, right to appeal - >>>surely a player has a right to know that PP >>>has been issued (she may want to appeal). John (MadDog) Probst replied: >>Law 83 applies. There is no appeal in almost >>all of these cases :) Quibble. Only for rulings under L91A is the director's decision final. Players can appeal L90 PPs to an AC. However, for practical purposes MadDog is correct, since L90B3 states: >the committee may not overrule the Director on [snip] >exercise of his disciplinary powers. The >committee may recommend to the Director that he >change his ruling. This raises an interesting question. Since an AC cannot force a change of a TD's PP; is an AC legally entitled to over-rule a TD's decision to *not* award a PP? Best wishes Richard From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Wed Nov 6 23:38:50 2002 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Wed, 6 Nov 2002 23:38:50 -0000 Subject: [blml] Is Stayman alertable in WBF/EBL events? References: Message-ID: <001701c285ed$acfe8560$219c68d5@default> [Nigel Guthrie] How do alert rules vary among jurisdictions? [Richard Hills] In my biased opinion, the ABF alert rules are state-of-the-art. For details, visit: www.abf.com.au [Nigel 2] I clicked onto the ABF web-site at www.abf.com.au and it took minutes to find your alerting rules at www.abf.com.au/about/alerts.html. [Richard 2] While I said that the ABF has state-of-the-art alerting rules, I did not state that the ABF has a state-of-the-art website. :-) [Nigel 2] Summarising Australian alert rules ... 1. Cue-bids of opponents' suit, Xs, XXs, and 4+bids are "self-alerting" i.e. nonalertable. [Richard 2] Note that the ABF carefully defines "cue-bid", as either a bid of a suit bid by the opponents, or a bid of a suit shown by the opponents. Example: After 1NT - Pass - 2H (transfer to spades) both a bid of 2S, and a bid of 3H, fall within the ABF definition of cuebid, and are "self-alerting". [Nigel 2] 2. Explanations may not refer to future responses (Richard, I thought you advocated giving the meaning of Stayman responses). [Richard 2] Not exactly. I advocated giving the full meaning of lebensohl; that is, the types of hands for which my partner is likely to employ lebensohl. There is a subtle distinction between describing the hand types which will use lebensohl, and describing future rebids after pard uses a 2NT lebensohl bid. [Nigel 2] 3. If you've forgotten what a call means, you still alert it -- but you must not guess -- you must call the director. (another long BLML controversy). I agree it looks clear and simple. (: If I had my way, ALL calls would be "self-alerting." :) [Richard 2] Disagree on the last point. The rationale for defining *particular* calls as self-alerting is both: a) To reduce the chance of UI to pard by alerts, and b) To minimise the chance of MI to the opponents; the calls defined as self-alerting are inherently likely to have differing meanings amongst differing partnerships. For example, I play the sequence 1H opening bid - 2D response as non-forcing. If all calls were self- alerting, my opponents would be disadvantaged, since they would expect the 99+% default agreement that 2D was forcing. From adam@irvine.com Thu Nov 7 02:01:13 2002 From: adam@irvine.com (Adam Beneschan) Date: Wed, 06 Nov 2002 18:01:13 -0800 Subject: [blml] Appealing procedural penalties In-Reply-To: Your message of "Thu, 07 Nov 2002 12:42:39 +1000." <4A256C6A.000D7284.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> Message-ID: <200211070201.SAA01688@mailhub.irvine.com> Richard wrote: > This raises an interesting question. Since an > AC cannot force a change of a TD's PP; is an AC > legally entitled to over-rule a TD's decision to > *not* award a PP? How would the AC get a case like that? If the director decides that a pair should not get a PP, who would appeal it? Probably not the pair that got off with no penalty. Should an opponent be able to appeal this? I suppose L92 gives any contestant a right to appeal any ruling made at his table, but it seems strange to me that a player should be able to appeal a decision not to award a PP to one of his opponents---I would think that shouldn't be allowed. -- Adam From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Thu Nov 7 04:50:00 2002 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 7 Nov 2002 14:50:00 +1000 Subject: [blml] Appealing procedural penalties Message-ID: <4A256C6A.00191B10.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> Richard wrote: >>This raises an interesting question. Since an >>AC cannot force a change of a TD's PP; is an AC >>legally entitled to over-rule a TD's decision to >>*not* award a PP? >How would the AC get a case like that? If the >director decides that a pair should not get a PP, >who would appeal it? Probably not the pair that >got off with no penalty. Should an opponent be >able to appeal this? I suppose L92 gives any >contestant a right to appeal any ruling made at >his table, but it seems strange to me that a >player should be able to appeal a decision not >to award a PP to one of his opponents---I would >think that shouldn't be allowed. > > -- Adam Some years ago, I made a doubled slam after I gave MI during the auction. The TD cancelled the double, but allowed me to keep my slam, and did not issue a PP against me. The opponents appealed, arguing that without the MI a different lead would have been made, and the different lead would have given me the opportunity to misplay the slam. The AC rejected the appeal, but fined me a PP of 1/2 of a VP for the MI infraction. Best wishes Richard From wayne.burrows@xtra.co.nz Thu Nov 7 04:00:07 2002 From: wayne.burrows@xtra.co.nz (Wayne Burrows) Date: Thu, 7 Nov 2002 17:00:07 +1300 Subject: [blml] Appealing procedural penalties In-Reply-To: <4A256C6A.00191B10.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> Message-ID: <000001c28612$2c8dd0a0$5e2f37d2@Desktop> > Richard wrote: > > >>This raises an interesting question. Since an > >>AC cannot force a change of a TD's PP; is an AC > >>legally entitled to over-rule a TD's decision to > >>*not* award a PP? > > >How would the AC get a case like that? If the > >director decides that a pair should not get a PP, > >who would appeal it? Probably not the pair that > >got off with no penalty. Should an opponent be > >able to appeal this? I suppose L92 gives any > >contestant a right to appeal any ruling made at > >his table, but it seems strange to me that a > >player should be able to appeal a decision not > >to award a PP to one of his opponents---I would > >think that shouldn't be allowed. > > > > -- Adam > > Some years ago, I made a doubled slam after I > gave MI during the auction. The TD cancelled the > double, but allowed me to keep my slam, and did > not issue a PP against me. > > The opponents appealed, arguing that without the > MI a different lead would have been made, and the > different lead would have given me the opportunity > to misplay the slam. > > The AC rejected the appeal, but fined me a PP of > 1/2 of a VP for the MI infraction. > I have had a similar case where after our failure to alert the opponent's went off in a contract that they could have made. I successfully argued to an appeal committee that the contract's failure was not due to the misinformation but due to an inferior line taken for other reasons. The committee concurred with me but issued a PP for our failure to alert. Wayne From hermandw@skynet.be Thu Nov 7 08:23:36 2002 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 07 Nov 2002 09:23:36 +0100 Subject: [blml] Appealing procedural penalties References: <000001c28612$2c8dd0a0$5e2f37d2@Desktop> Message-ID: <3DCA2308.6020508@skynet.be> Wayne Burrows wrote: >>Richard wrote: >> >> >>>>This raises an interesting question. Since an >>>>AC cannot force a change of a TD's PP; is an AC >>>>legally entitled to over-rule a TD's decision to >>>>*not* award a PP? >>>> >>>How would the AC get a case like that? If the >>>director decides that a pair should not get a PP, >>>who would appeal it? Probably not the pair that >>>got off with no penalty. Should an opponent be >>>able to appeal this? I suppose L92 gives any >>>contestant a right to appeal any ruling made at >>>his table, but it seems strange to me that a >>>player should be able to appeal a decision not >>>to award a PP to one of his opponents---I would >>>think that shouldn't be allowed. >>> >>> -- Adam >>> >>Some years ago, I made a doubled slam after I >>gave MI during the auction. The TD cancelled the >>double, but allowed me to keep my slam, and did >>not issue a PP against me. >> >>The opponents appealed, arguing that without the >>MI a different lead would have been made, and the >>different lead would have given me the opportunity >>to misplay the slam. >> >>The AC rejected the appeal, but fined me a PP of >>1/2 of a VP for the MI infraction. >> >> > > I have had a similar case where after our failure to > alert the opponent's went off in a contract that they > could have made. > > I successfully argued to an appeal committee that > the contract's failure was not due to the misinformation > but due to an inferior line taken for other reasons. > > The committee concurred with me but issued a PP for > our failure to alert. > > Wayne > This is a very common occurence, and one that AC's ought to get into their head that they should not do. It's very human. They complain, but we can't give them anything, so let's at least penalize the others. Usually the "infraction" that has caused the problem is a very common one, and the TD is right in not penalizing this occurence of it, since then he should have to be penalizing the whole time. The AC does not have such a feeling. As TD, I usually tell the AC that they should not do this and quite frequently they listen to these arguments. But some AC's continue in this folly. All that is apart from the question as to whether they are allowed to do this. I believe they are, but that is not a very firm belief. I think that if I, as AC, tell the TD that I believe a PP ought to be considered, he would be wise to seriously consider it and give it. > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From A.Kooijman@dwk.agro.nl Thu Nov 7 08:32:14 2002 From: A.Kooijman@dwk.agro.nl (Kooijman, A.) Date: Thu, 07 Nov 2002 09:32:14 +0100 Subject: [blml] 'Fully and freely available' Message-ID: Tim: > > > Until two months ago, no-one on this list, including you, > > > Ton and Kojak had ever expressed the fact that HQ's > > > were not allowed. As I have never expressed the fact that bridge is played with 52 cards. Do you want me to get a reassurance of that in the WBFLC too? Grattan sometimes has an overpolite policy in this forum to keep things in the fog created by contributors, this fog only be taken away when the LC has expressed its opinion about the case later. I don't need that procedure when things are completely clear. And yes I myself am in a position to make such decisions. Bridge is played with 52 cards (and though David B. did not express his approval with law 1 lately I assume he will not suggest a confirmation) and players are not allowed to ask about future calls during the auction. So don't tell me in two years that since the WBFLC didn't confirm that L20 means what it says you can do what you want. The task to be taken up concerning L20 is for the drafting committee. And don't suggest that the bridge world is not at all prepared for L 20 as it is. In my country nobody asks about future calls and I doubt whether France for example has this problem. And knowing the influence of David and Grattan in the EBU and being aware of the quality of Max Bavin being CTD there (should I add Italy?)I predict that they don't have any problem either. Kojak had some influence in the ACBL and I know he can read English, so what is the real situation in the ACBL? May I summarize: what kind of problem are we talking about? ton > > What are trying to prove Grattan? Herman wrote the above not > as criticism > of you for failing to share information but as an > illustration that many > people interpret the laws on asking questions rather > differently. BLML is > not a complete repository of all bridge laws knowledge but it > is a fair > bet that if a complex issue hasn't even been touched on in > this group the > level of shared understanding in the wider population will be > near zero. > Should the WBFLC eventually decide that HQ's should not be > (or indeed are > not) permitted there will be a need for a MASSIVE educational > commitment. > Currently HQ's are routinely asked, and answered, all over the world. > > You seemed to be suggesting that a policy of PP giving might > be the way > forward. Why else did you suggest that PPs "could be given" > when I said > they would not be *justified*? > > Tim > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From dalburn@btopenworld.com Thu Nov 7 08:54:20 2002 From: dalburn@btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: 7 Nov 2002 00:54:20 -0800 Subject: [blml] Appealing procedural penalties Message-ID: <071102311.3261@webbox.com> Herman wrote: >> The committee concurred with me but issued a PP for >> our failure to alert. >This is a very common occurence, and one that AC's ought to get into their head that they should not do. Oh, well. I knew it wouldn't be long before I could disagree from start to finish with Herman again. How long will this one last? If you cheat, you damage the opponents; your score will be adjusted to your detriment, and this will be called "redress". If you offend against procedure, you are liable to be penalised; this penalty, for obvious if woefully unimaginative reasons, is called "procedural". One of the legacies of the late lamented DWS was a raft of acronyms, amongst which was something called a "PPw", which one gathered stood for "procedural penalty - warning". But this could safely be assumed to be the product of a diseased mind. A penalty is a penalty. A warning is a warning. They are not the same thing, nor are they anything like the same thing. No football match has ever been decided by a "warning shootout". Now, redress for damage and a penalty for infringement are not the same thing either. Just because you have given redress, that does not mean that you should not penalise. Indeed, if you have had occasion to give redress, the chances are that some infraction worthy of penalty has occurred. The default position, I would say, is that most actions that have occasioned damage to the opponents are liable to penalty independently of the damage they may have done. If you don't alert when you ought to alert, you have offended against correct procedure. You should be penalised for doing this. It does not matter whether or not your failure to alert causes damage. If nobody ever got penalised for not alerting, then you might as well not bother to alert. How are you going to enforce your beloved "principle of full disclosure", Herman, if every time someone does not tell the opponents that a convention is in use, you tell the appeals committee not to penalise them? Some lunatic (I think it was Harold Franklin) once told me that because we'd deprived someone of about 13 IMPs when they'd cheated, we should not fine them another three for cheating. I thought this was abject rubbish, but I was much younger then, so I didn't argue. It is still abject rubbish. And I am older now. David Burn London, England From Schoderb@aol.com Mon Nov 4 16:43:21 2002 From: Schoderb@aol.com (Schoderb@aol.com) Date: Mon, 4 Nov 2002 11:43:21 EST Subject: 'Fully and freely available' : was Re: [blml] questions about future calls Message-ID: --part1_cc.14897c86.2af7fda9_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Couldn't have said it nearly as succinctly and without losing my cool. Bravo to Grattan. We tend to spend a lot of time and mental energy departing from surious concepts to extended espositions while forgetting both the trees and the forest. =K= --part1_cc.14897c86.2af7fda9_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Couldn't have said it nearly as succinctly and without losing my cool.  Bravo to Grattan. We tend to spend a lot of time and mental energy departing from surious concepts to extended espositions while forgetting both the trees and the forest.

=K= --part1_cc.14897c86.2af7fda9_boundary-- From Schoderb@aol.com Mon Nov 4 16:43:21 2002 From: Schoderb@aol.com (Schoderb@aol.com) Date: Mon, 4 Nov 2002 11:43:21 EST Subject: [blml] BLML Message-ID: <169.16921a44.2af7fda9@aol.com> --part1_169.16921a44.2af7fda9_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Ditto =K= --part1_169.16921a44.2af7fda9_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Ditto
=K= --part1_169.16921a44.2af7fda9_boundary-- From nancy@dressing.org Mon Nov 4 23:32:46 2002 From: nancy@dressing.org (Nancy T Dressing) Date: Mon, 4 Nov 2002 18:32:46 -0500 Subject: [blml] Convention Card Message-ID: <001b01c2845a$7b4ef390$6401a8c0@hare> This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0018_01C28430.925BEDB0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Can any one direct me to the Law that says each player must have a = convention card on the table (or anywhere for that matter). Law 40E = talks about the sponsoring organization *may* prescribe a card for use = and *may*establish regulations for its use, etc and the Tech files in = ACBL score only talk about Sectional and Higher tournaments. Nothing = about the club level. This is the only reference to the convention card = in the law book. When asked to cite a law that says a club player must = have a convention card, we cannot find that. As I understand it, ACBL = is the sponsoring organization that regulates this card and its use. = How do we handle UI when there is no CC available or required???? = Thanks, Nancy ------=_NextPart_000_0018_01C28430.925BEDB0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Can any one direct me to the Law that says each player must have a=20 convention card on the table (or anywhere for that matter).  Law = 40E talks=20 about the sponsoring organization *may* prescribe  a card for = use and=20 *may*establish regulations for its use, etc and the Tech files in ACBL = score=20 only talk about Sectional and Higher tournaments.  Nothing about = the club=20 level.  This is the only reference to the convention card in the = law=20 book.  When asked to cite a law that says a club player must have a = convention card, we cannot find that.  As I understand it, ACBL is = the=20 sponsoring organization that regulates this card and its use.  How = do we=20 handle UI when there is no CC available or required????   = Thanks,=20 Nancy
------=_NextPart_000_0018_01C28430.925BEDB0-- From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Tue Nov 5 01:26:54 2002 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 5 Nov 2002 11:26:54 +1000 Subject: [blml] A practical question about disclosure Message-ID: <4A256C68.0006851C.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> --0__=JMnjRTZLQLO9EBScd8X44llH5heCGN6qtCGYjfhVz9ARswJBadTKLISG Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Sugggested 2005 wording of Law 20F1: During the auction period, and before the final pass, any player, at their own turn to call, may request (5) a full explanation of the opponents --0__=JMnjRTZLQLO9EBScd8X44llH5heCGN6qtCGYjfhVz9ARswJBadTKLISG Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable Content-type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline ' auction (the explanation should include positive inferences, and also include negative inferences about relevant calls available but not made); replies should normally (6) be given by the partner of a player who made a call in question (see Law 75C). (5) Law 16 may apply, and sponsoring organisations may establish regulations for written explanation. (6) Except when provided otherwise by a regulation made under Law 80E. Best wishes Richard = --0__=JMnjRTZLQLO9EBScd8X44llH5heCGN6qtCGYjfhVz9ARswJBadTKLISG-- From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Wed Nov 6 03:25:42 2002 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 6 Nov 2002 13:25:42 +1000 Subject: [blml] Convention cards and the questions of false prophets. Message-ID: <4A256C69.0011641F.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> --0__=hZm7L55rE2OpA1mh8Nby1wFboCbdhfRonbPFbo7L1bsIBfFXbegchwaW Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Sven asked: [snip] >>Do I understand you correct that in your opinion >>under those regulations a player that feels the >>need for further clarification on any information >>from the CC may in many (most) cases not during >>the auction ask such questions, but he is instead >>fully entitled to redress if the Director finds >>that his alleged need was indeed relevant and >>that he was damaged as a result thereof? I think the authoritive answer to that question is "Yes", based on previous postings demonstrating that the L75 obligation to make information fully and freely available is modified by the Lawful provision of: - timing constraints, and - format of questions constraints. So far this extended discussion has focussed on auction explanations. However, I have a supplementary question on card play conventions. Law 20F2 states: [snip] >At his or dummy --0__=hZm7L55rE2OpA1mh8Nby1wFboCbdhfRonbPFbo7L1bsIBfFXbegchwaW Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable Content-type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline 's turn to play, the declarer may >request an explanation of a defender's [snip] >card play conventions. The authoritive consensus is that hypothetical questions about bidding are prohibited by L20F1. Therefore, does L20F2 entitle declarer to a *complete* explanation of a defender's card play conventions? Or is declarer merely entitled to an explanation of the conventional meaning of the cards *actually played* (so far) by the defender's partner on this particular deal? Best wishes Richard = --0__=hZm7L55rE2OpA1mh8Nby1wFboCbdhfRonbPFbo7L1bsIBfFXbegchwaW-- From hermandw@skynet.be Thu Nov 7 10:22:21 2002 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 07 Nov 2002 11:22:21 +0100 Subject: [blml] Appealing procedural penalties References: <071102311.3261@webbox.com> Message-ID: <3DCA3EDD.4010505@skynet.be> David, if you want to disagree with me, you will always find a way. If you don't understand the clear english sentences that I write, I will start writing in Dutch. Please read again what I wrote and tell me what you disagree with. David Burn wrote: > Herman wrote: > > >>>The committee concurred with me but issued a PP for >>>our failure to alert. >>> > >>This is a very common occurence, and one that AC's ought to >> > get into their head that they should not do. > > Oh, well. I knew it wouldn't be long before I could disagree > from start to finish with Herman again. How long will this one > last? > > If you cheat, you damage the opponents; your score will be adjusted > to your detriment, and this will be called "redress". > > If you offend against procedure, you are liable to be penalised; > this penalty, for obvious if woefully unimaginative reasons, > is called "procedural". One of the legacies of the late lamented > DWS was a raft of acronyms, amongst which was something called > a "PPw", which one gathered stood for "procedural penalty - warning". > But this could safely be assumed to be the product of a diseased > mind. A penalty is a penalty. A warning is a warning. They are > not the same thing, nor are they anything like the same thing. > No football match has ever been decided by a "warning shootout". > This has no bearing whatsoever on what I wrote. Since I don't disagree with what you say, let's leave it at that. > Now, redress for damage and a penalty for infringement are not > the same thing either. Just because you have given redress, that > does not mean that you should not penalise. Indeed, if you have > had occasion to give redress, the chances are that some infraction > worthy of penalty has occurred. The default position, I would > say, is that most actions that have occasioned damage to the > opponents are liable to penalty independently of the damage they > may have done. > This has no bearing whatsoever on what I wrote. Since I don't disagree with what you say, let's leave it at that. > If you don't alert when you ought to alert, you have offended > against correct procedure. You should be penalised for doing > this. It does not matter whether or not your failure to alert > causes damage. > This has no bearing whatsoever on what I wrote. Since I don't disagree with what you say, let's leave it at that. > If nobody ever got penalised for not alerting, then you might > as well not bother to alert. How are you going to enforce your > beloved "principle of full disclosure", Herman, if every time > someone does not tell the opponents that a convention is in use, > you tell the appeals committee not to penalise them? > This has no bearing whatsoever on what I wrote. Since I don't disagree with what you say, let's leave it at that. > Some lunatic (I think it was Harold Franklin) once told me that > because we'd deprived someone of about 13 IMPs when they'd cheated, > we should not fine them another three for cheating. I thought > this was abject rubbish, but I was much younger then, so I didn't > argue. It is still abject rubbish. And I am older now. > This has no bearing whatsoever on what I wrote. Since I don't disagree with what you say, let's leave it at that. > David Burn > London, England > > What I wrote about was this: the TD notices some infraction and decides to deal with it by, among others, not giving a PP. The case comes before the AC, and the AC decide they do want to give a PP. Apart from the legal issues about whether or not an AC has this power, I believe they should not use this power, since what they are now punishing is no longer the offence but also the fact that the case came before them. PP's are, by Law, the domain of the TD and the AC should not second-guess the TD who has decided how the tournament is best run. If you want to disagree with me David, then please find something else to disagree about. This should not be something we quarrel over. > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From John A. Mac Gregor, Chief TD - CACBF" <000f01c28512$ee0f4980$70d8fea9@WINXP> <000901c28574$41ce60e0$db19e150@endicott> Message-ID: <000001c28649$212fa3a0$e22928c4@john> Grattan, To be clear in my mind, A "proper question" is one that conforms to the Law with regards to timing and manner. During a hand, questions must have a relevant bridge reason. What about style questions? Time permitting, questions about system (CC) can be made before the event, before the session, before the round, or between hands. When you say "will protect themselves" and "to protect himself", it implies a responsibility on the part of the player to ask a question. Is this our hook to deal with the bridge lawyers? Where is this found in the Laws or regs? Many thanks, John John A. Mac Gregor, Chief Tournament Director Central American and Caribbean Bridge Federation San Jose, Costa Rica johnmacg@racsa.co.cr www.cacbf.com ----- Original Message ----- From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "blml" Sent: Wednesday, November 06, 2002 3:08 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Convention cards and the questions of false prophets. | | Grattan Endicott | To: "blml" | Sent: Tuesday, November 05, 2002 9:33 PM | Subject: Re: [blml] Convention cards and the questions of false | prophets. | | | > What you wrote below Grattan is in my opinion very | > clear and directly to the point. Just one question: | > | > Do I understand you correct that in your opinion under | > those regulations a player that feels the need for further | > clarification on any information from the CC may in | > many (most) cases not during the auction ask such | > questions , but he is instead fully entitled to redress | > if the Director finds that his alleged need was indeed | > relevant and that he was damaged as a result thereof? | > | > regards Sven | > | +=+ I incline to answer 'yes'. But that answer alone | is insufficient. Under these Conditions of Contest | the Card should indeed tell it all, but enquiry about | a call that has been made is allowed by law, and | there is the expectation that, at this level, a player | who recognizes there may be something he ought to | discover will protect himself. Behind screens there is | no UI difficulty. The level of play and the sophistication | of the regulations are relevant factors. | At minimum, Law 40E calls for understandings | to be listed; it is left to regulation to specify the | amount of detail to be given on the Card. The WBF | regulation, designed for play at the highest level where | the most obscure agreements may occur, calls for | exposure of the understandings in the maximum | detail - enquiry is less necessary but also most | prompted when there is an alert. For play at less | exalted levels, and insofar as complex methods are | permitted, the information demanded on the Card may | be less, even much less, comprehensive. It becomes | essential for players to alert meticulously and to explain | with care in answer to enquiry the understandings and | the agreed inferences. At such levels of play, also, the | expectation that players will have the insight to protect | themselves does not hold good to the same degree. | Convention cards usually have an area in which to | draw attention to unusual methods and use should be | made of this to convey the news that there is | something to find out about. | The responsibility is one of disclosure and the | opponents have no responsibility to supply any | shortcomings in this by asking questions. Being | alerted, their any question should receive a full | volunteered response. What is overlooked by some | who have contributed to this discussion is that the | 'right' of knowledge is a right to be given the whole | explanation, not a right or a necessity to go to lengths | to obtain it. The law says you may ask for an | explanation. When you ask you should get it, with all | you need to know. At these levels, which include all | the middle strata of day by day competition, players | who adopt more complex agreements must be | conscious of their duty to ensure that opponents | are properly informed about them. | ~ Grattan ~ +=+ | | | | | | | | | _______________________________________________ | blml mailing list | blml@rtflb.org | http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Thu Nov 7 10:39:00 2002 From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Date: Thu, 7 Nov 2002 10:39 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [blml] Appealing procedural penalties Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <071102311.3261@webbox.com> David Burn wrote: > If you cheat, you damage the opponents; your score will be adjusted > to your detriment, and this will be called "redress". If you offend against procedure, and damage the opponents; your score will be adjusted to your detriment, and this will also be called "redress". Seems to be missing here. The vast majority of adjustments are for breaches of procedure, not cheating. > If you offend against procedure, you are liable to be penalised; > this penalty, for obvious if woefully unimaginative reasons, > is called "procedural". Liable is perhaps too strong. Most offences against procedure do not receive a PP (of any form) under current practice. I suspect because the "redress" for damage contains just enough of a punitive element (due to weighting in favour of NOS) that the additional deterrent effect of a PP is deemed unnecessary. > One of the legacies of the late lamented > DWS was a raft of acronyms, amongst which was something called > a "PPw", which one gathered stood for "procedural penalty - warning". > But this could safely be assumed to be the product of a diseased > mind. A penalty is a penalty. A warning is a warning. They are > not the same thing, nor are they anything like the same thing. > No football match has ever been decided by a "warning shootout". A PPw (Product of diseased mind or not these things seem to exist) might be more akin to a Yellow Card in football. Perhaps a closer analogy in this instance is being stopped for speeding. The policeman has 3 choices (4 in Reppert land where shooting is apparently an option) 1. To issue an informal warning (a minor breach followed by much crawling gets you one of these). 2. To issue a "Caution". This is (in theory) a formal legal device, is recorded, and a second cautionable situation is automatically a penalty offence. A caution must be accepted by the recipient, if it is refused the PC will choose to go for 1 or 3. In practice such cautions are seldom centrally recorded and it is no different from a warning (although you never know). (a fairly major breach followed by exceptional crawling gets this). 3. To issue a formal penalty/prosecution - serious offences and/or failure to crawl. The above process falls down at the implementation stage, that does not mean that giving TDs a similar range of options will also fail. However, for such a system to work the TD must make it clear whether option 1 or 2 has been taken - otherwise it will become very messy. > Now, redress for damage and a penalty for infringement are not > the same thing either. Just because you have given redress, that > does not mean that you should not penalise. Indeed, if you have > had occasion to give redress, the chances are that some infraction > worthy of penalty has occurred. The default position, I would > say, is that most actions that have occasioned damage to the > opponents are liable to penalty independently of the damage they > may have done. > > If you don't alert when you ought to alert, you have offended > against correct procedure. You should be penalised for doing > this. It does not matter whether or not your failure to alert > causes damage. Automatic penalties for failure to properly alert Stayman in WBF events then? You have said this is common, and completely trivial, breach of procedure about which nobody cares. I think you are right on that and that automatic penalties would be absurd. > If nobody ever got penalised for not alerting, then you might > as well not bother to alert. How are you going to enforce your > beloved "principle of full disclosure", Herman, if every time > someone does not tell the opponents that a convention is in use, > you tell the appeals committee not to penalise them? Normally an adjusted score when opps may have been damaged suffices as penalty in addition to being redress. I wouldn't have a problem with a TD (or AC) deciding that my failure to alert partner's weak 2C bid was an exceptional case meriting a penalty independent of any adjustment. Tim From dalburn@btopenworld.com Thu Nov 7 11:34:42 2002 From: dalburn@btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: 7 Nov 2002 03:34:42 -0800 Subject: [blml] Appealing procedural penalties Message-ID: <071102311.12882@webbox.com> TWM wrote: >If you offend against procedure, and damage the opponents; your score will be adjusted to your detriment, and this will also be called "redress". Not by speakers of the English language, it won't. >Seems to be missing here. The vast majority of adjustments are for breaches of procedure, not cheating. No, they aren't. We only call them that in order to avoid lawsuits. If you take advantage of UI, we restore the score the opponents would have got (redress) and perhaps fine you if you ought to have known better (penalty). If you don't alert, we give the opponents the score they would have got if you had (redress) and fine you anyway (penalty), because everyone knows you're supposed to alert >Liable is perhaps too strong. Eh? "liable - legally responsible; susceptible to; exposed to." What weaker word would you have me use? >Most offences against procedure do not receive a PP (of any form) under current practice. True. But the world is full of mad people, who think that if you've adjusted someone's score for the worse, you have already "penalised" them. This is not so much muddled thinking as the complete absence of thinking, but they do it anyway. >I suspect because the "redress" for damage contains just enough of a punitive element (due to weighting in favour of NOS) that the additional deterrent effect of a PP is deemed unnecessary. I suspect that there must be some sort of pseudo-reason for it. What kind of "deterrent" is it supposed to be to have your score adjusted only to what it would have been anyway if you hadn't cheated? >A PPw (Product of diseased mind or not these things seem to exist) might be more akin to a Yellow Card in football. It might, if there were any kind of sanction for this PPw. There isn't. You don't get suspended from the next tournament if you collect two warnings in two events. You don't get disqualified if you collect two warnings in one event. This "PP warning" is, in essence, a sop to the conscience of a director, who ought to penalise someone for something, and claims that he has done because "I warned him". Jolly good show. >Automatic penalties for failure to properly alert Stayman in WBF events then? You have said this is common, and completely trivial, breach of procedure about which nobody cares. I think you are right on that and that automatic penalties would be absurd. No, they wouldn't. And I didn't say that people don't alert. They do, but not by the daft procedure laid down by the WBF. It's just that no one ever claims damage for a non-alert of Stayman. >Normally an adjusted score when opps may have been damaged suffices as a penalty in addition to being redress. Yes, I know it does. This is because the world is still full of mad people. If someone steals fifty thousand pounds from you, should he not have to go to gaol if he gives it back? David Burn London, England From twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Thu Nov 7 11:53:00 2002 From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Date: Thu, 7 Nov 2002 11:53 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [blml] 'Fully and freely available' Message-ID: In-Reply-To: Ton wrote: > > > > Until two months ago, no-one on this list, including you, > > > > Ton and Kojak had ever expressed the fact that HQ's > > > > were not allowed. > > As I have never expressed the fact that bridge is played with 52 cards. > Do you want me to get a reassurance of that in the WBFLC too? I don't understand. There is no ambiguity in law 1 that I can see, it doesn't need any "interpretation". Why would I need reassurance? Other laws have, in the past, been seen to need "official interpretation" due to the unfortunate presence of ambiguity in their drafting. Surely this thread has demonstrated a degree of ambiguity in L20F? > So don't tell me in two years that since the WBFLC didn't confirm that > L20 means what it says you can do what you want. The task to be taken up > concerning L20 is for the drafting committee. As far as I can tell, in the absence of official guidance, TDs and players are expected to make their best individual efforts to interpret, and abide by, ambiguous laws. This won't lead to unanimity of approach but I don't see what else can be done. > And don't suggest that the bridge world is not at all prepared for L 20 > as it is. In my country nobody asks about future calls and I doubt > whether France for example has this problem. And knowing the influence > of David and Grattan in the EBU and being aware of the quality of Max > Bavin being CTD there (should I add Italy?)I predict that they don't > have any problem either. I don't perceive a problem currently either. Last night I opened a weak 2 in Spades, LHO asked what responses we played, I told him, he bid 2N. No suggestive UI in his question, No problem! Perhaps you would have told him not to ask illegal questions but I judged that doing so would be *seen* as rude, stupid and counterproductive. I know a couple of officials of the EBU online club lurk on BLML, I can provide the name of the supposed malefactor should they deem punishment necessary. I am also happy to accept their censure for answering the question if they see fit. Another one that came up about 10 times in a single weekend. "Hi opps, we play sort of Acol but with weak 2s in all 4 suits and no forcing opening." Opp: "Thank you", takes cards from board and starts to sort, "So what is your strong opening?". Me: "I'm sorry, that is an illegal question, director please". Sadly I forgot to do this and instead carefully explained that 2N/3N are strong balanced while 1 level suit openers are unlimited when unbalanced (unless suitable for a Blackwood opening). Again there was no problem with the course of action actually taken. > Kojak had some influence in the ACBL and I know he can read English, so > what is the real situation in the ACBL? I don't know. But a contributor from ACBL land (Eric I think) said that such questions were "Routinely" asked and answered. I didn't see anybody rushing to correct his perception. > May I summarize: what kind of problem are we talking about? The problem is that, IMO, *most* players *believe* they are entitled to ask about the systemic agreements opps may have in place before making their own call. Even if *most* is only *many* there will still be a need for education. Tim From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Thu Nov 7 12:49:45 2002 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Thu, 7 Nov 2002 12:49:45 -0000 Subject: [blml] Moulin Rouge References: <4A256C6A.000B668A.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> Message-ID: <003e01c2865c$27e7a180$aa9c68d5@default> [Richard Hills] Matchpoint pairs, Dlr: N, Vul: EW You, South, hold: J3 AQT76 432 832 The bidding has gone: WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH 1NT(1) 2D 2H 3H Pass 3NT(2) Double Pass 4H Pass Pass 5D Pass Pass ? (1) 11-14 (2) Break in tempo What are your logical alternatives? {Nigel Guthrie] At this vulnerability, East-West are unlikely to be fooling around. It sounds as if partner has psyched or has a minimum 1N with 5H, say... Axx Jxxxx Qx KJx Hence I mark logical alternatives as P=10 5H=6 X=2 From agot@ulb.ac.be Thu Nov 7 13:07:23 2002 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Thu, 07 Nov 2002 14:07:23 +0100 Subject: [blml] Re: Law82C In-Reply-To: <000401c2865a$b5964ce0$a6053dd4@b0e7g1> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20021107135453.026a35f0@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 12:10 7/11/2002 +0100, you wrote: >Alain, AG : why meeeee ? > The hands are not important and the auction goes: > >West north east south >2NT pas 3NT/3C TD > > 2NT= 20-21p, 3NT is Niemeijer (game-forcing with 4H and 5Sp cards) >When east had laid down 3NT he realized that he has not these cards. So he >changed to 3C being the only way to 3NT later. >South summoned the TD, but the TD ruled incorrectly: >- He did not offer south the option to accept 3C. >- He directly offered east the options of Law25B2b1 and 2 but did not >mention >Law23 and the consequences. AG : L23 doesn't apply here. Where L23 acts is where the player is able, by the way of his infraction, to get a result that was otherwise impossible. Example : 1H (2S) 1NT When 1NT is not allowed, the player corrects to 3C ... and gets to play there, something he couldn't achieve without the infraction (because 3C would have been forcing). If 3C is indeed the limit of the hand (or already too high), L23 tells us the good result will not stand. Here, East was able to play in 3NT (by bidding 3C) ; his error didn't make it any better ; thus L23 doesn't apply. If East decides to bid 3NT, he gets the score for 3NT. > East had chosen 3NT, west passed and made 9 tricks as the other table >results. >and that east would not understand the meaning of Law23! > > The problem in the Netherlands is the score adjustment according to Law82C. >What means: "considering both sides as non-offending for that purpose"? >There are dutch TD's reading it "as if no irregularity has occured": viz, >east has called 3C immediately. > >There are 2 camps: >1- NS the minus score of 3NT; (= 50%) >EW Av- the best score they could have gained in case the TD had done a >correct ruling. (make the best of it) >2- NS 3NT and EW the minus score of 3NT. (each 50%) >The latter have the opinion that "considering both sides as non-offending" >in Law82C means that the play of the board must be regarded as there has not >been any irregularity. So there would have been a normal auction according >to the agreements. AG : It isn't true that EW's best score would have been Av- in the case where the TD would have given a correct ruling. If East had been given the right information and bid 3NT nevertheless (L25B2b1), his score would have been 50%. For that reason, give EW the score for 3NT. >The consequence of 3NT would be that west has to play 4H. Result minus >two.(=0%) AG : nope. As the case is, after the infraction of attempted correction but before the wrong ruling, the consequence of 3NT would be that EW would get either 40% or 50%, depending on East's decision. As they have to be treated as NOS, give them the best of it. The L82 ruling is there to cancel the effect of the wrong decision by the TD ; the infraction and its consequences (L25 but no L23 here) do remain. >What would be your choice in case it appeared with another deal that the >other pairs are in 4Sp. >Half of the pairs make 10 tricks; the other nine tricks? AG : same ruling. Best regards, Alain. From twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Thu Nov 7 12:55:00 2002 From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Date: Thu, 7 Nov 2002 12:55 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [blml] Appealing procedural penalties Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <071102311.12882@webbox.com> TWM wrote: > > >If you offend against procedure, and damage the opponents; your > score will be adjusted to your detriment, and this will also > be called "redress". > > Not by speakers of the English language, it won't. > > >Seems to be missing here. The vast majority of adjustments > are for breaches of procedure, not cheating. > > No, they aren't. We only call them that in order to avoid lawsuits. > If you take advantage of UI, we restore the score the opponents > would have got (redress) No you give the opps the *best* score they were likely to have got. You often (sometimes?) give OS a worse score than you give opps. There are certainly penalty elements within this approach. Many gross UI abuses are perpetrated by people who know no better. It would be ludicrous to call these people cheats. On others the player at the table judges something not to be an LA, the TD/AC sympathises with the judgement but disagrees. Most of us are aware that deciding if something is an LA can be tough sometimes. We don't consider these people cheats either. > and perhaps fine you if you ought to have known better (penalty). And yes, these cases happen too. Where such a penalty is felt necessary it probably is an attempt to avoid a lawsuit. > If you don't alert, we give the > opponents the score they would have got if you had (redress) > and fine you anyway (penalty), because everyone knows you're > supposed to alert Failure to alert = cheating? I would guess 99%+ of players must be cheats. Players occasionally forget to alert (or forget that a call is alertable, or misinterpret the alert regs). Again the adjustment process contains an element of penalties. Even weighted adjustments under 12c3 are generally weighted in favour of the NOS. > >Liable is perhaps too strong. > > Eh? "liable - legally responsible; susceptible to; exposed to." > What weaker word would you have me use? I would have gone for "open to". Purely on the grounds that such penalties seldom occur in practice. To me "liable" carries connotations of likelihood of occurrence. > >Most offences against procedure do not receive a PP (of any > form) under current practice. > > True. But the world is full of mad people, who think that if > you've adjusted someone's score for the worse, you have already > "penalised" them. This is not so much muddled thinking as the > complete absence of thinking, but they do it anyway. If you consider that 60% of people would have got to 4S absent the UI, roll back to 3S= (declarer may have taken a different line), and consider that and fail to see the deterrent effect of your ruling it seems you are not think clearly. > >I suspect because the "redress" for damage contains just enough > of a punitive element (due to weighting in favour of NOS) that > the additional deterrent effect of a PP is deemed unnecessary. > > I suspect that there must be some sort of pseudo-reason for it. > What kind of "deterrent" is it supposed to be to have your score > adjusted only to what it would have been anyway if you hadn't > cheated? > > >A PPw (Product of diseased mind or not these things seem to > exist) might be more akin to a Yellow Card in football. > > It might, if there were any kind of sanction for this PPw. There > isn't. You don't get suspended from the next tournament if you > collect two warnings in two events. You don't get disqualified > if you collect two warnings in one event. This "PP warning" is, > in essence, a sop to the conscience of a director, who ought > to penalise someone for something, and claims that he has done > because "I warned him". Jolly good show. > > >Automatic penalties for failure to properly alert Stayman in > WBF events then? You have said this is common, and completely > trivial, breach of procedure about which nobody cares. I think > you are right on that and that automatic penalties would be absurd. > > No, they wouldn't. And I didn't say that people don't alert. > They do, but not by the daft procedure laid down by the WBF. And nor did I. I said they didn't alert "properly" (OK I did it with a split infinitive so I understand if your mind avoided the offending word). I thought "properly" would be read as "according to procedure", sorry again. > It's just that no one ever claims damage for a non-alert of Stayman. We were not discussing damage, but automatic penalties for not following the alert procedure. > >Normally an adjusted score when opps may have been damaged suffices > as a penalty in addition to being redress. > > Yes, I know it does. This is because the world is still full > of mad people. If someone steals fifty thousand pounds from you, > should he not have to go to gaol if he gives it back? I would be content with a ruling that if he gave me back £75,000 (on the grounds that I might have invested the money in a well-performing stock in the meantime) he didn't have to go to gaol. The premise is valid, although I know it is somewhat unlikely I would have selected such a stock myself. The extra 25,000 will surely have a deterrent effect and be perceived as a punishment. If his "theft" involved cheating me at billiards then prison and elliptical balls might prove more appropriate. Tim From ehaa@starpower.net Thu Nov 7 13:02:22 2002 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu, 07 Nov 2002 08:02:22 -0500 Subject: [blml] Convention Card In-Reply-To: <001b01c2845a$7b4ef390$6401a8c0@hare> Message-ID: <4.3.2.7.0.20021107075928.00bc5300@pop.starpower.net> At 06:32 PM 11/4/02, Nancy wrote: >Can any one direct me to the Law that says each player must have a >convention card on the table (or anywhere for that matter). Law 40E >talks about the sponsoring organization *may* prescribe a card for >use and *may*establish regulations for its use, etc and the Tech files >in ACBL score only talk about Sectional and Higher >tournaments. Nothing about the club level. This is the only >reference to the convention card in the law book. When asked to cite >a law that says a club player must have a convention card, we cannot >find that. As I understand it, ACBL is the sponsoring organization >that regulates this card and its use. How do we handle UI when there >is no CC available or required???? Thanks, Nancy The omission may well be deliberate, as it has always been the ACBL's policy to give individual club owners/manangers as much leeway in such matters as the laws (more precisely, the ACBL's interpretation of them) allow. I suggest that the best approach is simply for the club to require CCs, as, I expect, 99.9% of ACBL clubs do. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 From J.P.Pals@frw.uva.nl Thu Nov 7 13:14:26 2002 From: J.P.Pals@frw.uva.nl (Jan Peter Pals) Date: Thu, 7 Nov 2002 14:14:26 +0100 Subject: [blml] Moulin Rouge Message-ID: <3248945BB44D13478D02C12C516636F8075ECC@rea05.fmg.uva.nl> > Matchpoint pairs, Dlr: N, Vul: EW > You, South, hold: >=20 > J3 > AQT76 > 432 > 832 >=20 > The bidding has gone: >=20 > WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH > 1NT(1) 2D 2H > 3H Pass 3NT(2) Double > Pass 4H Pass Pass > 5D Pass Pass ? >=20 > (1) 11-14 > (2) Break in tempo >=20 > What are your logical alternatives? Pass, pass and pass. Unless there is something fishy afoot, such as 2D being = conventional..... Cheers JP=20 From ehaa@starpower.net Thu Nov 7 13:21:52 2002 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu, 07 Nov 2002 08:21:52 -0500 Subject: [blml] Appealing procedural penalties In-Reply-To: <000001c28612$2c8dd0a0$5e2f37d2@Desktop> References: <4A256C6A.00191B10.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> Message-ID: <4.3.2.7.0.20021107081442.00a98f00@pop.starpower.net> At 11:00 PM 11/6/02, wayne.burrows wrote: > > Richard wrote: > > > > Some years ago, I made a doubled slam after I > > gave MI during the auction. The TD cancelled the > > double, but allowed me to keep my slam, and did > > not issue a PP against me. > > > > The opponents appealed, arguing that without the > > MI a different lead would have been made, and the > > different lead would have given me the opportunity > > to misplay the slam. > > > > The AC rejected the appeal, but fined me a PP of > > 1/2 of a VP for the MI infraction. > > > >I have had a similar case where after our failure to >alert the opponent's went off in a contract that they >could have made. > >I successfully argued to an appeal committee that >the contract's failure was not due to the misinformation >but due to an inferior line taken for other reasons. > >The committee concurred with me but issued a PP for >our failure to alert. This has become a rather common occurrence in the ACBL: AC finds an infraction, finds that no damage resulted so it can't adjust the score, then decides to issue a PP to the OS on the grounds that they should not be allowed to commit an infraction and get off "Scot free". It is understood and acknowledged that there would have been no PP issued had there been damage, as the score adjustment would have satisified the felt need to somehow "punish" the OS for their infraction. Things have gotten to the point where I have seen this approach recommended in print. Is it legal? Is it appropriate? Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 From gester@lineone.net Thu Nov 7 13:21:18 2002 From: gester@lineone.net (gester@lineone.net) Date: Thu, 7 Nov 2002 13:21:18 -0000 Subject: [blml] Convention cards and the questions of false prophets. References: <006301c284cc$344c36c0$5b2a2850@pacific> <000f01c28512$ee0f4980$70d8fea9@WINXP> <000901c28574$41ce60e0$db19e150@endicott> <000001c28649$212fa3a0$e22928c4@john> Message-ID: <001801c28660$b0e56040$12182850@pacific> Grattan Endicott To: "blml" Sent: Thursday, November 07, 2002 9:47 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Convention cards and the questions of false prophets. > > When you say "will protect themselves" and "to > protect himself", it implies a responsibility on the > part of the player to ask a question. Is this our hook > to deal with the bridge lawyers? Where is this found > in the Laws or regs? > +=+ WBF Systems Policy - Appendix 3 - Alerting - Preamble, paragraph 3. +=+ From ehaa@starpower.net Thu Nov 7 13:53:13 2002 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu, 07 Nov 2002 08:53:13 -0500 Subject: [blml] 'Fully and freely available' In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <4.3.2.7.0.20021107082443.00ad3cf0@pop.starpower.net> At 03:32 AM 11/7/02, Kooijman wrote: >And don't suggest that the bridge world is not at all prepared for L 20 as >it is. In my country nobody asks about future calls and I doubt whether >France for example has this problem. And knowing the influence of >David and >Grattan in the EBU and being aware of the quality of Max Bavin being CTD >there (should I add Italy?)I predict that they don't have any problem >either. >Kojak had some influence in the ACBL and I know he can read English, >so what >is the real situation in the ACBL? > >May I summarize: what kind of problem are we talking about? A very, very small one. In real life, I'd be surprised if the typical duplicate player encounters anything like one HQ a year. But at least 99.9999% of them would be sure that if they ever came upon a situation where they wanted the answer to a HQ they would be free to ask, and that if they were ever asked they would be obligated to answer. If asked, I'm confident they would overwhelmingly opine that that is not only the way it is, but the way it ought to be; they are quite content with their simplistic misunderstanding that such information is "fully and freely available" and can therefore be obtained at the time it is needed. As to the future of L20F1, we have three choices: (1) Change the law to make it consistent with the way it is almost universally (mis-)understood. (2) Mount a massive reeducation campaign to bring the common understanding into consistency with the law. (3) Maintain the status quo, in which the law is known only to a very few high-level lawmakers and BLML readers and is never enforced, leaving our TDs and ACs to cope (probably incorrectly; most of them are in the 99.9999%) with the brouhaha that is sure to occur if ever one of the 0.0001% who know of it try to have it enforced. Given that the real-life consequences of that choice will be virtually nil, it seems clear to prefer (1). Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 From ehaa@starpower.net Thu Nov 7 14:16:50 2002 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu, 07 Nov 2002 09:16:50 -0500 Subject: [blml] Appealing procedural penalties In-Reply-To: <071102311.3261@webbox.com> Message-ID: <4.3.2.7.0.20021107085613.00a9a220@pop.starpower.net> At 03:54 AM 11/7/02, David wrote: >If you cheat, you damage the opponents; your score will be adjusted >to your detriment, and this will be called "redress". Conversely, if you do not damage the opponents, your score will not be adjusted. "Redress" is short for "redress for damage". >If you offend against procedure, you are liable to be penalised; >this penalty, for obvious if woefully unimaginative reasons, >is called "procedural". One of the legacies of the late lamented >DWS was a raft of acronyms, amongst which was something called >a "PPw", which one gathered stood for "procedural penalty - warning". >But this could safely be assumed to be the product of a diseased >mind. A penalty is a penalty. A warning is a warning. They are >not the same thing, nor are they anything like the same thing. >No football match has ever been decided by a "warning shootout". And whether you receive a penalty, as opposed to a warning, depends on the severity of the offense and, potentially, the offender's history of past offenses. It has nothing to do with whether there has also been damage which was redressed. >Now, redress for damage and a penalty for infringement are not >the same thing either. Just because you have given redress, that >does not mean that you should not penalise. Indeed, if you have >had occasion to give redress, the chances are that some infraction >worthy of penalty has occurred. The default position, I would >say, is that most actions that have occasioned damage to the >opponents are liable to penalty independently of the damage they >may have done. Just because you have gien redress, that does not mean that you should penalize either. IMO, most actions that have occasioned damage, although they are, as David says, "liable to penalty", probably shouldn't be penalized. But that's off the point. David is quite correct; the key word in his argument is "independently". >If you don't alert when you ought to alert, you have offended >against correct procedure. You should be penalised for doing >this. It does not matter whether or not your failure to alert >causes damage. I fully agree with the first and third sentences of the above, but would change "should" to "may" in the second. >If nobody ever got penalised for not alerting, then you might >as well not bother to alert. How are you going to enforce your >beloved "principle of full disclosure", Herman, if every time >someone does not tell the opponents that a convention is in use, >you tell the appeals committee not to penalise them? This I do not agree with. As David himself points out above, redress for damage and penalties for offenses against correct procedure are independent of one another. If nobody ever got penalized for not alerting, there would still be those occasions on which their failure to alert caused damage which was redressed by taking matchpoints away from them that they might well have earned and kept had they remembered to alert. That by itself provides sufficient disincentive to prevent people from deciding that they might as well not bother to alert. >Some lunatic (I think it was Harold Franklin) once told me that >because we'd deprived someone of about 13 IMPs when they'd cheated, >we should not fine them another three for cheating. I thought >this was abject rubbish, but I was much younger then, so I didn't >argue. It is still abject rubbish. And I am older now. Agreed. You should give redress if redress is warranted. You should give a penalty if a penalty is warranted. Neither of these decisions should affect the other. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 From axman22@hotmail.com Thu Nov 7 13:50:55 2002 From: axman22@hotmail.com (Roger Pewick) Date: Thu, 7 Nov 2002 07:50:55 -0600 Subject: [blml] A practical question about disclosure References: <4A256C68.0006851C.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> Message-ID: ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Sent: Monday, November 04, 2002 7:26 PM Subject: Re: [blml] A practical question about disclosure > > > Sugggested 2005 wording of Law 20F1: > > During the auction period, and before the final pass, any > player, at their own turn to call, may request (5) a full > explanation of the opponents ------------------------------------------------------------------------ -------- ' auction (the explanation should include positive inferences, and also include negative inferences about relevant calls available but not made); replies should normally (6) be given by the partner of a player who made a call in question (see Law 75C). (5) Law 16 may apply, and sponsoring organisations may establish regulations for written explanation. (6) Except when provided otherwise by a regulation made under Law 80E. Best wishes Richard Does not 80E only give authority to regulation of bidding and play? IOW is the way to which a question is responded 'bidding or play'? I do not believe it is. regards roger pewick From ehaa@starpower.net Thu Nov 7 14:32:46 2002 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu, 07 Nov 2002 09:32:46 -0500 Subject: [blml] Appealing procedural penalties In-Reply-To: <071102311.12882@webbox.com> Message-ID: <4.3.2.7.0.20021107092735.00bf1600@pop.starpower.net> David asks a question... >TWM wrote: > > >I suspect because the "redress" for damage contains just enough >of a punitive element (due to weighting in favour of NOS) that >the additional deterrent effect of a PP is deemed unnecessary. > >I suspect that there must be some sort of pseudo-reason for it. >What kind of "deterrent" is it supposed to be to have your score >adjusted only to what it would have been anyway if you hadn't >cheated? ...and answers it himself. >True. But the world is full of mad people, who think that if >you've adjusted someone's score for the worse, you have already >"penalised" them. This is not so much muddled thinking as the >complete absence of thinking, but they do it anyway. It may only be a deterrent because people are mad, but if they are, then it is. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Thu Nov 7 14:46:45 2002 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Thu, 7 Nov 2002 14:46:45 -0000 Subject: [blml] Enough rope Message-ID: <000701c2866c$82213700$879468d5@default> Once during the last century, I played with a famous foreign international against a Scottish international pair. As declarer in 4S, my partner played rapidly to the first three tricks but paused significantly, before leading from dummy at trick four. To defeat the contract his RHO had to rise with the Ace but he ducked smoothly and my partner eventually squeaked home. While waiting to play our next match, I asked about the uncharacteristic trance -- the first time I had observed partner to hesitate, at all. He explained that, he needed no time to think himself; but he knew that his opponents were good players; and he had to give RHO time to count the hand; so that ducking could become a sensible option. Do the laws and proprieties have anything say about this ploy? From willner@cfa.harvard.edu Thu Nov 7 15:10:36 2002 From: willner@cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Thu, 7 Nov 2002 10:10:36 -0500 (EST) Subject: [blml] Convention Card Message-ID: <200211071510.KAA12400@cfa183.harvard.edu> > From: "Nancy T Dressing" > Can any one direct me to the Law that says each player must have a > convention card on the table There is no such Law. CC rules are entirely up to the Sponsoring Organization. I have played in clubs that did not require CC's at all. > Law 40E > talks about the sponsoring organization *may* prescribe a card for use > and *may*establish regulations for its use, Exactly. > the Tech files in > ACBL score only talk about Sectional and Higher tournaments. Nothing > about the club level. (This and the following comments apply to the ACBL because that seems to be the context of the question.) Clubs are the SO's for their own games and can have whatever CC regulations they want -- or none. The same applies to convention regulations, for that matter. The ACBL club where I usually play has an "anything goes" policy on conventions, much more liberal than the ACBL's tournament rules. > As I understand it, > ACBL is the sponsoring organization that regulates this card No, only for tournaments, not for club games. "Tournaments" include STAC's and similar events, where the ACBL regulations are in force, even if the play is at a club venue. But for their own games, clubs can have their own rules, at least as regards CC's and conventions. > How do we handle UI when there is no CC available or required???? As best you can. Probably in practice you will have to allow more leeway for questions, but you certainly cannot allow L73B1 violations. Of course it will usually be a good idea for a club to have CC regulations. A simple statement that "ACBL CC regulations apply in this club" would suffice. I think L81C3 allows the TD to establish such a regulation (technically a condition of contest) unless the SO (i.e., club management) has explicitly decided otherwise. From gester@lineone.net Thu Nov 7 16:17:59 2002 From: gester@lineone.net (gester@lineone.net) Date: Thu, 7 Nov 2002 16:17:59 -0000 Subject: [blml] 'Fully and freely available' References: Message-ID: <003001c28679$6864da80$4b1e2850@pacific> Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Thursday, November 07, 2002 11:53 AM Subject: RE: [blml] 'Fully and freely available' > Ton wrote: > > > And don't suggest that the bridge world is not > > at all prepared for L 20 as it is. In my country > > nobody asks about future calls and I doubt > > whether France for example has this problem. > > And knowing the influence of David and Grattan > > in the EBU and being aware of the quality of Max > > Bavin being CTD there (should I add Italy?) I > > predict that they don't have any problem either. > +=+ I came away from rubber bridge and began to play duplicate in the local league around 1950. From then until now I have never thought for a moment that I could ask about the future calls in the auction; and I have never been asked a direct question about them either. On occasion I have volunteered something that I believed the opposition should know when explaining a call. When we look at Law 20 in the Review it will surprise me greatly if there is any serious support for a change of direction. But no doubt ton, kojak and I will combine to ensure it is the subject of a decision and does not go past on the nod. What needs to be pointed up, I think, is that the time for clearing up the methods of opponents is before starting to play the round - in some tournaments before the start of the tournament - and since I realize the attention given to this in regulations is patchy I could be persuaded to insert a couple of lines about it in the laws. I have in mind that calls requiring preparation of defence, and calls where players may want to base the meanings of their calls on the meaning of opponent's prior call, should be discussed before commencing the roiund. If we can find convenient words to express such a law. ~ G ~ +=+ ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From ehaa@starpower.net Thu Nov 7 16:42:14 2002 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu, 07 Nov 2002 11:42:14 -0500 Subject: [blml] 'Fully and freely available' In-Reply-To: <003001c28679$6864da80$4b1e2850@pacific> References: Message-ID: <4.3.2.7.0.20021107113415.00beded0@pop.starpower.net> At 11:17 AM 11/7/02, gester wrote: > What needs to be pointed up, I think, is that the >time for clearing up the methods of opponents is before >starting to play the round - in some tournaments before >the start of the tournament - and since I realize the >attention given to this in regulations is patchy I could be >persuaded to insert a couple of lines about it in the laws. >I have in mind that calls requiring preparation of defence, >and calls where players may want to base the meanings >of their calls on the meaning of opponent's prior call, >should be discussed before commencing the roiund. >If we can find convenient words to express such a law. I worry that if this happens we will discover that we have significantly increased the time taken for practically every pre-round discussion in return for having eliminated a very small number of dreaded HQ's per year worldwide. It takes a *lot* more time and effort to "discuss before commencing the round" anything that might come up than it does to deal with the one thing that does, if it does, when it does. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 From mfrench1@san.rr.com Thu Nov 7 17:18:34 2002 From: mfrench1@san.rr.com (Marvin L. French) Date: Thu, 7 Nov 2002 09:18:34 -0800 Subject: [blml] Enough rope References: <000701c2866c$82213700$879468d5@default> Message-ID: <000d01c28681$b7506e40$1c981e18@san.rr.com> From: "Nigel Guthrie" > Once during the last century, I played with a > famous foreign international against a > Scottish international pair. As declarer in 4S, > my partner played rapidly to the first three > tricks but paused significantly, before leading > from dummy at trick four. To defeat the contract > his RHO had to rise with the Ace but he ducked > smoothly and my partner eventually squeaked home. > While waiting to play our next match, I asked > about the uncharacteristic trance -- the first > time I had observed partner to hesitate, at all. > He explained that, he needed no time to think > himself; but he knew that his opponents were > good players; and he had to give RHO time to count > the hand; so that ducking could become a sensible > option. Do the laws and proprieties have anything > say about this ploy? Good question, Nigel. Since the change in tempo is not for the purpose of "disconcerting" an opponent (L747), it is legal. Some legal actions are unsportsmanlike, but I don't put this one in that category. It is analogous to the immediate lead of a card toward KJ... in dummy at trick two, not to "disconcert" LHO, but to make the play before s/he is ready for it. These are just good tactics, well within both the Laws and the spirit of the game. Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California . From mfrench1@san.rr.com Thu Nov 7 17:31:01 2002 From: mfrench1@san.rr.com (Marvin L. French) Date: Thu, 7 Nov 2002 09:31:01 -0800 Subject: [blml] Appealing procedural penalties References: <4A256C6A.00191B10.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> <4.3.2.7.0.20021107081442.00a98f00@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <001e01c28683$7356c7a0$1c981e18@san.rr.com> From: "Eric Landau" > > This has become a rather common occurrence in the ACBL: AC finds an > infraction, finds that no damage resulted so it can't adjust the score, > then decides to issue a PP to the OS on the grounds that they should > not be allowed to commit an infraction and get off "Scot free". It is > understood and acknowledged that there would have been no PP issued had > there been damage, as the score adjustment would have satisified the > felt need to somehow "punish" the OS for their infraction. > > Things have gotten to the point where I have seen this approach > recommended in print. Is it legal? Is it appropriate? > It is tantamount to awarding a PP for causing an AC to be convened. Maybe illegal, certainly inappropriate. Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California From HarrisR@missouri.edu Thu Nov 7 18:45:47 2002 From: HarrisR@missouri.edu (Robert E. Harris) Date: Thu, 7 Nov 2002 12:45:47 -0600 Subject: [blml] Appealing procedural penalties In-Reply-To: <001e01c28683$7356c7a0$1c981e18@san.rr.com> References: <4A256C6A.00191B10.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> <4.3.2.7.0.20021107081442.00a98f00@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: >From: "Eric Landau" >> >> This has become a rather common occurrence in the ACBL: AC finds an >> infraction, finds that no damage resulted so it can't adjust the score, >> then decides to issue a PP to the OS on the grounds that they should >> not be allowed to commit an infraction and get off "Scot free". It is >> understood and acknowledged that there would have been no PP issued had >> there been damage, as the score adjustment would have satisified the >> felt need to somehow "punish" the OS for their infraction. >> >> Things have gotten to the point where I have seen this approach >> recommended in print. Is it legal? Is it appropriate? >> >It is tantamount to awarding a PP for causing an AC to be convened. Maybe >illegal, certainly inappropriate. > >Marv >Marvin L. French >San Diego, California > It sems to me the legal question is whether a PP (authorized in L90A) is legally a disciplinary penalty (atuorized in L91A.) So what is the answer? HdW seems to think a PP is a disciplinary penalty, DB seems to think they should be awarded by appleals committees. (And everyone else seems to have a view, but I hope fewer than in the threads about hypothetical questions. Yes, they are frequently asked at the club level and at the lower levels of tournament play in the USA.) If a PP is a disciplinary penalty, then L93B3 seems to say the appeals committee may not overrule the Director's decission to award a PP or to not award a PP, as this decision is exercise of th eDirector's disciplinary powers. The committee could reccomend a PP to the Director, who then could award one if it the Director wished to. Using PPs to discourage appeals seems to me quite contrary to the spirit of the Laws, as I (mis?)understand them. Robert E. Harris Phone: 573-882-3274. Fax: 573-882-2754 Department of Chemistry, University of Missouri-Columbia Columbia, Missouri, USA 65211 From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Thu Nov 7 18:50:55 2002 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Thu, 7 Nov 2002 18:50:55 -0000 Subject: [blml] Psychic understanding Message-ID: <002801c2868e$a0a151c0$879468d5@default> In a previous millennium, I played in a big pairs event with a foreign junior international. After a few bad boards, my partner opened with psyche, at every opportunity. After a trend was established, I annoyed my partner by alerting his opening bids. When asked, I explained "Probable psyche". But I believe now that I was wrong to do so. What should I have done if anything? From svenpran@online.no Thu Nov 7 19:25:41 2002 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu, 7 Nov 2002 20:25:41 +0100 Subject: [blml] Psychic understanding References: <002801c2868e$a0a151c0$879468d5@default> Message-ID: <007501c28693$75e91800$70d8fea9@WINXP> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Nigel Guthrie" To: "BLML" Sent: Thursday, November 07, 2002 7:50 PM Subject: [blml] Psychic understanding > In a previous millennium, I played in a big > pairs event with a foreign junior international. > After a few bad boards, my partner opened with > psyche, at every opportunity. After a trend was established, I > annoyed my partner by alerting his > opening bids. When asked, I explained "Probable > psyche". But I believe now that I was wrong to > do so. What should I have done if anything? I have a very strong feeling that you did the right thing: A call does not qualify as a psyche unless (simplified) it is as surprising to partner as it is to opponents. In your case a special partnership understanding has been established and it is (was) your duty to make sure this understanding is known to opponents. That your partner is embarassed is irrelevant (except possibly for your future relations). regards Sven From jurgenr@t-online.de Thu Nov 7 21:01:04 2002 From: jurgenr@t-online.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?J=FCrgen_Rennenkampff?=) Date: Thu, 7 Nov 2002 22:01:04 +0100 Subject: [blml] Enough rope Message-ID: [Nigel:] Once during the last century, I played with a famous foreign international against a Scottish international pair. As declarer in 4S, my partner played rapidly to the first three tricks but paused significantly, before leading from dummy at trick four. To defeat the contract his RHO had to rise with the Ace but he ducked smoothly and my partner eventually squeaked home. While waiting to play our next match, I asked about the uncharacteristic trance -- the first time I had observed partner to hesitate, at all. He explained that, he needed no time to think himself; but he knew that his opponents were good players; and he had to give RHO time to count the hand; so that ducking could become a sensible option. Do the laws and proprieties have anything say about this ploy? ....... Excellent example. And the LOL who hesitates before playing her singleton is giving declarer time to think about alternate plans? The lawmakers should have steered clear of the entire area. If all such deceptions were allowed they would soon become ineffective; and since they are considered cheap tricks very few people would use them. - But regulators must regulate, and functionaries must have functions to perform. Jürgen From adam@irvine.com Thu Nov 7 21:14:03 2002 From: adam@irvine.com (Adam Beneschan) Date: Thu, 07 Nov 2002 13:14:03 -0800 Subject: [blml] Enough rope In-Reply-To: Your message of "Thu, 07 Nov 2002 14:46:45 GMT." <000701c2866c$82213700$879468d5@default> Message-ID: <200211072113.NAA08420@mailhub.irvine.com> Nigel wrote: > Once during the last century, I played with a > famous foreign international against a > Scottish international pair. As declarer in 4S, > my partner played rapidly to the first three > tricks but paused significantly, before leading > from dummy at trick four. To defeat the contract > his RHO had to rise with the Ace but he ducked > smoothly and my partner eventually squeaked home. > While waiting to play our next match, I asked > about the uncharacteristic trance -- the first > time I had observed partner to hesitate, at all. > He explained that, he needed no time to think > himself; but he knew that his opponents were > good players; and he had to give RHO time to count > the hand; so that ducking could become a sensible > option. Do the laws and proprieties have anything > say about this ploy? The Laws make it illegal to hesitate in order to deceive an opponent. They say nothing about hesitating in order to give an opponent time to discover the truth. (The truth, in this case, being the realization that ducking was a sensible play.) -- Adam From cyaxares@lineone.net Thu Nov 7 21:04:22 2002 From: cyaxares@lineone.net (Grattan Endicott) Date: Thu, 7 Nov 2002 21:04:22 -0000 Subject: [blml] 'Fully and freely available' References: <000901c28591$fb939320$98242850@pacific> <3DC921CC.20907@skynet.be> <000e01c285b1$bb2eb060$b02a2850@pacific> Message-ID: <007c01c286a3$6ca662b0$6216e150@endicott> Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Wednesday, November 06, 2002 6:44 PM Subject: Re: [blml] 'Fully and freely available' > Quite probably you have. The one thing which is > almost certain, though, is that the chances of > details of what you had to say reaching the > humble club TD, let alone the players, are a > close approximation to zero. > > You, Kojak, Ton and the rest of the WBFLC can > speak to any part of the Laws you like in any > arena you care - but if what you say isn't publicized > sufficiently for it to filter down to grass roots level, > you all really might as well save your breath, IMHO. > +=+ The route to the club TD is through the NBO. An element is in TD training courses and there are newsletters and websites. The WBFLC does not work directly with club TDs - any such attempt could lead to disharmony - but since TK took the chair and I joined up with him, the lines of communication have opened up considerably to Zones and to NBOs. It is up to them to link to national and local directors. In my experience in Europe most NBOs are making noteworthy efforts to develop their communications with Directors. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From cyaxares@lineone.net Thu Nov 7 21:19:18 2002 From: cyaxares@lineone.net (Grattan Endicott) Date: Thu, 7 Nov 2002 21:19:18 -0000 Subject: [blml] Appealing procedural penalties References: <4A256C6A.00191B10.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> <4.3.2.7.0.20021107081442.00a98f00@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <007d01c286a3$6e099c30$6216e150@endicott> Grattan Endicott To: "Marvin L. French" ; Sent: Thursday, November 07, 2002 6:45 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Appealing procedural penalties > > It sems to me the legal question is whether a > PP (authorized in L90A) is legally a disciplinary > penalty (atuorized in L91A.) So what is the answer? > HdW seems to think a PP is a disciplinary penalty, > DB seems to think they should be awarded by > appeals committees. (And everyone else seems > to have a view, but I hope fewer than in the threads > about hypothetical questions. Yes, they are > frequently asked at the club level and at the lower > levels of tournament play in the USA.) > +=+ The following evidence is available: 1. In the Laws there is at 91A a parenthetical insertion saying "the Director's decision under this clause is final". No such statement is made in Law 90. 2. WBF Appeals Committees may either award a Law 90 penalty or remove it. 3. In its General Conditions of Contest the WBF has this: "If a player makes use of any conventional call not sufficiently described on his Card (including Supplementary Sheets), that player's partnership may be subject to a procedural penalty (Law 90) for the infraction and/or to disciplinary penalty as well as to score adjustments to redress any damage." 4. In comment at WBFLC level the distinction has been made that disciplinary penalties are awarded under the mandate of Law 91A and are different from procedural penalties based on Law 90. 5. "The (appeals) committee may recommend likewise to the Director a review of any disciplinary penalty he may have applied under Law 91A but may not rescind or vary it (powers that it does have in relation to Law 90 penalties). An appeals committee does have the power to apply a disciplinary penalty if the Director has not done so and there is found to have been a breach of the laws governing conduct that the Director has not penalized." [WBF Code of Practice] ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From mfrench1@san.rr.com Thu Nov 7 21:20:25 2002 From: mfrench1@san.rr.com (Marvin L. French) Date: Thu, 7 Nov 2002 13:20:25 -0800 Subject: [blml] Appealing procedural penalties References: <4A256C6A.00191B10.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> <4.3.2.7.0.20021107081442.00a98f00@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <001e01c286a3$b2e2e280$1c981e18@san.rr.com> From: "Robert E. Harris" > >From: "Eric Landau" > >> > >> This has become a rather common occurrence in the ACBL: AC finds an > >> infraction, finds that no damage resulted so it can't adjust the score, > >> then decides to issue a PP to the OS on the grounds that they should > >> not be allowed to commit an infraction and get off "Scot free". It is > >> understood and acknowledged that there would have been no PP issued had > >> there been damage, as the score adjustment would have satisified the > >> felt need to somehow "punish" the OS for their infraction. > >> > >> Things have gotten to the point where I have seen this approach > >> recommended in print. Is it legal? Is it appropriate? > >> >From Marvin L. French" > >It is tantamount to awarding a PP for causing an AC to be convened. Maybe > >illegal, certainly inappropriate. > > > If a PP is a disciplinary penalty, then L93B3 seems to say the appeals > committee may not overrule the Director's decission to award a PP or to not > award a PP, as this decision is exercise of th eDirector's disciplinary > powers. The committee could reccomend a PP to the Director, who then could > award one if it the Director wished to. > I got tired of arguing this point a few years back, as no one was listening. My to-do list includes a monograph on this subject, look for it but don't hold your breath. PPs are definitely not disciplinary penalties, as the Laws made clear in 1975, when the title of the section was changed from "Disciplinary Penalties" to "Procedural Penalties." Why do you suppose they did that? Probably because some TDs were using PPs inappropriately for disciplinary purposes. Discipline should be applied outside the game, not within the game. For serious offenses that must be dealt with immediately, we have L91. I don't know about practices elsewhere, but for some 60 years PPs were not to my knowledge used for discipline in ACBL-land. What changed? Not the PP law. This is a relatively new tactic that power-hungry TDs and ACs have come up with. Or maybe it's laziness, as it's much easier to issue a PP than to write up offenses that seem to deserve disciplinary action. Look, PPs (then DPs, but almost the same language) were added to the laws for duplicate when the rubber bridge laws were modified for the duplicate game. It was realized that there are some procedures unique to duplicate (see L90B for examples), and provisions for handling them had to be provided. Consider the parent game, rubber bridge. Can one imagine taking 100 points off the scoresheet for a disciplinary purpose? No, discipline is handled outside the game, not on the scoresheet. Not even with a TD-equivalent in house, as one can see by reading the optional Club Laws, in which an Arbiter serves the function of a TD and there is no mention of PPs. ACBL TDs are not awarding PPs, to the disgust of Rich Colker and the rest of the ACBL AC. So the ACs criticize TDs for that, and award some themselves. Nearly always this is to punish someone for an infraction that did no damage. Evidently they feel that the Laws should carry a penalty (as an example) for harmless MI, so they create one. And it's so discriminatory, the way this is done. Give a PP for a harmless failure to Alert? Yes, but only for cases that go to an AC. Meanwhile, the hundreds of Alert mistakes in a single session that do not get the attention of a TD or AC get no PPs. Are we supposed to call the TD every time someone fails to Alert, even if we aren't damaged, so that the miscreant can get his PP? With no-damage infractions hardly ever getting a PP, it is apparent that the PP is not for the infraction, but for causing the AC to convene. It serves as a sop for the losing side, abating their anger. Now the BLs will point out that L90A says "violating correct procedure," and L90B says "not limited to." Well, the "procedures" subject to L90 are not such things as failing to follow suit, or MI, or misuse of UI, or other infractions covered by lower-numbered laws (for which remedies are provided), but those procedures that are unique to duplicate bridge. Like what? Like those listed in L90B, which is a guide to the intent of L90. See any offenses listed there that are not of that nature? No, you don't. Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California From cyaxares@lineone.net Thu Nov 7 21:24:50 2002 From: cyaxares@lineone.net (Grattan Endicott) Date: Thu, 7 Nov 2002 21:24:50 -0000 Subject: [blml] Psychic understanding References: <002801c2868e$a0a151c0$879468d5@default> Message-ID: <000501c286a4$66e753b0$0d56e150@endicott> Grattan Endicott To: "BLML" Sent: Thursday, November 07, 2002 6:50 PM Subject: [blml] Psychic understanding > In a previous millennium, I played in a big > pairs event with a foreign junior international. > After a few bad boards, my partner opened with > psyche, at every opportunity. After a trend was > established, I annoyed my partner by alerting his > opening bids. When asked, I explained "Probable > psyche". But I believe now that I was wrong to > do so. What should I have done if anything? > +=+ Called the Director and reported the facts as they appeared to you. +=+ From willner@cfa.harvard.edu Thu Nov 7 22:20:39 2002 From: willner@cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Thu, 7 Nov 2002 17:20:39 -0500 (EST) Subject: [blml] Appealing procedural penalties Message-ID: <200211072220.RAA21641@cfa183.harvard.edu> One of the earliest threads on BLML was on the subject of PP's. It came to a conclusion where David S. and I agreed, something noteworthy in itself. The thread used to be on David's "Laws" page, and I wouldn't be surprised if it is still there. From brian@wellsborocomputing.com Thu Nov 7 23:29:24 2002 From: brian@wellsborocomputing.com (Brian Meadows) Date: Thu, 07 Nov 2002 18:29:24 -0500 Subject: [blml] 'Fully and freely available' In-Reply-To: <007c01c286a3$6ca662b0$6216e150@endicott> References: <000901c28591$fb939320$98242850@pacific> <3DC921CC.20907@skynet.be> <000e01c285b1$bb2eb060$b02a2850@pacific> <007c01c286a3$6ca662b0$6216e150@endicott> Message-ID: <8qtlsu40ujmp2h6ojho5bk7v06ei8rd38d@4ax.com> On Thu, 7 Nov 2002 21:04:22 -0000, Grattan Endicott wrote: >> >+=+ The route to the club TD is through the NBO. An >element is in TD training courses and there are >newsletters and websites. Based on your long experience of bridge in the UK, Grattan, what would be your guesstimate of the percentage of club TDs who have taken one of the EBU training courses? The same type of question applies with regard to websites, what percentage of club TDs would you guesstimate a) to have a net connection and b) to read the EBU web site. My guesstimate for the figures would be considerably less than 50% in all cases, although the figures for the net connection may be slowly approaching 50%. As regards newsletters, maybe this is a more recent innovation. Certainly during the 8 years or thereabouts when I was a club TD in the UK, all I ever saw in the way of clarifications etc. was the EBU Quarterly and the White Book (which I had to buy, and was AFAIK a one-off). If there was a newsletter for the club TD, I never heard of it. >The WBFLC does not >work directly with club TDs - any such attempt could >lead to disharmony - but since TK took the chair >and I joined up with him, the lines of communication >have opened up considerably to Zones and to NBOs. I'll happily take your word for it that this is the case, and it's certainly a change for the better if so. >It is up to them to link to national and local directors. >In my experience in Europe most NBOs are making >noteworthy efforts to develop their communications >with Directors. Once again, this may well be the case - but basing the comment upon my previous experience with the EBU and some *very* slight experience with the ACBL, it appears that such efforts are (or were) falling a long way short of being effective. This returns us to the comment from Herman which prompted my posting - when something is sufficiently ambiguous in the Laws that there is a substantial degree of genuine misunderstanding, then in the absence of any other indication, TDs can hardly be blamed for doing their best to apply the Laws as they understand them. If Kojak and/or Ton and/or yourself actually have spoken on the subject of "Herman questions" in another forum, the fact that so many readers of BLML appeared genuinely surprised at what the three of you told us should really be a cause for concern. If the WBFLC are going to rely on the zones and NBOs to pass their decisions down to the grass roots level, then any indication that this system is not working should be sufficient to prompt some action. The fact that a TD of Herman's level seemed genuinely unaware of the correct answer until he read it on here really ought to justify some sort of attempt to provide better communications - and if that means a mailing list whereby TDs can receive such guidance directly from the WBFLC, so be it. It seems to me to be a much more sensible scheme than asking TDs to consult their NCBO's WWW site. Get yourself a moderated mailing list. Advertise its existence to all TDs through all the ZOs/NCBOs. Post details of each and every decision that the WBFLC may take directly to that mailing list. IMHO, that in itself would be an enormous step forward. The idea of information filtering down through the various levels is fine in theory, but in practice, there are almost always some bottlenecks, and if these can be easily bypassed, why not do so? Brian. -- Software development and computer consulting Brian Meadows Tel: 570-724-5172 Wellsboro Computing Services, Inc. Fax: 413-480-2709 RR#5, Box 5A, Wellsboro PA 16901 ICQ: 1981272 http://www.wellsborocomputing.com From mfrench1@san.rr.com Fri Nov 8 01:07:33 2002 From: mfrench1@san.rr.com (Marvin L. French) Date: Thu, 7 Nov 2002 17:07:33 -0800 Subject: [blml] Appealing procedural penalties References: <4A256C6A.00191B10.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> <4.3.2.7.0.20021107081442.00a98f00@pop.starpower.net> <007d01c286a3$6e099c30$6216e150@endicott> Message-ID: <006e01c286c3$39e2ba20$1c981e18@san.rr.com> From: "Grattan Endicott" > > 4. In comment at WBFLC level the distinction has been > made that disciplinary penalties are awarded under > the mandate of Law 91A and are different from > procedural penalties based on Law 90. And yet people are disciplining players by awarding PPs under L90. This is wrong. > > 5. "The (appeals) committee may recommend likewise > to the Director a review of any disciplinary penalty he > may have applied under Law 91A but may not rescind > or vary it (powers that it does have in relation to Law 90 > penalties). An appeals committee does have the power > to apply a disciplinary penalty if the Director has not > done so and there is found to have been a breach of > the laws governing conduct that the Director has not > penalized." [WBF Code of Practice] > L91A's "Disciplinary penalties in points" are for maintaining "order and discipline." Such penalties are for actions so bad that something has to be done immediately. The ACBL cites L91A as the authority for its Zero Tolerance penalties, which are automatic and cannot be appealed. Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Fri Nov 8 04:44:47 2002 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Thu, 7 Nov 2002 23:44:47 -0500 Subject: [blml] Convention Card In-Reply-To: <200211071510.KAA12400@cfa183.harvard.edu> Message-ID: On 11/7/02, Steve Willner wrote: >The ACBL club where I usually play has >an "anything goes" policy on conventions, much more liberal than the >ACBL's tournament rules. One of the clubs in which I play has a similar policy - until some long established player complains. :-( From cyaxares@lineone.net Fri Nov 8 07:28:48 2002 From: cyaxares@lineone.net (Grattan Endicott) Date: Fri, 8 Nov 2002 07:28:48 -0000 Subject: [blml] 'Fully and freely available' References: <000901c28591$fb939320$98242850@pacific> <3DC921CC.20907@skynet.be> <000e01c285b1$bb2eb060$b02a2850@pacific> <007c01c286a3$6ca662b0$6216e150@endicott> <8qtlsu40ujmp2h6ojho5bk7v06ei8rd38d@4ax.com> Message-ID: <000f01c286f8$96b2b220$ab21e150@endicott> Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Thursday, November 07, 2002 11:29 PM Subject: Re: [blml] 'Fully and freely available' > Based on your long experience of bridge in the UK, Grattan, what > would be your guesstimate of the percentage of club TDs who have > taken one of the EBU training courses? >>> +=+ I am making an enquiry which may produce some kind of answer to your question. +=+ >>> > >It is up to them to link to national and local directors. > >In my experience in Europe most NBOs are making > >noteworthy efforts to develop their communications > >with Directors. > > Once again, this may well be the case - but basing > the comment upon my previous experience with the > EBU and some *very* slight experience with the ACBL, > it appears that such efforts are (or were) falling a long >way short of being effective. > +=+ Well, the ACBL may have its particular difficulties. They do seem a little careless in mislaying their top executives, so an extended drive on such a topic as TD training may well be a problem. Here in Europe we have just recently conducted a 3-day seminar for officers of NBOs, covering a wide range of subjects, including a short session on the area of laws and ethics.. An outcome is that I have obtained a set of English club director training materials and I am in process of emailing the content to a number of our European NBOs - it is not a straightforward task because the bulk of it requires that it be broken down into quite a large number of separate despatches - the ISPs have limits on the size of messages. However, the interest shown by a number of NBOs that are still developing their organizations is encouraging.(In the EBL we have NBOs that are mature and sophisticated, and a number - mostly to the east - that are still in the youth of their existence, following the reshaping of the map of Europe.) I cannot see over the rim of the world to other hemispheres, but I would think the same range of the levels of development is reflected all over. The WBF and other bodies can set up web sites, and gradually people find their way to them. But we cannot march into the territories of NBOs - we must work by way of them. So the concept of a blml could have its place as a resource, a recourse, for TDs who need somewhere to go for information. Its usefulness is diminished by the amount of disinformation put there by subscribers who want to change the world rather than explore it as it is, or who have their own exclusive brands of law to peddle. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From hermandw@skynet.be Fri Nov 8 08:32:04 2002 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 08 Nov 2002 09:32:04 +0100 Subject: [blml] Appealing procedural penalties References: <4A256C6A.00191B10.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> <4.3.2.7.0.20021107081442.00a98f00@pop.starpower.net> <007d01c286a3$6e099c30$6216e150@endicott> Message-ID: <3DCB7684.6090300@skynet.be> Grattan, with all due respect, this thread did not start with the problem that you seem to address in this reply. Everything that you say has been noted, but: The question was whether an AC is "right" in awarding a PP when a TD has not done so. I believe it is not. If a TD has noticed a particular infraction, and decided not to award a PP for such, then that is his choice. He is the man responsible for the smooth running of the tournament, and if he decides that a particular infraction is best dealt with without the use of a PP, then that is a choice that the AC ought to respect. Of course if the AC decide that a particular infraction went "unnoticed" by the TD, it can ask the TD to apply the penalty he would normally have applied if he had noticed, but even then I don't believe the AC should apply the penalty itself. A case like this : A misalerts B calls the TD The TD acknowledges the misalert but rules no damage. The TD gives no PP for the misalert. B appeals The AC agrees with the TD and rules no damage. The AC gives a PP for the misalert. Ought not to be happening. There are far more misalerts than reach the AC, and the TD has dealt with them consistently as he saw fit. By contrast, a case like: A misalerts (or not) B calls the TD The TD rules the call should not have been alerted. The TD gives no PP for the misalert. B appeals The AC rules the call should have been alerted and rules (no damage/adjustment). The AC gives a PP for the misalert. Is not as bad. The TD has not ruled misalert, so he could not PP for it. But still in this case I would, as AC, ask the TD to decide whether or not to award a PP, consistent with his other rulings on the same level. Do you see, Grattan, that the original subject of this thread has no relation to the things you talk about in your reply ? Grattan Endicott wrote: > Grattan Endicott +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > "A man who had a mind to sell his house, > and therefore carried a piece of brick in > his pocket, which he showed as a pattern > to encourage purchasers." - Jonathan Swift. > =================================== > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Robert E. Harris" > To: "Marvin L. French" ; > Sent: Thursday, November 07, 2002 6:45 PM > Subject: Re: [blml] Appealing procedural penalties > > > >>It sems to me the legal question is whether a >>PP (authorized in L90A) is legally a disciplinary >>penalty (atuorized in L91A.) So what is the answer? >>HdW seems to think a PP is a disciplinary penalty, >>DB seems to think they should be awarded by >>appeals committees. (And everyone else seems >>to have a view, but I hope fewer than in the threads >>about hypothetical questions. Yes, they are >>frequently asked at the club level and at the lower >>levels of tournament play in the USA.) >> >> > +=+ The following evidence is available: > > 1. In the Laws there is at 91A a parenthetical insertion > saying "the Director's decision under this clause is final". > No such statement is made in Law 90. > > 2. WBF Appeals Committees may either award a Law 90 > penalty or remove it. > > 3. In its General Conditions of Contest the WBF has this: > "If a player makes use of any conventional call not > sufficiently described on his Card (including Supplementary > Sheets), that player's partnership may be subject to a > procedural penalty (Law 90) for the infraction and/or to > disciplinary penalty as well as to score adjustments to > redress any damage." > > 4. In comment at WBFLC level the distinction has been > made that disciplinary penalties are awarded under > the mandate of Law 91A and are different from > procedural penalties based on Law 90. > > 5. "The (appeals) committee may recommend likewise > to the Director a review of any disciplinary penalty he > may have applied under Law 91A but may not rescind > or vary it (powers that it does have in relation to Law 90 > penalties). An appeals committee does have the power > to apply a disciplinary penalty if the Director has not > done so and there is found to have been a breach of > the laws governing conduct that the Director has not > penalized." [WBF Code of Practice] > > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From cyaxares@lineone.net Fri Nov 8 08:36:59 2002 From: cyaxares@lineone.net (Grattan Endicott) Date: Fri, 8 Nov 2002 08:36:59 -0000 Subject: [blml] Appealing procedural penalties References: <4A256C6A.00191B10.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> <4.3.2.7.0.20021107081442.00a98f00@pop.starpower.net> <007d01c286a3$6e099c30$6216e150@endicott> <006e01c286c3$39e2ba20$1c981e18@san.rr.com> Message-ID: <002601c28702$454f6270$ab21e150@endicott> Grattan Endicott To: "bridge laws mailing list" Sent: Friday, November 08, 2002 1:07 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Appealing procedural penalties > > L91A's "Disciplinary penalties in points" are for > maintaining "order and discipline." Such penalties > are for actions so bad that something has to be > done immediately. The ACBL cites L91A as the > authority for its Zero Tolerance penalties, which > are automatic and cannot be appealed. > +=+ In enlightened Europe the legislation on Human Rights is an obstacle to any automatic imposition of disciplinary action without suitable procedure for ascertainment of guilt plus the safeguard of independent avenues of appeal. Elaborate separation of Accusers, Judges, and Judges of Appeal is now a feature of the disciplinary procedures of Bridge Federations. At least one of the North European federations has, above its national appeals committee, an external Review Board to which they say two cases go on average each year. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From agot@ulb.ac.be Fri Nov 8 09:09:50 2002 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Fri, 08 Nov 2002 10:09:50 +0100 Subject: [blml] meaning of "disclosure" Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20021108095607.02f35450@pop.ulb.ac.be> Dear blmlists, After reading numerous messages from long threads about alertability and explainability, I began wondering what one should alert and explain : meanings of bids, or agreements ? Here is a case where it would have made a difference : T4 match, sreens used. Alert rule : no double has to be alerted, enquiry free. A10x xx KQ10x Axxx 1NT* 2D** X*** 3H X p p p *12-14 ** Transfer to hearts *** suggests doubling 2H If your partner was ready for a double of 2H (which you wouldn't have produced with two small), your three top tricks should be enough to double at the three-level. Before the lead, a question is asked about the double of 3H. The answer is "penalties". Strictly speaking, this is true : the doubler intends to destroy them in 3H, and probably in any other contract too, so it is a penalty double. However, its content is dependent on the (quite unexpected) meaning of the first double. Thus, disclosure of the _agrements_ can be deemed incomplete. This had some importance in the play, since by doing an early finesse in hearts, declarer created an unnecessary third undertrick. Deliberately answering about non-asked-about bids seems strange, but surely opener could have said something like 'penalty, but you know, I'll always double in such a sequence'. Would you rule _incomplete disclosure_ ? Would the problem be different without screens, given that responder (who will be asked about the double of 3H) isn't allowed to explain anything about his own bid ? Best regards, Alain. From hermandw@skynet.be Fri Nov 8 09:47:23 2002 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 08 Nov 2002 10:47:23 +0100 Subject: [blml] meaning of "disclosure" References: <5.1.0.14.0.20021108095607.02f35450@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <3DCB882B.5040102@skynet.be> This case just illustrates how silly it is to have a regulation forbidding alerting doubles and redoubles. And yes, I am on the committee that voted this regulation into place. FWIW, I do believe the explanation of the second double should be given with some inclusion as to the strange meaning of the first one. Something like "I think you'd better ask about this first double!". Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > Dear blmlists, > > After reading numerous messages from long threads about alertability and > explainability, I began wondering what one should alert and explain : > meanings of bids, or agreements ? > Here is a case where it would have made a difference : > > T4 match, sreens used. Alert rule : no double has to be alerted, enquiry > free. > > A10x > xx > KQ10x > Axxx > > 1NT* 2D** X*** 3H > X p p p > > *12-14 > ** Transfer to hearts > *** suggests doubling 2H > > If your partner was ready for a double of 2H (which you wouldn't have > produced with two small), your three top tricks should be enough to > double at the three-level. > > Before the lead, a question is asked about the double of 3H. > The answer is "penalties". > Strictly speaking, this is true : the doubler intends to destroy them in > 3H, and probably in any other contract too, so it is a penalty double. > However, its content is dependent on the (quite unexpected) meaning of > the first double. > Thus, disclosure of the _agrements_ can be deemed incomplete. > > This had some importance in the play, since by doing an early finesse in > hearts, declarer created an unnecessary third undertrick. > > Deliberately answering about non-asked-about bids seems strange, but > surely opener could have said something like 'penalty, but you know, > I'll always double in such a sequence'. > > Would you rule _incomplete disclosure_ ? > > Would the problem be different without screens, given that responder > (who will be asked about the double of 3H) isn't allowed to explain > anything about his own bid ? > > Best regards, > > Alain. > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Fri Nov 8 10:44:00 2002 From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Date: Fri, 8 Nov 2002 10:44 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [blml] meaning of "disclosure" Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20021108095607.02f35450@pop.ulb.ac.be> Alain wrote: > Dear blmlists, > > After reading numerous messages from long threads about alertability > and explainability, I began wondering what one should alert and explain > : meanings of bids, or agreements ? > Here is a case where it would have made a difference : > > T4 match, sreens used. Alert rule : no double has to be alerted, > enquiry free. > > A10x > xx > KQ10x > Axxx > > 1NT* 2D** X*** 3H > X p p p > > *12-14 > ** Transfer to hearts > *** suggests doubling 2H > > If your partner was ready for a double of 2H (which you wouldn't have > produced with two small), your three top tricks should be enough to > double at the three-level. > > Before the lead, a question is asked about the double of 3H. > The answer is "penalties". I believe that when a player asks for an explanation of a call when what they *need* (and should have asked for) is an explanation of the auction then an explanation of the auction is what they should get. > Strictly speaking, this is true : the doubler intends to destroy them > in 3H, and probably in any other contract too, so it is a penalty > double. > However, its content is dependent on the (quite unexpected) meaning of > the first double. > Thus, disclosure of the _agrements_ can be deemed incomplete. And it was. A request for information was made, the auction (including the inferences available) were not properly explained. > This had some importance in the play, since by doing an early finesse > in hearts, declarer created an unnecessary third undertrick. > > Deliberately answering about non-asked-about bids seems strange, but > surely opener could have said something like 'penalty, but you know, > I'll always double in such a sequence'. Does not the WBF say that opponents need only indicate a desire for information rather than have to ask exactly the right question? > Would you rule _incomplete disclosure_ ? Yes. > Would the problem be different without screens, given that responder > (who will be asked about the double of 3H) isn't allowed to explain > anything about his own bid ? Where do you get that idea? L20F1 uses the word "normally" (for sensible UI reducing reasons). These reasons surely don't apply when a question is asked of the declaring side before the lead. Had the question been asked earlier it would be reasonable to start with "1N is 12-14 balanced.." Partner will surely hop in with "His X shows...". Perhaps prefacing this with a statement that they need a review of the auction. I have to say that if I am declarer/dummy when playing with Emily I will often explain the calls from both sides of the table in this situation (she will correct me if she thinks I am wrong). I've been playing bridge for ten times as long as Em, opps get better quality, more succinct, explanations this way. I suppose I will now discover that this too is illegal - oh well! Tim From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Fri Nov 8 10:51:04 2002 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Fri, 8 Nov 2002 10:51:04 -0000 Subject: [blml] Moulin Rouge References: <4A256C6A.000B668A.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> <003e01c2865c$27e7a180$aa9c68d5@default> Message-ID: <002901c28714$e2f073e0$719468d5@default> [Richard Hills] Matchpoint pairs, Dlr: N, Vul: EW You, South, hold: J3 AQT76 432 832 The bidding has gone: WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH 1NT(1) 2D 2H 3H Pass 3NT(2) Double Pass 4H Pass Pass 5D Pass Pass ? (1) 11-14 (2) Break in tempo What are your logical alternatives? {Nigel Guthrie] East-West are unlikely to be fooling around. Partner has psyched or has a min 1N with 5+H e.g. Axx Jxxxx Qx KJx Hence I mark logical alternatives as P=10 5H=6 X=2 [Nigel 2] A legal eagle would always pass, hoping to get redress if the 3N bid was a chimaera. He would be out of luck if East is has adopted the new RabidDog convention (extreme version of Maddog) Before you bid 3N, you ask the strength of the notrump bid and/or hesitate, to grade your stop No hesitation or ask = half stop eg Jxx Ask about 1N bid = one frail stop eg Kx or Qxx Hesitate = full stop eg ATx ot QJx Hesitate and ask = I could bid hearts myself From gester@lineone.net Fri Nov 8 11:15:18 2002 From: gester@lineone.net (gester@lineone.net) Date: Fri, 8 Nov 2002 11:15:18 -0000 Subject: [blml] meaning of "disclosure" References: Message-ID: <001a01c28718$455294c0$3d2a2850@pacific> Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Friday, November 08, 2002 10:44 AM Subject: Re: [blml] meaning of "disclosure" > > I believe that when a player asks for an > explanation of a call when what they *need* > (and should have asked for) is an explanation > of the auction then an explanation of the > auction is what they should get. > +=+ So do I - but any minute now someone who thinks I do not know about the real world will be explaining to me what really happens at the bridge table :-) +=+ From brian@wellsborocomputing.com Fri Nov 8 11:33:06 2002 From: brian@wellsborocomputing.com (Brian Meadows) Date: Fri, 08 Nov 2002 06:33:06 -0500 Subject: [blml] 'Fully and freely available' In-Reply-To: <000f01c286f8$96b2b220$ab21e150@endicott> References: <000901c28591$fb939320$98242850@pacific> <3DC921CC.20907@skynet.be> <000e01c285b1$bb2eb060$b02a2850@pacific> <007c01c286a3$6ca662b0$6216e150@endicott> <8qtlsu40ujmp2h6ojho5bk7v06ei8rd38d@4ax.com> <000f01c286f8$96b2b220$ab21e150@endicott> Message-ID: On Fri, 8 Nov 2002 07:28:48 -0000, Grattan Endicott wrote: >So the concept of a blml could have its place >as a resource, a recourse, for TDs who need somewhere >to go for information. Its usefulness is diminished by >the amount of disinformation put there by subscribers >who want to change the world rather than explore it >as it is, or who have their own exclusive brands of law >to peddle. That's why my suggestion was (or was intended to be) for a moderated list, a (very) low traffic one used for publication of binding WBFLC decisions, clarifications, etc rather than for discussion. I'm sure that there would be a far greater number of TDs who would subscribe to such a list than would subscribe to BLML. BLML serves one purpose, the list I'm suggesting would serve an entirely different one. Brian. -- Software development and computer consulting Brian Meadows Tel: 570-724-5172 Wellsboro Computing Services, Inc. Fax: 413-480-2709 RR#5, Box 5A, Wellsboro PA 16901 ICQ: 1981272 http://www.wellsborocomputing.com From cibor@poczta.fm Fri Nov 8 11:40:35 2002 From: cibor@poczta.fm (Konrad Ciborowski) Date: Fri, 8 Nov 2002 12:40:35 +0100 Subject: [blml] meaning of "disclosure" References: <5.1.0.14.0.20021108095607.02f35450@pop.ulb.ac.be> <3DCB882B.5040102@skynet.be> Message-ID: <003b01c2871c$098dd7c0$727e870a@krakow.sabreots.com> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Herman De Wael" To: "blml" Sent: Friday, November 08, 2002 10:47 AM Subject: Re: [blml] meaning of "disclosure" > This case just illustrates how silly it is to have a regulation > forbidding alerting doubles and redoubles. Why? They know that no double is alertable so if they want to know what it means they have to ask. If they didn't bother to ask then it is their problem. > And yes, I am on the committee that voted this regulation into place. > > FWIW, I do believe the explanation of the second double should be > given with some inclusion as to the strange meaning of the first one. > Something like "I think you'd better ask about this first double!". > I don't think so. I have very little sympathy for people who don't bother to ask about the meaning of their opponents' auction (at least about potentially alertable calls) and then claim redress. BTW in Poland alerting doubles is also forbidden but only when there are no screens. What is the point of forbidding alerting doubles behind screens? Konrad Ciborowski Krakow, Poland From ehaa@starpower.net Fri Nov 8 13:25:58 2002 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Fri, 08 Nov 2002 08:25:58 -0500 Subject: [blml] meaning of "disclosure" In-Reply-To: <3DCB882B.5040102@skynet.be> References: <5.1.0.14.0.20021108095607.02f35450@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <4.3.2.7.0.20021108081835.00bf3210@pop.starpower.net> At 04:47 AM 11/8/02, Herman wrote: >This case just illustrates how silly it is to have a regulation >forbidding alerting doubles and redoubles. >And yes, I am on the committee that voted this regulation into place. > >FWIW, I do believe the explanation of the second double should be >given with some inclusion as to the strange meaning of the first one. >Something like "I think you'd better ask about this first double!". > >Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > >>Dear blmlists, >>After reading numerous messages from long threads about alertability >>and explainability, I began wondering what one should alert and >>explain : meanings of bids, or agreements ? >>Here is a case where it would have made a difference : >>T4 match, sreens used. Alert rule : no double has to be alerted, >>enquiry free. >> A10x >> xx >> KQ10x >> Axxx >> >> 1NT* 2D** X*** 3H >> X p p p >>*12-14 >>** Transfer to hearts >>*** suggests doubling 2H >>If your partner was ready for a double of 2H (which you wouldn't have >>produced with two small), your three top tricks should be enough to >>double at the three-level. >>Before the lead, a question is asked about the double of 3H. >>The answer is "penalties". >>Strictly speaking, this is true : the doubler intends to destroy them >>in 3H, and probably in any other contract too, so it is a penalty double. >>However, its content is dependent on the (quite unexpected) meaning >>of the first double. >>Thus, disclosure of the _agrements_ can be deemed incomplete. I agree, but why a vague, roundabout sort of inclusion? What's wrong with, "Partner's double of 2D suggested defending a doubled heart contract, and my double says I like the idea." In my book, "penalties" is misinformation. A normal penalty double is one that expresses the opinion that the contract should be doubled. When the opinion came from partner, and is merely being acceded to rather than put forth, it is not a normal penalty double, and the opponents, when they inquire, are owed some words to that effect. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 From agot@ulb.ac.be Fri Nov 8 14:02:53 2002 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Fri, 08 Nov 2002 15:02:53 +0100 Subject: [blml] meaning of "disclosure" In-Reply-To: <4.3.2.7.0.20021108081835.00bf3210@pop.starpower.net> References: <3DCB882B.5040102@skynet.be> <5.1.0.14.0.20021108095607.02f35450@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20021108144924.02f32960@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 08:25 8/11/2002 -0500, Eric Landau wrote: >At 04:47 AM 11/8/02, Herman wrote: > >>This case just illustrates how silly it is to have a regulation >>forbidding alerting doubles and redoubles. >>And yes, I am on the committee that voted this regulation into place. >> >>FWIW, I do believe the explanation of the second double should be given >>with some inclusion as to the strange meaning of the first one. >>Something like "I think you'd better ask about this first double!". >> >>Alain Gottcheiner wrote: >> >>>Dear blmlists, >>>After reading numerous messages from long threads about alertability and >>>explainability, I began wondering what one should alert and explain : >>>meanings of bids, or agreements ? >>>Here is a case where it would have made a difference : >>>T4 match, sreens used. Alert rule : no double has to be alerted, enquiry >>>free. >>> A10x >>> xx >>> KQ10x >>> Axxx >>> >>> 1NT* 2D** X*** 3H >>> X p p p >>>*12-14 >>>** Transfer to hearts >>>*** suggests doubling 2H >>>If your partner was ready for a double of 2H (which you wouldn't have >>>produced with two small), your three top tricks should be enough to >>>double at the three-level. >>>Before the lead, a question is asked about the double of 3H. >>>The answer is "penalties". >>>Strictly speaking, this is true : the doubler intends to destroy them in >>>3H, and probably in any other contract too, so it is a penalty double. >>>However, its content is dependent on the (quite unexpected) meaning of >>>the first double. >>>Thus, disclosure of the _agrements_ can be deemed incomplete. > >I agree, but why a vague, roundabout sort of inclusion? What's wrong >with, "Partner's double of 2D suggested defending a doubled heart >contract, and my double says I like the idea." AG : nothing, of course, but my question was twofold, and the interesting part was : when there are no screens, would you consider it a good idea to say "my double suggested defending a doubled heart contract and his double says he likes the contract" IOW, what's more important, avoiding UI through saying what your double meant, or giving all relevant information, even if it is more than asked for ? (with alerted auctions, you should ask about all alerts ; but what with non-alerted ones ?) And the point behind this was that not only are the rules about alerting slightly different with or without screens, but also perhaps the rules about what to explain could be different. Best regards, Alain >In my book, "penalties" is misinformation. A normal penalty double is one >that expresses the opinion that the contract should be doubled. When the >opinion came from partner, and is merely being acceded to rather than put >forth, it is not a normal penalty double, and the opponents, when they >inquire, are owed some words to that effect. > > >Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net >1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 >Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 > > >_______________________________________________ >blml mailing list >blml@rtflb.org >http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From hermandw@skynet.be Fri Nov 8 13:52:16 2002 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 08 Nov 2002 14:52:16 +0100 Subject: [blml] meaning of "disclosure" References: <5.1.0.14.0.20021108095607.02f35450@pop.ulb.ac.be> <3DCB882B.5040102@skynet.be> <003b01c2871c$098dd7c0$727e870a@krakow.sabreots.com> Message-ID: <3DCBC190.1030709@skynet.be> Konrad Ciborowski wrote: > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Herman De Wael" > To: "blml" > Sent: Friday, November 08, 2002 10:47 AM > Subject: Re: [blml] meaning of "disclosure" > > > >>This case just illustrates how silly it is to have a regulation >>forbidding alerting doubles and redoubles. >> > > Why? They know that no double is alertable > so if they want to know what it means they have to ask. > > If they didn't bother to ask then it is their problem. > > Try telling them that. > >>And yes, I am on the committee that voted this regulation into place. >> >>FWIW, I do believe the explanation of the second double should be >>given with some inclusion as to the strange meaning of the first one. >>Something like "I think you'd better ask about this first double!". >> >> > > I don't think so. I have very little sympathy for people > who don't bother to ask about the meaning > of their opponents' auction (at least about > potentially alertable calls) and then claim > redress. > I have little sympathy as well. But they did ask about the second double - and Alain is now asking whether he should include information about the first one, without which the second one is incomplete. > BTW in Poland alerting doubles is also > forbidden but only when there are no Good on the Poles. Maybe they are more clever than the Belgians (I feel a joke coming up). Point of fact is that even after six years of the simplest alerting regulation possible (a double is take-out over a non-game-bid if partner has not yet bid anything but pass, and penalty otherwise, otherwise it must be alerted) people kept saying : "they change that every year (*) and I don't know if this double must be alerted (**)" (*) untrue - (**) stupid Belgian Some people in Belgium thought it would be wise to change this into an even simpler alert rule : "no alerts". Only time will tell if the stupid Belgians will be able to cope. I doubt it. > screens. What is the point of forbidding > alerting doubles behind screens? > What is the point of any alert behind screens? What is the use of a differing alert procedure with or wwithout screens, if the players don't seem to be able to understand even one? > > Konrad Ciborowski > Krakow, Poland > I am apologising to any and all Belgians reading this for calling their countrymen stupid. I was not referring to you personally. And I think a Pole should appreciate some other nationality being called stupid. > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From agot@ulb.ac.be Fri Nov 8 14:28:41 2002 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Fri, 08 Nov 2002 15:28:41 +0100 Subject: [blml] meaning of "disclosure" In-Reply-To: <3DCBC190.1030709@skynet.be> References: <5.1.0.14.0.20021108095607.02f35450@pop.ulb.ac.be> <3DCB882B.5040102@skynet.be> <003b01c2871c$098dd7c0$727e870a@krakow.sabreots.com> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20021108151422.00abbc70@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 14:52 8/11/2002 +0100, Herman De Wael wrote: >Good on the Poles. Maybe they are more clever than the Belgians (I feel a >joke coming up). Point of fact is that even after six years of the >simplest alerting regulation possible (a double is take-out over a >non-game-bid if partner has not yet bid anything but pass, AG : IMOBO, this is not a complete definition. If the bidding goes : 1H X p p 1S X The double of 1S is understood by everyone as penalty. Also : 2NT X is not for takeout And : 1S p 1NT p 2S p 3D p 3S X Don't tell me I have to alert if this last double is for penalties ? Which _of course_ it is. >and penalty otherwise, otherwise it must be alerted) people kept saying : >"they change that every year (*) and I don't know if this double must be >alerted (**)" >(*) untrue - (**) stupid Belgian AG : well, if you didn't agree with what I said above, it means I don't know (or perhaps you don't know) either. BTA I was not borne as Belgian citizen :-P My feeling is that very simple rules are naturally understood as having some exceptions (like those given above) ; that's where uncertainty creeps (rushes ?) in, when one person's exceptions are not the other one's. >Some people in Belgium thought it would be wise to change this into an >even simpler alert rule : "no alerts". Only time will tell if the stupid >Belgians will be able to cope. I doubt it. AG : at least this means the same for everybody. Of course there will still be problems. When the double is related to some specific suit, nobody will guess it ... Example : 1NT 2D X : tranfer to H If I don't want to raise diamonds, and if I don't hold any escape suit, it will not bother me whether the double is takeout or penalties, but I'd like to know it is neither. >I am apologising to any and all Belgians reading this for calling their >countrymen stupid. I was not referring to you personally. AG : no offense. I don't think that not understanding stupid regulations is a sign of stupidity <:-> From cibor@poczta.fm Fri Nov 8 15:01:20 2002 From: cibor@poczta.fm (Konrad Ciborowski) Date: Fri, 8 Nov 2002 16:01:20 +0100 Subject: [blml] Moulin Rouge References: <4A256C6A.000B668A.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> Message-ID: <00ae01c28738$40fc2560$727e870a@krakow.sabreots.com> ----- Original Message ----- From: > > > Matchpoint pairs, Dlr: N, Vul: EW > You, South, hold: > > J3 > AQT76 > 432 > 832 > > The bidding has gone: > > WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH > 1NT(1) 2D 2H > 3H Pass 3NT(2) Double > Pass 4H Pass Pass > 5D Pass Pass ? > > (1) 11-14 > (2) Break in tempo > > What are your logical alternatives? > I made a poll on the Polish bridge newsgroup and among several bridge players in Krakow. The results are: x = 7 votes p = 5 votes 5H = 1 vote One panelist refused to answer ("I don't play with someone who can pull my double in this position"). So at least in Poland pass and x are LAs while 5H is not. I don't know about USA where they have the "seriously consider" criterion - is one vote enough to consider an action an LA? Konrad Ciborowski Krakow, Poland From rmb1@capulin.cmsc.npl.co.uk Fri Nov 8 15:15:39 2002 From: rmb1@capulin.cmsc.npl.co.uk (Robin Barker) Date: Fri, 8 Nov 2002 15:15:39 GMT Subject: [blml] Moulin Rouge Message-ID: <200211081515.PAA06480@tempest.cmsc.npl.co.uk> > > > > > > Matchpoint pairs, Dlr: N, Vul: EW > > You, South, hold: > > > > J3 > > AQT76 > > 432 > > 832 > > > > The bidding has gone: > > > > WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH > > 1NT(1) 2D 2H > > 3H Pass 3NT(2) Double > > Pass 4H Pass Pass > > 5D Pass Pass ? > > > > (1) 11-14 > > (2) Break in tempo > > > > What are your logical alternatives? > > > Partly a test to see if mail from this machine reaches the outside world, partly a chance to contribute to a thread that might concern how to rule (rather than a "what the laws should be" thread") but also a genuine desire for clarification. Why are we discussing South's logical alternatives when it is East who has broken tempo, is there some other UI from North we have not been told of? Robin > I made a poll on the Polish bridge newsgroup > and among several bridge players > in Krakow. > > The results are: > > x = 7 votes > p = 5 votes > 5H = 1 vote > > One panelist refused to answer ("I don't play > with someone who can pull my double in > this position"). > > So at least in Poland pass and x are LAs > while 5H is not. I don't know about > USA where they have the "seriously > consider" criterion - is one vote > enough to consider an action > an LA? > -- Robin Barker | Email: Robin.Barker@npl.co.uk CMSC, Building 10, | Phone: +44 (0) 20 8943 7090 National Physical Laboratory, | Fax: +44 (0) 20 8977 7091 Teddington, Middlesex, UK. TW11 OLW | WWW: http://www.npl.co.uk From willner@cfa.harvard.edu Fri Nov 8 15:22:30 2002 From: willner@cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Fri, 8 Nov 2002 10:22:30 -0500 (EST) Subject: [blml] Moulin Rouge Message-ID: <200211081522.KAA10456@cfa183.harvard.edu> > From: "Konrad Ciborowski" > x = 7 votes > p = 5 votes > 5H = 1 vote > ... USA where they have the "seriously > consider" criterion - is one vote > enough to consider an action > an LA? In theory, it isn't strictly a matter of voting. If 5H is a shock to the rest of the panel, one vote doesn't make 5H a LA. On the other hand, if half the doublers -- or even a couple of them -- said "but my second choice is 5H," then 5H would be a LA even without getting any votes. In practice, the criterion is probably a little stricter than theory would suggest, so 5H probably would not be a LA even here in North America. But as the above suggests, it could be. From ehaa@starpower.net Fri Nov 8 15:29:00 2002 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Fri, 08 Nov 2002 10:29:00 -0500 Subject: [blml] meaning of "disclosure" In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20021108144924.02f32960@pop.ulb.ac.be> References: <4.3.2.7.0.20021108081835.00bf3210@pop.starpower.net> <3DCB882B.5040102@skynet.be> <5.1.0.14.0.20021108095607.02f35450@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <4.3.2.7.0.20021108101513.00bc3ee0@pop.starpower.net> At 09:02 AM 11/8/02, Alain wrote: >At 08:25 8/11/2002 -0500, Eric Landau wrote: >>I agree, but why a vague, roundabout sort of inclusion? What's wrong >>with, "Partner's double of 2D suggested defending a doubled heart >>contract, and my double says I like the idea." > >AG : nothing, of course, but my question was twofold, and the >interesting part was : when there are no screens, would you consider >it a good idea to say "my double suggested defending a doubled heart >contract and his double says he likes the contract" Yes. >IOW, what's more important, avoiding UI through saying what your >double meant, or giving all relevant information, even if it is more >than asked for ? The latter. The MI will be potentially relevant every time, whereas the *EI* will almost never be relevant, as it may be treated as UI only if there's some reason to think that partner might not have known what your double meant when he made his. In this particular case, moreover, there's not even the possibility of infracting even if he didn't know, as you're about to pass and play 3HX, so he isn't going to get a chance to act again. Just do right by the opponents, and let your partner worry about what to do if, on occasion, you happen to give him UI. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 From hermandw@skynet.be Fri Nov 8 15:33:03 2002 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 08 Nov 2002 16:33:03 +0100 Subject: [blml] UI vs MI Message-ID: <3DCBD92F.5040903@skynet.be> In his thread "meaning of "disclosure"", Alain touched upon a very important question, one that has been on my mind for a long time, and one that comes up every so often in different threads (including the one about HQ's). It's this: In trying to give full information, and playing without screens, a player often gives information to his partner, which in essence is UI. Normally, that information is nothing new to partner, so it is not regarded as UI (he knew all along what his own call meant, did he not?) In some cases, the information is new (as after a misbid - and also after a misexplanation) and then we all agree that it is UI. But in some cases the player knows his partner is not, or may not be, on the same wavelength. The infamous DwS cases are already known, and in Alain's case the player does not know if his partner understood, but neither that he misunderstood - but anything is possible. Alain asks a returning question: is it allright to avoid giving UI by witholding EI, thus creating MI ? If the opponents of the DwS are in any manner consistent, they should reply a resounding "NO". The player in Alain's case should tell quite clearly that his own double, which was not asked about, showed a penalty in hearts and partner's double showed an acceptance of such. That should be the non-DwS answer. Anything else and you are no longer a friend of mine (or an adversary). Let's get one thing clear: we should not blame players who are getting this wrong. It's far too complicated, and advice is given hither and thither. A player must be allowed to choose if he wishes to avoid giving UI by giving MI or vice versa. Of course in each case he will have to answer to the TD for the other offence, but he should not be penalised any further (for willing giving of UI or MI) if his reasons stem from an insoluble dilemma. And what does the DwS say, I hear you ask? I believe that if the player is in any manner expecting partner to not have realized the meaning of his own double, he should be allowed to do as the DwS prescribes: explain as if partner had not correctly understood. If that means explaining the double simply as "penalty", so be it - and MI issues shall follow. In this case, I don't think the player can be fairly certain that his partner misunderstood, so he should give as complete an explanation as possible - and accept UI issues if it turns out partner was not up to it. In any case, I think the player should have the freedom to choose what to give: UI or MI. He should not be blamed for choosing the option which in his opinion would hurt his side the least, graciously accepting any adjustment a TD would give him. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw@skynet.be Fri Nov 8 15:35:03 2002 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 08 Nov 2002 16:35:03 +0100 Subject: [blml] meaning of "disclosure" References: <5.1.0.14.0.20021108095607.02f35450@pop.ulb.ac.be> <3DCB882B.5040102@skynet.be> <003b01c2871c$098dd7c0$727e870a@krakow.sabreots.com> <5.1.0.14.0.20021108151422.00abbc70@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <3DCBD9A7.6060002@skynet.be> Alain, you're completely off the track !!!! Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > At 14:52 8/11/2002 +0100, Herman De Wael wrote: > > >> Good on the Poles. Maybe they are more clever than the Belgians (I >> feel a joke coming up). Point of fact is that even after six years of >> the simplest alerting regulation possible (a double is take-out over a >> non-game-bid if partner has not yet bid anything but pass, > > > AG : IMOBO, this is not a complete definition. I was explaining the Belgian former alert procedure, which you knew very well. > If the bidding goes : 1H X p p > 1S X > The double of 1S is understood by everyone as penalty. And you would have alerted such in Belgium, prior to this september. > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From agot@ulb.ac.be Fri Nov 8 17:15:12 2002 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Fri, 08 Nov 2002 18:15:12 +0100 Subject: [blml] meaning of "disclosure" In-Reply-To: <3DCBD9A7.6060002@skynet.be> References: <5.1.0.14.0.20021108095607.02f35450@pop.ulb.ac.be> <3DCB882B.5040102@skynet.be> <003b01c2871c$098dd7c0$727e870a@krakow.sabreots.com> <5.1.0.14.0.20021108151422.00abbc70@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20021108181115.00ac7820@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 16:35 8/11/2002 +0100, Herman De Wael wrote: >Alain, you're completely off the track !!!! > >Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > >>At 14:52 8/11/2002 +0100, Herman De Wael wrote: >> >>>Good on the Poles. Maybe they are more clever than the Belgians (I feel >>>a joke coming up). Point of fact is that even after six years of the >>>simplest alerting regulation possible (a double is take-out over a >>>non-game-bid if partner has not yet bid anything but pass, >> >>AG : IMOBO, this is not a complete definition. > > >I was explaining the Belgian former alert procedure, which you knew very well. > > >>If the bidding goes : 1H X p p >> 1S X >>The double of 1S is understood by everyone as penalty. > > >And you would have alerted such in Belgium, prior to this september. AG : I'm sorry. I felt, in the deepest of my heart, that you should alert the unexpected. This is the essence of L40B. The "penalty" meaning of the double over 1S (or even more in the third sequence : 1S p 1N p 2S p 3D p 3S X) is general and fairly obvious, so L40B tells us to alert when it is TO (which it will never be). The Belgian rules tell us to do the opposite. All this means the former Belgian rules were especially silly. Good thing they were changed. Only fools never change opinions, as they say in French. Best regards, Alain. From mfrench1@san.rr.com Fri Nov 8 17:04:34 2002 From: mfrench1@san.rr.com (Marvin L. French) Date: Fri, 8 Nov 2002 09:04:34 -0800 Subject: [blml] meaning of "disclosure" References: <5.1.0.14.0.20021108095607.02f35450@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <000a01c28749$5a260a40$1c981e18@san.rr.com> From: "Alain Gottcheiner" > After reading numerous messages from long threads about alertability and > explainability, I began wondering what one should alert and explain : > meanings of bids, or agreements ? > Here is a case where it would have made a difference : > > T4 match, sreens used. Alert rule : no double has to be alerted, enquiry free. > > A10x > xx > KQ10x > Axxx > > 1NT* 2D** X*** 3H > X p p p > > *12-14 > ** Transfer to hearts > *** suggests doubling 2H > > If your partner was ready for a double of 2H (which you wouldn't have > produced with two small), your three top tricks should be enough to double > at the three-level. > > Before the lead, a question is asked about the double of 3H. Violation of L20F1. The request should have been "Please explain your auction." > The answer is "penalties". > Strictly speaking, this is true : the doubler intends to destroy them in > 3H, and probably in any other contract too, so it is a penalty double. > However, its content is dependent on the (quite unexpected) meaning of the > first double. > Thus, disclosure of the _agrements_ can be deemed incomplete. > Before the opening lead, declarer should have explained the entire auction without being asked. This should be required by SO regulation, if not by the Laws. I'll leave the rest to others. Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California From wayne.burrows@xtra.co.nz Fri Nov 8 19:40:13 2002 From: wayne.burrows@xtra.co.nz (Wayne Burrows) Date: Sat, 9 Nov 2002 08:40:13 +1300 Subject: [blml] meaning of "disclosure" In-Reply-To: <001a01c28718$455294c0$3d2a2850@pacific> Message-ID: <000901c2875e$ab5dec10$21e536d2@Desktop> > Grattan Endicott ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Tim West-meads" > > I believe that when a player asks for an > > explanation of a call when what they *need* > > (and should have asked for) is an explanation > > of the auction then an explanation of the > > auction is what they should get. > > > +=+ So do I - but any minute now someone > who thinks I do not know about the real world > will be explaining to me what really happens at > the bridge table :-) +=+ Should the director or the appeal committee issue the procedural penalty for the improper question? :-> Wayne From johnson@CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca Fri Nov 8 20:02:32 2002 From: johnson@CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca (Ron Johnson) Date: Fri, 8 Nov 2002 15:02:32 -0500 (EST) Subject: [blml] Psychic understanding In-Reply-To: <002801c2868e$a0a151c0$879468d5@default> from "Nigel Guthrie" at Nov 07, 2002 06:50:55 PM Message-ID: <200211082002.PAA25230@gcpdb.ccrs.emr.ca> Nigel Guthrie writes: > > In a previous millennium, I played in a big > pairs event with a foreign junior international. > After a few bad boards, my partner opened with > psyche, at every opportunity. After a trend was established, I > annoyed my partner by alerting his > opening bids. When asked, I explained "Probable > psyche". But I believe now that I was wrong to > do so. What should I have done if anything? > Depends. I'd suggest shooting him, but it's not clear which Law authorizes this. From cyaxares@lineone.net Fri Nov 8 20:11:49 2002 From: cyaxares@lineone.net (Grattan Endicott) Date: Fri, 8 Nov 2002 20:11:49 -0000 Subject: [blml] Appealing procedural penalties References: <4A256C6A.00191B10.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> <4.3.2.7.0.20021107081442.00a98f00@pop.starpower.net> <007d01c286a3$6e099c30$6216e150@endicott> <3DCB7684.6090300@skynet.be> Message-ID: <006a01c28763$2f259760$7e05e150@endicott> Grattan Endicott To: "blml" Sent: Friday, November 08, 2002 8:32 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Appealing procedural penalties > Grattan, with all due respect, this thread did not > start with the problem that you seem to address > in this reply. > +=+ It is true that I picked out one particular question from one particular message and provided some evidence as to the answer. +=+ > > The question was whether an AC is "right" in > awarding a PP when a TD has not done so. > I believe it is not. > > If a TD has noticed a particular infraction, and > decided not to award a PP for such, then that is > his choice. He is the man responsible for the > smooth running of the tournament, and if he > decides that a particular infraction is best dealt > with without the use of a PP, then that is a choice > that the AC ought to respect. > +=+ I did not comment on this because it seems to me that in doing so one can only indulge in rather meaningless generalisations. Q Does the AC have the power to do this? A Yes. Q Should it do this? A Only when it is justified in doing so. Q In whose judgement? A The AC is charged with the responsibility for making that judgment. Q Do you think you are making a useful contribution to this discussion? A Not really. The chatter is going nowhere. ACs will go on using the powers they are given. They are by definition "right" to do so. We will sometimes judge they are not all that "right". Q. Who are we? A. Indeed. ~ G ~ +=+ From grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk Fri Nov 8 20:41:43 2002 From: grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk (grandeval) Date: Fri, 8 Nov 2002 20:41:43 -0000 Subject: [blml] meaning of "disclosure" References: <5.1.0.14.0.20021108095607.02f35450@pop.ulb.ac.be> <3DCB882B.5040102@skynet.be> <003b01c2871c$098dd7c0$727e870a@krakow.sabreots.com> <5.1.0.14.0.20021108151422.00abbc70@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <000e01c28772$c19febe0$a86687d9@4nrw70j> Grattan Endicott To: "Herman De Wael" ; "blml" Sent: Friday, November 08, 2002 2:28 PM Subject: Re: [blml] meaning of "disclosure" > > >I am apologising to any and all Belgians reading > > this for calling their countrymen stupid. I was not > > referring to you personally. > > AG : no offense. I don't think that not understanding > stupid regulations is a sign of stupidity <:-> > +=+ So then, to understand them is a sign of stupidity? +=+ From grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk Fri Nov 8 21:07:48 2002 From: grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk (grandeval) Date: Fri, 8 Nov 2002 21:07:48 -0000 Subject: [blml] UI vs MI References: <3DCBD92F.5040903@skynet.be> Message-ID: <000f01c28772$c281c060$a86687d9@4nrw70j> Grattan Endicott To: "blml" Sent: Friday, November 08, 2002 3:33 PM Subject: [blml] UI vs MI > > In any case, I think the player should have the freedom > to choose what to give: UI or MI. He should not be > blamed for choosing the option which in his opinion > would hurt his side the least, graciously accepting any > adjustment a TD would give him. > +=+ No option but to do something. No something but it is not an option. +=+ From john@asimere.com Sat Nov 9 03:56:46 2002 From: john@asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Sat, 9 Nov 2002 03:56:46 +0000 Subject: [blml] Convention Card In-Reply-To: <200211071510.KAA12400@cfa183.harvard.edu> References: <200211071510.KAA12400@cfa183.harvard.edu> Message-ID: In article <200211071510.KAA12400@cfa183.harvard.edu>, Steve Willner writes >> From: "Nancy T Dressing" >> Can any one direct me to the Law that says each player must have a >> convention card on the table > >There is no such Law. CC rules are entirely up to the Sponsoring >Organization. I have played in clubs that did not require CC's at >all. > The Nippon Club in London has no requirement for cc's. The system played is a very uniform 5cM, 15-17, and we decided on full English alert rules, as some of the ladies play in the English clubs and find it helpful. But the rule still applies even when I'm playing Acol with my students of Acol. We pre-alert, of course, but that's all, It works very well there, but would be a disaster at the Acol or the YC. I think it should be very much up to the club's management. >> Law 40E >> talks about the sponsoring organization *may* prescribe a card for use >> and *may*establish regulations for its use, > >Exactly. > snip -- John (MadDog) Probst| . ! -^- |icq 10810798 451 Mile End Road | /|__. \:/ |OKb ChienFou London E3 4PA | / @ __) -|- |john@asimere.com +44-(0)20 8983 5818 | /\ --^ | |www.asimere.com/~john From mfrench1@san.rr.com Sat Nov 9 21:07:33 2002 From: mfrench1@san.rr.com (Marvin L. French) Date: Sat, 9 Nov 2002 13:07:33 -0800 Subject: [blml] Appealing procedural penalties References: <4A256C6A.00191B10.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> <4.3.2.7.0.20021107081442.00a98f00@pop.starpower.net> <007d01c286a3$6e099c30$6216e150@endicott> <3DCB7684.6090300@skynet.be> <006a01c28763$2f259760$7e05e150@endicott> Message-ID: <001501c28834$07f3f2a0$1c981e18@san.rr.com> From: "Grattan Endicott" Herman De Wael wrote: > > If a TD has noticed a particular infraction, and > > decided not to award a PP for such, then that is > > his choice. He is the man responsible for the > > smooth running of the tournament, and if he > > decides that a particular infraction is best dealt > > with without the use of a PP, then that is a choice > > that the AC ought to respect. > > > +=+ I did not comment on this because it seems > to me that in doing so one can only indulge in > rather meaningless generalisations. > Q Does the AC have the power to do this? > A Yes. > Q Should it do this? > A Only when it is justified in doing so. > Q In whose judgement? > A The AC is charged with the responsibility > for making that judgment. > Q Do you think you are making a useful > contribution to this discussion? > A Not really. The chatter is going nowhere. > ACs will go on using the powers they > are given. They are by definition "right" > to do so. We will sometimes judge they > are not all that "right". I agree with Grattan that ACs have this power. However, there must be some overriding principle that all infractions are to be treated equally. ACBL TDs realize that they cannot award a PP for, as an example, every failure to Alert. This could be accomplished only by getting everyone to call the TD for every failure to Alert by opponents, damaging or not. Obviously not feasible, and impossible for ACs. The practical way to achieve reasonable equal treatment for everyone is for TDs to announce before a session begins that Alerts must be properly made and CC regulations followed. A warning is included that those not complying will be subject to a PP under L90B7 (failure to comply with a TD instruction). Then both TDs and ACs must award a PP (perhaps after a warning, depending on the player) for every violation that comes to their attention in any manner (L81C6, despite its title?). Too draconian? Then don't award PPs for violations of this nature. There are other ways to deal with them. Too often we read in the ACBL casebooks that while there was no adjustment warranted for an irregularity, a PP was awarded to teach the OS a lesson. When there has been an adjustment, no PP. I don't care if it's legal, that policy is flat-out wrong, a misuse of power. Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California From axman22@hotmail.com Sat Nov 9 21:51:19 2002 From: axman22@hotmail.com (Roger Pewick) Date: Sat, 9 Nov 2002 15:51:19 -0600 Subject: [blml] L62B2 References: <000101c27482$b5646020$cd9637d2@Desktop> Message-ID: ----- Original Message ----- From: "Wayne Burrows" To: "'Bridge Laws List'" Sent: Tuesday, October 15, 2002 1:40 PM Subject: [blml] L62B2 > 2. By Partner of Offender > After a non-offender so withdraws a card, the hand of the offending side > next in rotation may withdraw its played card, which becomes a penalty > card if the player is a defender (see Law 16C). > > Is the wording intentional in this law? > > Here is the problem: Are you suggesting that it is a problem that the OS is not allowed four turns to a trick while the NOS takes only the two allotted to it? regards roger pewick > Partner revokes trumping the trick; > > RHO plays low; > > I play low; > > Partner discovers the revoke; > > Partner corrects to a low card; > > RHO does not correct but his low card beats mine and partner's low card; > > The conditions of this law have not been met for me to withdraw my card. > > > Wayne From wayne.burrows@xtra.co.nz Sat Nov 9 22:32:57 2002 From: wayne.burrows@xtra.co.nz (Wayne Burrows) Date: Sun, 10 Nov 2002 11:32:57 +1300 Subject: [blml] L62B2 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000001c2883f$f781c7b0$17e536d2@Desktop> > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On > Behalf Of Roger Pewick > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Wayne Burrows" > > 2. By Partner of Offender > > After a non-offender so withdraws a card, the hand of the offending > side > > next in rotation may withdraw its played card, which > becomes a penalty > > card if the player is a defender (see Law 16C). > > > > Is the wording intentional in this law? > > > > Here is the problem: > > Are you suggesting that it is a problem that the OS is not > allowed four > turns to a trick while the NOS takes only the two allotted to it? > I guess I am. My understanding is that the laws are designed to redress damage. The affect of this law is that the NOS may gain an advantage which is more than the stated "redress of damage". I am asking is this advantage intentional? If not then there is a problem. Wayne From cyaxares@lineone.net Sun Nov 10 00:40:18 2002 From: cyaxares@lineone.net (Grattan Endicott) Date: Sun, 10 Nov 2002 00:40:18 -0000 Subject: [blml] L62B2 References: <000101c27482$b5646020$cd9637d2@Desktop> Message-ID: <002401c28851$f24fa6b0$3128e150@endicott> Grattan Endicott > > Partner revokes trumping the trick; > > RHO plays low; > > I play low; > > Partner discovers the revoke; > > Partner corrects to a low card; > > RHO does not correct but his low card > > beats mine and partner's low card; > > > > The conditions of this law have not > > been met for me to withdraw my card. > > > > > > Wayne > +=+ So RHO wins the trick although if he had changed his card 'I' has a card to beat any card he might play? How sensible of RHO not to change his card! Was the law intended to work like this? I do not know. However, this is the way it does work, so let us charitably assume the intention. Should we change it in 2005? " I'll have to ask my father." ~ G ~ +=+ From svenpran@online.no Sun Nov 10 00:45:34 2002 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sun, 10 Nov 2002 01:45:34 +0100 Subject: [blml] L62B2 References: <000001c2883f$f781c7b0$17e536d2@Desktop> Message-ID: <000f01c28852$7b6fb750$70d8fea9@WINXP> from: "Wayne Burrows" ....... > > > 2. By Partner of Offender > > > After a non-offender so withdraws a card, the hand of the offending > > side > > > next in rotation may withdraw its played card, which > > becomes a penalty > > > card if the player is a defender (see Law 16C). > > > > > > Is the wording intentional in this law? > > > > > > Here is the problem: > > > > Are you suggesting that it is a problem that the OS is not > > allowed four > > turns to a trick while the NOS takes only the two allotted to it? > > > > I guess I am. > > My understanding is that the laws are designed to redress damage. > > The affect of this law is that the NOS may gain an advantage > which is more than the stated "redress of damage". > > I am asking is this advantage intentional? > > If not then there is a problem. I believe the wording of the law is intentional and I do not accept that there is any problem which justifies any change in the laws. If your RHO changes his card played to a trick (regardless of why) then is is almost obvious that you must be allowed to change yours. But when the only card changed is by your partner as being an offender then frankly I consider that the only change in the conditions determining what card you would play is because of your partner's irregularity, not because of anything your opponents did. A general permission to change cards played to a trick subsequent to a corrected revoke would probably create far more complicated problems than this extreme "problem" it would be designed to fix. Your side made an infraction, take your medicine and keep quiet. Sven From cyaxares@lineone.net Sun Nov 10 02:34:38 2002 From: cyaxares@lineone.net (Grattan Endicott) Date: Sun, 10 Nov 2002 02:34:38 -0000 Subject: [blml] L62B2 References: <000001c2883f$f781c7b0$17e536d2@Desktop> <000f01c28852$7b6fb750$70d8fea9@WINXP> Message-ID: <002501c28861$de47ae00$172de150@endicott> Grattan Endicott To: "blml" Sent: Sunday, November 10, 2002 12:45 AM Subject: Re: [blml] L62B2 > A general permission to change cards played > to a trick subsequent to a corrected revoke > would probably create far more complicated > problems than this extreme "problem" it would >be designed to fix. > +=+ My mind is being unhelpful. It has obstinately refused to come up with a "far more complicated" problem. My mind keeps saying "look for routes to achieve natural results after irregularities when you can". Can you help me, Sven, with this uncooperative mind? ~ G ~ +=+ From cyaxares@lineone.net Sun Nov 10 11:27:02 2002 From: cyaxares@lineone.net (Grattan Endicott) Date: Sun, 10 Nov 2002 11:27:02 -0000 Subject: [blml] Appealing procedural penalties References: <4A256C6A.00191B10.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> <4.3.2.7.0.20021107081442.00a98f00@pop.starpower.net> <007d01c286a3$6e099c30$6216e150@endicott> <3DCB7684.6090300@skynet.be> <006a01c28763$2f259760$7e05e150@endicott> <001501c28834$07f3f2a0$1c981e18@san.rr.com> Message-ID: <000d01c288ac$6260d1e0$510ae150@endicott> Grattan Endicott To: "blml" Sent: Saturday, November 09, 2002 9:07 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Appealing procedural penalties > > However, there must be some overriding principle > that all infractions are to be treated equally. > > +=+ As stated this would be Orwellian. It needs to be taken to a higher plane, by adding a word or words. For example : 'all comparable infractions'. But then, isn't this already the supposed basis of the Director's exercise of his discretion? - which :-) allows him to avoid a PP for the unimpeachable, flat-footed, influential club chairman whilst making sure the unprincipled, deceitful nonagenarian at the other end of the room gets her come-uppance. ~ G ~ +=+ +=+ From svenpran@online.no Sun Nov 10 11:44:36 2002 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sun, 10 Nov 2002 12:44:36 +0100 Subject: [blml] L62B2 References: <000001c2883f$f781c7b0$17e536d2@Desktop> <000f01c28852$7b6fb750$70d8fea9@WINXP> <002501c28861$de47ae00$172de150@endicott> Message-ID: <000601c288ae$8b91f240$70d8fea9@WINXP> From: "Grattan Endicott" > > A general permission to change cards played > > to a trick subsequent to a corrected revoke > > would probably create far more complicated > > problems than this extreme "problem" it would > >be designed to fix. > > > +=+ My mind is being unhelpful. It has obstinately > refused to come up with a "far more complicated" > problem. My mind keeps saying "look for routes > to achieve natural results after irregularities when > you can". Can you help me, Sven, with this > uncooperative mind? ~ G ~ +=+ Well, for a starter consider S5 led from dummy, trumped by RHO, declarer played S7 and LHO followed with S4. RHO corrects the revoke by playing his S6. Should we allow LHO to replace his S4 with S2? (yes, "S2" is no typo!) If LHO wants to replace his S6 with S8 should we allow declarer subsequently to replace his S7 with his Ace? What if LHO originally had played his SK and now wants to avoid being endplayed by replacing his SK with his S2? Remember this is not a question of what would have been normal or sensible play, it is a matter of establishing added conditions for legally retracting and replacing a played card. And I am fully aware that retracted cards by a defender on the offending side become major penalty cards, this in my opinion is irrelevant here. I for one feel that opening the door generally for replacing a played card after (and due to) partners irregularity regardless of what action NOS have taken would be a legislation against the general intentions I believe is the case with the laws. I am unable to foresee all the "interesting" situations that might be the result, and I fear we could end up in a situation comparable to the fuzz with Law 25B2(b)2 (which I understand originally also was an attempt to reduce the disastrous consequences of a moment's blackout). Does this singlular "problem" justify fiddling with Law 26? regards Sven From karel@esatclear.ie Sun Nov 10 12:17:32 2002 From: karel@esatclear.ie (Karel) Date: Sun, 10 Nov 2002 12:17:32 -0000 Subject: [blml] 2 Quickies In-Reply-To: <002401c28851$f24fa6b0$3128e150@endicott> Message-ID: Q. 1 I've asked this before - but I've lost the relevant replies. Basically it regards opening a conventional bid with more/less points than the agreed range. RHO recently in a club game opened 2H Tartan - explained as 6-10 5H's and 4+ minor with S xx H AKxxx D Qx C Axxx I ended up in 4S's and during the play was able to account for her AK A. I Had AJxx opposite xxx in diamonds and played a diamond to the J fully expecting it to win - 2. I had a complete count of the hand shapewise at that stage and could have played DA (if no unblock small diamond giving me a ruff & disacard) or unblock - back to hand and up toward the J - either way -1. Now if memory serves me right - this group bascially said that pretty much anything goes when opening conditional on the competition or countries rules laid down about such matters. I tried hunting down the regulations for this in Ireland but no joy - Fergal or anyone else in the know could you tell me what the Irish position is on the above ?? ------------------------------------------------------------------- Q. 2 NV versus Vul, Teams S ATxx H xx D Kxx C Qxxx S - H AKTx D Qxxx C KJ9xx 1H P 1S 2C 2S 3C 3S P(**) P P(!) (**) Took about 2/3 seconds to pass (!) Passed as felt there had been a pause .. Lets say 4C's was bid and makes as it will (or 4S bid dbled -2) and the opps call the TD. - what would you rule ?? The pair in question are not new comers & have played a fair together. Personally I think they are taking ethics to an extreme here. North has a clear cut 4C bid (no spade losers, working DK, 4 good trumps) opposite any sane 2C bid should be -1 at most and i'd expect to make well over 60% of the time. It also has the added bonus of pushing them to 4S which will be doubled. 2/3 seconds is hardly a pause - BUT - for arguments sake lets say it is (any tempo variation in a good partnership could speak volumes) - what say the jury ?? K. From willy@presens.nl.no Mon Nov 11 08:34:22 2002 From: willy@presens.nl.no (Willy Teigen) Date: Mon, 11 Nov 2002 09:34:22 +0100 Subject: [blml] Wrong bid - correct explanation - UI In-Reply-To: Message-ID: This situation occured during last weekend=92s play in Norwegian 2nd divi= sion (teams of 4): Q107x N/None Ax KJxx KQJ K8xx - K10 QJ98xx 8x AQ1097x xxxxx A AJ9xx xxx x xxxx The bidding: North East South West 1c (A) 2NT(A) pass 3c(A) pass 3d (A) ?..p 3s pass 4d pass 4s double 5d double pass pass 5h double pass pass pass 1c=3D16+ (precision) After east bids 3d, south asks and is explained by west that east has sho= wn d+s, the initial 2NT showing either c/h or d/s. This is also due to to EW=92s CC, so east=92s bid is wrong, and west=92s explanation is UI to him. West bids spades twice, believing east has a d/s hand, but finally gives = in. After a poor defence, 5h x makes for 650 to EW. How do you rule? ____________________________ Mvh, Willy Teigen PRESENS AS Tlf. +47 76 96 73 15 Mob. +47 915 58578 Mail: willy@presens.nl.no Web: www.presens.nl.no _____________________________ --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.410 / Virus Database: 231 - Release Date: 31.10.2002 From hermandw@skynet.be Mon Nov 11 09:50:24 2002 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 11 Nov 2002 10:50:24 +0100 Subject: [blml] Wrong bid - correct explanation - UI References: Message-ID: <3DCF7D60.20403@skynet.be> Hello Willy, Welcome to blml! Willy Teigen wrote: > This situation occured during last weekend's play in Norwegian 2nd division > (teams of 4): > Q107x N/None > Ax > KJxx > KQJ > K8xx - > K10 QJ98xx > 8x AQ1097x > xxxxx A > AJ9xx > xxx > x > xxxx > The bidding: > North East South West > 1c (A) 2NT(A) pass 3c(A) > pass 3d (A) ?..p 3s > pass 4d pass 4s > double 5d double pass > pass 5h double pass > pass pass > > 1c=16+ (precision) > After east bids 3d, south asks and is explained by west that east has shown > d+s, > the initial 2NT showing either c/h or d/s. > This is also due to to EW's CC, so east's bid is wrong, and west's > explanation is UI to him. I shall assume that this part of the ruling is not under discussion. > West bids spades twice, believing east has a d/s hand, but finally gives in. > After a poor defence, 5h x makes for 650 to EW. > How do you rule? > East has UI, that West believes he has Di+Sp. He must not take advantage of this knowledge. I would like to know what HE thinks his system is, but he should always continue to follow that, and believe he has shown this to partner. I can only assume he thinks he has shown Di+He. Now I can believe his bids of 4Di and 5Di over the continually longer spades of partner. But the bid of 5He can only be inspired by the UI. After all, he has already shown his two-suiter, and said he does not want to play in spades. If Hearts are better, partner should have bid them. I'm turning back to 5DiX. Minus some number, I presume. If East tells me he wants the benefit of the bad defence, I tell him he should have played in diamonds and hoped for the same bad defence. > ____________________________ > Mvh, > Willy Teigen > PRESENS AS > Tlf. +47 76 96 73 15 > Mob. +47 915 58578 > Mail: willy@presens.nl.no > Web: www.presens.nl.no > _____________________________ > > --- > Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. > Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). > Version: 6.0.410 / Virus Database: 231 - Release Date: 31.10.2002 > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From willy@presens.nl.no Mon Nov 11 10:00:50 2002 From: willy@presens.nl.no (Willy Teigen) Date: Mon, 11 Nov 2002 11:00:50 +0100 Subject: SV: [blml] Wrong bid - correct explanation - UI In-Reply-To: <3DCF7D60.20403@skynet.be> Message-ID: OK, this is very much as I saw it myself. I was the TD, and after some thought I ruled 5d x -1, 100 to NS, and asked EW to apeal. ____________________________ Mvh, Willy Teigen PRESENS AS Tlf. +47 76 96 73 15 Mob. +47 915 58578 Mail: willy@presens.nl.no Web: www.presens.nl.no _____________________________ -----Opprinnelig melding----- Fra: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org]P=E5 vegne av Herman De Wael Sendt: 11. november 2002 10:50 Til: blml Emne: Re: [blml] Wrong bid - correct explanation - UI Hello Willy, Welcome to blml! Willy Teigen wrote: > This situation occured during last weekend's play in Norwegian 2nd division > (teams of 4): > Q107x N/None > Ax > KJxx > KQJ > K8xx - > K10 QJ98xx > 8x AQ1097x > xxxxx A > AJ9xx > xxx > x > xxxx > The bidding: > North East South West > 1c (A) 2NT(A) pass 3c(A) > pass 3d (A) ?..p 3s > pass 4d pass 4s > double 5d double pass > pass 5h double pass > pass pass > > 1c=3D16+ (precision) > After east bids 3d, south asks and is explained by west that east has shown > d+s, > the initial 2NT showing either c/h or d/s. > This is also due to to EW's CC, so east's bid is wrong, and west's > explanation is UI to him. I shall assume that this part of the ruling is not under discussion. > West bids spades twice, believing east has a d/s hand, but finally give= s in. > After a poor defence, 5h x makes for 650 to EW. > How do you rule? > East has UI, that West believes he has Di+Sp. He must not take advantage of this knowledge. I would like to know what HE thinks his system is, but he should always continue to follow that, and believe he has shown this to partner. I can only assume he thinks he has shown Di+He. Now I can believe his bids of 4Di and 5Di over the continually longer spades of partner. But the bid of 5He can only be inspired by the UI. After all, he has already shown his two-suiter, and said he does not want to play in spades. If Hearts are better, partner should have bid them. I'm turning back to 5DiX. Minus some number, I presume. If East tells me he wants the benefit of the bad defence, I tell him he should have played in diamonds and hoped for the same bad defence. > ____________________________ > Mvh, > Willy Teigen > PRESENS AS > Tlf. +47 76 96 73 15 > Mob. +47 915 58578 > Mail: willy@presens.nl.no > Web: www.presens.nl.no > _____________________________ > > --- > Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. > Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). > Version: 6.0.410 / Virus Database: 231 - Release Date: 31.10.2002 > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html _______________________________________________ blml mailing list blml@rtflb.org http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml --- Incoming mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.410 / Virus Database: 231 - Release Date: 31.10.2002 --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.410 / Virus Database: 231 - Release Date: 31.10.2002 From B.Schelen@IAE.NL Mon Nov 11 13:13:39 2002 From: B.Schelen@IAE.NL (Ben Schelen) Date: Mon, 11 Nov 2002 14:13:39 +0100 Subject: [blml] Law 47 addition between brackkets Message-ID: <000f01c28984$5c203c20$a2053dd4@b0e7g1> In 1997 Law47E1 has been extended with a sentence between brackets: (LHO should not accept the lead) Why this extention? Is it because RHO could be misled by the presumed declarer on purpose that the contract could better be played by the presumed dummy? In that case it is also possible that the presumed declarer has already laid down his hand because he did not know the laws.(sentence between brackets) Your ruling please. Ben From gordon@gordonrainsford.co.uk Mon Nov 11 13:36:41 2002 From: gordon@gordonrainsford.co.uk (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Mon, 11 Nov 2002 13:36:41 +0000 Subject: [blml] 2 Quickies In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <9CA07BD6-F57A-11D6-994B-0003936A6522@gordonrainsford.co.uk> On Sunday, November 10, 2002, at 12:17 PM, Karel wrote: > > NV versus Vul, Teams > > S ATxx > H xx > D Kxx > C Qxxx > > > S - > H AKTx > D Qxxx > C KJ9xx > > > 1H P 1S 2C > 2S 3C 3S P(**) > P P(!) > > (**) Took about 2/3 seconds to pass > (!) Passed as felt there had been a pause .. > > Lets say 4C's was bid and makes as it will (or 4S bid dbled -2) and > the opps > call the TD. > - what would you rule ?? The pair in question are not new comers & > have > played a fair together. > > > Personally I think they are taking ethics to an extreme here. Is there such a thing? > North has a > clear cut 4C bid (no spade losers, working DK, 4 good trumps) opposite > any > sane 2C bid should be -1 at most and i'd expect to make well over 60% > of the > time. It also has the added bonus of pushing them to 4S which will be > doubled. North could have bid 4C on the previous round if the bid really was clear-cut. S ATxx suggests defending, 4C might be one off when 3S is too, and I'm not sure why you describe the DK as working - maybe it will be, maybe not. > > 2/3 seconds is hardly a pause - BUT - for arguments sake lets say it > is (any > tempo variation in a good partnership could speak volumes) - what say > the > jury ?? > > K. I think Pass is a logical alternative to bidding 4C, and if South is agreed to have paused that seems to suggest bidding rather than passing. This all adds up to adjusting a 4C contract back to 3S, though I wouldn't have thought (seeing only two hands) that 3S would be likely to make. -- Gordon Rainsford London UK From gordon@gordonrainsford.co.uk Mon Nov 11 13:48:32 2002 From: gordon@gordonrainsford.co.uk (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Mon, 11 Nov 2002 13:48:32 +0000 Subject: [blml] Wrong bid - correct explanation - UI In-Reply-To: <3DCF7D60.20403@skynet.be> Message-ID: <444065EA-F57C-11D6-994B-0003936A6522@gordonrainsford.co.uk> On Monday, November 11, 2002, at 09:50 AM, Herman De Wael wrote: > Hello Willy, > > Welcome to blml! > > Willy Teigen wrote: > >> This situation occured during last weekend's play in Norwegian 2nd >> division >> (teams of 4): >> Q107x N/None >> Ax >> KJxx >> KQJ >> K8xx - >> K10 QJ98xx >> 8x AQ1097x >> xxxxx A >> AJ9xx >> xxx >> x >> xxxx >> The bidding: >> North East South West >> 1c (A) 2NT(A) pass 3c(A) >> pass 3d (A) ?..p 3s >> pass 4d pass 4s >> double 5d double pass >> pass 5h double pass >> pass pass >> 1c=16+ (precision) >> After east bids 3d, south asks and is explained by west that east has >> shown >> d+s, >> the initial 2NT showing either c/h or d/s. >> This is also due to to EW's CC, so east's bid is wrong, and west's >> explanation is UI to him. > > > I shall assume that this part of the ruling is not under discussion. > > >> West bids spades twice, believing east has a d/s hand, but finally >> gives in. >> After a poor defence, 5h x makes for 650 to EW. >> How do you rule? > > > East has UI, that West believes he has Di+Sp. He must not take > advantage of this knowledge. > I would like to know what HE thinks his system is, but he should > always continue to follow that, and believe he has shown this to > partner. I can only assume he thinks he has shown Di+He. > Now I can believe his bids of 4Di and 5Di over the continually longer > spades of partner. East presumably believes he has shown the red suits with 2NT. West's 3S bid shows dislike of both suits, and shows a long spade suit. East bids 4D to show more extreme shape and no spade tolerance. West bid spades again. You really think East can bid diamonds once again, in the presence of the UI of the explanation? East's hand looks more useful to a West with long spades than vice versa. I would have thought adjusting back to 4Sx would be more reasonable. > But the bid of 5He can only be inspired by the UI. After all, he has > already shown his two-suiter, and said he does not want to play in > spades. If Hearts are better, partner should have bid them. > > I'm turning back to 5DiX. Minus some number, I presume. > If East tells me he wants the benefit of the bad defence, I tell him > he should have played in diamonds and hoped for the same bad defence. > > -- Gordon Rainsford London UK From brian@wellsborocomputing.com Mon Nov 11 14:59:57 2002 From: brian@wellsborocomputing.com (Brian Meadows) Date: Mon, 11 Nov 2002 09:59:57 -0500 Subject: [blml] Wrong bid - correct explanation - UI In-Reply-To: <444065EA-F57C-11D6-994B-0003936A6522@gordonrainsford.co.uk> References: <3DCF7D60.20403@skynet.be> <444065EA-F57C-11D6-994B-0003936A6522@gordonrainsford.co.uk> Message-ID: <9tgvsus5l0ht3cbv9npkcna3802umfsfr5@4ax.com> On Mon, 11 Nov 2002 13:48:32 +0000, Gordon Rainsford wrote: >>> Q107x N/None >>> Ax >>> KJxx >>> KQJ >>> K8xx - >>> K10 QJ98xx >>> 8x AQ1097x >>> xxxxx A >>> AJ9xx >>> xxx >>> x >>> xxxx >>> The bidding: >>> North East South West >>> 1c (A) 2NT(A) pass 3c(A) >>> pass 3d (A) ?..p 3s >>> pass 4d pass 4s >>> double 5d double pass >>> pass 5h double pass >>> pass pass >>> 1c=16+ (precision) >>> After east bids 3d, south asks and is explained by west that east has >>> shown >>> d+s, >>> the initial 2NT showing either c/h or d/s. >>> This is also due to to EW's CC, so east's bid is wrong, and west's >>> explanation is UI to him. > >East presumably believes he has shown the red suits with 2NT. >West's 3S bid shows dislike of both suits, and shows a long spade suit. >East bids 4D to show more extreme shape and no spade tolerance. >West bid spades again. > >You really think East can bid diamonds once again, in the presence of >the UI of the explanation? >East's hand looks more useful to a West with long spades than vice >versa. > >I would have thought adjusting back to 4Sx would be more reasonable. > If West really did have long enough spades that he wanted to play there irrespective of what East held, surely West would have bid spades over 2NT rather than the 3C relay/inquiry? I'm assuming that 3C was passable if clubs was one of East's suits. Obviously 3S could be some kind of forward-going move, even against a strong 1C opener, but I think East has to be entitled to know that a wheel has come off after the 4S bid, since partner's bidding obviously becomes illogical at that point. Brian. -- Software development and computer consulting Brian Meadows Tel: 570-724-5172 Wellsboro Computing Services, Inc. Fax: 413-480-2709 RR#5, Box 5A, Wellsboro PA 16901 ICQ: 1981272 http://www.wellsborocomputing.com From gordon@gordonrainsford.co.uk Mon Nov 11 15:33:31 2002 From: gordon@gordonrainsford.co.uk (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Mon, 11 Nov 2002 15:33:31 +0000 Subject: [blml] Wrong bid - correct explanation - UI In-Reply-To: <9tgvsus5l0ht3cbv9npkcna3802umfsfr5@4ax.com> Message-ID: On Monday, November 11, 2002, at 02:59 PM, Brian Meadows wrote: > On Mon, 11 Nov 2002 13:48:32 +0000, Gordon Rainsford wrote: > >>>> Q107x N/None >>>> Ax >>>> KJxx >>>> KQJ >>>> K8xx - >>>> K10 QJ98xx >>>> 8x AQ1097x >>>> xxxxx A >>>> AJ9xx >>>> xxx >>>> x >>>> xxxx >>>> The bidding: >>>> North East South West >>>> 1c (A) 2NT(A) pass 3c(A) >>>> pass 3d (A) ?..p 3s >>>> pass 4d pass 4s >>>> double 5d double pass >>>> pass 5h double pass >>>> pass pass >>>> 1c=16+ (precision) >>>> After east bids 3d, south asks and is explained by west that east >>>> has >>>> shown >>>> d+s, >>>> the initial 2NT showing either c/h or d/s. >>>> This is also due to to EW's CC, so east's bid is wrong, and west's >>>> explanation is UI to him. > >> >> East presumably believes he has shown the red suits with 2NT. >> West's 3S bid shows dislike of both suits, and shows a long spade >> suit. >> East bids 4D to show more extreme shape and no spade tolerance. >> West bid spades again. >> >> You really think East can bid diamonds once again, in the presence of >> the UI of the explanation? >> East's hand looks more useful to a West with long spades than vice >> versa. >> >> I would have thought adjusting back to 4Sx would be more reasonable. >> > > If West really did have long enough spades that he wanted to play > there irrespective of what East held, surely West would have bid > spades over 2NT rather than the 3C relay/inquiry? I'm assuming > that 3C was passable if clubs was one of East's suits. > > Obviously 3S could be some kind of forward-going move, even > against a strong 1C opener, but I think East has to be entitled > to know that a wheel has come off after the 4S bid, since > partner's bidding obviously becomes illogical at that point. I think a weak 7114 hand or similar would be happy to play in 3C or in spades, but not in a red suit. -- Gordon Rainsford London UK From rmb1@capulin.cmsc.npl.co.uk Mon Nov 11 15:55:04 2002 From: rmb1@capulin.cmsc.npl.co.uk (Robin Barker) Date: Mon, 11 Nov 2002 15:55:04 GMT Subject: [blml] Wrong bid - correct explanation - UI Message-ID: <200211111555.PAA08424@tempest.cmsc.npl.co.uk> > > > >>>> Q107x N/None > >>>> Ax > >>>> KJxx > >>>> KQJ > >>>> K8xx - > >>>> K10 QJ98xx > >>>> 8x AQ1097x > >>>> xxxxx A > >>>> AJ9xx > >>>> xxx > >>>> x > >>>> xxxx > >>>> The bidding: > >>>> North East South West > >>>> 1c (A) 2NT(A) pass 3c(A) > >>>> pass 3d (A) ?..p 3s > >>>> pass 4d pass 4s > >>>> double 5d double pass > >>>> pass 5h double pass > >>>> pass pass > >>>> 1c=16+ (precision) > >>>> After east bids 3d, south asks and is explained by west that east > >>>> has > >>>> shown > >>>> d+s, > >>>> the initial 2NT showing either c/h or d/s. > >>>> This is also due to to EW's CC, so east's bid is wrong, and west's > >>>> explanation is UI to him. > > > >> > >> East presumably believes he has shown the red suits with 2NT. > >> West's 3S bid shows dislike of both suits, and shows a long spade > >> suit. > >> East bids 4D to show more extreme shape and no spade tolerance. > >> West bid spades again. > >> > >> You really think East can bid diamonds once again, in the presence of > >> the UI of the explanation? > >> East's hand looks more useful to a West with long spades than vice > >> versa. > >> > >> I would have thought adjusting back to 4Sx would be more reasonable. > >> > > > > If West really did have long enough spades that he wanted to play > > there irrespective of what East held, surely West would have bid > > spades over 2NT rather than the 3C relay/inquiry? I'm assuming > > that 3C was passable if clubs was one of East's suits. > > > > Obviously 3S could be some kind of forward-going move, even > > against a strong 1C opener, but I think East has to be entitled > > to know that a wheel has come off after the 4S bid, since > > partner's bidding obviously becomes illogical at that point. > > I think a weak 7114 hand or similar would be happy to play in 3C or in > spades, but not in a red suit. But if East thinks 2NT=C+S or D+H, then he would expect partner to bid clubs with better clubs than spades, and bid a red suit with spades better than clubs. But, I guess, with 7-1-1-4 partner will bid clubs first, not to play in 5-4 clubs rather than 7-5 spades, but because 3S later sounds like a single-suiter. Would (1C)-2NT [C+S or D+H]-(P)-3S = raise to 4+ in a red suit, with preference for spade over clubs? To rule, it would be good to ask East what he thought 2NT was, and why he thought Pass/5C over 4S were not logical alternatives to 5D. Robin -- Robin Barker | Email: Robin.Barker@npl.co.uk CMSC, Building 10, | Phone: +44 (0) 20 8943 7090 National Physical Laboratory, | Fax: +44 (0) 20 8977 7091 Teddington, Middlesex, UK. TW11 OLW | WWW: http://www.npl.co.uk From brian@wellsborocomputing.com Mon Nov 11 16:49:47 2002 From: brian@wellsborocomputing.com (Brian Meadows) Date: Mon, 11 Nov 2002 11:49:47 -0500 Subject: [blml] Wrong bid - correct explanation - UI In-Reply-To: References: <9tgvsus5l0ht3cbv9npkcna3802umfsfr5@4ax.com> Message-ID: On Mon, 11 Nov 2002 15:33:31 +0000, Gordon Rainsford wrote: > >On Monday, November 11, 2002, at 02:59 PM, Brian Meadows wrote: > >> On Mon, 11 Nov 2002 13:48:32 +0000, Gordon Rainsford wrote: >> >>>>> Q107x N/None >>>>> Ax >>>>> KJxx >>>>> KQJ >>>>> K8xx - >>>>> K10 QJ98xx >>>>> 8x AQ1097x >>>>> xxxxx A >>>>> AJ9xx >>>>> xxx >>>>> x >>>>> xxxx >>>>> The bidding: >>>>> North East South West >>>>> 1c (A) 2NT(A) pass 3c(A) >>>>> pass 3d (A) ?..p 3s >>>>> pass 4d pass 4s >>>>> double 5d double pass >>>>> pass 5h double pass >>>>> pass pass >>>>> 1c=16+ (precision) >>>>> After east bids 3d, south asks and is explained by west that east >>>>> has >>>>> shown >>>>> d+s, >>>>> the initial 2NT showing either c/h or d/s. >>>>> This is also due to to EW's CC, so east's bid is wrong, and west's >>>>> explanation is UI to him. >> >>> >>> East presumably believes he has shown the red suits with 2NT. >>> West's 3S bid shows dislike of both suits, and shows a long spade >>> suit. >>> East bids 4D to show more extreme shape and no spade tolerance. >>> West bid spades again. >>> >>> You really think East can bid diamonds once again, in the presence of >>> the UI of the explanation? >>> East's hand looks more useful to a West with long spades than vice >>> versa. >>> >>> I would have thought adjusting back to 4Sx would be more reasonable. >>> >> >> If West really did have long enough spades that he wanted to play >> there irrespective of what East held, surely West would have bid >> spades over 2NT rather than the 3C relay/inquiry? I'm assuming >> that 3C was passable if clubs was one of East's suits. >> >> Obviously 3S could be some kind of forward-going move, even >> against a strong 1C opener, but I think East has to be entitled >> to know that a wheel has come off after the 4S bid, since >> partner's bidding obviously becomes illogical at that point. > >I think a weak 7114 hand or similar would be happy to play in 3C or in >spades, but not in a red suit. I agree, given what the bid was *supposed* to show, but East isn't allowed to use the explanation to remember his system. I guess the question is what East DID think the 2NT bid showed. If specifically the reds, it still seems to me that 3C then 3S and 4S from West makes no sense. I'm well aware of my limitations as a bridge player, but if I had East's hand and thought I'd shown the reds, I'd expect my partner to pass 2NT with 7-1-1-4, at least until it got doubled. Brian. -- Software development and computer consulting Brian Meadows Tel: 570-724-5172 Wellsboro Computing Services, Inc. Fax: 413-480-2709 RR#5, Box 5A, Wellsboro PA 16901 ICQ: 1981272 http://www.wellsborocomputing.com From svenpran@online.no Mon Nov 11 21:54:09 2002 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon, 11 Nov 2002 22:54:09 +0100 Subject: [blml] Law 47 addition between brackkets References: <000f01c28984$5c203c20$a2053dd4@b0e7g1> Message-ID: <000f01c289cc$dd5f28d0$70d8fea9@WINXP> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ben Schelen" To: "BLML" Sent: Monday, November 11, 2002 2:13 PM Subject: [blml] Law 47 addition between brackkets > In 1997 Law47E1 has been extended with a sentence between brackets: > > (LHO should not accept the lead) > > Why this extention? > > Is it because RHO could be misled by the presumed declarer on purpose that > the contract could better be played by the presumed dummy? > In that case it is also possible that the presumed declarer has already laid > down his hand because he did not know the laws.(sentence between brackets) > Your ruling please. You have to read also Law47E2 which comes into force if the offender wants to retract his lead out of turn as allowed under Law47E1. And note specifically Law47E2(b): When it is too late to correct a play, under (a) preceeding, Law40C applies. So we return to Law40C: If the Director decides that a side has been damage through its opponents' the full meaning of a call or play, he may award an adjusted score. How can law 47E2(b) refer to this law at all? The only possible reason is that the incorrect information from an opponent that "it is your turn to lead" shall be equivalent in effect to what we otherwise consider misinformation on call or play. The Director shall award an adjusted score if he finds that the defence has been damaged. sven From moranl@netvision.net.il Mon Nov 11 22:37:13 2002 From: moranl@netvision.net.il (Eitan Levy) Date: Tue, 12 Nov 2002 00:37:13 +0200 Subject: [blml] Law 47 addition between brackkets In-Reply-To: <000f01c289cc$dd5f28d0$70d8fea9@WINXP> References: <000f01c28984$5c203c20$a2053dd4@b0e7g1> Message-ID: <5.1.1.6.1.20021112002349.00a1a390@mail.netvision.net.il> At 22:54 11/11/02 +0100, you wrote: >----- Original Message ----- >From: "Ben Schelen" >To: "BLML" >Sent: Monday, November 11, 2002 2:13 PM >Subject: [blml] Law 47 addition between brackkets > > > > In 1997 Law47E1 has been extended with a sentence between brackets: > > > > (LHO should not accept the lead) > > > > Why this extention? Surely to prevent declarer telling the non-dangerous opponent it is his turn to lead, and then when he leads accepting the convenient for declarer lead. Note that 47E1 applies to any lead out of turn, not only opening lead. > > > > Is it because RHO could be misled by the presumed declarer on purpose that > > the contract could better be played by the presumed dummy? > > In that case it is also possible that the presumed declarer has already >laid > > down his hand because he did not know the laws.(sentence between brackets) Surely he knew the law about calling the TD when there is an irregularity. > > Your ruling please. Declarer picks up his hand, RHO picks up his card, LHO leads whatever he likes. >You have to read also Law47E2 which comes into force if the offender wants >to retract his lead out of turn as allowed under Law47E1. No - 47E2 only comes into force when there is a mistaken explanation, not when declarer tells the wrong opponent it is his turn to play. >And note specifically Law47E2(b): When it is too late to correct a play, 47E2(b) doesnt apply either >under >(a) preceeding, Law40C applies. and so we don't need 40C either. >So we return to Law40C: If the Director decides that a side has been damage >through its opponents' the full meaning of a call or play, he may award an >adjusted score. > >How can law 47E2(b) refer to this law at all? The only possible reason is >that >the incorrect information from an opponent that "it is your turn to lead" >shall be >equivalent in effect to what we otherwise consider misinformation on call or >play. > >The Director shall award an adjusted score if he finds that the defence has >been >damaged. > >sven Eitan Levy >_______________________________________________ >blml mailing list >blml@rtflb.org >http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From axman22@hotmail.com Tue Nov 12 00:39:22 2002 From: axman22@hotmail.com (Roger Pewick) Date: Mon, 11 Nov 2002 18:39:22 -0600 Subject: [blml] Law 47 addition between brackkets References: <000f01c28984$5c203c20$a2053dd4@b0e7g1> Message-ID: ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ben Schelen" To: "BLML" Sent: Monday, November 11, 2002 7:13 AM Subject: [blml] Law 47 addition between brackkets > In 1997 Law47E1 has been extended with a sentence between brackets: > > (LHO should not accept the lead) If [declarer] was oblivious as to whose lead it was that he misinformed the opponent, would he really know that there was a POOT to not accept? Perahps what seems confusing is the lack of mention of the condition that attention has been drawn to the POOT [before it was accepted]. > Why this extention? > > Is it because RHO could be misled by the presumed declarer on purpose that > the contract could better be played by the presumed dummy? If the player was so out to lunch that he did not know whose lead it was, was he not in part, if not in full, culpable for the outcome of 'playing out of turn'? regards roger pewick > In that case it is also possible that the presumed declarer has already laid > down his hand because he did not know the laws.(sentence between brackets) > Your ruling please. > > Ben From willy@presens.nl.no Tue Nov 12 07:05:25 2002 From: willy@presens.nl.no (Willy Teigen) Date: Tue, 12 Nov 2002 08:05:25 +0100 Subject: SV: [blml] Wrong bid - correct explanation - UI In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Mon, 11 Nov 2002 15:33:31 +0000, Gordon Rainsford wrote: > >On Monday, November 11, 2002, at 02:59 PM, Brian Meadows wrote: > >> On Mon, 11 Nov 2002 13:48:32 +0000, Gordon Rainsford wrote: I agree, given what the bid was *supposed* to show, but East isn't allowed to use the explanation to remember his system. I guess the question is what East DID think the 2NT bid showed. If specifically the reds, it still seems to me that 3C then 3S and 4S from West makes no sense. I'm well aware of my limitations as a bridge player, but if I had East's hand and thought I'd shown the reds, I'd expect my partner to pass 2NT with 7-1-1-4, at least until it got doubled. I was the TD in the actual case, and though I must admit I forgot to ask, I'm quite convinced East intented to show the reds. (2 lowest unbid, believing 1c was natural). Brian. -- Software development and computer consulting Brian Meadows Tel: 570-724-5172 Wellsboro Computing Services, Inc. Fax: 413-480-2709 RR#5, Box 5A, Wellsboro PA 16901 ICQ: 1981272 http://www.wellsborocomputing.com _______________________________________________ blml mailing list blml@rtflb.org http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml --- Incoming mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.410 / Virus Database: 231 - Release Date: 31.10.2002 --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.410 / Virus Database: 231 - Release Date: 31.10.2002 From jens@alesia.dk Sun Nov 10 00:10:50 2002 From: jens@alesia.dk (Jens Brix Christiansen) Date: Sun, 10 Nov 2002 01:10:50 +0100 Subject: [blml] Declarer makes impossible contract by LOT Message-ID: <3DCDB21A.9524.34DE6D7@localhost> Tonight one of those theoretical situations from the TD courses came true. While directing in the Danish 1st division, which is the strongest teams tournament in the country, a player won a slam by leading the 8 from 8 7 in his own hand. LHO held 9 3, and dummy held 10 2. These were the last two tricks, and RHO's holding was immaterial. Unfortunately the lead was in dummy. But LHO sleepily covered with the 9, which ostensibly condoned the LOT. My colleague and I discussed the matter and then consulted Jesper Dybdal by phone. We then invoked L72B1 and adjusted the score to one down for declarer. We let the defenders keep the score for a winning slam, denying them the compensation associated with the adjustment because sloppily condoning a lead out of turn in that situation was seen as an egregious error. -- Jens Brix Christiansen, Denmark http://www.alesia.dk/ From brian@wellsborocomputing.com Tue Nov 12 09:26:26 2002 From: brian@wellsborocomputing.com (Brian Meadows) Date: Tue, 12 Nov 2002 04:26:26 -0500 Subject: SV: [blml] Wrong bid - correct explanation - UI In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <94i1tusda5khifnfs38gndujgek20t7ops@4ax.com> I'd just like to make it clear to anyone coming into the thread late that the message below is the result of some careless editing by Willy. Despite how it appears from his message, I had nothing to do with the actual case! Brian. On Tue, 12 Nov 2002 08:05:25 +0100, Willy Teigen wrote: >On Mon, 11 Nov 2002 15:33:31 +0000, Gordon Rainsford wrote: > >> >>On Monday, November 11, 2002, at 02:59 PM, Brian Meadows wrote: >> >>> On Mon, 11 Nov 2002 13:48:32 +0000, Gordon Rainsford wrote: > >I agree, given what the bid was *supposed* to show, but East >isn't allowed to use the explanation to remember his system. >I guess the question is what East DID think the 2NT bid showed. >If specifically the reds, it still seems to me that 3C then 3S >and 4S from West makes no sense. > >I'm well aware of my limitations as a bridge player, but if I had >East's hand and thought I'd shown the reds, I'd expect my partner >to pass 2NT with 7-1-1-4, at least until it got doubled. > >I was the TD in the actual case, and though I must admit I forgot to ask, >I'm quite convinced East intented to show the reds. (2 lowest unbid, >believing 1c was natural). > >Brian. -- Software development and computer consulting Brian Meadows Tel: 570-724-5172 Wellsboro Computing Services, Inc. Fax: 413-480-2709 RR#5, Box 5A, Wellsboro PA 16901 ICQ: 1981272 http://www.wellsborocomputing.com From hermandw@skynet.be Tue Nov 12 09:39:52 2002 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 12 Nov 2002 10:39:52 +0100 Subject: [blml] Declarer makes impossible contract by LOT References: <3DCDB21A.9524.34DE6D7@localhost> Message-ID: <3DD0CC68.3080707@skynet.be> Hi Jens. Jens Brix Christiansen wrote: > Tonight one of those theoretical situations from the TD courses > came true. > > While directing in the Danish 1st division, which is the strongest > teams tournament in the country, a player won a slam by leading > the 8 from 8 7 in his own hand. LHO held 9 3, and dummy held 10 > 2. These were the last two tricks, and RHO's holding was > immaterial. > > Unfortunately the lead was in dummy. But LHO sleepily covered > with the 9, which ostensibly condoned the LOT. > > My colleague and I discussed the matter and then consulted > Jesper Dybdal by phone. We then invoked L72B1 and adjusted the > score to one down for declarer. We let the defenders keep the > score for a winning slam, denying them the compensation > associated with the adjustment because sloppily condoning a lead > out of turn in that situation was seen as an egregious error. > No quarrel with OS not getting the slam. But which Law did you apply to deny the NOS their down trick ? L72 talks of an adjusted score. That should refer to L12, and L12 speaks of a result "without the infraction". Since the infraction is the LOT, L12 (in whatever wording) can only result in one down! -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From dalburn@btopenworld.com Tue Nov 12 09:57:21 2002 From: dalburn@btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: 12 Nov 2002 01:57:21 -0800 Subject: [blml] Declarer makes impossible contract by LOT Message-ID: <121102316.7042@webbox.com> Herman wrote: >No quarrel with OS not getting the slam. >But which Law did you apply to deny the NOS their down trick ? >L72 talks of an adjusted score. That should refer to L12, and L12 speaks of a result "without the infraction". Since the infraction is the LOT, L12 (in whatever wording) can only result in one down! I am a bit confused. The consequence of this would appear to be that no lead out of turn can ever be considered to have been condoned, except when it doesn't cost the NOS to condone it. Why, then, do we have a rule about condoning leads out of turn? Why, indeed, do we bother to turn up at bridge tournaments at all? We should instead simply send our entry fees to the organisers, spend the weekend doing something useful, and wait to discover which team the directors think has won the event. David Burn London, England From svenpran@online.no Tue Nov 12 10:04:24 2002 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Tue, 12 Nov 2002 11:04:24 +0100 Subject: [blml] Declarer makes impossible contract by LOT References: <3DCDB21A.9524.34DE6D7@localhost> <3DD0CC68.3080707@skynet.be> Message-ID: <003401c28a32$e0e6b890$70d8fea9@WINXP> Hi Herman and Jens: I believe the ruling was correct, and we would most likely rule exactly the same way in Norway. LHO has accepted declarer's lead out of turn (Law 53A) so the obtained result stands for the defence. They have no excuse. However, as the declarer "could have known at the time of his irregularity that the irregularity would be likely to damage the non-offending side" we have a clear case of using Law 72B1 to deny declarer the favourable result he obtained by committing this irregularity. I see no problem here (not even with Law 12!). Sven ----- Original Message ----- From: "Herman De Wael" To: "blml" Sent: Tuesday, November 12, 2002 10:39 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Declarer makes impossible contract by LOT > Hi Jens. > > Jens Brix Christiansen wrote: > > > Tonight one of those theoretical situations from the TD courses > > came true. > > > > While directing in the Danish 1st division, which is the strongest > > teams tournament in the country, a player won a slam by leading > > the 8 from 8 7 in his own hand. LHO held 9 3, and dummy held 10 > > 2. These were the last two tricks, and RHO's holding was > > immaterial. > > > > Unfortunately the lead was in dummy. But LHO sleepily covered > > with the 9, which ostensibly condoned the LOT. > > > > My colleague and I discussed the matter and then consulted > > Jesper Dybdal by phone. We then invoked L72B1 and adjusted the > > score to one down for declarer. We let the defenders keep the > > score for a winning slam, denying them the compensation > > associated with the adjustment because sloppily condoning a lead > > out of turn in that situation was seen as an egregious error. > > > > > No quarrel with OS not getting the slam. > But which Law did you apply to deny the NOS their down trick ? > L72 talks of an adjusted score. That should refer to L12, and L12 > speaks of a result "without the infraction". Since the infraction is > the LOT, L12 (in whatever wording) can only result in one down! From twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Tue Nov 12 10:33:00 2002 From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Date: Tue, 12 Nov 2002 10:33 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [blml] Declarer makes impossible contract by LOT Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <003401c28a32$e0e6b890$70d8fea9@WINXP> Sven wrote: > However, as the declarer "could have known at the time of > his irregularity that the irregularity would be likely to damage > the non-offending side" we have a clear case of using Law > 72B1 to deny declarer the favourable result he obtained by > committing this irregularity. I love this. We deny NOS redress because condoning the lead is an egregious error. We adjust for OS because declarer "could have known at the time of his irregularity that the irregularity would be likely to damage the non-offending side". In other words declarer could have known that the NOS were "likely" to commit an egregious error! Just how bad are the NOS that an egregious error was "likely"? Make a proper decision. Was the infraction deliberate? Disqualify the b**tard. Was it accidental? Lead condoned, result stands. Tim From agot@ulb.ac.be Tue Nov 12 11:27:31 2002 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Tue, 12 Nov 2002 12:27:31 +0100 Subject: [blml] meaning of "disclosure" In-Reply-To: <000e01c28772$c19febe0$a86687d9@4nrw70j> References: <5.1.0.14.0.20021108095607.02f35450@pop.ulb.ac.be> <3DCB882B.5040102@skynet.be> <003b01c2871c$098dd7c0$727e870a@krakow.sabreots.com> <5.1.0.14.0.20021108151422.00abbc70@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20021112122517.00acb800@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 20:41 8/11/2002 +0000, grandeval wrote: >Grattan Endicott===================================== >"It must have taken him a great deal of pains to become >what we now see him. Such an excess of stupidity, Sir, >is not in Nature." ~ Samuel Johnson. >+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ >----- Original Message ----- >From: "Alain Gottcheiner" >To: "Herman De Wael" ; > "blml" >Sent: Friday, November 08, 2002 2:28 PM >Subject: Re: [blml] meaning of "disclosure" > > > > > > >I am apologising to any and all Belgians reading > > > this for calling their countrymen stupid. I was not > > > referring to you personally. > > > > AG : no offense. I don't think that not understanding > > stupid regulations is a sign of stupidity <:-> > > >+=+ So then, to understand them is a sign of stupidity? +=+ AG : nope. Only warpedness of mind. Which is why most blml contributors have at least a partial understanding of them :-P From vwalther@vwalther.de Tue Nov 12 11:57:07 2002 From: vwalther@vwalther.de (Volker R. Walther) Date: Tue, 12 Nov 2002 12:57:07 +0100 Subject: [blml] Declarer makes impossible contract by LOT References: Message-ID: <3DD0EC93.506@vwalther.de> Tim West-meads wrote: > In-Reply-To: <003401c28a32$e0e6b890$70d8fea9@WINXP> > Sven wrote: > >>However, as the declarer "could have known at the time of >>his irregularity that the irregularity would be likely to damage >>the non-offending side" we have a clear case of using Law >>72B1 to deny declarer the favourable result he obtained by >>committing this irregularity. > > > I love this. We deny NOS redress because condoning the lead is an > egregious error. We adjust for OS because declarer "could have known at > the time of his irregularity that the irregularity would be likely to > damage the non-offending side". > > In other words declarer could have known that the NOS were "likely" to > commit an egregious error! Just how bad are the NOS that an egregious > error was "likely"? > > [snip] I do not think that we have to discuss the absolute likelihood here. You should apply 72B1 if it is more likely to win the game with the infraction than without it. Greetings Volker -- Adressen meiner Homepage: http://www.vwalther.de oder (schlechter zu merken, aber ohne Werbung) http://home.t-online.de/home/volker.r.walther From svenpran@online.no Tue Nov 12 12:37:00 2002 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Tue, 12 Nov 2002 13:37:00 +0100 Subject: [blml] Declarer makes impossible contract by LOT References: <3DD0EC93.506@vwalther.de> Message-ID: <009b01c28a48$3272fbf0$70d8fea9@WINXP> From: "Volker R. Walther" > Tim West-meads wrote: > > Sven wrote: > > > >>However, as the declarer "could have known at the time of > >>his irregularity that the irregularity would be likely to damage > >>the non-offending side" we have a clear case of using Law > >>72B1 to deny declarer the favourable result he obtained by > >>committing this irregularity. > > > > > > I love this. We deny NOS redress because condoning the lead is an > > egregious error. We adjust for OS because declarer "could have known at > > the time of his irregularity that the irregularity would be likely to > > damage the non-offending side". > > > > In other words declarer could have known that the NOS were "likely" to > > commit an egregious error! Just how bad are the NOS that an egregious > > error was "likely"? > > > > [snip] > > I do not think that we have to discuss the absolute likelihood here. > You should apply 72B1 if it is more likely to win the game with the > infraction than without it. I don't think there is any disagreement about that. The question is whether NOS shall be "rescued" from their damage after clearly accepting the lead out of turn (Law 53A). In Norway we say NO: You have no redress for your own mistake unless this is because you have been mislead (or provoked?) by opponents. (And a lead out of turn is not a misleading action which justify "protection" against your own subsequent mistake). Sven From hermandw@skynet.be Tue Nov 12 12:51:13 2002 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 12 Nov 2002 13:51:13 +0100 Subject: [blml] Declarer makes impossible contract by LOT References: <3DD0EC93.506@vwalther.de> <009b01c28a48$3272fbf0$70d8fea9@WINXP> Message-ID: <3DD0F941.2000909@skynet.be> Sven, try and answer me one thing: Sven Pran wrote: >>> >>I do not think that we have to discuss the absolute likelihood here. >>You should apply 72B1 if it is more likely to win the game with the >>infraction than without it. >> > > I don't think there is any disagreement about that. > > The question is whether NOS shall be "rescued" from their damage > after clearly accepting the lead out of turn (Law 53A). > > In Norway we say NO: You have no redress for your own mistake > unless this is because you have been mislead (or provoked?) by > opponents. (And a lead out of turn is not a misleading action which > justify "protection" against your own subsequent mistake). > If you are applying L72B1 (which you are), then you are saying that an infraction has been committed (it clearly has - th LOT) of which the offender could have known (he clearly could) that it would damage NOS. L72B1 then goes on to say that an adjusted score is awarded. No reference is given, but I am assuming L12 applies for this. Agreed? Now read L12 again, and see which of its parts you want to use. Please find a part that differs between OS and NOS. L12C2 will not help : that states "had the infraction not occured". If the infraction (the LOT) had not occured, then the contract would have been one down. Are you suggesting using L12C3? > Sven > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From svenpran@online.no Tue Nov 12 13:20:02 2002 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Tue, 12 Nov 2002 14:20:02 +0100 Subject: [blml] Declarer makes impossible contract by LOT References: <3DD0EC93.506@vwalther.de> <009b01c28a48$3272fbf0$70d8fea9@WINXP> <3DD0F941.2000909@skynet.be> Message-ID: <00a701c28a4e$35607030$70d8fea9@WINXP> From: "Herman De Wael" > Sven, try and answer me one thing: > > Sven Pran wrote: > > >>> > >>I do not think that we have to discuss the absolute likelihood here. > >>You should apply 72B1 if it is more likely to win the game with the > >>infraction than without it. > >> > > > > I don't think there is any disagreement about that. > > > > The question is whether NOS shall be "rescued" from their damage > > after clearly accepting the lead out of turn (Law 53A). > > > > In Norway we say NO: You have no redress for your own mistake > > unless this is because you have been mislead (or provoked?) by > > opponents. (And a lead out of turn is not a misleading action which > > justify "protection" against your own subsequent mistake). > > > > > If you are applying L72B1 (which you are), then you are saying that an > infraction has been committed (it clearly has - th LOT) of which the > offender could have known (he clearly could) that it would damage NOS. > > L72B1 then goes on to say that an adjusted score is awarded. > > > No reference is given, but I am assuming L12 applies for this. Agreed? > Now read L12 again, and see which of its parts you want to use. > > Please find a part that differs between OS and NOS. > L12C2 will not help : that states "had the infraction not occured". If > the infraction (the LOT) had not occured, then the contract would have > been one down. > Are you suggesting using L12C3? Certainly not. It is 12C2. But as LHO has accepted the lead out of turn it is not "restoring equity" to award them a score as if this lead out of turn had not taken place. (And L12C2 explicitly permits the awarded scores not to balance). Without going into detail I shall just remind you that we have many similar adjustment cases, most common are probably those where we adjust the score for OS due to misinformation or unauthorised information but let NOS keep their poor score (in whole or in part) because they are judged to having (more or less) imposed the bad result upon themselves. regards Sven From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Tue Nov 12 13:24:51 2002 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Tue, 12 Nov 2002 13:24:51 -0000 Subject: [blml] Wrong bid - correct explanation - UI References: Message-ID: <007b01c28a4f$06aac6e0$ba9468d5@default> [Willy Teigen] Teams Q107x LA Ax North KJxx KQJ K8xx - K10 QJ98xx 8x AQ1097x xxxxx A AJ9xx xxx x xxxx North East South West 1c (A) 2NT(A) pass 3c(A) pass 3d (A) ?..p 3s pass 4d pass 4s double 5d double pass pass 5h double pass pass pass 1c=16+ (precision) After east bids 3d, south asks and is explained by west that east has shown d+s, the initial 2NT showing either c/h or d/s. This is also due to to EW’s CC, so east’s bid is wrong, and west’s explanation is UI to him. West bids spades twice, believing east has a d/s hand, but finally gives in. After a poor defence, 5h x makes for 650 to EW. How do you rule? [Nigel Guthrie] Assuming that East imagines he has shown the minors, West's bidding is consistent with 6+-4+ in the blacks, so logically, he should probably pass 3S and certainly pass 4S. To West, all East's red suit bids are cue-bids in support of spades, so 7S seems a reasonable bet (assuming that North rather than East is psyching). Hence if it were not that North doubled 4S, I would be tempted to rule 7SXX-9. But I assume that Willy wound the bidding back to the first clear infraction (East's 5D bid)? If so, I suppose the TD was correct to let East-West off with 5DX-1. Should he also impose a PP on East-West for psyche-diagnosis? From cibor@poczta.fm Tue Nov 12 13:19:43 2002 From: cibor@poczta.fm (Konrad Ciborowski) Date: Tue, 12 Nov 2002 14:19:43 +0100 Subject: [blml] Declarer makes impossible contract by LOT References: Message-ID: <016001c28a4e$e8628c90$727e870a@krakow.sabreots.com> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Tim West-meads" > Make a proper decision. Was the infraction deliberate? Disqualify the > b**tard. Was it accidental? Lead condoned, result stands. > Dream on. I have met some people in my life (very, very few - true) who do such things on a regular basis I have once seen it done against a pair of kids. I knew for certain that if was on purpose but I had no way to prove it. What do you think the b**d will tell when you ask him why he did it? "Of course it was accidental, director". Are you a mind-reader or something? This is why we have "could have known" rather than "did know". The approach that "very few people cheat so why have the laws that would make cheating unprofitable" gives a *tremendous* edge to those who do cheat. For them LOOT in this position is then a no-lose strategy. If you think that "you got away with it this time but the next time..." is effective - you are naïve. Several years ago my partner won the slam by LOOT in this position - and the ruling was one down for us, result stands for them (accepting the LOOT is this two-card ending was regarded as "irrational, wild or gambling"). I had no complaints about the ruling. Everyone declarer have his score adjusted to one down - even the Pope. The rules should be the same for everyone. Konrad Ciborowski Krakow, Poland From agot@ulb.ac.be Tue Nov 12 14:30:11 2002 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Tue, 12 Nov 2002 15:30:11 +0100 Subject: [blml] dWS for the beginner Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20021112151524.026ba7e0@pop.ulb.ac.be> Dear blmlists, After many threads on the dWS principles, came at least a case where I could put this principle to the test. And it worked nicely ... I had to face without prior notice a former partner, who is also a TD. We didn't get enough time to discuss, and this happened : Alain Patrick 10xx x AKQ10x Jx --- J10xxx J109xx KQxxx 1S 2S (1) 3S 3NT (2) p 4C p 5C 5S X p p p (1) we play two suiters as follows : cue = Michaels (M + m), limited strength 2NT = minors 3C, 3D = major + minor, strong But partner, upon request, explained it as hearts and clubs. _Horresco referens_ , regular blmlists already know what I think of Ghestem. (2) 3NT is logically asking for the minor. However, as partner thought the minor was known, the bid should be ... well, what should it be ? As we play 1S 3C 3S 3NT asking for strength (3C : H/C, remember), 3NT would have been the same here, _if_ 2S was Ghestem. There remain only two things to do : a) explain 3NT as asking for strength b) bid 4C (answer to partner's 3NT asking for a minor, according to the system), not 4D (answer to 3NT asking for strength , showing a little bit more than a minimum) Happily, partner decided to bid 5C nevertheless, as an advanced defense ... which proved to be icy. During the whole bidding ... and play, partner didn't realise that he had made the wrong interpretation of the bid. Isn't that a good idea ? Best regards, Alain. From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Tue Nov 12 14:57:25 2002 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Tue, 12 Nov 2002 14:57:25 -0000 Subject: [blml] dWS for the beginner References: <5.1.0.14.0.20021112151524.026ba7e0@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <00ae01c28a5b$fa9dd560$ba9468d5@default> [Alain Gottcheiner] After many threads on the dWS principles, came at least a case where I could put this principle to the test. And it worked nicely ... I had to face without prior notice a former partner, who is also a TD. We didn't get enough time to discuss, and this happened: 10xx x AKQ10x Jx --- J10xxx J109xx KQxxx 1S 2S(1) 3S 3NT(2) p 4C p 5C 5S X p p p (1) we play two suiters as follows : cue = Michaels (M + m), limited strength 2NT = minors 3C, 3D = major + minor, strong But partner, upon request, explained it as hearts and clubs. _Horresco referens_ , regular blmlists already know what I think of Ghestem. (2) 3NT is logically asking for the minor. However, as partner thought the minor was known, the bid should be ... well, what should it be? As we play 1S 3C 3S 3NT asking for strength (3C : H/C, remember), 3NT would have been the same here, _if_ 2S was Ghestem. There remain only two things to do : a) explain 3NT as asking for strength b) bid 4C (answer to partner's 3NT asking for a minor, according to the system), not 4D (answer to 3NT asking for strength , showing a little bit more than a minimum) Happily, partner decided to bid 5C nevertheless, as an advanced defense ... which proved to be icy. During the whole bidding ... and play, partner didn't realise that he had made the wrong interpretation of the bid. Isn't that a good idea? {NG] Were I a TD, I would rule that your explanation of 3N (asking for strength) was MI according to your agreed system and potentially damaging to your opponents. IMO, you should give the true systemic understanding and be prepared to be ruled against if there are any UI consequences. From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Tue Nov 12 15:15:17 2002 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Tue, 12 Nov 2002 15:15:17 -0000 Subject: [blml] Declarer makes impossible contract by LOT References: <016001c28a4e$e8628c90$727e870a@krakow.sabreots.com> Message-ID: <00b401c28a5e$51d270a0$ba9468d5@default> [Tim West-Mead] Make a proper decision. Was the infraction deliberate? Disqualify the b**tard. Was it accidental? Lead condoned, result stands. [Nigel Guthrie] I fundamentally disagree. The laws of any game are useless if you cannot rule against a person without slandering him. IMO, as a TD you should treat all players the same - as ladies and gentlemen -- even if you are convinced that a particular player is a deliberate cheat. You explain your draconian ruling as "This is not to punish upright players like you; but to deter the less honest who might otherwise be tempted." Here, however, assuming a reasonable standard of play, I tend to agree with David Burn's interpretation of the law i.e. score stands. Otherwise, IMO the law needs clarification, yet again. What is the salient difference between this LOT and any other condoned LOT that may benefit the infracter? From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Tue Nov 12 15:22:25 2002 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Tue, 12 Nov 2002 15:22:25 -0000 Subject: [blml] Wrong bid - correct explanation - UI References: <007b01c28a4f$06aac6e0$ba9468d5@default> Message-ID: <00c201c28a5f$4fcdaa80$ba9468d5@default> {Nigel -- corrected version of earlier E-mail. Sorry] [Willy Teigen] Teams Q107x LA Ax North KJxx KQJ K8xx - K10 QJ98xx 8x AQ1097x xxxxx A AJ9xx xxx x xxxx North East South West 1c (A) 2NT(A) pass 3c(A) pass 3d (A) ?..p 3s pass 4d pass 4s double 5d double pass pass 5h double pass pass pass 1c=16+ (precision) After east bids 3d, south asks and is explained by west that east has shown d+s, the initial 2NT showing either c/h or d/s. This is also due to to EW’s CC, so east’s bid is wrong, and west’s explanation is UI to him. West bids spades twice, believing east has a d/s hand, but finally gives in. After a poor defence, 5h x makes for 650 to EW. How do you rule? [Nigel Guthrie - corrected] Assuming that East imagines he has shown the minors, West's bidding is consistent with 6+-4+ in the blacks, so logically, he should probably pass 3S and certainly pass 4S. To West, all East's red suit bids are cue-bids in support of spades, so 7S seems a reasonable bet (assuming that North rather than East is psyching). Hence if it were not that North doubled 4S, I would be tempted to rule 7SXX-9. But I assume that the TD should wind the bidding back to BEFORE the first clear infraction (East's 5D bid)? i.e rule 4SX-6 or 4SXX-6. Should he also impose a PP on East-West for psyche-diagnosis? From Laval_Dubreuil@uqss.uquebec.ca Tue Nov 12 15:25:47 2002 From: Laval_Dubreuil@uqss.uquebec.ca (Laval Dubreuil) Date: Tue, 12 Nov 2002 10:25:47 -0500 Subject: [blml] Law64B5 Message-ID: Hi BLMLrs, Law 64B5 tells: The penalty for an established revoke does not apply if attention was drawn after the round has ended. Law 8B: In general, a round ends when the Director gives the signal for the start of the following round; but if any table has not completed play by that time, the round continues for that table until there has been a progression of players. Last week, I had to rule on a possible revoke after four hand was back to the board but before I called the next round. According to Law 64B5, the penalty for an established revoke can still apply, but can I make sure there was a revoke ? They first had an agreement on result, as required by Law 65D, but some of them shuffle their cards before returning to board. I finally cannot make sure there was a revoke and let the score stand... If I had just called the round a few seconds earlier (the had completed play of their boards) no penalty could have been applied. Where is the logic ? Law 62D1: On the 12th trick, a revoke, even if established, be corrected if discovered before all four hands have been returned to the board. IMHO this Law 64B5 should be like 62D1. When all agree on result and hands (four ?) are back in board, it would be too late to draw attention to a possible revoke. Laval Du Breuil Quebec City From hermandw@skynet.be Tue Nov 12 15:42:34 2002 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 12 Nov 2002 16:42:34 +0100 Subject: [blml] Declarer makes impossible contract by LOT References: <3DD0EC93.506@vwalther.de> <009b01c28a48$3272fbf0$70d8fea9@WINXP> <3DD0F941.2000909@skynet.be> <00a701c28a4e$35607030$70d8fea9@WINXP> Message-ID: <3DD1216A.6060604@skynet.be> Yes Sven, and no: Sven Pran wrote: > From: "Herman De Wael" > >> >>No reference is given, but I am assuming L12 applies for this. Agreed? >>Now read L12 again, and see which of its parts you want to use. >> >>Please find a part that differs between OS and NOS. >>L12C2 will not help : that states "had the infraction not occured". If >>the infraction (the LOT) had not occured, then the contract would have >>been one down. >>Are you suggesting using L12C3? >> > > Certainly not. It is 12C2. > > But as LHO has accepted the lead out of turn it is not "restoring equity" > to award them a score as if this lead out of turn had not taken place. > (And L12C2 explicitly permits the awarded scores not to balance). > Yes, but L12C2 puts in both cases the phrase "had the irregularity not occured". How can you fail to award a trick to NOS if a card is played from dummy? The separate phrases used in L12C2 for the OS and NOS cannot justify a split score in this case. > Without going into detail I shall just remind you that we have many similar > adjustment cases, most common are probably those where we adjust the > score for OS due to misinformation or unauthorised information but let > NOS keep their poor score (in whole or in part) because they are judged > to having (more or less) imposed the bad result upon themselves. > I know of many such cases - but they all start from some error made by the NOS _after_ the irregularity, but independent of it. The old "subsequent" versus "consequent" bit. The particular error made by NOS cannot be made without the infraction. It's a bit like a double over a contract that ought not to have been bid. If we don't allow the bid, we cannot award the doubled contract to NOS, however bad the double. Split scores of this category stem from the "damage caused by" bit. The damage in common split scores is caused by some error, like a revoke. But the error of covering a wrongly played card is not of the same nature. IMHO. > regards Sven > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From agot@ulb.ac.be Tue Nov 12 15:55:49 2002 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Tue, 12 Nov 2002 16:55:49 +0100 Subject: [blml] Declarer makes impossible contract by LOT In-Reply-To: <00a701c28a4e$35607030$70d8fea9@WINXP> References: <3DD0EC93.506@vwalther.de> <009b01c28a48$3272fbf0$70d8fea9@WINXP> <3DD0F941.2000909@skynet.be> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20021112164723.026b9270@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 14:20 12/11/2002 +0100, Sven Pran wrote: >From: "Herman De Wael" > > Sven, try and answer me one thing: > > > > Sven Pran wrote: > > > > >>> > > >>I do not think that we have to discuss the absolute likelihood here. > > >>You should apply 72B1 if it is more likely to win the game with the > > >>infraction than without it. > > >> > > > > > > I don't think there is any disagreement about that. > > > > > > The question is whether NOS shall be "rescued" from their damage > > > after clearly accepting the lead out of turn (Law 53A). > > > > > > In Norway we say NO: You have no redress for your own mistake > > > unless this is because you have been mislead (or provoked?) by > > > opponents. (And a lead out of turn is not a misleading action which > > > justify "protection" against your own subsequent mistake). > > > > > > > > > If you are applying L72B1 (which you are), then you are saying that an > > infraction has been committed (it clearly has - th LOT) of which the > > offender could have known (he clearly could) that it would damage NOS. > > > > L72B1 then goes on to say that an adjusted score is awarded. > > > > > > No reference is given, but I am assuming L12 applies for this. Agreed? > > Now read L12 again, and see which of its parts you want to use. > > > > Please find a part that differs between OS and NOS. > > L12C2 will not help : that states "had the infraction not occured". If > > the infraction (the LOT) had not occured, then the contract would have > > been one down. > > Are you suggesting using L12C3? > >Certainly not. It is 12C2. > >But as LHO has accepted the lead out of turn it is not "restoring equity" >to award them a score as if this lead out of turn had not taken place. >(And L12C2 explicitly permits the awarded scores not to balance). > >Without going into detail I shall just remind you that we have many similar >adjustment cases, most common are probably those where we adjust the >score for OS due to misinformation or unauthorised information but let >NOS keep their poor score (in whole or in part) because they are judged >to having (more or less) imposed the bad result upon themselves. AG : long ago my teacher in the TD elementary course gave us the example of a declarer holding a solid 7-card suit facing a void. Declarer takes the lead in hand, then plays the solid suit from the table. This was basically the same case. And the answer was to award a split score. Now, if the void was at the table, covering the LOOT would be an *egregious error*. When it is in the hand and unknown, covering is only mildly negligent. I felt uncomfortable, because we were told that the laws are not there to make everybody pay for one's mistakes. Her answer was that everyone has the absolute right to accept a LOOT by RHO (L53A) and then the play continues. Why ask for redress when he has chosen to cover the card (L12B) ? I think that the problem has been analyzed the wrong way. One should not apply L72B1, then correct because of L53A. One should apply L534A first, *then* L72B1. There was no egregious error, only the player accepted the lead. Why should you disallow him to do so ? He is explicitly allowed. Then, L72B1, like L23, comes in as a correction. Best regards, Alain. From hermandw@skynet.be Tue Nov 12 15:49:55 2002 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 12 Nov 2002 16:49:55 +0100 Subject: [blml] dWS for the beginner References: <5.1.0.14.0.20021112151524.026ba7e0@pop.ulb.ac.be> <00ae01c28a5b$fa9dd560$ba9468d5@default> Message-ID: <3DD12323.3000700@skynet.be> Nigel Guthrie wrote: > {NG] > Were I a TD, I would rule that your explanation > of 3N (asking for strength) was MI according to your > agreed system and potentially damaging to your > opponents. Nobody, least of all me, Alain and Patrick, would ever suggest otherwise. Of course both the explanation "Ghestem" and "asking for strength" are MI and should be dealt with accordingly. > IMO, you should give the true systemic > understanding and be prepared to be ruled against > if there are any UI consequences. > Why - where is this written. IMO, you should give the understanding that your partner intended and be prepared to be ruled against if there are any MI consequences. We've had this discussion before. So there is no use repeating your position if you need to add "IMO". I believe Alain has acted correctly and according to L75D: "Nor may he indicate in any manner that a mistake has been made". Enough said. > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From agot@ulb.ac.be Tue Nov 12 16:06:15 2002 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Tue, 12 Nov 2002 17:06:15 +0100 Subject: [blml] dWS for the beginner In-Reply-To: <00ae01c28a5b$fa9dd560$ba9468d5@default> References: <5.1.0.14.0.20021112151524.026ba7e0@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20021112165706.027576e0@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 14:57 12/11/2002 +0000, Nigel Guthrie wrote: >Were I a TD, I would rule that your explanation >of 3N (asking for strength) was MI according to your >agreed system and potentially damaging to your >opponents. IMO, you should give the true systemic >understanding and be prepared to be ruled against >if there are any UI consequences. AG : I knew already that you don't agree with the dWS principles. My view is that, in some cases, it saves the day, as it did here : 1) I had what partner said I had, albeit coincidently. Thus no MI about my hand. 2) perhaps the explanations didn't fit with the system, but no harm was done to the opponents. Opener didn't believe a single second that I could have diamonds. He had AKQxx diamonds. 3) I saved partner UI problems 4) I saved the opponent (not very experienced) the problems with conflicting information (4C showing a minimum and not pinpointing the suit ? How strange) Thus, albeit persisting in the framework of the wrong system was an incorrection, it was for the best for both pairs. That's Herman's thesis. I admit that, in some other cases, the potential MI is too important to dare use the dWS principle. I'm thus at one with a recent mail from Herman, saying that the player should have the right to choose one of the options (UI or MI), the one he thinks will be less harmful, and pay if he's wrong. Best regards, Alain. From willner@cfa.harvard.edu Tue Nov 12 15:57:57 2002 From: willner@cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Tue, 12 Nov 2002 10:57:57 -0500 (EST) Subject: [blml] Declarer makes impossible contract by LOT Message-ID: <200211121557.KAA11875@cfa183.harvard.edu> > From: "Jens Brix Christiansen" > We then invoked L72B1 and adjusted the > score to one down for declarer. We let the defenders keep the > [table] score... As others have said, this accords with current custom and practice: the "Kaplan doctrine." Applying 72B1 to declarer seems automatic. As things stand now, it is a judgment question what to do about the NOS. However, the more I see of the Kaplan doctrine, the less I like it. While I don't have much hope, I personally would quite like to see this doctrine eliminated in the next laws edition. If you adjust the score at all, do so for both sides. > From: "Volker R. Walther" > I do not think that we have to discuss the absolute likelihood here. > You should apply 72B1 if it is more likely to win the game with the > infraction than without it. This, however, seems wrong. L72B1 specifies "likely to damage the NOS." This must imply an absolute probability. One could, I suppose, argue for a change in the law, but it seems fine to me the way it is. From dalburn@btopenworld.com Tue Nov 12 16:16:25 2002 From: dalburn@btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: 12 Nov 2002 08:16:25 -0800 Subject: [blml] Declarer makes impossible contract by LOT Message-ID: <121102316.29787@webbox.com> Herman wrote: >Yes, but L12C2 puts in both cases the phrase "had the irregularity not occured". How can you fail to award a trick to NOS if a card is played from dummy? I think the idea is that if LHO covers, thus accepting the lead, he "regularises" it; that is, it ceases to be an irregularity and becomes a "regular" play. In the same way, I suppose, an irregular call over which LHO calls becomes a "regular" part of the auction (there is no penalty, etc.) If this is so, then of course the result stands for both sides. Whereas I don't mind the idea that the defenders get -1430 and declarer gets -100 plus a penalty of 10 IMPs (for I am always of the opinion that rotten bridge deserves rotten results, and illegal bridge deserves rotten results and hefty fines), I don't think it's legal. I do not see, in the words of the rules, a justification for a split score here. But I haven't thought about it much. What does "likely" mean in L72, anyway? One chance in three? In five? In ten? In a hundred? David Burn London, England From agot@ulb.ac.be Tue Nov 12 16:35:15 2002 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Tue, 12 Nov 2002 17:35:15 +0100 Subject: [blml] dWS for the beginner In-Reply-To: <3DD12323.3000700@skynet.be> References: <5.1.0.14.0.20021112151524.026ba7e0@pop.ulb.ac.be> <00ae01c28a5b$fa9dd560$ba9468d5@default> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20021112170913.02750390@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 16:49 12/11/2002 +0100, Herman De Wael wrote: >Nigel Guthrie wrote: > >>{NG] >>Were I a TD, I would rule that your explanation >>of 3N (asking for strength) was MI according to your >>agreed system and potentially damaging to your >>opponents. > > >Nobody, least of all me, Alain and Patrick, would ever suggest otherwise. >Of course both the explanation "Ghestem" and "asking for strength" are MI >and should be dealt with accordingly. AG : the discussion could end here. There was MI. It was potentially damaging to the opponents. If it had damaged them, redress would of course have ensued. The fact is, it didn't damage them. I had chosen to continue giving MI because I was nearly certain it wouldn't. Laws are there to ensure equity. There was nothing to suggest inequity in the result (after all, 5SX-2 was the par on this deal). The fact that we earned a good score (some people preferred to bid 2H and missed their clubs) is irrelevant : we were headed for 5C before any infraction occurred. The interesting thing about this deal is that it shows dWS at its best : there is no MI about my hand, thus continuing on the way of MI will create damage, TD call and adjustment in very few cases (perhaps when it will be important to RHO to know that partner had some diamonds), while creating UI will make a mess of the deal. Thus, for those (like YT) who think that the player faced with MI vs UI should decide to the best of his knowledge and belief which way to take, and thereafter _anekhe kai apekhe_ , this is an extreme case. Best regards, Alain. From dalburn@btopenworld.com Tue Nov 12 16:24:56 2002 From: dalburn@btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: 12 Nov 2002 08:24:56 -0800 Subject: [blml] Declarer makes impossible contract by LOT Message-ID: <121102316.30298@webbox.com> Steve wrote: >This, however, seems wrong. L72B1 specifies "likely to damage the NOS." This must imply an absolute probability. Must it? Declarer, with AQxxxx facing xxxx, leads from the wrong hand, and the opponents tell him he's in dummy. Cashing the ace, he drops the singleton king offside. He could have known that this would happen, of course (it's the correct way to play the suit if you've seen an opponent's cards, for a start). It was "likely to happen" about one time in five - we say that the least favourable result for an offending side under L12 needs a chance of about one in six. If he hadn't seen their cards, it was less likely to damage them than it was to damage him - but that's a relative probability, not an absolute one. Another thought: suppose in this position that declarer infers the layout when the opponents *don't* tell him that he's in dummy. Do we rule under L72 then? David Burn London, England From agot@ulb.ac.be Tue Nov 12 16:40:19 2002 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Tue, 12 Nov 2002 17:40:19 +0100 Subject: [blml] Declarer makes impossible contract by LOT In-Reply-To: <121102316.29787@webbox.com> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20021112173840.026b95e0@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 08:16 12/11/2002 -0800, David Burn wrote: >What does "likely" mean in L72, anyway? One chance in three? >In five? In ten? In a hundred? AG : good question. Perhaps it should be replaced by "if it is a no-lose situation for the OS". Because such probabilities are virtually impossible to assess. From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Tue Nov 12 16:33:01 2002 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Tue, 12 Nov 2002 16:33:01 -0000 Subject: [blml] Wrong bid - correct explanation - UI Message-ID: <00f101c28a69$6cf83440$ba9468d5@default> {Nigel -- re-corrected version of earlier E-mail. Sorry Sorry] [Willy Teigen] Teams Q107x LA Ax North KJxx KQJ K8xx - K10 QJ98xx 8x AQ1097x xxxxx A AJ9xx xxx x xxxx North East South West 1c (A) 2NT(A) pass 3c(A) pass 3d (A) ?..p 3s pass 4d pass 4s double 5d double pass pass 5h double pass pass pass 1c=16+ (precision) After east bids 3d, south asks and is explained by west that east has shown d+s, the initial 2NT showing either c/h or d/s. This is also due to to EW’s CC, so east’s bid is wrong, and west’s explanation is UI to him. West bids spades twice, believing east has a d/s hand, but finally gives in. After a poor defence, 5h x makes for 650 to EW. How do you rule? [Nigel Guthrie - corrected] Assuming that East imagines he has shown the REDS, West's bidding is consistent with 6+4+ in the BLACKS, so without the UI, he could pass 3S and certainly should pass 4S. To West, all East's red suit bids are cue-bids in support of spades, so 7S seems a reasonable bet (assuming that North rather than East is psyching). Hence if it were not that North doubled 4S, I would be tempted to rule 7SXX-9. But I assume that the TD should wind the bidding back to BEFORE the first clear infraction (East's 5D bid)? i.e rule 4SX-6 or 4SXX-6. Should he also impose a PP on East-West for psyche-diagnosis? From axman22@hotmail.com Tue Nov 12 16:38:05 2002 From: axman22@hotmail.com (Roger Pewick) Date: Tue, 12 Nov 2002 10:38:05 -0600 Subject: [blml] Declarer makes impossible contract by LOT References: <121102316.29787@webbox.com> Message-ID: ----- Original Message ----- From: "David Burn" To: Sent: Tuesday, November 12, 2002 10:16 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Declarer makes impossible contract by LOT > > Herman wrote: > > >Yes, but L12C2 puts in both cases the phrase "had the irregularity > not occured". How can you fail to award a trick to NOS if a card > is played from dummy? > > I think the idea is that if LHO covers, thus accepting the lead, > he "regularises" it; that is, it ceases to be an irregularity > and becomes a "regular" play. In the same way, I suppose, an > irregular call over which LHO calls becomes a "regular" part > of the auction (there is no penalty, etc.) > > If this is so, then of course the result stands for both sides. > Whereas I don't mind the idea that the defenders get -1430 and > declarer gets -100 plus a penalty of 10 IMPs (for I am always > of the opinion that rotten bridge deserves rotten results, and > illegal bridge deserves rotten results and hefty fines), I don't > think it's legal. I do not see, in the words of the rules, a > justification for a split score here. But I haven't thought about > it much. I have given it significant thought. The time for deciding about giving a PP is before an opponent has played [condoned or not the LOOT]. L53-6 prescribes what happens after a LOOT, that should be the end of it, except of course that the declaring side ought to be able to earn penalty cards. regards roger pewick > David Burn > London, England From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Tue Nov 12 17:03:17 2002 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Tue, 12 Nov 2002 17:03:17 -0000 Subject: [blml] To bed with the trump ace Message-ID: <011101c28a6d$6b6143c0$ba9468d5@default> Ages ago, at the Carlton BC Teams Championship, in Edinburgh: defenders accept declarer's claim of the remaining tricks to make 3CX. When scoring at the half-way point, Team-mates query the result. All 4 players at the original table agree that when declarer claimed, the Ace of clubs was still extant in a defender's hand. Assuming that there are no specific rules about time-limits, is it too late to claim one down? Were you declarer in 3CX would you belatedly concede defeat, no matter what the law says? From adam@irvine.com Tue Nov 12 17:21:11 2002 From: adam@irvine.com (Adam Beneschan) Date: Tue, 12 Nov 2002 09:21:11 -0800 Subject: [blml] To bed with the trump ace In-Reply-To: Your message of "Tue, 12 Nov 2002 17:03:17 GMT." <011101c28a6d$6b6143c0$ba9468d5@default> Message-ID: <200211121721.JAA16206@mailhub.irvine.com> Nigel wrote: > Ages ago, at the Carlton BC Teams Championship, > in Edinburgh: defenders accept declarer's claim > of the remaining tricks to make 3CX. > When scoring at the half-way point, Team-mates > query the result. All 4 players at the original > table agree that when declarer claimed, the Ace > of clubs was still extant in a defender's hand. > Assuming that there are no specific rules about > time-limits, is it too late to claim one down? No. Law 69B deals with this exact case. > Were you declarer in 3CX would you belatedly > concede defeat, no matter what the law says? Abstain since I wouldn't have claimed in the first place. I may bid and play my cards badly way too much of the time, but I'm very good at not making bad claims. :) -- Adam From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Tue Nov 12 17:23:55 2002 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Tue, 12 Nov 2002 17:23:55 -0000 Subject: [blml] dWS for the beginner Message-ID: <013f01c28a70$4b655ea0$ba9468d5@default> [Nigel Guthrie] Were I a TD, I would rule that your explanation of 3N (asking for strength) was MI according to your agreed system and potentially damaging to your opponents. [Herman De Wael] Nobody, least of all me, Alain and Patrick, would ever suggest otherwise. Of course both the explanation "Ghestem" and "asking for strength" are MI and should be dealt with accordingly. [Nigel] IMO, you should give the true systemic understanding and be prepared to be ruled against if there are any "acted upon" UI consequences. [Herman] Why - where is this written. IMO, you should give the understanding that your partner intended and be prepared to be ruled against if there are any MI consequences. We've had this discussion before. So there is no use repeating your position if you need to add "IMO". I believe Alain has acted correctly and according to L75D: "Nor may he indicate in any manner that a mistake has been made". Enough said. [Nigel] You've had this discussion before but not with me. IMO there is a difference: "Ghestem" was a mistake. "Asking for strength" was deliberately misleading. Naturally, I defer to the interpretation of eminent TDs. My old-fashioned brain may have taken the words "partnership agreement" too literally. It will come as no surprise to anyone if Bridge-lawyers endow them with some weird double-think meaning [like so much else in the law-book]. "75C. When explaining the significance of partner's call ... a player shall disclose all special information conveyed to him through partnership agreement or partnership experience" [Alain sorry - meant to send this to the list] From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Tue Nov 12 17:59:35 2002 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Tue, 12 Nov 2002 17:59:35 -0000 Subject: [blml] To bed with the trump ace References: <200211121721.JAA16206@mailhub.irvine.com> Message-ID: <015e01c28a75$79e2ab20$ba9468d5@default> [Adam Beneschan] No. Law 69B deals with this exact case. [Nigel Guthrie] > Were you declarer in 3CX would you belatedly > concede defeat, no matter what the law says? [Adam] Abstain since I wouldn't have claimed in the first place. I may bid and play my cards badly way too much of the time, but I'm very good at not making bad claims. :) [Nigel] I was on the AC. As far as I remember we ruled as you say but we were unaware of the relevant law. Thank you for drawing my attention to it. At the time I thought declarer was quite right not to concede, automatically, after his (innocent) misclaim; just as you do not give back tricks that opponents lose by revoking. [69B] Within the correction period established in accordance with Law 79C, a contestant may withdraw acquiescence in an opponent's claim, but only if he has acquiesced in the loss of a trick his side has actually won, or in the loss of trick that could not, in the Director's judgement, be lost by any normal play of the remaining cards. The board is rescored with such trick awarded to the acquiescing side. [79C] An error in computing or tabulating the agreed-upon score, whether made by a player or scorer, may be corrected until the expiration of the period specified by the sponsoring organization. Unless the sponsoring organization specifies a later time, this correction period expires 30 minutes after the official score has been made available for inspection. From siegmund@mosquitonet.com Tue Nov 12 20:07:22 2002 From: siegmund@mosquitonet.com (Gordon Bower) Date: Tue, 12 Nov 2002 11:07:22 -0900 (AKST) Subject: [blml] Law64B5 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Tue, 12 Nov 2002, Laval Dubreuil wrote: > Hi BLMLrs, > > Law 64B5 tells: The penalty for an established revoke does > not apply if attention was drawn after the round has ended. > > Law 8B: In general, a round ends when the Director gives the > signal for the start of the following round; but if any table > has not completed play by that time, the round continues for > that table until there has been a progression of players. > [and someone claimed there was a revoke after completing play but before calling the round] > IMHO this Law 64B5 should be like 62D1. When all agree on > result and hands (four ?) are back in board, it would be > too late to draw attention to a possible revoke. If you want to say there is no automatic penalty for a revoke after all 4 hands are back in the board, I could live with that. I could also be happy to see 8B changed to say "previous round ends for your side when you first look at cards of the next deal, or when the scoring is complete for the final round." (Or, "round ends when you side has returned its cards to the board.") I am not seeing why we want the time between completion of play and the call for the move to be "part of the round" legally. I dislike the idea of saying "too late to draw attention." In my part of the work, there are many players who deliberately call attention to an opponent's revoke "too late" when they want equity restored but do not want the automatic penalty replied (usually wanting one trick back when the law insists on giving two.) I suppose they *could* waive this at the table, but that'd be an uncomfortable social situation, deciding whether or not to waive a penalty with the opps present. GRB From svenpran@online.no Tue Nov 12 21:43:25 2002 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Tue, 12 Nov 2002 22:43:25 +0100 Subject: [blml] Law64B5 References: Message-ID: <001b01c28a94$87b47a20$70d8fea9@WINXP> From: "Laval Dubreuil" ....... > Law 64B5 tells: The penalty for an established revoke does > not apply if attention was drawn after the round has ended. > > Law 8B: In general, a round ends when the Director gives the > signal for the start of the following round; but if any table > has not completed play by that time, the round continues for > that table until there has been a progression of players. > > Last week, I had to rule on a possible revoke after four > hand was back to the board but before I called the next > round. According to Law 64B5, the penalty for an established > revoke can still apply, but can I make sure there was a > revoke ? They first had an agreement on result, as required > by Law 65D, but some of them shuffle their cards before > returning to board. I finally cannot make sure there was > a revoke and let the score stand... > > If I had just called the round a few seconds earlier (the > had completed play of their boards) no penalty could have > been applied. Where is the logic ? > > Law 62D1: On the 12th trick, a revoke, even if established, > be corrected if discovered before all four hands have been > returned to the board. > > IMHO this Law 64B5 should be like 62D1. When all agree on > result and hands (four ?) are back in board, it would be > too late to draw attention to a possible revoke. 1: A revoke in the twelfth trick is never established, it must be corrected and the correction very seldom creates any problem - for instance with UI. In the rare cases that UI might be a consideration Laws 62D2 and 72B1 protect NOS. 2: A time limit certainly has to be set for when it is too late to call attention to an alleged revoke, but setting this limit to when the hands have been restored to the board is considered to be too early (Communication between the defenders while they restore their hands to the board): "Did you have three diamonds to your King partner, why didn't you support me in the auction?" "No - I had only two!" (To the last declarer:) "You must have had three diamonds then, but you ruffed the third round of diamonds and claimed?" "Ah, hem, ?????" "Do we have a revoke here? - let us see - Director!" 3: An alleged revoke which cannot be verified because the offender has shuffled his cards shall be considered established if the case presentation by NOS substantiates the claim. 4: When the penalty for an established revoke does not apply because of Law 64B the Director must still observe Law 64C on his responsibility for equity. In your case you apparently could not make sure there was any revoke, then of course you must let the once agreed-upon score stand. Sven From svenpran@online.no Tue Nov 12 21:51:16 2002 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Tue, 12 Nov 2002 22:51:16 +0100 Subject: [blml] Declarer makes impossible contract by LOT References: <3DD0EC93.506@vwalther.de> <009b01c28a48$3272fbf0$70d8fea9@WINXP> <3DD0F941.2000909@skynet.be> <5.1.0.14.0.20021112164723.026b9270@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <002101c28a95$a04ac4d0$70d8fea9@WINXP> From: "Alain Gottcheiner" ....... > I think that the problem has been analyzed the wrong way. > One should not apply L72B1, then correct because of L53A. > One should apply L534A first, *then* L72B1. There was no egregious error, > only the player accepted the lead. Why should you disallow him to do so ? > He is explicitly allowed. Then, L72B1, like L23, comes in as a correction. Do you agree or disagree with me? The way you write makes me feel a disagreement, but isn't what you wrote exactly what I say: The LOOT has been accepted by LHO so we let him keep his result. But we apply Law72B1 against the declarer because he "could have known ..... that his irregularity would be likely to damage the non-offending side"? Sven From willner@cfa.harvard.edu Tue Nov 12 21:53:38 2002 From: willner@cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Tue, 12 Nov 2002 16:53:38 -0500 (EST) Subject: [blml] Law64B5 Message-ID: <200211122153.QAA17282@cfa183.harvard.edu> > From: "Sven Pran" > In your case you apparently could not make sure there was > any revoke, then of course you must let the once agreed-upon > score stand. Just a minor correction... there is no need to "make sure." The TD has to judge on the evidence available whether there was or was not a revoke and rule accordingly. The agreed score, in combination with the hand record, will sometimes provide quite compelling evidence one way or the other. (And often will not, of course. So it goes.) From svenpran@online.no Tue Nov 12 22:00:53 2002 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Tue, 12 Nov 2002 23:00:53 +0100 Subject: [blml] Declarer makes impossible contract by LOT References: <3DD0EC93.506@vwalther.de> <009b01c28a48$3272fbf0$70d8fea9@WINXP> <3DD0F941.2000909@skynet.be> <00a701c28a4e$35607030$70d8fea9@WINXP> <3DD1216A.6060604@skynet.be> Message-ID: <002701c28a96$f8824690$70d8fea9@WINXP> So now you tell me how you will rule with a defender that "accepts" the lead out of turn, possibly (probably? quite certainly?) saying to himself: "I'll accept this LOOT. If we benefit then fine. If it shows up to be damaging to our side we have a Law72B1 case securing us the best possible result we could have either way." ????? I'll stick to the principal ruling of Law 53A for NOS and Law 72B1 if applicable for OS. Sven From: "Herman De Wael" > Yes Sven, and no: > > Sven Pran wrote: > > > From: "Herman De Wael" > > > >> > >>No reference is given, but I am assuming L12 applies for this. Agreed? > >>Now read L12 again, and see which of its parts you want to use. > >> > >>Please find a part that differs between OS and NOS. > >>L12C2 will not help : that states "had the infraction not occured". If > >>the infraction (the LOT) had not occured, then the contract would have > >>been one down. > >>Are you suggesting using L12C3? > >> > > > > Certainly not. It is 12C2. > > > > But as LHO has accepted the lead out of turn it is not "restoring equity" > > to award them a score as if this lead out of turn had not taken place. > > (And L12C2 explicitly permits the awarded scores not to balance). > > > > > Yes, but L12C2 puts in both cases the phrase "had the irregularity not > occured". How can you fail to award a trick to NOS if a card is played > from dummy? > The separate phrases used in L12C2 for the OS and NOS cannot justify a > split score in this case. > > > > Without going into detail I shall just remind you that we have many similar > > adjustment cases, most common are probably those where we adjust the > > score for OS due to misinformation or unauthorised information but let > > NOS keep their poor score (in whole or in part) because they are judged > > to having (more or less) imposed the bad result upon themselves. > > > > > I know of many such cases - but they all start from some error made by > the NOS _after_ the irregularity, but independent of it. The old > "subsequent" versus "consequent" bit. The particular error made by NOS > cannot be made without the infraction. It's a bit like a double over a > contract that ought not to have been bid. If we don't allow the bid, > we cannot award the doubled contract to NOS, however bad the double. > > Split scores of this category stem from the "damage caused by" bit. > The damage in common split scores is caused by some error, like a > revoke. But the error of covering a wrongly played card is not of the > same nature. IMHO. > > > > regards Sven > > > > _______________________________________________ > > blml mailing list > > blml@rtflb.org > > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > > > > > > > -- > Herman DE WAEL > Antwerpen Belgium > http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > From dalburn@btopenworld.com Tue Nov 12 23:14:40 2002 From: dalburn@btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: Tue, 12 Nov 2002 23:14:40 -0000 Subject: [blml] Declarer makes impossible contract by LOT References: <3DD0EC93.506@vwalther.de> <009b01c28a48$3272fbf0$70d8fea9@WINXP> <3DD0F941.2000909@skynet.be> <00a701c28a4e$35607030$70d8fea9@WINXP> <3DD1216A.6060604@skynet.be> <002701c28a96$f8824690$70d8fea9@WINXP> Message-ID: <001801c28aa1$4740ec00$33a427d9@pbncomputer> Sven wrote: > I'll stick to the principal ruling of Law 53A for NOS and Law 72B1 > if applicable for OS. I had not looked at L53 when answering earlier (I was at the office, and did not have all that much time). Now that I have looked at it, I think that I agree with myself and with Sven. Law 53 says that a lead out of turn "becomes a correct lead" if an opponent follows to it, which seems to reinforce my view that it is not an "irregularity" any more. But when declarer led from the wrong hand, it was an irregularity, and L72 says that if *at the time of his irregularity* an offender could know that it could work to his benefit, there should be an adjustment. So declarer goes down. L12, on the other hand, refers to scores for the NOS that might happen if the irregularity had not occurred. When declarer's LHO followed to the LOT, then *at that time*, the irregularity ceased to occur; the lead became a correct, not an irregular, lead; it was as if the irregularity had never been. Thus, the score for the NOS is the table score, since for them there was no irregularity to occur, and for them the slam makes. L12, in short, is being applied only to the offender. This is splendid, for it means that there are not yet any exceptions to Burn's Law: if one side cheats, and the other side is stupid, then both sides get a bottom. I am still uncertain. In the HQ thread, I argued that the laws that used to be the Proprieties are no more than general statements of principle; they should never have had the force of Law, because they are impossible to implement. Well, Law 72 is a former Propriety, though unlike Law 75A, one could imagine its being implemented in practice. Thus, you could bundle L72 in with L12 without difficulty, and that is what I think ought to be done in this case. David Burn London, England From john@asimere.com Wed Nov 13 02:02:36 2002 From: john@asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2002 02:02:36 +0000 Subject: [blml] Declarer makes impossible contract by LOT In-Reply-To: <001801c28aa1$4740ec00$33a427d9@pbncomputer> References: <3DD0EC93.506@vwalther.de> <009b01c28a48$3272fbf0$70d8fea9@WINXP> <3DD0F941.2000909@skynet.be> <00a701c28a4e$35607030$70d8fea9@WINXP> <3DD1216A.6060604@skynet.be> <002701c28a96$f8824690$70d8fea9@WINXP> <001801c28aa1$4740ec00$33a427d9@pbncomputer> Message-ID: In article <001801c28aa1$4740ec00$33a427d9@pbncomputer>, David Burn writes snip >But when declarer led from the wrong hand, it was an irregularity, and >L72 says that if *at the time of his irregularity* an offender could >know that it could work to his benefit, there should be an adjustment. >So declarer goes down. > >L12, on the other hand, refers to scores for the NOS that might happen >if the irregularity had not occurred. When declarer's LHO followed to >the LOT, then *at that time*, the irregularity ceased to occur; the lead >became a correct, not an irregular, lead; it was as if the irregularity >had never been. Thus, the score for the NOS is the table score, since >for them there was no irregularity to occur, and for them the slam >makes. L12, in short, is being applied only to the offender. This is >splendid, for it means that there are not yet any exceptions to Burn's >Law: if one side cheats, and the other side is stupid, then both sides >get a bottom. > I have no problem ruling this way; both sides stopped playing bridge, they both get bottoms. What worries me is that the "cheater's gambit" should be used against anyone who appears to be asleep on the basis that "I'm getting a bottom anyway, why don't I give you one too?". With care you could subtract 4% from half the field, if you found enough instances to try it out. ... and why should only half the field suffer - ie those who are asleep - from my illegal activities, when the awake half just says "wrong hand", No TD is called and blml doesn't find out about it. I have an inbuilt aversion to having to protect myself from people who are "at it" as well as trying to play bridge and still feel that either 1) I was asleep and the slam makes. or 2) My opponent's a "cheat" and equity should be restored. As for the case in point, in effect we are now having to use bridge judgement on LOOTs. I don't think the Law was designed that way - A LOOT is an automatic penalty, and if the opponents condone there is an end to it (except now read "sometimes"). >I am still uncertain. In the HQ thread, I argued that the laws that used >to be the Proprieties are no more than general statements of principle; >they should never have had the force of Law, because they are impossible >to implement. Well, Law 72 is a former Propriety, though unlike Law 75A, >one could imagine its being implemented in practice. Thus, you could >bundle L72 in with L12 without difficulty, and that is what I think >ought to be done in this case. > I agree with this. >David Burn >London, England > > > >_______________________________________________ >blml mailing list >blml@rtflb.org >http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > -- John (MadDog) Probst| . ! -^- |icq 10810798 451 Mile End Road | /|__. \:/ |OKb ChienFou London E3 4PA | / @ __) -|- |john@asimere.com +44-(0)20 8983 5818 | /\ --^ | |www.asimere.com/~john From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Wed Nov 13 05:10:27 2002 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2002 00:10:27 -0500 Subject: [blml] Declarer makes impossible contract by LOT Message-ID: On 11/12/02, Volker R. Walther wrote: > I do not think that we have to discuss the absolute likelihood here. >You should apply 72B1 if it is more likely to win the game with the >infraction than without it. I do not understand this. What, exactly, are you saying? From grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk Wed Nov 13 07:36:21 2002 From: grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk (grandeval) Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2002 07:36:21 -0000 Subject: [blml] Declarer makes impossible contract by LOT References: Message-ID: <001d01c28ae7$82af4c00$abed193e@4nrw70j> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws" Sent: Wednesday, November 13, 2002 5:10 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Declarer makes impossible contract by LOT > On 11/12/02, Volker R. Walther wrote: > > > I do not think that we have to discuss the absolute likelihood here. > >You should apply 72B1 if it is more likely to win the game with the > >infraction than without it. > > I do not understand this. What, exactly, are you saying? > +=+ Having read some of this thread I am surprised if a reader has become only slightly confused. I suggest the word 'condoned' should not enter into the discussion. The word in the law is 'accepted'. I am not clear whether the argument is that when a player accepts a lead out of turn quite intentionally, but has got it wrong, opponent should not be allowed to have the score? If covering the card was a purposeful act, not inadvertent, has the play not become just that? I do think we are skating on quite thin ice here, although I quite understand that if cheating is suspected there has to be a recourse for the Director (as Law 72B1 intended). Some fresh consideration may need to be given to the extent to which it is desirable for the Director to intervene in the play on the basis of 72B1 and whether the intention of the law could be better expressed or better achieved.. One thought that occurs to me is that, if we should think the acceptance of the lead accepts the irregular action as though it were part of the legal play of the hand, could we still apply a PP whilst not changing the result on the board? More thinking to do. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From hermandw@skynet.be Wed Nov 13 08:11:29 2002 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2002 09:11:29 +0100 Subject: [blml] Declarer makes impossible contract by LOT References: <3DD0EC93.506@vwalther.de> <009b01c28a48$3272fbf0$70d8fea9@WINXP> <3DD0F941.2000909@skynet.be> <00a701c28a4e$35607030$70d8fea9@WINXP> <3DD1216A.6060604@skynet.be> <002701c28a96$f8824690$70d8fea9@WINXP> Message-ID: <3DD20931.9000809@skynet.be> Sven, your argument is interesting, but invalid: Sven Pran wrote: > So now you tell me how you will rule with a defender that "accepts" > the lead out of turn, possibly (probably? quite certainly?) saying to > himself: "I'll accept this LOOT. If we benefit then fine. If it shows up > to be damaging to our side we have a Law72B1 case securing us > the best possible result we could have either way." ????? > This would be the case, if L72B1 be applicable quite often, say 80% of the time. But it's not. In the 10 years since my International diploma (5 of which also spent on this list), this is about the first real case that I hear of. So it would be foolish from a player to always accept, knowing there is L72B1 to help him out of a sticky situation. > I'll stick to the principal ruling of Law 53A for NOS and Law 72B1 > if applicable for OS. > And I've told you what the problem is with that ruling. Mind you, I sympathise, but I don't believe a player should suffer from a potential cheat. It's as if you'd say to some-one: We know they cheated and passed illegal information, so we're going to take away their tops, but we won't take away your zeroes because you did not notice they were doing it. (Not a very good analogy, but there isn't one). NOS isn't guilty of anything except inattention. Why should they suffer? > Sven > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw@skynet.be Wed Nov 13 08:34:07 2002 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2002 09:34:07 +0100 Subject: [blml] dWS for the beginner References: <5.1.0.14.0.20021112151524.026ba7e0@pop.ulb.ac.be> <00ae01c28a5b$fa9dd560$ba9468d5@default> <3DD12323.3000700@skynet.be> <00f001c28a69$69017ea0$ba9468d5@default> Message-ID: <3DD20E7F.6060502@skynet.be> Nigel Guthrie wrote: > You have had this discussion before but not with me. > To me there is a difference: "Ghestem" was a mistake. > "Asking for strength" was deliberately misleading. Indeed. And that seems to be the intutition of a lot of people on this list. But they are wrong. There is no absolute law in the book that says "thou shalt not misinform". There is an absolute law that says "thou shalt not let partner know he has misinterpreted your bid". That second law actually tells you that you should misinform. Now I realize that this is not enough to convince people who don't want to be convinced. But I do hope it is enough for you to see that the answer to this problem is not so black and white as you think it is at first sight. > Naturally, I defer to the interpretation of eminent > TDs. The eminences grises on this list are certainly not of one mind about this problem. > My old-fashioned mind may have taken the words "partnership > agreement" too literally. It will come > as no surprise to anyone if Legal gurus endow them > with some weird double-think meaning [like so much > else in the law-book]. > "75C. When explaining the significance of > partner's call ... a player shall disclose all > special information conveyed to him through > partnership agreement or partnership experience" > > There is one other way one should look at this. These stories always begin with one partner (Alain in this case) saying "of course my partner (Patrick) is wrong. We don't play Ghestem but Michaels". But that is just the ethical player speaking. A far less ethical player may well say in this case : "aha I'm in luck, my hand fits his description" and stay shtumm. A less than ethical player may say "I think I'm playing Michaels, and I will bid accordingly, but I'll maintain that we're playing Ghestem." Only the very ethical player like Alain will say "I know we're playing Michaels, I don't intend to cover up that fact and still I want to do everything according to the book. I must not awaken partner but that means I must misinform my opponents. What shall I do?" It is only this ethical player that has this dilemma. We should not brandish him as a cheat simply because he solves the dilemma in one way and not another. Any other player than Alain would be playing 5Cl on this hand, and many of them would not see a TD even. Only Alain has found a way to ethically stay on the correct course, and he would probably end up in 4Cl, thus taking the pill that started with Patrick foolishly thinking Alain could ever play Ghestem. We should praise Alain, not blame him. > > > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From A.Kooijman@dwk.agro.nl Wed Nov 13 08:41:55 2002 From: A.Kooijman@dwk.agro.nl (Kooijman, A.) Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2002 09:41:55 +0100 Subject: [blml] Declarer makes impossible contract by LOT Message-ID: > > Yes Sven, and no: > > Sven Pran wrote: > > > From: "Herman De Wael" > > > >> > >>No reference is given, but I am assuming L12 applies for > this. Agreed? > >>Now read L12 again, and see which of its parts you want to use. > >> > >>Please find a part that differs between OS and NOS. > >>L12C2 will not help : that states "had the infraction not > occured". If > >>the infraction (the LOT) had not occured, then the contract > would have > >>been one down. > >>Are you suggesting using L12C3? > >> > > > > Certainly not. It is 12C2. > > > > But as LHO has accepted the lead out of turn it is not > "restoring equity" > > to award them a score as if this lead out of turn had not > taken place. > > (And L12C2 explicitly permits the awarded scores not to balance). > > > > > Yes, but L12C2 puts in both cases the phrase "had the > irregularity not > occured". How can you fail to award a trick to NOS if a card > is played > from dummy? > The separate phrases used in L12C2 for the OS and NOS cannot > justify a > split score in this case. > > > > Without going into detail I shall just remind you that we > have many similar > > adjustment cases, most common are probably those where we adjust the > > score for OS due to misinformation or unauthorised > information but let > > NOS keep their poor score (in whole or in part) because > they are judged > > to having (more or less) imposed the bad result upon themselves. > > > > > I know of many such cases - but they all start from some > error made by > the NOS _after_ the irregularity, but independent of it. The old > "subsequent" versus "consequent" bit. The particular error > made by NOS > cannot be made without the infraction. It's a bit like a > double over a > contract that ought not to have been bid. If we don't allow the bid, > we cannot award the doubled contract to NOS, however bad the double. > > Split scores of this category stem from the "damage caused by" bit. > The damage in common split scores is caused by some error, like a > revoke. But the error of covering a wrongly played card is not of the > same nature. IMHO. some history: When L72B1 was introduced the years before '97 it had another wording, repeating the approach as expressed in L 16: awarding an AS if the NOS is damaged etc. It was my proposal to change this in the wording it contains now: awarding an AS if the OS did profit from its irregularity. And the reason was exactly this kind of problem: OS taking advantage and NOS receiving a bad score as a result of its own mistakes. These arguments were accepted by the WBFLC. So I dare to say that the LC does agree with the interpretation as applied in Denmark. More history: Kaplan has a nice example of this problem from far before '97 where declarer plays in 6NT with AKQJT7 in clubs in dummy without an entry and a void in clubs in his own hand. He wins the first trick in hand and after some thoughts plays the club ace from dummy covered by RHO. Kaplan's solution was to award 6NT to the opponents and minus a couple to the declaring side. I have asked him several times on what law he did base this solution and he never came up with an acceptable answer. Still we both approved very much with the decision as taken. Now Herman tries to say that there is still no base in the laws to make such decision. And reading L12C2 he might be right, though I like David's idea to declare the play for the defenders as taking place without an irregularity. But I don't have problems with applying the heading of L12 (to avoid the problems of damage needing to exist as described in L12A1)AND THEN l12c3. Why not? Yes I know one answer: then the ACBL can't rule like this. But that is their problem. And I don't understand why Herman has problems with the distinction consequent and subsequent here? i do see it like that. But then again, the laws are not very clear about that distinction either. ton From hermandw@skynet.be Wed Nov 13 09:00:09 2002 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2002 10:00:09 +0100 Subject: [blml] Declarer makes impossible contract by LOT References: Message-ID: <3DD21499.1040401@skynet.be> Kooijman, A. wrote: > > > some history: > > When L72B1 was introduced the years before '97 it had another wording, > repeating the approach as expressed in L 16: awarding an AS if the NOS is > damaged etc. It was my proposal to change this in the wording it contains > now: awarding an AS if the OS did profit from its irregularity. And the > reason was exactly this kind of problem: OS taking advantage and NOS > receiving a bad score as a result of its own mistakes. These arguments were > accepted by the WBFLC. So I dare to say that the LC does agree with the > interpretation as applied in Denmark. > More history: Kaplan has a nice example of this problem from far before '97 > where declarer plays in 6NT with AKQJT7 in clubs in dummy without an entry > and a void in clubs in his own hand. He wins the first trick in hand and > after some thoughts plays the club ace from dummy covered by RHO. Kaplan's > solution was to award 6NT to the opponents and minus a couple to the > declaring side. I have asked him several times on what law he did base this > solution and he never came up with an acceptable answer. Still we both > approved very much with the decision as taken. > > Now Herman tries to say that there is still no base in the laws to make such > decision. And reading L12C2 he might be right, though I like David's idea to > declare the play for the defenders as taking place without an irregularity. > > But I don't have problems with applying the heading of L12 (to avoid the > problems of damage needing to exist as described in L12A1)AND THEN l12c3. > Why not? Yes I know one answer: then the ACBL can't rule like this. But that > is their problem. > And I don't understand why Herman has problems with the distinction > consequent and subsequent here? i do see it like that. But then again, the > laws are not very clear about that distinction either. > > ton > I am glad to see that the WBFLC did envisage this approach when they wrote L72. But then I wonder why they wrote it like this. Anyway, I would like you to ponder on this. Since 1997, the level needed for a split score in other matters has been raised. An action by NOS has to be "wild, gambling or irrational" to deny them the benefit of a score correction even when the OS' score is reduced. Do you consider the accidental acceptance of a LOOT in any way comparable to this standard? And we're talking here of an even greater infraction (possibly willing LOOT in a hopeless situation) than the ones usually dealt with in L12 (accidental UI or MI). Maybe my sense of justice is warped with regards to yours, but I don't feel these Norwegian opponents did anything that merited a score for an impossible slam making. > > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From cyaxares@lineone.net Wed Nov 13 08:12:17 2002 From: cyaxares@lineone.net (Grattan Endicott) Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2002 08:12:17 -0000 Subject: [blml] Declarer makes impossible contract by LOT References: <3DD0EC93.506@vwalther.de> <009b01c28a48$3272fbf0$70d8fea9@WINXP> <3DD0F941.2000909@skynet.be> <00a701c28a4e$35607030$70d8fea9@WINXP> <3DD1216A.6060604@skynet.be> <002701c28a96$f8824690$70d8fea9@WINXP> <001801c28aa1$4740ec00$33a427d9@pbncomputer> Message-ID: <000201c28af5$02aa48d0$e13de150@endicott> Grattan Endicott To: "blml" Sent: Tuesday, November 12, 2002 11:14 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Declarer makes impossible contract by LOT > > I am still uncertain. In the HQ thread, I argued > that the laws that used to be the Proprieties are > no more than general statements of principle; > they should never have had the force of Law, > because they are impossible to implement. > +=+ I think I do not agree with this as a basis of legislation. 'Impossible' is too brave a word; the least probable eventuality is not entirely to be ruled out, and when a breach does come to light the law should be there to apply. (Do we argue there should be no law forbidding the import of arms to Chad ?). ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From A.Kooijman@dwk.agro.nl Wed Nov 13 09:17:56 2002 From: A.Kooijman@dwk.agro.nl (Kooijman, A.) Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2002 10:17:56 +0100 Subject: [blml] Declarer makes impossible contract by LOT Message-ID: Herman: > > I am glad to see that the WBFLC did envisage this approach when they > wrote L72. But then I wonder why they wrote it like this. > > Anyway, I would like you to ponder on this. Since 1997, the level > needed for a split score in other matters has been raised. An action > by NOS has to be "wild, gambling or irrational" to deny them the > benefit of a score correction even when the OS' score is reduced. > Do you consider the accidental acceptance of a LOOT in any way > comparable to this standard? And we're talking here of an > even greater > infraction (possibly willing LOOT in a hopeless situation) than the > ones usually dealt with in L12 (accidental UI or MI). > > Maybe my sense of justice is warped with regards to yours, > but I don't > feel these Norwegian opponents did anything that merited a score for > an impossible slam making. > They accepted a lead from the wrong side which did the contract make. If that can't be considered to be part of 'anything' I feel lost in my understanding of language (this is not even a problem for just my English, though the word 'anything' and 'any' are not easy to handle for Dutch people). The acceptance of iregularities has been introduced to let the offending suffer from its mistakes, opponents accepting it when they can take advantage out of it. Being helpful to the offenders has never been a consideration when introducing this approach. Players, and certainly from a certain level of play should play attentively. I consider this approach similar to the one where we decided that a revoke causing the contract to be made doesn't give that side the right of redress when this contract was reached illegaly. Splitscore. ton From svenpran@online.no Wed Nov 13 09:23:08 2002 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2002 10:23:08 +0100 Subject: [blml] Declarer makes impossible contract by LOT References: <3DD21499.1040401@skynet.be> Message-ID: <007f01c28af6$84dc1940$70d8fea9@WINXP> From: "Herman De Wael" ......... > > I am glad to see that the WBFLC did envisage this approach when they > wrote L72. But then I wonder why they wrote it like this. > > Anyway, I would like you to ponder on this. Since 1997, the level > needed for a split score in other matters has been raised. An action > by NOS has to be "wild, gambling or irrational" to deny them the > benefit of a score correction even when the OS' score is reduced. > Do you consider the accidental acceptance of a LOOT in any way > comparable to this standard? And we're talking here of an even greater > infraction (possibly willing LOOT in a hopeless situation) than the > ones usually dealt with in L12 (accidental UI or MI). > > Maybe my sense of justice is warped with regards to yours, but I don't > feel these Norwegian opponents did anything that merited a score for > an impossible slam making. Not being part in that particular case as it happened (it was in Denmark) I still would like you to look at it from an angle different from your approach (I believe): The prime rule is Law 53: NOS has accepted the LOOT and that is it. The contract was made. Are everybody happy? OS sure. NOS probably not, but they made a mistake and have had to pay for it. What about the general feeling for equity? Shall OS be allowed to keep their unearned good score? (remember they are competing in a round robin tournament between several teams). This is where Law72B1 enters the scene (and where I intend to leave) Sven From A.Kooijman@dwk.agro.nl Wed Nov 13 09:41:09 2002 From: A.Kooijman@dwk.agro.nl (Kooijman, A.) Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2002 10:41:09 +0100 Subject: [blml] Declarer makes impossible contract by LOT Message-ID: Herman: > > Maybe my sense of justice is warped with regards to yours, > but I don't > > feel these Norwegian opponents did anything that merited a > score for > > an impossible slam making. > Sven: > Not being part in that particular case as it happened (it was > in Denmark) > I still would like you to look at it from an angle different > from your > approach (I believe): I am not so sure whom you are talking to nor what your message is, so let us follow it: > > The prime rule is Law 53: NOS has accepted the LOOT indeed > and that is it. there we differ > The contract was made. I can't denie, that is a fact > > Are everybody happy? OS sure. NOS probably not, forget 'probably' but they made a > mistake and have had to pay for it. I could have said so > > What about the general feeling for equity? yes, what about it? > > Shall OS be allowed to keep their unearned good score? (remember > they are competing in a round robin tournament between several teams). what does that add to the case? > > This is where Law72B1 enters the scene (and where I intend to leave) no, you are still there; I want a TD-decision. ton > > Sven > From svenpran@online.no Wed Nov 13 09:53:27 2002 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2002 10:53:27 +0100 Subject: [blml] Declarer makes impossible contract by LOT References: Message-ID: <008901c28afa$83d2c2c0$70d8fea9@WINXP> From: "Kooijman, A > Sven: > > Not being part in that particular case as it happened (it was > > in Denmark) > > I still would like you to look at it from an angle different > > from your > > approach (I believe): > > > I am not so sure whom you are talking to nor what your message is, so let us > follow it: Herman, sorry if that became obscured. > > > > > > > The prime rule is Law 53: NOS has accepted the LOOT > > > indeed > > > and that is it. > > there we differ No I don't think so. Maybe it had been clearer if I had written and that is it? (with a query mark terminating the sentence) > > > > > The contract was made. > > I can't denie, that is a fact > > > > > > > Are everybody happy? OS sure. NOS probably not, > > forget 'probably' > > > > but they made a > > mistake and have had to pay for it. > > I could have said so > > > > > > > > What about the general feeling for equity? > > yes, what about it? > > > > > Shall OS be allowed to keep their unearned good score? (remember > > they are competing in a round robin tournament between several teams). > > what does that add to the case? > > > > > > > This is where Law72B1 enters the scene (and where I intend to leave) > > no, you are still there; I want a TD-decision. Oh, I thought that was clear from my previous posts, and from this one between the lines: NOS keep their score according to contract made OS receives an adjusted score according to contract defeated one down. May I leave the scene now? 8-) regards Sven From agot@ulb.ac.be Wed Nov 13 10:18:09 2002 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2002 11:18:09 +0100 Subject: [blml] Declarer makes impossible contract by LOT In-Reply-To: <002701c28a96$f8824690$70d8fea9@WINXP> References: <3DD0EC93.506@vwalther.de> <009b01c28a48$3272fbf0$70d8fea9@WINXP> <3DD0F941.2000909@skynet.be> <00a701c28a4e$35607030$70d8fea9@WINXP> <3DD1216A.6060604@skynet.be> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20021113111708.027580c0@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 23:00 12/11/2002 +0100, you wrote: >So now you tell me how you will rule with a defender that "accepts" >the lead out of turn, possibly (probably? quite certainly?) saying to >himself: "I'll accept this LOOT. If we benefit then fine. If it shows up >to be damaging to our side we have a Law72B1 case securing us >the best possible result we could have either way." ????? AG : nice argument. It should be enough of a justification in itself. From A.Kooijman@dwk.agro.nl Wed Nov 13 10:08:24 2002 From: A.Kooijman@dwk.agro.nl (Kooijman, A.) Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2002 11:08:24 +0100 Subject: [blml] Declarer makes impossible contract by LOT Message-ID: Sven: > > > This is where Law72B1 enters the scene (and where I > intend to leave) me: > > no, you are still there; I want a TD-decision. > > Oh, I thought that was clear from my previous posts, > and from this one between the lines: > > NOS keep their score according to contract made > OS receives an adjusted score according to contract defeated one down. > > May I leave the scene now? 8-) > > regards Sven I am still recovering, how can you expect me to understand that we simply agree? And you could have put more effort in me understanding you, but I take the blame. ton From svenpran@online.no Wed Nov 13 10:19:28 2002 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2002 11:19:28 +0100 Subject: [blml] Declarer makes impossible contract by LOT References: Message-ID: <00a101c28afe$2690b820$70d8fea9@WINXP> From: "Kooijman, A ....... > I am still recovering, how can you expect me to understand that we simply > agree? And you could have put more effort in me understanding you, but I > take the blame. I am sorry for keeping you in the dark, frankly I thought I had made my position crystal clear during the preceeding communications on the list and didn't care to repeat myself all the time. regards Sven From agot@ulb.ac.be Wed Nov 13 11:38:32 2002 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2002 12:38:32 +0100 Subject: [blml] dWS for the beginner In-Reply-To: <3DD20E7F.6060502@skynet.be> References: <5.1.0.14.0.20021112151524.026ba7e0@pop.ulb.ac.be> <00ae01c28a5b$fa9dd560$ba9468d5@default> <3DD12323.3000700@skynet.be> <00f001c28a69$69017ea0$ba9468d5@default> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20021113123504.02754500@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 09:34 13/11/2002 +0100, Herman De Wael wrote: >Any other player than Alain would be playing 5Cl on this hand, and many of >them would not see a TD even. Only Alain has found a way to ethically stay >on the correct course, and he would probably end up in 4Cl, thus taking >the pill that started with Patrick foolishly thinking Alain could ever >play Ghestem. > >We should praise Alain, not blame him. AG : thank you Herman, but I must confess the story had a different ending : Patrick took the advance save to 5C, which happened to be laydown. And some pairs didn't find their clubs. Of course, we were sure to play in clubs as soon as I bid 2S (eg before the infraction), but some didn't dare, or didn't want to show a 2-suiter with such disparity. From larry@charmschool.fsnet.co.uk Wed Nov 13 09:28:11 2002 From: larry@charmschool.fsnet.co.uk (LarryBennett) Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2002 09:28:11 -0000 Subject: [blml] Declarer makes impossible contract by LOT References: <001d01c28ae7$82af4c00$abed193e@4nrw70j> Message-ID: <000001c28b0a$f34f75c0$7e8087d9@pc> I like this. What if the td had been called, read the riot act, and LHO decides to accept the lead. Where do we go from there? Larry | +=+ Having read some of this thread I am surprised if a | reader has become only slightly confused. | I suggest the word 'condoned' should not enter into | the discussion. The word in the law is 'accepted'. I am not | clear whether the argument is that when a player accepts | a lead out of turn quite intentionally, but has got it | wrong, opponent should not be allowed to have the | score? If covering the card was a purposeful act, not | inadvertent, has the play not become just that? I do | think we are skating on quite thin ice here, although I | quite understand that if cheating is suspected there | has to be a recourse for the Director (as Law 72B1 | intended). | Some fresh consideration may need to be given to | the extent to which it is desirable for the Director to | intervene in the play on the basis of 72B1 and whether | the intention of the law could be better expressed or | better achieved.. One thought that occurs to me is that, | if we should think the acceptance of the lead accepts | the irregular action as though it were part of the legal play | of the hand, could we still apply a PP whilst not changing | the result on the board? More thinking to do. | ~ Grattan ~ +=+ | From axman22@hotmail.com Wed Nov 13 12:27:44 2002 From: axman22@hotmail.com (Roger Pewick) Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2002 06:27:44 -0600 Subject: [blml] Declarer makes impossible contract by LOT References: Message-ID: ----- Original Message ----- From: "Kooijman, A." To: "'Herman De Wael'" ; "blml" Sent: Wednesday, November 13, 2002 3:17 AM Subject: RE: [blml] Declarer makes impossible contract by LOT > > Herman: > > > > I am glad to see that the WBFLC did envisage this approach when they > > wrote L72. But then I wonder why they wrote it like this. > > > > Anyway, I would like you to ponder on this. Since 1997, the level > > needed for a split score in other matters has been raised. An action > > by NOS has to be "wild, gambling or irrational" to deny them the > > benefit of a score correction even when the OS' score is reduced. > > Do you consider the accidental acceptance of a LOOT in any way > > comparable to this standard? And we're talking here of an > > even greater > > infraction (possibly willing LOOT in a hopeless situation) than the > > ones usually dealt with in L12 (accidental UI or MI). > > > > Maybe my sense of justice is warped with regards to yours, > > but I don't > > feel these Norwegian opponents did anything that merited a score for > > an impossible slam making. > They accepted a lead from the wrong side which did the contract make. If > that can't be considered to be part of 'anything' I feel lost in my > understanding of language (this is not even a problem for just my English, > though the word 'anything' and 'any' are not easy to handle for Dutch > people). > > > The acceptance of iregularities has been introduced to let the offending > suffer from its mistakes, opponents accepting it when they can take > advantage out of it. Being helpful to the offenders has never been a > consideration when introducing this approach. Players, and certainly from a > certain level of play should play attentively. I consider this approach > similar to the one where we decided that a revoke causing the contract to be > made doesn't give that side the right of redress when this contract was > reached illegaly. Splitscore. This suggests the presence of paragraph L72A5 is Orwellian in nature, doesn't it? regards roger pewick > ton > From Anne Jones" <001d01c28ae7$82af4c00$abed193e@4nrw70j> <000001c28b0a$f34f75c0$7e8087d9@pc> Message-ID: <000701c28b12$5a522400$23540550@annescomputer> I am following this thread with great interest as this was a subject of discontent at my Thursday afternoon duplicate last week. LOL declarer leads out of turn from dummy and wiley rubber bridge player, half asleep covers. WRBP now realises that dec will make the rest of the tricks which she could not have done as she could not get to the high dummy. So this is 2NT making whereas it would have gone one off. LOL apologises but tells WRBP that he shouldn't have "condoned" the LOOT. WRBP is very aware that this "might" have been a deliberate act :-) I ruled that the table result should stand, but admit that I was not totally at ease with this. I am now having serious second thoughts. This is such a common occurrence it is surprising to me that there is such dissent among the great and the good :-) Anne ----- Original Message ----- From: "LarryBennett" To: "Bridge Laws" Sent: Wednesday, November 13, 2002 9:28 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Declarer makes impossible contract by LOT > I like this. What if the td had been called, > read the riot act, and LHO decides to accept the > lead. Where do we go from there? > > Larry > > | +=+ Having read some of this thread I am > surprised if a > | reader has become only slightly confused. > | I suggest the word 'condoned' should > not enter into > | the discussion. The word in the law is > 'accepted'. I am not > | clear whether the argument is that when a > player accepts > | a lead out of turn quite intentionally, but > has got it > | wrong, opponent should not be allowed to have > the > | score? If covering the card was a purposeful > act, not > | inadvertent, has the play not become just > that? I do > | think we are skating on quite thin ice here, > although I > | quite understand that if cheating is suspected > there > | has to be a recourse for the Director (as Law > 72B1 > | intended). > | Some fresh consideration may need to be > given to > | the extent to which it is desirable for the > Director to > | intervene in the play on the basis of 72B1 and > whether > | the intention of the law could be better > expressed or > | better achieved.. One thought that occurs to > me is that, > | if we should think the acceptance of the lead > accepts > | the irregular action as though it were part of > the legal play > | of the hand, could we still apply a PP whilst > not changing > | the result on the board? More thinking to > do. > | > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > | > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.417 / Virus Database: 233 - Release Date: 08/11/02 From hermandw@skynet.be Wed Nov 13 13:10:05 2002 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2002 14:10:05 +0100 Subject: [blml] Declarer makes impossible contract by LOT References: <001d01c28ae7$82af4c00$abed193e@4nrw70j> <000001c28b0a$f34f75c0$7e8087d9@pc> <000701c28b12$5a522400$23540550@annescomputer> Message-ID: <3DD24F2D.1020302@skynet.be> Anne Jones wrote: > I am following this thread with great interest as this was a subject of > discontent at my Thursday afternoon duplicate last week. > > LOL declarer leads out of turn from dummy and wiley rubber bridge > player, half asleep covers. WRBP now realises that dec will make the > rest of the tricks which she could not have done as she could not get to > the high dummy. So this is 2NT making whereas it would have gone one > off. > > LOL apologises but tells WRBP that he shouldn't have "condoned" the > LOOT. WRBP is very aware that this "might" have been a deliberate act > :-) > > I ruled that the table result should stand, but admit that I was not > totally at ease with this. I am now having serious second thoughts. > > This is such a common occurrence it is surprising to me that there is > such dissent among the great and the good :-) > As I seem to be the only one dissenting I wonder if I am among the great or the good. But seriously, I was only dissenting because I thought it good to get this matter settled. It seems as if there is a far bigger consensus about this than about anything else on blml so I will consent with the other great and good. > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From willner@cfa.harvard.edu Tue Nov 12 15:37:21 2002 From: willner@cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Tue, 12 Nov 2002 10:37:21 -0500 (EST) Subject: [blml] Declarer makes impossible contract by LOT Message-ID: <200211121537.KAA11557@cfa183.harvard.edu> > From: "Jens Brix Christiansen" > We then invoked L72B1 and adjusted the > score to one down for declarer. We let the defenders keep the > [table] score... As others have said, this accords with current custom and practice: the "Kaplan doctrine." Applying 72B1 to declarer seems automatic. As things stand now, it is a judgment question what to do about the NOS. However, the more I see of the Kaplan doctrine, the less I like it. While I don't have much hope, I personally would quite like to see this doctrine eliminated in the next laws edition. If you adjust the score at all, do so for both sides. > From: "Volker R. Walther" > I do not think that we have to discuss the absolute likelihood here. > You should apply 72B1 if it is more likely to win the game with the > infraction than without it. This, however, seems wrong. L72B1 specifies "likely to damage the NOS." This must imply an absolute probability. One could, I suppose, argue for a change in the law, but it seems fine to me the way it is. From vwalther@vwalther.de Wed Nov 13 18:55:29 2002 From: vwalther@vwalther.de (Volker R. Walther) Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2002 19:55:29 +0100 Subject: [blml] Declarer makes impossible contract by LOT References: Message-ID: <3DD2A021.5070108@vwalther.de> Ed Reppert wrote: > On 11/12/02, Volker R. Walther wrote: > > >>I do not think that we have to discuss the absolute likelihood here. >>You should apply 72B1 if it is more likely to win the game with the >>infraction than without it. > > > I do not understand this. What, exactly, are you saying? David Burn wrote: > What does "likely" mean in L72, anyway? One chance in three? > In five? In ten? In a hundred? That's my problem too. I always interpreted law 72B1 as a practical extention to 72B2 The TD is rarely able to prove that there was an intentended infraction. But 72B1 gives him the power to adjust the score if the infraction opened a (slightly) better line of play. Or as Nigel said:"This is not to punish upright players like you; but to deter the less honest who might otherwise be tempted." Greetings, Volker -- Adressen meiner Homepage: http://www.vwalther.de oder (schlechter zu merken, aber ohne Werbung) http://home.t-online.de/home/volker.r.walther From ehaa@starpower.net Wed Nov 13 21:50:54 2002 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2002 16:50:54 -0500 Subject: [blml] Kaplan doctrine (WAS Declarer makes impossible contract by LOT) In-Reply-To: <3DCDB21A.9524.34DE6D7@localhost> Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.0.20021113160907.00a59260@pop.starpower.net> At 07:10 PM 11/9/02, jens wrote: >Tonight one of those theoretical situations from the TD courses >came true. > >While directing in the Danish 1st division, which is the strongest >teams tournament in the country, a player won a slam by leading >the 8 from 8 7 in his own hand. LHO held 9 3, and dummy held 10 >2. These were the last two tricks, and RHO's holding was >immaterial. > >Unfortunately the lead was in dummy. But LHO sleepily covered >with the 9, which ostensibly condoned the LOT. > >My colleague and I discussed the matter and then consulted >Jesper Dybdal by phone. We then invoked L72B1 and adjusted the >score to one down for declarer. We let the defenders keep the >score for a winning slam, denying them the compensation >associated with the adjustment because sloppily condoning a lead >out of turn in that situation was seen as an egregious error. This raises an interesting point. The whole notion of denying compensation to an NOS when the damage was consequent to their own egregious error rather than the infraction does not come from the words of the Law, but rather from an interpretation of those words originally put forth by Edgar Kaplan in the pages of The Bridge World. Since then the so-called "Kaplan doctrine" interpretation has been formally adopted by the WBF and the ACBL (among others) and pretty much accepted everywhere. Nevertheless, the only existing explication of what the Kaplan doctrine actually *means* is the one given by Mr. Kaplan himself in his original writings on the subject. It is clear from Mr. Kaplan's writings that when he used the term "egregious error" he was thinking about bidding errors and card-play errors. There is nothing in them to indicate whether or not he would have thought that his doctrine was applicable in the case of procedural errors; I doubt whether he ever thought about this, and, regrettably, we can no longer ask him. We know that redress can be denied if the NOS, subsequent to the infraction, "damages themselves" by means of either an egregious "bridge error" or an infraction of their own (such as a revoke). But what if the "error" in question is an ordinary mechanical or procedural one which (as is usual in Kaplan doctrine cases, which typically involve bridge errors) is not itself an infraction -- such covering a lead out of turn? AFAIK, this point has never been addressed by the WBF, the ACBL, or any other authority. It remains an open question of interpretation, and I can see where a good case could be made on both sides. I smell a new thread. From ehaa@starpower.net Wed Nov 13 21:55:57 2002 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2002 16:55:57 -0500 Subject: [blml] Wrong bid - correct explanation - UI In-Reply-To: <007b01c28a4f$06aac6e0$ba9468d5@default> References: Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.0.20021113165407.00a63d00@pop.starpower.net> At 08:24 AM 11/12/02, Nigel wrote: >[Willy Teigen] >Teams Q107x >LA Ax >North KJxx > KQJ >K8xx - >K10 QJ98xx >8x AQ1097x >xxxxx A > AJ9xx > xxx > x > xxxx >North East South West >1c (A) 2NT(A) pass 3c(A) >pass 3d (A) ?..p 3s >pass 4d pass 4s >double 5d double pass >pass 5h double pass >pass pass >1c=16+ (precision) >After east bids 3d, south asks and is explained >by west that east has shown d+s, the initial 2NT >showing either c/h or d/s. This is also due to to >EW's CC, so east's bid is wrong, and west's >explanation is UI to him. West bids spades twice, >believing east has a d/s hand, but finally gives >in. After a poor defence, 5h x makes for 650 to >EW. How do you rule? >[Nigel Guthrie] >Assuming that East imagines he has shown the minors, >West's bidding is consistent with 6+-4+ in the >blacks, so logically, he should probably pass 3S >and certainly pass 4S. >To West, all East's red suit bids are cue-bids in >support of spades, so 7S seems a reasonable bet >(assuming that North rather than East is psyching). >Hence if it were not that North doubled 4S, I would >be tempted to rule 7SXX-9. But I assume that Willy >wound the bidding back to the first clear infraction (East's 5D >bid)? If so, I suppose the TD was correct >to let East-West off with 5DX-1. Should he also >impose a PP on East-West for psyche-diagnosis? Excuse me? "A PP on East-West for psyche-diagnosis"? When nobody has psyched? From cyaxares@lineone.net Wed Nov 13 21:57:32 2002 From: cyaxares@lineone.net (Grattan Endicott) Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2002 21:57:32 -0000 Subject: [blml] Declarer makes impossible contract by LOT References: Message-ID: <002d01c28b5f$c69cbd30$ca8c403e@endicott> Grattan Endicott ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Kooijman, A." > To: "'Herman De Wael'" ; "blml" > Sent: Wednesday, November 13, 2002 3:17 AM > Subject: RE: [blml] Declarer makes impossible contract by LOT > > > > > > Herman: > > > > > > Maybe my sense of justice is warped with regards > > > to yours, but I don't feel these Norwegian opponents > > > did anything that merited a score for an impossible > > > slam making. > +=+ What the heck has 'justice' and 'merit' to do with this? What we have here is a simple rule, mechanical and functional, that when the LHO plays to the lead OOT he has "accepted" it. He has also accepted the consequences. There is no reference to justice or merit in the law here: it is dealing only with facts. What happens to the player who accepts the opponent's irregularity is out of the Director's hands. He has done what he has done. +=+ >>> > > They accepted a lead from the wrong side which did > > the contract make. If that can't be considered to be > > part of 'anything' I feel lost in my understanding of > > language (this is not even a problem for just my English, > > though the word 'anything' and 'any' are not easy to > > handle for Dutch people). > +=+ Hmm..... they understand 'nothing' when it comes to letting people get away with it ...... But to my onions - I would not go to the barricades in defence of the argument that the introduction of 'acceptance' was to let offenders suffer for their mistakes. The way the law is written it is just a function of the game, and for both sides the consequences are mechanical. Whether it happens to be beneficial to one side or the other is not something that Laws 53 and 55 touch upon. These are the sort of laws that are just read out from the book. The discussion in this thread is about resort to Law 72B1 and the appropriateness of using it to deny a player the result his opponent has thrown at him. In my view this is only right when it is right. In developing fresh texts I shall be a fountain of sprightly invention (er, that is, should perchance something 'spring' to mind). ~G ~ +=+ From cyaxares@lineone.net Wed Nov 13 22:04:05 2002 From: cyaxares@lineone.net (Grattan Endicott) Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2002 22:04:05 -0000 Subject: [blml] Wrong bid - correct explanation - UI References: <5.2.0.9.0.20021113165407.00a63d00@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <005901c28b60$e0645bf0$ca8c403e@endicott> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" Sent: Wednesday, November 13, 2002 9:55 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Wrong bid - correct explanation - UI > Excuse me? "A PP on East-West for psyche-diagnosis"? When nobody has psyched? > +=+ It's a medical condition. +=+ From ehaa@starpower.net Wed Nov 13 22:15:13 2002 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2002 17:15:13 -0500 Subject: [blml] Declarer makes impossible contract by LOT In-Reply-To: <200211121557.KAA11875@cfa183.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.0.20021113165852.00a61a00@pop.starpower.net> At 10:57 AM 11/12/02, Steve wrote: > > From: "Jens Brix Christiansen" > > We then invoked L72B1 and adjusted the > > score to one down for declarer. We let the defenders keep the > > [table] score... > >As others have said, this accords with current custom and practice: >the "Kaplan doctrine." Applying 72B1 to declarer seems automatic. As >things stand now, it is a judgment question what to do about the NOS. > >However, the more I see of the Kaplan doctrine, the less I like it. >While I don't have much hope, I personally would quite like to see this >doctrine eliminated in the next laws edition. How would we do that? The Kaplan doctrine cannot be found in the current edition or TFLB, or any other for that matter. It is 100% interpretation, or as Steve puts it, "custom and practice". There is no mention whatsoever in TFLB of egregious errors, wild, gambling or irrational actions, subsequent but not consequent damage, or any of the other fundamental concepts of Mr. Kaplan's doctrine. There's nothing in there to eliminate! I suppose something could be added that would clearly close the door to the Kaplan interpretation. But my own personal opinion is that the Kaplan doctrine is illegal and always has been, and I do not see how we could add any words that are any more clear than what we have now, in L12C2: "When the Director awards an assigned adjusted score in place of a result actually obtained after an irregularity, the score is, for the non-offending side, the most favorable result that was likely *had the irregularity not occurred*" [emphasis mine]. Could we possibly state any more clearly than that that the determination of the NOS's score may not be based on anything that could not have happened had the irregularity not occurred? And yet isn't that what the Kaplan doctrine is all about? From ehaa@starpower.net Wed Nov 13 22:24:08 2002 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2002 17:24:08 -0500 Subject: [blml] Declarer makes impossible contract by LOT In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.0.20021113171943.00a58970@pop.starpower.net> At 03:41 AM 11/13/02, Kooijman wrote: >And I don't understand why Herman has problems with the distinction >consequent and subsequent here? i do see it like that. But then again, the >laws are not very clear about that distinction either. To say that "the laws are not very clear about that distinction" is quite an understatement. The laws are neither clear nor unclear about that particular distinction; they do not mention it at all. From ehaa@starpower.net Wed Nov 13 22:37:19 2002 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2002 17:37:19 -0500 Subject: [blml] Declarer makes impossible contract by LOT In-Reply-To: <3DD21499.1040401@skynet.be> References: Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.0.20021113172619.00a61e00@pop.starpower.net> At 04:00 AM 11/13/02, Herman wrote: >Anyway, I would like you to ponder on this. Since 1997, the level >needed for a split score in other matters has been raised. An action >by NOS has to be "wild, gambling or irrational" to deny them the >benefit of a score correction even when the OS' score is reduced. FWIW, when the WBF issued the interpretation in which they introduced the notion of "wild, gambling or irrational action" and thus accepted the Kaplan doctrine into law, they didn't raise the bar; they lowered it. That interpretation permitted denial of redress based on an action subsequent to the infraction if the action was wild, gambling or irrational; without it, the accepted interpretation was that redress could not be denied based on any subsequent action at all. >Do you consider the accidental acceptance of a LOOT in any way >comparable to this standard? I do not. >And we're talking here of an even greater infraction (possibly willing >LOOT in a hopeless situation) than the ones usually dealt with in L12 >(accidental UI or MI). > >Maybe my sense of justice is warped with regards to yours, but I don't >feel these Norwegian opponents did anything that merited a score for >an impossible slam making. I cherish the rare feeling of being in 100% agreement with Herman about something. From ehaa@starpower.net Wed Nov 13 22:43:51 2002 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2002 17:43:51 -0500 Subject: [blml] Declarer makes impossible contract by LOT In-Reply-To: <000001c28b0a$f34f75c0$7e8087d9@pc> References: <001d01c28ae7$82af4c00$abed193e@4nrw70j> Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.0.20021113173919.00a5d480@pop.starpower.net> At 04:28 AM 11/13/02, LarryBennett wrote: >I like this. What if the td had been called, >read the riot act, and LHO decides to accept the >lead. Where do we go from there? That would have been an entirely different story, as it would have meant that LHO's acceptance of the lead was the result of a "bridge decision" rather than of simple inattentiveness, so that if it was an error, we could consider it to be a "bridge error" rather than merely a procedural one. From svenpran@online.no Wed Nov 13 22:45:41 2002 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2002 23:45:41 +0100 Subject: [blml] Declarer makes impossible contract by LOT References: <5.2.0.9.0.20021113165852.00a61a00@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <007101c28b66$6509eeb0$70d8fea9@WINXP> From: "Eric Landau" ......... > I suppose something could be added that would clearly close the door to > the Kaplan interpretation. But my own personal opinion is that the > Kaplan doctrine is illegal and always has been, and I do not see how we > could add any words that are any more clear than what we have now, in > L12C2: "When the Director awards an assigned adjusted score in place > of a result actually obtained after an irregularity, the score is, for > the non-offending side, the most favorable result that was likely *had > the irregularity not occurred*" [emphasis mine]. Could we possibly > state any more clearly than that that the determination of the NOS's > score may not be based on anything that could not have happened had the > irregularity not occurred? And yet isn't that what the Kaplan doctrine > is all about? With the "Kaplan doctrine" (I never heard that term before I saw it here on blml) declared illegal my bet is that the practice described below will become very popular after any lead out of turn. I shall repeat a question that I have posted before (not to you) and which nobody cared to answer (except Alan Gottcheiner who wrote: "Nice argument. It should be enough of a justification in itself".): So now you tell me how you will rule with a defender that "accepts" the lead out of turn, possibly (probably? quite certainly?) saying to himself: "I'll accept this LOOT. If we benefit then fine. If it shows up to be damaging to our side we have a Law72B1 case securing us the best possible result we could have either way." ????? Sven From willner@cfa.harvard.edu Wed Nov 13 22:47:35 2002 From: willner@cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2002 17:47:35 -0500 (EST) Subject: [blml] Declarer makes impossible contract by LOT Message-ID: <200211132247.RAA09177@cfa183.harvard.edu> > From: Eric Landau > Could we possibly > state any more clearly than that that the determination of the NOS's > score may not be based on anything that could not have happened had the > irregularity not occurred? I think the problem is that when the Kaplan doctrine is applied, the NOS is not given an adjusted score at all. If it were desired to change this, words could be added to L12C2 requiring that the score be adjusted for both sides or for neither. Of course then the proponents of the Kaplan doctrine would then adjust for neither but apply a large PP to the OS. The real need is for a determination at high levels that the Kaplan doctrine, though seemingly reasonable, has turned out to be a bad idea in practice. From ehaa@starpower.net Wed Nov 13 22:50:22 2002 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2002 17:50:22 -0500 Subject: [blml] Declarer makes impossible contract by LOT In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20021113111708.027580c0@pop.ulb.ac.be> References: <002701c28a96$f8824690$70d8fea9@WINXP> <3DD0EC93.506@vwalther.de> <009b01c28a48$3272fbf0$70d8fea9@WINXP> <3DD0F941.2000909@skynet.be> <00a701c28a4e$35607030$70d8fea9@WINXP> <3DD1216A.6060604@skynet.be> Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.0.20021113174428.00a664e0@pop.starpower.net> At 05:18 AM 11/13/02, Alain wrote: >At 23:00 12/11/2002 +0100, you wrote: >>So now you tell me how you will rule with a defender that "accepts" >>the lead out of turn, possibly (probably? quite certainly?) saying to >>himself: "I'll accept this LOOT. If we benefit then fine. If it shows up >>to be damaging to our side we have a Law72B1 case securing us >>the best possible result we could have either way." ????? > >AG : nice argument. It should be enough of a justification in itself. I don't buy it. "If we benefit then fine. If it shows up to be damaging to our side, and if it shows up that it was likely to have been damaging to our side, and if it shows up that declarer might have known that it was likely to have been damaging to our side, then we can make a L72B1 case, which we might or might not win, and which, if we do win, might or might not be enough to outweigh the damage and secure us a halfway decent result." I don't think we will come out ahead in the long run if we say this to ourselves. From adam@irvine.com Wed Nov 13 22:48:42 2002 From: adam@irvine.com (Adam Beneschan) Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2002 14:48:42 -0800 Subject: [blml] Declarer makes impossible contract by LOT In-Reply-To: Your message of "Wed, 13 Nov 2002 17:15:13 EST." <5.2.0.9.0.20021113165852.00a61a00@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <200211132248.OAA27436@mailhub.irvine.com> Eric wrote: > > > From: "Jens Brix Christiansen" > > > We then invoked L72B1 and adjusted the > > > score to one down for declarer. We let the defenders keep the > > > [table] score... > > > >As others have said, this accords with current custom and practice: > >the "Kaplan doctrine." Applying 72B1 to declarer seems automatic. As > >things stand now, it is a judgment question what to do about the NOS. > > > >However, the more I see of the Kaplan doctrine, the less I like it. > >While I don't have much hope, I personally would quite like to see this > >doctrine eliminated in the next laws edition. > > How would we do that? The Kaplan doctrine cannot be found in the > current edition or TFLB, or any other for that matter. It is 100% > interpretation, or as Steve puts it, "custom and practice". There is > no mention whatsoever in TFLB of egregious errors, wild, gambling or > irrational actions, subsequent but not consequent damage, or any of the > other fundamental concepts of Mr. Kaplan's doctrine. There's nothing > in there to eliminate! > > I suppose something could be added that would clearly close the door to > the Kaplan interpretation. But my own personal opinion is that the > Kaplan doctrine is illegal and always has been . . . This thread has discussed the "Kaplan doctrine", but no one has defined exactly what it is; and if it was defined in past years on BLML, it's too difficult to find. Please enlighten me: What is the essential part of the Kaplan doctrine? Is it (1) the part that says NO's shouldn't get redress if they screw up badly? Or is it (2) the part that allows you to adjust for one side and not the other? I don't think #2 is allowable under the Laws, although the WBF's "Code of Practice for Appeals Committees" appears to be a binding interpretation that does allow this. #1, however, seems to be a legitimate interpretation of the Laws. Various Laws call for adjustment if an infraction damaged the non-offending side, but the Laws don't define "damage". (L72B1, which is the key law in this thread, is different in that it calls for an adjustment if the offending side "gained an advantage through" the irregularity; however, that just introduces a different term that is not defined.) Since there are key terms involved that aren't defined, it seems consistent with the Laws to define "damaged by an infraction" in a way that if the NO's commit a "wild, irrational, or gambling" action, any damage is deemed to be self-inflicted and not *caused* *by* the infraction. Thus, although the TFLB doesn't mention egregious errors, or WGoI actions, or the terms subsequent or consequent, I believe it's legitimate to infer those concepts from the wording that's actually in the Laws. The problem is that in this case, the Laws as written don't let us get to L12C at all, since the conditions that allow us to apply that law are absent if there is no damage. Thus the score cannot be adjusted for the offenders either. And if we decide there *is* damage, and we go to L12C2, it no longer matters whether the NO's made an egregious or irrational action after the infraction, because when applying L12C2 we do not, I believe, consider anything that actually happened after the infraction. -- Adam From willner@cfa.harvard.edu Wed Nov 13 22:53:20 2002 From: willner@cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2002 17:53:20 -0500 (EST) Subject: [blml] Declarer makes impossible contract by LOT Message-ID: <200211132253.RAA09258@cfa183.harvard.edu> > From: "Sven Pran" > So now you tell me how you will rule with a defender that "accepts" > the lead out of turn, possibly (probably? quite certainly?) saying to > himself: "I'll accept this LOOT. If we benefit then fine. If it shows up > to be damaging to our side we have a Law72B1 case securing us > the best possible result we could have either way." ????? I don't see this as a problem. You are postulating a defender who knows enough about the hand to be certain the conditions of L72B1 will apply but knows so little that he doesn't know which hand he wants declarer to lead from. That sound far fetched to me. In any case, if declarer wants to avoid this difficulty, all he has to do is lead from the correct hand. From twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Wed Nov 13 22:59:00 2002 From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2002 22:59 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [blml] Declarer makes impossible contract by LOT Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <3DD24F2D.1020302@skynet.be> Herman wrote: > But seriously, I was only dissenting because I thought it good to get > this matter settled. It seems as if there is a far bigger consensus > about this than about anything else on blml so I will consent with the > other great and good. Well I am neither great nor good, and so not part of the consensus. This whole episode seems to me a twisting of Law 72B1 and an abandonment of Law72B2 which creates a cheat's charter. There is no way that merely adjusting (when opps actually get round to calling the TD) has any deterrent effect. Such cheating is not, as far as I am aware, particularly widespread. However, I fear that if such leniency is shown in cases where the TD believes the infraction deliberate it will become more of a problem. I can just about live with a L72b1 adjustment here if the TD believes the infraction inadvertent, but I feel such an adjustment should (if made at all) apply to both sides. If having the lead accepted really is "likely" in any meaningful sense of the word then it still seems to completely wrong to rank so doing as an egregious error. Tim. From blml@dybdal.dk Wed Nov 13 23:28:57 2002 From: blml@dybdal.dk (Jesper Dybdal) Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2002 00:28:57 +0100 Subject: [blml] Declarer makes impossible contract by LOT In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <8dn5tu49qdnl7qq21peqdi6h9alq3spbbf@nuser.dybdal.dk> I have no doubt that this is a L72B1 situation: surely L72B1 is intended for situations like this where a player has acted (in the current case undoubtedly accidentally) in the way a cheat could well have done deliberately. About a month ago Sven and I had a discussion on BLML about a corresponding hand that was an example in the EBL Commentary. At that time, I was firmly of the belief that the NOS's error was not "irrational, wild, or gambling". However, when I was presented with this actual case, I was in doubt. I still am. On Tue, 12 Nov 2002 10:33 +0000 (GMT), twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) wrote: >In other words declarer could have known that the NOS were "likely" to=20 >commit an egregious error! Just how bad are the NOS that an egregious=20 >error was "likely"? I am not convinced either way yet, but this is not a bad argument for its not being an IWoG action. Once upon a time I agreed completely with Eric that the whole concept of IWoG actions is illegal. I still believe that it is if you just read the book, but I have accepted that in practice it is a part of life and must be considered legal. However, if it is to remain a part of life, it should certainly be mentioned explicitly in the 2005 laws. --=20 Jesper Dybdal, Denmark. http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Thu Nov 14 02:04:43 2002 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2002 02:04:43 -0000 Subject: [blml] Wrong bid - correct explanation - UI References: <5.2.0.9.0.20021113165407.00a63d00@pop.starpower.net> <005901c28b60$e0645bf0$ca8c403e@endicott> Message-ID: <00af01c28b82$77f43e60$3c9568d5@default> [Eric Landau] Excuse me? "A PP on East-West for psyche- diagnosis"? When nobody has psyched? [Graham Endicott] +=+ It's a medical condition. +=+ [Nigel Guthrie] Of course, you are excused. OK, the bids may not be a psychic. Perhaps, instead, they are psychotic as Grattan suggests. But how would you experts rule? Presumably, systemically, red suit bids by East would be cue bids agreeing spades. In fact, they were either misbids or psyches. Eventually, West diagnosed their intended meaning. Arguably, East also took advantage of unauthorised information to keep correcting contracts in the suits advertised by his bids into the suits he actually held. Was the TD ruling of 5DX-1 correct? Or should it be my 4SX-6? Do East West deserve a PP as well? From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Thu Nov 14 02:40:43 2002 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2002 02:40:43 -0000 Subject: [blml] Declarer makes impossible contract by LOT References: <002d01c28b5f$c69cbd30$ca8c403e@endicott> Message-ID: <00b701c28b87$493bd920$3c9568d5@default> [Graham Endicott] ... In my view this is only right when it is right... [Nigel] Specifically, how do you rule on the slam deals (i) In the two card ending where declarer led from the wrong hand and LHO condoned the lead allowing dummy's 108 to pick up LHO's 9x. (ii) When declarer, in hand with no dummy entry, cashed dummy's long solid suit, after RHO condoned the first lead from dummy? PLEASE ANSWER... +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ "Is this a question?" "If that is a question then this is an answer." [Model question and answer in Philosophy Exam] =============================================== +=+ Yes +=+ ~ G ~ +=+ OR... +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ "Wovon man nicht sprechen kann, darüber muß man schweigen." [Ludwig Wittgenstein, Tractatus Logico Philosophicus] =============================================== +=+ No +=+ ~ G ~ +=+ From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Thu Nov 14 02:48:30 2002 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2002 02:48:30 -0000 Subject: [blml] Declarer makes impossible contract by LOT Message-ID: <00cf01c28b88$58fec560$3c9568d5@default> [Graham Endicott] ... In my view this is only right when it is right... [Nigel Guthrie - corrected] Specifically, would you let declarer keep his score on the slam deals ... (i) In the two card ending where declarer led from the wrong hand and LHO condoned the lead allowing dummy's 108 to pick up LHO's 9x. (ii) When declarer, in hand with no dummy entry, cashed dummy's long solid suit, after RHO condoned the first lead from dummy? PLEASE ANSWER... +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ "Is this a question?" "If that is a question then this is an answer." [Model question and answer in Philosophy Exam] =============================================== +=+ Yes +=+ ~ G ~ +=+ OR... +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ "Wovon man nicht sprechen kann, darüber muß man schweigen." [Ludwig Wittgenstein, Tractatus Logico Philosophicus] =============================================== +=+ No +=+ ~ G ~ +=+ From grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk Thu Nov 14 01:45:22 2002 From: grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk (grandeval) Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2002 01:45:22 -0000 Subject: [blml] Declarer makes impossible contract by LOT References: <5.2.0.9.0.20021113172619.00a61e00@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <000201c28bb2$e06bdcc0$ad4187d9@4nrw70j> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" Sent: Wednesday, November 13, 2002 10:37 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Declarer makes impossible contract by LOT > > FWIW, when the WBF issued the interpretation in which > they introduced the notion of "wild, gambling or irrational > action" and thus accepted the Kaplan doctrine into law, > they didn't raise the bar; they lowered it. That interpretation > permitted denial of redress based on an action subsequent to > the infraction if the action was wild, gambling or irrational; > without it, the accepted interpretation was that redress > could not be denied based on any subsequent action at all. > +=+ For the record, the recent decision was to select the word 'irrational' and add it to the phrase 'wild or gambling' which had been introduced under Kaplan's guidance. It was Edgar who made the case to the committee that decisions in the ACBL were too readily construing as 'egregious' actions that were insufficiently wild or gambling to justify removal of the right to score adjustment of the NOS. The intention with 'wild or gambling' was to raise the level at which an action was deemed to attribute to the NOS the causes of its own damage and to supersede the use of the term 'egregious' which had failed in its purpose. The intention in adding 'irrational' was to reinforce that policy. Let me say that Edgar had some support for his case amongst his co-nationals on the committee at the time. It was an American cure for American ills; other Zones with members on the committee did not have the problem, it appeared - perhaps because 'egregious' was not a word we used - and we were not qualified sufficiently in ACBL affairs to debate his opinion. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From cibor@poczta.fm Thu Nov 14 08:59:45 2002 From: cibor@poczta.fm (Konrad Ciborowski) Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2002 09:59:45 +0100 Subject: [blml] POOT laws - a change suggested Message-ID: <011b01c28bbc$30c14440$727e870a@krakow.sabreots.com> Hi all, You are dealer at game all, MP. Partner passes out of turn. L30A says that offender must pass at his next turn. We hold Q104 84 K9875 A65 This is the hand from the last round of the Swiss Pairs tournament that was played yesterday. What are logical alternatives here? We have unauthorized information that partner doesn't have an opening bid. On the other hand the fact that partner is barred for one round is authorized information to us. So where do we go from here? The player in question opened this hand with 2D. Partner explain the call as Wilkosz - 6-10 5+-5+ with at least one major. The opponents assumed Wilkosz and bid accordingly which was rather unwise on their part - had the player opened 3NT they wouldn't have assumed gambling but a hand that tries to guess the right contract opposite a barred partner. So 2D cannot be Wilkosz in this position by the logic alone. Question: Are the offenders obliged to tell that to their opponents or not? Now let's get to the real problem. I have never been able to understand why the laws about POOT require the offender to pass rather than offender's partner. Because, you might say, if passing OOT barred partner (not the offender himself) then some villain might try this ploy: --- xxxx xxxx xxxxx At unfavorable vulnerability you hear partner open 1S, RHO overcall 2H and LHO advance with 3D. Now if partner goes into a tank it is easy to pass OOT to prevent partner from going down for a telephone number. That's true but we have the tools to deal with this kind of trick - L72B1 to which the present POOT laws point away. You might say that we also have the tools (L16) to deal with UI from the withdrawn pass. But these tools don't work very well in situations where one of the players of the OS is barred. An ethical player knows very well what he can and cannot do if he picks up Qxx xxx AQJx xxx and raises his partner's 1S opening bid to 2S. Now, LHO overcalls 3D, partner hesitates and passes and so does the RHO. As the LAs are obvious (pass, dbl and 3S) an ethical player is on firm ground - he knows very well what action he can safely take - pass. If passing leads to a good score the player can be certain it won't be taken away from him. But an ethical player haven't got a slightest idea what to do when he has to open the bidding holding AKJxxx Axx --- Q10xx facing a barred partner who passed OOT. What are his LAs? If you give this hand to a bunch of players but you won't tell them that they are facing someone who doesn't have an opening bid (tell them instead that partner exposed two small diamonds during the bidding) then many of them will surely choose 4S. So if a player bids 1/2S with this hand and will take 8 tricks should he have his score adjusted to 4Sx -2 (an action he might have taken if he hadn't known that he was facing a hand below an opening bid)? What about the hand from the yesterday's tournament Q104 84 K9875 A65 What are LAs? Is passing an LA? But then if partner turns up with 0 PCs and a diamond void then maybe the score will be adjusted to 1Dx -800 on the grounds that 1D is an LA with this hand (facing a barred partner) and opener used the UI that his partner doesn't have an opening bid and decided to pass knowing that this is his opponents' hand. What about 2D? On the actual hand it stroke gold but the opponents complained that the player in question should have passed and 2D in this position was based on UI from his partner's POOT (and 1D would also have been). So what is an ethical player supposed to do in this position? I guess he might as well ask the Director to bid his cards for him as almost every action he takes might lead to an adjustment. So why not change the POOT laws so that the offender's partner would be barred? That would simplify things a lot while dealing with UI from withdrawn passes creates a plethora of problems - both for the players and the TDs. Konrad Ciborowski Kraków, Poland ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Ze swiata show-biznesu... >>> http://link.interia.pl/f1678 From agot@ulb.ac.be Thu Nov 14 13:21:01 2002 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2002 14:21:01 +0100 Subject: [blml] POOT laws - a change suggested In-Reply-To: <011b01c28bbc$30c14440$727e870a@krakow.sabreots.com> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20021114141106.02cca7d0@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 09:59 14/11/2002 +0100, Konrad Ciborowski wrote: >Hi all, > >You are dealer at game all, MP. > >Partner passes out of turn. L30A says that >offender must pass at his next turn. >We hold > >Q104 >84 >K9875 >A65 > >This is the hand from the last round of the >Swiss Pairs tournament that was played >yesterday. > >What are logical alternatives here? > >We have unauthorized information that partner >doesn't have an opening bid. On the other >hand the fact that partner is barred for one round >is authorized information to us. So where do we go from >here? > >The player in question opened this hand >with 2D. Partner explain the call as >Wilkosz - 6-10 5+-5+ with at least one major. AG : partner should not explain 2D as such. He knows it isn't. Or ratehr he should explain "we play Wilkosz, but it shouldn't be here - your guess". >The opponents assumed Wilkosz and bid accordingly >which was rather unwise on their part - had the player >opened 3NT they wouldn't have assumed gambling >but a hand that tries to guess the right contract >opposite a barred partner. So 2D cannot >be Wilkosz in this position by the logic alone. > >Question: > >Are the offenders obliged to tell that to their opponents >or not? > AG : partner shouldn't alert at all. The bid can't have any artificial meaning. that's bridge logic. But, for the same reason, opponents shouldn't believe him. >Now let's get to the real problem. I have never been able to >understand why the laws about POOT require the >offender to pass rather than offender's partner. >Because, you might say, >if passing OOT barred partner (not the offender himself) >then some villain might try this ploy: > >--- >xxxx >xxxx >xxxxx > >At unfavorable vulnerability you hear partner open 1S, >RHO overcall 2H and LHO advance with 3D. >Now if partner goes into a tank it is easy to pass OOT >to prevent partner from going down for >a telephone number. > >That's true but we have the tools to deal with >this kind of trick - L72B1 to which the present >POOT laws point away. AG : and don't forget L23. >What about the hand from the >yesterday's tournament > >Q104 >84 >K9875 >A65 > > >What are LAs? Is passing >an LA? But then if partner turns >up with 0 PCs and a diamond >void then maybe the score >will be adjusted to 1Dx -800 on the grounds >that 1D is an LA with this hand (facing >a barred partner) and opener used >the UI that his partner doesn't have >an opening bid and decided >to pass knowing that this is his >opponents' hand. >What about >2D? On the actual hand it >stroke gold but the opponents complained >that the player in question should have >passed and 2D in this position >was based on UI from his partner's POOT >(and 1D would also have been). > AG : it was only based on AI that partner was barred, and that the 2D bis would thus be natural. LAs include pass, 1NT and several others, but don't include high-level bids with such a hand, thus there was no use of the UI. Still, problems after the POOT can be bigger than those that happened on this deal (imagine holding an Ace more), and I welcome your suggestion with interest. Best regards, Alain. From cibor@poczta.fm Thu Nov 14 13:45:31 2002 From: cibor@poczta.fm (Konrad Ciborowski) Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2002 14:45:31 +0100 Subject: [blml] POOT laws - a change suggested References: <5.1.0.14.0.20021114141106.02cca7d0@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <01e901c28be4$2049ff80$727e870a@krakow.sabreots.com> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Alain Gottcheiner" > AG : it was only based on AI that partner was barred, and that the 2D bis > would thus be natural. No doubt about it. >LAs include pass, 1NT and several others, but don't > include high-level bids with such a hand, thus there was no use of the UI. I am not so sure. There was UI that partner didn't have the opening bid (he thought he was dealer and passed) so 2D might very well have been chosen for its pre-emptive effect: there is a fair chance that they have a game so let's try to make life difficult for them - hence 2D rather than pass or 1D. Is this using UI? In my book it is. Konrad Ciborowski Kraków, Poland ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Kandydatka 18: Ma³gorzata >>> http://link.interia.pl/f1679 From cibor@poczta.fm Thu Nov 14 13:45:43 2002 From: cibor@poczta.fm (Konrad Ciborowski) Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2002 14:45:43 +0100 Subject: [blml] POOT laws - a change suggested References: <5.1.0.14.0.20021114141106.02cca7d0@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <01ec01c28be4$6d2d12b0$727e870a@krakow.sabreots.com> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Alain Gottcheiner" > AG : it was only based on AI that partner was barred, and that the 2D bis > would thus be natural. No doubt about it. >LAs include pass, 1NT and several others, but don't > include high-level bids with such a hand, thus there was no use of the UI. I am not so sure. There was UI that partner didn't have the opening bid (he thought he was dealer and passed) so 2D might very well have been chosen for its pre-emptive effect: there is a fair chance that they have a game so let's try to make life difficult for them - hence 2D rather than pass or 1D. Is this using UI? In my book it is. Konrad Ciborowski Kraków, Poland From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Thu Nov 14 14:11:09 2002 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2002 14:11:09 -0000 Subject: [blml] dWS for the beginner References: <5.1.0.14.0.20021112151524.026ba7e0@pop.ulb.ac.be> <00ae01c28a5b$fa9dd560$ba9468d5@default> <3DD12323.3000700@skynet.be> <00f001c28a69$69017ea0$ba9468d5@default> <5.1.0.14.0.20021113123504.02754500@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <004801c28be7$b41868c0$cc9868d5@default> Thank you Alain, Patrick, Herman, and David (in absentia) for correcting misconceptions, caused by my mistaken idea that MI is against the law but UI is not -- reinforced by my untutored reading of Law. I can't be right as I am a legal novice and the only person in BLML to publicly quibble with you. Of course I recant my heretical interpretation. I feel, however, that the law book should be clarified because few ordinary players have such a sophisticated understanding of the words "partnership agreement". (: I confess that I have never recovered from the lawbook's definition of "rational" as "irrational". I guess Boole would say that if you accept that all else follows :) Such corrections may prove unnecessary if Bridge fails to survive four years in its current chaotic state until the next legal revision. From agot@ulb.ac.be Thu Nov 14 13:41:55 2002 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2002 14:41:55 +0100 Subject: [blml] Wrong bid - correct explanation - UI In-Reply-To: <00af01c28b82$77f43e60$3c9568d5@default> References: <5.2.0.9.0.20021113165407.00a63d00@pop.starpower.net> <005901c28b60$e0645bf0$ca8c403e@endicott> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20021114143922.02cc1890@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 02:04 14/11/2002 +0000, Nigel Guthrie wrote: >[Eric Landau] >Excuse me? "A PP on East-West for psyche- >diagnosis"? When nobody has psyched? >[Graham Endicott] >+=+ It's a medical condition. +=+ >[Nigel Guthrie] >Of course, you are excused. OK, the bids may >not be a psychic. Perhaps, instead, they are >psychotic as Grattan suggests. >But how would you experts rule? >Presumably, systemically, red suit bids by >East would be cue bids agreeing spades. >In fact, they were either misbids or psyches. >Eventually, West diagnosed their intended >meaning. Arguably, East also took advantage of unauthorised >information to keep correcting >contracts in the suits advertised by his bids >into the suits he actually held. >Was the TD ruling of 5DX-1 correct? >Or should it be my 4SX-6? >Do East West deserve a PP as well? AG : unless somebody finds a rational way, I don't see 4SX-6 as "at all probable". I would score as 4SX-5. Plus a PP to East unless it is possible that he didn't know his duties. Had there been no incorrection (use of UI), the contract would never have been higher than 4S. That's why (double from North or not) I would not consider 7SX as a posible contract. Best regards, Alain. From ehaa@starpower.net Thu Nov 14 14:55:51 2002 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2002 09:55:51 -0500 Subject: [blml] Declarer makes impossible contract by LOT In-Reply-To: <200211132248.OAA27436@mailhub.irvine.com> References: Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.0.20021114084422.00a63590@pop.starpower.net> At 05:48 PM 11/13/02, Adam wrote: >This thread has discussed the "Kaplan doctrine", but no one has >defined exactly what it is; Bingo! >and if it was defined in past years on >BLML, it's too difficult to find. It's never really been defined anywhere at any time. Kaplan gave explication and examples, but never boiled it down to a clear consise statement that would stand as a definition. And nobody has known exactly what it is or how to apply it since it was invented. >Please enlighten me: What is the >essential part of the Kaplan doctrine? Is it (1) the part that says >NO's shouldn't get redress if they screw up badly? Or is it (2) the >part that allows you to adjust for one side and not the other? It is more along the lines of (1). Kaplan's started by introducing the subtle distinction between damage which "results from" an infraction (called "subsequent damage") and damage which is "caused" by that infraction (called "consequent damage"). He argued that the intent of L12, in apparent contradiction to its words, was not to give an NOS redress for subsequent damage (which is what you do when you base your determination of damage on "had the irregularity not occurred") but only for consequent damage. Damage which is subsequent but not consequent (called "self-inflicted damage") should not be redressed. Up to that point the doctrine is clear but unworkable, as it would result in denying some or all of what was previously routine redress to the NOS unless they played absolutely 100% perfect bridge, IOW in virtually every case. So there's more, and that's where things get murky. Subsequent damage is to be presumed to be consequent (meaning that one rules as one would have previously) unless the NOS commits an error that is sufficiently "egregious" (Kaplan's term) to "break the connection between the infraction and the damage". Kaplan defines "egregious" using words like "ridiculous", "absurd" and "irrational", the sort of error that you wouldn't imagine the player ever making if you hadn't seen it with your own eyes. He explicitly recognizes that that is a variable criterion depending on the class of the player who has been damaged, and gives examples of what might constitute an "egregious error" for Norman Kay, but not for, say, me. So a "Kaplan doctrine" ruling, in which redress is denied to the NOS, depends on a finding that the NOS committed an error subsequent to the OS's infraction that was "sufficiently egregious to break the connection between the infraction and the damage" -- that's the essense of how the doctrine works. The problem, of course, is that nobody has ever been able to provide any reasonable operational guideline as to what makes an error "sufficiently egregious", making Kaplan doctrine rulings problematic and wildly inconsistent. The WBF, when it decided to accept the Kaplan doctrine as proper interpretation of L12, sensibly enhanced it, but didn't do anything towards resolving the "where to draw the line" problem. What they did do, by replacing "egregious error" with "wild, gambling or irrational action", was to tell us that wherever the line is, it applies equally to "actions" which are not "errors". IOW, if you do something sufficiently egregious, you break the connection even if your action was not an error at all, but rather a deliberate, intentional attempt to create a "double shot" situation. And that's where we are now. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 From ehaa@starpower.net Thu Nov 14 15:13:28 2002 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2002 10:13:28 -0500 Subject: [blml] Declarer makes impossible contract by LOT In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.0.20021114095727.00a67a70@pop.starpower.net> At 05:59 PM 11/13/02, twm wrote: >In-Reply-To: <3DD24F2D.1020302@skynet.be> >Herman wrote: > > > But seriously, I was only dissenting because I thought it good to get > > this matter settled. It seems as if there is a far bigger consensus > > about this than about anything else on blml so I will consent with the > > other great and good. > >Well I am neither great nor good, and so not part of the consensus. This >whole episode seems to me a twisting of Law 72B1 and an abandonment of >Law72B2 which creates a cheat's charter. > >There is no way that merely adjusting (when opps actually get round to >calling the TD) has any deterrent effect. Such cheating is not, as >far as >I am aware, particularly widespread. However, I fear that if such >leniency is shown in cases where the TD believes the infraction >deliberate >it will become more of a problem. > >I can just about live with a L72b1 adjustment here if the TD believes the >infraction inadvertent, but I feel such an adjustment should (if made at >all) apply to both sides. If having the lead accepted really is "likely" >in any meaningful sense of the word then it still seems to completely >wrong to rank so doing as an egregious error. Being also not among the great and good, I'm not sure whether they agree with Tim or not, but I'm absolutely certain that my dictionary does. ("Egregious: remarkable or extraordinary in some bad way; glaring; flagrant" [RHUD].) To argue that someone "could have known" that someone else was "likely" or commit an "egregious" error is to argue in some language other than English. My personal opinion on the case at hand is that a L72B1 adjustment is clearly called for. But Tim is absolutely correct when he tells me that if I apply a L72B1 adjustment to the OS's score I have no choice but to give the benefit of that adjustment to the NOS. If covering the LOOT was indeed egregious, then the conditions for any application of L72B1 are not met. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 From willner@cfa.harvard.edu Thu Nov 14 15:37:17 2002 From: willner@cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2002 10:37:17 -0500 (EST) Subject: [blml] Declarer makes impossible contract by LOT Message-ID: <200211141537.KAA23918@cfa183.harvard.edu> > From: Eric Landau > So a "Kaplan doctrine" ruling, in which redress is denied to the NOS, > depends on a finding that the NOS committed an error subsequent to the > OS's infraction that was "sufficiently egregious to break the > connection between the infraction and the damage" Eric has given a nice explanation, but he left out one key point, probably because he thought it too obvious. A Kaplan ruling should only be given when, after the infraction, the NOS would have had a good score *except for* their "sufficiently egregious" error. The following example has often been used on BLML: NS "use UI" to bid an illegal slam, say at IMP scoring. Then EW revoke, costing the defense a trick. (It is widely agreed that a revoke is "sufficiently egregious," no matter what arguments we might have over other errors!) Case 1: the slam was going down, but the revoke let it make. Here the Kaplan doctrine says to deny redress. EW had a good score coming after the infraction, if only they had managed to follow suit. Case 2: the slam was making, and the revoke cost only a meaningless overtrick. Here the Kaplan doctrine says to revert the contract to the game level, despite the revoke. It was the illegal bid, not the defensive mistake, that damaged the NOS. (The NOS probably keep the score for losing 13 tricks, though.) I'm sure Eric knows this distinction, but apparently not all TD's and AC's do. From willner@cfa.harvard.edu Thu Nov 14 15:52:16 2002 From: willner@cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2002 10:52:16 -0500 (EST) Subject: [blml] POOT laws - a change suggested Message-ID: <200211141552.KAA24151@cfa183.harvard.edu> > From: "Konrad Ciborowski" > So what is an ethical player supposed to do > in this position? I guess he might as > well ask the Director to bid his cards... I have a lot of sympathy for players facing this problem. > So why not change the POOT laws > so that the offender's partner would > be barred? But I don't think this is the remedy. The real problem is mixing mechanical and information penalties. So _either_: a) the pass is cancelled and is UI to the OS, and there is no further penalty, _or_ b) somebody has to pass (offender or partner, or perhaps both), but the withdrawn pass is AI to everyone. One possibility is to offer the NOS a choice between a) and b). Another is just to pick one or the other, and put that one in the Laws. Or perhaps the choice should depend on circumstances (i.e., different for L30A, B1, B2, B3). Or let the TD choose (but give some guidance for one choice over the other!). But the _combination_ of a) and b), as we have now, should be avoided. Regular BLML readers may have read this before. From ehaa@starpower.net Thu Nov 14 16:01:05 2002 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2002 11:01:05 -0500 Subject: [blml] POOT laws - a change suggested In-Reply-To: <011b01c28bbc$30c14440$727e870a@krakow.sabreots.com> Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.0.20021114102918.00a68bd0@pop.starpower.net> At 03:59 AM 11/14/02, Konrad wrote: >You are dealer at game all, MP. > >Partner passes out of turn. L30A says that >offender must pass at his next turn. >We hold > >Q104 >84 >K9875 >A65 > >This is the hand from the last round of the >Swiss Pairs tournament that was played >yesterday. > >What are logical alternatives here? That is a meaningless question in this context, or, at least, a totally irrelevant one. >We have unauthorized information that partner >doesn't have an opening bid. On the other >hand the fact that partner is barred for one round >is authorized information to us. So where do we go from >here? Anywhere the partner of the OOT bidder wants to (L72A5). >The player in question opened this hand >with 2D. OK. >Partner explain the call as >Wilkosz - 6-10 5+-5+ with at least one major. And that's where the wheels fell off. There is absolutely no logical or legal reason to make the ludicrously absurd assumption that a player should or will apply his regular partnership agreements opposite a barred partner as he would if partner were not barred. There can be no possible "explanation" of the 2D bid beyond "that's what he chose to bid knowing that his partner was barred". >The opponents assumed Wilkosz and bid accordingly Was this table full of apprentice bridge lawyers in training, or just idiots? A man from Mars who'd seen a single hand of bridge could tell you that you don't make artificial conventional bids to which you know that partner can't reply. >which was rather unwise on their part - had the player >opened 3NT they wouldn't have assumed gambling >but a hand that tries to guess the right contract >opposite a barred partner. So 2D cannot >be Wilkosz in this position by the logic alone. That's the first rational thing that's been said. This is like one of those humorous articles about playing bridge in Hell. Is Konrad really Franz Kafka posting under a pseudonym? Apparently three players at this table went totally insane. The poor guy who bid 2D must have felt like he'd stumbled into the Mad Tea Party. Wilkosz, for Chr*st's sake???? I'm not sure where I can find a question for BLML in all this, but perhaps it's this: If a player goes stark raving mad at the table, thus inducing his opponents to go equally stark raving mad at the table, can the TD apply L73F2? Enough said. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 From blml@dybdal.dk Thu Nov 14 16:11:14 2002 From: blml@dybdal.dk (Jesper Dybdal) Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2002 17:11:14 +0100 Subject: [blml] POOT laws - a change suggested In-Reply-To: <011b01c28bbc$30c14440$727e870a@krakow.sabreots.com> References: <011b01c28bbc$30c14440$727e870a@krakow.sabreots.com> Message-ID: <9mi7tugk6mulp0fnol4cbtv8rncij85727@heimdal.i.softco.dk> [Apologies to Konrad for sending this to him instead of the list first] On Thu, 14 Nov 2002 09:59:45 +0100, "Konrad Ciborowski" wrote: >Partner passes out of turn. L30A says that >offender must pass at his next turn. ... >What are logical alternatives here? > >We have unauthorized information that partner >doesn't have an opening bid. On the other >hand the fact that partner is barred for one round >is authorized information to us. So where do we go from >here? The DBF's suggestion about this can be seen at http://www.bridge.dk/lov/ak/udg/rfc-dbf-02.htm#L30 --=20 Jesper Dybdal, Denmark. http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). From hermandw@skynet.be Thu Nov 14 16:13:03 2002 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2002 17:13:03 +0100 Subject: [blml] dWS for the beginner References: <5.1.0.14.0.20021112151524.026ba7e0@pop.ulb.ac.be> <00ae01c28a5b$fa9dd560$ba9468d5@default> <3DD12323.3000700@skynet.be> <00f001c28a69$69017ea0$ba9468d5@default> <5.1.0.14.0.20021113123504.02754500@pop.ulb.ac.be> <004801c28be7$b41868c0$cc9868d5@default> Message-ID: <3DD3CB8F.4080205@skynet.be> I'll say it myself before someone else does: Nigel Guthrie wrote: > Thank you Alain, Patrick, Herman, and David > (in absentia) for correcting misconceptions, > caused by my mistaken idea that MI is against > the law but UI is not -- reinforced by my > untutored reading of Law. > I can't be right as I am a legal novice and the > only person in BLML to publicly quibble with you. > Of course I recant my heretical interpretation. Your interpretation is by no means heretical. It is in fact my interpretation which is deemed by many to be heretical. Which is why it has been given a special name : dWS (De Wael School - not David W Stevenson). Which is of course no reason why you should not accept it. I believe both kinds of actions to be legal, I think the actions of the dWS followers to be beneficial to them (while not extra damaging to opponents), and I sincerely believe the advice from the dWS to players to be the most sensible one and the one they accept most easily. But the other view is by no means heretical, and in a clear, though diminishing majority on blml. I have no quarrels with any-one about this except those who mistakenly believe that followers of the dWS are diabolical heretics. > I feel, however, that the law book should be > clarified because few ordinary players have > such a sophisticated understanding of the words "partnership > agreement". > (: I confess that I have never recovered from > the lawbook's definition of "rational" as > "irrational". I guess Boole would say that > if you accept that all else follows :) > Such corrections may prove unnecessary if Bridge > fails to survive four years in its current > chaotic state until the next legal revision. > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From ehaa@starpower.net Thu Nov 14 16:15:33 2002 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2002 11:15:33 -0500 Subject: [blml] dWS for the beginner In-Reply-To: <004801c28be7$b41868c0$cc9868d5@default> References: <5.1.0.14.0.20021112151524.026ba7e0@pop.ulb.ac.be> <00ae01c28a5b$fa9dd560$ba9468d5@default> <3DD12323.3000700@skynet.be> <00f001c28a69$69017ea0$ba9468d5@default> <5.1.0.14.0.20021113123504.02754500@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.0.20021114110537.009e7400@pop.starpower.net> At 09:11 AM 11/14/02, Nigel wrote: >Thank you Alain, Patrick, Herman, and David >(in absentia) for correcting misconceptions, >caused by my mistaken idea that MI is against >the law but UI is not -- reinforced by my >untutored reading of Law. That sounds silly, but it's true, and for a very good reason: UI, unlike MI, cannot be made per se illegal because when you put four live human beings together face to face at a bridge table, EI is pervasive; it surrounds the table like the air, and inevitably some of it will be UI. You can't outlaw the unavoidable. It is taking advantage of the inevitably present UI which can logically be (and is) deemed illegal, because, like giving MI, it is possible not to do it. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 From toddz@worldnet.att.com Thu Nov 14 16:37:18 2002 From: toddz@worldnet.att.com (Todd Zimnoch) Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2002 11:37:18 -0500 Subject: [blml] POOT laws - a change suggested In-Reply-To: <5.2.0.9.0.20021114102918.00a68bd0@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: > -----Original Message----- > From: Eric Landau > Sent: Thursday, November 14, 2002 11:01 AM > To: Bridge Laws Discussion List > Subject: Re: [blml] POOT laws - a change suggested > > I'm not sure where I can find a question for BLML in > all this, but perhaps it's this: I would suggest the following question: does the ACBL regulation prohibiting the psyching of conventional opening bids still apply after one's partner has made an OPOOT? -Todd From hermandw@skynet.be Thu Nov 14 18:43:02 2002 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2002 19:43:02 +0100 Subject: [blml] dWS for the beginner References: <5.1.0.14.0.20021112151524.026ba7e0@pop.ulb.ac.be> <00ae01c28a5b$fa9dd560$ba9468d5@default> <3DD12323.3000700@skynet.be> <00f001c28a69$69017ea0$ba9468d5@default> <5.1.0.14.0.20021113123504.02754500@pop.ulb.ac.be> <004801c28be7$b41868c0$cc9868d5@default> <3DD3CB8F.4080205@skynet.be> <003601c28c09$963141c0$4e9568d5@default> Message-ID: <3DD3EEB6.2040502@skynet.be> Hello Nigel, Nigel Guthrie wrote: > Hi Herman, Thank you for admitting that it is > you who are out on a limb when I thought I was > clinging to a leaf. > I thought it only fair to mention that not everything I say should be taken with the same amount of respect that I believe I deserve on many other subjects. (Oops - sorry if that sounds what it sound like) > I think DWS is wrong in general and especially so Please put in one small letter at least - DWS is David Stevenson. I also believe David is wrong with regards to this, but that was not what you were saying. > in the context of Alain's > example [Your bid showed Spades and an minor > but partner explained it as the Black suits > -- which you, luckily, had] > > 1. In order to avoid UI you give deliberate MI > (according to what opponents expect -- i.e. > your agreed system). But that MI is absolutely of no consequence, since you are accurately describing the intention of your partner. The actual system is of no interest to opponents at all, since that was not what partner was saying, and you know it! > 2. You appear to "have 2 bites at the cherry" > In this case partner's explanation matches is > a lucky match to your hand but what if you had > spades and diamonds? How then would you explain > 4C? And hoe might the auction and explanations > continue? If you have spades and diamonds, and partner explains it as spades and clubs, and bids this same 3NT, then again you explain that as asking for strength. You then bid 4Di (showing, according to system, the diamond suit but interpreted by partner as maximum) whether you have a maximum or a minimum. I don't see how this is having two bytes at the cherry. Partner may well bid 5Cl, which you will probably have to pass because of the UI that you possess. But once in a while you will land on your feet, without UI to your partner. That is what you hope for. OTOH if you explain 3NT as "tell me which minor" when partner has just told you he "knows" you have clubs, he will know that a wheel has come off. He will now be bound by UI as well, and will have to do something strange. The thread about the POOT has thought us that it is not easy to distinguish LAs. One of you already has to do this (you), why should you have to burden your partner with it as well? No Law should be interpreted as forcing you to give UI, especially since there exists a law actively prohibiting you from giving UI. > 3. If partner wakes up and realises his earlier > explanation was wrong, how do you both > disentangle the resulting chaos without damage > to opponents? > If partner wakes up, it will not be because of UI you provided. There will be no chaos. He will correct his previous explanation, and now also understand your reply. You will also tell the opponents now that systematically his previous call had some other meaning than what you had told them, but that this is unimportant since that was not what he intented it to mean. The chaos is already there, and it will be disentangled. But without UI. OTOH, by "correctly" explaining the call, you create that same chaos with an added problem - that of UI to partner. UI which one law explicitely forbids you to give. The more I write about this, the more I am convinced that the dWS is the best way forward out of this dilemma. And Alain's example is a good one at that. > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Herman De Wael" > To: "blml" > Sent: 14 November 2002 16:13 > Subject: Re: [blml] dWS for the beginner > > > I'll say it myself before someone else does: > > Nigel Guthrie wrote: > > >>Thank you Alain, Patrick, Herman, and David >>(in absentia) for correcting misconceptions, >>caused by my mistaken idea that MI is against >>the law but UI is not -- reinforced by my >>untutored reading of Law. >>I can't be right as I am a legal novice and the >>only person in BLML to publicly quibble with you. >>Of course I recant my heretical interpretation. >> > > > Your interpretation is by no means heretical. > It is in fact my interpretation which is deemed by many to be > heretical. Which is why it has been given a special name : dWS (De > Wael School - not David W Stevenson). > Which is of course no reason why you should not accept it. > I believe both kinds of actions to be legal, I think the actions > of > the dWS followers to be beneficial to them (while not extra > damaging > to opponents), and I sincerely believe the advice from the dWS to > players to be the most sensible one and the one they accept most > easily. > But the other view is by no means heretical, and in a clear, > though > diminishing majority on blml. > I have no quarrels with any-one about this except those who > mistakenly > believe that followers of the dWS are diabolical heretics. > > > >>I feel, however, that the law book should be >>clarified because few ordinary players have >>such a sophisticated understanding of the words "partnership >>agreement". >>(: I confess that I have never recovered from >> the lawbook's definition of "rational" as >> "irrational". I guess Boole would say that >> if you accept that all else follows :) >>Such corrections may prove unnecessary if Bridge >>fails to survive four years in its current >>chaotic state until the next legal revision. >> >> >> >>_______________________________________________ >>blml mailing list >>blml@rtflb.org >>http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml >> >> >> >> > > > -- > Herman DE WAEL > Antwerpen Belgium > http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From ehaa@starpower.net Thu Nov 14 21:41:10 2002 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2002 16:41:10 -0500 Subject: [blml] POOT laws - a change suggested In-Reply-To: References: <5.2.0.9.0.20021114102918.00a68bd0@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.0.20021114163504.00a5c060@pop.starpower.net> At 11:37 AM 11/14/02, Todd wrote: > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Eric Landau > > > > I'm not sure where I can find a question for BLML in > > all this, but perhaps it's this: > > I would suggest the following question: does the ACBL regulation >prohibiting the psyching of conventional opening bids still apply >after one's partner has made an OPOOT? Not unless the ACBL is as totally loony as the players in Konrad's original account. I think we need to understand an important general principle here, namely: THERE AIN'T NO SUCH THING AS A CONVENTIONAL BID OPPOSITE A BARRED PARTNER! Does anyone out there really think we need to debate this? Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 From ehaa@starpower.net Thu Nov 14 22:24:59 2002 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2002 17:24:59 -0500 Subject: [blml] dWS for the beginner In-Reply-To: <3DD3EEB6.2040502@skynet.be> References: <5.1.0.14.0.20021112151524.026ba7e0@pop.ulb.ac.be> <00ae01c28a5b$fa9dd560$ba9468d5@default> <3DD12323.3000700@skynet.be> <00f001c28a69$69017ea0$ba9468d5@default> <5.1.0.14.0.20021113123504.02754500@pop.ulb.ac.be> <004801c28be7$b41868c0$cc9868d5@default> <3DD3CB8F.4080205@skynet.be> <003601c28c09$963141c0$4e9568d5@default> Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.0.20021114165130.00a5f2b0@pop.starpower.net> At 01:43 PM 11/14/02, Herman wrote: >Nigel Guthrie wrote: > >>in the context of Alain's >>example [Your bid showed Spades and an minor >>but partner explained it as the Black suits >>-- which you, luckily, had] >>1. In order to avoid UI you give deliberate MI >> (according to what opponents expect -- i.e. >> your agreed system). > >But that MI is absolutely of no consequence, since you are accurately >describing the intention of your partner. The actual system is of no >interest to opponents at all, since that was not what partner was >saying, and you know it! > >>2. You appear to "have 2 bites at the cherry" >> In this case partner's explanation matches is >> a lucky match to your hand but what if you had >> spades and diamonds? How then would you explain >> 4C? And hoe might the auction and explanations >> continue? > >If you have spades and diamonds, and partner explains it as spades and >clubs, and bids this same 3NT, then again you explain that as asking >for strength. You then bid 4Di (showing, according to system, the >diamond suit but interpreted by partner as maximum) whether you have a >maximum or a minimum. >I don't see how this is having two bytes at the cherry. Partner may >well bid 5Cl, which you will probably have to pass because of the UI >that you possess. But once in a while you will land on your feet, >without UI to your partner. That is what you hope for. >OTOH if you explain 3NT as "tell me which minor" when partner has just >told you he "knows" you have clubs, he will know that a wheel has come >off. He will now be bound by UI as well, and will have to do something >strange. The thread about the POOT has thought us that it is not easy >to distinguish LAs. One of you already has to do this (you), why >should you have to burden your partner with it as well? No Law should >be interpreted as forcing you to give UI, especially since there >exists a law actively prohibiting you from giving UI. JFTR, there is no law prohibiting you from *giving* UI; if there were, every bridge player in the world would violate it every time he or she sat down at the table. L73B is about communication, which is intentional transmission, of, in our context, information. It forbids *communicating* UI. L73C exists because the authors of L73 understood that UI can be given, and received, even if it has not been "communicated". It forbids using whatever UI might have been given, without concern for whether or not it was communicated in violation of L73B. Of course, this has nothing to do with Herman's argument or the dWS, which is concerned exclusively with matters of communication. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 From mfrench1@san.rr.com Fri Nov 15 06:43:36 2002 From: mfrench1@san.rr.com (Marvin L. French) Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2002 22:43:36 -0800 Subject: [blml] When to call the TD Message-ID: <007101c28c72$80ebe9a0$3a30d2cc@san.rr.com> Letter to the editor of the ACBL *Bulletin*, which was not published. So I'll publish it myself. :-)) ######## Rich Colker wrote in "At the Table" (October, page 104), "Some experienced players wait until they have good reason to believe the receiver of unauthorized information took an unusual action. This requires waiting until the player's hand is known, which often is not until dummy appears or play has ended." That should be the practice of everyone, not just experienced players, since it is what is required by Law 16A2, which is not one of the optional laws. It says that the time to call the director is "When play ends; or, as to dummy's hand, when dummy is exposed." You call when you see evidence of a possible infraction, not when you suspect one. And yet Rich goes on to say,"If you fail to call the director when you suspect an opponent took an action that was suggested by extraneous information from his partner which could have damaged your side, you *may* jeopardize your right to protection. While failing to call immediately will not automatically jeopardize your rights, waiting incurs a greater risk of that happening." I can't find that in the Laws, and fail to see why obeying Law 16A2 should "jeopardize your right." Doing so saves a lot of director time and reduces the possibility of offending someone who has done nothing wrong. ######### Does anyone disagree? -- Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California From toddz@worldnet.att.com Fri Nov 15 06:58:24 2002 From: toddz@worldnet.att.com (Todd Zimnoch) Date: Fri, 15 Nov 2002 01:58:24 -0500 Subject: [blml] When to call the TD In-Reply-To: <007101c28c72$80ebe9a0$3a30d2cc@san.rr.com> Message-ID: > -----Original Message----- > From: Marvin L. French > Sent: Friday, November 15, 2002 1:44 AM > Subject: [blml] When to call the TD > > I can't find that in the Laws, and fail to see why > obeying Law 16A2 should > "jeopardize your right." Doing so saves a lot of > director time and reduces the > possibility of offending someone who has done nothing wrong. > ######### > > Does anyone disagree? I agree that this is the way it should be, but in practice, it's more difficult to get agreement on a hesitation, stray remark, or the like after the hand has been played. When you cannot establish that UI existed, your rights have disappeared. This is one of the risks you take on when waiting to call the director later. -Todd From hermandw@skynet.be Fri Nov 15 09:06:26 2002 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 15 Nov 2002 10:06:26 +0100 Subject: [blml] dWS for the beginner References: <5.1.0.14.0.20021112151524.026ba7e0@pop.ulb.ac.be> <00ae01c28a5b$fa9dd560$ba9468d5@default> <3DD12323.3000700@skynet.be> <00f001c28a69$69017ea0$ba9468d5@default> <5.1.0.14.0.20021113123504.02754500@pop.ulb.ac.be> <004801c28be7$b41868c0$cc9868d5@default> <3DD3CB8F.4080205@skynet.be> <003601c28c09$963141c0$4e9568d5@default> <5.2.0.9.0.20021114165130.00a5f2b0@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <3DD4B912.7050308@skynet.be> Eric Landau wrote: > At 01:43 PM 11/14/02, Herman wrote: > >> should you have to burden your partner with it as well? No Law should >> be interpreted as forcing you to give UI, especially since there >> exists a law actively prohibiting you from giving UI. > > > JFTR, there is no law prohibiting you from *giving* UI; if there were, > every bridge player in the world would violate it every time he or she > sat down at the table. > JFTR, there is such a law. In this special context there is. L75D2: ".. nor may he indicate in any manner that a mistake has been made .." In all other instances you are right, but not in this one. In the typical dWS case there is a law that says "thou shalt not give UI to partner". There is no law "Thou shalt not misinform". > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From gester@lineone.net Fri Nov 15 12:42:51 2002 From: gester@lineone.net (gester@lineone.net) Date: Fri, 15 Nov 2002 12:42:51 -0000 Subject: [blml] dWS for the beginner References: <5.1.0.14.0.20021112151524.026ba7e0@pop.ulb.ac.be> <00ae01c28a5b$fa9dd560$ba9468d5@default> <3DD12323.3000700@skynet.be> <00f001c28a69$69017ea0$ba9468d5@default> <5.1.0.14.0.20021113123504.02754500@pop.ulb.ac.be> <004801c28be7$b41868c0$cc9868d5@default> <3DD3CB8F.4080205@skynet.be> <003601c28c09$963141c0$4e9568d5@default> <3DD3EEB6.2040502@skynet.be> Message-ID: <001401c28ca4$a8a1dae0$0b182850@pacific> Grattan Endicott To: "blml" Sent: Thursday, November 14, 2002 6:43 PM Subject: Re: [blml] dWS for the beginner > > But that MI is absolutely of no consequence, since you are > accurately describing the intention of your partner. The > actual system is of no interest to opponents at all, since that > was not what partner was saying, and you know it! > +=+ Please consider this: Text of a letter from Edgar Kaplan to Mr. Krishnan, Oct 8, 1989. Dear Mr. Krishnan, Here is the explanation I promised you of that ruling in Perth. The facts are these. The eventual declarer explained to her screenmate, who would be the opening leader, that her response to Exclusion Blackwood promised one Ace;declarer did indeed hold one ace, but her Blackwood response, as correctly explained on the other side of the screen actually promised zero (or three) aces by partnership agreement. Slam was bid and opening leader chose not to lead a singleton, which would have defeated the contract. It is easy and tempting to reason that nothing was wrong – after all, opening leader was correctly told the number of aces in declarer's hand, so what harm was done? That reasoning may be common sense but it ignores bridge law. Common morality may require declarer to reveal, without deceit, what she holds, but bridge law requires something quite different: declarer must give her opponent an accurate explanation of the partnership agreement. She didn't, of course – it is inevitable that a player who forgets her agreement behind a screen will break the law by giving a mistaken explanation. She will be morally blameless, since she explains in all honesty and good faith, but what the law demands of the explanation is not good faith, the law demands accuracy. Declarer's inaccurate though honest explanation was, therefore, an infraction of law. That is enough to determine the director's ruling, since information about aces obviously might affect the decision whether or not to lead a singleton. The Committee's ruling is determined by its answer to this entirely unrealistic hypothetical question: how likely is it that the opening lead would have been different had the opening leader been given the accurate explanation (no aces) instead of the honest and inaccurate explanation (one ace)? The Committee in Perth was far from convinced that the one-ace explanation would have induced the singleton lead (had it been convinced, it would have adjusted the score to six down one), but it judged the change of lead to be a small but reasonable possibility. Accordingly the Committee awarded the adjusted score of 3 imps, "average plus" to the innocent team. Note that the strange circumstances of this case arose only because of a screen procedure, where a player explains her own bid: thus, the absurd requirement that she give an accurate explanation of an agreement she has honestly forgotten. The closest analogy in normal bridge, without screens, is the position in which you know that your partner has made a mistaken bid. Suppose he opens four clubs, which is supposed to show a strong heart opening with at least a semi-solid suit, when you hold S. A x x H. KQJ x x D. J 10 x.x.x C void. It is obvious from your cards that he has forgotten the agreement, so you intend to pass him right there. First though, your right-hand opponent asks about the four clubs bid. Your explanation must be "Strong four hearts opening with a very good heart suit". That is, your obligation under bridge law is to describe your partnership agreement, not your partner's hand. That legal obligation remains the same when, behind screens, you must explain your own action. I hope this now makes at least a little sense to you. Sincerely, Edgar Kaplan. Oct. 8th 1989. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From hermandw@skynet.be Fri Nov 15 12:59:27 2002 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 15 Nov 2002 13:59:27 +0100 Subject: [blml] dWS for the beginner References: <5.1.0.14.0.20021112151524.026ba7e0@pop.ulb.ac.be> <00ae01c28a5b$fa9dd560$ba9468d5@default> <3DD12323.3000700@skynet.be> <00f001c28a69$69017ea0$ba9468d5@default> <5.1.0.14.0.20021113123504.02754500@pop.ulb.ac.be> <004801c28be7$b41868c0$cc9868d5@default> <3DD3CB8F.4080205@skynet.be> <003601c28c09$963141c0$4e9568d5@default> <3DD3EEB6.2040502@skynet.be> <001401c28ca4$a8a1dae0$0b182850@pacific> Message-ID: <3DD4EFAF.5060909@skynet.be> Grattan, Perfectly correct and totally irrelevant to the problems about the dWS. gester@lineone.net wrote: >> > +=+ Please consider this: > > Text of a letter from Edgar Kaplan to Mr. Krishnan, Oct 8, 1989. > > Dear Mr. Krishnan, [snip] > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From ehaa@starpower.net Fri Nov 15 13:25:05 2002 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Fri, 15 Nov 2002 08:25:05 -0500 Subject: [blml] POOT laws - a change suggested In-Reply-To: <001a01c28c2e$c5741aa0$39d263d9@c5s5d3> References: <5.2.0.9.0.20021114102918.00a68bd0@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.0.20021115080526.009f78a0@pop.starpower.net> At 05:39 PM 11/14/02, Konrad wrote: >----- Original Message ----- >From: "Eric Landau" > > > >We have unauthorized information that partner > > >doesn't have an opening bid. On the other > > >hand the fact that partner is barred for one round > > >is authorized information to us. So where do we go from > > >here? > > > > Anywhere the partner of the OOT bidder wants to (L72A5). > >No, we don't. Are you suggesting that you are allowed to >open 1H (or even 1S or 1NT) in this position with > >xxxxxx >--- >xxxx >xxx Quite some time ago we discussed something very similar to this, in our thread on the "Rottweiler coup". I don't recall the exact details, but the group was split between those who thought it was a clever ploy and those who thought it was illegal. I do not recall any suggestion, though, that it depended on any determination of LAs; the question was whether an outright psyche is permitted in this situation. But I seem to recall -- somebody help me here -- that there may have been more to the Rottweiler coup case than we have here: in that case, it may have been the player perpetrating the psyche whose infraction had resulted in partner being barred, which would surely have strengthened the case for calling the coup illegal. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 From rmb1@capulin.cmsc.npl.co.uk Fri Nov 15 13:30:09 2002 From: rmb1@capulin.cmsc.npl.co.uk (Robin Barker) Date: Fri, 15 Nov 2002 13:30:09 GMT Subject: [blml] dWS for the beginner Message-ID: <200211151330.NAA23980@tempest.cmsc.npl.co.uk> Herman wrote: > > Grattan, > > Perfectly correct and totally irrelevant to the problems about the dWS. That seems unnecessarily rude. Someone makes a contribution that presumably they believe to be relevant and you dismiss it without explanation. No wonder David left us. Kaplan's letter points out that you should explain partnership understanding not what is in the player's hand. dWS says you should give the explanation of partner bid that he intended not the explanation according to the partnership agreement. It is relevant to dWS that giving the explanation that is (thought to be) the correct statement of partnership agreement is what the law requires, not giving an explanation that is (thought to be) what partner intended. Robin > gester@lineone.net wrote: > > >> > > +=+ Please consider this: > > > > Text of a letter from Edgar Kaplan to Mr. Krishnan, Oct 8, 1989. > > > > Dear Mr. Krishnan, > [snip] > -- Robin Barker | Email: Robin.Barker@npl.co.uk CMSC, Building 10, | Phone: +44 (0) 20 8943 7090 National Physical Laboratory, | Fax: +44 (0) 20 8977 7091 Teddington, Middlesex, UK. TW11 OLW | WWW: http://www.npl.co.uk From ehaa@starpower.net Fri Nov 15 13:38:22 2002 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Fri, 15 Nov 2002 08:38:22 -0500 Subject: [blml] When to call the TD In-Reply-To: <007101c28c72$80ebe9a0$3a30d2cc@san.rr.com> Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.0.20021115082732.00a609b0@pop.starpower.net> At 01:43 AM 11/15/02, Marvin wrote: >Letter to the editor of the ACBL *Bulletin*, which was not published. >So I'll >publish it myself. :-)) > >######## >Rich Colker wrote in "At the Table" (October, page 104), "Some experienced >players wait until they have good reason to believe the receiver of >unauthorized information took an unusual action. This requires waiting >until >the player's hand is known, which often is not until dummy appears or >play has >ended." > >That should be the practice of everyone, not just experienced players, >since >it is what is required by Law 16A2, which is not one of the optional >laws. It >says that the time to call the director is "When play ends; or, as to >dummy's >hand, when dummy is exposed." You call when you see evidence of a possible >infraction, not when you suspect one. > >And yet Rich goes on to say,"If you fail to call the director when you >suspect >an opponent took an action that was suggested by extraneous >information from >his partner which could have damaged your side, you *may* jeopardize your >right to protection. While failing to call immediately will not >automatically >jeopardize your rights, waiting incurs a greater risk of that happening." > >I can't find that in the Laws, and fail to see why obeying Law 16A2 should >"jeopardize your right." Doing so saves a lot of director time and >reduces the >possibility of offending someone who has done nothing wrong. >######### > >Does anyone disagree? Surely not I. Everything Marv says is 100% correct. But, then, Mr. Colker is also correct. "At the Table" (which is subtitled "A survival manual") is not a column about the laws; it is a column that purports to give practical advice to players about how to cope with situations "at the table". And given the current state of ACBL jurisprudence, it is unfortunately but undeniably true that if you don't call the director as soon as your opponent calls, you may jeopardize your right to protection, notwithstanding the lack of any basis in the laws for this being the case. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 From rmb1@capulin.cmsc.npl.co.uk Fri Nov 15 13:40:48 2002 From: rmb1@capulin.cmsc.npl.co.uk (Robin Barker) Date: Fri, 15 Nov 2002 13:40:48 GMT Subject: [blml] POOT laws - a change suggested Message-ID: <200211151340.NAA23987@tempest.cmsc.npl.co.uk> > From: Eric Landau > At 05:39 PM 11/14/02, Konrad wrote: > > >----- Original Message ----- > >From: "Eric Landau" > > > > > >We have unauthorized information that partner > > > >doesn't have an opening bid. On the other > > > >hand the fact that partner is barred for one round > > > >is authorized information to us. So where do we go from > > > >here? > > > > > > Anywhere the partner of the OOT bidder wants to (L72A5). > > > >No, we don't. Are you suggesting that you are allowed to > >open 1H (or even 1S or 1NT) in this position with > > > >xxxxxx > >--- > >xxxx > >xxx > > Quite some time ago we discussed something very similar to this, in our > thread on the "Rottweiler coup". I don't recall the exact details, but > the group was split between those who thought it was a clever ploy and > those who thought it was illegal. I do not recall any suggestion, > though, that it depended on any determination of LAs; the question was > whether an outright psyche is permitted in this situation. > > But I seem to recall -- somebody help me here -- that there may have > been more to the Rottweiler coup case than we have here: in that case, > it may have been the player perpetrating the psyche whose infraction > had resulted in partner being barred, which would surely have > strengthened the case for calling the coup illegal. > > > Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net > 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 > Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 I think the Rottweiller opened 2D multi out of turn in a position that meant partner was silenced. At his turn, Richard then bid the major he did not have, opponents were annoyed when he ruffed the suit he bid, and generally all hell broke loose -- Richard in his element :-). Some ruled that he could have known (especially given the poor quality of his hand -- even for a Rottweiller multi) when opening out of turn that silencing partner and then psyching was likely to be to his advantage; and adjusted. Some said that this sort of thing was outrageous and should not be allowed -- but could not cite any particular law or regulation. Some were rather in awe of what had been perpetrated and, in the absense of prohibition by law or regulation, allowed the result to stand. Robin -- Robin Barker | Email: Robin.Barker@npl.co.uk CMSC, Building 10, | Phone: +44 (0) 20 8943 7090 National Physical Laboratory, | Fax: +44 (0) 20 8977 7091 Teddington, Middlesex, UK. TW11 OLW | WWW: http://www.npl.co.uk From dalburn@btopenworld.com Fri Nov 15 13:40:22 2002 From: dalburn@btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: 15 Nov 2002 05:40:22 -0800 Subject: [blml] POOT laws - a change suggested Message-ID: <151102319.20423@webbox.com> Eric wrote: >But I seem to recall -- somebody help me here -- that there may have been more to the Rottweiler coup case than we have here: in that case, it may have been the player perpetrating the psyche whose infraction had resulted in partner being barred, which would surely have strengthened the case for calling the coup illegal. Since I gave the original ruling, on that incident, perhaps I can help. A player opened 2D (Multi) with six spades to the jack and a poor hand. It was not his turn; when his LHO declined to accept 2D and his RHO opened 1D, our hero chose to overcall 1H with a void, his partner being barred throughout. What followed is not especially relevant; it was held that a player who, knowing his partner to be barred, makes a grotesque psychic call, he is in breach of Law. He could know at the time of opening out of turn that this was likely to damage the opponents by allowing him to perpertate risk-free deceptions. (Obviously, this does not extend to a player who, facing a passed partner, guesses to open something he hopes will make, usually 3NT - this, while it might damage the opponents if it is a lucky make, is not "likely" to do so.) While we're on the subject of Law 72, Max Bavin has remarked to me that he does not consider it "likely" that a lead from the wrong hand will damage the opponents; it is far more probable that they will tell him to lead from the correct hand than that the "wrong" defender will follow suit, especially when doing so would be to the defenders' disadvantage. So, a score cannot be adjusted under Law 72 in respect of declarer's lead from the wrong hand. It's a nice point. David Burn London, England From hermandw@skynet.be Fri Nov 15 13:57:32 2002 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 15 Nov 2002 14:57:32 +0100 Subject: [blml] dWS for the beginner References: <200211151330.NAA23980@tempest.cmsc.npl.co.uk> Message-ID: <3DD4FD4C.4000005@skynet.be> Robin Barker wrote: > Herman wrote: > >>Grattan, >> >>Perfectly correct and totally irrelevant to the problems about the dWS. >> > > That seems unnecessarily rude. I also believe it rude to answer a post with the intention of contradicting someone (or why else post it as a reply on that) and then go off on a tangent. I have no problem at all with what Grattan wrote. It was quite interesting and totally correct. And also totally irrelevant to the thread in question. > Someone makes a contribution that presumably > they believe to be relevant and you dismiss it without explanation. > No wonder David left us. > > Kaplan's letter points out that you should explain partnership understanding > not what is in the player's hand. > I agree. But the example was one behind screens (where the dWS has no relevance whatsoever) and the reason behind the ruling was the fact that although someone received a correct explanation about the holding, it was still a different explanation from what their partner had received, and that is what did the damage. Surely explaining 3NT as "asking for strenghth", when that is indeed what partner intends, and what both opponents hear, is not in the same category. Besides, the dWS has NEVER argued that the MI that is given should not be termed MI, nor that it should not be dealt with, but only that when faced with a dilemma, it should be OK to choose not giving UI while giving MI over the reverse. I did not want to expand the thread by repeating for the third time what I had stated before (as I now have) so I chose to be brief and dismiss Grattan's post with a simple "correct but irrelevant". If that seems rude to you, then so be it. It was not intended as such. > dWS says you should give the explanation of partner bid that he intended not > the explanation according to the partnership agreement. > > It is relevant to dWS that giving the explanation that is (thought to be) the > correct statement of partnership agreement is what the law requires, not > giving an explanation that is (thought to be) what partner intended. > I have never said that this is not MI. But don't forget that the law requires two things : not giving MI _AND_ not giving UI. And one cannot do both. > Robin > >> > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw@skynet.be Fri Nov 15 14:00:42 2002 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 15 Nov 2002 15:00:42 +0100 Subject: [blml] POOT laws - a change suggested References: <5.2.0.9.0.20021114102918.00a68bd0@pop.starpower.net> <5.2.0.9.0.20021115080526.009f78a0@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <3DD4FE0A.4050006@skynet.be> Eric Landau wrote: > At 05:39 PM 11/14/02, Konrad wrote: > >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "Eric Landau" >> >> > >We have unauthorized information that partner >> > >doesn't have an opening bid. On the other >> > >hand the fact that partner is barred for one round >> > >is authorized information to us. So where do we go from >> > >here? >> > >> > Anywhere the partner of the OOT bidder wants to (L72A5). >> >> No, we don't. Are you suggesting that you are allowed to >> open 1H (or even 1S or 1NT) in this position with >> >> xxxxxx >> --- >> xxxx >> xxx > > > Quite some time ago we discussed something very similar to this, in our > thread on the "Rottweiler coup". I don't recall the exact details, but > the group was split between those who thought it was a clever ploy and > those who thought it was illegal. I do not recall any suggestion, > though, that it depended on any determination of LAs; the question was > whether an outright psyche is permitted in this situation. > > But I seem to recall -- somebody help me here -- that there may have > been more to the Rottweiler coup case than we have here: in that case, > it may have been the player perpetrating the psyche whose infraction had > resulted in partner being barred, which would surely have strengthened > the case for calling the coup illegal. > Exactly. In the Rottweiler coup, at the moment of the infraction, the player could have known that a later psyche might damage opponents. In the case from this thread, the infractor and the psycher are two different people. The one cannot know that his partner holds a hand where a psyche might work, the other has made no infraction. So both the infraction and the psyche must be called "legal". > > Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net > 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 > Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From agot@ulb.ac.be Fri Nov 15 14:38:32 2002 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Fri, 15 Nov 2002 15:38:32 +0100 Subject: [blml] POOT laws - a change suggested In-Reply-To: <5.2.0.9.0.20021115080526.009f78a0@pop.starpower.net> References: <001a01c28c2e$c5741aa0$39d263d9@c5s5d3> <5.2.0.9.0.20021114102918.00a68bd0@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20021115153425.00acdbf0@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 08:25 15/11/2002 -0500, Eric Landau wrote: >At 05:39 PM 11/14/02, Konrad wrote: > >>----- Original Message ----- >>From: "Eric Landau" >> >> > >We have unauthorized information that partner >> > >doesn't have an opening bid. On the other >> > >hand the fact that partner is barred for one round >> > >is authorized information to us. So where do we go from >> > >here? >> > >> > Anywhere the partner of the OOT bidder wants to (L72A5). >> >>No, we don't. Are you suggesting that you are allowed to >>open 1H (or even 1S or 1NT) in this position with >> >>xxxxxx >>--- >>xxxx >>xxx > >Quite some time ago we discussed something very similar to this, in our >thread on the "Rottweiler coup". I don't recall the exact details, but >the group was split between those who thought it was a clever ploy and >those who thought it was illegal. I do not recall any suggestion, though, >that it depended on any determination of LAs; the question was whether an >outright psyche is permitted in this situation. > >But I seem to recall -- somebody help me here -- that there may have been >more to the Rottweiler coup case than we have here: in that case, it may >have been the player perpetrating the psyche whose infraction had resulted >in partner being barred, which would surely have strengthened the case for >calling the coup illegal. Yes, Eric, that's it. The case was about a player bidding OOT on a Yarborough, ensuring that partner would be barred. And there was a clear consensus that L23 and L75 did apply here. The change you suggest, which is basically treating a POOT as a BOOT, would implement them here, too - for the best IMOBO. Best regards, Alain. From twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Fri Nov 15 14:27:00 2002 From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Date: Fri, 15 Nov 2002 14:27 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [blml] POOT laws - a change suggested Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <151102319.20423@webbox.com> David wrote: > What followed is not especially relevant; it was held that a > player who, knowing his partner to be barred, makes a grotesque > psychic call, he is in breach of Law. He could know at the time > of opening out of turn that this was likely to damage the opponents > by allowing him to perpertate risk-free deceptions. If I recall correctly the "likelihood" of damaging opps was specifically related to the weakness of the actual hand. Had Richard chosen to make such a psyche holding a maximum multi the result would have stood. I can't imagine a hand where one would be likely to damage opps by barring oneself for one round in order for partner to make a reduced-risk psyche. Tim From agot@ulb.ac.be Fri Nov 15 14:49:21 2002 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Fri, 15 Nov 2002 15:49:21 +0100 Subject: [blml] POOT laws - a change suggested In-Reply-To: <151102319.20423@webbox.com> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20021115154249.0244aec0@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 05:40 15/11/2002 -0800, David Burn wrote: > >While we're on the subject of Law 72, Max Bavin has remarked >to me that he does not consider it "likely" that a lead from >the wrong hand will damage the opponents; it is far more probable >that they will tell him to lead from the correct hand than that >the "wrong" defender will follow suit, especially when doing >so would be to the defenders' disadvantage. So, a score cannot >be adjusted under Law 72 in respect of declarer's lead from the >wrong hand. It's a nice point. AG : it's a point, but IBTD. What we want to do is avoid the case of an infraction making the expectancy better than if it had not occurred. Then we should be able to say to the player : "you could have known, etc." Thus, there are two cases where L23 and L72 should see action : a) an infraction that will often make your score better (classical case : 1H (2C) 1NT, corrected to 2D, with long diamonds and a weak hand, ensuring that partner doesn't bid on 2D) ; b) an infraction that could gain, even in a limited number of occurrences, while it could not lose (classical case : leading from the wrong hand when there is no transportation available). Your 'nice point' is that a) is covered by L72, but b) isn't. If this is the case, I'd like to see it changed so that it covers b) too. Best regards, Alain. From agot@ulb.ac.be Fri Nov 15 14:54:16 2002 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Fri, 15 Nov 2002 15:54:16 +0100 Subject: [blml] POOT laws - a change suggested In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20021115155048.024427a0@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 14:27 15/11/2002 +0000, Tim West-meads wrote: >In-Reply-To: <151102319.20423@webbox.com> >David wrote: > > > What followed is not especially relevant; it was held that a > > player who, knowing his partner to be barred, makes a grotesque > > psychic call, he is in breach of Law. He could know at the time > > of opening out of turn that this was likely to damage the opponents > > by allowing him to perpertate risk-free deceptions. > >If I recall correctly the "likelihood" of damaging opps was specifically >related to the weakness of the actual hand. Had Richard chosen to make >such a psyche holding a maximum multi the result would have stood. > >I can't imagine a hand where one would be likely to damage opps by barring >oneself for one round in order for partner to make a reduced-risk psyche. AG : I've always been very imaginative. Partner opens a Wagner 2D (weak 2 H/S only), and you pass, with a weak hand and some agreement with both majors. LHO reopens with a double, and *now* you pass in front of partner. Partner is now free to bid the 'wrong' major. From dalburn@btopenworld.com Fri Nov 15 14:55:53 2002 From: dalburn@btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: 15 Nov 2002 06:55:53 -0800 Subject: [blml] POOT laws - a change suggested Message-ID: <151102319.24953@webbox.com> TWM wrote: >If I recall correctly the "likelihood" of damaging opps was specifically related to the weakness of the actual hand. You don't. It wasn't. >Had Richard chosen to make such a psyche holding a maximum multi the result would have stood. It wouldn't. When you psyche, you hope to damage the opponents (legitimately) by deceiving them as to the nature of your hand. The risk you run is that partner, similarly deceived, will do something that instead damages your side. If partner is in no position to do anything, you are much better placed to deceive the opponents. This applies whatever kind of hand you have. David Burn London, England From A.Kooijman@dwk.agro.nl Fri Nov 15 15:00:51 2002 From: A.Kooijman@dwk.agro.nl (Kooijman, A.) Date: Fri, 15 Nov 2002 16:00:51 +0100 Subject: [blml] POOT laws - a change suggested Message-ID: Herman: > Exactly. In the Rottweiler coup, at the moment of the infraction, the > player could have known that a later psyche might damage opponents. > In the case from this thread, the infractor and the psycher are two > different people. The one cannot know that his partner holds a hand > where a psyche might work, the other has made no infraction. So both > the infraction and the psyche must be called "legal". > > It is time for the Kooijman-doctrine, which is: We Have To Follow The Laws Of Bridge When Acting As TD. (I give up the appeal committees, just received a message from a member of my AC accusing me of following the laws regarding claims) After a call OOT being withdrawn it is AI for partner that the laws will be applied, which includes that the information arising from that call is UI!!!!!!!!!!! So L16(C2) applies and it should not be a Hercules task for the TD to decide that this player had a logical alternative for the psyche he made. ton From twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Fri Nov 15 15:59:00 2002 From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Date: Fri, 15 Nov 2002 15:59 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [blml] POOT laws - a change suggested Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <151102319.24953@webbox.com> David wrote: > >If I recall correctly the "likelihood" of damaging opps was > specifically related to the weakness of the actual hand. > > You don't. It wasn't. > > >Had Richard chosen to make such a psyche holding a maximum multi > the result would have stood. > > It wouldn't. > > When you psyche, you hope to damage the opponents (legitimately) > by deceiving them as to the nature of your hand. The risk you > run is that partner, similarly deceived, will do something that > instead damages your side. If partner is in no position to do > anything, you are much better placed to deceive the opponents. > This applies whatever kind of hand you have. But the psyche wasn't the infraction. Richard had to be in a "could have known" situation at the time of the BOOT, not the time of the psyche. The matter is obviously one for TD/AC judgement but I would not expect many people to believe that barring partner when holding e.g. KQT9xx,x,Axxx,xx would be *likely* to damage opponents. Holding Jxxxxx,xx,Qx,xxx (or whatever it was) barring partner (whether one plans to psyche or not) may be the optimal strategy. There is, of course, no reason why the original committee should have considered how they would have ruled on any hand other than the one actually held. My own judgement would be that barring partner on the strong hand would be *less* likely to damage opps than leading from the wrong hand while doing so on the weaker hand would be more likely. Absent any official guidance on exactly what the likely in L72b1 means I'd run with Max's comment as a marker and would not apply L72b1 in the strong scenario. Tim From gester@lineone.net Fri Nov 15 16:00:57 2002 From: gester@lineone.net (gester@lineone.net) Date: Fri, 15 Nov 2002 16:00:57 -0000 Subject: [blml] dWS for the beginner References: <5.1.0.14.0.20021112151524.026ba7e0@pop.ulb.ac.be> <00ae01c28a5b$fa9dd560$ba9468d5@default> <3DD12323.3000700@skynet.be> <00f001c28a69$69017ea0$ba9468d5@default> <5.1.0.14.0.20021113123504.02754500@pop.ulb.ac.be> <004801c28be7$b41868c0$cc9868d5@default> <3DD3CB8F.4080205@skynet.be> <003601c28c09$963141c0$4e9568d5@default> <3DD3EEB6.2040502@skynet.be> <001401c28ca4$a8a1dae0$0b182850@pacific> <3DD4EFAF.5060909@skynet.be> Message-ID: <001b01c28cc0$6f544b80$98182850@pacific> Grattan Endicott To: "blml" Sent: Friday, November 15, 2002 12:59 PM Subject: Re: [blml] dWS for the beginner > > Perfectly correct and totally irrelevant to the > problems about the dWS. > +=+ I do not think there are any problems about the dWs so long as it is not regarded as a reliable source of information about the laws of Duplicate Bridge. It is purely an intellectual divertissement, I am sure, with its mix of truth and fiction. I quoted the Kaplan letter in relation to a statement that a piece of MI was of no consequence because it accurately stated the intentions of partner - which might lead someone to believe this was a trustworthy statement of principle rather than a piece of misguidance as to the law. I am not sure whose statement it was, or how it might have been thought to apply in some given circumstances, but it is highly delusive, dangerously so, as to the principle involved and should be accompanied by a health warning for that reason. The latter part of Edgar's letter is pertinent to situations without screens. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From gester@lineone.net Fri Nov 15 16:07:15 2002 From: gester@lineone.net (gester@lineone.net) Date: Fri, 15 Nov 2002 16:07:15 -0000 Subject: [blml] POOT laws - a change suggested References: Message-ID: <002701c28cc1$15c4f000$98182850@pacific> Grattan Endicott To: "'Herman De Wael'" ; "blml" Sent: Friday, November 15, 2002 3:00 PM Subject: RE: [blml] POOT laws - a change suggested > It is time for the Kooijman-doctrine, which is: > > > We Have To Follow The Laws Of Bridge When > Acting As TD. (I give up the appeal committees, > just received a message from a member of my AC > accusing me of following the laws regarding claims) > +=+ :-) you mean it confused her when you did? :-) +=+ From hermandw@skynet.be Fri Nov 15 16:16:26 2002 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 15 Nov 2002 17:16:26 +0100 Subject: [blml] POOT laws - a change suggested References: Message-ID: <3DD51DDA.5000209@skynet.be> Ton, with all due respect, I don't understand this post of yours. Kooijman, A. wrote: > Herman: > > Why you choose to reply to my agreeing with someone and not to the one I was agreeing with is a mystery, but then perhaps my name sparks people to want to tell me off. > >>Exactly. In the Rottweiler coup, at the moment of the infraction, the >>player could have known that a later psyche might damage opponents. >>In the case from this thread, the infractor and the psycher are two >>different people. The one cannot know that his partner holds a hand >>where a psyche might work, the other has made no infraction. So both >>the infraction and the psyche must be called "legal". >> > > > > It is time for the Kooijman-doctrine, which is: > > > We Have To Follow The Laws Of Bridge When Acting As TD. (I give up the > appeal committees, just received a message from a member of my AC accusing > me of following the laws regarding claims) > The reference between brackets was probably not meant to be understood. OK, we have to follow the Laws. New Year resolutions a few weeks early. > > After a call OOT being withdrawn it is AI for partner that the laws will be > applied, which includes that the information arising from that call is > UI!!!!!!!!!!! So L16(C2) applies and it should not be a Hercules task for > the TD to decide that this player had a logical alternative for the psyche > he made. > > This player - which one ? What case are you referring to ? We are talking of L72B here. I was making a distinction between two cases that some-one was comparing. One was the Rottweiler coup, where one player made an infraction and then a psyche. The other one was where a player made a POOT, silencing himself and then his partner made a psyche. It seems to me quite implausible that a player would be able to know that if he silenced himself this could induce partner to psyche and be likely to damage opponents. But maybe I am just being stupid. And I know nothing of the Laws. If Ton and Grattan continue to react to my posts by going off on tangents I shall join DWS on a private channel. > ton > > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From larry@charmschool.fsnet.co.uk Fri Nov 15 11:38:54 2002 From: larry@charmschool.fsnet.co.uk (LarryBennett) Date: Fri, 15 Nov 2002 11:38:54 -0000 Subject: [blml] Declarer makes impossible contract by LOT References: <001d01c28ae7$82af4c00$abed193e@4nrw70j> <5.2.0.9.0.20021113173919.00a5d480@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <000001c28cc6$3888d520$bcb387d9@pc> | At 04:28 AM 11/13/02, LarryBennett wrote: | | >I like this. What if the td had been called, | >read the riot act, and LHO decides to accept the | >lead. Where do we go from there? | | That would have been an entirely different story, as it would have | meant that LHO's acceptance of the lead was the result of a "bridge | decision" rather than of simple inattentiveness, so that if it was an | error, we could consider it to be a "bridge error" rather than merely a | procedural one. | Why? If declarer is cheating or "could have known", then the td (according to some views) should not even offer LHO the option but should adjust now. After all the original acceptence could have been a "bridge decision" as well. Larry From cibor@poczta.fm Fri Nov 15 16:51:47 2002 From: cibor@poczta.fm (Konrad Ciborowski) Date: Fri, 15 Nov 2002 17:51:47 +0100 Subject: [blml] POOT laws - a change suggested References: <3DD51DDA.5000209@skynet.be> Message-ID: <015201c28cc7$4b95bc40$727e870a@krakow.sabreots.com> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Herman De Wael" > This player - which one ? What case are you referring to ? > We are talking of L72B here. > The other one was where a player made a POOT, silencing himself and > then his partner made a psyche. L72B has nothing to do with it. Nobody says that the player who passed OOT "could have known" anything. But it looks very obvious to me that someone who bid 2D with 9 PC and balanced hand with 5 weak diamonds used UI from his partner's POOT - he knew that it was their opponents' hand so decided to pre-empt them a little (and was very proud of himself for making this nice, tactical call). The systemic meaning of 2D has nothing to do with the whole thing; I believe that opening 2D is illegal *even if 2D systemically showed 9PC, 5D and a balanced hand*. Why? Because if the 2D opener were in a position where his partner was silenced but said nothing about his hand so far (say that instead of passing OOT he dropped a small club and a small heart on the table so was barred under L24C) then instead of making this nice, tactical call of 2D he would probably pass - partner can have a rock crusher, we know nothing about the deal so there is no point in pre-empting, right? Here, however, the player was certain that pre-emting had some merit - he knew the his partner had less that 11/12 PC. So this is clearly a 16C2 case - why do you think Ton is wrong? For the Rottweiler coup I agree - it is a different story - the story of L72B. Konrad Ciborowski Kraków, Poland From gordon@gordonrainsford.co.uk Fri Nov 15 18:38:04 2002 From: gordon@gordonrainsford.co.uk (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Fri, 15 Nov 2002 18:38:04 +0000 Subject: [blml] dWS for the beginner In-Reply-To: <001401c28ca4$a8a1dae0$0b182850@pacific> Message-ID: <604C624C-F8C9-11D6-A516-0003936A6522@gordonrainsford.co.uk> On Friday, November 15, 2002, at 12:42 PM, wrote: > > > Text of a letter from Edgar Kaplan to Mr. Krishnan, Oct 8, 1989. > > Dear Mr. Krishnan, > Here is the explanation I promised you of that ruling in Perth. The > facts are these. The eventual declarer explained to her screenmate, > who would be the opening leader, that her response to Exclusion > Blackwood promised one Ace;declarer did indeed hold one ace, > but her Blackwood response, as correctly explained on the other > side of the screen actually promised zero (or three) aces by > partnership agreement. Slam was bid and opening leader chose > not to lead a singleton, which would have defeated the contract. > > It is easy and tempting to reason that nothing was wrong =96 after = all, > opening leader was correctly told the number of aces in declarer's > hand, so what harm was done? That reasoning may be common > sense but it ignores bridge law. Common morality may require > declarer to reveal, without deceit, what she holds, but bridge law > requires something quite different: declarer must give her opponent > an accurate explanation of the partnership agreement. She didn't, > of course =96 it is inevitable that a player who forgets her agreement > behind a screen will break the law by giving a mistaken explanation. > She will be morally blameless, since she explains in all honesty and > good faith, but what the law demands of the explanation is not > good faith, the law demands accuracy. > > Declarer's inaccurate though honest explanation was, therefore, an > infraction of law. That is enough to determine the director's ruling, > since information about aces obviously might affect the decision > whether or not to lead a singleton. The Committee's ruling is > determined by its answer to this entirely unrealistic hypothetical > question: how likely is it that the opening lead would have been > different had the opening leader been given the accurate > explanation (no aces) instead of the honest and inaccurate > explanation (one ace)? The Committee in Perth was far from > convinced that the one-ace explanation would have induced the > singleton lead (had it been convinced, it would have adjusted the > score to six down one), but it judged the change of lead to be a > small but reasonable possibility. Accordingly the Committee > awarded the adjusted score of 3 imps, "average plus" to the > innocent team. > > Note that the strange circumstances of this case arose only because of=20= > a > screen procedure, where a player explains her own bid: thus, the = absurd > requirement that she give an accurate explanation of an agreement she=20= > has > honestly forgotten. The closest analogy in normal bridge, without=20 > screens, > is the position in which you know that your partner has made a = mistaken > bid. Suppose he opens four clubs, which is supposed to show a strong > heart opening with at least a semi-solid suit, when you hold S. A x x > H. KQJ x x D. J 10 x.x.x C void. It is obvious from your cards that he > has forgotten the agreement, so you intend to pass him right there.=20 > First > though, your right-hand opponent asks about the four clubs bid. Your > explanation must be "Strong four hearts opening with a very good heart > suit". That is, your obligation under bridge law is to describe your > partnership agreement, not your partner's hand. That legal obligation > remains the same when, behind screens, you must explain your own > action. > > I hope this now makes at least a little sense to you. > Sincerely, > Edgar Kaplan. > Oct. 8th 1989. > It makes perfect sense to me, apart from the use of an "average plus"=20 adjustment on a board where a result was obtained. Can someone explain=20= that to me? -- Gordon Rainsford London UK= From willner@cfa.harvard.edu Fri Nov 15 18:47:11 2002 From: willner@cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Fri, 15 Nov 2002 13:47:11 -0500 (EST) Subject: [blml] POOT laws - a change suggested Message-ID: <200211151847.NAA17832@cfa183.harvard.edu> > From: Robin Barker > I think the Rottweiller opened 2D multi out of turn in a position that > meant partner was silenced. At his turn, Richard then bid the major > he did not have, opponents were annoyed when he ruffed the suit he bid, > and generally all hell broke loose -- Richard in his element :-). Group A > Some ruled that he could have known (especially given the poor quality > of his hand -- even for a Rottweiller multi) when opening out of turn > that silencing partner and then psyching was likely to be to his > advantage; and adjusted. Group B > Some said that this sort of thing was outrageous and should not be > allowed -- but could not cite any particular law or regulation. Group C > Some were rather in awe of what had been perpetrated and, in the > absense of prohibition by law or regulation, allowed the result to > stand. This is my memory too, at least as regards the BLML discussion. Many in Group C would have changed to A had the hand been weaker, and many in Group A would have changed to C had the hand been stronger. In effect, the question of whether to apply L72B1 came down to a matter of bridge judgment. > From: "David Burn" > Since I gave the original ruling... ... > it was held that a > player who, knowing his partner to be barred, makes a grotesque > psychic call, he is in breach of Law. He could know at the time > of opening out of turn that this was likely to damage the opponents > by allowing him to perpertate risk-free deceptions. This appears to put the committee in Group B. > While we're on the subject of Law 72, Max Bavin has remarked > to me that he does not consider it "likely" that a lead from > the wrong hand will damage the opponents; With all due respect to Mr. Bavin, he does not play against the same opponents I do. From ehaa@starpower.net Fri Nov 15 19:42:28 2002 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Fri, 15 Nov 2002 14:42:28 -0500 Subject: [blml] dWS for the beginner In-Reply-To: <3DD4B912.7050308@skynet.be> References: <5.1.0.14.0.20021112151524.026ba7e0@pop.ulb.ac.be> <00ae01c28a5b$fa9dd560$ba9468d5@default> <3DD12323.3000700@skynet.be> <00f001c28a69$69017ea0$ba9468d5@default> <5.1.0.14.0.20021113123504.02754500@pop.ulb.ac.be> <004801c28be7$b41868c0$cc9868d5@default> <3DD3CB8F.4080205@skynet.be> <003601c28c09$963141c0$4e9568d5@default> <5.2.0.9.0.20021114165130.00a5f2b0@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.0.20021115140500.00a699d0@pop.starpower.net> At 04:06 AM 11/15/02, Herman wrote: >Eric Landau wrote: > >>At 01:43 PM 11/14/02, Herman wrote: >> >>>should you have to burden your partner with it as well? No Law >>>should be interpreted as forcing you to give UI, especially since >>>there exists a law actively prohibiting you from giving UI. >> >>JFTR, there is no law prohibiting you from *giving* UI; if there >>were, every bridge player in the world would violate it every time he >>or she sat down at the table. >JFTR, there is such a law. In this special context there is. L75D2: >".. nor may he indicate in any manner that a mistake has been made .." > >In all other instances you are right, but not in this one. > >In the typical dWS case there is a law that says "thou shalt not give >UI to partner". There is no law "Thou shalt not misinform". I don't agree with Herman's last sentence, but I don't think Herman's argument depends on it, unless he has hardened his position from asserting that following the dWS is legal to asserting that it is mandatory. I hadn't realized previously that the dWS was based on L75D2 (AFAICR this is the first time it has been explicitly mentioned in connection with the dWS) rather than L73B1. Suddenly it is starting to look a lot better. L75D2 does indeed say "nor may he indicate in any manner that a mistake has been made". And Herman is certainly justified in arguing that correctly describing the partnership agreements in the dWS situation is "indicat[ing] in [some] manner that a mistake has been made." If so, he is correct in arguing that in the classic dWS situation, the player is faced with a Hobson's choice as to how he will violate L75 but can no longer avoid committing some infraction, and should therefore be free to choose, to his own best advantage, which infraction he will commit. I will not become a follower of the dWS, because my NCBO (ACBL) has made it quite clear that it does not consider me free to choose; it requires me to give truthful information about my partnership agreements regardless of UI consequences. But I am certainly far more sympathetic to it than I was before. And Herman's arguments have indeed convinced me that if the WBF wishes to close the door once and for all on the dWS, it should consider revising the wording of L75D2. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 From twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Fri Nov 15 20:10:00 2002 From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Date: Fri, 15 Nov 2002 20:10 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [blml] POOT laws - a change suggested Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <015201c28cc7$4b95bc40$727e870a@krakow.sabreots.com> Cibor wrote: > But it looks very obvious to me that > someone who bid 2D with > 9 PC and balanced hand with 5 weak diamonds > used UI from his partner's POOT - > he knew that it was their opponents' > hand so decided to pre-empt them > a little (and was very proud > of himself for making this > nice, tactical call). What exactly are the LAs on this hand (given the AI that partner is barred)? Anything from maybe pass,1D,1N,2D,3D,1S etc. Even 3N (surely always an option if pard is barred). Pass is suggested by the UI because partner is known to be weak and it avoids the possibility of playing a doubled contract. 1N is suggested because it is a reasonable place opposite a known to be weakish partner (and if Xed an SOS xx will allow him back into the auction into a likely fit). As far as I am concerned he is in a "one-shot" situation and the UI in his possession (in this case) is of such marginal utility that he can take any shot he likes. I remain of the opinion that imposing simultaneous mechanical penalties and UI restrictions is incredibly messy. Tim From twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Fri Nov 15 20:10:00 2002 From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Date: Fri, 15 Nov 2002 20:10 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [blml] POOT laws - a change suggested Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <200211151847.NAA17832@cfa183.harvard.edu> Steve wrote: > > While we're on the subject of Law 72, Max Bavin has remarked > > to me that he does not consider it "likely" that a lead from > > the wrong hand will damage the opponents; > > With all due respect to Mr. Bavin, he does not play against the same > opponents I do. Just out of interest would anyone (apart from me) feel happy that leading from the wrong hand was suitable for L72b1 adjustment (both sides) only if opps are weak enough that they will often not notice? Tim From ljtrent@adelphia.net Fri Nov 15 20:22:32 2002 From: ljtrent@adelphia.net (Linda Trent) Date: Fri, 15 Nov 2002 12:22:32 -0800 Subject: [blml] When to call the TD In-Reply-To: <5.2.0.9.0.20021115082732.00a609b0@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: Rich wrote this and I am passing it on: Linda Many players are too inexperienced to "know" when their "suspicions" are are justified, and so they call as soon as there is a BIT. To require them to wait for evidence is beyond their ability to determine/evaluate such evidence. Besides, it is not illegal to call the Director whenever one believes they might need him. And it is not mandatory (or even desirable) to wait until the partner's hand is known. For example, in many auctions a player is expected not to bid again (such as after opening with a preempt, which transfers captaincy to partner) but when he does so after his partner's BIT that is a good time to call -- even before the player's hand is known. This is because the sooner one calls the TD more options are open to him (such as backing up the auction, warning a player not to take advantage of UI that is present, or determining what a player "would have done" had such-and-such not happened). And the BOD's election regarding Law 16A1 says "Players should summon the Director immediately when they believe there may have been extraneous information available to the opponents resulting in calls or plays which could result in damage to their side." Thus, no "proof" is required -- only suspicions. Calling the Director when an opponent has simply broken tempo is normally a waste of everyone's time, but exactly when to call is not specified by the Laws. For example, the footnote to 16A2 which Marvin quotes and which says "When play ends; or, as to dummy's hand, when dummy is exposed" is contradicted by the text which says that the "Director shall require the auction and play to continue." How could the auction be allowed to continue if the TD is never to be called until play ends or dummy comes down? Clearly the lawmakers provided for a Director call to be made any time a player believes they suspect a problem. Waiting to call the TD may jeopardize a player's rights in several types of situations, such as when the fact of the BIT is in dispute and no mention of it is made until the hand is over and the opponents find they do not "like" the table result. They then retroactively interpret what was, in fact, a minor, insignificant flinch as a gross BIT, and try to "get something for nothing." Their complaint has a lot more credibility if the BIT is mentioned at the table when it occurs, and if the TD is called during the auction at the time the partner takes what appears to be a suspicious action. Waiting until the end result looks bad creates room for the TD to suspect "sour grapes" rather than a justifiable grievance. And that is why I said that failing to call the TD immediately will not automatically jeopardize a player's rights, but may increase the chances of that happening. Remember, I was not advocating calling the TD when the BIT occurs, but rather only when a subsequent action suggests that something may have happened that could result in damage to your side. But that need not be after the hand, or only when the "offending" player's hand is known. In my OPINION the sooner one calls the TD after the UI is followed by an action that could have damaged you, the better off you are. --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.413 / Virus Database: 232 - Release Date: 11/6/2002 From cyaxares@lineone.net Fri Nov 15 20:27:54 2002 From: cyaxares@lineone.net (Grattan Endicott) Date: Fri, 15 Nov 2002 20:27:54 -0000 Subject: [blml] dWS for the beginner References: <5.1.0.14.0.20021112151524.026ba7e0@pop.ulb.ac.be> <00ae01c28a5b$fa9dd560$ba9468d5@default> <3DD12323.3000700@skynet.be> <00f001c28a69$69017ea0$ba9468d5@default> <5.1.0.14.0.20021113123504.02754500@pop.ulb.ac.be> <004801c28be7$b41868c0$cc9868d5@default> <3DD3CB8F.4080205@skynet.be> <003601c28c09$963141c0$4e9568d5@default> <5.2.0.9.0.20021114165130.00a5f2b0@pop.starpower.net> <5.2.0.9.0.20021115140500.00a699d0@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <001a01c28ce5$96b5ee20$430be150@endicott> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" Sent: Friday, November 15, 2002 7:42 PM Subject: Re: [blml] dWS for the beginner > > > > In the typical dWS case there is a law that > > says "thou shalt not give UI to partner". There > > is no law "Thou shalt not misinform". > +=+ There is, however, a law that says 'Thou shalt inform correctly." +=+ From ehaa@starpower.net Fri Nov 15 20:36:19 2002 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Fri, 15 Nov 2002 15:36:19 -0500 Subject: [blml] Declarer makes impossible contract by LOT In-Reply-To: <000001c28cc6$3888d520$bcb387d9@pc> References: <001d01c28ae7$82af4c00$abed193e@4nrw70j> <5.2.0.9.0.20021113173919.00a5d480@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.0.20021115144513.00a61da0@pop.starpower.net> At 06:38 AM 11/15/02, LarryBennett wrote: >| At 04:28 AM 11/13/02, LarryBennett wrote: >| >| >I like this. What if the td had been called, >| >read the riot act, and LHO decides to accept >the >| >lead. Where do we go from there? >| >| That would have been an entirely different >story, as it would have >| meant that LHO's acceptance of the lead was >the result of a "bridge >| decision" rather than of simple >inattentiveness, so that if it was an >| error, we could consider it to be a "bridge >error" rather than merely a >| procedural one. > >Why? If declarer is cheating or "could have >known", then the td (according to some views) >should not even offer LHO the option but should >adjust now. After all the original acceptence >could have been a "bridge decision" as well. It is true that as far as the possible infraction is concerned it does not matter. Declarer's LOOT either results in his getting an adjusted score under L73F2 or it doesn't. But some are arguing that (a) there should be an adjustment for the OS under L73F2, but (b) the NOS should be denied the benefit of that adjustment, for they have, per the "Kaplan doctrine", broken the connection between the infraction (the LOOT) and the damage (the slam making) just by covering. It is in regard to the latter that the situations are entirely different. If the LOOT is noticed, the TD is called, LHO's options are explained to him, he is given some time to decide whether to cover or not, and then covers, it would not be at all unreasonable, given the situation, to decide that he has made an "egregious error" and to deny redress on that basis. But the notion that simply not realizing that declarer is in dummy rather than in hand might be a sufficiently egregious error to justify a denial of redress is, IMO, a gross abuse of the Kaplan doctrine, and way off base. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 From ehaa@starpower.net Fri Nov 15 20:55:33 2002 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Fri, 15 Nov 2002 15:55:33 -0500 Subject: [blml] POOT laws - a change suggested In-Reply-To: <151102319.20423@webbox.com> Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.0.20021115153736.00a6e890@pop.starpower.net> At 08:40 AM 11/15/02, David wrote: >Eric wrote: > > >But I seem to recall -- somebody help me here -- that there >may have been more to the Rottweiler coup case than we have here: >in that case, it may have been the player perpetrating the psyche >whose infraction had resulted in partner being barred, which >would surely have strengthened the case for calling the coup >illegal. > >Since I gave the original ruling, on that incident, perhaps I >can help. A player opened 2D (Multi) with six spades to the jack >and a poor hand. It was not his turn; when his LHO declined to >accept 2D and his RHO opened 1D, our hero chose to overcall 1H >with a void, his partner being barred throughout. > >What followed is not especially relevant; it was held that a >player who, knowing his partner to be barred, makes a grotesque >psychic call, he is in breach of Law. He could know at the time >of opening out of turn that this was likely to damage the opponents >by allowing him to perpertate risk-free deceptions. (Obviously, >this does not extend to a player who, facing a passed partner, >guesses to open something he hopes will make, usually 3NT - this, >while it might damage the opponents if it is a lucky make, is >not "likely" to do so.) That's about how I recalled the case. The Rottweiler opened OOT, barring his partner, and then perpetrated a gross psyche. The consensus on BLML was that his score should be adjusted under L73F2: at the time he committed the original infraction (his OBOOT) he "could have known" that it would work to his advantage by allowing him to psych thereafter without fear of being hanged by his partner. It was not the psych per se that was improper, it was the fact that the psycher took advantage of his own infraction by subsequently psyching. So this is not analogous to the current case, where the psycher committed no infraction. His partner committed the infraction, and the penalty was assessed and applied. Can we then apply L73F2 to *this* offender, ruling that he "could have known" that by barring himself, he was giving his *partner* the opportunity to subsequently psych to his side's advantage? Perhaps so, but that would certainly require a much more liberal reading of L73F2 than we needed to deal with the Rottweiler case. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 From grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk Fri Nov 15 21:03:30 2002 From: grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk (grandeval) Date: Fri, 15 Nov 2002 21:03:30 -0000 Subject: [blml] POOT laws - a change suggested References: <151102319.20423@webbox.com> Message-ID: <003a01c28cea$a6733840$84e9193e@4nrw70j> Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Friday, November 15, 2002 1:40 PM Subject: Re: [blml] POOT laws - a change suggested > > While we're on the subject of Law 72, Max > Bavin has remarked to me that he does not > consider it "likely" that a lead from the wrong > hand will damage the opponents; it is far more > probable that they will tell him to lead from the > correct hand than that the "wrong" defender > will follow suit, especially when doing so would > be to the defenders' disadvantage. So, a score > cannot be adjusted under Law 72 in respect of > declarer's lead from the wrong hand. It's a nice > point. > +=+ I would be inclined to question whether the potential action of the NOS is to be taken into account in determining whether "the irregularity" would be "likely to damage the non-offending side". The words appear to suggest a judgement whether the infraction itself is likely in its intrinsic nature to lead to damage to opponents at the time when it occurs. If it increases the opportunities for the opponents to disadvantage themselves one could say that damage is more likely - but how far do we go to arrive in the territory of 'likely'. Or indeed, does Max Bavin's opinion require us to judge the measure of the fallibility of the particular opponents? I am inclined to want to think about this, rather than agree or disagree on impulse. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From ehaa@starpower.net Fri Nov 15 21:22:52 2002 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Fri, 15 Nov 2002 16:22:52 -0500 Subject: [blml] POOT laws - a change suggested In-Reply-To: <151102319.20423@webbox.com> Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.0.20021115161057.00a63160@pop.starpower.net> At 08:40 AM 11/15/02, David [also] wrote: >While we're on the subject of Law 72, Max Bavin has remarked >to me that he does not consider it "likely" that a lead from >the wrong hand will damage the opponents; it is far more probable >that they will tell him to lead from the correct hand than that >the "wrong" defender will follow suit, especially when doing >so would be to the defenders' disadvantage. So, a score cannot >be adjusted under Law 72 in respect of declarer's lead from the >wrong hand. It's a nice point. I'm prepared to accept that. But ISTM that we can still adjust the score (as I believe we should in the case at hand) under L73F2, in which the criterion is "could have known, at the time of the action, that the action could work to his benefit". I read that as much weaker criterion: L72B1 may require that the irregularity would be more likely than not to damage the NOS, but L73F2 requires only that the irregularity be likely than not to damage the NOS in those cases where it makes any difference at all. Thus L73F2 applies when the irregularity might work to the offender's advantage but can never work to his disadvantage, even if the likelihood of its working to his advantage is relatively small. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 From ehaa@starpower.net Fri Nov 15 21:41:30 2002 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Fri, 15 Nov 2002 16:41:30 -0500 Subject: [blml] dWS for the beginner In-Reply-To: <001a01c28ce5$96b5ee20$430be150@endicott> References: <5.1.0.14.0.20021112151524.026ba7e0@pop.ulb.ac.be> <00ae01c28a5b$fa9dd560$ba9468d5@default> <3DD12323.3000700@skynet.be> <00f001c28a69$69017ea0$ba9468d5@default> <5.1.0.14.0.20021113123504.02754500@pop.ulb.ac.be> <004801c28be7$b41868c0$cc9868d5@default> <3DD3CB8F.4080205@skynet.be> <003601c28c09$963141c0$4e9568d5@default> <5.2.0.9.0.20021114165130.00a5f2b0@pop.starpower.net> <5.2.0.9.0.20021115140500.00a699d0@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.0.20021115163454.00a62380@pop.starpower.net> At 03:27 PM 11/15/02, Grattan wrote: >Grattan Endicott+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ >"The pendulum of the mind oscillates between >sense and nonsense, not between right and wrong." > {C G Jung} >=================================== >----- Original Message ----- >From: "Eric Landau" >To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" >Sent: Friday, November 15, 2002 7:42 PM >Subject: Re: [blml] dWS for the beginner > > > > > > > > In the typical dWS case there is a law that > > > says "thou shalt not give UI to partner". There > > > is no law "Thou shalt not misinform". > > >+=+ There is, however, a law that says 'Thou shalt > inform correctly." +=+ Please be aware that the words to which Grattan responds above came from Herman, not from me, and that, moreover, my words in the message cited, none of which appear above, began with "I don't agree with Herman's last sentence". Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 From willner@cfa.harvard.edu Fri Nov 15 21:50:41 2002 From: willner@cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Fri, 15 Nov 2002 16:50:41 -0500 (EST) Subject: [blml] dWS for the beginner Message-ID: <200211152150.QAA20520@cfa183.harvard.edu> > From: Robin Barker > Kaplan's letter points out that you should explain partnership understanding > not what is in the player's hand. Kaplan's point is subtly different. He says you have a _legal obligation_ to explain your partnership understanding and that there may be a score adjustment if you don't do so. The dWS agrees, as does everyone. (Well, perhaps a few powers-that-be in the ACBL disagree.) The problem, of course, is that you may have other legal obligations that are in conflict with this one. > dWS says you should give the explanation of partner bid that he intended not > the explanation according to the partnership agreement. dWS says that when faced with the unpleasant choice of giving MI or UI, it is acceptable to choose the MI. However unpopular this view may be, there is justification in the Laws text for it. > It is relevant to dWS that giving the explanation that is (thought to be) the > correct statement of partnership agreement is what the law requires, not > giving an explanation that is (thought to be) what partner intended. This is, of course, precisely the question. From willner@cfa.harvard.edu Fri Nov 15 22:18:55 2002 From: willner@cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Fri, 15 Nov 2002 17:18:55 -0500 (EST) Subject: [blml] POOT laws - a change suggested Message-ID: <200211152218.RAA20937@cfa183.harvard.edu> > From: Eric Landau > The > consensus on BLML was that his score should be adjusted under L73F2: I don't think we actually reached a consensus, but the differences were based on bridge judgment, not on which laws to apply. > at the time he committed the original infraction (his OBOOT) he "could > have known" that it would work to his advantage by allowing him to > psych thereafter without fear of being hanged by his partner. It was > not the psych per se that was improper, it was the fact that the > psycher took advantage of his own infraction by subsequently psyching. The first sentence is correct, but the second isn't quite right. It wasn't the psych especially that was the problem; it was the whole sequence of action "infraction followed by something else," which damages opponents in a way that the penalty for the infraction does not redress. It didn't matter particularly (except to Group B, which I don't recall being represented on BLML at the time) that the "something else" was a psych. On some different hand, "bar partner and then bid 3NT, which is a good contract we could not otherwise stop in" would merit the same type of adjustment. From nancy@dressing.org Fri Nov 15 22:59:22 2002 From: nancy@dressing.org (Nancy T Dressing) Date: Fri, 15 Nov 2002 17:59:22 -0500 Subject: [blml] When to call the TD References: <5.2.0.9.0.20021115082732.00a609b0@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <002701c28cfa$a3093f00$6401a8c0@hare> I am strongly in favor of the "old fashioned" attitude that the director should be called when any irregularity occurs at the table even if it is your partner or yourself. Saves lots of problems and makes everything so much simpler. Nancy ----- Original Message ----- From: "Eric Landau" To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" Sent: Friday, November 15, 2002 8:38 AM Subject: Re: [blml] When to call the TD > At 01:43 AM 11/15/02, Marvin wrote: > > >Letter to the editor of the ACBL *Bulletin*, which was not published. > >So I'll > >publish it myself. :-)) > > > >######## > >Rich Colker wrote in "At the Table" (October, page 104), "Some experienced > >players wait until they have good reason to believe the receiver of > >unauthorized information took an unusual action. This requires waiting > >until > >the player's hand is known, which often is not until dummy appears or > >play has > >ended." > > > >That should be the practice of everyone, not just experienced players, > >since > >it is what is required by Law 16A2, which is not one of the optional > >laws. It > >says that the time to call the director is "When play ends; or, as to > >dummy's > >hand, when dummy is exposed." You call when you see evidence of a possible > >infraction, not when you suspect one. > > > >And yet Rich goes on to say,"If you fail to call the director when you > >suspect > >an opponent took an action that was suggested by extraneous > >information from > >his partner which could have damaged your side, you *may* jeopardize your > >right to protection. While failing to call immediately will not > >automatically > >jeopardize your rights, waiting incurs a greater risk of that happening." > > > >I can't find that in the Laws, and fail to see why obeying Law 16A2 should > >"jeopardize your right." Doing so saves a lot of director time and > >reduces the > >possibility of offending someone who has done nothing wrong. > >######### > > > >Does anyone disagree? > > Surely not I. Everything Marv says is 100% correct. > > But, then, Mr. Colker is also correct. "At the Table" (which is > subtitled "A survival manual") is not a column about the laws; it is a > column that purports to give practical advice to players about how to > cope with situations "at the table". And given the current state of > ACBL jurisprudence, it is unfortunately but undeniably true that if you > don't call the director as soon as your opponent calls, you may > jeopardize your right to protection, notwithstanding the lack of any > basis in the laws for this being the case. > > > Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net > 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 > Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From Steve Wright Fri Nov 15 18:24:04 2002 From: Steve Wright (Steve Wright) Date: Fri, 15 Nov 2002 18:24:04 +0000 Subject: [blml] When to call the TD In-Reply-To: References: <007101c28c72$80ebe9a0$3a30d2cc@san.rr.com> Message-ID: In message , Todd Zimnoch writes >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Marvin L. French >> Sent: Friday, November 15, 2002 1:44 AM >> Subject: [blml] When to call the TD >> >> I can't find that in the Laws, and fail to see why >> obeying Law 16A2 should >> "jeopardize your right." Doing so saves a lot of >> director time and reduces the >> possibility of offending someone who has done nothing wrong. >> ######### >> >> Does anyone disagree? > > I agree that this is the way it should be, but in practice, it's >more difficult to get agreement on a hesitation, stray remark, or >the like after the hand has been played. When you cannot >establish that UI existed, your rights have disappeared. This is >one of the risks you take on when waiting to call the director >later. At Club bridge with a playing TD it is usual (at least at our club) to agree the fact amongst themselves and only call the TD when either the facts cannot be agreed or at the end of the hand when the NOS believe that their opponents *might* have taken an illegal actions. Phrases that come to mind are; "Can we agree that your partner hesitated before passing?" or "Can we agree that your partner started to pull a bid out of the bidding box then changed his mind and pulled out a pass card" -- Steve Wright County Bridge Club, Leicester, England From twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Sat Nov 16 01:49:00 2002 From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Date: Sat, 16 Nov 2002 01:49 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [blml] POOT laws - a change suggested Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <5.2.0.9.0.20021115161057.00a63160@pop.starpower.net> Eric wrote: > I'm prepared to accept that. But ISTM that we can still adjust the > score (as I believe we should in the case at hand) under L73F2, in > which the criterion is "could have known, at the time of the action, > that the action could work to his benefit". I'm sorry but a lead from the wrong hand is not an illegal deception. How can L73f2 possibly be relevant. Tim From cyaxares@lineone.net Sat Nov 16 01:59:31 2002 From: cyaxares@lineone.net (Grattan Endicott) Date: Sat, 16 Nov 2002 01:59:31 -0000 Subject: [blml] dWS for the beginner References: <200211152150.QAA20520@cfa183.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <000401c28d42$ade30710$6d46e150@endicott> Grattan Endicott > The problem, of course, is that you may have other > legal obligations that are in conflict with this one. > +=+ None concerning explanations. The single requirement relates to the partnership agreements +=+ >>>> > > dWS says you should give the explanation of > > partner bid that he intended not the explanation > > according to the partnership agreement. > +=+ That is pure fantasy, the Laws require you to explain the partnership agreements. They say nothing about explaining what any player intended. Kaplan illustrates it with the 4C opener. ~ G ~ +=+ From t.kooyman@worldonline.nl Fri Nov 15 07:07:49 2002 From: t.kooyman@worldonline.nl (Ton Kooijman) Date: Fri, 15 Nov 2002 08:07:49 +0100 Subject: [blml] Kaplan doctrine (WAS Declarer makes impossible contract by LOT) References: <5.2.0.9.0.20021113160907.00a59260@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <000201c28d43$7fa525d0$62fbf1c3@LNV> Eric: > It is clear from Mr. Kaplan's writings that when he used the term > "egregious error" he was thinking about bidding errors and card-play > errors. There is nothing in them to indicate whether or not he would > have thought that his doctrine was applicable in the case of procedural > errors; I doubt whether he ever thought about this, and, regrettably, > we can no longer ask him. You predict a new thread and yes it might become a seemingly endless one again if people don't read the relevant other messages. Some days ago I wrote that Kaplan has described this specific case and came up with the split score. And the WBFLC agreed with this approach when discussing new L 72B1 which now expresses that the advantage for the offenders is taken away and not that the damage for the innocent side is compensated. And I agree that we could have done better regarding several descriptions of the '97 laws. ton From cyaxares@lineone.net Sat Nov 16 19:54:29 2002 From: cyaxares@lineone.net (Grattan Endicott) Date: Sat, 16 Nov 2002 19:54:29 -0000 Subject: [blml] dWS for the beginner References: <5.1.0.14.0.20021112151524.026ba7e0@pop.ulb.ac.be> <00ae01c28a5b$fa9dd560$ba9468d5@default> <3DD12323.3000700@skynet.be> <00f001c28a69$69017ea0$ba9468d5@default> <5.1.0.14.0.20021113123504.02754500@pop.ulb.ac.be> <004801c28be7$b41868c0$cc9868d5@default> <3DD3CB8F.4080205@skynet.be> <003601c28c09$963141c0$4e9568d5@default> <5.2.0.9.0.20021114165130.00a5f2b0@pop.starpower.net> <5.2.0.9.0.20021115140500.00a699d0@pop.starpower.net> <5.2.0.9.0.20021115163454.00a62380@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <003401c28daa$4c4fcc50$1220e150@endicott> Grattan Endicott >----- Original Message ----- > >From: "Eric Landau" > >To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" > >Sent: Friday, November 15, 2002 7:42 PM > >Subject: Re: [blml] dWS for the beginner > > > > > > > > > > > > In the typical dWS case there is a law that > > > > says "thou shalt not give UI to partner". There > > > > is no law "Thou shalt not misinform". > > > > >+=+ There is, however, a law that says 'Thou shalt > > inform correctly." +=+ > > Please be aware that the words to which Grattan responds above > came from Herman, not from me, and that, moreover, my words > in the message cited, none of which appear above, began with > "I don't agree with Herman's last sentence". > > > Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net > 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 > Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ +=+ Apologies for the clumsy scissoring that left the wrong impression. ~ G ~ +=+ ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ From grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk Sat Nov 16 20:52:40 2002 From: grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk (grandeval) Date: Sat, 16 Nov 2002 20:52:40 -0000 Subject: [blml] Kaplan doctrine (WAS Declarer makes impossible contract by LOT) References: <5.2.0.9.0.20021113160907.00a59260@pop.starpower.net> <000201c28d43$7fa525d0$62fbf1c3@LNV> Message-ID: <000601c28db2$79813080$65a7193e@4nrw70j> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" ; "Eric Landau" Sent: Friday, November 15, 2002 7:07 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Kaplan doctrine (WAS Declarer makes impossible contract by LOT) > > You predict a new thread and yes it might become a seemingly > endless one again if people don't read the relevant other messages. > > +=+ Scribes, when they are relevant please seal your messages with the Sign 'emeth'. +=+ From hermandw@skynet.be Sun Nov 17 09:11:41 2002 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Sun, 17 Nov 2002 10:11:41 +0100 Subject: [blml] Herman's Ruling Message-ID: <3DD75D4D.1090408@skynet.be> Here's another you're all going to criticize. But the players understood and accepted it. The Belgian highest division is played with duplicated boards and yesterday this happened. One table hasn't finished yet, but another team starts comparing at a (too) nearby table. "Did they bid the six spades with the jack singleton?" is overheard. At precisely the moment a player is in six spades, contemplating what to do from AK10xx opposite 9xxx. Of course he playes the ace, dropping the jack behind him, and now he knows even more certain that he has to finesse the queen. He does and the slam is made. What did I decide. Obviously the board should be cancelled, and an adjusted score given. But I did not want to have either team loose the benefit of having bid, or blame of not having bid, the slam. So I decided that it would be quite logical (restricted choice and all) to make the slam, but not absolutely. I pegged the chances at 80/20 and added 20% benefit of the doubt for both sides, arriving at: - for declarer's side : 100% of the slam making (+1430) - for opponents : 60% of slam making (-1430) + 40% of the slam going down (+100). The other table had also bid and made the slam, so the result was 0IMP for declarer's team and 40% of 17 = 7IMPs for opponents. The match thus finished on 25-6. I realize the laws don't allow this (for one thing L12C3 only refers to assigned, not artificial AS) but I do believe that it was an equitable ruling. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw@skynet.be Sun Nov 17 09:43:09 2002 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Sun, 17 Nov 2002 10:43:09 +0100 Subject: [blml] dWS for the beginner References: <5.1.0.14.0.20021112151524.026ba7e0@pop.ulb.ac.be> <00ae01c28a5b$fa9dd560$ba9468d5@default> <3DD12323.3000700@skynet.be> <00f001c28a69$69017ea0$ba9468d5@default> <5.1.0.14.0.20021113123504.02754500@pop.ulb.ac.be> <004801c28be7$b41868c0$cc9868d5@default> <3DD3CB8F.4080205@skynet.be> <003601c28c09$963141c0$4e9568d5@default> <5.2.0.9.0.20021114165130.00a5f2b0@pop.starpower.net> <5.2.0.9.0.20021115140500.00a699d0@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <3DD764AD.9090705@skynet.be> Eric, you surprise me. How long are you on this list? IIRC as long as I (original four) How long ago did I first explain this - and was surprised to see it not of general acceptance ? Long ago. The discussion started in april 1998, and I clearly wrote about L75D2 in the ensueing discussion. Eric Landau wrote: >> >> In the typical dWS case there is a law that says "thou shalt not give >> UI to partner". There is no law "Thou shalt not misinform". > > > I don't agree with Herman's last sentence, but I don't think Herman's > argument depends on it, unless he has hardened his position from > asserting that following the dWS is legal to asserting that it is > mandatory. > Indeed - although why should you not agree with my statement ? There IS no law that actively says "thou shalt not misinform". There are laws saying that opponents are entitled to information, but no active law on giving information (I consider L75C to have as operative word "all"). > I hadn't realized previously that the dWS was based on L75D2 (AFAICR > this is the first time it has been explicitly mentioned in connection > with the dWS) rather than L73B1. Suddenly it is starting to look a lot > better. L75D2 does indeed say "nor may he indicate in any manner that a > mistake has been made". And Herman is certainly justified in arguing > that correctly describing the partnership agreements in the dWS > situation is "indicat[ing] in [some] manner that a mistake has been > made." If so, he is correct in arguing that in the classic dWS > situation, the player is faced with a Hobson's choice as to how he will > violate L75 but can no longer avoid committing some infraction, and > should therefore be free to choose, to his own best advantage, which > infraction he will commit. > Thank you. > I will not become a follower of the dWS, because my NCBO (ACBL) has made > it quite clear that it does not consider me free to choose; it requires > me to give truthful information about my partnership agreements > regardless of UI consequences. I don't really believe that the ACBL has made anything quite clear about this choice. It would surprise me if it had. No single organisation has written anything about this dilemma. But I am certainly far more sympathetic > to it than I was before. And Herman's arguments have indeed convinced > me that if the WBF wishes to close the door once and for all on the dWS, > it should consider revising the wording of L75D2. > And why should the WBF close the door on this school? Simply because it is called DW? I believe the WBF should open this door and close the other one, as it leads to a problem that ought not to exist: an authorized, nay obligatory, giving of UI. For the moment, there is a dilemma, and two ways of solving it. What do you suggest the WBF do to solve this? A) scrap L75D2 altogether? And allow players to correct parnter's misinformation and give UI? B) suspend L75D2 only when questions are asked about subsequent bids? That would give a benefit to players asking lots of questions, because they might trap an opponent in a UI trap. Sincerely I would hope that the WBF accept the dWS and close the other door. We can deal with MI (and we already have to). We don't particularly want to deal with UI. > > Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net > 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 > Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw@skynet.be Sun Nov 17 09:46:20 2002 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Sun, 17 Nov 2002 10:46:20 +0100 Subject: [blml] dWS for the beginner References: <5.1.0.14.0.20021112151524.026ba7e0@pop.ulb.ac.be> <00ae01c28a5b$fa9dd560$ba9468d5@default> <3DD12323.3000700@skynet.be> <00f001c28a69$69017ea0$ba9468d5@default> <5.1.0.14.0.20021113123504.02754500@pop.ulb.ac.be> <004801c28be7$b41868c0$cc9868d5@default> <3DD3CB8F.4080205@skynet.be> <003601c28c09$963141c0$4e9568d5@default> <5.2.0.9.0.20021114165130.00a5f2b0@pop.starpower.net> <5.2.0.9.0.20021115140500.00a699d0@pop.starpower.net> <001a01c28ce5$96b5ee20$430be150@endicott> Message-ID: <3DD7656C.7030705@skynet.be> Grattan Endicott wrote: > >>>In the typical dWS case there is a law that >>>says "thou shalt not give UI to partner". There >>>is no law "Thou shalt not misinform". >>> > +=+ There is, however, a law that says 'Thou shalt > inform correctly." +=+ > My point exactly. I would not even put it this strong, but in any case "thou shalt not give UI" is stronger than "thou shalt inform". And the problem is not even that one is stronger than the other, but that they both exist, and that one cannot follow both at the same time. So it's ridiculous to categorize the dWS with law-breakers. The alternative is just to break another law. > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From cyaxares@lineone.net Sat Nov 16 20:32:34 2002 From: cyaxares@lineone.net (Grattan Endicott) Date: Sat, 16 Nov 2002 20:32:34 -0000 Subject: [blml] Kaplan doctrine (WAS Declarer makes impossible contract by LOT) References: <5.2.0.9.0.20021113160907.00a59260@pop.starpower.net> <000201c28d43$7fa525d0$62fbf1c3@LNV> Message-ID: <000401c28e2b$8ad72a50$4609e150@endicott> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" ; "Eric Landau" Sent: Friday, November 15, 2002 7:07 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Kaplan doctrine (WAS Declarer makes impossible contract by LOT) > > You predict a new thread and yes it might > become a seemingly endless one again if > people don't read the relevant other messages. > +=+ I feel it is immaterial whether people read or do not read the messages - threads go on at length anyway. But expurgation both improves the look of the page and leaves space for a little common sense should there be a supply. . ~ G ~ +=+ From con.holzscherer@philips.com Sun Nov 17 12:32:50 2002 From: con.holzscherer@philips.com (con.holzscherer@philips.com) Date: Sun, 17 Nov 2002 13:32:50 +0100 Subject: [blml] Herman's Ruling Message-ID: > Here's another you're all going to criticize. I don't know about 'all', but I am... > But the players understood and accepted it. That's not amazing; they got extra points. > "Did they bid the six spades with the jack singleton?" > is overheard. At precisely the moment a player is in > six spades, contemplating what to do from AK10xx > opposite 9xxx. Law 16B requires a participant who receives this kind of extraneous information to immediately call the TD. I understand from your story that the declarer did not, which is a severe violation. > Obviously the board should be cancelled, and an adjusted score given. Indeed (Law 16B3), but that should happen when the EI is received. It is not OK to use EI first and get an ArtAS later. > I decided that it would be quite logical (restricted choice and > all) to make the slam, That may depend on several factors; perhaps there are clues that RHO has some points (suggesting finessing QJ) or that LHO has a flat distribution (suggesting playing AK) etc. Cases where the handling of a suit can be analyzed separate from the complete deal, are rare. > I pegged the chances at 80/20 and added 20% benefit of the doubt > for both sides, arriving at: > for declarer's side : 100% of the slam making (+1430) > for opponents : 60% of slam making (-1430) + 40% of the slam going > down (+100). > I realize the laws don't allow this Then why did you do it? Don't you abide by the rules in Belgium?? > but I do believe that it was an equitable ruling. I strongly disagree. Besides illegal, the ruling also was unequitable. Declarer illegally used EI and was allowed to keep his result. What I would considered equitable (ignoring the legality aspect) would be to give a 60/40 or an 80/20 score for both sides plus a penalty for declarer's illegal use of EI according to Law 84E. Con Holzscherer From cyaxares@lineone.net Sun Nov 17 12:47:12 2002 From: cyaxares@lineone.net (Grattan Endicott) Date: Sun, 17 Nov 2002 12:47:12 -0000 Subject: [blml] dWS for the beginner References: <5.1.0.14.0.20021112151524.026ba7e0@pop.ulb.ac.be> <00ae01c28a5b$fa9dd560$ba9468d5@default> <3DD12323.3000700@skynet.be> <00f001c28a69$69017ea0$ba9468d5@default> <5.1.0.14.0.20021113123504.02754500@pop.ulb.ac.be> <004801c28be7$b41868c0$cc9868d5@default> <3DD3CB8F.4080205@skynet.be> <003601c28c09$963141c0$4e9568d5@default> <5.2.0.9.0.20021114165130.00a5f2b0@pop.starpower.net> <5.2.0.9.0.20021115140500.00a699d0@pop.starpower.net> <001a01c28ce5$96b5ee20$430be150@endicott> <3DD7656C.7030705@skynet.be> Message-ID: <000201c28e37$cf95c640$e01ae150@endicott> Grattan Endicott To: "blml" Sent: Sunday, November 17, 2002 9:46 AM Subject: Re: [blml] dWS for the beginner > Grattan Endicott wrote: > > > > >>>In the typical dWS case there is a law that > >>>says "thou shalt not give UI to partner". There > >>>is no law "Thou shalt not misinform". > >>> > > +=+ There is, however, a law that says 'Thou shalt > > inform correctly." +=+ > > > > > My point exactly. I would not even put it this strong, but in > any case "thou shalt not give UI" is stronger than "thou > shalt inform". > > And the problem is not even that one is stronger than the > other, but that they both exist, and that one cannot follow > both at the same time. So it's ridiculous to categorize the > dWS with law-breakers. The alternative is just to break > another law. > +=+ Not so. 1. There is no law that states you may misinform. Any action not given authority in the Laws is extraneous and not part of the game (WBFLC< 28 August 1998). 2. An extraneous statement as to the meaning of a call, stating the content of the hand rather than, as required by law, the agreed partnership meaning of the call, if done purposefully in place of, and knowing, the requirement, is a deliberate deception of the opponent. It is in breach of Laws 72A1, 72B2, 73F2 - and, if not corrected by the partner at the appropriate time, 75D2. 3. WBFLC, Sep1998: A declarer or dummy who, at the end of the auction, has corrected an explanation of the partnership agreement is free to add gratuitous information as to fact concerning his action. He is under no obligation to do so. 4. 75D2 refers to situations in which a mistaken explanation has been given by partner. He must not indicate that partner has made the mistake. He is, however, under an obligation in his own explanations to state the partnership agreement, and knowing this, to deceive opponent by deliberately not doing so is the most serious violation of any in this matter. It is, in truth, a matter for disciplinary investigation. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From t.kooyman@worldonline.nl Sun Nov 17 12:41:46 2002 From: t.kooyman@worldonline.nl (Ton Kooijman) Date: Sun, 17 Nov 2002 13:41:46 +0100 Subject: [blml] POOT laws - a change suggested References: <3DD51DDA.5000209@skynet.be> Message-ID: <00f301c28e47$051a5830$e8fbf1c3@LNV> > Ton, with all due respect, I don't understand this post of yours. I didn't have any intention to discourage you in any of your contributions, I even hardly reacted on your statements. I expressed my surprise about the contributions in this thread not mentioning L 16C for the partner of the player who made a POOT. L16C in this situation means that this partner is not allowed to make a psyche, since it is based on the knowledge that partner has less than an opening bid, which is UI. So we have to make a distinction between 'having AI that partner has to pass' and being aware of the meaning of that pass which is UI. that is all I wanted to say. > > > It is time for the Kooijman-doctrine, which is: > > > > > > We Have To Follow The Laws Of Bridge When Acting As TD. (I give up the > > appeal committees, just received a message from a member of my AC accusing > > me of following the laws regarding claims) > > After a call OOT being withdrawn it is AI for partner that the laws will be > > applied, which includes that the information arising from that call is > > UI!!!!!!!!!!! So L16(C2) applies and it should not be a Hercules task for > > the TD to decide that this player had a logical alternative for the psyche > > he made. > This player - which one ? What case are you referring to ? > We are talking of L72B here. > I was making a distinction between two cases that some-one was comparing. > One was the Rottweiler coup, where one player made an infraction and > then a psyche. > The other one was where a player made a POOT, silencing himself and > then his partner made a psyche. yes indeed, the second case was the one I referred to, not accusing anybody in particular. ton > It seems to me quite implausible that a player would be able to know > that if he silenced himself this could induce partner to psyche and be > likely to damage opponents. > > But maybe I am just being stupid. And I know nothing of the Laws. > > > If Ton and Grattan continue to react to my posts by going off on > tangents I shall join DWS on a private channel. > > > > ton > > > > > > > > > -- > Herman DE WAEL > Antwerpen Belgium > http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From blml@dybdal.dk Sun Nov 17 16:21:45 2002 From: blml@dybdal.dk (Jesper Dybdal) Date: Sun, 17 Nov 2002 17:21:45 +0100 Subject: [blml] Kaplan doctrine (WAS Declarer makes impossible contract by LOT) In-Reply-To: <000201c28d43$7fa525d0$62fbf1c3@LNV> References: <5.2.0.9.0.20021113160907.00a59260@pop.starpower.net> <000201c28d43$7fa525d0$62fbf1c3@LNV> Message-ID: On Fri, 15 Nov 2002 08:07:49 +0100, "Ton Kooijman" wrote: >Some days ago I wrote that Kaplan has described this specific case and = came >up with the split score. And the WBFLC agreed with this approach when >discussing new L 72B1 which now expresses that the advantage for the >offenders is taken away and not that the damage for the innocent side is >compensated. Just to be quite sure I understood this correctly: this is the coming ("2005") laws you are talking about, right? The rest is under that assumption: The current case was ruled under the 1997 laws, where L72B1 prescribes adjusting for both sides. It seems to me that the fact that the WBFLC intends to change the law in the future isn't really an argument for how the current law should be interpreted. (If I really wanted to play the devil's advocate, I might even suggest that the fact that a law change is necessary is an argument *against* it being the current law.) As for the coming laws: I don't much mind adjusting for just one side in cases like the current one, where the NOS has had a fine chance to protect themselves by noticing a LOOT. But in other cases, where the NOS are totally without blame, I hope they will still be allowed an adjusted score when L72B1 is used. With few exceptions, I tend to believe that when one side has done something to deserve a really bad score, whether by playing badly or by committing an irregularity, then their opponents should have the corresponding really good score. >And I agree that we could have done better regarding several = descriptions of >the '97 laws. Yes. These discussions become very strange; one of the reasons is that the law as we use it is not the one in the book. For instance, we let TDs in some events use L12C3, against the letter of the law. And we refuse compensation to the NOS if they have taken "irrational, wild, or gambling action" - the book has absolutely nothing about that. Regardless of what we think of these practices (personally I like L12C3, and I'd like to get rid of the IWoG concept), it would be very nice to have a law book that describes the rules for adjusting that we actually use. It would also make it a lot easier to explain rulings. So I'm looking forward to 2005. --=20 Jesper Dybdal, Denmark. http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). From john@asimere.com Sun Nov 17 16:13:27 2002 From: john@asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Sun, 17 Nov 2002 16:13:27 +0000 Subject: [blml] Declarer makes impossible contract by LOT In-Reply-To: <5.2.0.9.0.20021115144513.00a61da0@pop.starpower.net> References: <001d01c28ae7$82af4c00$abed193e@4nrw70j> <5.2.0.9.0.20021113173919.00a5d480@pop.starpower.net> <000001c28cc6$3888d520$bcb387d9@pc> <5.2.0.9.0.20021115144513.00a61da0@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: In article <5.2.0.9.0.20021115144513.00a61da0@pop.starpower.net>, Eric Landau writes >At 06:38 AM 11/15/02, LarryBennett wrote: > snip > >If the LOOT is noticed, the TD is called, LHO's options are explained >to him, he is given some time to decide whether to cover or not, and >then covers, it would not be at all unreasonable, given the situation, >to decide that he has made an "egregious error" and to deny redress on >that basis. > >But the notion that simply not realizing that declarer is in dummy >rather than in hand might be a sufficiently egregious error to justify >a denial of redress is, IMO, a gross abuse of the Kaplan doctrine, and >way off base. > Some of you may recall that I have long argued that revoking should be subject to L72. I always get howled down. If a LOOT is subject to L72 then surely so is a revoke. Both show total incompetence (or downright cheating). Is any amongst those who say that revokes *can't* be penalised via L72 but LOOTs can prepared to defend their position? cheers John PS their is a certain clumsiness in that last sentence which I would like DALB to correct for me. Lord alone knows what I've done to it, except that the whole bit (amongst ... can) is part of the subject. > >Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net >1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 >Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 > > >_______________________________________________ >blml mailing list >blml@rtflb.org >http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > -- John (MadDog) Probst| . ! -^- |icq 10810798 451 Mile End Road | /|__. \:/ |OKb ChienFou London E3 4PA | / @ __) -|- |john@asimere.com +44-(0)20 8983 5818 | /\ --^ | |www.asimere.com/~john From john@asimere.com Sun Nov 17 16:28:29 2002 From: john@asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Sun, 17 Nov 2002 16:28:29 +0000 Subject: [blml] POOT laws - a change suggested In-Reply-To: <5.2.0.9.0.20021115153736.00a6e890@pop.starpower.net> References: <151102319.20423@webbox.com> <5.2.0.9.0.20021115153736.00a6e890@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <9RSe4MCtO819Ewi0@asimere.com> In article <5.2.0.9.0.20021115153736.00a6e890@pop.starpower.net>, Eric Landau writes >At 08:40 AM 11/15/02, David wrote: > >>Eric wrote: >> >> >But I seem to recall -- somebody help me here -- that there >>may have been more to the Rottweiler coup case than we have here: >>in that case, it may have been the player perpetrating the psyche >>whose infraction had resulted in partner being barred, which >>would surely have strengthened the case for calling the coup >>illegal. >> the Rottweiller coup can only be adjusted because the multi was made on a 2-count. Had Richard had a 9-count the whole action would probably have been legal as the hand my well have belonged to his side, whereas holding a 2-count it probably doesn't. We ruled result stands at the time, were overturned by AC (referee) and the blml consensus was AC could only overturn for the above reason. I for one am convinced by that argument. >>Since I gave the original ruling, on that incident, perhaps I >>can help. A player opened 2D (Multi) with six spades to the jack >>and a poor hand. It was not his turn; when his LHO declined to >>accept 2D and his RHO opened 1D, our hero chose to overcall 1H >>with a void, his partner being barred throughout. >> >>What followed is not especially relevant; it was held that a >>player who, knowing his partner to be barred, makes a grotesque >>psychic call, he is in breach of Law. He could know at the time >>of opening out of turn that this was likely to damage the opponents >>by allowing him to perpertate risk-free deceptions. (Obviously, >>this does not extend to a player who, facing a passed partner, >>guesses to open something he hopes will make, usually 3NT - this, >>while it might damage the opponents if it is a lucky make, is >>not "likely" to do so.) > >That's about how I recalled the case. The Rottweiler opened OOT, >barring his partner, and then perpetrated a gross psyche. The >consensus on BLML was that his score should be adjusted under L73F2: at >the time he committed the original infraction (his OBOOT) he "could >have known" that it would work to his advantage by allowing him to >psych thereafter without fear of being hanged by his partner. It was >not the psych per se that was improper, it was the fact that the >psycher took advantage of his own infraction by subsequently psyching. > >So this is not analogous to the current case, where the psycher >committed no infraction. His partner committed the infraction, and the >penalty was assessed and applied. Can we then apply L73F2 to *this* >offender, ruling that he "could have known" that by barring himself, he >was giving his *partner* the opportunity to subsequently psych to his >side's advantage? Perhaps so, but that would certainly require a much >more liberal reading of L73F2 than we needed to deal with the >Rottweiler case. > > >Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net >1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 >Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 > > >_______________________________________________ >blml mailing list >blml@rtflb.org >http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > -- John (MadDog) Probst| . ! -^- |icq 10810798 451 Mile End Road | /|__. \:/ |OKb ChienFou London E3 4PA | / @ __) -|- |john@asimere.com +44-(0)20 8983 5818 | /\ --^ | |www.asimere.com/~john From john@asimere.com Sun Nov 17 16:33:24 2002 From: john@asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Sun, 17 Nov 2002 16:33:24 +0000 Subject: [blml] POOT laws - a change suggested In-Reply-To: <200211151340.NAA23987@tempest.cmsc.npl.co.uk> References: <200211151340.NAA23987@tempest.cmsc.npl.co.uk> Message-ID: In article <200211151340.NAA23987@tempest.cmsc.npl.co.uk>, Robin Barker writes > snip >> >> EL:Quite some time ago we discussed something very similar to this, in our >> thread on the "Rottweiler coup". I don't recall the exact details, but >> the group was split between those who thought it was a clever ploy and >> those who thought it was illegal. I do not recall any suggestion, >> though, that it depended on any determination of LAs; the question was >> whether an outright psyche is permitted in this situation. >> >> But I seem to recall -- somebody help me here -- that there may have >> been more to the Rottweiler coup case than we have here: in that case, >> it may have been the player perpetrating the psyche whose infraction >> had resulted in partner being barred, which would surely have >> strengthened the case for calling the coup illegal. >> > >RB: I think the Rottweiller opened 2D multi out of turn in a position that >meant partner was silenced. At his turn, Richard then bid the major >he did not have, opponents were annoyed when he ruffed the suit he bid, >and generally all hell broke loose -- Richard in his element :-). > >Some ruled that he could have known (especially given the poor quality >of his hand -- even for a Rottweiller multi) when opening out of turn >that silencing partner and then psyching was likely to be to his >advantage; and adjusted. > >Some said that this sort of thing was outrageous and should not be >allowed -- but could not cite any particular law or regulation. > >Some were rather in awe of what had been perpetrated and, in the >absense of prohibition by law or regulation, allowed the result to >stand. > fwiw it was Jim Proctor and I who ruled. At the time of ruling I was unaware of the perpetrator as I was consulted by Jim. Richard Fleet as referee overturned it. >Robin > -- John (MadDog) Probst| . ! -^- |icq 10810798 451 Mile End Road | /|__. \:/ |OKb ChienFou London E3 4PA | / @ __) -|- |john@asimere.com +44-(0)20 8983 5818 | /\ --^ | |www.asimere.com/~john From john@asimere.com Sun Nov 17 16:36:25 2002 From: john@asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Sun, 17 Nov 2002 16:36:25 +0000 Subject: [blml] POOT laws - a change suggested In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20021115155048.024427a0@pop.ulb.ac.be> References: <5.1.0.14.0.20021115155048.024427a0@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: In article <5.1.0.14.0.20021115155048.024427a0@pop.ulb.ac.be>, Alain Gottcheiner writes >At 14:27 15/11/2002 +0000, Tim West-meads wrote: > >AG : I've always been very imaginative. >Partner opens a Wagner 2D (weak 2 H/S only), and you pass, with a weak hand >and some agreement with both majors. LHO reopens with a double, and *now* >you pass in front of partner. Partner is now free to bid the 'wrong' major. > > At the YC it's very popular to overcall the wrong major over this opening in order to get the oppo to play in your suit. It's high variance and near zero sum for me currently. Just the thing for swinging matches from behind. >_______________________________________________ >blml mailing list >blml@rtflb.org >http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > -- John (MadDog) Probst| . ! -^- |icq 10810798 451 Mile End Road | /|__. \:/ |OKb ChienFou London E3 4PA | / @ __) -|- |john@asimere.com +44-(0)20 8983 5818 | /\ --^ | |www.asimere.com/~john From john@asimere.com Sun Nov 17 16:37:42 2002 From: john@asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Sun, 17 Nov 2002 16:37:42 +0000 Subject: [blml] POOT laws - a change suggested In-Reply-To: <151102319.24953@webbox.com> References: <151102319.24953@webbox.com> Message-ID: In article <151102319.24953@webbox.com>, David Burn writes > >TWM wrote: > >>If I recall correctly the "likelihood" of damaging opps was >specifically related to the weakness of the actual hand. > >You don't. It wasn't. > >>Had Richard chosen to make such a psyche holding a maximum multi >the result would have stood. > >It wouldn't. > please cite a Law or regulation to support this assertion, given a normal as opposed to Rottweiller multi. >When you psyche, you hope to damage the opponents (legitimately) >by deceiving them as to the nature of your hand. The risk you >run is that partner, similarly deceived, will do something that >instead damages your side. If partner is in no position to do >anything, you are much better placed to deceive the opponents. >This applies whatever kind of hand you have. > >David Burn >London, England > > > > >_______________________________________________ >blml mailing list >blml@rtflb.org >http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > -- John (MadDog) Probst| . ! -^- |icq 10810798 451 Mile End Road | /|__. \:/ |OKb ChienFou London E3 4PA | / @ __) -|- |john@asimere.com +44-(0)20 8983 5818 | /\ --^ | |www.asimere.com/~john From mfrench1@san.rr.com Sun Nov 17 17:05:44 2002 From: mfrench1@san.rr.com (Marvin L. French) Date: Sun, 17 Nov 2002 09:05:44 -0800 Subject: [blml] When to call the TD References: <5.2.0.9.0.20021115082732.00a609b0@pop.starpower.net> <002701c28cfa$a3093f00$6401a8c0@hare> Message-ID: <001901c28e5c$28ec37a0$049a1e18@san.rr.com> Nancy Dressing wrote: > I am strongly in favor of the "old fashioned" attitude that the director > should be called when any irregularity occurs at the table even if it is > your partner or yourself. Saves lots of problems and makes everything so > much simpler. Whenever attention is drawn to an irregularity, the TD must be called. However, taking a lot of time to think is not an irregularity. Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California From svenpran@online.no Sun Nov 17 17:35:50 2002 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sun, 17 Nov 2002 18:35:50 +0100 Subject: [blml] Revok (was Declarer makes impossible contract by LOT) References: <001d01c28ae7$82af4c00$abed193e@4nrw70j> <5.2.0.9.0.20021113173919.00a5d480@pop.starpower.net> <000001c28cc6$3888d520$bcb387d9@pc> <5.2.0.9.0.20021115144513.00a61da0@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <001b01c28e5f$c63b5650$70d8fea9@WINXP> From: "John (MadDog) Probst" ........... > Some of you may recall that I have long argued that revoking should be > subject to L72. I always get howled down. If a LOOT is subject to L72 > then surely so is a revoke. Both show total incompetence (or downright > cheating). Is any amongst those who say that revokes *can't* be > penalised via L72 but LOOTs can prepared to defend their position? Are you quite sure this isn't just a complete derailing of the discussion? Of course a revoke could be handled under Law 72B1 (the one focused upon in this thread). However, as law 64C is much better suited for such cases there is no need to involve L72 at all. We have all seen cases where the player making a lead out of turn could have done so in an attempt to gain an undeserved favour if opponents let it pass. This is where L72 enters the picture. Can a player make a revoke in a situation where he "could have known" that it would benefit him? Definitely not. L64C is a barrier against that. So please let this subject die. regards Sven From mfrench1@san.rr.com Sun Nov 17 17:49:21 2002 From: mfrench1@san.rr.com (Marvin L. French) Date: Sun, 17 Nov 2002 09:49:21 -0800 Subject: [blml] Kaplan doctrine (WAS Declarer makes impossible contract by LOT) References: <5.2.0.9.0.20021113160907.00a59260@pop.starpower.net> <000201c28d43$7fa525d0$62fbf1c3@LNV> Message-ID: <002901c28e61$c3cd9fc0$049a1e18@san.rr.com> From: "Jesper Dybdal" > And we refuse compensation to the NOS if they have taken > "irrational, wild, or gambling action" - the book has absolutely > nothing about that. It depends on one's interpretation of the word "damage." If the NOS had a fine result in hand as the result of an irregularity, but threw it away by an "irrational, wild, or gambling" action, it is reasonable to say that they were damaged by their own action, not by the irregularity. However, the WBFLC has said that if the OS gains from an irregularity, that in itself constitutes "damage" for purposes of applying L12C to their side. Anyway, Jesper, your statement is not correct as it stands. If there is no way for the NOS to avoid damage, they get redress regardless of what they do. Illustrating the two situations: (1) A pair uses UI to get to a slam, making 12 tricks only because of a revoke. The NOS keep their score (no redress), but the OS score is adjusted to a game contract, removing the gain resulting from the irregularity. For that adjustment, assume the same play of the cards (the revoke unrelated to the irregularity). (2) A pair uses UI to get to a slam, which is cold for 12 tricks. An irrational revoke by the NOS yields an overtrick. Adjust for both sides to a game contract (the redress), but assume the same play of the cards (the revoke unrelated to the irregularity). Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California From mfrench1@san.rr.com Sun Nov 17 18:06:54 2002 From: mfrench1@san.rr.com (Marvin L. French) Date: Sun, 17 Nov 2002 10:06:54 -0800 Subject: [blml] When to call the TD References: Message-ID: <002a01c28e64$1f0091c0$049a1e18@san.rr.com> From: "Todd Zimnoch" > > I can't find that in the Laws, and fail to see why > > obeying Law 16A2 should > > "jeopardize your right." Doing so saves a lot of > > director time and reduces the > > possibility of offending someone who has done nothing wrong. > > ######### > > > > Does anyone disagree? > > I agree that this is the way it should be, but in practice, it's > more difficult to get agreement on a hesitation, stray remark, or > the like after the hand has been played. When you cannot > establish that UI existed, your rights have disappeared. This is > one of the risks you take on when waiting to call the director > later. So? Of course if it seems important to establish that UI existed at the time it occurs, that is when it should be established, either by agreement with the opponents, or, lalcking that, by the opinion of the TD. Once established, my point is that you don't call the TD when an action is taken that *may* have been influeneced by the UI. You call when there is evidence of an irregularity, which can only be after play is complete or (in the case of dummy's hand) when the dummy hits the table. That's what L16A2 says, and I don't see any problem with following that law. My practice is to drop the matter if the opponents do not agree about the UI, as it is then usually very difficult for a TD to establish the UI. I do call the TD if the UI seems particularly blatant or an opponent is nasty about denying it. Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California From willner@cfa.harvard.edu Sun Nov 17 18:24:29 2002 From: willner@cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Sun, 17 Nov 2002 13:24:29 -0500 (EST) Subject: [blml] Declarer makes impossible contract by LOT Message-ID: <200211171824.NAA29441@cfa183.harvard.edu> > From: "John (MadDog) Probst" > Some of you may recall that I have long argued that revoking should be > subject to L72. I always get howled down. ????? The revoke penalty is so draconian that there will hardly ever be occasion to apply L72B1 (if that's what you mean) at least for an established revoke, but I don't see why it can't be applied when the conditions are met. We could use it to deal with the Alcatraz Coup, for example. (I seem to recall there is something else for Alcatraz Coup, but now I can't remember what.) From willner@cfa.harvard.edu Sun Nov 17 18:30:13 2002 From: willner@cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Sun, 17 Nov 2002 13:30:13 -0500 (EST) Subject: [blml] POOT laws - a change suggested Message-ID: <200211171830.NAA29567@cfa183.harvard.edu> > From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) > I'm sorry but a lead from the wrong hand is not an illegal deception. How > can L73f2 possibly be relevant. Eric has found a "creative" reading. In his view, declarer is deceiving the opponents about which hand is on lead. Eric also has to consider the lead out of turn "a remark, manner, tempo, or the like." I might just barely be convinced to rule this way if I had no other avenue to reach what I considered the proper result, but I don't like it at all. Unless I have misinterpreted Eric's suggestion... From larry@charmschool.fsnet.co.uk Sun Nov 17 18:39:12 2002 From: larry@charmschool.fsnet.co.uk (LarryBennett) Date: Sun, 17 Nov 2002 18:39:12 -0000 Subject: [blml] POOT laws - a change suggested References: <151102319.24953@webbox.com> Message-ID: <002a01c28e68$be0a8a60$7410893e@pc> Whilst I can not quote the authority, I am certain that at one time we were taught that a psyche opposite a silent pard should be automatically deemed to be red. Can any of the other ebu types (with apologies to the rest of the world) confirm or deny this. This approach would deal with all problems of this nature. Larry | >When you psyche, you hope to damage the opponents (legitimately) | >by deceiving them as to the nature of your hand. The risk you | >run is that partner, similarly deceived, will do something that | >instead damages your side. If partner is in no position to do | >anything, you are much better placed to deceive the opponents. | >This applies whatever kind of hand you have. | > | >David Burn | >London, England | From mfrench1@san.rr.com Sun Nov 17 18:39:18 2002 From: mfrench1@san.rr.com (Marvin L. French) Date: Sun, 17 Nov 2002 10:39:18 -0800 Subject: [blml] When to call the TD References: <5.2.0.9.0.20021115082732.00a609b0@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <003301c28e69$052ada80$049a1e18@san.rr.com> Eric Landau wrote: > Everything Marv says is 100% correct. > > But, then, Mr. Colker is also correct. "At the Table" (which is > subtitled "A survival manual") is not a column about the laws; it is a > column that purports to give practical advice to players about how to > cope with situations "at the table". And given the current state of > ACBL jurisprudence, it is unfortunately but undeniably true that if you > don't call the director as soon as your opponent calls, you may > jeopardize your right to protection, notwithstanding the lack of any > basis in the laws for this being the case. My point was that if UI is agreed, then it is pointless to call the TD before there is evidence of an irregularity, thereby violating L16A2. To do so often causes hard feelings when an opponent had no LA to an action taken, and moreover is a waste of the TD's valuable time. Of course you call the TD immediately if the opponents deny the UI and you want to pursue the matter. Practical advice to players is this: 1. If you think possibly harmful UI has been created, ask the opposition if they agree. If they don't agree, call the TD if you want to pursue the matter. 2. In any event, do not call the TD until you see evidence of an irregularity, which can only be "when play ends, or, as to dummy's hand, when dummy is exposed." (L16A2). 3. Even if an irregularity seems to have occurred, do not call attention to it if it obviously caused no damage. If you do call attention to it, the TD must be called (L9A2). It is highly improper to make critical comments to an opponent about an infraction Rich seems to think that 2. jeopardizes the rights of the NOS to get redress. I disagree. L16A2 is not optional for SOs. Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California From mfrench1@san.rr.com Sun Nov 17 18:43:00 2002 From: mfrench1@san.rr.com (Marvin L. French) Date: Sun, 17 Nov 2002 10:43:00 -0800 Subject: [blml] When to call the TD References: <007101c28c72$80ebe9a0$3a30d2cc@san.rr.com> Message-ID: <003401c28e69$b8584ca0$049a1e18@san.rr.com> From: "Steve Wright" > > At Club bridge with a playing TD it is usual (at least at our club) to > agree the fact amongst themselves and only call the TD when either the > facts cannot be agreed or at the end of the hand when the NOS believe > that their opponents *might* have taken an illegal actions. > > Phrases that come to mind are; > > "Can we agree that your partner hesitated before passing?" or "Can we > agree that your partner started to pull a bid out of the bidding box > then changed his mind and pulled out a pass card" > Very sensible, with the minor quibble that if dummy's hand shows signs of an infraction, the TD should be called immediately, not at the end of the hand. (L16A2). Waiting until the end of the hand should indeed jeopardize the rights of the NOS in that case. Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California From gordon@gordonrainsford.co.uk Sun Nov 17 19:00:11 2002 From: gordon@gordonrainsford.co.uk (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Sun, 17 Nov 2002 19:00:11 +0000 Subject: [blml] Declarer makes impossible contract by LOT In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Sunday, November 17, 2002, at 04:13 PM, John (MadDog) Probst wrote: > Is any amongst those who say that revokes *can't* be > penalised via L72 but LOOTs can prepared to defend their position? > > cheers John > > PS their is a certain clumsiness in that last sentence which I would ^^^^ there > like DALB to correct for me. Lord alone knows what I've done to it, > except that the whole bit (amongst ... can) is part of the subject. > Is anyone prepared to defend their position, who says that revokes *can't* be penalised via L72 but LOOTs can? No doubt there will be those who would prefer it to read "his position". -- Gordon Rainsford (not DALB) London UK From mfrench1@san.rr.com Sun Nov 17 20:19:11 2002 From: mfrench1@san.rr.com (Marvin L. French) Date: Sun, 17 Nov 2002 12:19:11 -0800 Subject: [blml] Bidding the Wrong Hand Message-ID: <004001c28e76$99dd56a0$049a1e18@san.rr.com> Well, it happened again. Sectional in Hemet, CA, Friday afternoon Stratified Pairs Board 6 Dealer: East (supposedly) Vulnerability: E-W S- 9852 H- Q43 D- AQ65 C- A2 S- J S- AK103 H- A97 H- 1065 D- K9874 D- J103 C- Q865 C- K103 (sic!) S- Q8 H- KQ63 D- AKQJ9 C- 52 West North East South P 1D P 1H P 1S P 3D (meant as forcing) All pass South had flipped the boards as the other players were studying their hands, putting board 4 on top (West dealer) and taking Board 4's South hand (again). Until the final pass, no one noticed the three hands that were still in the board. At that time the TD was called. The TD (an ACBL employee) had South take out his correct hand, not showing it to the others, which was: S- Q764 H- KJ82 D- 2 C- J974 Seeing that 1H was a logical response with this hand, the TD decided to let that bid stand without penalty, citing L17D. Not knowing what to do about the second bid, he let South change it from 3D to 2S, citing "equity.". All pass, for a good N-S result. Now, L17D is written as if the writer did not consider that a player with the wrong hand might make multiple bids with it. Shouldn't "call" in 17D be changed to "calls"? And shouldn't the TD have assigned artificial adjusted scores for both sides, and perhaps a PP for N-S? Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California From mikedod@gte.net Sun Nov 17 20:32:43 2002 From: mikedod@gte.net (mike dodson) Date: Sun, 17 Nov 2002 12:32:43 -0800 Subject: [blml] When to call the TD References: <002a01c28e64$1f0091c0$049a1e18@san.rr.com> Message-ID: <001601c28e78$94b7fa20$0100a8c0@MikesDesk> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Marvin L. French" > So? Of course if it seems important to establish that UI existed at the time > it occurs, that is when it should be established, either by agreement with the > opponents, or, lalcking that, by the opinion of the TD. > > Once established, my point is that you don't call the TD when an action is > taken that *may* have been influeneced by the UI. You call when there is > evidence of an irregularity, which can only be after play is complete or (in > the case of dummy's hand) when the dummy hits the table. That's what L16A2 > says, and I don't see any problem with following that law. > > My practice is to drop the matter if the opponents do not agree about the UI, > as it is then usually very difficult for a TD to establish the UI. I do call > the TD if the UI seems particularly blatant or an opponent is nasty about > denying it. Marv, I thought the ACBL election on 16A1- can't reserve rights- meant you must call the director, not seek the opponents stipulation of UI. As a practical matter, how do ACBL directors really rule? PP for "reserving rights" or growls for wasting time if you call the director on each hesitation? Both? This has always seemed to me one of the sillier ACBL decisions but I'm not sure of the practical consequences. As a note for the future laws, would an explicit request for UI stipulation instead of the ominous "I reserve my rights" bring the ACBL back to the FLB? Mike Dodson From blml@dybdal.dk Sun Nov 17 22:42:13 2002 From: blml@dybdal.dk (Jesper Dybdal) Date: Sun, 17 Nov 2002 23:42:13 +0100 Subject: [blml] Kaplan doctrine (WAS Declarer makes impossible contract by LOT) In-Reply-To: <002901c28e61$c3cd9fc0$049a1e18@san.rr.com> References: <5.2.0.9.0.20021113160907.00a59260@pop.starpower.net> <000201c28d43$7fa525d0$62fbf1c3@LNV> <002901c28e61$c3cd9fc0$049a1e18@san.rr.com> Message-ID: On Sun, 17 Nov 2002 09:49:21 -0800, "Marvin L. French" wrote: >From: "Jesper Dybdal" > >> And we refuse compensation to the NOS if they have taken >> "irrational, wild, or gambling action" - the book has absolutely >> nothing about that. > >It depends on one's interpretation of the word "damage." If the NOS had= a >fine result in hand as the result of an irregularity, but threw it away = by an >"irrational, wild, or gambling" action, it is reasonable to say that = they were >damaged by their own action, not by the irregularity. However, the WBFLC= has >said that if the OS gains from an irregularity, that in itself = constitutes >"damage" for purposes of applying L12C to their side. I cannot find any place in the law book that allows me to adjust for one side and not the other. In the law book's terms, either there is damage or there isn't. It doesn't seem to me to make sense to say that the OS has caused damage to the NOS, but the NOS has not been damaged. I have accepted the WBFLC's attitude to this (though I personally think that the existence of the "IWoG action" concept creates more bad rulings than good rulings). But it really ought to be in the book, so that rulings can be properly explained with reference to laws. >Anyway, Jesper, your statement is not correct as it stands. We have no disagreement here: my statement was not an attempt at a complete description of the adjustment practice in relation to IWoG action. I should have put a "sometimes" into that sentence. --=20 Jesper Dybdal, Denmark. http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). From svenpran@online.no Sun Nov 17 23:46:02 2002 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon, 18 Nov 2002 00:46:02 +0100 Subject: [blml] Bidding the Wrong Hand References: <004001c28e76$99dd56a0$049a1e18@san.rr.com> Message-ID: <003501c28e93$7cf3e2d0$70d8fea9@WINXP> From: "Marvin L. French" ...... > Well, it happened again. > > Sectional in Hemet, CA, Friday afternoon Stratified Pairs > > Board 6 > Dealer: East (supposedly) > Vulnerability: E-W > > S- 9852 > H- Q43 > D- AQ65 > C- A2 > > S- J S- AK103 > H- A97 H- 1065 > D- K9874 D- J103 > C- Q865 C- K103 > (sic!) > S- Q8 > H- KQ63 > D- AKQJ9 > C- 52 > > > West North East South > P 1D P 1H > P 1S P 3D (meant as forcing) > All pass > > South had flipped the boards as the other players were studying their > hands, > putting board 4 on top (West dealer) and taking Board 4's South hand > (again). > Until the final pass, no one noticed the three hands that were still > in the > board. At that time the TD was called. > > The TD (an ACBL employee) had South take out his correct hand, not > showing it > to the others, which was: > > S- Q764 > H- KJ82 > D- 2 > C- J974 > > Seeing that 1H was a logical response with this hand, the TD decided > to let > that bid stand without penalty, citing L17D. Not knowing what to do > about the > second bid, he let South change it from 3D to 2S, citing "equity.". > All > pass, for a good N-S result. It is completely incredible what "directors" can do when they believe they know the laws without really doing it, and even less understand what they read when they read them. Law17D states that if offender's LHO has called over the cancelled call (in this case the 1H bid by South) then the Director shall assign artificial adjusted scores. So at the moment West produces his pass over the 1H bid by South the case is closed. Final. No need to argue about "call" or "calls" in Law 17D. But a very good reason to examine the qualifications of the acting director. (BTW it is no business of the Director to "let the 1H bid stand" - his duty is to cancel that bid and see if South repeats the same bid with the correct hand - provided no call has been made in the original auction over that cancelled call) Sven (Remainder of post better be left in the dark) From willner@cfa.harvard.edu Sun Nov 17 23:51:46 2002 From: willner@cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Sun, 17 Nov 2002 18:51:46 -0500 (EST) Subject: [blml] When to call the TD Message-ID: <200211172351.SAA04395@cfa183.harvard.edu> > From: "mike dodson" > As a note for the future laws, would an explicit request for UI > stipulation instead of the ominous "I reserve my rights" bring the ACBL back > to the FLB? I, for one, would like to think so. In practice, with decent opponents, it is nearly always possible to agree on the fact of UI at the time it occurs, regardless of what the ACBL says about this practice. Even aside from the ACBL, it cannot hurt to make L16A1 as clear as possible: that it merely authorizes players to form an agreement on the facts if they can do so. Similarly, I suspect a rewording of L12C3, specifying that all it allows is a weighted average of possible scores, such scores not to include any illegal action, would bring the ACBL on board. But I confess I seldom have a clue about what the powers-that-be in the ACBL will decide. From willner@cfa.harvard.edu Sun Nov 17 23:56:44 2002 From: willner@cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Sun, 17 Nov 2002 18:56:44 -0500 (EST) Subject: [blml] POOT laws - a change suggested Message-ID: <200211172356.SAA04486@cfa183.harvard.edu> > From: "LarryBennett" > Whilst I can not quote the authority, I am > certain that at one time we were taught that a > psyche opposite a silent pard should be > automatically deemed to be red. Are you sure that shouldn't read "deemed to be green?" Once partner is barred, all bidding agreements are inoperative (as the politicians like to say), so how can it be possible that there is a CPU? We might as well outlaw false cards by declarer. Of course L72B1 -- applied to the original infraction that silenced partner -- might well result in an adjusted score, but I fail to see how any rules dealing with partnership understandings can be relevant. From cyaxares@lineone.net Sun Nov 17 23:51:54 2002 From: cyaxares@lineone.net (Grattan Endicott) Date: Sun, 17 Nov 2002 23:51:54 -0000 Subject: [blml] Kaplan doctrine (WAS Declarer makes impossible contract by LOT) References: <5.2.0.9.0.20021113160907.00a59260@pop.starpower.net> <000201c28d43$7fa525d0$62fbf1c3@LNV> Message-ID: <000401c28e9a$83c7eaa0$0b4de150@endicott> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws List" Sent: Sunday, November 17, 2002 4:21 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Kaplan doctrine (WAS Declarer makes impossible contract by LOT) On Fri, 15 Nov 2002 08:07:49 +0100, "Ton Kooijman" wrote: Just to be quite sure I understood this correctly: this is the coming ("2005") laws you are talking about, right? The rest is under that assumption: +=+ No. Ton refers to the WBFLC minute no.2 of 30 Aug 98 which relates to the 1997 Law Book. Members of the Laws Revision Subcommittee are under an injunction not to enter into public discussion concerning the subcommittee's work. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Mon Nov 18 01:26:28 2002 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Mon, 18 Nov 2002 01:26:28 -0000 Subject: [blml] 4NT on a cross-ruff References: <007101c28c72$80ebe9a0$3a30d2cc@san.rr.com> Message-ID: <00bd01c28ea1$8cc08020$3e9868d5@default> [Nigel Guthrie] An amusing incident from today's Swiss Teams in Wales: North JT85 KT85 8653 7 West East K76 AQ92 A2 97 AKJ7 9 AQ54 KT8632 West opens 2NT and after a Baron sequence, East ends the auction with 4NT East: "We agreed that 4NT asks for aces, I would bid 6C unless we are missing 2 Aces". West wins LHO's S:J lead with S:K. cashes C:A all following, and faces his hand West: "After drawing trumps the rest are mine". East: "There aren't any trumps, the contract is 4NT." North: "4N is down if you cash HA before attempting to ruff a spade. Questions: (1) Should North-South have called the TD? (2) Had the TD been called and the facts agreed, as above, how should he rule? From siegmund@mosquitonet.com Mon Nov 18 01:34:27 2002 From: siegmund@mosquitonet.com (Gordon Bower) Date: Sun, 17 Nov 2002 16:34:27 -0900 (AKST) Subject: [blml] Herman's Ruling In-Reply-To: <3DD75D4D.1090408@skynet.be> Message-ID: On Sun, 17 Nov 2002, Herman De Wael wrote: > Here's another you're all going to criticize. Yes, we are. > The Belgian highest division is played with duplicated boards and > yesterday this happened. One table hasn't finished yet, but another > team starts comparing at a (too) nearby table. "Did they bid the six > spades with the jack singleton?" is overheard. At precisely the moment > a player is in six spades, contemplating what to do from AK10xx > opposite 9xxx. > > Of course he playes the ace, dropping the jack behind him, and now he > knows even more certain that he has to finesse the queen. He does and > the slam is made. > > Obviously the board should be cancelled, and an adjusted score given. > But I did not want to have either team loose the benefit of having > bid, or blame of not having bid, the slam. I can see three ways this board might be handled. One, the director could be called right away and he could rule "since the only normal way of handling this spade suit picks up a singleton jack anyway, the information gained is inconsequential, play on." Or, better, he could say this is grounds for cancelling the board... and, as he knows the slam was bid but couldn't be played, adjust the score to slam making for both sides, which accomplishes the same thing. The players will STILL all be happy - they get the normal result and the board is tied, it is "equitable" in that everyone has gotten just what they think they would have gotten absent the UI. There is one fly in that ointment: if you rule the UI made the hand unplayable and give out adjusted scores - they are artificial ones. In a team game we seem to be stuck giving +3 and +3 on this board regardless of what happens at the other table. In a pairs game I think it's perfectly legal (I know some disagree) to assign an avg+ worth more than 60% for cause (here, assigning the value of making slam) .. but the defenders seem to still be entitled to the full 60%. I know some of you would dislike giving an ArtAS of 80%/60%. In Herman's case I am bothered by giving one side extra imps but not the other. I can live with +3/+3, but 0/+7 irks me. GRB From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Mon Nov 18 03:30:56 2002 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 18 Nov 2002 13:30:56 +1000 Subject: [blml] Moulin Rouge Message-ID: <4A256C75.0011D3C7.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> I wrote: >>Matchpoint pairs, Dlr: N, Vul: EW >>You, South, hold: >> >>J3 >>AQT76 >>432 >>832 >> >>The bidding has gone: >> >>WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH >> 1NT(1) 2D 2H >>3H Pass 3NT(2) Double >>Pass 4H Pass Pass >>5D Pass Pass ? >> >>(1) 11-14 >>(2) Break in tempo >> >>What are your logical alternatives? Konrad Ciborowski replied: >I made a poll on the Polish bridge newsgroup >and among several bridge players >in Krakow. > >The results are: > >x = 7 votes >p = 5 votes >5H = 1 vote > >One panelist refused to answer ("I don't play >with someone who can pull my double in >this position"). [snip] Indeed, it is logically inconsistent with North's previous bidding for North to pull the double now. The reason that North was logically inconsistent at the table is that this was the complete deal: T876 J9832 T6 64 A642 KQ9 4 K5 KJ8 AQ975 AKQJT 975 J3 AQT76 432 832 At the table, I was the innumerate North. Pard knew that I was not a logically inconsistent bidder, diagnosed my psyche, and chose the logical alternative of Pass for a top. However, in EBU-land, is logical inconsistency a sufficient reason to avert a Red Psyche ruling? Best wishes Richard From mfrench1@san.rr.com Mon Nov 18 04:37:22 2002 From: mfrench1@san.rr.com (Marvin L. French) Date: Sun, 17 Nov 2002 20:37:22 -0800 Subject: [blml] Bidding the Wrong Hand References: <004001c28e76$99dd56a0$049a1e18@san.rr.com> <003501c28e93$7cf3e2d0$70d8fea9@WINXP> Message-ID: <004b01c28ebc$3388e2c0$049a1e18@san.rr.com> From: "Sven Pran" > From: "Marvin L. French" > ...... > > Well, it happened again. > > > > Sectional in Hemet, CA, Friday afternoon Stratified Pairs > > > > Board 6 > > Dealer: East (supposedly) > > Vulnerability: E-W > > > > S- 9852 > > H- Q43 > > D- AQ65 > > C- A2 > > > > S- J S- AK103 > > H- A97 H- 1065 > > D- K9874 D- J103 > > C- Q865 C- K103 > > (sic!) > > S- Q8 > > H- KQ63 > > D- AKQJ9 > > C- 52 > > > > > > West North East South > > P 1D P 1H > > P 1S P 3D (meant as forcing) > > All pass > > > > South had flipped the boards as the other players were studying > > their hands, > > putting board 4 on top (West dealer) and taking Board 4's South > > hand > > (again). > > Until the final pass, no one noticed the three hands that were > > still in the board. At that time the TD was called. > > > > The TD (an ACBL employee) had South take out his correct hand, not > > showing it to the others, which was: > > > > S- Q764 > > H- KJ82 > > D- 2 > > C- J974 > > > > Seeing that 1H was a logical response with this hand, the TD > > decided to let > > that bid stand without penalty, citing L17D. Not knowing what to > > do about the second bid, he let South change it from 3D to 2S, citing > > "equity.". > > It is completely incredible what "directors" can do when they > believe they > know the laws without really doing it, and even less understand what > they read when they read them. > > Law17D states that if offender's LHO has called over the cancelled > call > (in this case the 1H bid by South) then the Director shall assign > artificial adjusted scores. > So at the moment West produces his pass over the 1H bid by South > the case is closed. Final. No need to argue about "call" or "calls" > in > Law 17D. But a very good reason to examine the qualifications of the > acting director. Wait a minute, Sven. That happens only if the cancelled call is replaced by a call that differs "in any way" from the cancelled call. The 1H bid is okay, but the 2S bid is not, because it differs significantly from the cancelled 3D bid. > > (BTW it is no business of the Director to "let the 1H bid stand" - > his > duty is to cancel that bid and see if South repeats the same bid > with the > correct hand - provided no call has been made in the original > auction over that cancelled call) > Were the 1H bid the only bid to be considered, the TD may "allow that board to be played normally." It is the 2S bid substituted for 3D that should trigger an artificial score adjustment. I repeat: It seems that L17D should be changed to allow the board to be played normally only if *all calls* made by the offender when holding the wrong hand are repeated with the correct hand. Evidently a player holding the wrong (perhaps weak) hand can make a negative response to a forcing opening, then repeat that bid with the correct (perhaps strong) hand in order to avoid an avg-. Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Mon Nov 18 05:52:47 2002 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 18 Nov 2002 15:52:47 +1000 Subject: [blml] I don't teach bridge Message-ID: <4A256C75.001ED004.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> Marvin L. French wrote: >Grattan does not seem to think the word "special" in "special >partnership agreement" has any meaning. That is, he >interprets L75C as if the word were not there. > >I early learned from a teacher that double-jump overcalls are >weak preemptive bids, common knowledge then and now. Although >the meaning was transmitted to me by a teacher, s/he was just >teaching me common knowledge, nothing special. Disagree. I would rule that agreeing to use a particular popular agreement is still agreeing to use a *special* agreement. [snip] >In short, if I have knowledge that comes from general >knowledge and experience, sharing that knowledge with a >partner does not make it a *special* partnership agreement. Agreed. Where we differ is in defining exactly what "general knowledge and experience" is. I have a more restrictive view of *non-special* agreements. For example, I would rule that agreeing to lead an ace against 7NT is a *non-special* agreement. On the other hand, I would rule that agreeing that a 4H overcall of a 1S opening is always weak is a *special* agreement. [snip] >TD Max Hardy (who knew my feelings on the subject) did at my >table once. > >"Was the three spade bid Alerted?" > >"No." > >"Then it must be weak, preemptive." > >And he walked away. No objection from me, as he had educated >both partner and the opponents. > >No, I do not recommend that solution to TDs. It is true that local alert rules may state that a particular agreement need not be alerted. However, there is *not* a one-to-one logical correspondence between a required alert and a *special* agreement. Best wishes Richard From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Mon Nov 18 06:33:51 2002 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 18 Nov 2002 16:33:51 +1000 Subject: [blml] The Clayton's adjustment Message-ID: <4A256C75.002292E3.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> In the "Kaplan doctrine" thread, Jesper Dybdal wrote: >>I cannot find any place in the law book that >>allows me to adjust for one side and not the >>other. In the law book's terms, either >>there is damage or there isn't. It doesn't >>seem to me to make sense to say that the OS >>has caused damage to the NOS, but the NOS >>has not been damaged. [snip] I believe that Jesper's legal problem can be overcome. Law 12C2 states: [snip] >the score is, for a nonoffending side, the >most favourable result that was likely had the >irregularity not occurred or, for an offending >side, the most unfavourable result that was at >all probable. The scores awarded to the two >sides need not balance [snip] Clayton's is a popular low-alcohol Australian beer, with the slogan of, "The beer you have when you're not having a beer." My interpretation of L12C2 is that a "likely" adjustment of the score for the NOS could be a zero change adjustment - the adjustment you have when you're not having an adjustment. Meanwhile, an "at all probable" adjustment of the score for the OS could be a tangible negative change adjustment. Best wishes Richard From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Mon Nov 18 07:04:27 2002 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 18 Nov 2002 17:04:27 +1000 Subject: [blml] dWS for the beginner Message-ID: <4A256C75.00256024.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> Herman De Wael wrote: >>My point exactly. I would not even put it this strong, but in >>any case "thou shalt not give UI" is stronger than "thou >>shalt inform". >> >>And the problem is not even that one is stronger than the >>other, but that they both exist, and that one cannot follow >>both at the same time. So it's ridiculous to categorize the >>dWS with law-breakers. The alternative is just to break >>another law. Grattan Endicott replied: >+=+ Not so. > 1. There is no law that states you may misinform. Any >action not given authority in the Laws is extraneous and not >part of the game (WBFLC< 28 August 1998). > 2. An extraneous statement as to the meaning of a >call, stating the content of the hand rather than, as required >by law, the agreed partnership meaning of the call, if done >purposefully in place of, and knowing, the requirement, is a >deliberate deception of the opponent. It is in breach of >Laws 72A1, 72B2, 73F2 - and, if not corrected by the >partner at the appropriate time, 75D2. [snip] Herman de Wael's argument has therefore been reduced to pointing out an apparent paradox of the clash between the laws requiring "thou shalt not misinform" and "thou shalt not give UI". However, it seems to me that even this fallback position of the De Wael School has a fundamental flaw. I cannot find anyway in the Laws the statement that "thou shalt not give UI". What Law 16 and Law 73C actually state is that "thou shalt not *use* UI", which is an entirely different concept - and a concept which does *not* paradoxically clash with the Endicott School. Best wishes Richard From mfrench1@san.rr.com Mon Nov 18 07:17:22 2002 From: mfrench1@san.rr.com (Marvin L. French) Date: Sun, 17 Nov 2002 23:17:22 -0800 Subject: [blml] I don't teach bridge References: <4A256C75.001ED004.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> Message-ID: <005801c28ed2$96ddf480$049a1e18@san.rr.com> Richard Hills wrote: > > Marvin L. French wrote: > > >Grattan does not seem to think the word "special" in "special > >partnership agreement" has any meaning. That is, he > >interprets L75C as if the word were not there. > > > >I early learned from a teacher that double-jump overcalls are > >weak preemptive bids, common knowledge then and now. Although > >the meaning was transmitted to me by a teacher, s/he was just > >teaching me common knowledge, nothing special. > > Disagree. I would rule that agreeing to use a particular > popular agreement is still agreeing to use a *special* > agreement. > Then I can only say that you are using the English language in a way with which I am not familiar. > [snip] > > >In short, if I have knowledge that comes from general > >knowledge and experience, sharing that knowledge with a > >partner does not make it a *special* partnership agreement. > > Agreed. Where we differ is in defining exactly what "general > knowledge and experience" is. I have a more restrictive view > of *non-special* agreements. > > For example, I would rule that agreeing to lead an ace against > 7NT is a *non-special* agreement. > > On the other hand, I would rule that agreeing that a 4H > overcall of a 1S opening is always weak is a *special* > agreement. How about a 3S overcall of a 1C opening? Have you ever known anyone to play this as other than a weak preemptive bid? Its meaning is generally recognized, so agreeing to that meaning with a partner does not make it a *special* partnership ageement.. > > [snip] > > >TD Max Hardy (who knew my feelings on the subject) did at my > >table once. > > > >"Was the three spade bid Alerted?" > > > >"No." > > > >"Then it must be weak, preemptive." > > > >And he walked away. No objection from me, as he had educated > >both partner and the opponents. > > > >No, I do not recommend that solution to TDs. > > It is true that local alert rules may state that a particular > agreement need not be alerted. However, there is *not* a > one-to-one logical correspondence between a required alert and > a *special* agreement. > I never claimed that, nor did Max imply it. There are, however, some calls that, if not Alerted, must convey the meaning attributed to it by the general bridge population. The double of a one-level natural opening bid, for instance. If not Alerted, it has to be a takeout double with (in ACBL-land, anyway) at least three-card support for the unbid suits or considerable strength. If someone were to ask me the meaning of my partner's takeout double, L75C says I need not disclose it. If you think that the takeout nature of the double is a "special partnership agreement," then you are using that phrase in a way not envisioned by the writer of L75C. Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California From grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk Mon Nov 18 02:33:54 2002 From: grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk (grandeval) Date: Mon, 18 Nov 2002 02:33:54 -0000 Subject: [blml] Declarer makes impossible contract by LOT References: Message-ID: <000a01c28ed3$0c823a20$67ee193e@4nrw70j> Grattan Endicott Cc: Sent: Sunday, November 17, 2002 7:00 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Declarer makes impossible contract by LOT > > No doubt there will be those who would prefer it to > read "his position". > +=+ Though these may not include any females +=+ From svenpran@online.no Mon Nov 18 07:31:35 2002 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon, 18 Nov 2002 08:31:35 +0100 Subject: [blml] Bidding the Wrong Hand References: <004001c28e76$99dd56a0$049a1e18@san.rr.com> <003501c28e93$7cf3e2d0$70d8fea9@WINXP> <004b01c28ebc$3388e2c0$049a1e18@san.rr.com> Message-ID: <001001c28ed4$863d9930$70d8fea9@WINXP> Grattan: I believe this is another one yelling for a "noted" status? (on Law 17D) ----- Original Message ----- From: "Marvin L. French" To: "Sven Pran" ; "blml" Sent: Monday, November 18, 2002 5:37 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Bidding the Wrong Hand > > From: "Sven Pran" > > > From: "Marvin L. French" > > ...... > > > Well, it happened again. > > > > > > Sectional in Hemet, CA, Friday afternoon Stratified Pairs > > > > > > Board 6 > > > Dealer: East (supposedly) > > > Vulnerability: E-W > > > > > > S- 9852 > > > H- Q43 > > > D- AQ65 > > > C- A2 > > > > > > S- J S- AK103 > > > H- A97 H- 1065 > > > D- K9874 D- J103 > > > C- Q865 C- K103 > > > (sic!) > > > S- Q8 > > > H- KQ63 > > > D- AKQJ9 > > > C- 52 > > > > > > > > > West North East South > > > P 1D P 1H > > > P 1S P 3D (meant as forcing) > > > All pass > > > > > > South had flipped the boards as the other players were studying > > > their hands, > > > putting board 4 on top (West dealer) and taking Board 4's South > > > hand > > > (again). > > > Until the final pass, no one noticed the three hands that were > > > still in the board. At that time the TD was called. > > > > > > The TD (an ACBL employee) had South take out his correct hand, not > > > showing it to the others, which was: > > > > > > S- Q764 > > > H- KJ82 > > > D- 2 > > > C- J974 > > > > > > Seeing that 1H was a logical response with this hand, the TD > > > decided to let > > > that bid stand without penalty, citing L17D. Not knowing what to > > > do about the second bid, he let South change it from 3D to 2S, citing > > > "equity.". > > > > It is completely incredible what "directors" can do when they > > believe they > > know the laws without really doing it, and even less understand what > > they read when they read them. > > > > Law17D states that if offender's LHO has called over the cancelled > > call > > (in this case the 1H bid by South) then the Director shall assign > > artificial adjusted scores. > > > So at the moment West produces his pass over the 1H bid by South > > the case is closed. Final. No need to argue about "call" or "calls" > > in > > Law 17D. But a very good reason to examine the qualifications of the > > acting director. > > Wait a minute, Sven. That happens only if the cancelled call is > replaced by a call that differs "in any way" from the cancelled call. > The 1H bid is okay, but the 2S bid is not, because it differs > significantly from the cancelled 3D bid. OH, I see what you mean. Yes I agree with you there is a need for clarification. Due to the singular form "call" I have always understood this law that if the auction has proceeded beyond a single call by the offender then the board must be cancelled, but other parts of the law seem to imply that at least a single following call by LHO can be "tolerated". > > > > (BTW it is no business of the Director to "let the 1H bid stand" - > > his > > duty is to cancel that bid and see if South repeats the same bid > > with the > > correct hand - provided no call has been made in the original > > auction over that cancelled call) > > > Were the 1H bid the only bid to be considered, the TD may "allow that > board to be played normally." It is the 2S bid substituted for 3D that > should trigger an artificial score adjustment. This should be obvious. (Compare also Law 15C) But the Director has no power to "allow the 1H bid to stand" He must cancel that call (including any subsequent calls) and let South decide what he wants to call as a replacement. Only if the replacing call is identical to the cancelled call may the Director allow the board to be played provided also (the? all?) following call(s) is/are identical. > > I repeat: It seems that L17D should be changed to allow the board to be played > normally only if *all calls* made by the offender when holding the wrong hand > are repeated with the correct hand. > > Evidently a player holding the wrong (perhaps weak) hand can make a negative > response to a forcing opening, then repeat that bid with the correct (perhaps > strong) hand in order to avoid an avg-. The present Law 17D obviously gives the Director the powers to "allow the board to be played normally" (after corrections) if the offender has made only one call with a hand from the wrong board even if his LHO has made a call thereafter. Law 17D should be clarified to show exactly how far the auction may proceed (and how many calls thus can be cancelled and replaced with identical calls) before the Director no longer has any option to let the board be played. regards Sven From mfrench1@san.rr.com Mon Nov 18 07:30:56 2002 From: mfrench1@san.rr.com (Marvin L. French) Date: Sun, 17 Nov 2002 23:30:56 -0800 Subject: [blml] 4NT on a cross-ruff References: <007101c28c72$80ebe9a0$3a30d2cc@san.rr.com> <00bd01c28ea1$8cc08020$3e9868d5@default> Message-ID: <006501c28ed4$71473c20$049a1e18@san.rr.com> From: "Nigel Guthrie" > [Nigel Guthrie] > An amusing incident from today's Swiss Teams > in Wales: > North > JT85 > KT85 > 8653 > 7 > West East > K76 AQ92 > A2 97 > AKJ7 9 > AQ54 KT8632 > West opens 2NT and after a Baron sequence, > East ends the auction with 4NT > East: "We agreed that 4NT asks for aces, > I would bid 6C unless we are missing 2 Aces". > West wins LHO's S:J lead with S:K. > cashes C:A all following, and faces his hand > West: "After drawing trumps the rest are mine". > East: "There aren't any trumps, the contract > is 4NT." > North: "4N is down if you cash HA before > attempting to ruff a spade. No one would do that. > Questions: > (1) Should North-South have called the TD? Yes. > (2) Had the TD been called and the facts agreed, > as above, how should he rule? If spades are 3-3 then 13 tricks to declarer. Otherwise an early spade "ruff" and no spade finesse. In a club contract, it looks irrational to ruff a diamond or cash the heart ace early. It could be argued, I suppose, that an inattentive declarer might miscount his tricks and try to ruff out the diamond queen early, but I would not rule that way. Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California From mfrench1@san.rr.com Mon Nov 18 07:40:34 2002 From: mfrench1@san.rr.com (Marvin L. French) Date: Sun, 17 Nov 2002 23:40:34 -0800 Subject: [blml] When to call the TD References: <002a01c28e64$1f0091c0$049a1e18@san.rr.com> <001601c28e78$94b7fa20$0100a8c0@MikesDesk> Message-ID: <006801c28ed5$d837a9a0$049a1e18@san.rr.com> From: "mike dodson" > Marv, > > I thought the ACBL election on 16A1- can't reserve rights- meant you > must call the director, not seek the opponents stipulation of UI. As I read 16A1, it says that competitors may announce, when observing opposing UI creation, that they reserve the right to call the TD later. After that rather pompous statement, the opponents should call the TD immediately if they feel it is unwarranted. The ACBL rejected this procedure, as L16A1 permits, saying that instead the NOS "should summon the Director when they believe there may have been extraneous information available to the opponents resulting in calls or bids which could result in damage to their side." So, what does the election tell us to do? Evidently we are supposed to ignore the UI when it is created, say nothing about it, and then when the opponents take an action possibly influenced by it, call the TD. That's a violation of L16A2, which is not an option for SOs. It is also a very offensive way to handle the matter, as it usually happens that there is no LA to an action suggested by the UI. Or perhaps we are to do what the writer of the election probably intended, which is to call the TD whenever questionable UI is noted, agreed to or not. "Resulting in calls or bids," somewhat of a pleonasm, refers to something that has happened, not something that might happen. The writer probably meant "that could result in calls or bids...," but that's not what the words convey. The confusing syntax seems to go further than what is allowed an SO. L16A1 permits an SO to opt out of that law, but it does not permit the writing of a new law that is in violation of L16A2. The current election is therefore illegal and should be ignored (as it generally is at higher levels of play). > As a > practical matter, how do ACBL directors really rule? PP for "reserving > rights" or growls for wasting time if you call the director on each > hesitation? Both? This has always seemed to me one of the sillier ACBL > decisions but I'm not sure of the practical consequences. The general ACBL TD opinion seems to be that it is right to call the TD whenever opposing UI arises that could lead to an infraction. This has the merit of allowing the TD to make sure the UI side knows its responsibilities in regard to the UI. It has the drawbacks of wasting TD time and creating bad feelings on the part of opponents. Most TDs believe that it is also right to call the TD when an opponent takes what might be a UI-influenced action. If the UI was not agreed, the TD must now establish that it was indeed created. S/he can do no more at that time, but has to wait until play is over to make a ruling. Usually the TD says, "Call me back if you think you were damaged," abdicating responsibility by leaving that decision to the players. All TDs I know are happy to have each side agree to the UI without their help. And never has a TD objected or mumbled anything about "jeopardizing rights" when told that agreed UI has led to a result that seems attributable to the UI. Getting such agreement early, with TD help if necessary, is the key. Given that, there is no need to call the TD until there is evidence, not a suspicion, of an irregularity. > > As a note for the future laws, would an explicit request for UI > stipulation instead of the ominous "I reserve my rights" bring the ACBL back > to the FLB? > Perhaps. The only worry is that inexperienced opponents might not know their obligations in regard to the UI after stipulating it. Let the bridge teachers handle that problem. Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California From cyaxares@lineone.net Mon Nov 18 07:50:30 2002 From: cyaxares@lineone.net (Grattan Endicott) Date: Mon, 18 Nov 2002 07:50:30 -0000 Subject: [blml] I don't teach bridge References: <4A256C75.001ED004.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> <005801c28ed2$96ddf480$049a1e18@san.rr.com> Message-ID: <000d01c28ed7$434feee0$ae42e150@endicott> Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Monday, November 18, 2002 7:17 AM Subject: Re: [blml] I don't teach bridge > > Richard Hills wrote: > > > > > Marvin L. French wrote: > > > > >Grattan does not seem to think the word "special" in "special > > >partnership agreement" has any meaning. That is, he > > >interprets L75C as if the word were not there. > > > > > >I early learned from a teacher that double-jump overcalls are > > >weak preemptive bids, common knowledge then and now. Although > > >the meaning was transmitted to me by a teacher, s/he was just > > >teaching me common knowledge, nothing special. > > +=+ I use 'special' as defined in the WBF Code of Practice - not "normal and general". What is 'common' is not general. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From A.Kooijman@dwk.agro.nl Mon Nov 18 08:13:38 2002 From: A.Kooijman@dwk.agro.nl (Kooijman, A.) Date: Mon, 18 Nov 2002 09:13:38 +0100 Subject: [blml] Kaplan doctrine (WAS Declarer makes impossible contrac t by LOT) Message-ID: > On Fri, 15 Nov 2002 08:07:49 +0100, "Ton Kooijman" > wrote: > > >Some days ago I wrote that Kaplan has described this > specific case and came > >up with the split score. And the WBFLC agreed with this approach when > >discussing new L 72B1 which now expresses that the advantage for the > >offenders is taken away and not that the damage for the > innocent side is > >compensated. Jesper responded: > Just to be quite sure I understood this correctly: this is the > coming ("2005") laws you are talking about, right? The rest is > under that assumption: No, I am talking about the '97 laws and an approach described by Kaplan long before '97. > > The current case was ruled under the 1997 laws, where L72B1 > prescribes adjusting for both sides. Does it? That seems an interpretation from your side to me, 72B1 talks about an adjusted score and not more than that. > > I don't much mind adjusting for just one side in cases like the > current one, where the NOS has had a fine chance to protect > themselves by noticing a LOOT. But in other cases, where the NOS > are totally without blame, I hope they will still be allowed an > adjusted score when L72B1 is used. I assume that to be the case. > > With few exceptions, I tend to believe that when one side has > done something to deserve a really bad score, whether by playing > badly or by committing an irregularity, then their opponents > should have the corresponding really good score. > > >And I agree that we could have done better regarding several > descriptions of > >the '97 laws. > > Yes. > > These discussions become very strange; one of the reasons is that > the law as we use it is not the one in the book. For instance, > we let TDs in some events use L12C3, against the letter of the > law. This information is deceptive. Interpretations made by the WBFLC become part of the laws. So it seems to be against the letter of the laws as given in L12C3 alone, but it isn't when adding the decision telling that when the zone agrees CTD's have the same authorization as AC's. And we refuse compensation to the NOS if they have taken > "irrational, wild, or gambling action" - the book has absolutely > nothing about that. Again this is a matter of interpretation. I agree that wild and gambling are not in the laws. But damage is, and the LC did define damage for the non-offenders using these words. I put some emphasis on these matters because the LC is very eager to keep within the borders of law based applications. ton From hermandw@skynet.be Mon Nov 18 08:28:36 2002 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 18 Nov 2002 09:28:36 +0100 Subject: [blml] dWS for the beginner References: <5.1.0.14.0.20021112151524.026ba7e0@pop.ulb.ac.be> <00ae01c28a5b$fa9dd560$ba9468d5@default> <3DD12323.3000700@skynet.be> <00f001c28a69$69017ea0$ba9468d5@default> <5.1.0.14.0.20021113123504.02754500@pop.ulb.ac.be> <004801c28be7$b41868c0$cc9868d5@default> <3DD3CB8F.4080205@skynet.be> <003601c28c09$963141c0$4e9568d5@default> <5.2.0.9.0.20021114165130.00a5f2b0@pop.starpower.net> <5.2.0.9.0.20021115140500.00a699d0@pop.starpower.net> <001a01c28ce5$96b5ee20$430be150@endicott> <3DD7656C.7030705@skynet.be> <000201c28e37$cf95c640$e01ae150@endicott> Message-ID: <3DD8A4B4.2010301@skynet.be> Hello Grattan, at last you seem to have grasped the problem. you showed no such grasp in your previous messages. Grattan Endicott wrote: >> >>And the problem is not even that one is stronger than the >>other, but that they both exist, and that one cannot follow >>both at the same time. So it's ridiculous to categorize the >>dWS with law-breakers. The alternative is just to break >>another law. >> >> > +=+ Not so. > 1. There is no law that states you may misinform. Any > action not given authority in the Laws is extraneous and not > part of the game (WBFLC< 28 August 1998). Correct. But misinformations do happen. They are dealt with by the TD, but they do happen. So whether or not there is a law that explicitely states you cannot misinform is unimportant for that problem. Misinformation leads to adjustment if damage occurs. > 2. An extraneous statement as to the meaning of a > call, stating the content of the hand rather than, as required > by law, the agreed partnership meaning of the call, if done > purposefully in place of, and knowing, the requirement, is a > deliberate deception of the opponent. It is in breach of > Laws 72A1, 72B2, 73F2 - and, if not corrected by the > partner at the appropriate time, 75D2. Correct. But it is hard to see what damage occurs if a player receives a correct explanation of a hand, even when that is not what is actually written in the system notes. There is the case with screens, but that is not the situation we are talking of. > 3. WBFLC, Sep1998: A declarer or dummy who, at > the end of the auction, has corrected an explanation of the > partnership agreement is free to add gratuitous information > as to fact concerning his action. He is under no obligation to > do so. Correct. Although I don't see how it relates to the matter at hand. In our problem, there is MI (the first one) so everything is cleared up, including the deliberate misinformation that the dWS adept has given. > 4. 75D2 refers to situations in which a mistaken > explanation has been given by partner. He must not indicate > that partner has made the mistake. He is, however, under > an obligation in his own explanations to state the partnership > agreement, and knowing this, to deceive opponent by > deliberately not doing so is the most serious violation of any > in this matter. Now that is the crux of the problem. You realize that this player has two separate obligations. You realize that he cannot follow both of them. And you categorically write that breaking one obligation is the most serious violation? Please Grattan, is this your personal opinion or has the WBFLC commented on it. If the first, then please add your usual caveat (you are so quick to do so otherwise). If the second, then I really must have been in a coma for 5 years, because it would be the first i've heard of it. > It is, in truth, a matter for disciplinary investigation. How can you say that ? I'd rather say that anyone deliberately breaking L72D2 is in line for disciplinary investigation. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From A.Kooijman@dwk.agro.nl Mon Nov 18 08:36:11 2002 From: A.Kooijman@dwk.agro.nl (Kooijman, A.) Date: Mon, 18 Nov 2002 09:36:11 +0100 Subject: [blml] Kaplan doctrine (WAS Declarer makes impossible contrac t by LOT) Message-ID: Jesper: It doesn't seem to me to make > sense to say that the OS has caused damage to the NOS, but the > NOS has not been damaged. I have tried to explain that we did write L72B1 as it is to avoid saying that the NOS has been damaged and at the same time not damaged. But that apparently isn't coming through. Well, I rest this case. I agree with Max Bavin that the word 'likely' in 72B1is not the best chosen, but that is another case and a matter of stretching. I don't agree with him that this means we shouldn't rule the way I have described earlier. ton From agot@ulb.ac.be Mon Nov 18 08:56:57 2002 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon, 18 Nov 2002 09:56:57 +0100 Subject: [blml] dWS for the beginner In-Reply-To: <000401c28d42$ade30710$6d46e150@endicott> References: <200211152150.QAA20520@cfa183.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20021118094402.029f20d0@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 01:59 16/11/2002 +0000, Grattan Endicott wrote: >Grattan Endicott+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ >"The pendulum of the mind oscillates between >sense and nonsense, not between right and wrong." > {C G Jung} >=================================== >Subject: Re: [blml] dWS for the beginner > > > > The problem, of course, is that you may have other > > legal obligations that are in conflict with this one. > > >+=+ None concerning explanations. The single >requirement relates to the partnership agreements +=+ > >>>> > > > dWS says you should give the explanation of > > > partner bid that he intended not the explanation > > > according to the partnership agreement. > > >+=+ That is pure fantasy, the Laws require you to >explain the partnership agreements. They say >nothing about explaining what any player intended. >Kaplan illustrates it with the 4C opener. ~ G ~ +=+ AG : you're absolutely right in your statement, but stopping there is unfair. The Laws require you to explain the partnership agreements. (1) (L75A) They also disallow you to do anything that will indicate to partner that an error has been made. (2) (L75D) In the typical 'error by partner' situation, these two requirements conflict. It is thus not enough to state one of the two sentences above (1). You must also, if you want to convince us, explain why you discard (2). Do you intend us to disobey L75D ? Just in case somebody didn't understand it up to now, dWS is merely the opinion that (1) and (2) are of equal importance, and that it is reasonable for the player in the street to choose to obey (2) rather than (1). My personal view is that on some deals, (1) will be more important, and (2) on others. What's more, I thnik that a player who is accused of violating (1) may defend himself by citing (2) and asking "do you expect me to violate such an important law ?". As far as right is concerned, one would be right : no person may be prosecuted for doing something that one is compelled by law to do, or failing to do something which would have violated some law. ... unless, of course, one pretends that L75A is more imperious than L75D, but this can only be a personal position. Best regards, Alain. Best regards, Alain. From hermandw@skynet.be Mon Nov 18 08:51:24 2002 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 18 Nov 2002 09:51:24 +0100 Subject: [blml] dWS - another case Message-ID: <3DD8AA0C.7040908@skynet.be> This one actually happened, and with just a small adjustment it can be turned into a dWS example. North opens 4Di. South does not alert, because the Belgian alert regulations forbid alerting above 3NT. East askes and South replies "pre-empt in hearts" (if you're surprised at this, you're right). East passes, South bids 4He, West passes, and North bids 4Sp. Three passes follow and North says that partner was mistaken. Now according to the opponents, North had states this before South had passed on 4Sp. But that is not actually part of the story I want to tell. Now there are a number of offences North can make : A - telling South off, during the auction, either A1 - before South calls the first time A2 - before South calls the second time A3 - before the final pass B - using the UI from South's 4He bid not being based on interest in slam C - misinforming opponents about the bid of 4He: explaining it as "willing to play 4He, nothing more" (which is incidentally the way south intended it) while it should be "interest in 6Sp". I guess you all agree that B is the worst offence, and it must be avoided, and both schools are equally adamant that it is. I personally consider A to be a more severe offence than C. A1 is abhorrant, and need not be considered. There is no choice even. A2 is slightly less grave, but still creates UI to partner A3 is being helpful to opponents, but usually the final pass can be taken back so why pre-empt. OTOH, C is a mere technical infraction. It causes no damage at all. What is so terribly wrong with a player who does not commits offences A and B but sees no way out of committing offence C (since he cannot follow rule c without breaking a2). And what a sly fox who commits infraction A2 because he wants to follow C? -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From agot@ulb.ac.be Mon Nov 18 09:03:05 2002 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon, 18 Nov 2002 10:03:05 +0100 Subject: [blml] dWS for the beginner In-Reply-To: <4A256C75.00256024.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20021118100112.029f3c30@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 17:04 18/11/2002 +1000, richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: >Herman De Wael wrote: > > >>My point exactly. I would not even put it this strong, but in > >>any case "thou shalt not give UI" is stronger than "thou > >>shalt inform". > >> > >>And the problem is not even that one is stronger than the > >>other, but that they both exist, and that one cannot follow > >>both at the same time. So it's ridiculous to categorize the > >>dWS with law-breakers. The alternative is just to break > >>another law. > >Grattan Endicott replied: > > >+=+ Not so. > > 1. There is no law that states you may misinform. Any > >action not given authority in the Laws is extraneous and not > >part of the game (WBFLC< 28 August 1998). > > 2. An extraneous statement as to the meaning of a > >call, stating the content of the hand rather than, as required > >by law, the agreed partnership meaning of the call, if done > >purposefully in place of, and knowing, the requirement, is a > >deliberate deception of the opponent. It is in breach of > >Laws 72A1, 72B2, 73F2 - and, if not corrected by the > >partner at the appropriate time, 75D2. > >[snip] > >Herman de Wael's argument has therefore been reduced to pointing >out an apparent paradox of the clash between the laws requiring >"thou shalt not misinform" and "thou shalt not give UI". > >However, it seems to me that even this fallback position of the >De Wael School has a fundamental flaw. I cannot find anyway in >the Laws the statement that "thou shalt not give UI". What Law >16 and Law 73C actually state is that "thou shalt not *use* UI", AG : perhaps you could re-read L75D. I don't have the English text at hand, but the French one says that "one may not act in any way that tells partner that a [system] error has been made". Giving the "true" explanation does tell it. From agot@ulb.ac.be Mon Nov 18 09:12:35 2002 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon, 18 Nov 2002 10:12:35 +0100 Subject: [blml] Herman's Ruling In-Reply-To: <3DD75D4D.1090408@skynet.be> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20021118100359.029f1810@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 10:11 17/11/2002 +0100, Herman De Wael wrote: >Here's another you're all going to criticize. > >But the players understood and accepted it. > >The Belgian highest division is played with duplicated boards and >yesterday this happened. One table hasn't finished yet, but another team >starts comparing at a (too) nearby table. "Did they bid the six >spades with the jack singleton?" is overheard. At precisely the moment a >player is in six spades, contemplating what to do from AK10xx opposite 9xxx. > >Of course he playes the ace, dropping the jack behind him, and now he >knows even more certain that he has to finesse the queen. He does and the >slam is made. > >What did I decide. > >Obviously the board should be cancelled, and an adjusted score given. >But I did not want to have either team loose the benefit of having bid, or >blame of not having bid, the slam. > >So I decided that it would be quite logical (restricted choice and all) to >make the slam, but not absolutely. I pegged the chances at 80/20 and added >20% benefit of the doubt for both sides, arriving at: > >- for declarer's side : 100% of the slam making (+1430) >- for opponents : 60% of slam making (-1430) + 40% of the slam going down >(+100). > >The other table had also bid and made the slam, so the result was >0IMP for declarer's team and 40% of 17 = 7IMPs for opponents. > >The match thus finished on 25-6. > >I realize the laws don't allow this (for one thing L12C3 only refers to >assigned, not artificial AS) but I do believe that it was an equitable ruling. AG : at least the Laws allow for more than 30 VPs in a match (director's wrong ruling, Av+/Av+, ...). Extraneous information is one of those cases. The statements that Laws are there to ensure equity, and that an innocent side should be given the benefit of doubt, argue in your way. I assume, of course, that the player did spontaneously inform you, when he dropped the jack, that he had extraneous information. The mere idea that he could have scored negative IMPs for being honest would revolt me. However, Restricted Choice is knwon by everybody at this level ; I think you should adjust the defenders' score only if some other of the good players in the room had declined the finesse when playing in 6. If everybody made it, pretending this particular declarer could have done otherwise would go against equity. But the general idea of split scores in such a case, even if unlawful, suits me. Best regards, Alain. From agot@ulb.ac.be Mon Nov 18 09:17:06 2002 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon, 18 Nov 2002 10:17:06 +0100 Subject: [blml] Herman's Ruling In-Reply-To: References: <3DD75D4D.1090408@skynet.be> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20021118101431.029f6280@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 16:34 17/11/2002 -0900, Gordon Bower wrote: >On Sun, 17 Nov 2002, Herman De Wael wrote: > > > Here's another you're all going to criticize. > >Yes, we are. > > > The Belgian highest division is played with duplicated boards and > > yesterday this happened. One table hasn't finished yet, but another > > team starts comparing at a (too) nearby table. "Did they bid the six > > spades with the jack singleton?" is overheard. At precisely the moment > > a player is in six spades, contemplating what to do from AK10xx > > opposite 9xxx. > > > > Of course he playes the ace, dropping the jack behind him, and now he > > knows even more certain that he has to finesse the queen. He does and > > the slam is made. > > > > Obviously the board should be cancelled, and an adjusted score given. > > But I did not want to have either team loose the benefit of having > > bid, or blame of not having bid, the slam. > >I can see three ways this board might be handled. > >One, the director could be called right away and he could rule "since the >only normal way of handling this spade suit picks up a singleton jack >anyway, the information gained is inconsequential, play on." > >Or, better, he could say this is grounds for cancelling the board... and, >as he knows the slam was bid but couldn't be played, adjust the score to >slam making for both sides, which accomplishes the same thing. The players >will STILL all be happy - they get the normal result and the board is >tied, it is "equitable" in that everyone has gotten just what they think >they would have gotten absent the UI. > >There is one fly in that ointment: if you rule the UI made the hand >unplayable and give out adjusted scores - they are artificial ones. In a >team game we seem to be stuck giving +3 and +3 on this board regardless of >what happens at the other table. In a pairs game I think it's perfectly >legal (I know some disagree) to assign an avg+ worth more than 60% for >cause (here, assigning the value of making slam) .. but the defenders seem >to still be entitled to the full 60%. I know some of you would dislike >giving an ArtAS of 80%/60%. > >In Herman's case I am bothered by giving one side extra imps but not the >other. I can live with +3/+3, but 0/+7 irks me. AG : it shouldn't. In case of an arror by the TD, it is possible that scores be given, which represent the best issues for both sides. This could mean an average for one pair, and better than average fro the other one. Since we have to biaise the ponderation in favor of the innocent sides, when there are two innocent sides it might mean doing as Herman From hermandw@skynet.be Mon Nov 18 09:07:16 2002 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 18 Nov 2002 10:07:16 +0100 Subject: [blml] dWS for the beginner References: <4A256C75.00256024.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> Message-ID: <3DD8ADC4.3050003@skynet.be> Please re-read all my messages for the last 5 years, Richard, and see how many times I have pointed to: richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: > > > Herman de Wael's argument has therefore been reduced to pointing > out an apparent paradox of the clash between the laws requiring > "thou shalt not misinform" and "thou shalt not give UI". > > However, it seems to me that even this fallback position of the > De Wael School has a fundamental flaw. I cannot find anyway in > the Laws the statement that "thou shalt not give UI". L75D2: "nor may he indicate in any manner that a mistake has been made" OK ? What Law > 16 and Law 73C actually state is that "thou shalt not *use* UI", > which is an entirely different concept - and a concept which > does *not* paradoxically clash with the Endicott School. > > Best wishes > > Richard > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw@skynet.be Mon Nov 18 09:13:30 2002 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 18 Nov 2002 10:13:30 +0100 Subject: [blml] Herman's Ruling References: <3DD75D4D.1090408@skynet.be> <000801c28e35$c87f6c00$4d1b42d5@telia.com> Message-ID: <3DD8AF3A.7000400@skynet.be> Torsten =C5strand wrote: > Your ruling is correct if they had sommoned the TD as soon as they over= heard the comments. > Now my ruling had been 1 VP penalty for both teams for not summoned the= TD, if both pairs overheard the comments and 2 VP penalty for the team r= esponsibly for the comments. I had cancelled the board. Come on Torsten, you know how it goes. One player hears the comment,=20 another just cashes his ace. And then the board is effectively over.=20 The TD is on the other side of the room and everything happens=20 simultaneously. If you start handing out PP's to these players you=20 will find yourself out of a job quite soon. >=20 --=20 Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From agot@ulb.ac.be Mon Nov 18 09:28:15 2002 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon, 18 Nov 2002 10:28:15 +0100 Subject: [blml] Bidding the Wrong Hand In-Reply-To: <003501c28e93$7cf3e2d0$70d8fea9@WINXP> References: <004001c28e76$99dd56a0$049a1e18@san.rr.com> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20021118102206.029f6760@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 00:46 18/11/2002 +0100, Sven Pran wrote: >From: "Marvin L. French" >...... > > Well, it happened again. > > > > Sectional in Hemet, CA, Friday afternoon Stratified Pairs > > > > Board 6 > > Dealer: East (supposedly) > > Vulnerability: E-W > > > > S- 9852 > > H- Q43 > > D- AQ65 > > C- A2 > > > > S- J S- AK103 > > H- A97 H- 1065 > > D- K9874 D- J103 > > C- Q865 C- K103 > > (sic!) > > S- Q8 > > H- KQ63 > > D- AKQJ9 > > C- 52 > > > > > > West North East South > > P 1D P 1H > > P 1S P 3D (meant as forcing) > > All pass > > > > South had flipped the boards as the other players were studying their > > hands, > > putting board 4 on top (West dealer) and taking Board 4's South hand > > (again). > > Until the final pass, no one noticed the three hands that were still > > in the > > board. At that time the TD was called. > > > > The TD (an ACBL employee) had South take out his correct hand, not > > showing it > > to the others, which was: > > > > S- Q764 > > H- KJ82 > > D- 2 > > C- J974 > > > > Seeing that 1H was a logical response with this hand, the TD decided > > to let > > that bid stand without penalty, citing L17D. Not knowing what to do > > about the > > second bid, he let South change it from 3D to 2S, citing "equity.". > > All > > pass, for a good N-S result. > >It is completely incredible what "directors" can do when they believe they >know the laws without really doing it, and even less understand what they >read when they read them. > >Law17D states that if offender's LHO has called over the cancelled call >(in this case the 1H bid by South) then the Director shall assign artificial >adjusted scores. AG : more precisely, it shall be when the offending player doesn't repeat his bid. (last sentence of 17D) What the TD could have done, in lieu of simply cancelling the board, is asking the player whether he repeats both of his bids on the "correct" hand. If he does, the board goes on. If not, adjusted score (40/60). Of course, L17 does not apply to more than one declaration but the offending player, but deciding to extend it would be fair. >So at the moment West produces his pass over the 1H bid by South >the case is closed. Final. No need to argue about "call" or "calls" in >Law 17D. But a very good reason to examine the qualifications of the >acting director. > >(BTW it is no business of the Director to "let the 1H bid stand" - his >duty is to cancel that bid and see if South repeats the same bid with the >correct hand - provided no call has been made in the original auction >over that cancelled call) AG : ideed. BTW, don't be too harsh on a pair that had a bidding misunderstanding on a deal where there are five top honors in diamonds. I've always found difficult to establish it (BEG). Best regards, Alain. From hermandw@skynet.be Mon Nov 18 09:22:21 2002 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 18 Nov 2002 10:22:21 +0100 Subject: [blml] Herman's Ruling References: Message-ID: <3DD8B14D.9090105@skynet.be> What I did not add to my story because I believed it to be unimportant was that declarer said he hadn't heard the remark. I did not want to call him a liar and since he accepted that I would rule as if he had heard it, there was no way I could give him a PP for breaking L16. Anyway, the board was over as soon as the ace was drawn - it might even be a claim, they never told me. Whatever the happenings at the table, the slam only depended on the SQ finesse, and all 4 players knew it. con.holzscherer@philips.com wrote: > > >>Here's another you're all going to criticize. >> > > I don't know about 'all', but I am... > > >>But the players understood and accepted it. >> > > That's not amazing; they got extra points. > I gave the ruling before I knew the score at the other table - one side would not have been happy had the result not been 1430 at the other table as well. And one side did get less than the "normal" ruling of +3 IMPs to both sides. > >>"Did they bid the six spades with the jack singleton?" >>is overheard. At precisely the moment a player is in >>six spades, contemplating what to do from AK10xx >>opposite 9xxx. >> > > Law 16B requires a participant who receives this kind of > extraneous information to immediately call the TD. > I understand from your story that the declarer did not, > which is a severe violation. > see above > > >>Obviously the board should be cancelled, and an adjusted score given. >> > > Indeed (Law 16B3), but that should happen when the EI is received. > It is not OK to use EI first and get an ArtAS later. > > >>I decided that it would be quite logical (restricted choice and >>all) to make the slam, >> > > That may depend on several factors; perhaps there are clues that > RHO has some points (suggesting finessing QJ) or that LHO has a > flat distribution (suggesting playing AK) etc. Cases where the > handling of a suit can be analyzed separate from the complete > deal, are rare. > Which is why I decided on 80%, not 100% At one table the slam was doubled and declarer attempted the double finesse, going one off to the bare jack. > >>I pegged the chances at 80/20 and added 20% benefit of the doubt >>for both sides, arriving at: >>for declarer's side : 100% of the slam making (+1430) >>for opponents : 60% of slam making (-1430) + 40% of the slam going >>down (+100). >> > >>I realize the laws don't allow this >> > > Then why did you do it? Don't you abide by the rules in Belgium?? > see below > >>but I do believe that it was an equitable ruling. >> > > I strongly disagree. Besides illegal, the ruling also was unequitable. > Declarer illegally used EI and was allowed to keep his result. > I ruled that he hadn't played on and gave a ruling based on the situation at the moment of the comment. I ruled he would have an 80% chance of making his contract. About the illegal use of EI, see above. > What I would considered equitable (ignoring the legality aspect) > would be to give a 60/40 or an 80/20 score for both sides plus a > penalty for declarer's illegal use of EI according to Law 84E. > That would be tantamount to believing this man to be a complete cheat, and a silly one at that, listening to a loud comment and thinking his opponents would not have heard as well. I actually believed declarer when he said he hadn't realized. > Con Holzscherer > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From agot@ulb.ac.be Mon Nov 18 09:40:55 2002 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon, 18 Nov 2002 10:40:55 +0100 Subject: [blml] I don't teach bridge In-Reply-To: <005801c28ed2$96ddf480$049a1e18@san.rr.com> References: <4A256C75.001ED004.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20021118103621.029f6af0@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 23:17 17/11/2002 -0800, Marvin L. French wrote: >How about a 3S overcall of a 1C opening? Have you ever known anyone to play >this as other than a weak preemptive bid? Its meaning is generally recognized, >so agreeing to that meaning with a partner does not make it a *special* >partnership ageement.. AG : while I agree with you on the subject, please allow myself to remark that you should be careful when asking rhetorical questions. Of course there are players using other 3S overcalls. The same players who use transfer opening preempts might use transfer overcall preempts ; then 3C/D/H are transfers (so that if we play game because partner has a strong hand we play it from the right side), 3S is a transfer to 3NT, asking for a club stopper, and 3NT guarantees one. Of course *this* 3S bid is alertable ; I just wanted to let you know that the answer is "yes, I have". Best regards, Alain. > > > > [snip] > > > > >TD Max Hardy (who knew my feelings on the subject) did at my > > >table once. > > > > > >"Was the three spade bid Alerted?" > > > > > >"No." > > > > > >"Then it must be weak, preemptive." > > > > > >And he walked away. No objection from me, as he had educated > > >both partner and the opponents. > > > > > >No, I do not recommend that solution to TDs. > > > > It is true that local alert rules may state that a particular > > agreement need not be alerted. However, there is *not* a > > one-to-one logical correspondence between a required alert and > > a *special* agreement. > > >I never claimed that, nor did Max imply it. > >There are, however, some calls that, if not Alerted, must convey the meaning >attributed to it by the general bridge population. The double of a one-level >natural opening bid, for instance. If not Alerted, it has to be a takeout >double with (in ACBL-land, anyway) at least three-card support for the unbid >suits or considerable strength. > >If someone were to ask me the meaning of my partner's takeout double, L75C >says I need not disclose it. If you think that the takeout nature of the >double is a "special partnership agreement," then you are using that phrase in >a way not envisioned by the writer of L75C. > >Marv >Marvin L. French >San Diego, California > > > > > > > >_______________________________________________ >blml mailing list >blml@rtflb.org >http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From agot@ulb.ac.be Mon Nov 18 09:59:57 2002 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon, 18 Nov 2002 10:59:57 +0100 Subject: [blml] dWS - another case In-Reply-To: <3DD8AA0C.7040908@skynet.be> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20021118104814.029f42e0@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 09:51 18/11/2002 +0100, Herman De Wael wrote: >This one actually happened, and with just a small adjustment it can be >turned into a dWS example. > >North opens 4Di. South does not alert, because the Belgian alert >regulations forbid alerting above 3NT. >East askes and South replies "pre-empt in hearts" (if you're surprised at >this, you're right). >East passes, South bids 4He, West passes, and North bids 4Sp. >Three passes follow and North says that partner was mistaken. >Now according to the opponents, North had states this before South had >passed on 4Sp. But that is not actually part of the story I want to tell. > >Now there are a number of offences North can make : > >A - telling South off, during the auction, either > A1 - before South calls the first time > A2 - before South calls the second time > A3 - before the final pass >B - using the UI from South's 4He bid not being based on interest in slam >C - misinforming opponents about the bid of 4He: explaining it as "willing >to play 4He, nothing more" (which is incidentally the way south intended >it) while it should be "interest in 6Sp". AG : the problem won't arise this way, since when 4D is explained a Trf to hearts, 4H won't be asked about. >I guess you all agree that B is the worst offence, and it must be avoided, >and both schools are equally adamant that it is. > >I personally consider A to be a more severe offence than C. >A1 is abhorrant, and need not be considered. There is no choice even. >A2 is slightly less grave, but still creates UI to partner >A3 is being helpful to opponents, but usually the final pass can be taken >back so why pre-empt. > >OTOH, C is a mere technical infraction. It causes no damage at all. What >is so terribly wrong with a player who does not commits offences A and B >but sees no way out of committing offence C (since he cannot follow rule c >without breaking a2). > >And what a sly fox who commits infraction A2 because he wants to follow C? AG : the doctrine says that he creates UI and that partner may not suddenly realize his error. However, the 4S bid in itself is so strange that I would allow the player to wake up. But things will be quite easier in practice, because you won't have to explain the 4H bid, and now, for sure, the awakening caused by your 4S bid is tolerable. Best regards, Alain. From gester@lineone.net Mon Nov 18 11:30:52 2002 From: gester@lineone.net (gester@lineone.net) Date: Mon, 18 Nov 2002 11:30:52 -0000 Subject: [blml] I don't teach bridge References: <4A256C75.001ED004.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> <5.1.0.14.0.20021118103621.029f6af0@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <002b01c28ef5$ffcf42a0$722a2850@pacific> Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Monday, November 18, 2002 9:40 AM Subject: Re: [blml] I don't teach bridge > At 23:17 17/11/2002 -0800, Marvin L. French wrote: > > > How about a 3S overcall of a 1C opening? Have > > you ever known anyone to play this as other than a > > weak preemptive bid? Its meaning is generally recognized, > >so agreeing to that meaning with a partner does not make > > it a *special* partnership ageement.. > +=+ It's all right, Alain, Marv has had a very sheltered upbringing. He hasn't played, evidently, against Colonel Beesley's system with overcalls on 5+ suits, a single jump stronger than a simple bid, a double jump stronger again; nor did he play against Endicott's team in their late 1950s and 1960s heyday - five players playing in all partnerships an identical system, with overcalls at one level on 4/5 card suits, jump on 6 cards, double jumps on seven cards, hand values any hand 0+ which would be unlucky to miss game if partner passed a poorish eleven count.[Avant-garde then, now passe' :-) but, if fully set out, good theory in my opinion still.] ~ G ~ +=+ From normanscorbie@hotmail.com Mon Nov 18 12:05:21 2002 From: normanscorbie@hotmail.com (Norman Scorbie) Date: Mon, 18 Nov 2002 12:05:21 +0000 Subject: [blml] Declarer makes impossible contract by LOT Message-ID: >From: "John (MadDog) Probst" >Is any amongst those who say that revokes *can't* be >penalised via L72 but LOOTs can prepared to defend their position? > >cheers John > >PS their is a certain clumsiness in that last sentence which I would >like DALB to correct for me. Lord alone knows what I've done to it, >except that the whole bit (amongst ... can) is part of the subject. > > Thank god for that: I had to check the header: It read more like John Prescott than John Probst! _________________________________________________________________ The new MSN 8: smart spam protection and 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail From larry@charmschool.fsnet.co.uk Mon Nov 18 10:16:34 2002 From: larry@charmschool.fsnet.co.uk (LarryBennett) Date: Mon, 18 Nov 2002 10:16:34 -0000 Subject: [blml] POOT laws - a change suggested References: <200211172356.SAA04486@cfa183.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <000001c28efb$44da7c20$0eef883e@pc> | > From: "LarryBennett" | > Whilst I can not quote the authority, I am | > certain that at one time we were taught that a | > psyche opposite a silent pard should be | > automatically deemed to be red. | | Are you sure that shouldn't read "deemed to be green?" Once partner is | barred, all bidding agreements are inoperative (as the politicians like | to say), so how can it be possible that there is a CPU? We might as | well outlaw false cards by declarer. | I believe the logic was that the psycher was in effect fielding their own psyche ! With pard silent, there can be no element of risk. Larry From normanscorbie@hotmail.com Mon Nov 18 12:19:07 2002 From: normanscorbie@hotmail.com (Norman Scorbie) Date: Mon, 18 Nov 2002 12:19:07 +0000 Subject: [blml] I don't teach bridge Message-ID: >----- Original Message ----- >From: "Alain Gottcheiner" >To: >Sent: Monday, November 18, 2002 9:40 AM >Subject: Re: [blml] I don't teach bridge > > > > At 23:17 17/11/2002 -0800, Marvin L. French wrote: > > > > > How about a 3S overcall of a 1C opening? Have > > > you ever known anyone to play this as other than a > > > weak preemptive bid? Its meaning is generally recognized, > > >so agreeing to that meaning with a partner does not make > > > it a *special* partnership ageement.. > > >+=+ It's all right, Alain, Marv has had a very sheltered >upbringing. He hasn't played, evidently, against Colonel >Beesley's system with overcalls on 5+ suits, a single >jump stronger than a simple bid, a double jump stronger >again; nor did he play against Endicott's team in their late >1950s and 1960s heyday - five players playing in >all partnerships an identical system, with overcalls at one >level on 4/5 card suits, jump on 6 cards, double jumps >on seven cards, hand values any hand 0+ which would >be unlucky to miss game if partner passed a poorish >eleven count.[Avant-garde then, now passe' :-) but, if >fully set out, good theory in my opinion still.] > ~ G ~ +=+ > ++++A point well made: One man's meat, etc. How dismissive to suggest that a call is played only one way by everyone. Does that really mean 'everyone', or does it mean 'the poster, the poster's expert chums and everyone else in his immediate circle worthy of note'? _________________________________________________________________ Tired of spam? Get advanced junk mail protection with MSN 8. http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Mon Nov 18 12:39:49 2002 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Mon, 18 Nov 2002 12:39:49 -0000 Subject: [blml] dWS - another case References: <5.1.0.14.0.20021118104814.029f42e0@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <00dd01c28eff$9a942540$3e9868d5@default> As a recent Dws convert my 1st triumph. With S:xx H- D:AKQJTxxx C:xxx, I open 3S (7+solid minor by agreement. LHO asks partner to explain. Partner holds... S- H:Qxxxxxx D:AKx C:Axx. With both minor aces, partner knows a wheel has come off. Just in time, he remembers that UI is worse than MI, so explains "Weak pre-empt in spades." LHO makes a (penalty) double. Partner and RHO pass this round to me. Surely partner has not forgotten -- just prior to the game we had revised our pre-empt strategy. Knowing that partner is schooled in Dw philosophy, I re-examine my hand to discover xx AK QJTxxx xxx. I hastily remove to 4D and LHO passes. Drawing correct inferences, partner corrects his earlier explanation "5 or 6 dianonds to D:QJ and H:AK" and bids the obvious 7H. Enexplicably only one other pair has ventured a grand and they played in diamonds. Most tables played spade contracts. Aggrieved opponents call the TD who reassures them by reading L75 and explaining that we DwS players occasionally get a good result by eschewing UI, as reward for our active ethics. From agot@ulb.ac.be Mon Nov 18 12:56:38 2002 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon, 18 Nov 2002 13:56:38 +0100 Subject: [blml] I don't teach bridge In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20021118135250.029e1bd0@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 12:19 18/11/2002 +0000, Norman Scorbie wrote: >>----- Original Message ----- >>From: "Alain Gottcheiner" >>To: >>Sent: Monday, November 18, 2002 9:40 AM >>Subject: Re: [blml] I don't teach bridge >> >> >> > At 23:17 17/11/2002 -0800, Marvin L. French wrote: >> > >> > > How about a 3S overcall of a 1C opening? Have >> > > you ever known anyone to play this as other than a >> > > weak preemptive bid? Its meaning is generally recognized, >> > >so agreeing to that meaning with a partner does not make >> > > it a *special* partnership ageement.. >> > >>+=+ It's all right, Alain, Marv has had a very sheltered >>upbringing. He hasn't played, evidently, against Colonel >>Beesley's system with overcalls on 5+ suits, a single >>jump stronger than a simple bid, a double jump stronger >>again; nor did he play against Endicott's team in their late >>1950s and 1960s heyday - five players playing in >>all partnerships an identical system, with overcalls at one >>level on 4/5 card suits, jump on 6 cards, double jumps >>on seven cards, hand values any hand 0+ which would >>be unlucky to miss game if partner passed a poorish >>eleven count.[Avant-garde then, now passe' :-) but, if >>fully set out, good theory in my opinion still.] >> ~ G ~ +=+ >++++A point well made: One man's meat, etc. How dismissive to suggest that >a call is played only one way by everyone. Does that really mean >'everyone', or does it mean 'the poster, the poster's expert chums and >everyone else in his immediate circle worthy of note'? AG : even this opinion by no means universal, but I like to consider the obligation to alert to be appicable to anything that would not be understood in the alertee's circle. Which means that, between players who share a common style, fewer things will be alertable (in my club, nobody alerts 1M-2NT "strong raise" anymore). Which also means that alert duties are reinforced against weak or foreign players, something that we tend to forget too easily. Best regards, Alain. From hermandw@skynet.be Mon Nov 18 13:14:06 2002 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 18 Nov 2002 14:14:06 +0100 Subject: [blml] dWS - another case References: <5.1.0.14.0.20021118104814.029f42e0@pop.ulb.ac.be> <00dd01c28eff$9a942540$3e9868d5@default> Message-ID: <3DD8E79E.8080704@skynet.be> Thank you Nigel, for your support, even if your example lacks a few elements for a real dWS case: Nigel Guthrie wrote: > As a recent Dws convert my 1st triumph. With > S:xx H- D:AKQJTxxx C:xxx, I open 3S > (7+solid minor by agreement. > LHO asks partner to explain. Partner holds... > S- H:Qxxxxxx D:AKx C:Axx. With both minor > aces, partner knows a wheel has come off. > Just in time, he remembers that UI is worse > than MI, so explains "Weak pre-empt in spades." The reasons why he MIs are of no importance, the fact is that he has, and such is UI to you. > LHO makes a (penalty) double. > Partner and RHO pass this round to me. Surely > partner has not forgotten -- just prior to the > game we had revised our pre-empt strategy. Well, whether he has forgotten or not is of no consequence. You should bid as if he hasn't forgotten. He has passed your 3SpX and you retreat to the minor suit you have. > Knowing that partner is schooled in Dw > philosophy, I re-examine my hand to discover > xx AK QJTxxx xxx. I fail to see what your partner has to do with you discovering the suit of your red ace and king. > I hastily remove to 4D and LHO passes. > Drawing correct inferences, partner corrects > his earlier explanation "5 or 6 dianonds to > D:QJ and H:AK" and bids the obvious 7H. What correct inferences? He knows you have shown a solid diamond suit The fact that he has A and K of diamonds make him deduce that you have not got this. That is an inference that he needs not tell opponents. The fact that you are suit-blind but not color-blind is, IMHO, UI to him. He should not assume that you have HeAK rather than a psyche or a misbid of 10 diamonds to the Q. > Enexplicably only one other pair has ventured > a grand and they played in diamonds. > Most tables played spade contracts. > Aggrieved opponents call the TD who reassures > them by reading L75 and explaining that we DwS > players occasionally get a good result by > eschewing UI, as reward for our active ethics. > And he does nothing about the original MI that 3Sp showed spades? I might be persuaded to change the score to 3Sp-7. > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Mon Nov 18 13:21:45 2002 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Mon, 18 Nov 2002 13:21:45 -0000 Subject: [blml] I don't teach bridge Message-ID: <013b01c28f05$7bd8a800$3e9868d5@default> [Marvin L French] I early learned from a teacher that double-jump overcalls are weak preemptive bids, common knowledge then and now. [Richard Hills - sorry sent you copy by mistake] Disagree. I would rule that agreeing to use a particular popular agreement is still agreeing to use a *special* agreement. [Nigel Guthrie] I agree with Richard. It is sad that we must wait 3-4 years before they can excise the pernicious "General Knowldge & Experience" from the Law-book. Did such a thing once exist? Now, if its vestiges exist, it varies from place to place and age to age. Many players need no justification from the law book to rationalise the concealment of their agreements. From agot@ulb.ac.be Mon Nov 18 13:48:31 2002 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon, 18 Nov 2002 14:48:31 +0100 Subject: [blml] dWS - another case In-Reply-To: <00dd01c28eff$9a942540$3e9868d5@default> References: <5.1.0.14.0.20021118104814.029f42e0@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20021118140442.029fd3d0@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 12:39 18/11/2002 +0000, Nigel Guthrie wrote: >As a recent Dws convert my 1st triumph. With >S:xx H- D:AKQJTxxx C:xxx, I open 3S >(7+solid minor by agreement. AG : what ?? There exists somebody who doesn't play this as preemptive ? Marvin, do you read me ? >LHO asks partner to explain. Partner holds... >S- H:Qxxxxxx D:AKx C:Axx. With both minor >aces, partner knows a wheel has come off. >Just in time, he remembers that UI is worse >than MI, so explains "Weak pre-empt in spades." AG : I don't know whether you are writing this as a joke (the end seems to point in that direction) but anyway this is complete distortion of dWS (classical ploy : to make some theory you dislike seem ridiculous, extend it to where it wasn't intended to reach. It was used, among others, by nazi "scientists" to reject Einstein's relativity, and by various engineers to explain why aircraft would never fly). dWS tells us that when partner has misexplained your bid, giving more MI is loften less harmful than creating UI. It doesn't tell you to give MI at the first place. Opponents are entitled to your system, not partner's hand. Lord knows, partner might have misplaced his SA among his clubs. This would be the most probable explanation if by some quirk of fate partner happened to be YT. >LHO makes a (penalty) double. >Partner and RHO pass this round to me. Surely >partner has not forgotten -- just prior to the >game we had revised our pre-empt strategy. >Knowing that partner is schooled in Dw >philosophy, I re-examine my hand to discover >xx AK QJTxxx xxx. AG : I guessed it ! (nearly) >I hastily remove to 4D and LHO passes. >Drawing correct inferences, partner corrects >his earlier explanation "5 or 6 dianonds to >D:QJ and H:AK" and bids the obvious 7H. AG : okay, let's go one step farther in the sick joke. Are you sure : - you didn't transmit UI by rearranging your hand in the middle of the deal ? - or by frowning at his explanation ? And, BTW, you heard partner's wrong explanation. You are not allowed to step out of 3S when partner says he wants to play there facing a long minor. That's use of UI, and you know this is not allowed, don't you ? >Enexplicably only one other pair has ventured >a grand and they played in diamonds. >Most tables played spade contracts. >Aggrieved opponents call the TD who reassures >them by reading L75 and explaining that we DwS >players occasionally get a good result by >eschewing UI, as reward for our active ethics. AG : of course, if this happened behind screens, your top would be well-earned (but do you think partner would draw the same inference ?) Anyway, such inferences do exist. I tell my partners that, when there is a logical contradiction between my bids and my signals, only signals are to be believed, the most plausible explanation being that I re-assorted my hand in-between. (Belgian championships are played between screens, so no UI here). And this proved useful one several occasions. But, as regards the subject or the post to which I'm responding, I don't think that the strategy you develop, pretending dWS allows you to do several things, while it doesn't, to create from scratch an unfair opportunity to squash it, is the right way to deal with serious questions. There is something we call a Law book of Bridge. What would you think if somebody told we are satanic, the proof being that we abide a Law which was made by perverted men, and that we pretend to impose it on others ? (alas, this has happened ; if not at bridge, in other leisure activities) Best regards, Alain. From dalburn@btopenworld.com Mon Nov 18 14:01:35 2002 From: dalburn@btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: 18 Nov 2002 06:01:35 -0800 Subject: [blml] dWS - another case Message-ID: <181102322.21690@webbox.com> Nigel wrote: >As a recent Dws convert my 1st triumph. With >S:xx H- D:AKQJTxxx C:xxx, I open 3S >(7+solid minor by agreement. >LHO asks partner to explain. Partner holds... >S- H:Qxxxxxx D:AKx C:Axx. With both minor >aces, partner knows a wheel has come off. >Just in time, he remembers that UI is worse >than MI, so explains "Weak pre-empt in spades." Absurd. If this is the dWS at work (and I am not sure that it is), then the sooner it is towed out to sea and sunk by gunfire the better. Your methods are that 3S shows a solid minor. It does not show a weak pre-empt in spades, and your opponents should not be told that it does. UI is neither "better" nor "worse" than MI; but *transmitting* UI is not per se illegal, while transmitting MI is. That, of course, is why the dWS is itself illegal. >LHO makes a (penalty) double. >Partner and RHO pass this round to me. Surely >partner has not forgotten -- just prior to the >game we had revised our pre-empt strategy. >Knowing that partner is schooled in Dw >philosophy, I re-examine my hand to discover >xx AK QJTxxx xxx. >I hastily remove to 4D Why? If you have shown a solid minor and partner has passed 3S doubled, he is (in any rational partnership) telling you that he thinks 3S doubled will be a better contract than any number of your minor. Were this not so, he could have corrected to your minor himself. >Drawing correct inferences, partner corrects >his earlier explanation "5 or 6 dianonds to >D:QJ and H:AK" and bids the obvious 7H. It's getting, in the words of Elton John, more and more absurd... >Enexplicably only one other pair has ventured >a grand and they played in diamonds. >Most tables played spade contracts. >Aggrieved opponents call the TD who reassures >them by reading L75 and explaining that we DwS >players occasionally get a good result by >eschewing UI, as reward for our active ethics. Instead of doing what he ought to have done: adjusting the score to 3S doubled down an awful lot, and telling you to play by the rules in future and not make it up as you go along. Collectively, your side has: misinformed the opponents as to your methods at every conceivable opportunity; transmitted and used unauthorised information in especially blatant fashion; upset your opponents; and received a wholly unmerited good result through the abject incompetence of yourselves and of a "director". If this is a triumph, remind me to be several hundred miles away from your table when a disaster occurs. David Burn London, England From agot@ulb.ac.be Mon Nov 18 14:16:04 2002 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon, 18 Nov 2002 15:16:04 +0100 Subject: [blml] dWS - another case In-Reply-To: <3DD8E79E.8080704@skynet.be> References: <5.1.0.14.0.20021118104814.029f42e0@pop.ulb.ac.be> <00dd01c28eff$9a942540$3e9868d5@default> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20021118145444.029e1ec0@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 14:14 18/11/2002 +0100, Herman De Wael wrote: >Thank you Nigel, for your support, even if your example lacks a few >elements for a real dWS case: > >Nigel Guthrie wrote: > >>As a recent Dws convert my 1st triumph. With >>S:xx H- D:AKQJTxxx C:xxx, I open 3S (7+solid minor by agreement. >>LHO asks partner to explain. Partner holds... >>S- H:Qxxxxxx D:AKx C:Axx. With both minor aces, partner knows a wheel >>has come off. >>Just in time, he remembers that UI is worse than MI, so explains "Weak >>pre-empt in spades." > > >The reasons why he MIs are of no importance, the fact is that he has, and >such is UI to you. AG : he may not ; he must explain your system, not your hand. This is not a dWS case. Here, no MI has happened before, and he surely isn't allowed to create some. >>LHO makes a (penalty) double. Partner and RHO pass this round to me. Surely >>partner has not forgotten -- just prior to the game we had revised our >>pre-empt strategy. > > >Well, whether he has forgotten or not is of no consequence. You should bid >as if he hasn't forgotten. He has passed your 3SpX and you retreat to the >minor suit you have. AG : not in my book. By passing, partner says he wants to play in 3SX facing mi minor-suit hand. >>Knowing that partner is schooled in Dw philosophy, I re-examine my hand >>to discover xx AK QJTxxx xxx. > > >I fail to see what your partner has to do with you discovering the suit of >your red ace and king. > > >>I hastily remove to 4D and LHO passes. >>Drawing correct inferences, partner corrects >>his earlier explanation "5 or 6 dianonds to D:QJ and H:AK" and bids the >>obvious 7H. > > >What correct inferences? He knows you have shown a solid diamond suit The >fact that he has A and K of diamonds make him deduce that you have not got >this. That is an inference that he needs not tell opponents. AG : If I were said partner, I would have called the TD and asked him -away from the table- to check the cards. It *is* possible that there are two DAs. It happened before, even when taking all four hands out of the same board. I remember of a board where the only rational explanation to the bidding was that there were 43 HCP in the deck, and there were (Forum I - Squeeze II, 1996). Alas, I didn't dare say it before the second SK hit the table. >The fact that you are suit-blind but not color-blind is, IMHO, UI to him. >He should not assume that you have HeAK rather than a psyche or a misbid >of 10 diamonds to the Q. AG : here, IBTD. Any fact that is not specific to the present hand or competition is AI. Examples are : - my partner is crazy - my partner often overbids after having taken a bad board - it's full moon tonight - my partner is suit-blind (this disorder is usually called astigmatism) Unless you ostensibly re-assort your hand, partner is allowed to draw any inference he wishes. Of course, if he chooses the wrong exlpanation between the above four, the result may be spectacular. If I respond 2S to my partner's 2C (showing the SA), I expect my partner, when holding SA, to assume I've got CA. The misassorting is more probable than a systemic error, or that a psyche in this situation). Of course, and contrary to Nigel's sick example, I also expect him to explain I've got SA. If the misassorting was the genuine explanation, no UI would filter at all. >>Enexplicably only one other pair has ventured >>a grand and they played in diamonds. Most tables played spade contracts. >>Aggrieved opponents call the TD who reassures them by reading L75 and >>explaining that we DwS players occasionally get a good result by >>eschewing UI, as reward for our active ethics. > > >And he does nothing about the original MI that 3Sp showed spades? >I might be persuaded to change the score to 3Sp-7. AG : so might I. From hermandw@skynet.be Mon Nov 18 14:35:10 2002 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 18 Nov 2002 15:35:10 +0100 Subject: [blml] I don't teach bridge References: <013b01c28f05$7bd8a800$3e9868d5@default> Message-ID: <3DD8FA9E.4040501@skynet.be> Nigel Guthrie wrote: > I agree with Richard. It is sad that we must > wait 3-4 years before they can excise the > pernicious "General Knowldge & Experience" > from the Law-book. Did such a thing once exist? > Now, if its vestiges exist, it varies from place > to place and age to age. > Many players need no justification from the law > book to rationalise the concealment of their > agreements. > > No sorry, that's not what the law is there for. What it is there for is just the opposite. To defend against bridge lawyers who call the director on incomplete information when all the room knows what the explanation meant. Such as : "he did not tell me he had 11+ points for that 1Sp opening, only that it showed 5 spades, and he even had SIX of them ...". Without a subclause telling us that it is allright to omit certain things that one expects the opposition to know, every explanation should start with "an ace is worth 4 points, and spades are higher than hearts" or be deemed incomplete. > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From toddz@worldnet.att.com Mon Nov 18 14:48:18 2002 From: toddz@worldnet.att.com (Todd Zimnoch) Date: Mon, 18 Nov 2002 09:48:18 -0500 Subject: [blml] Declarer makes impossible contract by LOT In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Sunday, November 17, 2002, at 04:13 PM, John (MadDog) Probst wrote: > Is any amongst those who say that revokes *can't* be > penalised via L72 but LOOTs can prepared to defend > their position? Maybe. As I wouldn't want a yes/no answer, I'd abandon this construction and phrase it as a request. "Would someone who believes that LOOTs can be penalized via L72 while revokes cannot please explain that position." And just to ponder, can the plural of LOOT be LsOOT? It looks silly, but it's the way I read it mentally. -Todd From s.f.kuipers@ngi.nl Mon Nov 18 15:04:06 2002 From: s.f.kuipers@ngi.nl (Simon Kuipers) Date: Mon, 18 Nov 2002 16:04:06 +0100 Subject: [blml] I don't teach bridge In-Reply-To: <3DAAAD3F00DCBCF2@ocpmta1.be.tiscali.com> Message-ID: <4.3.2.7.2.20021118155903.07327f00@MDWexc1> At 15:36 18/11/2002, Herman De Wael wrote: >No sorry, that's not what the law is there for. >What it is there for is just the opposite. To defend against bridge >lawyers who call the director on incomplete information when all the >room knows what the explanation meant. >Such as : "he did not tell me he had 11+ points for that 1Sp opening, >only that it showed 5 spades, and he even had SIX of them ...". I agree. >Without a subclause telling us that it is allright to omit certain >things that one expects the opposition to know, every explanation >should start with "an ace is worth 4 points, and spades are higher >than hearts" or be deemed incomplete. But this is not true. You could specify another Point Count (remember 7-5-3-1 in the Vienna system?) but spades are higher by Law (L1; is this the first time this Law has been mentioned here?) Simon From svenpran@online.no Mon Nov 18 15:06:23 2002 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon, 18 Nov 2002 16:06:23 +0100 Subject: [blml] Declarer makes impossible contract by LOT References: Message-ID: <004301c28f14$10613880$70d8fea9@WINXP> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Todd Zimnoch" To: Sent: Monday, November 18, 2002 3:48 PM Subject: RE: [blml] Declarer makes impossible contract by LOT > On Sunday, November 17, 2002, at 04:13 PM, John (MadDog) Probst > wrote: > > Is any amongst those who say that revokes *can't* be > > penalised via L72 but LOOTs can prepared to defend > > their position? > > Maybe. As I wouldn't want a yes/no answer, I'd abandon this > construction and phrase it as a request. "Would someone who > believes that LOOTs can be penalized via L72 while revokes cannot > please explain that position." Because any such revoke case would be better handled under Law 64C Sven From agot@ulb.ac.be Mon Nov 18 15:30:16 2002 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon, 18 Nov 2002 16:30:16 +0100 Subject: [blml] dWS - another case In-Reply-To: <181102322.21690@webbox.com> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20021118162456.029fc8c0@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 06:01 18/11/2002 -0800, David Burn wrote: >Nigel wrote: > > >As a recent Dws convert my 1st triumph. With > >S:xx H- D:AKQJTxxx C:xxx, I open 3S > >(7+solid minor by agreement. > >LHO asks partner to explain. Partner holds... > >S- H:Qxxxxxx D:AKx C:Axx. With both minor > >aces, partner knows a wheel has come off. > >Just in time, he remembers that UI is worse > >than MI, so explains "Weak pre-empt in spades." > >Absurd. If this is the dWS at work (and I am not sure that it >is), then the sooner it is towed out to sea and sunk by gunfire >the better. AG : don't worry. It isn't. It's the way it is prensented by somebody who wants it to be sunk. >Your methods are that 3S shows a solid minor. It >does not show a weak pre-empt in spades, and your opponents should >not be told that it does. UI is neither "better" nor "worse" >than MI; but *transmitting* UI is not per se illegal AG : it is : see L75D2. But dWS does only apply when MI has already been created, so that it is too late to worry about it, but still time to worry about UI. For the remainder of Nigel's text, I do agree with you : it does presnent an horrendous view of dWS ; but it isn't an honest one. From cibor@poczta.fm Mon Nov 18 15:57:55 2002 From: cibor@poczta.fm (Konrad Ciborowski) Date: Mon, 18 Nov 2002 16:57:55 +0100 Subject: [blml] 4NT on a cross-ruff References: <007101c28c72$80ebe9a0$3a30d2cc@san.rr.com> <00bd01c28ea1$8cc08020$3e9868d5@default> <006501c28ed4$71473c20$049a1e18@san.rr.com> Message-ID: <018f01c28f1b$4428d1d0$727e870a@krakow.sabreots.com> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Marvin L. French" > > North: "4N is down if you cash HA before > > attempting to ruff a spade. > > No one would do that. Suppose that there is no such thing as a claim. You play 6C - why is cashing the hA irrational? Suppose you see someone in 6C who draws trumps and starts by cashing the dAK and ruffing a diamond in hand. Would you tell him "are you out of your mind?" The laws on contested claims tell us to disallow the claim only if the unmentioned line(s) that lead(s) to one or more down is irrational - why on earth cashing the heart ace or ruffing a diamond is irrational? The ruling should be 6NT minus a lot depending on how many hearts North-South can take. Konrad Ciborowski Kraków, Poland ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Z kraju i ze swiata, minuta po minucie >>> http://link.interia.pl/f1676 From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Mon Nov 18 16:08:44 2002 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Mon, 18 Nov 2002 16:08:44 -0000 Subject: [blml] Re: Ringer Message-ID: <018a01c28f1c$d158a8e0$3e9868d5@default> 3rd attempt: Please read and OK today... "Crockfords" is the English Bridge Union's main knockout teams competition. For their first match, a friend's team travelled to an "Away" match at the Young Chelsea Bridge Club in London. A member of the opposing was delayed so their captain asked if he could field a substitute until the team-member arrived. The opposing captain asked one of the club players, whom he knew, to stand in. The orignal team member never appeared, so the substitute played the whole match. The substitute was the best player in either team. My friend eventually lost a close match by 1 imp. My friend signed the forms and congratulated her opponents. As my friend got into her car for the depressing journey home, she discovered that she had forgotten her coat. Re-entering the club to retrieve her coat, she overheard a discussion between the substitute and her other victorious opponents. It now appeared that the substitute was a foreign international. The opposing team were trying to persuade him to join the EBU, even offering to pay his subscription. The competition is open only to EBU members, so my friend reluctantly telephoned the EBU to inform them of the rule-violation; and followed up with a letter the next day, to claim the match. How should the EBU rule? Would it influence your decision if... [1] The captain of the team with the substitute was an EBU TD? [2] The EBU's exploding costs mean that they need all the subscriptions they can get? From willner@cfa.harvard.edu Mon Nov 18 16:28:26 2002 From: willner@cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Mon, 18 Nov 2002 11:28:26 -0500 (EST) Subject: [blml] The Clayton's adjustment Message-ID: <200211181628.LAA00506@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> > From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au > My interpretation of L12C2 is that a "likely" > adjustment of the score for the NOS could be a > zero change adjustment Yes, that could perhaps happen. However, the NOS adjustment must always be based on "had the irregularity not occurred." So in order to make a null adjustment consistent with L12C2, you have to find a way -- in fact a way that qualifies as "likely"-- that the table result could have been reached absent the irregularity that triggered adjustment. From willner@cfa.harvard.edu Mon Nov 18 16:33:11 2002 From: willner@cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Mon, 18 Nov 2002 11:33:11 -0500 (EST) Subject: [blml] Bidding the Wrong Hand Message-ID: <200211181633.LAA00510@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> > From: "Sven Pran" > Grattan: I believe this is another one yelling for a "noted" status? > (on Law 17D) Indeed. > Law 17D should be clarified to show exactly how far the auction may proceed > (and how many calls thus can be cancelled and replaced with identical calls) > before the Director no longer has any option to let the board be played. Also, perhaps it should allow for an _assigned_ adjusted score in certain circumstances: in particular if the auction has proceeded far enough that a likely result can be determined. From agot@ulb.ac.be Mon Nov 18 16:53:08 2002 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon, 18 Nov 2002 17:53:08 +0100 Subject: [blml] I don't teach bridge In-Reply-To: <3DD8FA9E.4040501@skynet.be> References: <013b01c28f05$7bd8a800$3e9868d5@default> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20021118174048.029f8920@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 15:35 18/11/2002 +0100, Herman De Wael wrote: >Nigel Guthrie wrote: > >>I agree with Richard. It is sad that we must wait 3-4 years before they >>can excise the pernicious "General Knowldge & Experience" from the >>Law-book. Did such a thing once exist? Now, if its vestiges exist, it >>varies from place to place and age to age. >>Many players need no justification from the law book to rationalise the >>concealment of their agreements. > > >No sorry, that's not what the law is there for. >What it is there for is just the opposite. To defend against bridge >lawyers who call the director on incomplete information when all the room >knows what the explanation meant. >Such as : "he did not tell me he had 11+ points for that 1Sp opening, only >that it showed 5 spades, and he even had SIX of them ...". >Without a subclause telling us that it is allright to omit certain things >that one expects the opposition to know, every explanation should start >with "an ace is worth 4 points, and spades are higher than hearts" or be >deemed incomplete. AG : there is an interesting twist here. Your opponents are entitled to know your agreements. The Honor count is not part of the agreements, so you don't have to explain it. However, other manners of counting (say you use control-showing answers to your strong 1C or 2C opening) must need an explantaion in case opponents don't know what "italian controls" means. But these are the cases where the opponent *knows* he has something to ask. If you use the term "controls", 90% (at least) of tournament players will understand. The other 10% will know they must ask if they want to understand anything. Convention names are another thing altogether, as was said on a previous post, because it happens that the name means something different for both pairs. Basic characteristic of bids (like ranges) might be asked if needed. It wouldn't be the first time I ask "how strong is your 2NT opening bid ?", even if it is not alerted. But a difference should be made for characteristics that a player wouldn't expect (eg some bid that denies length in some side-suit because there is a dedicated bid for such a 2-suiter). And in every pair's system there are obvious things that won't be obvious to everyone. If some LOL (or LOG, why not ?) told me that his opponent told him his partner had 5 spades for his 1S opening, and he turned out that he had six, *and* I have good reason to think that this particular LOG didn't know that it was possible, too, there is misinformation. There isn't anymore among standard tournament (p)la(w)yers. Only hypothetical ? Not so sure. I remember very well the LL (not O, BTW) who opened 1C with 64 minors, because she played *4-card diamonds*. Best regards, Alain. From agot@ulb.ac.be Mon Nov 18 17:04:18 2002 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon, 18 Nov 2002 18:04:18 +0100 Subject: [blml] Bidding the Wrong Hand In-Reply-To: <200211181633.LAA00510@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20021118175419.029fe620@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 11:33 18/11/2002 -0500, Steve Willner wrote: > > From: "Sven Pran" > > > Grattan: I believe this is another one yelling for a "noted" status? > > (on Law 17D) > >Indeed. > > > Law 17D should be clarified to show exactly how far the auction may proceed > > (and how many calls thus can be cancelled and replaced with identical > calls) > > before the Director no longer has any option to let the board be played. > >Also, perhaps it should allow for an _assigned_ adjusted score in >certain circumstances: in particular if the auction has proceeded >far enough that a likely result can be determined. AG : my preference would go to a generic Law (a section of L81, perhaps) that would provide the TD with the right to assign an adjusted score when a deal was interrupted at a moment when a likely result can be determined. Cases might include : - sudden indisponibility of a player for any reason (you will try and get a substitute, but what do you do with the current deal ?) - a sprinkler, wind gust or other external event making many cards visible (I've seen it happen) - a person unrelated to the pairs / teams playing mentioning an important parameter of the deal (it happened once in a tournament I was directing : somebody asked a player "is it normal that you have only cards or three kinds while the other have four ?") ... From svenpran@online.no Mon Nov 18 16:56:55 2002 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon, 18 Nov 2002 17:56:55 +0100 Subject: [blml] Re: Ringer References: <018a01c28f1c$d158a8e0$3e9868d5@default> Message-ID: <006601c28f23$80f6a3f0$70d8fea9@WINXP> From: "Nigel Guthrie" > "Crockfords" is the English Bridge Union's > main knockout teams competition. For their > first match, a friend's team travelled to an > "Away" match at the Young Chelsea Bridge Club > in London. A member of the opposing was delayed > so their captain asked if he could field > a substitute until the team-member arrived. > The opposing captain asked one of the club > players, whom he knew, to stand in. The orignal > team member never appeared, so the substitute > played the whole match. The substitute was the > best player in either team. My friend eventually > lost a close match by 1 imp. My friend signed > the forms and congratulated her opponents. As my > friend got into her car for the depressing > journey home, she discovered that she had > forgotten her coat. Re-entering the club to > retrieve her coat, she overheard a discussion > between the substitute and her other victorious > opponents. It now appeared that the substitute > was a foreign international. The opposing team > were trying to persuade him to join the EBU, even > offering to pay his subscription. The competition > is open only to EBU members, so my friend > reluctantly telephoned the EBU to inform them of > the rule-violation; and followed up with a letter > the next day, to claim the match. How should the > EBU rule? Would it influence your decision if... > [1] The captain of the team with the substitute > was an EBU TD? > [2] The EBU's exploding costs mean that they need > all the subscriptions they can get? As I do not know "opponents' version of the story I must take your word for what happened. 1: What does the applicable regulation say about EBU membership? Is such membership required in advance or is accepted afterwards? 2: What does regulation say about substitutes? 3: When must members on a team be named? I assume the answers to these three questions will at the same time answer your request for a ruling? And I would not be surprised if this answer is that the "other" team should be disqualified. (The "fact" that the substitute was a high class player is in itself completely irrelevant unless the regulations include special conditions on the class of the participants) To your last two questions: [1]: No, but a special report to EBU on this fact seems in order. [2]: No. regards Sven From Walt.Flory@fscv.net Mon Nov 18 16:58:50 2002 From: Walt.Flory@fscv.net (Walt.Flory@fscv.net) Date: Mon, 18 Nov 2002 11:58:50 -0500 Subject: [blml] I don't teach bridge In-Reply-To: <000d01c28ed7$434feee0$ae42e150@endicott> References: <4A256C75.001ED004.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> <005801c28ed2$96ddf480$049a1e18@san.rr.com> Message-ID: <5.1.1.6.0.20021118115603.03cffc90@mail.fscv.net> At 02:50 AM 18/11/2002, Grattan Endicott wrote: >Grattan Endicott+=+ I use 'special' as defined in the WBF Code of Practice - > not "normal and general". What is 'common' is not > general. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ Grattan Perhaps a comment or footnote to this effect should be added to the 2005 laws? (So that it would be right there where we would all see it.) Walt From willner@cfa.harvard.edu Mon Nov 18 17:00:11 2002 From: willner@cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Mon, 18 Nov 2002 12:00:11 -0500 (EST) Subject: [blml] POOT laws - a change suggested Message-ID: <200211181700.MAA00535@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> > From: "LarryBennett" > I believe the logic was that the psycher was in > effect fielding their own psyche ! Well, it makes no sense to me. The EBU approach to psychs is, as far as I can tell, based entirely on the concept of concealed partnership understanding, and that cannot apply if partner is barred. > With pard silent, there can be no element of > risk. True. Or at least one particular form of risk is eliminated. We now have L72B1 to deal with that. Prior to 1997, I can imagine some TD's coming up with "creative" ways to handle the situation, but we don't need them now. From willner@cfa.harvard.edu Mon Nov 18 17:06:39 2002 From: willner@cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Mon, 18 Nov 2002 12:06:39 -0500 (EST) Subject: [blml] Herman's Ruling Message-ID: <200211181706.MAA00539@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> > From: Alain Gottcheiner > But the general idea of split scores in such a case, even if unlawful, > suits me. Grattan: I think you have already "noted" the possibility of allowing _assigned_ adjusted scores in L16B, but if not, please consider it. Here's a good example case. From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Mon Nov 18 17:37:14 2002 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Mon, 18 Nov 2002 17:37:14 -0000 Subject: [blml] Ringer References: <018a01c28f1c$d158a8e0$3e9868d5@default> <006601c28f23$80f6a3f0$70d8fea9@WINXP> Message-ID: <020d01c28f29$4ef97e80$3e9868d5@default> [Sven Pran] As I do not know "opponents' version of the story I must take your word for what happened. [Nigel Guthrie] Sorry Sven, I posted by mistake, before checking others' memory of the facts, so please disregard my posting until I have confirmed it. Then, I too would like to learn "opponent's" version of events. Nor do I know the detailed rules about entering EBU competitions or joining the EBU that were in force at the time. From david-martin@talk21.com Mon Nov 18 17:41:37 2002 From: david-martin@talk21.com (David Martin) Date: Mon, 18 Nov 2002 17:41:37 -0000 Subject: Fw: [blml] Re: Ringer Message-ID: <008601c28f29$dda67520$1a76073e@davicaltd> When exactly did this alleged tale of woe occur? From: "Nigel Guthrie" To: "BLML" Sent: 18 November 2002 16:08 Subject: [blml] Re: Ringer > 3rd attempt: Please read and OK today... > > "Crockfords" is the English Bridge Union's > main knockout teams competition. For their > first match, a friend's team travelled to an > "Away" match at the Young Chelsea Bridge Club > in London. A member of the opposing was delayed > so their captain asked if he could field > a substitute until the team-member arrived. > The opposing captain asked one of the club > players, whom he knew, to stand in. The orignal > team member never appeared, so the substitute > played the whole match. The substitute was the > best player in either team. My friend eventually > lost a close match by 1 imp. My friend signed > the forms and congratulated her opponents. As my > friend got into her car for the depressing > journey home, she discovered that she had > forgotten her coat. Re-entering the club to > retrieve her coat, she overheard a discussion > between the substitute and her other victorious > opponents. It now appeared that the substitute > was a foreign international. The opposing team > were trying to persuade him to join the EBU, even > offering to pay his subscription. The competition > is open only to EBU members, so my friend > reluctantly telephoned the EBU to inform them of > the rule-violation; and followed up with a letter > the next day, to claim the match. How should the > EBU rule? Would it influence your decision if... > [1] The captain of the team with the substitute > was an EBU TD? > [2] The EBU's exploding costs mean that they need > all the subscriptions they can get? > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Mon Nov 18 17:52:06 2002 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Mon, 18 Nov 2002 17:52:06 -0000 Subject: [blml] dWS - another case Message-ID: <023501c28f2b$3e77cec0$3e9868d5@default> ): I apologise to everybody :( (: It was a pathetic attempt at a joke :) (: Like TFLB? :) (: I should have inserted smileys :) My serious point is: Although I disagree with DwS in practice, I agree with his School's reading of 75D. [1] It is hard enough to state simple laws well. [2] It is ridiculous to expect ultra-complex laws to be correct and unenforceable* laws to be much use to anybody. [3] The future of the game is at risk# if we wait years until revisions that correct blatant anomalies. * Unenforceable "laws" do have a place in the "proprieties" provided they revert to their informal advisory rather than legal status. # IMO the current state of the laws deter more would be bridge-players than unfriendly clubs or strange systems. [This is my second posting of this apology -- the first seems to have disappeared without trace but if you have already seen it, I apologise also for the duplication] From john@asimere.com Mon Nov 18 18:36:59 2002 From: john@asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Mon, 18 Nov 2002 18:36:59 +0000 Subject: [blml] Declarer makes impossible contract by LOT In-Reply-To: <004301c28f14$10613880$70d8fea9@WINXP> References: <004301c28f14$10613880$70d8fea9@WINXP> Message-ID: In article <004301c28f14$10613880$70d8fea9@WINXP>, Sven Pran writes > >----- Original Message ----- >From: "Todd Zimnoch" >To: >Sent: Monday, November 18, 2002 3:48 PM >Subject: RE: [blml] Declarer makes impossible contract by LOT > > >> On Sunday, November 17, 2002, at 04:13 PM, John (MadDog) Probst >> wrote: >> > Is any amongst those who say that revokes *can't* be >> > penalised via L72 but LOOTs can prepared to defend >> > their position? >> >> Maybe. As I wouldn't want a yes/no answer, I'd abandon this >> construction and phrase it as a request. "Would someone who >> believes that LOOTs can be penalized via L72 while revokes cannot >> please explain that position." > >Because any such revoke case would be better handled under Law 64C Consider the position where I revoke, and then correct it before it is established, creating a penalty card of no consequence but completely confusing declarer who now has to undo the mental processes associated with one distribution, and refresh their memory of the actual position. It's a very effective ploy, and some declarers can be utterly thrown by it. I've seen it a number of times, and in both cases (the LOOT and the unestablished revoke) *could* be used with cold cynicism to gain advantage. IMO there is little difference between the two shots. cheers john > >Sven > >_______________________________________________ >blml mailing list >blml@rtflb.org >http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > -- John (MadDog) Probst| . ! -^- |icq 10810798 451 Mile End Road | /|__. \:/ |OKb ChienFou London E3 4PA | / @ __) -|- |john@asimere.com +44-(0)20 8983 5818 | /\ --^ | |www.asimere.com/~john From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Mon Nov 18 15:05:12 2002 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Mon, 18 Nov 2002 15:05:12 -0000 Subject: [blml] dWS - another case References: <5.1.0.14.0.20021118104814.029f42e0@pop.ulb.ac.be> <00dd01c28eff$9a942540$3e9868d5@default> <5.1.0.14.0.20021118145444.029e1ec0@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <016f01c28f13$ed6ba2c0$3e9868d5@default> Sop1 Stop! ): Sorry :( (: It was a pathetic attempt at a joke :) (: Like TFLB? :) (: I should have inserted smileys :) My serious point is: Although I disagree with DwS in practice, I agree with the School's reading of 75D. [1] It is hard enough to state simple laws well. [2] It is ridiculous to expect ultra-complex laws to be correct and unenforceable* laws to be much use to anybody. [3] The future of the game is at risk# if we wait years until revisions that correct blatant anomalies. * Unenforceable "laws" do have a place in the "proprieties" provided they revert to their informal advisory rather than legal status. # IMO the current state of the laws deter more would be bridge-players than unfriendly clubs or strange systems. From blml@dybdal.dk Mon Nov 18 19:31:47 2002 From: blml@dybdal.dk (Jesper Dybdal) Date: Mon, 18 Nov 2002 20:31:47 +0100 Subject: [blml] Kaplan doctrine (WAS Declarer makes impossible contrac t by LOT) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Mon, 18 Nov 2002 09:13:38 +0100, "Kooijman, A." wrote: >Jesper responded: >=20 >> Just to be quite sure I understood this correctly: this is the >> coming ("2005") laws you are talking about, right? The rest is >> under that assumption: > >No, I am talking about the '97 laws and an approach described by Kaplan = =20 >long before '97.=20 > >>=20 >> The current case was ruled under the 1997 laws, where L72B1 >> prescribes adjusting for both sides.=20 > >Does it? That seems an interpretation from your side to me, 72B1 talks = about >an adjusted score >and not more than that. Yes. And an assigned adjusted score is, by L12C2, something that you award "in place of a result actually obtained", with specific rules for the scores of the two sides. Specifically, it says that "The scores awarded to the two sides need not balance and may be assigned either in matchpoints or by altering the total-point score prior to matchpointing". This seems to me to clearly imply that both sides are awarded such scores. (It may be possible to use L12C3 to get around this by adjusting one side's score to the score originally obtained, but that does not seem to me to be the purpose of L12C3 - and it is still, in principle, an adjustment.) But I have now found the WBFLC minutes that Grattan wrote that you were referring to: they say that the norm for not adjusting for the NOS is the usual "irrational, wild or gambling". So it was my misunderstanding: I mistakenly thought that you were referring to some new decision by the WBFLC that in L72B1 there were, or should be, less strict standards for not adjusting than this. Does this mean that we actually agree that the current L72B1 requires adjustment for both sides, except in the IWoG action situation? >> These discussions become very strange; one of the reasons is that >> the law as we use it is not the one in the book. For instance, >> we let TDs in some events use L12C3, against the letter of the >> law.=20 > >This information is deceptive. Interpretations made by the WBFLC become = part >of the laws. So it seems to be against the letter of the laws as given = in >L12C3 alone, but it isn't when adding the decision telling that when the >zone agrees CTD's have the same authorization as AC's.=20 > > And we refuse compensation to the NOS if they have taken >> "irrational, wild, or gambling action" - the book has absolutely >> nothing about that. > >Again this is a matter of interpretation. I agree that wild and gambling= are >not in the laws. But damage is, and the LC did define damage for the >non-offenders using these words. >I put some emphasis on these matters because the LC is very eager to = keep >within the borders of law based applications.=20 I do not in any way disagree that the laws in reality include these things now. I find it unfortunate that they are not in the law book itself, or in a correction sheet to the law book. But I would very much prefer if WBFLC "interpretations" that go so far as to be in conflict with the actual wording of the law book, were published in the form of changes to the law book text, rather than in the form of statements regarding interpretation. They are law changes, not interpretations. It does not really matter for L12C3, but the concept of not adjusting for the NOS in an IWoG action situation is IMO a real change to the laws as they are written, and I would like to be able to explain a ruling by referring to a law that makes it legal. I also suspect that it would be much easier to get a correction sheet to the laws published widely and into the hands of club directors, than it is to get WBFLC minutes published widely and followed. It would also make it very clear that the change has the full force of law - which it can be very difficult to understand that an obviously "wrong" interpretation of the law book text has. Of course, there shouldn't be correction sheets too often, but I think we could cope with one or two in the lifetime of a law book. --=20 Jesper Dybdal, Denmark. http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). From blml@dybdal.dk Mon Nov 18 19:31:49 2002 From: blml@dybdal.dk (Jesper Dybdal) Date: Mon, 18 Nov 2002 20:31:49 +0100 Subject: [blml] The Clayton's adjustment In-Reply-To: <200211181628.LAA00506@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200211181628.LAA00506@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: On Mon, 18 Nov 2002 11:28:26 -0500 (EST), Steve Willner wrote: >> From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au >> My interpretation of L12C2 is that a "likely" >> adjustment of the score for the NOS could be a >> zero change adjustment > >Yes, that could perhaps happen. However, the NOS adjustment must >always be based on "had the irregularity not occurred." So in order to >make a null adjustment consistent with L12C2, you have to find a way -- >in fact a way that qualifies as "likely"-- that the table result could >have been reached absent the irregularity that triggered adjustment. Not only must it qualify as "likely" - it must qualify as "the most favourable result that was likely had the irregularity not occurred". And if the table result really does qualify as such, then I think it will be very difficult to claim that there was damage. Anyway, as I also wrote in response to Ton, I am not suggesting that we should refuse to use the IWoG action concept when ruling. In reality, it is part of our laws. I am only suggesting that it is rather important to get that concept into the law book no later than 2005, if the concept is to exist in the future. And as it happens, I would personally prefer for the concept to be removed, so that any adjustment for the OS would be accompanied by an adjustment based on "if the irregularity had not occurred" for the NOS. After all, how often is it relevant to rule "IWoG action"? And how often do we see misguided applications of the "IWoG action" concept, where the NOS is refused a perfectly reasonable compensation because the concept has been misunderstood? I suspect that the latter occurs much more often than the former. --=20 Jesper Dybdal, Denmark. http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). From nancy@dressing.org Sat Nov 16 22:44:58 2002 From: nancy@dressing.org (Nancy T Dressing) Date: Sat, 16 Nov 2002 17:44:58 -0500 Subject: [blml] Dany Message-ID: <000c01c28dc1$cac8b170$6401a8c0@hare> This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0009_01C28D97.E1D424F0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable We have not heard from Dany with the dog list in a long time. Does = anyone know if he is OK??? Things have not been good in his country. =20 Nancy ------=_NextPart_000_0009_01C28D97.E1D424F0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
We have not heard from Dany with the dog list in a long time.  = Does=20 anyone know if he is OK???  Things have not been good in his = country. =20
Nancy
------=_NextPart_000_0009_01C28D97.E1D424F0-- From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Mon Nov 18 19:58:34 2002 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Mon, 18 Nov 2002 19:58:34 -0000 Subject: [blml] Re: {BLML] Ringer References: <001401c28f31$d99fe760$eb357ad5@none.Compuserve.com> Message-ID: <029301c28f3c$e8107e80$3e9868d5@default> [Sven Pran] As I do not know "opponents' version of the story I must take your word for what happened. [Nigel Guthrie] I too would like to learn "opponents'" version; and the reasoning (if any) behind the EBU ruling. [David Martin] When exactly did this alleged tale of woe occur? [Nigel Guthrie] About three year's ago. Sven also asks what the EBU rules about entry and substitution were. I don't know except that a precondition of entry as a team-member was membership of the EBU. Finally, I have confirmed my friend's version... +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ "Crockfords" is the English Bridge Union's (EBU) main knockout teams competition. A friend's team travelled to an "Away" match at the Young Chelsea Bridge Club in London. A member of the opposing team was delayed so their captain asked if he could field a substitute until the team-member arrived. The opposing captain asked one of the club players, whom he knew, to stand in. The original team-member never appeared, so the substitute played for the whole match. The substitute was the best player in either team. My friend eventually lost a close match by 1 imp. My friend signed the forms and congratulated her opponents. As my friend got into her car for the depressing journey home, she discovered that she had forgotten her coat. Re-entering the club to retrieve her coat, she overheard a discussion between the substitute and her other victorious opponents. It now appeared that the substitute was a foreign international. The opposing team were trying to persuade him to join the EBU, even offering to pay his subscription. The competition is open only to EBU members, so my friend telephoned the EBU to inform them of the rule-violation; and followed up with a letter the next day, to claim the match. How should the EBU rule? Would it influence your decision if... [1] The captain of the team with the substitute was an EBU TD? [2] The EBU need all the subscriptions they can get? ---------------------------------------------------- From henk@ripe.net Mon Nov 18 20:32:21 2002 From: henk@ripe.net (Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC)) Date: Mon, 18 Nov 2002 21:32:21 +0100 (CET) Subject: [blml] Re: {BLML] Ringer In-Reply-To: <029301c28f3c$e8107e80$3e9868d5@default> Message-ID: On Mon, 18 Nov 2002, Nigel Guthrie wrote: > About three year's ago. Sven also asks what the > EBU rules about entry and substitution were. I > don't know except that a precondition of entry > as a team-member was membership of the EBU. In that case, it is simple: the opponents had a (substitute) player on the team that was not eligible. The result of the match is thus void, and either the opponents lose by default or the match has to be replayed. EBU TD or more members for the federation is irrelevant here. Henk ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Henk Uijterwaal Email: henk.uijterwaal@ripe.net RIPE Network Coordination Centre WWW: http://www.ripe.net/home/henk Singel 258 Phone: +31.20.5354414 1016 AB Amsterdam Fax: +31.20.5354445 The Netherlands Mobile: +31.6.55861746 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ That problem that we weren't having yesterday, is it better? (Big ISP NOC) From svenpran@online.no Mon Nov 18 21:51:30 2002 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon, 18 Nov 2002 22:51:30 +0100 Subject: [blml] Declarer makes impossible contract by LOT References: <004301c28f14$10613880$70d8fea9@WINXP> Message-ID: <001901c28f4c$a731f230$70d8fea9@WINXP> From: "John (MadDog) Probst" To: Sent: Monday, November 18, 2002 7:36 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Declarer makes impossible contract by LOT > In article <004301c28f14$10613880$70d8fea9@WINXP>, Sven Pran > writes > > > >----- Original Message ----- > >From: "Todd Zimnoch" > >To: > >Sent: Monday, November 18, 2002 3:48 PM > >Subject: RE: [blml] Declarer makes impossible contract by LOT > > > > > >> On Sunday, November 17, 2002, at 04:13 PM, John (MadDog) Probst > >> wrote: > >> > Is any amongst those who say that revokes *can't* be > >> > penalised via L72 but LOOTs can prepared to defend > >> > their position? > >> > >> Maybe. As I wouldn't want a yes/no answer, I'd abandon this > >> construction and phrase it as a request. "Would someone who > >> believes that LOOTs can be penalized via L72 while revokes cannot > >> please explain that position." > > > >Because any such revoke case would be better handled under Law 64C > > Consider the position where I revoke, and then correct it before it is > established, creating a penalty card of no consequence but completely > confusing declarer who now has to undo the mental processes associated > with one distribution, and refresh their memory of the actual position. > It's a very effective ploy, and some declarers can be utterly thrown by > it. I've seen it a number of times, and in both cases (the LOOT and the > unestablished revoke) *could* be used with cold cynicism to gain > advantage. IMO there is little difference between the two shots. Here we suddenly consider a revoke that is not established. Nothing prevents the Director from using law 72B1 in such cases. What I pointed out is although nothing prevents you from using Law 72B1 on established revokes, such cases are always better handled by Law 64C. Sven From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Mon Nov 18 22:49:24 2002 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 19 Nov 2002 08:49:24 +1000 Subject: [blml] Changed L16B in 2005 (was Herman's Ruling) Message-ID: <4A256C75.007BE20D.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> Alain Gottcheiner wrote: >>But the general idea of split scores in such a >>case, even if unlawful, suits me. Steve Willner continued: >Grattan: I think you have already "noted" the >possibility of allowing _assigned_ adjusted >scores in L16B, but if not, please consider it. >Here's a good example case. One of Australia's CTDs has suggested a further change to L16B3 - add these words to that clause: 3. Award an Adjusted Score or a Redeal forthwith award an artificial adjusted score (in a pairs event) or order a redeal (in a teams event). Noted? Best wishes Richard From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Tue Nov 19 00:28:27 2002 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 19 Nov 2002 10:28:27 +1000 Subject: [blml] dWS for the beginner Message-ID: <4A256C76.00011EC6.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> I wrote: [snip] >>>I cannot find anywhere in the Laws the statement that "thou >>>shalt not give UI". What Law 16 and Law 73C actually state >>>is that "thou shalt not *use* UI", [snip] Alain replied: >>AG : perhaps you could re-read L75D. I don't have the >>English text at hand, but the French one says that "one may >>not act in any way that tells partner that a [system] error >>has been made". Giving the "true" explanation does tell it. Disagree. The relevant part of Law 75D2 states: [snip] >may not correct the error before the final pass, nor may he >indicate in any manner that a mistake has been made; [snip] Giving a correct explanation of partner's subsequent call does not "correct" *the* error partner made in misexplaining your earlier call. And giving an explanation of partner's subsequent call, which is inconsistent with partner's earlier explanation of your different call, does *not* "indicate" that partner's earlier explanation was a mistake. It points both ways, as it could merely "indicate" to partner that *you* have made a subsequent error in explaining a subsequent call. A sensible, non-dWS interpretation of the quoted two clauses of Law 75D2 is that immediate and direct corrections or indications of manner are not permitted, but subsequent indirect inconsistencies are not only permitted but required by Law 75A and Law 75C. Best wishes Richard From guthrie@ntlworld.com Mon Nov 18 23:38:37 2002 From: guthrie@ntlworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Mon, 18 Nov 2002 23:38:37 -0000 Subject: [blml] Re: Moulin Rouge References: <4A256C75.0011D3C7.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> Message-ID: <032701c28f5b$a6e7cc00$3e9868d5@default> [Richard Hills] T876 J9832 T6 64 A642 KQ9 4 K5 KJ8 AQ975 AKQJT 975 J3 AQT76 432 832 At the table, I was the innumerate North. Pard knew that I was not a logically inconsistent bidder, diagnosed my psyche, and chose the logical alternative of Pass for a top. However, in EBU-land, is logical inconsistency a sufficient reason to avert a Red Psyche ruling? [Nigel Guthrie] TD rulings often come as a shock to me. Anyway, I don't know enough local law to guess the attitude of the EBU. So I speak for myself. To escape my indictment as a "red-psyche fielder" your action has to pass these criteria: (1) The auction indicates that someone is at it or has flipped his wig. (2) The logic of the auction makes partner the likely suspect by a considerable margin. (3) (Ideally) partner has no history of frequent psyches in like contexts. I feel that, here, the first two criteria are met. Especially, as I judge pass to me the main LA. Hence I would exonerate your partner from fielding a red psyche. From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Tue Nov 19 00:49:51 2002 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 19 Nov 2002 10:49:51 +1000 Subject: [blml] I don't teach bridge Message-ID: <4A256C76.000313C0.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> Nigel Guthrie wrote: >I agree with Richard. It is sad that we must >wait 3-4 years before they can excise the >pernicious "General Knowledge & Experience" >from the Law-book. Did such a thing once exist? >Now, if its vestiges exist, it varies from place >to place and age to age. >Many players need no justification from the law >book to rationalise the concealment of their >agreements. I do not go so far as advocating that "General Knowledge & Experience" be excised from the Laws, merely that it be given an appropriately narrow definition in the 2005 Laws. It could, perhaps, be defined by examples and non-examples. For instance: Examples of General Knowledge & Experience 1. Agreeing to lead an ace against 7NT. 2. Agreeing to eschew vulnerable sacrifices against non-vulnerable games. 3. Agreeing to preferentially bid to 3NT instead of 5 of a minor at matchpoint pairs. Non-examples of General Knowledge & Experience 1. Agreeing to play weak jump shift responses to opening bids of one of a suit. 2. Agreeing to lead fourth best from length. 3. Agreeing to signal Cooper Echoes. Best wishes Richard From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Tue Nov 19 00:35:10 2002 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Tue, 19 Nov 2002 00:35:10 -0000 Subject: [blml] Preferred Attitude References: <013b01c28f05$7bd8a800$3e9868d5@default> <5.1.0.14.0.20021118174048.029f8920@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <036f01c28f63$9af559a0$3e9868d5@default> I believe that the EBU Orange Book still forbids the mixing of even-odd signals with high-lo signals when following suit. Suppose that, when following suit, your signals are: even = encourage odd = discourage Suppose that, when discarding, your signals are: high = prefer higher ranking low = prefer lower ranking Sticking to the law, you show only attitude when following suit; but you are aware that you may want to show preference later. Thus you tend to play low cards if you later may need to discard a high card; and vice versa. Hence, effectively, when following suit, as well as showing attitude, you tend to show preference, using the reverse of your discarding methods. Rather that leave itself open to such sophistry, IMO, the Law should allow any declared system of signals, including encrypted signals. From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Tue Nov 19 01:37:53 2002 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 19 Nov 2002 11:37:53 +1000 Subject: [blml] Beware of the Leopard Message-ID: <4A256C76.000779B0.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> In the thread "Kaplan doctrine", Jesper Dybdal wrote: [snip] >>But I would very much prefer if WBFLC >>"interpretations" that go so far as to >>be in conflict with the actual wording >>of the law book, were published in the >>form of changes to the law book text, >>rather than in the form of statements >>regarding interpretation. They are law >>changes, not interpretations. [snip] >>I also suspect that it would be much >>easier to get a correction sheet to the >>laws published widely and into the >>hands of club directors, than it is to >>get WBFLC minutes published widely and >>followed. It would also make it very >>clear that the change has the full >>force of law [snip] How in Caissa's name are club TDs supposed to rule Lawfully if binding rulings by the WBFLC are buried in the WBFLC minutes? Douglas Adams wrote: >"But look, you found the notice, didn't you?" > >"Yes," said Arthur, "yes I did. It was on >display on the bottom of a locked filing >cabinet stuck in a disused lavatory with a >sign on the door saying 'Beware of the >Leopard.'" Best wishes Richard From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Tue Nov 19 01:49:09 2002 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 19 Nov 2002 11:49:09 +1000 Subject: [blml] Herman's Ruling Message-ID: <4A256C76.00088312.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> Herman De Wael wrote: >>What I did not add to my story because I believed >>it to be unimportant was that declarer said he >>hadn't heard the remark. I did not want to call >>him a liar and since he accepted that I would >>rule as if he had heard it, there was no way I >could give him a PP for breaking L16. [snip] If Herman did not want to call declarer a liar, why in Caissa's name did Herman adjust the score?? Law 16B commences: >When a player accidentally receives unauthorised >information... Law 16B does *not* state "When a player *could have* accidentally received UI..." If Herman's determination of fact under Law 85 is that declarer is not a liar, then there is no basis for any adjustment. *Could have* is only relevant if and only if there is a ruling about the *use* of UI - it is totally irrelevant for the decision procedure of determining the *existence* of UI. Best wishes Richard From david-martin@talk21.com Tue Nov 19 01:26:23 2002 From: david-martin@talk21.com (David Martin) Date: Tue, 19 Nov 2002 01:26:23 -0000 Subject: Fw: [blml] Re: {BLML] Ringer Message-ID: <005501c28f6b$52a346a0$394d073e@davicaltd> > [Sven Pran] > As I do not know "opponents' version of the story I > must take your word for what happened. > [Nigel Guthrie] > I too would like to learn "opponents'" version; > and the reasoning (if any) behind the EBU ruling. > [David Martin] > When exactly did this alleged tale of woe occur? > [Nigel Guthrie] > About three year's ago. Sven also asks what the > EBU rules about entry and substitution were. I > don't know except that a precondition of entry > as a team-member was membership of the EBU. > Finally, I have confirmed my friend's version... May I suggest that you check your friend's facts again. There was such a case some years ago but the substitute was Tony Priday, an *English* international and most definitely a *member* of the EBU at the time as he has been an Honorary Vice-President *since* 1969. Tony was clearly eligible to play and, if I am not mistaken, John Probst was the TD in question. Perhaps John will confirm if I am correct in due course. From henk@ripe.net Tue Nov 19 01:57:16 2002 From: henk@ripe.net (Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC)) Date: Tue, 19 Nov 2002 02:57:16 +0100 (CET) Subject: Fw: [blml] Re: {BLML] Ringer In-Reply-To: <005501c28f6b$52a346a0$394d073e@davicaltd> Message-ID: On Tue, 19 Nov 2002, David Martin wrote: > > Sven also asks what the EBU rules about entry and substitution were. I > > don't know except that a precondition of entry as a team-member was > > membership of the EBU. > There was such a case some years ago but the substitute was Tony Priday, > an *English* international and most definitely a *member* of the EBU at > the time as he has been an Honorary Vice-President *since* 1969. Tony > was clearly eligible to play He met the membership requirement but we haven't seen the conditions of contest, in particular the sections on substitutes and adding players after the event started. Those are very relevant as well. Henk ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Henk Uijterwaal Email: henk.uijterwaal@ripe.net RIPE Network Coordination Centre WWW: http://www.ripe.net/home/henk Singel 258 Phone: +31.20.5354414 1016 AB Amsterdam Fax: +31.20.5354445 The Netherlands Mobile: +31.6.55861746 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ That problem that we weren't having yesterday, is it better? (Big ISP NOC) From Laval_Dubreuil@uqss.uquebec.ca Tue Nov 19 02:00:00 2002 From: Laval_Dubreuil@uqss.uquebec.ca (Laval Dubreuil) Date: Mon, 18 Nov 2002 21:00:00 -0500 Subject: [blml] French Online Laws Message-ID: Hi all, Do some of you know where I can fin a French online version of Laws? I did have an hyperlink to "Oubaille de bridge" but it no more works. Thx Laval Du Breuil Quebec City From grabiner@alumni.princeton.edu Tue Nov 19 02:27:32 2002 From: grabiner@alumni.princeton.edu (David J. Grabiner) Date: Mon, 18 Nov 2002 21:27:32 -0500 Subject: [blml] Are you required to call attention to your side's UI? Message-ID: <5.1.1.6.0.20021118210921.01acb008@mail.comcast.net> There is normally no obligation to call attention to an infraction committed by your own side, unless some other law such as the obligation to correct MI requires it. However, are you required to call attention to a UI situation if the opponents may be unaware of it (and you are sure that it is UI, not MI)? N S 2NT 3C (Stayman) 3D 3H! (see below) 4C 4S P 3H was alerted by North, and explained as Smolen, showing four hearts and at least five spades, and game forcing. This is the correct agreement, according to the N-S convention card and their system notes. However, South had gotten confused and held five hearts and four spades, with no interest in slam; he was reminded of the correct agreement by the explanation, and thus knew that he did not need to correct the explanation. After North made a cue-bid of 4C, the UI suggested that 4S by South was more attractive than the logical alternative of 4H, since North could interpret 4H as a cue-bid and would probably go to 5S or 6S. North discovered in the post-mortem that his explanation did not match South's hand. E-W were weak players and probably didn't understand the fine points of UI. Is North (or South) obligated to call the TD if there could have been damage? (On the actual hand, it turned out that there would not have been damage.) From john@asimere.com Tue Nov 19 03:20:05 2002 From: john@asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Tue, 19 Nov 2002 03:20:05 +0000 Subject: Fw: [blml] Re: {BLML] Ringer In-Reply-To: References: <005501c28f6b$52a346a0$394d073e@davicaltd> Message-ID: In article , Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC) writes >On Tue, 19 Nov 2002, David Martin wrote: > > >> > Sven also asks what the EBU rules about entry and substitution were. I >> > don't know except that a precondition of entry as a team-member was >> > membership of the EBU. > >> There was such a case some years ago but the substitute was Tony Priday, >> an *English* international and most definitely a *member* of the EBU at >> the time as he has been an Honorary Vice-President *since* 1969. Tony >> was clearly eligible to play > >He met the membership requirement but we haven't seen the conditions of >contest, in particular the sections on substitutes and adding players >after the event started. Those are very relevant as well. > most EBU events of this nature allow you to add players up to the end of the 4th round, to a maximum of 6, without notification to the EBU. I don't have the Crockfords regulations here, but I'd not be surprised if it's the case. >Henk > > >------------------------------------------------------------------------------ >Henk Uijterwaal Email: henk.uijterwaal@ripe.net >RIPE Network Coordination Centre WWW: http://www.ripe.net/home/henk >Singel 258 Phone: +31.20.5354414 >1016 AB Amsterdam Fax: +31.20.5354445 >The Netherlands Mobile: +31.6.55861746 >------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > >That problem that we weren't having yesterday, is it better? (Big ISP NOC) > > >_______________________________________________ >blml mailing list >blml@rtflb.org >http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > -- John (MadDog) Probst| . ! -^- |icq 10810798 451 Mile End Road | /|__. \:/ |OKb ChienFou London E3 4PA | / @ __) -|- |john@asimere.com +44-(0)20 8983 5818 | /\ --^ | |www.asimere.com/~john From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Tue Nov 19 04:17:54 2002 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 19 Nov 2002 14:17:54 +1000 Subject: [blml] Friendly opponents and pleasant TDs Message-ID: <4A256C76.00161FB5.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> In the thread "dWS - another case", Nigel Guthrie wrote: [snip] >[1] It is hard enough to state simple laws well. Agreed, if what you meant was "it is hard to write laws simply and clearly". >[2] It is ridiculous to expect ultra-complex laws > to be correct Agreed; when making choices when designing a legal framework, consistent laws should be preferred to idiosyncratic laws. > and unenforceable* laws to be > much use to anybody. Unenforced or partially enforced laws should be repealed to avoid anomalies. A case in point is Law 25B. Most players are unaware of their rights under Law 25B, therefore do not enforce their Law 25B rights. This gives an unfair advantage to the grognard minority who have studied the Laws, and do enforce their Law 25B rights. >[3] The future of the game is at risk# if we wait > years until revisions that correct blatant > anomalies. > >* Unenforceable "laws" do have a place in the > "proprieties" provided they revert to their > informal advisory rather than legal status. > ># IMO the current state of the laws deter more > would be bridge-players than unfriendly clubs > or strange systems. Disagree. 99% of players are happy to have friendly opponents and pleasant TDs. 99% of players ignore the Laws' technicalities. Best wishes Richard From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Tue Nov 19 06:52:10 2002 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 19 Nov 2002 16:52:10 +1000 Subject: [blml] Are you required to call attention to your side's UI? Message-ID: <4A256C76.00243EE1.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> David Grabiner wrote: >There is normally no obligation to call >attention to an infraction committed by >your own side, unless some other law >such as the obligation to correct MI >requires it. Correct under the current Laws, as this is specifically addressed by Law 72B3. But I hope that Law 72B3 is reversed in the 2005 Laws. >However, are you required to call >attention to a UI situation if the >opponents may be unaware of it (and you >are sure that it is UI, not MI)? No, but.. >N S >2NT 3C (Stayman) >3D 3H! (see below) >4C 4S >P > >3H was alerted by North, and explained as >Smolen, showing four hearts and at least >five spades, and game forcing. This is >the correct agreement, according to the >N-S convention card and their system notes. No infraction has occurred so far. >However, South had gotten confused and held >five hearts and four spades, with no >interest in slam; he was reminded of the >correct agreement by the explanation, and >thus knew that he did not need to correct >the explanation. Still no infraction has yet occurred. >After North made a cue-bid of 4C, the UI >suggested that 4S by South was more >attractive than the logical alternative of >4H, since North could interpret 4H as a >cue-bid and would probably go to 5S or 6S. Now South's selection of the 4S call is an infraction, violating Law 73C and Law 16. If (as David seems to imply) South chose the 4S call deliberately to minimise the misunderstanding which South illegally knew about, then South has also violated Law 72B2. >North discovered in the post-mortem that >his explanation did not match South's hand. >E-W were weak players and probably didn't >understand the fine points of UI. Is North >(or South) obligated to call the TD if there >could have been damage? The TD *must* be called after attention is drawn to an irregularity whether or not that irregularity could have caused damage. Law 9. Law 72B3 means that South need not call attention to an *inadvertant* irregularity. However, if South has *intentionally* violated Law 73C, then Law 72B3 does not apply - the mutually exclusive Law 72B2 is the relevant Law, and South is required to draw attention to their own deliberate irregularity. North cannot know by telepathy whether South's irregularity was inadvertant or intentional, so North initially is under no obligation to summon the TD. However, if South's tells North that the irregularity was deliberate, then North is also obliged to draw attention to the irregularity and summon the TD. Best wishes Richard From mfrench1@san.rr.com Tue Nov 19 06:23:31 2002 From: mfrench1@san.rr.com (Marvin L. French) Date: Mon, 18 Nov 2002 22:23:31 -0800 Subject: [blml] French Online Laws References: Message-ID: <000401c28f94$30b81f60$049a1e18@san.rr.com> From: "Laval Dubreuil" > > Do some of you know where I can fin a French online version > of Laws? I did have an hyperlink to "Oubaille de bridge" > but it no more works. > I thought I found a link to it at http://www.math.auc.dk/~nwp/bridge/laws/ where there are links to many versions of the Laws. However, the link to the French version says "This page cannot be found." So I tried "lois du bridge contrat" in a Google search, and that worked. Go to http://perso.guetali.fr/jbrethes/arbiiitre/cod_cha0.htm (there's an underscore after cod) Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California From mfrench1@san.rr.com Tue Nov 19 06:59:17 2002 From: mfrench1@san.rr.com (Marvin L. French) Date: Mon, 18 Nov 2002 22:59:17 -0800 Subject: [blml] Kaplan doctrine (WAS Declarer makes impossible contrac t by LOT) References: Message-ID: <004d01c28f99$35bad480$049a1e18@san.rr.com> From: "Jesper Dybdal" > Yes. And an assigned adjusted score is, by L12C2, something that you award "in place of a result actually obtained", with specific rules for the scores of the two sides. > Specifically, it says that "The scores awarded to the two sides need not balance and may be assigned either in matchpoints or by altering the total-point score prior to matchpointing". This seems to me to clearly imply that both sides are awarded such scores. It also says "the score is, for a non-offending side......, or, for an offending side...." The "or" tells me that the score need not be adjusted for both sides, which would call for an "and." instead of an "or." This is the "inclusive or," of course, not the "exclusive or." The ACBL AC held for years the opinion that a score adjustment had to be two-sided, so when they wanted a one-sided adjustment (as when the NOS did something egregious to annul redress) they instead just gave the OS a PP, the size of which was equivalent to what L12C2's effect would have been. That was weird, if only for the reason that a tainted score was left on the books for others to compare with. Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California From grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk Tue Nov 19 00:16:08 2002 From: grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk (grandeval) Date: Tue, 19 Nov 2002 00:16:08 -0000 Subject: [blml] Changed L16B in 2005 (was Herman's Ruling) References: <4A256C75.007BE20D.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> Message-ID: <001601c28f9c$97fcea40$886087d9@4nrw70j> Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Monday, November 18, 2002 10:49 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Changed L16B in 2005 (was Herman's Ruling) > > > Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > > >>But the general idea of split scores in such a > >>case, even if unlawful, suits me. > > Steve Willner continued: > > >Grattan: I think you have already "noted" the > >possibility of allowing _assigned_ adjusted > >scores in L16B, but if not, please consider it. > >Here's a good example case. > > One of Australia's CTDs has suggested a further > change to L16B3 - add these words to that clause: > > 3. Award an Adjusted Score or a Redeal > forthwith award an artificial adjusted score (in > a pairs event) or order a redeal (in a teams > event). > > Noted? > > Best wishes > > Richard > +=+ Yes I have noted this. All I can say at this time is that if the wind proves fair to make sail on new courses we have dreamed of, the thought will be flotsam in the wake of the boat. ~ G ~ +=+ From grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk Tue Nov 19 07:55:05 2002 From: grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk (grandeval) Date: Tue, 19 Nov 2002 07:55:05 -0000 Subject: [blml] Are you required to call attention to your side's UI? References: <4A256C76.00243EE1.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> Message-ID: <002c01c28fa1$132b32e0$886087d9@4nrw70j> Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Tuesday, November 19, 2002 6:52 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Are you required to call attention to your side's UI? > > > David Grabiner wrote: > > >There is normally no obligation to call > >attention to an infraction committed by > >your own side, unless some other law > >such as the obligation to correct MI > >requires it. > > Correct under the current Laws, as this > is specifically addressed by Law 72B3. > > But I hope that Law 72B3 is reversed in > the 2005 Laws. > +=+ Half the world would have us create less stringent conditions for the 'social' levels of bridge (are they not all social?) and half the world complains when we grant them the option not to draw attention to an irregularity, or means not to enforce a penalty. That the two halves make the whole is not necessarily so. And whose business is it if 'x' opts not to mention an infraction observed? ~ G ~ +=+ From hermandw@skynet.be Tue Nov 19 08:03:46 2002 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 19 Nov 2002 09:03:46 +0100 Subject: [blml] I don't teach bridge References: <4A256C76.000313C0.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> Message-ID: <3DD9F062.5040806@skynet.be> Hello Richard, richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: > > > I do not go so far as advocating that "General > Knowledge & Experience" be excised from the > Laws, merely that it be given an appropriately > narrow definition in the 2005 Laws. > > It could, perhaps, be defined by examples and > non-examples. For instance: > > Examples of General Knowledge & Experience > > 1. Agreeing to lead an ace against 7NT. > 2. Agreeing to eschew vulnerable sacrifices > against non-vulnerable games. > 3. Agreeing to preferentially bid to 3NT > instead of 5 of a minor at matchpoint pairs. > > Non-examples of General Knowledge & Experience > > 1. Agreeing to play weak jump shift responses > to opening bids of one of a suit. > 2. Agreeing to lead fourth best from length. > 3. Agreeing to signal Cooper Echoes. > Two comments. 1) Your list start with two extremes - will you be able to narrow it down to something useful without giving 157 examples? 2) Even among those extremes I can imagine there are situationw where you might be wrong. Just an example to illustrate: imagine a club where everyone plays fourth best, then NOT playing fourth best is certainly something like pre-alertable, and NOT pre-alerting is certainly equivalent to stating you play fourth best by "general knowledge". I know it's not a good example but I'm merely trying to show that whatever you try to put into or out of "general knowledge" will always see exceptions in particular locations. I don't even see that as a problem. > Best wishes > > Richard > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw@skynet.be Tue Nov 19 08:09:41 2002 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 19 Nov 2002 09:09:41 +0100 Subject: [blml] dWS for the beginner References: <4A256C76.00011EC6.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> Message-ID: <3DD9F1C5.6030200@skynet.be> Richard, don't try. richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: > > > Disagree. The relevant part of Law 75D2 states: > > [snip] > > >>may not correct the error before the final pass, nor may he >>indicate in any manner that a mistake has been made; >> > > [snip] > > Giving a correct explanation of partner's subsequent call does > not "correct" *the* error partner made in misexplaining your > earlier call. > not even "in any manner". and the operative word is not "correct" but "indicate". > And giving an explanation of partner's subsequent call, which > is inconsistent with partner's earlier explanation of your > different call, does *not* "indicate" that partner's earlier > explanation was a mistake. It points both ways, as it could > merely "indicate" to partner that *you* have made a subsequent > error in explaining a subsequent call. > Sorry, but you're clinging to straws here. Anything I do (coughing, acting surprised, slamming my next bid on the table) including explaining the next bid inconsistently with the previous one, may well be enough to help partner remember that there is a problem. That is "indicate" in my book. A player who explains the next bid and thus reveals the error has broken L75D2 in my book. I shall not hand him a PP for this, since he is faced with a dilemma, but I shall rule UI of the worst sort. > A sensible, non-dWS interpretation of the quoted two clauses > of Law 75D2 is that immediate and direct corrections or > indications of manner are not permitted, but subsequent > indirect inconsistencies are not only permitted but required > by Law 75A and Law 75C. > You are just trying to get out of the dilemma. Won't work. It's there. How we solve it is another matter but clever argueing will not make it suddenly dissapear. > Best wishes > > Richard > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From jean-pierre.rocafort@meteo.fr Tue Nov 19 08:21:51 2002 From: jean-pierre.rocafort@meteo.fr (jean-pierre.rocafort@meteo.fr) Date: Tue, 19 Nov 2002 09:21:51 +0100 Subject: [blml] =?iso-8859-1?Q?R=E9f=2E_=3A_[blml]_French_Online_Laws?= Message-ID: "Laval Dubreuil" Envoy=E9 par : blml-admin@rtflb.org 19/11/02 03:00 =20 Pour : "BLML" cc :=20 Objet : [blml] French Online Laws Hi all, Do some of you know where I can fin a French online version of Laws? I did have an hyperlink to "Oubaille de bridge" but it no more works. *** you may try this one: http://www.bretagnebridgecomite.com/reglemen.htm# jpr *** Thx Laval Du Breuil Quebec City =5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F= =5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F Jean-Pierre Rocafort METEO-FRANCE DSI/SC/D 42 Avenue Gaspard Coriolis 31057 Toulouse CEDEX Tph: 05 61 07 81 02 (33 5 61 07 81 02) Fax: 05 61 07 81 09 (33 5 61 07 81 09) e-mail: jean-pierre.rocafort@meteo.fr Serveur WWW METEO-FRANCE: http://www.meteo.fr =5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F= =5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F= =5F From twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Tue Nov 19 08:37:00 2002 From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Date: Tue, 19 Nov 2002 08:37 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [blml] Re: {BLML] Ringer Message-ID: In-Reply-To: Henk wrote: > On Mon, 18 Nov 2002, Nigel Guthrie wrote: > > > About three year's ago. Sven also asks what the > > EBU rules about entry and substitution were. I > > don't know except that a precondition of entry > > as a team-member was membership of the EBU. > > In that case, it is simple: the opponents had a (substitute) player on > the team that was not eligible. The result of the match is thus void, > and either the opponents lose by default or the match has to be > replayed. EBU TD or more members for the federation is irrelevant here. Be careful. Substitutes may not be subject to the same requirements as team members. There is also the matter of precedent. I am fairly sure the EBU has, in the past, accepted post match joining as confirming eligibility. I'm pretty sure I played on a Gold Cup team under similar circumstances while a non-member (admittedly there may be different requirements in that). Tim From kevperk@austin.rr.com Tue Nov 19 08:46:38 2002 From: kevperk@austin.rr.com (Kevin Perkins) Date: Tue, 19 Nov 2002 02:46:38 -0600 Subject: [blml] dWS for the beginner References: <4A256C76.00011EC6.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> <3DD9F1C5.6030200@skynet.be> Message-ID: <017401c28fa8$2d71b6e0$cab31942@austin.rr.com> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Herman De Wael" To: "blml" Sent: Tuesday, November 19, 2002 2:09 AM Subject: Re: [blml] dWS for the beginner > > Sorry, but you're clinging to straws here. > Anything I do (coughing, acting surprised, slamming my next bid on the > table) including explaining the next bid inconsistently with the > previous one, may well be enough to help partner remember that there > is a problem. That is "indicate" in my book. > A player who explains the next bid and thus reveals the error has > broken L75D2 in my book. I shall not hand him a PP for this, since he > is faced with a dilemma, but I shall rule UI of the worst sort. > What if the very call you plan to make, by being a nonsystemic call according to the convention partner erroneous believes you are in the midst of using, would wake partner up? Would that be breaking L75D2? Kevin Perkins From hermandw@skynet.be Tue Nov 19 09:00:08 2002 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 19 Nov 2002 10:00:08 +0100 Subject: [blml] dWS for the beginner References: <4A256C76.00011EC6.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> <3DD9F1C5.6030200@skynet.be> <017401c28fa8$2d71b6e0$cab31942@austin.rr.com> Message-ID: <3DD9FD98.7060108@skynet.be> Kevin Perkins wrote: > > What if the very call you plan to make, by being a nonsystemic call > according to the convention partner erroneous believes you are in the midst > of using, would wake partner up? Would that be breaking L75D2? > That would indeed be a problem. I would imagine it would be, but I cannot imagine issueing a PP for it. Of course if you deliberately choose a call that does not exist in partner's system, or a non-confusing one rather than one which would have a totally different meaning, that would be breaking L75D2 IMO (as well as being judged use of UI, I can imagine). Anyway, you can say, I have to bid something! > Kevin Perkins > > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From normanscorbie@hotmail.com Tue Nov 19 12:18:35 2002 From: normanscorbie@hotmail.com (Norman Scorbie) Date: Tue, 19 Nov 2002 12:18:35 +0000 Subject: Fw: [blml] Re: Ringer Message-ID: David Martin: >When exactly did this alleged tale of woe occur? I think it's a tale of alleged woe... _________________________________________________________________ Tired of spam? Get advanced junk mail protection with MSN 8. http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail From axman22@hotmail.com Tue Nov 19 12:42:14 2002 From: axman22@hotmail.com (axman22) Date: Tue, 19 Nov 2002 06:42:14 -0600 Subject: [blml] Are you required to call attention to your side's UI? References: <4A256C76.00243EE1.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> Message-ID: ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Sent: Tuesday, November 19, 2002 00:52 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Are you required to call attention to your side's UI? > > > David Grabiner wrote: > > >There is normally no obligation to call > >attention to an infraction committed by > >your own side, unless some other law > >such as the obligation to correct MI > >requires it. > > Correct under the current Laws, as this > is specifically addressed by Law 72B3. > > But I hope that Law 72B3 is reversed in > the 2005 Laws. > > >However, are you required to call > >attention to a UI situation if the > >opponents may be unaware of it (and you > >are sure that it is UI, not MI)? > > No, but.. > > >N S > >2NT 3C (Stayman) > >3D 3H! (see below) > >4C 4S > >P > > > >3H was alerted by North, and explained as > >Smolen, showing four hearts and at least > >five spades, and game forcing. This is > >the correct agreement, according to the > >N-S convention card and their system notes. > > No infraction has occurred so far. > > >However, South had gotten confused and held > >five hearts and four spades, with no > >interest in slam; he was reminded of the > >correct agreement by the explanation, and > >thus knew that he did not need to correct > >the explanation. > > Still no infraction has yet occurred. > > >After North made a cue-bid of 4C, the UI > >suggested that 4S by South was more > >attractive than the logical alternative of > >4H, since North could interpret 4H as a > >cue-bid and would probably go to 5S or 6S. > > Now South's selection of the 4S call is an > infraction, violating Law 73C and Law 16. > If (as David seems to imply) South chose > the 4S call deliberately to minimise the > misunderstanding which South illegally > knew about, then South has also violated > Law 72B2. > > >North discovered in the post-mortem that > >his explanation did not match South's hand. > >E-W were weak players and probably didn't > >understand the fine points of UI. Is North > >(or South) obligated to call the TD if there > >could have been damage? > > The TD *must* be called after attention is > drawn to an irregularity whether or not that > irregularity could have caused damage. Law 9. > > Law 72B3 means that South need not call attention > to an *inadvertant* irregularity. However, if > South has *intentionally* violated Law 73C, > then Law 72B3 does not apply - the mutually > exclusive Law 72B2 is the relevant Law, and > South is required to draw attention to their own > deliberate irregularity. ISTM that when an infraction was intentional it is a matter for the SO [via a conduct committee]. It is incongruous to command a player to admit the intentional nature. Certainly, if the player draws attention to it there should be a judgment to be made. What seems to matter is that someone point out their assessment to the SO so that the SO decides what investigation to undertake. regards roger pewick > North cannot know by telepathy whether South's > irregularity was inadvertant or intentional, so > North initially is under no obligation to > summon the TD. However, if South's tells North > that the irregularity was deliberate, then North > is also obliged to draw attention to the > irregularity and summon the TD. > > Best wishes > > Richard From agot@ulb.ac.be Tue Nov 19 13:14:59 2002 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Tue, 19 Nov 2002 14:14:59 +0100 Subject: [blml] Preferred Attitude In-Reply-To: <036f01c28f63$9af559a0$3e9868d5@default> References: <013b01c28f05$7bd8a800$3e9868d5@default> <5.1.0.14.0.20021118174048.029f8920@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20021119141031.01d2e630@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 00:35 19/11/2002 +0000, Nigel Guthrie wrote: >I believe that the EBU Orange Book still forbids >the mixing of even-odd signals with high-lo >signals when following suit. >Suppose that, when following suit, your signals are: >even = encourage >odd = discourage >Suppose that, when discarding, your signals are: >high = prefer higher ranking >low = prefer lower ranking >Sticking to the law, you show only attitude >when following suit; but you are aware that >you may want to show preference later. Thus you >tend to play low cards if you later may need to >discard a high card; and vice versa. Hence, >effectively, when following suit, as well as >showing attitude, you tend to show preference, >using the reverse of your discarding methods. >Rather that leave itself open to such sophistry, >IMO, the Law should allow any declared system of >signals, including encrypted signals. AG : the same is true of those who practise italian discarding : they will tend to preserve the card that will make an obvious signal in the direction they want (example : play the 5 from 654 if you expect to discard a card of this very suit). I suppose this is not a new idea ... How could you avoid players sending encrypted signals ? How can you disallow following suit in spades with a card that tells "I've got an even/odd number of black cards". Yet, is the club position is known, this has the same effect as an encrypted signal. Only, it is not. And it is the same if the diamond position is known : then your carding becomes an encrypted signal about hearts ! Best regards, Alain. From agot@ulb.ac.be Tue Nov 19 13:24:44 2002 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Tue, 19 Nov 2002 14:24:44 +0100 Subject: [blml] I don't teach bridge In-Reply-To: <4A256C76.000313C0.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20021119141718.01d18ec0@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 10:49 19/11/2002 +1000, richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: >Nigel Guthrie wrote: > > >I agree with Richard. It is sad that we must > >wait 3-4 years before they can excise the > >pernicious "General Knowledge & Experience" > >from the Law-book. Did such a thing once exist? > >Now, if its vestiges exist, it varies from place > >to place and age to age. > >Many players need no justification from the law > >book to rationalise the concealment of their > >agreements. > >I do not go so far as advocating that "General >Knowledge & Experience" be excised from the >Laws, merely that it be given an appropriately >narrow definition in the 2005 Laws. > >It could, perhaps, be defined by examples and >non-examples. For instance: > >Examples of General Knowledge & Experience > >1. Agreeing to lead an ace against 7NT. >2. Agreeing to eschew vulnerable sacrifices > against non-vulnerable games. >3. Agreeing to preferentially bid to 3NT > instead of 5 of a minor at matchpoint pairs. > >Non-examples of General Knowledge & Experience > >1. Agreeing to play weak jump shift responses > to opening bids of one of a suit. >2. Agreeing to lead fourth best from length. >3. Agreeing to signal Cooper Echoes. > AG : this would surely make things better. However, this is a list of _easy_ cases ; problems naturally arise in borderline cases ; agreements that aren't obvious (as are 1st series), but that can hardly be replaced by something else (as can the 2nd series). An example is the P/C principle facing a 2-way bid when there is no intermediate bid. After (1S) 2S [H/m], you might play either 3C P/C or 2NT asking or both, but after (1C) 2C [S/R], it is only pure bridge logic that 2D is P/C. I would still consider it alertable, but I expect divergent opinions. Another example, which IMHO is on the other side of the line : when dummy ruffs, count signals are no more used. (remark that some will not change their carding, just in case they want to indicate a possible overruff ; however, it is general logic to change it). Best regards, Alain. From agot@ulb.ac.be Tue Nov 19 13:31:32 2002 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Tue, 19 Nov 2002 14:31:32 +0100 Subject: [blml] Are you required to call attention to your side's UI? In-Reply-To: <002c01c28fa1$132b32e0$886087d9@4nrw70j> References: <4A256C76.00243EE1.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20021119142848.01d2b800@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 07:55 19/11/2002 +0000, grandeval wrote: >+=+ Half the world would have us create >less stringent conditions for the 'social' >levels of bridge (are they not all social?) >and half the world complains when we >grant them the option not to draw attention >to an irregularity, or means not to enforce >a penalty. That the two halves make the >whole is not necessarily so. AG : you know that a good compromise has been reached when both sides are equally unsatisfied. Perhaps TFL aren't a bad comromise after all ? (however, I will still militate in favor of fewer subtle distinctions, fewer special cases and less sophisticated redaction) > And whose business is it if 'x' opts not >to mention an infraction observed? > ~ G ~ +=+ > > >_______________________________________________ >blml mailing list >blml@rtflb.org >http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From agot@ulb.ac.be Tue Nov 19 13:39:38 2002 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Tue, 19 Nov 2002 14:39:38 +0100 Subject: [blml] dWS for the beginner In-Reply-To: <3DD9FD98.7060108@skynet.be> References: <4A256C76.00011EC6.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> <3DD9F1C5.6030200@skynet.be> <017401c28fa8$2d71b6e0$cab31942@austin.rr.com> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20021119143735.01d2dde0@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 10:00 19/11/2002 +0100, Herman De Wael wrote: >Kevin Perkins wrote: > >>What if the very call you plan to make, by being a nonsystemic call >>according to the convention partner erroneous believes you are in the midst >>of using, would wake partner up? Would that be breaking L75D2? > > >That would indeed be a problem. >I would imagine it would be, but I cannot imagine issueing a PP for it. >Of course if you deliberately choose a call that does not exist in >partner's system, or a non-confusing one rather than one which would have >a totally different meaning, that would be breaking L75D2 IMO (as well as >being judged use of UI, I can imagine). AG : in _that_ case, I would choose UI rather than MI. If the ensuing bid is (i) normal [as opposed to deliberately chosen] and (ii) so strange that it will surely awaken partner, then the UI will cease _ipso facto_ to be U. From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Tue Nov 19 14:07:32 2002 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Tue, 19 Nov 2002 14:07:32 -0000 Subject: [blml] Proprieties Message-ID: <004b01c28fd5$2b3fc240$859c68d5@default> One of Ely Culbertson's three selling points for Bridge is that it is a game for Ladies and Gentlemen. At the time, many of us snobs found this attractive. Hence I think that TFLB should not concern itself *directly* with cheaters. Of course TFLB is right to legislate against *behaviour* that would be suspicious in a non -gentleman (: to deter such riff-raff from ever trying it on :) However, TFLB should not legislate *directly* about subjective assessments e.g. motives and skill-levels. Even among gentlemen there may be the occasional psychopath who prevaricates about motive to save face; so such laws are unenforceable, in practice. Also, every bridge-player I have ever met recognises that his skills are well inside the top 5% world-wide (: only an impudent and insolent TD would dare to suggest otherwise to us :) The place for advice about "unenforceable laws" and behaviour that is "beyond the pale" is in the "Proprieties." Obviously the proprieties cannot have the full force of law. The proprieties should be a crib for would-be ladies and gentlemen to brush up on "good manners". The organisation that should deal with blatant cheating or with failures in courtesy or consideration of others -- is the club or the competition promoter -- by admonition, fine (money not match points), suspension, black-balling, prosecution, duel, summary execution, or whatever. From Laval_Dubreuil@uqss.uquebec.ca Tue Nov 19 14:23:37 2002 From: Laval_Dubreuil@uqss.uquebec.ca (Laval Dubreuil) Date: Tue, 19 Nov 2002 09:23:37 -0500 Subject: [blml] =?iso-8859-1?Q?RE:_=5Bblml=5D_R=E9f._:_=5Bblml=5D_French_Online_Laws?= In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Hi all, Do some of you know where I can fin a French online version of Laws? I did have an hyperlink to "Oubaille de bridge" but it no more works. Laval Du Breuil _________________________________________________________ Thx all. I finally found the new address of this WEB. http://perso.guetali.fr/jbrethes/arbiiitre/som_code.htm From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Tue Nov 19 15:54:33 2002 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Tue, 19 Nov 2002 10:54:33 -0500 Subject: [blml] I don't teach bridge In-Reply-To: <000d01c28ed7$434feee0$ae42e150@endicott> Message-ID: On 11/18/02, Grattan Endicott wrote: >+=+ I use 'special' as defined in the WBF Code of Practice - > not "normal and general". What is 'common' is not > general. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ What *is* "general", then? From guthrie@ntlworld.com Tue Nov 19 16:07:35 2002 From: guthrie@ntlworld.com (Guthrie) Date: Tue, 19 Nov 2002 16:07:35 -0000 Subject: [blml] Re: questions about future calls References: <200210312042.PAA13261@gcpdb.ccrs.emr.ca> <00a501c28121$f3009240$bb9b23d9@pbncomputer> Message-ID: <00b201c28fe5$dc653c20$859c68d5@default> [David Burn] West North East South Cohen Berkowitz 1NT Pass 2NT Pass 3C Pass 3D Pass Pass Dble Rdble 3H* Dble All pass *Cohen could not pass for penalty, because Berkowitz would systemically be obliged to remove. I suppose that strictly speaking, Cohen should have alerted Berkowitz's double and said: "That is for takeout; obviously I can pass for penalty if you pass, but if you redouble, I cannot pass to show willingness to defend." [Nigel Guthrie] I accidentally clicked on this old email. It intrigued me because of my recently acquired knowledge of what law-makers intended. Please assume (for the sake of argument) that... (a) There is no screen. (b) Cohen's action is independent of whether his RHO's redouble is "SOS" or "Business" [to avoid "chicken & egg" considerations] Some issues still puzzle me... [1] Is it legal for an opponent to ask a question about this? [presumably NO because law 20F does not explicitly and positively permit it] [2] Is it legal to inform opponents about the meaning of future bids under ACBL jurisdiction? [i.e. Could Berkowitz have said anything even had he wanted to] [3] Is it legal to answer with such information anywhere in the world? [It is illegal in Australia according to Richard's web-site. I don't know in England] [4] If the law prevents opponents from learning about this suicidal convention - even when positively ethical opponents are keen to tell them - how can they take advantage of it? [5] Finally, does the presence of a screen change the law [is there a * WBF screens law-book *]? From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Tue Nov 19 17:31:19 2002 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Tue, 19 Nov 2002 17:31:19 -0000 Subject: [blml] Re: questions about future calls References: <200210312042.PAA13261@gcpdb.ccrs.emr.ca> <00a501c28121$f3009240$bb9b23d9@pbncomputer> <00b201c28fe5$dc653c20$859c68d5@default> Message-ID: <00d101c28ff1$ae79bfa0$859c68d5@default> [David Burn] West North East South Cohen Berkowitz 1NT Pass 2NT Pass 3C Pass 3D Pass Pass Dble Rdble 3H* Dble All pass *Cohen could not pass for penalty, because Berkowitz would systemically be obliged to remove. I suppose that strictly speaking, Cohen should have alerted Berkowitz's double and said: "That is for takeout; obviously I can pass for penalty if you pass, but if you redouble, I cannot pass to show willingness to defend." [Nigel Guthrie] Please assume (for the sake of argument) that... (a) There is no screen. (b) Cohen's action is independent of whether his RHO's redouble is "SOS" or "Business" [to avoid "chicken & egg" considerations] Some issues still puzzle me... [1] Is it legal for an opponent to ask a question about this? [presumably NO because law 20F does not explicitly and positively permit it] [2] Is it legal to inform opponents about the meaning of future bids under ACBL jurisdiction? [i.e. Could Berkowitz have said anything even had he wanted to] [3] Is it legal to answer a general query with such information anywhere in the world? [It is illegal in Australia according to Richard's web-site. I don't know in England] [4] If the law prevents opponents from learning about this suicidal convention - even when you are positively ethical and keen to tell them - how can they take advantage of it? [5] Finally, does the presence of a screen change the law [is there a * WBF screens law-book *]? From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Tue Nov 19 17:43:25 2002 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Tue, 19 Nov 2002 17:43:25 -0000 Subject: [blml] Law Criteria Message-ID: <00dc01c28ff3$33919900$859c68d5@default> [Nigel Guthrie snipped from Friendly opponents...] [1] It is hard enough to state simple laws well. [Richard Hills] Agreed, if what you meant was "it is hard to write laws simply and clearly". [Nigel2] No I meant that it is difficult to correctly frame even the most basic and simple laws. [Nigel] [2] It is ridiculous to expect ultra-complex laws to be correct [Richard] Agreed; when making choices when designing a legal framework, consistent laws should be preferred to idiosyncratic laws. [Nigel2] IMO, six C-riteria for framing law rank in the following order [1] C-onformity to reality. A rare bonus is when a law bears some relationship to the real world and does not require a telepathic Solomon to enforce it. [2] C-onsistency i.e. no contradiction or paradox (like all those that David Burn and Herman find delight in) [3] C-orrectness i.e. what the law mandates unambiguously reflects the law-makers intention. c.f. law 75D2 [4] C-ompleteness i.e. no major lacunae e.g. I don't like laws that leave critical areas to the whims of local jurisdiction e.g. unless your local jurisdiction explicitly permits it, TFLB forbids you to look at opponent's CC before you start to bid your first hand because "if its not permitted it's forbidden" an bodged attempt to remedy other gaps. [Also see Richard's thread on "Leopards"] [5] C-larity. The wider the audience of affected people who can understand the law, the better. e.g. short sentences, simple constructs, simple consistent vocabulary. A glossary if words like "Rational" that have been assigned new meanings. [6] C-onciseness. The shorter the law-book the more likely people are to finish reading it. e.g. for a game, the fewer and shorter the laws, the better. [Nigel] > and unenforceable* laws to be > much use to anybody. [Richard] Unenforced or partially enforced laws should be repealed to avoid anomalies. A case in point is Law 25B. Most players are unaware of their rights under Law 25B, therefore do not enforce their Law 25B rights. This gives an unfair advantage to the grognard minority who have studied the Laws, and do enforce their Law 25B rights. [Nigel] [3] The future of the game is at risk# if we wait years until revisions that correct blatant anomalies. * Unenforceable "laws" do have a place in the "proprieties" provided they revert to their informal advisory rather than legal status. # IMO the current state of the laws deter more would be bridge-players than unfriendly clubs or strange systems. [Richard] Disagree. 99% of players are happy to have friendly opponents and pleasant TDs. 99% of players ignore the Laws' technicalities. [Nigel] I did overstate my case; but the laws have knock on effects in both the other areas e.g... (1) Beginners sometimes think that to call a TD is an unfriendly action, especially when TDs do not appear to understand the law or to apply it consistently. (2) Grotesque alerting laws effectively require you to learn a new radically different complex and artificial bridge system, for each new jurisdiction in which you play. (: A bit tough if you are having difficulty remembering the requirements for an opening bid in your own simple natural system :). From fsb@ip-worldcom.ch Tue Nov 19 17:48:02 2002 From: fsb@ip-worldcom.ch (Yvan Calame) Date: Tue, 19 Nov 2002 18:48:02 +0100 Subject: [blml] =?iso-8859-1?Q?Re:_[blml]_RE:_[blml]_R=E9f._:_[blml]_French_?= Online Laws In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <3.0.6.32.20021119184802.00e57e20@ip-worldcom.ch> At 09:23 19/11/2002 -0500, Laval wrote: > > >Hi all, > >Do some of you know where I can fin a French online version >of Laws? I did have an hyperlink to "Oubaille de bridge" >but it no more works. "Ouaibe du Bridge" http://perso.guetali.fr/jbrethes/arbiiitre/index.html Yvan From nardulloennio@tiscali.it Tue Nov 19 18:13:12 2002 From: nardulloennio@tiscali.it (ENNIO NARDULLO) Date: Tue, 19 Nov 2002 19:13:12 +0100 Subject: [blml] I: Message-ID: -----Messaggio originale----- Da: ENNIO NARDULLO [mailto:nardulloennio@tiscali.it] Inviato: marted=EC 19 novembre 2002 18.45 A: Majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au Oggetto: unsubscribe bridge-laws From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Tue Nov 19 18:22:37 2002 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Tue, 19 Nov 2002 18:22:37 -0000 Subject: [blml] Law Criteria References: <00dc01c28ff3$33919900$859c68d5@default> Message-ID: <011201c28ff8$da666440$859c68d5@default> Another c-riterion... [7] C-lassification. The construction of TFLB should be indexed, hierarchical, and logical (to make it easy for you to find what you want); Related components should be cross-referenced and kept close together (to make sure you have got everything relevant); and a little redundancy may even be permitted for facts relevant to laws that are frequently invoked (to save time in common situations). TFLB seems OK in this respect. From john@asimere.com Tue Nov 19 19:34:13 2002 From: john@asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Tue, 19 Nov 2002 19:34:13 +0000 Subject: [blml] Re: {BLML] Ringer In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: In article , Tim West-meads writes >In-Reply-To: >Henk wrote: > >> On Mon, 18 Nov 2002, Nigel Guthrie wrote: >> >> > About three year's ago. Sven also asks what the >> > EBU rules about entry and substitution were. I >> > don't know except that a precondition of entry >> > as a team-member was membership of the EBU. >> >> In that case, it is simple: the opponents had a (substitute) player on >> the team that was not eligible. The result of the match is thus void, >> and either the opponents lose by default or the match has to be >> replayed. EBU TD or more members for the federation is irrelevant here. > >Be careful. Substitutes may not be subject to the same requirements as >team members. There is also the matter of precedent. I am fairly sure >the EBU has, in the past, accepted post match joining as confirming >eligibility. that certainly has happened a number of times to my knowledge. > I'm pretty sure I played on a Gold Cup team under similar >circumstances while a non-member (admittedly there may be different >requirements in that). > that's BBL, and is a different SO. >Tim > > > >_______________________________________________ >blml mailing list >blml@rtflb.org >http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > -- John (MadDog) Probst| . ! -^- |icq 10810798 451 Mile End Road | /|__. \:/ |OKb ChienFou London E3 4PA | / @ __) -|- |john@asimere.com +44-(0)20 8983 5818 | /\ --^ | |www.asimere.com/~john From john@asimere.com Tue Nov 19 19:37:11 2002 From: john@asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Tue, 19 Nov 2002 19:37:11 +0000 Subject: [blml] Law Criteria In-Reply-To: <011201c28ff8$da666440$859c68d5@default> References: <00dc01c28ff3$33919900$859c68d5@default> <011201c28ff8$da666440$859c68d5@default> Message-ID: In article <011201c28ff8$da666440$859c68d5@default>, Nigel Guthrie writes >Another c-riterion... >[7] C-lassification. The construction of TFLB > should be indexed, hierarchical, and logical > (to make it easy for you to find what you want); > Related components should be cross-referenced > and kept close together (to make sure you have > got everything relevant); and a little > redundancy may even be permitted for > facts relevant to laws that are frequently > invoked (to save time in common situations). > TFLB seems OK in this respect. > It takes years to learn new law numbers. Leave the order and numbering pretty much alone IMO. cheers john > >_______________________________________________ >blml mailing list >blml@rtflb.org >http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > -- John (MadDog) Probst| . ! -^- |icq 10810798 451 Mile End Road | /|__. \:/ |OKb ChienFou London E3 4PA | / @ __) -|- |john@asimere.com +44-(0)20 8983 5818 | /\ --^ | |www.asimere.com/~john From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Tue Nov 19 22:39:48 2002 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 20 Nov 2002 08:39:48 +1000 Subject: [blml] Are you required to call attention to your side's UI? Message-ID: <4A256C76.007B0057.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> >>But I hope that Law 72B3 is reversed in >>the 2005 Laws. >+=+ Half the world would have us create >less stringent conditions for the 'social' >levels of bridge (are they not all social?) >and half the world complains when we >grant them the option not to draw attention >to an irregularity, or means not to enforce >a penalty. That the two halves make the >whole is not necessarily so. > And whose business is it if 'x' opts not >to mention an infraction observed? > ~ G ~ +=+ In my experience as a sometime Director of social walk-ins, it is precisely the social players who do *not* exercise their current Law 72B3 rights. Social players have the habit of blurting out, "Oh my god, I've revoked!" In my experience, the users of Law 72B3 are disproportionately expert players (including, to my shame, myself). Best wishes Richard From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Tue Nov 19 22:59:27 2002 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 20 Nov 2002 08:59:27 +1000 Subject: [blml] I don't teach bridge Message-ID: <4A256C76.007CCEE1.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> Herman De Wael wrote: [snip] >>Just an example to illustrate: imagine a club >>where everyone plays fourth best, then NOT >>playing fourth best is certainly something like >>pre-alertable, and NOT pre-alerting is certainly >>equivalent to stating you play fourth best by >>"general knowledge". [snip] Disagree with Herman's premise. The Chapter 1 definition of Alert is: >A notification, whose form may be specified by a >sponsoring organisation, to the effect that >opponents may be in need of an explanation. Because SO's specify the form of Alerts, there is not necessarily any one-to-one correspondence between "general knowledge" and a non-Alert. For example, some years ago the ACBL did *not* require non-fourth best leads to be pre-alerted; the ACBL merely required special notification on the system card. Best wishes Richard From cyaxares@lineone.net Tue Nov 19 22:08:32 2002 From: cyaxares@lineone.net (Grattan Endicott) Date: Tue, 19 Nov 2002 22:08:32 -0000 Subject: [blml] I don't teach bridge References: Message-ID: <004201c29019$0fb30d90$d032e150@endicott> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws" Sent: Tuesday, November 19, 2002 3:54 PM Subject: Re: [blml] I don't teach bridge > On 11/18/02, Grattan Endicott wrote: > > >+=+ I use 'special' as defined in the WBF Code of Practice - > > not "normal and general". What is 'common' is not > > general. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > What *is* "general", then? > +=+ 'general' = "including, involving or affecting all or nearly all the parts of a (specified or implied) whole, as a territory, community, organization, etc. " "completely or nearly universal" "belonging or pertaining in common to all" As to partnership understandings, those which are elementary and shared by all players. A call with a meaning that is variable amongst different partnerships, for which each partnership may elect its own chosen usage, is the subject of a special understanding in each partnership. +=+ From grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk Tue Nov 19 22:38:44 2002 From: grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk (grandeval) Date: Tue, 19 Nov 2002 22:38:44 -0000 Subject: [blml] Law Criteria References: <00dc01c28ff3$33919900$859c68d5@default> <011201c28ff8$da666440$859c68d5@default> Message-ID: <011a01c2901f$076460c0$3ff7193e@4nrw70j> Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Tuesday, November 19, 2002 7:37 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Law Criteria > > > It takes years to learn new law numbers. > > +=+ Please amplify. Is this statement based upon actual experience [ ], upon an assessment of the mental agility of Tournament Directors generally [ ], or upon critical self-appraisal [ ]? To avoid unsustainable effort please mark x in the appropriate box. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Wed Nov 20 00:19:08 2002 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 20 Nov 2002 10:19:08 +1000 Subject: [blml] Law Criteria Message-ID: <4A256C77.00004296.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> John (MadDog) Probst complained: >>It takes years to learn new law numbers. Grattan Endicott enquired: >+=+ Please amplify. Is this statement based upon actual >experience [ ], upon an assessment of the mental agility >of Tournament Directors generally [ ], or upon critical >self-appraisal [ ]? > To avoid unsustainable effort please mark x in the >appropriate box. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ Further amplification, please evaluate this statement: "I would be delighted if the Laws numbers changed, if that resulted in the Laws being more logically arranged and therefore easier to use." [ ] Yes, what a great idea. [ ] No, it is better for the majority of TDs to suffer rummaging for hard-to-find Laws, than for a minority of TDs to be forced to re-memorise Laws numbers. Best wishes Richard From blml@dybdal.dk Wed Nov 20 00:07:32 2002 From: blml@dybdal.dk (Jesper Dybdal) Date: Wed, 20 Nov 2002 01:07:32 +0100 Subject: [blml] Kaplan doctrine (WAS Declarer makes impossible contrac t by LOT) In-Reply-To: <004d01c28f99$35bad480$049a1e18@san.rr.com> References: <004d01c28f99$35bad480$049a1e18@san.rr.com> Message-ID: On Mon, 18 Nov 2002 22:59:17 -0800, "Marvin L. French" wrote: >From: "Jesper Dybdal" > >> Yes. And an assigned adjusted score is, by L12C2, something that >you award "in place of a result actually obtained", with specific >rules for the scores of the two sides. > >> Specifically, it says that "The scores awarded to the two sides >need not balance and may be assigned either in matchpoints or by >altering the total-point score prior to matchpointing". This >seems to me to clearly imply that both sides are awarded such >scores. > >It also says "the score is, for a non-offending side......, or, for an >offending side...." > >The "or" tells me that the score need not be adjusted for both sides, = which >would call for an "and." instead of an "or." The two sides need not be a non-offending and an offending side. I am sure that your English is better than mine, but it does seem to me that the reason for the "or" probably is that there are sometimes two offending sides or two non-offending sides. The later sentence about "The scores awarded to the two sides", quoted in full above, seems to me to support this view. >The ACBL AC held for years the opinion that a score adjustment had to be >two-sided, so when they wanted a one-sided adjustment (as when the NOS = did >something egregious to annul redress) they instead just gave the OS a = PP, the >size of which was equivalent to what L12C2's effect would have been. = That was >weird, if only for the reason that a tainted score was left on the books= for >others to compare with. IMO PP's designed to work as or to cancel adjustments should not be used; they make the concepts unclear and difficult to understand. I would prefer an honest adjustment, or lack of adjustment, of debatable legality to such a PP, if that is what is really wanted - and the player should be told that it is of debatable legality and may be appealed. --=20 Jesper Dybdal, Denmark. http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Wed Nov 20 01:26:07 2002 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 20 Nov 2002 11:26:07 +1000 Subject: [blml] Redoubles Message-ID: <4A256C77.00066449.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> Previously the thread "questions about future calls". David Burn wrote: >>West North East South >>Cohen Berkowitz >> 1NT Pass 2NT >>Pass 3C Pass 3D >>Pass Pass Dble Rdble >>3H* Dble All pass >> >>*Cohen could not pass for penalty, because >>Berkowitz would systemically be obliged to >>remove. >> >>I suppose that strictly speaking, Cohen >>should have alerted Berkowitz's double and >>said: "That is for takeout; obviously I can >>pass for penalty if you pass, but if you >>redouble, I cannot pass to show willingness >>to defend." Nigel Guthrie enquired: >Please assume (for the sake of argument) that... >(a) There is no screen. >(b) Cohen's action is independent of whether > his RHO's redouble is "SOS" or "Business" > [to avoid "chicken & egg" considerations] >Some issues still puzzle me... >[1] Is it legal for an opponent to ask a > question about this? [presumably NO because > law 20F does not explicitly and positively > permit it] >[2] Is it legal to inform opponents about the > meaning of future bids under ACBL jurisdiction? > [i.e. Could Berkowitz have said anything even > had he wanted to] It is legal to ask about the meaning of Berkowitz's double; the explanation should include all positive and negative inferences about the double. Whether the fact that the double cannot be passed for penalties after an intervening redouble is such an inference is moot - a strict interpretation of the David Burn school banning future hypothetical questions implies that future hypothetical answers are not required either. >[3] Is it legal to answer a general query with > such information anywhere in the world? > [It is illegal in Australia according to > Richard's web-site. I don't know in England] >[4] If the law prevents opponents from learning > about this suicidal convention - even when > you are positively ethical and keen to tell > them - how can they take advantage of it? An interesting echo of this debacle occurred 30-odd years ago in an international match involving the famous Australian pair of Tim Seres and Dick Cummings. Oppo Seres Oppo Cummings 1H Double Redouble Pass(1) Pass Pass (1) Not alerted; penalty pass The opponents claimed damage from the non-alert. They argued that it was "general knowledge" that Cummings' pass would normally show balanced weakness, and so invite the takeout doubler to bid their best suit. Seres and Cummings won the appeal, on the basis that Cummings' pass was not conventional given that it showed a desire to play in the last bid suit. Best wishes Richard From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Wed Nov 20 00:33:21 2002 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Wed, 20 Nov 2002 00:33:21 -0000 Subject: [blml] Ringer References: Message-ID: <013601c2902c$7751b740$859c68d5@default> [David Martin] When exactly did this alleged tale of woe occur? [Norman Scorbie] I think it's a tale of alleged woe... [Nigel Guthrie] The EBU agreed the salient facts c. Dec 1999... [1] The competition is open to EBU members only. [2] The substitute in this match was a foreign international [I have been told his name: not a member of the EBU, not an English International and definitely not Tony Priday] If there is any other consideration, my friend and I am unaware of it. Nevertheless, the EBU ruled against her. From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Wed Nov 20 02:22:16 2002 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 20 Nov 2002 12:22:16 +1000 Subject: [blml] Kaplan doctrine (WAS Declarer makes impossible contrac t by LOT) Message-ID: <4A256C77.000B885F.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> Marv construed Law 12C2: [snip] >>It also says "the score is, for a non-offending >>side......, or, for an offending side...." >> >>The "or" tells me that the score need not be >>adjusted for both sides, which would call for an >>"and." instead of an "or." Jesper replied: >The two sides need not be a non-offending and an >offending side. > >I am sure that your English is better than mine, >but it does seem to me that the reason for the "or" >probably is that there are sometimes two offending >sides or two non-offending sides. The later >sentence about "The scores awarded to the two >sides", quoted in full above, seems to me to >support this view. [snip] I agree with Jesper's contextual interpretation of the word "or". Perhaps the 2005 Law 12C2 could be more pointed by expanding "or" to "or alternatively". Or alternatively, the 2005 Laws could be written in plain English. Best wishes Richard From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Wed Nov 20 03:51:13 2002 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 20 Nov 2002 13:51:13 +1000 Subject: [blml] Proprieties Message-ID: <4A256C77.0013ACBE.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> Nigel Guthrie wrote: >One of Ely Culbertson's three selling points >for Bridge is that it is a game for Ladies and >Gentlemen. At the time, many of us snobs found >this attractive. Hence I think that TFLB should >not concern itself *directly* with cheaters. Disagree. Bridge administrators have tried sweeping cheating accusations under the rug in the past. This policy failed because they could not find a big enough rug. >Of course TFLB is right to legislate against >*behaviour* that would be suspicious in a non >-gentleman (: to deter such riff-raff from >ever trying it on :) >However, TFLB should not legislate *directly* >about subjective assessments e.g. motives and >skill-levels. Yes and no. Merely because particular assessments are fuzzily subjective does not necessarily mean that a TD cannot make a Law 85A determination of fact using the tool of the balance of probabilities. However, including the phrase "could have known" in a particular Law makes that Law easier to apply than if that same Law had instead included the word "deliberately" or "inadvertent". >Even among gentlemen there may be the >occasional psychopath who prevaricates about >motive to save face; so such laws are >unenforceable, in practice. Disagree. Denethor said: >>Vanity. For a little space you may triumph on >>the field, for a day. But against the Power >>that now arises there is no victory. Against the Power of the local Laws and Ethics Committee a psychopath cannot ultimately triumph. >Also, every bridge-player I have ever met >recognises that his skills are well inside the >top 5% world-wide (: only an impudent and >insolent TD would dare to suggest otherwise >to us :) Disagree. Many TDs gain practice in evaluation of skills when their SO requires them to seed events. >The place for advice about "unenforceable laws" >and behaviour that is "beyond the pale" is in >the "Proprieties." Obviously the proprieties >cannot have the full force of law. The >proprieties should be a crib for would-be >ladies and gentlemen to brush up on "good >manners". Disagree. The Proprieties used to be supra-Lawful unenforcable advice for the reasons you stated. However, the WBF LC made a deliberate decision to make the Proprieties part of the enforcable Laws because of the unintended consequence of them being mere advice. The unintended consequence was that Duplicate Bridge had ceased to be a game for Ladies and Gentleman - precisely because the TD was legally powerless to apply negative reinforcement to unladylike and ungentlemanly behaviour. >The organisation that should deal with blatant >cheating or with failures in courtesy or >consideration of others -- is the club or the >competition promoter -- by admonition, fine >(money not match points), suspension, black- >balling, prosecution, duel, summary execution, >or whatever. Partially disagree. I oppose arbitrary punishment which does not fit the crime. I therefore support Law 73B2 actually mentioning the appropriate penalty for its violation: >>>A guilty partnership risks expulsion. In my opinion, other Laws could profitably mention benchmark penalties for their violation. A TD could point to the benchmark when assessing a PP, reducing the chance of infractors feeling victimised (or, indeed, actually being victimised by a disciplinarian TD). Best wishes Richard From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Wed Nov 20 04:49:55 2002 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 20 Nov 2002 14:49:55 +1000 Subject: [blml] Moulin Rouge Message-ID: <4A256C77.00190D0F.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> Nigel Guthrie wrote: >TD rulings often come as a shock to me. Anyway, I >don't know enough local law to guess the attitude >of the EBU. So I speak for myself. >To escape my indictment as a "red-psyche fielder" >your action has to pass these criteria: >(1) The auction indicates that someone is at it > or has flipped his wig. >(2) The logic of the auction makes partner the > likely suspect by a considerable margin. >(3) (Ideally) partner has no history of frequent > psyches in like contexts. >I feel that, here, the first two criteria are met. >Especially, as I judge pass to me the main LA. >Hence I would exonerate your partner from fielding >a red psyche. One final question. To avert a red-psyche fielding ruling, must the fielding call be *a* logical alternative, or *the only* logical alternative? Best wishes Richard From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Wed Nov 20 05:35:43 2002 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 20 Nov 2002 15:35:43 +1000 Subject: [blml] dWS for the beginner Message-ID: <4A256C77.001D3E20.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> I wrote: [snip] >>And giving an explanation of partner's subsequent call, which >>is inconsistent with partner's earlier explanation of your >>different call, does *not* "indicate" that partner's earlier >>explanation was a mistake. It points both ways, as it could >>merely "indicate" to partner that *you* have made a subsequent >>error in explaining a subsequent call. Herman De Wael replied: >Sorry, but you're clinging to straws here. >Anything I do (coughing, acting surprised, slamming my next >bid on the table) including explaining the next bid >inconsistently with the previous one, may well be enough to >help partner remember that there is a problem. Correct. >That is "indicate" in my book. > >A player who explains the next bid and thus reveals the error >has broken L75D2 in my book. Disagree. >I shall not hand him a PP for this, Agree. >since he is faced with a dilemma, but I shall rule UI of the >worst sort. [snip] I, too, would rule UI of the worst sort. I would stand shoulder to shoulder with Herman in ruling that a misexplaining player is not permitted to "wake up" after hearing a subsequent correct explanation by partner. But I would be basing my ruling on L73C and L16, not on L75D2. As a practical matter, Herman and I would give identical rulings at the table when the partner of a misexplainer gives a subsequent correct explanation. Our only difference is theoretical; whether or not providing UI with a correct explanation is legal or illegal. But since Herman is not PPing a correct explanation, correct explainers survive the De Wael School unscathed. Of course, in the alternate situation where a player is a dedicated follower of the De Wael School, and deliberately gives an incorrect explanation to avoid UI, my ruling would differ from Herman's ruling in both theory and practice. Best wishes Richard From mfrench1@san.rr.com Wed Nov 20 04:57:59 2002 From: mfrench1@san.rr.com (Marvin L. French) Date: Tue, 19 Nov 2002 20:57:59 -0800 Subject: [blml] Kaplan doctrine (WAS Declarer makes impossible contrac t by LOT) References: <004d01c28f99$35bad480$049a1e18@san.rr.com> Message-ID: <000101c2905b$05801920$049a1e18@san.rr.com> From: "Jesper Dybdal" > Marvin L. French" wrote: >From: "Jesper Dybdal" > >> Yes. And an assigned adjusted score is, by L12C2, something that >you award "in place of a result actually obtained", with specific >rules for the scores of the two sides. > >> Specifically, it says that "The scores awarded to the two sides >need not balance and may be assigned either in matchpoints or by >altering the total-point score prior to matchpointing". This >seems to me to clearly imply that both sides are awarded such >scores. > >It also says "the score is, for a non-offending side......, or, for an >offending side...." > >The "or" tells me that the score need not be adjusted for both sides, which >would call for an "and." instead of an "or." The two sides need not be a non-offending and an offending side. I am sure that your English is better than mine, but it does seem to me that the reason for the "or" probably is that there are sometimes two offending sides or two non-offending sides. The later sentence about "The scores awarded to the two sides", quoted in full above, seems to me to support this view. (my quote marks aren't working right now) MLF: You could be right. I was not aware that there could be two NOSs or two OSs for L12C2 to deal with. Do you have an example? Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California From mfrench1@san.rr.com Wed Nov 20 00:59:37 2002 From: mfrench1@san.rr.com (Marvin L. French) Date: Tue, 19 Nov 2002 16:59:37 -0800 Subject: [blml] Proprieties References: <004b01c28fd5$2b3fc240$859c68d5@default> Message-ID: <000001c2905b$0556e640$049a1e18@san.rr.com> From: "Nigel Guthrie" > However, TFLB should not legislate *directly* > about subjective assessments e.g. motives and > skill-levels. I second that motion! Subjective assessments are an abomination, leading to different penalties for the same infraction, depending on who commits it. Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California From hermandw@skynet.be Wed Nov 20 07:56:25 2002 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 20 Nov 2002 08:56:25 +0100 Subject: [blml] I don't teach bridge References: <4A256C76.007CCEE1.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> Message-ID: <3DDB4029.8010703@skynet.be> Richard, it is not fair to criticize an example when snipping a sentence saying that the example is flawed. richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: > > Herman De Wael wrote: > > [snip] > > >>>Just an example to illustrate: imagine a club >>>where everyone plays fourth best, then NOT >>>playing fourth best is certainly something like >>>pre-alertable, and NOT pre-alerting is certainly >>>equivalent to stating you play fourth best by >>>"general knowledge". >>> > > [snip] > > Disagree with Herman's premise. The Chapter 1 > definition of Alert is: > > >>A notification, whose form may be specified by a >>sponsoring organisation, to the effect that >>opponents may be in need of an explanation. >> > > Because SO's specify the form of Alerts, there is > not necessarily any one-to-one correspondence > between "general knowledge" and a non-Alert. > Not necessarily, but I can imagine there is. And I can imagine that in some quarters it is considered so. And I was merely using someone else's example to illustrate that something is possible. Surely you can imagine that in some circles fourth best is so common that not saying you don't play fourth best is an infraction ? That was all I was saying. (who was it) said that fourth best cannot be common knowledge. I said it could be. Everything regaarding "common knowledge" depends on the environment and for that reason there can never be a universal "list" of what is (and isn't) common knowledge. > For example, some years ago the ACBL did *not* > require non-fourth best leads to be pre-alerted; > the ACBL merely required special notification on > the system card. > > Best wishes > > Richard > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw@skynet.be Wed Nov 20 08:05:35 2002 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 20 Nov 2002 09:05:35 +0100 Subject: [blml] dWS for the beginner References: <4A256C77.001D3E20.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> Message-ID: <3DDB424F.30007@skynet.be> Richard, be serious! richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: > > I wrote: > > [snip] > > >>>And giving an explanation of partner's subsequent call, which >>>is inconsistent with partner's earlier explanation of your >>>different call, does *not* "indicate" that partner's earlier >>>explanation was a mistake. It points both ways, as it could >>>merely "indicate" to partner that *you* have made a subsequent >>>error in explaining a subsequent call. >>> > > Herman De Wael replied: > > >>Sorry, but you're clinging to straws here. >>Anything I do (coughing, acting surprised, slamming my next >>bid on the table) including explaining the next bid >>inconsistently with the previous one, may well be enough to >>help partner remember that there is a problem. >> > > Correct. > > >>That is "indicate" in my book. >> >>A player who explains the next bid and thus reveals the error >>has broken L75D2 in my book. >> > > Disagree. > N: "4NT" S: "5Di" W: "What is 4NT ?" S: "asking for aces" W: "what is 5Di ?" N: "better minor" If that is not "indicating in any manner that a mistake has been made" then I need a lesson in Australian English. If you really want to argue along these lines, please do so on another mailing list. This one is concerned with serious discussion. > >>I shall not hand him a PP for this, >> > > Agree. > > >>since he is faced with a dilemma, but I shall rule UI of the >>worst sort. >> > > [snip] > > I, too, would rule UI of the worst sort. I would stand > shoulder to shoulder with Herman in ruling that a misexplaining > player is not permitted to "wake up" after hearing a subsequent > correct explanation by partner. But I would be basing my ruling > on L73C and L16, not on L75D2. > No Richard, that is not one ruling, that is two rulings. We would both be ruling the use of UI in the same manner, but I would also be ruling on the giving of the UI, you would not. > As a practical matter, Herman and I would give identical rulings > at the table when the partner of a misexplainer gives a subsequent > correct explanation. Our only difference is theoretical; whether > or not providing UI with a correct explanation is legal or illegal. > But since Herman is not PPing a correct explanation, correct > explainers survive the De Wael School unscathed. > Indeed. > Of course, in the alternate situation where a player is a dedicated > follower of the De Wael School, and deliberately gives an incorrect > explanation to avoid UI, my ruling would differ from Herman's > ruling in both theory and practice. > No, they would not. We would both be giving a ruling on the giving of MI, and it would be the same one, both in theory and practice. There could be one difference. I would not be PPing the "deliberate" giving of MI. You might want to do that. You would be wrong in doing so, since the player was merely following another law. but since that is a law that you so clearly misunderstand, I would (as AC) be very forgiveful to you (as TD) and ask you very kindly to take away that misguided PP from this innocent player. > Best wishes > > Richard > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw@skynet.be Wed Nov 20 08:08:56 2002 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 20 Nov 2002 09:08:56 +0100 Subject: [blml] Herman's Ruling References: Message-ID: <3DDB4318.4070502@skynet.be> Richard, Richard. richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: >>Diplomacy, Richard. >> >>Consider three possibilities : >> >>- I believe that you did not hear and I will not adjust (B is livid) >>- I don't believe that you did not hear and I will adjust, and give >>you a PP for use of EI (A is livid) >>- I believe that you did not realize the importance of what you might >>have heard, so I will adjust but not give a PP (both are content) >> > > Consider these three possibilities: > > 1. Lividity is irrelevant to a Lawful ruling. > of course. But still it is there and we are not only there to rule, but also to keep the players reasonably happy. > 2. What an opponent overheard is not of one-to-one relevance in > determining what declarer overheard. > [An example of a parallel principle is L45C1 - it is not of > one-to-one relevance that declarer has seen a defender's card > in determining whether defender's partner also saw the card.] > > 3. If your determination of fact is that declarer did overhear, but > then lied, then surely a PP is *more* required for that declarer > than in an alternative universe where declarer overheard and > subsequently confessed. > Precisely by reasonings such as your 2., it is possible to rule without having to call a player a liar. "I believe you if you say that you did not hear, but three other people at your table did, so I am going to rule as if you did hear, just to discourage others from lying about this." > Best wishes > > Richard > > > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From gordon@gordonrainsford.co.uk Wed Nov 20 14:11:07 2002 From: gordon@gordonrainsford.co.uk (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Wed, 20 Nov 2002 14:11:07 +0000 Subject: [blml] Ringer In-Reply-To: <013601c2902c$7751b740$859c68d5@default> Message-ID: On Wednesday, November 20, 2002, at 12:33 AM, Nigel Guthrie wrote: > [David Martin] > When exactly did this alleged tale of woe occur? > > [Norman Scorbie] > I think it's a tale of alleged woe... > > [Nigel Guthrie] > The EBU agreed the salient facts c. Dec 1999... > [1] The competition is open to EBU members only. > [2] The substitute in this match was a foreign > international [I have been told his name: > not a member of the EBU, > not an English International and definitely > not Tony Priday] > If there is any other consideration, my friend > and I am unaware of it. Nevertheless, the EBU > ruled against her. > I'm puzzled by why this is an appropriate question to be discussed here. It seems not to be about the Laws or their implementation. It isn't current, topical, first-hand or interesting, except to those involved if they can still remember the details. Perhaps it should be taken up further with the EBU, by the interested parties. -- Gordon Rainsford London UK From wrgptfan@fastmail.fm Wed Nov 20 14:40:40 2002 From: wrgptfan@fastmail.fm (David Kent) Date: Wed, 20 Nov 2002 09:40:40 -0500 Subject: [blml] Ringer Message-ID: <20021120144040.A041C2FD97@server3.fastmail.fm> To me, it is at least as interesting as some of the other interminable threads that we have had recently. -- David Kent On Wed, 20 Nov 2002 14:11:07 +0000, "Gordon Rainsford" said: > > On Wednesday, November 20, 2002, at 12:33 AM, Nigel Guthrie wrote: > > > [David Martin] > > When exactly did this alleged tale of woe occur? > > > > [Norman Scorbie] > > I think it's a tale of alleged woe... > > > > [Nigel Guthrie] > > The EBU agreed the salient facts c. Dec 1999... > > [1] The competition is open to EBU members only. > > [2] The substitute in this match was a foreign > > international [I have been told his name: > > not a member of the EBU, > > not an English International and definitely > > not Tony Priday] > > If there is any other consideration, my friend > > and I am unaware of it. Nevertheless, the EBU > > ruled against her. > > > I'm puzzled by why this is an appropriate question to be discussed > here. It seems not to be about the Laws or their implementation. It > isn't current, topical, first-hand or interesting, except to those > involved if they can still remember the details. Perhaps it should be > taken up further with the EBU, by the interested parties. > -- http://fastmail.fm - Access your email from home and the web From john@asimere.com Wed Nov 20 16:31:38 2002 From: john@asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Wed, 20 Nov 2002 16:31:38 +0000 Subject: [blml] Law Criteria In-Reply-To: <011a01c2901f$076460c0$3ff7193e@4nrw70j> References: <00dc01c28ff3$33919900$859c68d5@default> <011201c28ff8$da666440$859c68d5@default> <011a01c2901f$076460c0$3ff7193e@4nrw70j> Message-ID: In article <011a01c2901f$076460c0$3ff7193e@4nrw70j>, grandeval writes > >Grattan Endicott=========================================== >"You mean you can't take less", said the Hatter, "it's >very easy to take more than nothing." >+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ >----- Original Message ----- >From: "John (MadDog) Probst" >To: >Sent: Tuesday, November 19, 2002 7:37 PM >Subject: Re: [blml] Law Criteria > > >> > >> It takes years to learn new law numbers. >> > >+=+ Please amplify. Is this statement based upon actual >experience [ ], upon an assessment of the mental agility >of Tournament Directors generally [ ], or upon critical >self-appraisal [x]? > To avoid unsustainable effort please mark x in the >appropriate box. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > That, Grattan, was *very* funny. But seriously, minor renumbering is a real pain. If one goes for it, it should be a wholesale restructuring. cheers john > > >_______________________________________________ >blml mailing list >blml@rtflb.org >http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > -- John (MadDog) Probst| . ! -^- |icq 10810798 451 Mile End Road | /|__. \:/ |OKb ChienFou London E3 4PA | / @ __) -|- |john@asimere.com +44-(0)20 8983 5818 | /\ --^ | |www.asimere.com/~john From blml@dybdal.dk Wed Nov 20 17:36:09 2002 From: blml@dybdal.dk (Jesper Dybdal) Date: Wed, 20 Nov 2002 18:36:09 +0100 Subject: [blml] Kaplan doctrine (WAS Declarer makes impossible contrac t by LOT) In-Reply-To: <000101c2905b$05801920$049a1e18@san.rr.com> References: <004d01c28f99$35bad480$049a1e18@san.rr.com> <000101c2905b$05801920$049a1e18@san.rr.com> Message-ID: <4tgntusck6or63r086a06mk9g7ogdthgul@nuser.dybdal.dk> On Tue, 19 Nov 2002 20:57:59 -0800, "Marvin L. French" wrote: >You could be right. I was not aware that there could be two NOSs or two = OSs >for L12C2 to deal with. Do you have an example? Good question, Marv. I thought it would be easy, but having considered it, I must admit that I can't think of an example of the two OSs situation, and that I am not even certain that it exists (simultaneous adjustment for two separate offences is not quite the example we are looking for here, I believe). Is anyone better than me at finding an example? However, the two NOSs situation is easy enough: that happens when a board has been played to the end, but with a result that was influenced by a director error (L82C). I can only remember one case with a split score L12C2 adjustment with both sides non-offending. I don't remember all the details, but it was something very much like the following: In the Nordic Championships 1996, Ladies Teams, a director ruled that a card (a heart) was a penalty card. The director mistakenly assumed that players at this level would know what a penalty card is, so he neglected to tell them all the details about demanding or forbidding leads. After the board had been played, somebody told the declarer that she should have had the right to demand a heart lead. That would have led to a better result. We judged that with a correct ruling she might well have demanded a heart lead, but that it was far from certain that she would have done so. So we gave a split score, where declarer received the score with a heart lead, and opponents kept the score without the heart lead. --=20 Jesper Dybdal, Denmark. http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). From mfrench1@san.rr.com Wed Nov 20 18:38:56 2002 From: mfrench1@san.rr.com (Marvin L. French) Date: Wed, 20 Nov 2002 10:38:56 -0800 Subject: [blml] Law Criteria References: <00dc01c28ff3$33919900$859c68d5@default> <011201c28ff8$da666440$859c68d5@default> <011a01c2901f$076460c0$3ff7193e@4nrw70j> Message-ID: <001701c290c4$9efd8600$049a1e18@san.rr.com> From: "John (MadDog) Probst" > But seriously, minor renumbering is a > real pain. If one goes for it, it should be a wholesale restructuring. > A cross-reference of old vs new numbers would then be handy. Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California From svenpran@online.no Wed Nov 20 20:18:57 2002 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 20 Nov 2002 21:18:57 +0100 Subject: [blml] Law Criteria References: <00dc01c28ff3$33919900$859c68d5@default> <011201c28ff8$da666440$859c68d5@default> <011a01c2901f$076460c0$3ff7193e@4nrw70j> <001701c290c4$9efd8600$049a1e18@san.rr.com> Message-ID: <001a01c290d2$0e6d4810$70d8fea9@WINXP> From: "Marvin L. French" > > But seriously, minor renumbering is a > > real pain. If one goes for it, it should be a wholesale restructuring. > > > A cross-reference of old vs new numbers would then be handy. > And a really comprehensive keyword index would be even more useful. Incidently: Isn't there a case for collecting suggestions on index key word entries that are missing today? If I can recall all those times I have looked up the index in vain I might even be able to come up with some myself. regards Sven From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Wed Nov 20 21:53:20 2002 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2002 07:53:20 +1000 Subject: [blml] I don't teach bridge Message-ID: <4A256C77.0076BE66.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> Herman De Wael wrote: [snip] >Surely you can imagine that in some circles fourth >best is so common that not saying you don't play >fourth best is an infraction ? > >That was all I was saying. (Who was it) said that >fourth best cannot be common knowledge. I said it >could be. Everything regarding "common knowledge" >depends on the environment and for that reason >there can never be a universal "list" of what is >(and isn't) common knowledge. [snip] Herman, you are talking about apples, and I am talking about oranges. Sure, I pre-alert opponents that I play Journalist Leads. Sure, I don't expect my opponents to pre- alert me that they play fourth best leads. But while it may be "common knowledge" that a fourth best agreement is a common agreement, "common knowledge" is *not* a synonym for the Law 75C phrase "general knowledge and experience". Grattan Endicott defined: >>+=+ 'general' = >> "including, involving or affecting all or >>nearly all the parts of a (specified or implied) >>whole, as a territory, community, organization, >>etc. " >> "completely or nearly universal" >> "belonging or pertaining in common to all" >>As to partnership understandings, those which are >>elementary and shared by all players. A call >>with a meaning that is variable amongst different >>partnerships, for which each partnership may elect >>its own chosen usage, is the subject of a special >>understanding in each partnership. +=+ Best wishes Richard From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Wed Nov 20 22:33:10 2002 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2002 08:33:10 +1000 Subject: [blml] Law 75D2 (was dWS for the beginner) Message-ID: <4A256C77.007A6435.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> Herman De Wael wrote: >N: "4NT" >S: "5Di" >W: "What is 4NT ?" >S: "asking for aces" >W: "what is 5Di ?" >N: "better minor" > >If that is not "indicating in any manner that a >mistake has been made" then I need a lesson in >Australian English. > >If you really want to argue along these lines, >please do so on another mailing list. This one is >concerned with serious discussion. Serious? There is an English proverb, the pot calling the kettle black. Below is a lesson in Australian English. I would rule that what the framers of Law 75D2 intended to create as an infraction was this: North: 4NT South: 5D West: "What is 4NT?" South: "Asking for aces" North: "No it isn't" or North holds their head in their hands While in this situation North: 4NT South: 5D West: "What is 4NT?" South: "Asking for aces" North: Impassive North has not infracted Law 75D2. And in this situation South: 5D West: "What is 5D?" North: ? If North-South have an agreement that: a) 4NT showed a minor two-suiter, and b) consequently 5D shows better minor Then North explaining that 5D shows one ace is misexplaining the partnership agreement. If North gave that explanation, then North is in violation of Law 20F1, Law 40C, Law 75A and Law 75C. Furthermore, the footnote to Law 75 clearly states that there is an obligation to explain the partnership *agreement*, but no obligation to explain what is in partner's *hand*. North correctly explaining South's subsequent 5D call as better minor is *not* a direct contradiction of South's earlier misexplanation of North's earlier 4NT call, and therefore, in my opinion, is *not* an infraction of Law 75D2. As stated in an earlier post, we do agree that North's correct explanation provides UI to South. But so what? Except behind screens, any explanation at any time may provide UI. Best wishes Richard From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Wed Nov 20 23:10:27 2002 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2002 09:10:27 +1000 Subject: [blml] Ringer Message-ID: <4A256C77.007DCDE2.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> >To me, it is at least as interesting as some >of the other interminable threads that we have >had recently. > >-- >David Kent What I found most interesting was the apparent ad hoc and ex post facto modification of the conditions of contest. A similar situation occurred in this year's ACT Youth Team Trials. Four pairs entered the event, which was to qualify the top three pairs to represent Canberra in the Interstate Youth Teams. The event was scheduled for a particular date. Shortly before that date, the best player in the field injured his back, and was unable to play on the scheduled date. Naturally, the weakest pair in the field was keen for the event to proceed on the scheduled date, as that would mean that they would qualify for the team by default. But the Bridge Federation of the ACT decided to reschedule the event, against the wishes of the weakest pair, to a date when the best player was fit to play. Sure enough, at the rescheduled date the weakest pair failed to qualify. If the ends justify the means, then BFACT's decision was justified by the ACT Youth Team reaching the Final for the first time since 1989. Best wishes Richard From mfrench1@san.rr.com Wed Nov 20 23:00:12 2002 From: mfrench1@san.rr.com (Marvin L. French) Date: Wed, 20 Nov 2002 15:00:12 -0800 Subject: [blml] Kaplan doctrine (WAS Declarer makes impossible contrac t by LOT) References: <004d01c28f99$35bad480$049a1e18@san.rr.com> <000101c2905b$05801920$049a1e18@san.rr.com> <4tgntusck6or63r086a06mk9g7ogdthgul@nuser.dybdal.dk> Message-ID: <001b01c290e8$970513e0$049a1e18@san.rr.com> From: "Jesper Dybdal" < > Marvin L. French wrote: > >You could be right. I was not aware that there could be two NOSs or two OSs >for L12C2 to deal with. Do you have an example? JD Good question, Marv. I thought it would be easy, but having considered it, I must admit that I can't think of an example of the two OSs situation, and that I am not even certain that it exists (simultaneous adjustment for two separate offences is not quite the example we are looking for here, I believe). Is anyone better than me at finding an example? JD However, the two NOSs situation is easy enough: that happens when a board has been played to the end, but with a result that was influenced by a director error (L82C). MLF: Is it really possible that L82C does not refer to an *artificial* score adjustment?? JD I can only remember one case with a split score L12C2 adjustment with both sides non-offending. I don't remember all the details, but it was something very much like the following: JD In the Nordic Championships 1996, Ladies Teams, a director ruled that a card (a heart) was a penalty card. The director mistakenly assumed that players at this level would know what a penalty card is, so he neglected to tell them all the details about demanding or forbidding leads. After the board had been played, somebody told the declarer that she should have had the right to demand a heart lead. That would have led to a better result. JD We judged that with a correct ruling she might well have demanded a heart lead, but that it was far from certain that she would have done so. So we gave a split score, where declarer received the score with a heart lead, and opponents kept the score without the heart lead. MLF: If this is right, then I have learned something. I have always thought that when TD error prevents the normal scoring of a board, an artificial score adjustment (avg+ for both sides) is called for. I see in L82C that the TD can rectify the situation in a way that leads to a normal score, but that is not via L12C2. Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Thu Nov 21 02:53:51 2002 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Wed, 20 Nov 2002 21:53:51 -0500 Subject: [blml] Friendly opponents and pleasant TDs In-Reply-To: <4A256C76.00161FB5.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> Message-ID: On 11/19/02, richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: >Unenforced or partially enforced laws should be >repealed to avoid anomalies. Or TDs should be taught to enforce them properly. From cyaxares@lineone.net Thu Nov 21 02:52:09 2002 From: cyaxares@lineone.net (Grattan Endicott) Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2002 02:52:09 -0000 Subject: [blml] Law Criteria References: <00dc01c28ff3$33919900$859c68d5@default> <011201c28ff8$da666440$859c68d5@default> <011a01c2901f$076460c0$3ff7193e@4nrw70j> Message-ID: <000701c29109$95d4ce40$6e21e150@endicott> Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Wednesday, November 20, 2002 4:31 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Law Criteria > In article <011a01c2901f$076460c0$3ff7193e@4nrw70j>, grandeval > writes > > > >Grattan Endicott >=========================================== > >"You mean you can't take less", said the Hatter, "it's > >very easy to take more than nothing." > >+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > >----- Original Message ----- > >From: "John (MadDog) Probst" > >To: > >Sent: Tuesday, November 19, 2002 7:37 PM > >Subject: Re: [blml] Law Criteria > > > > > >> > > >> It takes years to learn new law numbers. > >> > > > >+=+ Please amplify. Is this statement based upon actual > >experience [ ], upon an assessment of the mental agility > >of Tournament Directors generally [ ], or upon critical > >self-appraisal [x]? > > To avoid unsustainable effort please mark x in the > >appropriate box. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > > That, Grattan, was *very* funny. But seriously, minor > renumbering is a real pain. If one goes for it, it should be >a wholesale restructuring. > > cheers john > > +=+ On this I agree totally. I must be careful not to breach the confidentiality of the subcommittee, but if certain major changes that I am urging are adopted a whole raft of law numbers will disappear. Even otherwise substantial consolidation is envisaged. It adds up to reordering and the exercise here is to overcome the reluctance of the dyed-in-the-wool groove-treaders in whom the thought of major change engenders anxiety. It is not to do with age, the young dynamos are of all ages, as are the feeble sparks. On another point I agree that there should be cross-referencing of old numbers to new - already in my notebook, and I would be happy to arrange for an amplified index of keyword references since I am sure we have the equipment to extract them. If Sven (or anyone) likes to contribute to a list of useful references missing currently I shall welcome it. ~ G ~ +=+ From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Thu Nov 21 03:12:22 2002 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Wed, 20 Nov 2002 22:12:22 -0500 Subject: [blml] I don't teach bridge In-Reply-To: <4A256C76.007CCEE1.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> Message-ID: On 11/20/02, richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: >For example, some years ago the ACBL did *not* >require non-fourth best leads to be pre-alerted; They still don't, unless I misunderstand the alert regulations. From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Thu Nov 21 03:01:41 2002 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Wed, 20 Nov 2002 22:01:41 -0500 Subject: [blml] I don't teach bridge In-Reply-To: <3DD9F062.5040806@skynet.be> Message-ID: On 11/19/02, Herman De Wael wrote: >imagine a club where everyone plays fourth best, then NOT playing >fourth best is certainly something like pre-alertable, and NOT >pre-alerting is certainly equivalent to stating you play fourth best >by "general knowledge". The fact that everyone in some club plays fourth best (or any other given method) does not mean they are not aware of other methods. I had thought that pre-alerts were unique to the ACBL. No matter. In the ACBL, though, "Pre-Alerts are designed to act as an early warning system of any unusual methods for which the opponents may need to prepare." I don't see that "other than fourth best" leads qualifies. From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Thu Nov 21 03:09:51 2002 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Wed, 20 Nov 2002 22:09:51 -0500 Subject: [blml] I don't teach bridge In-Reply-To: <004201c29019$0fb30d90$d032e150@endicott> Message-ID: On 11/19/02, Grattan Endicott wrote: >+=+ 'general' = > "including, involving or affecting all or nearly all >the parts of a (specified or implied) whole, as a >territory, community, organization, etc. " > "completely or nearly universal" > "belonging or pertaining in common to all" >As to partnership understandings, those which are >elementary and shared by all players. A call >with a meaning that is variable amongst different >partnerships, for which each partnership may elect >its own chosen usage, is the subject of a special >understanding in each partnership. +=+ Fair enough. It seems to me, however, that the meaning of *every* call is "variable amongst different partnerships". I can't think of any single call which *always* has the same meaning in (nearly) every partnership. You see where this leads. :-) From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Thu Nov 21 03:27:20 2002 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Wed, 20 Nov 2002 22:27:20 -0500 Subject: [blml] Ringer In-Reply-To: <4A256C77.007DCDE2.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> Message-ID: On 11/21/02, richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: >If the ends justify the means, then BFACT's >decision was justified by the ACT Youth Team >reaching the Final for the first time since >1989. The consequent here may be true. The antecedent is not. From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Thu Nov 21 04:50:20 2002 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2002 14:50:20 +1000 Subject: [blml] Friendly opponents and pleasant TDs Message-ID: <4A256C78.00191596.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> I wrote: >>Unenforced or partially enforced laws should be >>repealed to avoid anomalies. Ed Reppert replied: >Or TDs should be taught to enforce them properly. Agreed. But, in my opinion, TDs who avoid reading and/or applying TFLB are only a small and diminishing problem. (Effective SOs educate or terminate ineffective TDs.) At a WBF LC meeting a few years, I recall that Santanu Ghose recommended that the Laws should be written so that sea lawyers were not given an unfair advantage, over players who only use the TD to inform them of their legal options. For example, blmlers have an advantage over the hoi polloi when exercising rights given, or obligations required, by the following Laws: 9, 11, 16, 20, 21, 25, 40, 42, 43, 53, 61, 65, 66, 68, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76 and 79. Best wishes Richard From dalburn@btopenworld.com Thu Nov 21 03:54:59 2002 From: dalburn@btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2002 03:54:59 -0000 Subject: [blml] Law Criteria References: <00dc01c28ff3$33919900$859c68d5@default> <011201c28ff8$da666440$859c68d5@default> <011a01c2901f$076460c0$3ff7193e@4nrw70j> <000701c29109$95d4ce40$6e21e150@endicott> Message-ID: <001e01c29111$c3921ec0$459123d9@pbncomputer> Grattan wrote: > +=+ On this I agree totally. I must be careful not to > breach the confidentiality of the subcommittee, but > if certain major changes that I am urging are adopted > a whole raft of law numbers will disappear. This may or may not be a good idea. Wandering homewards in bewildered fashion after a meeting of our Laws Committee, it is as much as I can do to remember that the 207 bus goes to Shepherd's Bush. I could not imagine being terribly pleased to find that, due to the machinations of a Subcommittee, a whole raft of bus numbers had disappeared and I should now catch the 184. David Burn London, England (PS to Grattan: the serious notion embedded in the foregoing is that Laws should have names, not numbers.) From Anne Jones" <011201c28ff8$da666440$859c68d5@default> <011a01c2901f$076460c0$3ff7193e@4nrw70j> <000701c29109$95d4ce40$6e21e150@endicott> <001e01c29111$c3921ec0$459123d9@pbncomputer> Message-ID: <002301c29115$003c7ca0$23540550@annescomputer> I don't use the London busses ----In fact I don't use any bus at all, but if the UI Law ceases to be 16, and the score adjustments ceases to be 12, then I might just not need to know :-( Anne ----- Original Message ----- From: "David Burn" To: "bridge laws mailing list" Sent: Thursday, November 21, 2002 3:54 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Law Criteria > Grattan wrote: > > > +=+ On this I agree totally. I must be careful not to > > breach the confidentiality of the subcommittee, but > > if certain major changes that I am urging are adopted > > a whole raft of law numbers will disappear. > > This may or may not be a good idea. Wandering homewards in bewildered > fashion after a meeting of our Laws Committee, it is as much as I can do > to remember that the 207 bus goes to Shepherd's Bush. I could not > imagine being terribly pleased to find that, due to the machinations of > a Subcommittee, a whole raft of bus numbers had disappeared and I should > now catch the 184. > > David Burn > London, England > > (PS to Grattan: the serious notion embedded in the foregoing is that > Laws should have names, not numbers.) > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.419 / Virus Database: 235 - Release Date: 13/11/02 From mfrench1@san.rr.com Thu Nov 21 05:27:17 2002 From: mfrench1@san.rr.com (Marvin L. French) Date: Wed, 20 Nov 2002 21:27:17 -0800 Subject: [blml] Friendly opponents and pleasant TDs References: <4A256C78.00191596.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> Message-ID: <003001c2911e$abb04ea0$049a1e18@san.rr.com> Richard Hills wrote: > For example, blmlers have an advantage over the > hoi polloi when exercising rights given, or > obligations required, by the following Laws: > > 9, 11, 16, 20, 21, 25, 40, 42, 43, 53, 61, 65, 66, > 68, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76 and 79. > There are many skills required of a good bridge player, including, but not limited to: Accurate bidding, skillful play of the hand, adroit defense, table feel, partner handling, and knowledge of the Laws. Those possessing these skills have an advantage over those who lack any of them. What else is new? Advice to the hoi polloi: RTFLB Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California From mfrench1@san.rr.com Thu Nov 21 05:41:13 2002 From: mfrench1@san.rr.com (Marvin L. French) Date: Wed, 20 Nov 2002 21:41:13 -0800 Subject: [blml] I don't teach bridge References: Message-ID: <003b01c29120$c4d26920$049a1e18@san.rr.com> From: "Ed Reppert" > Richard Hills wrote: > >For example, some years ago the ACBL did *not* > >require non-fourth best leads to be pre-alerted; > > They still don't, unless I misunderstand the alert regulations. > Since leads and defensive carding are plainly shown on the CC, the ACBL figures no partnership agreements about them should have to be Alerted. Excuse me, there is just one: low leads from weak doubletons, which is plainly marked in red on my CC. Are they picking on me? Ever since they made me Alert strong jump overcalls, penalty doubles of overcalls, natural 3NT opening based on a long suit + stoppers, light 2/1 responses, and natural 2NT overcall, I've had to resist an inclination toward parnoia. Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California From mfrench1@san.rr.com Thu Nov 21 06:01:21 2002 From: mfrench1@san.rr.com (Marvin L. French) Date: Wed, 20 Nov 2002 22:01:21 -0800 Subject: [blml] I don't teach bridge References: Message-ID: <003c01c29123$6cd3d4e0$049a1e18@san.rr.com> From: "Ed Reppert" > Grattan Endicott wrote: > > >+=+ 'general' = > > "including, involving or affecting all or nearly all > >the parts of a (specified or implied) whole, as a > >territory, community, organization, etc. " > > "completely or nearly universal" > > "belonging or pertaining in common to all" > >As to partnership understandings, those which are > >elementary and shared by all players. A call > >with a meaning that is variable amongst different > >partnerships, for which each partnership may elect > >its own chosen usage, is the subject of a special > >understanding in each partnership. +=+ > > Fair enough. It seems to me, however, that the meaning of *every* call > is "variable amongst different partnerships". I can't think of any > single call which *always* has the same meaning in (nearly) every > partnership. You see where this leads. :-) > Ed, if I were to play with you without discussing anything but what goes on the CC, we would be a partnership. Our 3x opening bids would be weak preempts, non-game double jump overcalls would be weak, doubles of low-level suit openings would be for takeout, balancing actions would promise less than direct actions, doubles (except vanilla negative/responsive doubles shown on the CC) would be penaltyish if partner has acted, doubles would be penaltyish if either of us has bid notrump, raises to any level over a double would be weak, doubles of notrump bids would be penaltyish, 1M-4M jumps would be weakish, takeout doubles would imply support for any unbid major, vulnerable overcalls would be sounder than non-vulnerable overcalls, etc. etc. These are partnership agreements, but they are not special partnership agreements. They are derived from our general knowledge and experience, hence their meanings need not be disclosed to opponents (per L75C). Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California From hermandw@skynet.be Thu Nov 21 08:16:51 2002 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2002 09:16:51 +0100 Subject: [blml] Law 75D2 (was dWS for the beginner) References: <4A256C77.007A6435.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> Message-ID: <3DDC9673.6040305@skynet.be> Richard, I was only saying one thing. You say 27 in reply, most of them correct, but you don't comment on the one thing I was saying. Please reply. richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: > > Herman De Wael wrote: > > >>N: "4NT" >>S: "5Di" >>W: "What is 4NT ?" >>S: "asking for aces" >>W: "what is 5Di ?" >>N: "better minor" >> >>If that is not "indicating in any manner that a >>mistake has been made" then I need a lesson in >>Australian English. >> >>If you really want to argue along these lines, >>please do so on another mailing list. This one is >>concerned with serious discussion. >> > > Serious? There is an English proverb, the pot > calling the kettle black. Below is a lesson in > Australian English. > > I would rule that what the framers of Law 75D2 > intended to create as an infraction was this: > > North: 4NT > South: 5D > West: "What is 4NT?" > South: "Asking for aces" > North: "No it isn't" > or > North holds their head in their hands > > While in this situation > > North: 4NT > South: 5D > West: "What is 4NT?" > South: "Asking for aces" > North: Impassive > > North has not infracted Law 75D2. > Perhaps not. But if he replies "better minor", he HAS infracted L75D2. Do you wish, seriously, to say that he hasn't ? All the rest is unimportant. > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Thu Nov 21 09:56:00 2002 From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2002 09:56 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [blml] I don't teach bridge Message-ID: In-Reply-To: Ed wrote: > Fair enough. It seems to me, however, that the meaning of *every* call > is "variable amongst different partnerships". I can't think of any > single call which *always* has the same meaning in (nearly) every > partnership. You see where this leads. :-) When I sit down opposite a stranger everything I know (or the little I know) about bridge is general knowledge. If I start making agreements some of it becomes "special" to the partnership. So even if we agree Acol (or SA) and nothing else the meanings of a whole range of calls become special. Opponents are entitled to be told the Acol meaning of any such call. In the UK saying "We have agreed Acol, nothing else" would normally be sufficient. If opps don't know what the bid means in Acol (highly unusual in the UK) they can ask. However if they enquire as to the meaning of a 4NT response to 1S they should be told it is undiscussed. Blackwood is not part of Acol and we have no agreement (explicit or implicit) to play it. I'm still going to say how many aces I have. Every hand I play with the stranger, every little discussion we have increases (perhaps only a very tiny bit) the total amount of special knowledge. While this goes on my total amount of "general" knowledge may well remain unchanged - it is being converted from undisclosable to disclosable information. Tim From twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Thu Nov 21 09:56:00 2002 From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2002 09:56 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [blml] Ringer Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <4A256C77.007DCDE2.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> Richard wrote: > But the Bridge Federation of the ACT decided > to reschedule the event, against the wishes > of the weakest pair, to a date when the best > player was fit to play. It would, IMO, be bureaucratic madness to hold a 3-pair event from which 3 pairs would qualify. I suspect that even had it been a player from the weakest pair who was injured the event would have been rescheduled. Tim From twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Thu Nov 21 09:57:00 2002 From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2002 09:57 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [blml] Friendly opponents and pleasant TDs Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <4A256C78.00191596.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> Please gentlemen. hoi polloi, not the hoi polloi. Doesn't your grammar checker tell you not to repeat the definite article. Tim From agot@ulb.ac.be Thu Nov 21 11:38:23 2002 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2002 12:38:23 +0100 Subject: [blml] dWS for the beginner In-Reply-To: <3DDB424F.30007@skynet.be> References: <4A256C77.001D3E20.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20021121122949.01d7a9a0@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 09:05 20/11/2002 +0100, Herman De Wael wrote: >>Of course, in the alternate situation where a player is a dedicated >>follower of the De Wael School, and deliberately gives an incorrect >>explanation to avoid UI, my ruling would differ from Herman's >>ruling in both theory and practice. > > >No, they would not. We would both be giving a ruling on the giving of MI, >and it would be the same one, both in theory and practice. AG : we could as well ask ourselves *why* a player would be keen to use the dWS principles. Here is the answer. UI is not penalized, unless it appears it has been used, at least a little bit. Some UI is so blatant that the player has to choose between a very bad score (bend backwards) or an adjustment to the same bad score. What's more, giving out UI is not per se an incorrection, but letting partner, through UI, know there is a problem, is (L75D, as Herman pointed out). MI is penalized whenever it affected opponents' bidding (or play, in case they end as declaring side, so that no correction has been made after the bidding). The player who opts for giving MI rather than "indicating that there has been an error" hopes that he won't be penalized in a substantial amount of cases, because the influence on opponents' decisions will be nought. If he is wrong, he pays the price, of course. *If* MI was an infraction, while pointing to the error was not, this position would be intenable (L72B2). Since both are infractions (to L75C and 75D respectively), the player did *not* deliberately infract ; he couldn't help but do it. Ahem ... it's perhaps time somebody said this : what about written explanations ? Wouldn't they immediately solve this dilemma ? Best regards, Alain. From twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Thu Nov 21 11:32:00 2002 From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2002 11:32 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [blml] Kaplan doctrine (WAS Declarer makes impossible contrac t by Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <001b01c290e8$970513e0$049a1e18@san.rr.com> Marv wrote: > JD However, the two NOSs situation is easy enough: that happens when > a board has been played to the end, but with a result that was > influenced by a director error (L82C). > > MLF: Is it really possible that L82C does not refer to an *artificial* > score adjustment?? Jesper said the hand had been "played to the end". This means a result has been obtained. We cannot have TDs awarding ArtAS in this situation so an AssAS (likely non-balancing) it must be. Artificial scores are only for hands rendered unplayable. Two OS cases are rarer but one scenario is: EW give incomplete info, N asks a question (necessary due to the MI) but deemed illegal under L20F. Theoretically two infractions but obviously deeply interrelated. Tim From agot@ulb.ac.be Thu Nov 21 11:46:40 2002 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2002 12:46:40 +0100 Subject: [blml] I don't teach bridge In-Reply-To: References: <004201c29019$0fb30d90$d032e150@endicott> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20021121124557.01d7b730@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 22:09 20/11/2002 -0500, Ed Reppert wrote: >Fair enough. It seems to me, however, that the meaning of *every* call >is "variable amongst different partnerships". I can't think of any >single call which *always* has the same meaning in (nearly) every >partnership. You see where this leads. :-) AG : try 1-level overcalls. They vary in strength, but this is not in se matter to alert. From agot@ulb.ac.be Thu Nov 21 11:48:51 2002 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2002 12:48:51 +0100 Subject: [blml] I don't teach bridge In-Reply-To: <003c01c29123$6cd3d4e0$049a1e18@san.rr.com> References: Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20021121124745.01d7d900@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 22:01 20/11/2002 -0800, Marvin L. French wrote: >From: "Ed Reppert" > > > Grattan Endicott wrote: > > > > >+=+ 'general' = > > > "including, involving or affecting all or nearly all > > >the parts of a (specified or implied) whole, as a > > >territory, community, organization, etc. " > > > "completely or nearly universal" > > > "belonging or pertaining in common to all" > > >As to partnership understandings, those which are > > >elementary and shared by all players. A call > > >with a meaning that is variable amongst different > > >partnerships, for which each partnership may elect > > >its own chosen usage, is the subject of a special > > >understanding in each partnership. +=+ > > > > Fair enough. It seems to me, however, that the meaning of *every* call > > is "variable amongst different partnerships". I can't think of any > > single call which *always* has the same meaning in (nearly) every > > partnership. You see where this leads. :-) > > >Ed, if I were to play with you without discussing anything but what goes on >the CC, we would be a partnership. Our 3x opening bids would be weak preempts, >non-game double jump overcalls would be weak, doubles of low-level suit >openings would be for takeout, balancing actions would promise less than >direct actions AG : not standard in Belgium. >, doubles (except vanilla negative/responsive doubles shown on >the CC) would be penaltyish if partner has acted, doubles would be penaltyish >if either of us has bid notrump, raises to any level over a double would be >weak, doubles of notrump bids would be penaltyish AG : surely not universal. >, 1M-4M jumps would be weakish AG : minority view in Acol. From agot@ulb.ac.be Thu Nov 21 11:50:36 2002 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2002 12:50:36 +0100 Subject: [blml] I don't teach bridge In-Reply-To: <003b01c29120$c4d26920$049a1e18@san.rr.com> References: Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20021121124903.01d7dac0@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 21:41 20/11/2002 -0800, Marvin L. French wrote: >From: "Ed Reppert" > > > Richard Hills wrote: > > > >For example, some years ago the ACBL did *not* > > >require non-fourth best leads to be pre-alerted; > > > > They still don't, unless I misunderstand the alert regulations. > > >Since leads and defensive carding are plainly shown on the CC, the ACBL >figures no partnership agreements about them should have to be Alerted. > >Excuse me, there is just one: low leads from weak doubletons, which is >plainly marked in red on my CC. > >Are they picking on me? Ever since they made me Alert strong jump overcalls, >penalty doubles of overcalls, natural 3NT opening based on a long suit + >stoppers, light 2/1 responses, and natural 2NT overcall, I've had to resist an >inclination toward parnoia. AG : it could mean something, if I told you that in Belgium not any one of those is alertable (I'm not certains as concerns the last one). Perhaps our rules aren't so bad as some contributors have implied. From ehaa@starpower.net Thu Nov 21 13:09:36 2002 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2002 08:09:36 -0500 Subject: [blml] I don't teach bridge In-Reply-To: References: <3DD9F062.5040806@skynet.be> Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.0.20021121080517.00a8a050@pop.starpower.net> At 10:01 PM 11/20/02, Ed wrote: >On 11/19/02, Herman De Wael wrote: > > >imagine a club where everyone plays fourth best, then NOT playing > >fourth best is certainly something like pre-alertable, and NOT > >pre-alerting is certainly equivalent to stating you play fourth best > >by "general knowledge". > >The fact that everyone in some club plays fourth best (or any other >given method) does not mean they are not aware of other methods. > >I had thought that pre-alerts were unique to the ACBL. No matter. In the >ACBL, though, "Pre-Alerts are designed to act as an early warning system >of any unusual methods for which the opponents may need to prepare." I >don't see that "other than fourth best" leads qualifies. They do not, in the ACBL. I understand that quite recently, the ACBL, for the first time, introduced a pre-alert requirement for a specific highly unusual lead agreement, low from two small. That is the only card-play agreement for which they require a pre-alert. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 From agot@ulb.ac.be Thu Nov 21 13:42:36 2002 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2002 14:42:36 +0100 Subject: [blml] Law Criteria In-Reply-To: References: <011a01c2901f$076460c0$3ff7193e@4nrw70j> <00dc01c28ff3$33919900$859c68d5@default> <011201c28ff8$da666440$859c68d5@default> <011a01c2901f$076460c0$3ff7193e@4nrw70j> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20021121144210.01d7f8e0@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 16:31 20/11/2002 +0000, John (MadDog) Probst wrote: > >+=+ Please amplify. Is this statement based upon actual > >experience [ ], upon an assessment of the mental agility > >of Tournament Directors generally [ ], or upon critical > >self-appraisal [x]? > > To avoid unsustainable effort please mark x in the > >appropriate box. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > >That, Grattan, was *very* funny. But seriously, minor renumbering is a >real pain. If one goes for it, it should be a wholesale restructuring. AG : what about including an index in TFLB ? From gester@lineone.net Thu Nov 21 14:35:27 2002 From: gester@lineone.net (gester@lineone.net) Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2002 14:35:27 -0000 Subject: [blml] Law Criteria References: <011a01c2901f$076460c0$3ff7193e@4nrw70j> <00dc01c28ff3$33919900$859c68d5@default> <011201c28ff8$da666440$859c68d5@default> <011a01c2901f$076460c0$3ff7193e@4nrw70j> <5.1.0.14.0.20021121144210.01d7f8e0@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <005001c2916f$21659ce0$232a2850@pacific> Grattan Endicott To: "John (MadDog) Probst" ; Sent: Thursday, November 21, 2002 1:42 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Law Criteria > At 16:31 20/11/2002 +0000, John (MadDog) Probst wrote: > > > > >+=+ Please amplify. Is this statement based upon actual > > >experience [ ], upon an assessment of the mental agility > > >of Tournament Directors generally [ ], or upon critical > > >self-appraisal [x]? > > > To avoid unsustainable effort please mark x in the > > >appropriate box. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > > > >That, Grattan, was *very* funny. But seriously, minor > > renumbering is a real pain. If one goes for it, it should > > be a wholesale restructuring. > > AG : what about including an index in TFLB ? > +=+ 'Puzzled' of Mossley Hill replies: "Where else might we be thinking of putting one? In the current Law Book there is both a List of Contents (but not of malcontents) and an Index devised by Amalya Kearse. The suggestion is to increase the Index by adding further Keywords and also to have a List of X-refs from the 1997 Laws to the New. And DB proposes naming the Laws - not Henry, Diana or Marvin, perhaps, but possibly with Keywords? All of this for effortless navigation and on behalf of the assimilatively deprived." +=+ From gester@lineone.net Thu Nov 21 14:39:30 2002 From: gester@lineone.net (gester@lineone.net) Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2002 14:39:30 -0000 Subject: [blml] I don't teach bridge References: <3DD9F062.5040806@skynet.be> <5.2.0.9.0.20021121080517.00a8a050@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <005101c2916f$2225dfa0$232a2850@pacific> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" Sent: Thursday, November 21, 2002 1:09 PM Subject: Re: [blml] I don't teach bridge > At 10:01 PM 11/20/02, Ed wrote: > > > They do not, in the ACBL. I understand that quite > recently, the ACBL, for the first time, introduced a > pre-alert requirement for a specific highly unusual > lead agreement, low from two small. That is the only > card-play agreement for which they require a pre-alert. > +=+ Whereas in some parts of Europe - mainly to the East - this would be the norm. It has the advantage that one does not waste the higher card on a blind lead. +=+ From gester@lineone.net Thu Nov 21 14:57:45 2002 From: gester@lineone.net (gester@lineone.net) Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2002 14:57:45 -0000 Subject: [blml] I don't teach bridge References: Message-ID: <005201c2916f$23001300$232a2850@pacific> Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Thursday, November 21, 2002 9:56 AM Subject: Re: [blml] I don't teach bridge > In the UK saying "We have agreed Acol, nothing else" > would normally be sufficient. If opps don't know what > the bid means in Acol (highly unusual in the UK) they > can ask. > +=+ But altogether common amongst proponents of so-called 'Acol', the term having become a shorthand generality for 'approach forcing as played widely in the UK, with four card majors but please check on our NT openers.' However, the general point you make is well conceived. +=+ From dalburn@btopenworld.com Thu Nov 21 16:14:03 2002 From: dalburn@btopenworld.com (dalburn@btopenworld.com) Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2002 16:14:03 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [blml] Law Criteria Message-ID: <7890822.1037895243035.JavaMail.root@127.0.0.1> Grattan wrote: > And DB proposes naming the Laws - not > Henry, Diana or Marvin, perhaps, but possibly with > Keywords? That's the idea. In other games, one refers to "the offside law" or "the lbw law" without knowing (or needing to know) which number the relevant law may have. I imagine that we could use "the unauthorised information law" or "the pass out of turn law" just as readily, though it may be, for example, that "the claim law" in fact covers several laws. I don't actually think we should geet rid of the numbers, for they are a useful shorthand in certain contexts, but I don't think they should be the primary method by which directors or players refer to the laws. David Burn London, England From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Fri Nov 22 02:07:44 2002 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 22 Nov 2002 12:07:44 +1000 Subject: [blml] Ringer Message-ID: <4A256C79.000A3319.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> Richard wrote: >>But the Bridge Federation of the ACT decided >>to reschedule the event, against the wishes >>of the weakest pair, to a date when the best >>player was fit to play. Tim replied: >It would, IMO, be bureaucratic madness to hold >a 3-pair event from which 3 pairs would qualify. Agreed. What would have been a non-ad hoc, non- ex post facto, and non-bureaucratic procedure would have been to rule that the three pairs available to play on the date the qualifying event was scheduled *automatically* qualified for the subsequent Interstate event, and the qualifying event itself was cancelled. >I suspect that even had it been a player from the >weakest pair who was injured the event would have >been rescheduled. Not so. In the previous year's Youth Team qualifying event, a different top-class player was unavailable to play on the scheduled date, and also requested a rescheduling. Last year the request for a rescheduling was denied. Differential treatment of different players by BFACT created a Caesar's wife suspicion of bias. Best wishes Richard From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Fri Nov 22 02:17:09 2002 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 22 Nov 2002 12:17:09 +1000 Subject: [blml] Friendly opponents and pleasant TDs Message-ID: <4A256C79.000B0EEF.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> Marv wrote: [snip] >and knowledge of the Laws. Those possessing these >skills have an advantage over those who lack any >of them. What else is new? > >Advice to the hoi polloi: RTFLB This begs Santanu Ghose's question whether players *should* have to RTFLB, or, alternatively, whether the FLB *should* be restructured so that RTFLBing is unnecessary for anyone except the TD. If Ghose's idea is unachievable, *should* the 2005 FLB contain an executive summary to assist hoi polloi with their Lawful rights and obligations? Best wishes Richard From willner@cfa.harvard.edu Fri Nov 22 01:32:24 2002 From: willner@cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2002 20:32:24 -0500 (EST) Subject: [blml] Friendly opponents and pleasant TDs Message-ID: <200211220132.UAA19956@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> > From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au > If Ghose's idea is unachievable, *should* the 2005 > FLB contain an executive summary to assist hoi polloi > with their Lawful rights and obligations? Grattan hinted at a possible major reorganization. If that happens, I would hope the "rules for players" would come first, followed in a separate section by the "rules for TD's." If anybody is interested in seeing what this might look like, I posted a BLML message giving specific suggestions about a year or two ago. The basic concept is simple enough: mechanical rules of the auction, mechanical rules of play, proprieties, then "what if there is an irregularity" and the organizational matters. Other arrangements are possible, of course. I expect the first "rules for players" might be short enough that NCBO's could distribute it to all new members. From bbickford@charter.net Fri Nov 22 02:31:50 2002 From: bbickford@charter.net (Bill Bickford) Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2002 21:31:50 -0500 Subject: [blml] Hand from Bridge Today Message-ID: <04b101c291cf$5019ef90$7e97c518@D2GX7R11> The following hand was the subject of a Bridge Today article (September-October 2002 issue). The author reports that he was called to rule and consulted (by phone) 8 other directors!! This happened in the UK. S 2 H K9 D KJ98752 C KQ9 S 3 S - H - H AQT8765432 D AQ3 D T4 C AJT876532 C 4 S AKQJT987654 H J D 6 C - The bidding S W N E 2D (1) 5C 5D(2) 5H 6S DBL AP (1) Intended as Benjaminized Acol unlimited artificial. Not alerted (2) Thought 2D was standard Acol (8 playing tricks in diamonds) West (after 6S) asked North if he was sure and North confirmed his understanding. West led AD and led a second diamond so the contract made. Director called; EW say they were thoroughly confused West stated he would not have doubled with correct information. East said he would have bid 7D. Of the 8 calls, there were 6 different answers. What is the correct ruling????? Cheers......................................./Bill Bickford From Anne Jones" Message-ID: <001301c291d4$5b99de20$23540550@annescomputer> This has to be an easy one???? What was the agreed system that N/S were playing? Did they have a CC? Anne ----- Original Message ----- From: "Bill Bickford" To: "Bridge Laws Forum" Sent: Friday, November 22, 2002 2:31 AM Subject: [blml] Hand from Bridge Today > The following hand was the subject of a Bridge Today article > (September-October 2002 issue). The author reports that he was called to > rule and consulted (by phone) 8 other directors!! > This happened in the UK. > > > S 2 > H K9 > D KJ98752 > C KQ9 > > S 3 S - > H - H AQT8765432 > D AQ3 D T4 > C AJT876532 C 4 > > S AKQJT987654 > H J > D 6 > C - > > The bidding > > S W N E > 2D (1) 5C 5D(2) 5H > 6S DBL AP > > (1) Intended as Benjaminized Acol unlimited artificial. Not alerted > (2) Thought 2D was standard Acol (8 playing tricks in diamonds) > > West (after 6S) asked North if he was sure and North confirmed his > understanding. > > > West led AD and led a second diamond so the contract made. > > Director called; EW say they were thoroughly confused > West stated he would not have doubled with correct information. > East said he would have bid 7D. > > > Of the 8 calls, there were 6 different answers. > > > What is the correct ruling????? > > > Cheers......................................./Bill Bickford > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.419 / Virus Database: 235 - Release Date: 13/11/02 From bbickford@charter.net Fri Nov 22 03:13:53 2002 From: bbickford@charter.net (Bill Bickford) Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2002 22:13:53 -0500 Subject: [blml] Hand from Bridge Today References: <04b101c291cf$5019ef90$7e97c518@D2GX7R11> <000701c291d4$3995ad40$23540550@annescomputer> Message-ID: <04d401c291d5$302d9370$7e97c518@D2GX7R11> The article is not explicit, but the tone is such that there was probably no agreement. Cheers................/Bill Bickford ----- Original Message ----- From: "Anne Jones" To: "Bill Bickford" Sent: Thursday, November 21, 2002 10:06 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Hand from Bridge Today > This has to be an easy one???? > What was the agreed system that N/S were playing? Did they have a CC? > Anne > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Bill Bickford" > To: "Bridge Laws Forum" > Sent: Friday, November 22, 2002 2:31 AM > Subject: [blml] Hand from Bridge Today > > > > The following hand was the subject of a Bridge Today article > > (September-October 2002 issue). The author reports that he was called > to > > rule and consulted (by phone) 8 other directors!! > > This happened in the UK. > > > > > > S 2 > > H K9 > > D KJ98752 > > C KQ9 > > > > S 3 S - > > H - H > AQT8765432 > > D AQ3 D T4 > > C AJT876532 C 4 > > > > S AKQJT987654 > > H J > > D 6 > > C - > > > > The bidding > > > > S W N E > > 2D (1) 5C 5D(2) 5H > > 6S DBL AP > > > > (1) Intended as Benjaminized Acol unlimited artificial. Not alerted > > (2) Thought 2D was standard Acol (8 playing tricks in diamonds) > > > > West (after 6S) asked North if he was sure and North confirmed his > > understanding. > > > > > > West led AD and led a second diamond so the contract made. > > > > Director called; EW say they were thoroughly confused > > West stated he would not have doubled with correct information. > > East said he would have bid 7D. > > > > > > Of the 8 calls, there were 6 different answers. > > > > > > What is the correct ruling????? > > > > > > Cheers......................................./Bill Bickford > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > blml mailing list > > blml@rtflb.org > > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > --- > Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. > Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). > Version: 6.0.419 / Virus Database: 235 - Release Date: 13/11/02 > From Anne Jones" <000701c291d4$3995ad40$23540550@annescomputer> <04d401c291d5$302d9370$7e97c518@D2GX7R11> Message-ID: <001501c291d8$7bb33220$23540550@annescomputer> Lack of CCs - lol. In which case the balance of doubt will be afforded the non offending side. N/S play in 7Ds* - 1 Anne ----- Original Message ----- From: "Bill Bickford" To: "Bridge Laws Forum" Sent: Friday, November 22, 2002 3:13 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Hand from Bridge Today > The article is not explicit, but the tone is such that there was probably no > agreement. > > Cheers................/Bill Bickford > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Anne Jones" > To: "Bill Bickford" > Sent: Thursday, November 21, 2002 10:06 PM > Subject: Re: [blml] Hand from Bridge Today > > > > This has to be an easy one???? > > What was the agreed system that N/S were playing? Did they have a CC? > > Anne > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Bill Bickford" > > To: "Bridge Laws Forum" > > Sent: Friday, November 22, 2002 2:31 AM > > Subject: [blml] Hand from Bridge Today > > > > > > > The following hand was the subject of a Bridge Today article > > > (September-October 2002 issue). The author reports that he was called > > to > > > rule and consulted (by phone) 8 other directors!! > > > This happened in the UK. > > > > > > > > > S 2 > > > H K9 > > > D KJ98752 > > > C KQ9 > > > > > > S 3 S - > > > H - H > > AQT8765432 > > > D AQ3 D T4 > > > C AJT876532 C 4 > > > > > > S AKQJT987654 > > > H J > > > D 6 > > > C - > > > > > > The bidding > > > > > > S W N E > > > 2D (1) 5C 5D(2) 5H > > > 6S DBL AP > > > > > > (1) Intended as Benjaminized Acol unlimited artificial. Not alerted > > > (2) Thought 2D was standard Acol (8 playing tricks in diamonds) > > > > > > West (after 6S) asked North if he was sure and North confirmed his > > > understanding. > > > > > > > > > West led AD and led a second diamond so the contract made. > > > > > > Director called; EW say they were thoroughly confused > > > West stated he would not have doubled with correct information. > > > East said he would have bid 7D. > > > > > > > > > Of the 8 calls, there were 6 different answers. > > > > > > > > > What is the correct ruling????? > > > > > > > > > Cheers......................................./Bill Bickford > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > blml mailing list > > > blml@rtflb.org > > > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > > > > --- > > Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. > > Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). > > Version: 6.0.419 / Virus Database: 235 - Release Date: 13/11/02 > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.419 / Virus Database: 235 - Release Date: 13/11/02 From mabraham@rsc.anu.edu.au Fri Nov 22 05:53:54 2002 From: mabraham@rsc.anu.edu.au (Mark Abraham) Date: Fri, 22 Nov 2002 16:53:54 +1100 (EST) Subject: [blml] Hand from Bridge Today In-Reply-To: <001501c291d8$7bb33220$23540550@annescomputer> Message-ID: This is clearly wrong - 7DX by South must go more than two off. Mark On Fri, 22 Nov 2002, Anne Jones wrote: > Lack of CCs - lol. In which case the balance of doubt will be afforded > the non offending side. > N/S play in 7Ds* - 1 > > Anne > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Bill Bickford" > To: "Bridge Laws Forum" > Sent: Friday, November 22, 2002 3:13 AM > Subject: Re: [blml] Hand from Bridge Today > > > > The article is not explicit, but the tone is such that there was > probably no > > agreement. > > > > Cheers................/Bill Bickford > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Anne Jones" > > To: "Bill Bickford" > > Sent: Thursday, November 21, 2002 10:06 PM > > Subject: Re: [blml] Hand from Bridge Today > > > > > > > This has to be an easy one???? > > > What was the agreed system that N/S were playing? Did they have a > CC? > > > Anne > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > > From: "Bill Bickford" > > > To: "Bridge Laws Forum" > > > Sent: Friday, November 22, 2002 2:31 AM > > > Subject: [blml] Hand from Bridge Today > > > > > > > > > > The following hand was the subject of a Bridge Today article > > > > (September-October 2002 issue). The author reports that he was > called > > > to > > > > rule and consulted (by phone) 8 other directors!! > > > > This happened in the UK. > > > > > > > > > > > > S 2 > > > > H K9 > > > > D KJ98752 > > > > C KQ9 > > > > > > > > S 3 S - > > > > H - H > > > AQT8765432 > > > > D AQ3 D T4 > > > > C AJT876532 C 4 > > > > > > > > S AKQJT987654 > > > > H J > > > > D 6 > > > > C - > > > > > > > > The bidding > > > > > > > > S W N E > > > > 2D (1) 5C 5D(2) 5H > > > > 6S DBL AP > > > > > > > > (1) Intended as Benjaminized Acol unlimited artificial. Not > alerted > > > > (2) Thought 2D was standard Acol (8 playing tricks in diamonds) > > > > > > > > West (after 6S) asked North if he was sure and North confirmed his > > > > understanding. > > > > > > > > > > > > West led AD and led a second diamond so the contract made. > > > > > > > > Director called; EW say they were thoroughly confused > > > > West stated he would not have doubled with correct information. > > > > East said he would have bid 7D. > > > > > > > > > > > > Of the 8 calls, there were 6 different answers. > > > > > > > > > > > > What is the correct ruling????? > > > > > > > > > > > > Cheers......................................./Bill Bickford > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > > blml mailing list > > > > blml@rtflb.org > > > > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > > > > > > > --- > > > Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. > > > Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). > > > Version: 6.0.419 / Virus Database: 235 - Release Date: 13/11/02 > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > blml mailing list > > blml@rtflb.org > > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > --- > Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. > Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). > Version: 6.0.419 / Virus Database: 235 - Release Date: 13/11/02 > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From mabraham@rsc.anu.edu.au Fri Nov 22 06:16:28 2002 From: mabraham@rsc.anu.edu.au (Mark Abraham) Date: Fri, 22 Nov 2002 17:16:28 +1100 (EST) Subject: [blml] Hand from Bridge Today In-Reply-To: <04b101c291cf$5019ef90$7e97c518@D2GX7R11> Message-ID: This is an easy ruling. West's statement that he wouldn't have doubled "with correct information" is irrelevant. He's entitled to a correct description of the agreements, not the hands. An adjustment is only in order if there was an infraction leading to damage to the NOS. An error by the NOS subsequent to the infraction may lead to a split adjustment. There can only be an infraction if there was a mistaken explanation of 2D or use of unauthorised information by South. As much as one wants to feel that North-South don't "deserve" their doubled slam, you can't take it away from them for that reason. 1. If there was an agreement about 2D and a) 2D showed a game force in some suit then West received a misexplanation. Once 6S comes back to West then he knows that something is wrong - if North has a raise to 6D with no keycards then South can't have a try for 7NT missing two diamond keycards. West is still obliged to play bridge here; doubling a slam bid after an auction based on mistaken agreements when holding aces and voids is not unreasonable. Thus there was no damage in the auction. Leading the ace of a suit that seems to be held on your left against this sort of auction seems a bit dangerous, but there's nothing more appealing. Having led the diamond, a second diamond was about the best thing going. It didn't work, but I judge that West didn't make an error sufficiently egregious to break the connection between the infraction and the damage. For that matter I don't see any damage - South placed West in a guessing position and he guessed wrongly. No damage, no adjustment. b) if 2D showed an Acol 2D (such that South misbid) then there was no infraction in the explanation, and since passing 6D couldn't be a logical alternative then 6S is legal and West is simply on a guess... no infraction, no adjustment. 2. If there was no agreement about 2D then there was an infraction from the misexplanation that there was an agreement about 2D. It becomes equivalent to case 1.a) - yes there was an infraction, no there wasn't damage, so no adjustment. There were probably 6 different answers to the 8 calls because the story was related differently every time; such "polling" is inevitable flawed by that sort of detail. Newspaper polls are carefully constructed to remove that sort of distortion from the results. Mark On Thu, 21 Nov 2002, Bill Bickford wrote: > The following hand was the subject of a Bridge Today article > (September-October 2002 issue). The author reports that he was called to > rule and consulted (by phone) 8 other directors!! > This happened in the UK. > > > S 2 > H K9 > D KJ98752 > C KQ9 > > S 3 S - > H - H AQT8765432 > D AQ3 D T4 > C AJT876532 C 4 > > S AKQJT987654 > H J > D 6 > C - > > The bidding > > S W N E > 2D (1) 5C 5D(2) 5H > 6S DBL AP > > (1) Intended as Benjaminized Acol unlimited artificial. Not alerted > (2) Thought 2D was standard Acol (8 playing tricks in diamonds) > > West (after 6S) asked North if he was sure and North confirmed his > understanding. > > > West led AD and led a second diamond so the contract made. > > Director called; EW say they were thoroughly confused > West stated he would not have doubled with correct information. > East said he would have bid 7D. > > > Of the 8 calls, there were 6 different answers. > > > What is the correct ruling????? > > > Cheers......................................./Bill Bickford > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From cyaxares@lineone.net Fri Nov 22 07:34:30 2002 From: cyaxares@lineone.net (Grattan Endicott) Date: Fri, 22 Nov 2002 07:34:30 -0000 Subject: [blml] Law Criteria References: <7890822.1037895243035.JavaMail.root@127.0.0.1> Message-ID: <000d01c291f9$bdcf7850$dc24e150@endicott> Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Thursday, November 21, 2002 4:14 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Law Criteria > Grattan wrote: > > > And DB proposes naming the Laws - not > > Henry, Diana or Marvin, perhaps, but possibly with > > Keywords? > > That's the idea. In other games, one refers to "the > offside law" or "the lbw law" without knowing (or needing > to know) which number the relevant law may have. I > imagine that we could use "the unauthorised information > law" or "the pass out of turn law" just as readily, though > it may be, for example, that "the claim law" in fact covers > several laws. I don't actually think we should geet rid of > the numbers, for they are a useful shorthand in certain > contexts, but I don't think they should be the primary > method by which directors or players refer to the laws. > +=+ Very close to my ambition. I think I could go along with such a concept. It is important in my opinion that a heading does not seek to describe what a law *does* or its objective, but rather what its *subject* is. We could rejig the table of contents: .................................................................... .......... Subject Law no. Previously Page no. | | Law no. | Offsides 11 46 27 .................................................................... .......... Ah, well!.... we'll see... +=+ From jurgenr@t-online.de Fri Nov 22 08:17:25 2002 From: jurgenr@t-online.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?J=FCrgen_Rennenkampff?=) Date: Fri, 22 Nov 2002 09:17:25 +0100 Subject: [blml] Hand from Bridge Today Message-ID: Bill Bickford wrote: >The following hand was the subject of a Bridge Today article >(September-October 2002 issue). The author reports that he was called to >rule and consulted (by phone) 8 other directors!! [...} >Of the 8 calls, there were 6 different answers. >What is the correct ruling????? What's the problem? That means there is a chance that 3 of 8 got it right! Isn't that a lot better than the usual borderline case where where 8 of 8 TD's get it wrong and there are 6 opinions among 8 LC members? 75 years of lawmaking - and no agreement on the simplest eventuality? Give it up and do something you undertsand better. Jurgen From A.Kooijman@dwk.agro.nl Fri Nov 22 08:22:41 2002 From: A.Kooijman@dwk.agro.nl (Kooijman, A.) Date: Fri, 22 Nov 2002 09:22:41 +0100 Subject: [blml] Law 75D2 (was dWS for the beginner) Message-ID: > > > > Herman De Wael wrote: > > > > > >>N: "4NT" > >>S: "5Di" > >>W: "What is 4NT ?" > >>S: "asking for aces" > >>W: "what is 5Di ?" > >>N: "better minor" he statement is that by answering with > > "better minor", > > north HAS infracted L75D2. > Do you wish, seriously, to say that he hasn't ? If you allow me I wish to say that we don't know yet. It depends on the agreed meaning of 5D, isn't it? Just a thought in the early morning. ton From A.Kooijman@dwk.agro.nl Fri Nov 22 08:34:54 2002 From: A.Kooijman@dwk.agro.nl (Kooijman, A.) Date: Fri, 22 Nov 2002 09:34:54 +0100 Subject: [blml] Hand from Bridge Today Message-ID: > > > > > > > > The following hand was the subject of a Bridge Today article > > > > > (September-October 2002 issue). The author reports > that he was > > called > > > > to > > > > > rule and consulted (by phone) 8 other directors!! Let me be rude once more. I am not so sure that it makes sense to consult 8 directors. The CoP asks a TD to consult a couple of good players, which might have been helpful here. If you have the right questions. ton From hermandw@skynet.be Fri Nov 22 08:39:32 2002 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 22 Nov 2002 09:39:32 +0100 Subject: [blml] Law 75D2 (was dWS for the beginner) References: Message-ID: <3DDDED44.407@skynet.be> Hello Ton, Kooijman, A. wrote: >>>Herman De Wael wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>>>N: "4NT" >>>>S: "5Di" >>>>W: "What is 4NT ?" >>>>S: "asking for aces" >>>>W: "what is 5Di ?" >>>>N: "better minor" >>>> > > > he statement is that by answering with > >>"better minor", >> >>north HAS infracted L75D2. >>Do you wish, seriously, to say that he hasn't ? >> > > > > If you allow me I wish to say that we don't know yet. It depends on the > agreed meaning of 5D, isn't it? Well actually no, Ton. It depends on the meaning of 4NT. If 4NT indeed asks for aces, then L75D2 does not apply. But of course the answer is meaningless. If 4NT asks for minors, then L75D2 applies. The answer is clearly (IMO) a "manner of indicating that a mistake has been made". Remark that L75D2 talks of "mistaken explanation". I think this should include some mention of "mistaken in the mind of first player". When partner gives an explanation that does not conform to ones own assumption of the system, how can a player be certain if the explanation or the bid is mistaken. I feel the laws and actions of players should be independent of this realization. > Just a thought in the early morning. > > > ton > > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From A.Kooijman@dwk.agro.nl Fri Nov 22 08:42:25 2002 From: A.Kooijman@dwk.agro.nl (Kooijman, A.) Date: Fri, 22 Nov 2002 09:42:25 +0100 Subject: [blml] Hand from Bridge Today Message-ID: > Bill Bickford wrote: > > >The following hand was the subject of a Bridge Today article > >(September-October 2002 issue). The author reports that he > was called to > >rule and consulted (by phone) 8 other directors!! > > [...} > > >Of the 8 calls, there were 6 different answers. > >What is the correct ruling????? > > What's the problem? > That means there is a chance that 3 of 8 got it right! > Isn't that a lot better than the usual borderline > case where where 8 of 8 TD's get it wrong and there > are 6 opinions among 8 LC members? > > 75 years of lawmaking - and no agreement on the > simplest eventuality? Are you rude too, or is this ignorance (probably both)? What the h*** this has to do with 75 years of lawmaking? There are hundreds of years of lawmaking and still murders occur. ton From A.Kooijman@dwk.agro.nl Fri Nov 22 08:49:52 2002 From: A.Kooijman@dwk.agro.nl (Kooijman, A.) Date: Fri, 22 Nov 2002 09:49:52 +0100 Subject: [blml] Law 75D2 (was dWS for the beginner) Message-ID: > > Hello Ton, > > Kooijman, A. wrote: > > >>>Herman De Wael wrote: > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>>>N: "4NT" > >>>>S: "5Di" > >>>>W: "What is 4NT ?" > >>>>S: "asking for aces" > >>>>W: "what is 5Di ?" > >>>>N: "better minor" > >>>> > > > > > > he statement is that by answering with > > > >>"better minor", > >> > >>north HAS infracted L75D2. > >>Do you wish, seriously, to say that he hasn't ? > >> > > > > > > > > If you allow me I wish to say that we don't know yet. It > depends on the > > agreed meaning of 5D, isn't it? > ton > > Well actually no, Ton. > It depends on the meaning of 4NT. Herman In my not so humble opinion you are wrong. When having to answer about a 5D-bid the question whether an infraction occurred is related to the agreed meaning of the 5D bid and has nothing to do with the meaning of the 4NT bid. And if you want to say that there normally is a relation between calls made then you are right. Please show me the law saying that I am wrong. ton From cyaxares@lineone.net Fri Nov 22 08:54:23 2002 From: cyaxares@lineone.net (Grattan Endicott) Date: Fri, 22 Nov 2002 08:54:23 -0000 Subject: [blml] Hand from Bridge Today References: <04b101c291cf$5019ef90$7e97c518@D2GX7R11> Message-ID: <000201c29205$105d58c0$c82ae150@endicott> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Forum" Sent: Friday, November 22, 2002 2:31 AM Subject: [blml] Hand from Bridge Today > The following hand was the subject of a Bridge Today article > (September-October 2002 issue). The author reports that > he was called to rule and consulted (by phone) 8 other > directors!! > This happened in the UK. > > > S 2 > H K9 > D KJ98752 > C KQ9 > > S 3 S - > H - H AQT8765432 > D AQ3 D T4 > C AJT876532 C 4 > > S AKQJT987654 > H J > D 6 > C - > > The bidding > > S W N E > 2D (1) 5C 5D(2) 5H > 6S DBL AP > > (1) Intended as Benjaminized Acol unlimited artificial. Not alerted > (2) Thought 2D was standard Acol (8 playing tricks in diamonds) > > West (after 6S) asked North if he was sure and North confirmed his > understanding. > > > West led AD and led a second diamond so the contract made. > > Director called; EW say they were thoroughly confused > West stated he would not have doubled with correct information. > East said he would have bid 7D. > > > Of the 8 calls, there were 6 different answers. > > > What is the correct ruling????? > +=+ Am I right in understanding that South did not correct the information before the lead was faced? Had he done so East was entitled to change his call. When it is too late 40C applies. My initial reaction is to adjust on the basis of East's statement, - is that 7H rather than 7D? Presumably South would double to show a loser in hearts. There is the question, of course, whether the second diamond lead is 'wild or gambling'; in England, if I recall correctly, the regulation excludes misdefence of a contract the defenders should not be defending. I imagine 'the UK' follows England in this. ~ G ~ +=+ p.s. now I shall go and have my bath and think what in my 'early' morning coma I may have missed.:-) From hermandw@skynet.be Fri Nov 22 09:02:48 2002 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 22 Nov 2002 10:02:48 +0100 Subject: [blml] Hand from Bridge Today References: Message-ID: <3DDDF2B8.107@skynet.be> I believe this is unfair J=FCrgen, J=FCrgen Rennenkampff wrote: >=20 >>Of the 8 calls, there were 6 different answers. >>What is the correct ruling????? >> >=20 > What's the problem? > That means there is a chance that 3 of 8 got it right! > Isn't that a lot better than the usual borderline > case where where 8 of 8 TD's get it wrong and there > are 6 opinions among 8 LC members? >=20 > 75 years of lawmaking - and no agreement on the > simplest eventuality? Give it up and do something=20 > you undertsand better.=20 >=20 75 years of playing bridge, and no agreement by the players about the=20 best way to bid this hand ? Give it up and take another sport. This is no Laws problem, it's a bridge problem. We shall always have thos= e.=20 And we shall disagree about them. > Jurgen >=20 >=20 >=20 > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml >=20 >=20 >=20 --=20 Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw@skynet.be Fri Nov 22 09:11:29 2002 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 22 Nov 2002 10:11:29 +0100 Subject: [blml] Law 75D2 (was dWS for the beginner) References: Message-ID: <3DDDF4C1.2000904@skynet.be> Kooijman, A. wrote: >>Hello Ton, >> >>Kooijman, A. wrote: >> >> >>>>>Herman De Wael wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>N: "4NT" >>>>>>S: "5Di" >>>>>>W: "What is 4NT ?" >>>>>>S: "asking for aces" >>>>>>W: "what is 5Di ?" >>>>>>N: "better minor" >>>>>> >>>>>> >>> >>> he statement is that by answering with >>> >>> >>>>"better minor", >>>> >>>>north HAS infracted L75D2. >>>>Do you wish, seriously, to say that he hasn't ? >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>>If you allow me I wish to say that we don't know yet. It >>> >>depends on the >> >>>agreed meaning of 5D, isn't it? >>> > > > ton > > > >>Well actually no, Ton. >>It depends on the meaning of 4NT. >> > > Herman > > > In my not so humble opinion you are wrong. When having to answer about a > 5D-bid the question whether an infraction occurred is related to the agreed > meaning of the 5D bid and has nothing to do with the meaning of the 4NT bid. > And if you want to say that there normally is a relation between calls made > then you are right. > Please show me the law saying that I am wrong. > Well Ton, nowhere. But you have fallen into the same trap that the internet and blml set up for all of us: careless snipping. I was not talking about the meaning of 5Di. I was talking about the breaking or not of L75D2. Now of course this depends on the actual meaning of 4NT and 5Di, but that was not my point. My point was: Player N bids 4NT, intending it to be asking for minors. Player S explains it as asking for aces, and bids 5Di. Player N now explains this as "better minor". Whatever the actual meaning of 4NT and 5Di, North has given UI to South, telling him that a wheel has come off. Is this a breaking of L75D2, was my question. Now you are right in saying that this depends on the actual meaning, but I don't believe that is what you meant. Indeed L75D2 only kicks in if 4NT is indeed asking for minors. So in a sense you are right that the question depends on the actual meaning. But I thought it would be clear that this was the case. So once again, Ton, and in the assumption that 4NT is indeed asking for minors, and 5Di indeed systemically shows the better minor, is North's response "better minor" yes or no an infraction to L75D2? I believe this is so obviously the case that I am again baffled at your reluctance to answer this simple question. And that last bit is not just directed at you, Ton, but at all of you on this list. > ton > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From A.Kooijman@dwk.agro.nl Fri Nov 22 09:21:21 2002 From: A.Kooijman@dwk.agro.nl (Kooijman, A.) Date: Fri, 22 Nov 2002 10:21:21 +0100 Subject: [blml] Hand from Bridge Today Message-ID: > There is the question, of course, whether the second > diamond lead is 'wild or gambling'; in England, if I recall > correctly, > the regulation excludes misdefence of a contract the defenders > should not be defending. I imagine 'the UK' follows England > in this. ~ G ~ +=+ > > p.s. now I shall go and have my bath and think what in > my 'early' morning coma I may have missed.:-) Probably still in or under water (tell us how your bath is taken please). Another surprising regulation in your kingdom. Where you in the AC of the European youth championships in Plovdiv ('87 or something)? We had an appeal about a misdefence after a wrong explanation (which is not necessarily the same of course, ???). A really stupid defence of a player who knew after the second trick that there had been a misexplanation. The TD (I) didn't give the non offending side anything (a clear case of subsequent damage) but the AC was much more friendly. If you were didn't you realise that the EBL is something different from the EBU? If you weren't what kind of infiltration had you used? ton From A.Kooijman@dwk.agro.nl Fri Nov 22 09:54:53 2002 From: A.Kooijman@dwk.agro.nl (Kooijman, A.) Date: Fri, 22 Nov 2002 10:54:53 +0100 Subject: [blml] Law 75D2 (was dWS for the beginner) Message-ID: >> > >>>>>Herman De Wael wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>>>N: "4NT" > >>>>>>S: "5Di" > >>>>>>W: "What is 4NT ?" > >>>>>>S: "asking for aces" > >>>>>>W: "what is 5Di ?" > >>>>>>N: "better minor" > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>> > >>> his statement is that by answering with > >>> > >>> > >>>>"better minor", > >>>> > >>>>north HAS infracted L75D2. > >>>>Do you wish, seriously, to say that he hasn't ? > >>>> > >>>> > >>> > >>> > >>>If you allow me I wish to say that we don't know yet. It > >>> > >>depends on the > >> > >>>agreed meaning of 5D, isn't it? > >>> > > > > > > ton > > > > > > > >>Well actually no, Ton. > >>It depends on the meaning of 4NT. > >> > > > > Herman > > > > > > In my not so humble opinion you are wrong. When having to > answer about a > > 5D-bid the question whether an infraction occurred is > related to the agreed > > meaning of the 5D bid and has nothing to do with the > meaning of the 4NT bid. > > Well Ton, nowhere. > But you have fallen into the same trap that the internet and blml set > up for all of us: careless snipping. That might be right, but the case as presented made me give this answer, so may be the carelesness was done somewhere in Belgium. > > I was not talking about the meaning of 5Di. I was talking about the > breaking or not of L75D2. > > Now of course this depends on the actual meaning of 4NT and 5Di, but > that was not my point. My point was: > > Player N bids 4NT, intending it to be asking for minors. > Player S explains it as asking for aces, and bids 5Di. > Player N now explains this as "better minor". > > Whatever the actual meaning of 4NT and 5Di, North has given UI to > South, telling him that a wheel has come off. Is this a breaking of > L75D2, was my question. > > Now you are right in saying that this depends on the actual meaning, > but I don't believe that is what you meant. It is not easy to argue with somebody who after reading 'a' to win the argument then says 'but I don't think you meant 'a''. > > Indeed L75D2 only kicks in if 4NT is indeed asking for > minors. In my opinion L75D2 is not applicable at all in this case. The law telling that a player has to explain the partnership aggreements is the one to apply. And L75D2 tells us that a player is not allowed to tell that his partner misexplained a call, explicitly that is. Giving an answer on a question about a call could and may be should be done by pointing to the right box on the convention card or system book. All other ways of doing so should deliver the same information. > > I believe this is so obviously the case that I am again baffled at > your reluctance to answer this simple question. I thought to have answered that simple question in my previous message already. But I have to confess that my 'a' meant 'a'. Sorry for that. > > And that last bit is not just directed at you, Ton, but at > all of you on this list. > Well, let us be grateful you brought it to our attention Curious about the regulations concerning this 'paradox' in England and the UK (they are more independent nowadays isn't it?) Yes, let me add it: this is my very personal opinion. ton From dalburn@btopenworld.com Fri Nov 22 10:41:42 2002 From: dalburn@btopenworld.com (dalburn@btopenworld.com) Date: Fri, 22 Nov 2002 10:41:42 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [blml] Law 75D2 (was dWS for the beginner) Message-ID: <2700235.1037961702287.JavaMail.root@127.0.0.1> Herman wrote: > Player N bids 4NT, intending it to be asking for minors. > Player S explains it as asking for aces, and bids 5Di. > Player N now explains this as "better minor". > Whatever the actual meaning of 4NT and 5Di, North has given UI to South, telling him that a wheel has come off. Is this a breaking of L75D2, was my question. Law 75D: A player whose partner has given a mistaken explanation may not correct the error before the final pass, nor may he indicate in any manner that a mistake has been made Now, if we assume that the correct explanation of 4NT is "for the minors", Herman's question (as I understand it) is this. Has North, by explaining 5D as "better minor": (a) corrected South's mistaken explanation of 4NT as Blackwood? (b) indicated in some manner that a mistake has been made? I am not sure about (a). Putting myself in the position of East or West, I would not *know* at the point North says "better minor" what the NS agreements actually were; all I would know is that they did not know what their agreements were, and that no one could say for certain whether South's explanation had been corrected or merely amended. I am sure about (b). North has certainly acted in such a way as to indicate that a mistake has been made. Of course, he is compelled to act in this manner: he must tell his opponents what his methods are. But if you do not know your methods, you are going to break some rules, and if you break some rules, you must pay the penalty for so doing. There isn't any particular problem with that, apart from the rather curious view held by some people that it's perfectly OK to forget your system, that if you this you normally get a bad result, and that if by doing it you occasionally get a good result, you should not be penalised for lying to the opponents about the methods. North has been forced to break the rules because his side does not know its methods. South has some information he may not use. If East-West are damaged in any way because of either of these things, then they will receive redress for damage. Having said that, I'm not sure I understand why this is a problem. Yes, North has broken Law 75, but he won't be penalised for doing that, since he had to break it in order to comply with other laws. Yes, South has got some UI, but he won't be penalised for that unless he uses it to advantage. So what? David Burn London, England From dalburn@btopenworld.com Fri Nov 22 11:06:44 2002 From: dalburn@btopenworld.com (dalburn@btopenworld.com) Date: Fri, 22 Nov 2002 11:06:44 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [blml] Hand from Bridge Today Message-ID: <6305083.1037963204100.JavaMail.root@127.0.0.1> Grattan wrote: S 2 H K9 D KJ98752 C KQ9 S 3 S - H - H AQT8765432 D AQ3 D T4 C AJT876532 C 4 S AKQJT987654 H J D 6 C - The bidding S W N E 2D (1) 5C 5D(2) 5H 6S DBL AP > > (1) Intended as Benjaminized Acol unlimited artificial. Not alerted > > (2) Thought 2D was standard Acol (8 playing tricks in diamonds) > > West (after 6S) asked North if he was sure and North confirmed his understanding. > > West led AD and led a second diamond so the contract made. > > Director called; EW say they were thoroughly confused > > West stated he would not have doubled with correct information. > > East said he would have bid 7D. > > Of the 8 calls, there were 6 different answers. > > What is the correct ruling????? > = Am I right in understanding that South did not correct the information before the lead was faced? I don't know. What were North-South's actual methods? >Had he done so East was entitled to change his call. When it is too late 40C applies. > My initial reaction is to adjust on the basis of East's statement, - is that 7H rather than 7D? Probably. But if East wants to play in seven diamonds, I'd be quite happy to let him. >There is the question, of course, whether the second diamond lead is 'wild or gambling'; in England, if I recall correctly, the regulation excludes misdefence of a contract the defenders should not be defending. I imagine 'the UK' follows England in this. I tend to lose track of this, but I think that if the defence revokes while defending something it ought not to be defending, it keeps its duff result. Otherwise, however badly it defends, it does not suffer if the contract is amended as a result of a ruling. This absurd position is the consequence of about eighty committee discussions. David Burn London, England From hermandw@skynet.be Fri Nov 22 11:31:37 2002 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 22 Nov 2002 12:31:37 +0100 Subject: [blml] Law 75D2 (was dWS for the beginner) References: Message-ID: <3DDE1599.1060308@skynet.be> Kooijman, A. wrote: > Herman De Wael wrote: > >>>>>>N: "4NT" > >>>>>>S: "5Di" > >>>>>>W: "What is 4NT ?" > >>>>>>S: "asking for aces" > >>>>>>W: "what is 5Di ?" > >>>>>>N: "better minor" > >>>>>> > > In my opinion L75D2 is not applicable at all in this case. The law telling > that a player has to explain the partnership aggreements is the one to > apply. And L75D2 tells us that a player is not allowed to tell that his > partner misexplained a call, explicitly that is. > At last we have arrived somewhere interesting. Apparently, according to a prominent member of the WBFLC, a law that starts with "A player whose partner has given a mistaken explanation" is not applicable in this case, in which a player has a partner who has just given a mistaken application. Apparently "in any manner" means "in any manner except the ones we say". Sorry Ton, for thinking that I had a point. Apparently I don't know how to read English (or Dutch for that manner) > > Yes, let me add it: this is my very personal opinion. > > > ton > > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw@skynet.be Fri Nov 22 11:36:58 2002 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 22 Nov 2002 12:36:58 +0100 Subject: [blml] Law 75D2 (was dWS for the beginner) References: <2700235.1037961702287.JavaMail.root@127.0.0.1> Message-ID: <3DDE16DA.1090701@skynet.be> Thank you David, for at least taking the time to agree that there is a problem. dalburn@btopenworld.com wrote: > Herman wrote: > > >>Player N bids 4NT, intending it to be asking for minors. >>Player S explains it as asking for aces, and bids 5Di. >>Player N now explains this as "better minor". >> > > >>Whatever the actual meaning of 4NT and 5Di, North has given UI to South, telling him that a wheel has come off. Is this a breaking of L75D2, was my question. >> > > Law 75D: > > A player whose partner has given a mistaken explanation may not correct the error before the final pass, nor may he indicate in any manner that a mistake has been made > > Now, if we assume that the correct explanation of 4NT is "for the minors", Herman's question (as I understand it) is this. Has North, by explaining 5D as "better minor": > > (a) corrected South's mistaken explanation of 4NT as Blackwood? > (b) indicated in some manner that a mistake has been made? > > I am not sure about (a). Putting myself in the position of East or West, I would not *know* at the point North says "better minor" what the NS agreements actually were; all I would know is that they did not know what their agreements were, and that no one could say for certain whether South's explanation had been corrected or merely amended. > > I am sure about (b). North has certainly acted in such a way as to indicate that a mistake has been made. Of course, he is compelled to act in this manner: he must tell his opponents what his methods are. But if you do not know your methods, you are going to break some rules, and if you break some rules, you must pay the penalty for so doing. There isn't any particular problem with that, apart from the rather curious view held by some people that it's perfectly OK to forget your system, that if you this you normally get a bad result, and that if by doing it you occasionally get a good result, you should not be penalised for lying to the opponents about the methods. > Thank you David. Common sense prevails. > North has been forced to break the rules because his side does not know its methods. South has some information he may not use. If East-West are damaged in any way because of either of these things, then they will receive redress for damage. > That the question. I maintain that North is equally correct in breaking another Law. > Having said that, I'm not sure I understand why this is a problem. Yes, North has broken Law 75, but he won't be penalised for doing that, since he had to break it in order to comply with other laws. Yes, South has got some UI, but he won't be penalised for that unless he uses it to advantage. So what? > I don't call that a problem either. But neither do I call it a problem if North does the opposite. May I simply take your sentence and switch some words? Having said that, I'm not sure I understand why this is a problem. Yes, North has broken Law 73, but he won't be penalised for doing that, since he had to break it in order to comply with other laws. Yes, East/West have got some MI, but they will be compensated for that if they are at a disadvantage. So what? I have never said that the dWS is the only answer, just that it is a valid answer as well. > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From A.Kooijman@dwk.agro.nl Fri Nov 22 12:29:14 2002 From: A.Kooijman@dwk.agro.nl (Kooijman, A.) Date: Fri, 22 Nov 2002 13:29:14 +0100 Subject: [blml] Law 75D2 (was dWS for the beginner) Message-ID: > > Kooijman, A. wrote: > > > > Herman De Wael wrote: > > > >>>>>>N: "4NT" > > >>>>>>S: "5Di" > > >>>>>>W: "What is 4NT ?" > > >>>>>>S: "asking for aces" > > >>>>>>W: "what is 5Di ?" > > >>>>>>N: "better minor" > > >>>>>> > > > > In my opinion L75D2 is not applicable at all in this case. > The law telling > > that a player has to explain the partnership aggreements is > the one to > > apply. And L75D2 tells us that a player is not allowed to > tell that his > > partner misexplained a call, explicitly that is. > > > > > At last we have arrived somewhere interesting. > Apparently, according to a prominent member of the WBFLC, a law that > starts with "A player whose partner has given a mistaken explanation" > is not applicable in this case, You still seem not to understand the case. L75D2 for sure is applicable. So the player is not allowed to tell opponents that partner misexplained his call until the laws entitle him. And then partner makes a call for which he has to explain the agreement they made. And yes now his partner receives UI. in which a player has a partner who > has just given a mistaken application. > Apparently "in any manner" means "in any manner except the > ones we say". no: 'in any manner except the one the player is required to use' or somewhat better: in any manner except the one the laws prescribe. > > Sorry Ton, for thinking that I had a point. You don't need to apologise, you had a point. But don't complain when it can be blown away that easily. > > Apparently I don't know how to read English (or Dutch for that manner) > Herman may be you understand the words, may be you understand sentences even, but may be not the laws as a whole all the time. Having noticed I am joining David I persist in saying that this is still my personal opinion. These English regulations bother me too much. ton From A.Kooijman@dwk.agro.nl Fri Nov 22 12:43:07 2002 From: A.Kooijman@dwk.agro.nl (Kooijman, A.) Date: Fri, 22 Nov 2002 13:43:07 +0100 Subject: [blml] Hand from Bridge Today Message-ID: Gester saying: > >There is the question, of course, whether the second diamond > lead is 'wild or gambling'; in England, if I recall > correctly, the regulation excludes misdefence of a contract > the defenders should not be defending. I imagine 'the UK' > follows England in this. > > > I tend to lose track of this, but I think that if the defence > revokes while defending something it ought not to be > defending, it keeps its duff result. Otherwise, however badly > it defends, it does not suffer if the contract is amended as > a result of a ruling. This absurd position is the consequence > of about eighty committee discussions. That is easier than one. Organizing a second will meet much more resistence than organizing numnber 81. ton > > David Burn > London, England > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From agot@ulb.ac.be Fri Nov 22 13:00:12 2002 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Fri, 22 Nov 2002 14:00:12 +0100 Subject: [blml] Law Criteria In-Reply-To: <005001c2916f$21659ce0$232a2850@pacific> References: <011a01c2901f$076460c0$3ff7193e@4nrw70j> <00dc01c28ff3$33919900$859c68d5@default> <011201c28ff8$da666440$859c68d5@default> <011a01c2901f$076460c0$3ff7193e@4nrw70j> <5.1.0.14.0.20021121144210.01d7f8e0@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20021122135840.01d3d290@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 14:35 21/11/2002 +0000, gester@lineone.net wrote: >Grattan Endicott^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >" ... as the Earl of Pembroke said to the >ejected nun of Wilton, 'Go spin, you jade, >go spin." > ~ Sir Walter Scott. >^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >----- Original Message ----- >From: "Alain Gottcheiner" >To: "John (MadDog) Probst" ; > >Sent: Thursday, November 21, 2002 1:42 PM >Subject: Re: [blml] Law Criteria > > > > At 16:31 20/11/2002 +0000, John (MadDog) Probst wrote: > > > > > > > >+=+ Please amplify. Is this statement based upon actual > > > >experience [ ], upon an assessment of the mental agility > > > >of Tournament Directors generally [ ], or upon critical > > > >self-appraisal [x]? > > > > To avoid unsustainable effort please mark x in the > > > >appropriate box. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > > > > > >That, Grattan, was *very* funny. But seriously, minor > > > renumbering is a real pain. If one goes for it, it should > > > be a wholesale restructuring. > > > > AG : what about including an index in TFLB ? > > >+=+ 'Puzzled' of Mossley Hill replies: > "Where else might we be thinking of putting one? > In the current Law Book there is both a List >of Contents (but not of malcontents) and an Index >devised by Amalya Kearse. AG : for some reason, thee isn't any index in the French edition I'm reading right now. >The suggestion is to >increase the Index by adding further Keywords and >also to have a List of X-refs from the 1997 Laws to >the New. And DB proposes naming the Laws - not >Henry, Diana or Marvin, perhaps, but possibly with >Keywords? AG : this, however, is already done in my edition. "Loi 42 : droits du mort" From agot@ulb.ac.be Fri Nov 22 13:08:30 2002 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Fri, 22 Nov 2002 14:08:30 +0100 Subject: [blml] Hand from Bridge Today In-Reply-To: <04b101c291cf$5019ef90$7e97c518@D2GX7R11> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20021122140230.01d3c520@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 21:31 21/11/2002 -0500, Bill Bickford wrote: >The following hand was the subject of a Bridge Today article >(September-October 2002 issue). The author reports that he was called to >rule and consulted (by phone) 8 other directors!! >This happened in the UK. > > > S 2 > H K9 > D KJ98752 > C KQ9 > >S 3 S - >H - H AQT8765432 >D AQ3 D T4 >C AJT876532 C 4 > > S AKQJT987654 > H J > D 6 > C - > >The bidding > > S W N E > 2D (1) 5C 5D(2) 5H > 6S DBL AP > >(1) Intended as Benjaminized Acol unlimited artificial. Not alerted >(2) Thought 2D was standard Acol (8 playing tricks in diamonds) > >West (after 6S) asked North if he was sure and North confirmed his >understanding. AG :this is strange. Everybody at the table knows, after the 6S bid, that South no more holds a 2D opener. BTW, South's 6S bid is right : no LA. But South should have corrected the explanation. >West led AD and led a second diamond so the contract made. AG : I don't know why West, knowing from the dumy's sight that south had not the expected 6 diamonds, should specifically think he has 2 rather than one. IMHO, the wrong explanation (provided therewas one) and refusal to correct did not in any way prompt West's play. Rule subsequent damage. >Director called; EW say they were thoroughly confused >West stated he would not have doubled with correct information. >East said he would have bid 7D. AG : seven *what* ? It would probably be correct to admit that East save to 7H, and rule 7H-2 (or perhaps -1). But you can't rule 6SX-1. Best regards, Alain. From twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Fri Nov 22 13:08:00 2002 From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Date: Fri, 22 Nov 2002 13:08 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [blml] Ringer Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <4A256C79.000A3319.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> Richard wrote: > > >>But the Bridge Federation of the ACT decided > >>to reschedule the event, against the wishes > >>of the weakest pair, to a date when the best > >>player was fit to play. > > Tim replied: > > >It would, IMO, be bureaucratic madness to hold > >a 3-pair event from which 3 pairs would qualify. > > Agreed. What would have been a non-ad hoc, non- > ex post facto, and non-bureaucratic procedure > would have been to rule that the three pairs > available to play on the date the qualifying > event was scheduled *automatically* qualified for > the subsequent Interstate event, and the > qualifying event itself was cancelled. This too would have been a reasonable choice. Had I been a member of the BFACT committee it would not have been mine - but I would have gone with a majority. I would feel that the lack of selective qualification undermined both the credentials of the team actually selected, and the Interstate championships as a whole. > >I suspect that even had it been a player from the > >weakest pair who was injured the event would have > >been rescheduled. > > Not so. In the previous year's Youth Team > qualifying event, a different top-class player was > unavailable to play on the scheduled date, and also > requested a rescheduling. Last year the request > for a rescheduling was denied. Did the event go ahead with 4+ pairs? If so the circumstances were different. Or did they cancel, automatically qualify the 3 remaining pairs and receive a lot of stick for not having a competitive qualifying event? > Differential treatment of different players by BFACT created a > Caesar's wife suspicion of bias. To me it sounds more like bad PR management than Bias. Tim From twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Fri Nov 22 13:08:00 2002 From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Date: Fri, 22 Nov 2002 13:08 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [blml] Friendly opponents and pleasant TDs Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <4A256C78.0075C66B.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> Richard wrote: > Do you have a PIN number? :-) When careless - yes:) I have no doubt my classics teacher would have told me off for that as well. I try to say PIN code (OK somewhat tautological) or just PIN. Tim From twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Fri Nov 22 13:08:00 2002 From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Date: Fri, 22 Nov 2002 13:08 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [blml] Law 75D2 (was dWS for the beginner) Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <3DDDF4C1.2000904@skynet.be> Herman wrote: > Indeed L75D2 only kicks in if 4NT is indeed asking for minors. So in a > sense you are right that the question depends on the actual meaning. > But I thought it would be clear that this was the case. > > So once again, Ton, and in the assumption that 4NT is indeed asking > for minors, and 5Di indeed systemically shows the better minor, is > North's response "better minor" yes or no an infraction to L75D2? IMO, No. I believe the context of 75D2 makes it clear that such a response to an opposing question is outside the restriction imposed by 75d2. I know an infraction of 75d2 when I see one and this is not it. I would be happier if the wording included an exception for actions taken to comply with 73c but am capable of inserting it mentally if I have to. Tim From agot@ulb.ac.be Fri Nov 22 13:35:46 2002 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Fri, 22 Nov 2002 14:35:46 +0100 Subject: [blml] Law 75D2 (was dWS for the beginner) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20021122143207.01d2f150@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 13:08 22/11/2002 +0000, Tim West-meads wrote: >In-Reply-To: <3DDDF4C1.2000904@skynet.be> >Herman wrote: > > > Indeed L75D2 only kicks in if 4NT is indeed asking for minors. So in a > > sense you are right that the question depends on the actual meaning. > > But I thought it would be clear that this was the case. > > > > So once again, Ton, and in the assumption that 4NT is indeed asking > > for minors, and 5Di indeed systemically shows the better minor, is > > North's response "better minor" yes or no an infraction to L75D2? > >IMO, No. I believe the context of 75D2 makes it clear that such a >response to an opposing question is outside the restriction imposed by >75d2. I know an infraction of 75d2 when I see one and this is not it. AG : please note this is the worst line any judge or director could utter. An infraction is an infraction when it is written in the laws that it is an infraction, and isn't when it isn't, not when some (even quite competent) person says (s)he sees it isn't. >I would be happier if the wording included an exception for actions taken >to comply with 73c but am capable of inserting it mentally if I have to. AG : only, you are not allowed to do it. Judicis est dicere, non facere. We have to presume that possible exceptions that were omitted by the lawmakers were purposely so. Best regards, Alain. From hermandw@skynet.be Fri Nov 22 13:24:17 2002 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 22 Nov 2002 14:24:17 +0100 Subject: [blml] Law 75D2 (was dWS for the beginner) References: Message-ID: <3DDE3001.5030200@skynet.be> Kooijman, A. wrote: > > >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>In my opinion L75D2 is not applicable at all in this case. >>> >>> >> >>At last we have arrived somewhere interesting. >>Apparently, according to a prominent member of the WBFLC, a law that >>starts with "A player whose partner has given a mistaken explanation" >>is not applicable in this case, >> > > > You still seem not to understand the case. L75D2 for sure is applicable. So > the player is not allowed to tell opponents that partner misexplained his > call until the laws entitle him. And then partner makes a call for which he > has to explain the agreement they made. And yes now his partner receives UI. > > Ton, I do understand these cases - do you? Please read your sentence above. >>>In my opinion L75D2 is not applicable at all in this case. contrast with: > You still seem not to understand the case. L75D2 for sure is applicable. So Was I right or not to be baffled by your first contribution? OK. We have come a bit further already. L75D2 is applicable. Then you invent something: > the player is not allowed to tell opponents that partner misexplained his > call until the laws entitle him. Forgive me for failing to read that into a law that says "not in any manner" not "not unless some other law entitles him". I read that this is your personal opinion. Please allow me my personal opinion and accept that I contend that this player is breaking L75D2. You may feel that he's justified in doing so, but the laws don't mention any of this. And if a player can be justified in breaking one law in favour of another, then why not the reverse? > > > > > in which a player has a partner who > >>has just given a mistaken application. >>Apparently "in any manner" means "in any manner except the >>ones we say". >> > > no: 'in any manner except the one the player is required to use' or somewhat > better: in any manner except the one the laws prescribe. > My point stands. Apparently, according to one eminent member of the WBFLC, "in any manner" means "in any manner except the ones the laws prescribe". If that is the case, then why does the law not say so. Or the WBFLC in an "interpretation". This case is not new, but for 5 years you and Grattan have chosen to remain silent on this issue. I thought that was because you silently believed I had a point. How disapointing. > > >>Sorry Ton, for thinking that I had a point. >> > > You don't need to apologise, you had a point. But don't complain when it can > be blown away that easily. > > I don't believe it is blown away. > > > >>Apparently I don't know how to read English (or Dutch for that manner) >> > >>Herman >> > > > > may be you understand the words, may be you understand sentences even, but > may be not the laws as a whole all the time. > And who says these are the laws? Ah, I forgot, the chairman of the WBFLC. In an expression of his personal opinion. > > > Having noticed I am joining David I persist in saying that this is still my > personal opinion. These English regulations bother me too much. > > > ton > > > > > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From ehaa@starpower.net Fri Nov 22 13:38:56 2002 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Fri, 22 Nov 2002 08:38:56 -0500 Subject: [blml] Hand from Bridge Today In-Reply-To: <04b101c291cf$5019ef90$7e97c518@D2GX7R11> Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.0.20021122082318.00a9ddd0@pop.starpower.net> At 09:31 PM 11/21/02, Bill wrote: >The following hand was the subject of a Bridge Today article >(September-October 2002 issue). The author reports that he was called to >rule and consulted (by phone) 8 other directors!! >This happened in the UK. > > > S 2 > H K9 > D KJ98752 > C KQ9 > >S 3 S - >H - H AQT8765432 >D AQ3 D T4 >C AJT876532 C 4 > > S AKQJT987654 > H J > D 6 > C - > >The bidding > > S W N E > 2D (1) 5C 5D(2) 5H > 6S DBL AP > >(1) Intended as Benjaminized Acol unlimited artificial. Not alerted >(2) Thought 2D was standard Acol (8 playing tricks in diamonds) > >West (after 6S) asked North if he was sure and North confirmed his >understanding. > > >West led AD and led a second diamond so the contract made. > >Director called; EW say they were thoroughly confused >West stated he would not have doubled with correct information. >East said he would have bid 7D. > > >Of the 8 calls, there were 6 different answers. > > >What is the correct ruling????? That's obviously too tough a question, but I'd vote to let the score stand. Even if we assume that 2D was supposed to be standard Acol by agreement, so that E-W were clearly misinformed, it is obvious on the auction that that is not what S held. The MI could not possibly have confused E-W to the point of believing that S was prepared to declare 6SX holding a diamond one-suiter (moreover, W made the crucial decision at trick 2, after seeing the dummy!). Everybody knew approximately what S actually held, and there was no reason to believe that the side-issue of whether or not his actual holding was consistent with his systemic agreements could have affected the defense. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 From twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Fri Nov 22 15:11:00 2002 From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Date: Fri, 22 Nov 2002 15:11 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [blml] Law 75D2 (was dWS for the beginner) Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20021122143207.01d2f150@pop.ulb.ac.be> Alain wrote: > > > Indeed L75D2 only kicks in if 4NT is indeed asking for minors. So > > > in a > > > sense you are right that the question depends on the actual meaning. > > > But I thought it would be clear that this was the case. > > > > > > So once again, Ton, and in the assumption that 4NT is indeed asking > > > for minors, and 5Di indeed systemically shows the better minor, is > > > North's response "better minor" yes or no an infraction to L75D2? > > > >IMO, No. I believe the context of 75D2 makes it clear that such a > >response to an opposing question is outside the restriction imposed by > >75d2. I know an infraction of 75d2 when I see one and this is not it. > > AG : please note this is the worst line any judge or director could > utter. Just for the record how do the Belgians distinguish between art and pornography (if they bother). > An infraction is an infraction when it is written in the laws that it > is an infraction, and isn't when it isn't, not when some (even quite > competent) person says (s)he sees it isn't. If it was explicitly written into the laws we wouldn't have this discussion. > >I would be happier if the wording included an exception for actions > taken to comply with 73c but am capable of inserting it mentally if I > >have to. Should have been 75c, of course. > > AG : only, you are not allowed to do it. > Judicis est dicere, non facere. > We have to presume that possible exceptions that were omitted by the > lawmakers were purposely so. You may, if you wish, assume that the lawmakers intended to make *any* response given in this situation an infraction. I assume that they considered the placement and context of L75d2 after L75c to be sufficient to give priority to L75c. Either assumption may be correct but we both know that the laws are shot full of holes/ambiguities/ interpretations etc. Surely nobody on this list regards this as an ideal situation but in the meantime we all interpret the laws as best we can. Tim From agot@ulb.ac.be Fri Nov 22 15:47:47 2002 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Fri, 22 Nov 2002 16:47:47 +0100 Subject: [blml] Law 75D2 (was dWS for the beginner) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20021122163843.01d3f510@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 15:11 22/11/2002 +0000, Tim West-meads wrote: > > An infraction is an infraction when it is written in the laws that it > > is an infraction, and isn't when it isn't, not when some (even quite > > competent) person says (s)he sees it isn't. > >If it was explicitly written into the laws we wouldn't have this >discussion. AG : the prolegomena to the laws say than when the wording od a law=20 contains "must", it tells a stern obligation and you will be penalized if=20 you do otherwise (sorry for the paraphrasing, I'm working on the basis of=20 the French version : "=E9tablit une obligation dont le non respect est une= =20 obligation tr=E8s s=E9rieuse qui, sauf cas particulier, sera toujours=20 sanctionn=E9e"). The verb in the part of L75D is "must", so this sentence was intended to be= =20 strong. Tim : I assume that they considered the placement and context of L75d2=20 after L75c to be sufficient to give priority to L75c. AG : IMOBO, those who say it should yield to other parts of L75 forgot the= =20 intended (and written) meaning of 'must'. The wording of L75C only uses the= =20 future form, which (once again according to the prolegomena) makes it=20 slightly less severe. No interpretation is needed. Only the use of the first part of the Laws. Best regards, Alain. From gester@lineone.net Fri Nov 22 15:46:41 2002 From: gester@lineone.net (gester@lineone.net) Date: Fri, 22 Nov 2002 15:46:41 -0000 Subject: [blml] Hand from Bridge Today References: Message-ID: <002101c2923f$dc4ca280$ac1e2850@pacific> Grattan Endicott To: "'Grattan Endicott'" ; "bridge laws mailing list" Sent: Friday, November 22, 2002 9:21 AM Subject: RE: [blml] Hand from Bridge Today > > Probably still in or under water (tell us how your > bath is taken please). > +=+ Wet, but there are other ways, too, of getting wet in England. I could wak outside. +=+ > > Another surprising regulation in your kingdom. > Where you in the AC of the European youth > championships in Plovdiv ('87 or something)? We > had an appeal about a misdefence after a wrong > explanation (which is not necessarily the same of > course, ???). A really stupid defence of a player > who knew after the second trick that there had > been a misexplanation. The TD (I) didn't give > the non offending side anything (a clear case of > subsequent damage) but the AC was much more > friendly. If you were didn't you realise that the EBL > is something different from the EBU? If you weren't > what kind of infiltration had you used? > > ton > +=+ I am not surprised you did not notice I was absent from Plovdiv, but I am a little taken aback that you did not write down the names of the AC members in a little black book. How presumptuous that they should set aside your ruling! :-) As for the English regulations the decisions are made in committee. I attend these days as a Vice President, not as a member, and am allowed to express opinion but not vote. I enter a disclaimer whenever things go awry. ~ G ~ +=+ From gester@lineone.net Fri Nov 22 15:47:56 2002 From: gester@lineone.net (gester@lineone.net) Date: Fri, 22 Nov 2002 15:47:56 -0000 Subject: [blml] Law Criteria References: <011a01c2901f$076460c0$3ff7193e@4nrw70j> <00dc01c28ff3$33919900$859c68d5@default> <011201c28ff8$da666440$859c68d5@default> <011a01c2901f$076460c0$3ff7193e@4nrw70j> <5.1.0.14.0.20021121144210.01d7f8e0@pop.ulb.ac.be> <5.1.0.14.0.20021122135840.01d3d290@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <002201c2923f$dd160d00$ac1e2850@pacific> Grattan Endicott >----- Original Message ----- > >From: "Alain Gottcheiner" > >To: "John (MadDog) Probst" ; > > > >Sent: Thursday, November 21, 2002 1:42 PM > >Subject: Re: [blml] Law Criteria > > > > AG : for some reason, thee isn't any index in the >French edition I'm reading right now. > +=+ Lack of fire power? Faute de munition? +=+ > > > . And DB proposes naming the Laws - not > >Henry, Diana or Marvin, perhaps, but possibly with > >Keywords? > > AG : this, however, is already done in my edition. > "Loi 42 : droits du mort" > +=+ Oh yes, in the English, too. The fault here is one of confusion through excess. Pruning to essentials is the key. +=+ From willner@cfa.harvard.edu Fri Nov 22 16:11:36 2002 From: willner@cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Fri, 22 Nov 2002 11:11:36 -0500 (EST) Subject: [blml] Law 75D2 (was dWS for the beginner) Message-ID: <200211221611.LAA25333@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> > From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) > I believe the context of 75D2 makes it clear that a [correct] > response to an opposing question is outside the restriction imposed by > 75d2. This is certainly a widespread opinion. Indeed a number of our most distinguished posters are certain it is so. > I would be happier if the wording included an exception for actions taken > to comply with 73c but am capable of inserting it mentally if I have to. Unfortunately, there is no such wording. Indeed, as Alain and Herman have pointed out, a naive reading of the (equivalent of) "may not" in L75D2 makes it exactly as strong as the "shall" in L75C, if I am reading the Preface correctly. I don't think we will make much further progress arguing about the existing text. The more important question is what the rule should be in the future. There seem to be at least three possibilities: 1. Give precedence to avoiding MI at the price of giving UI. 2. Give precedence to avoiding UI at the price of giving MI. 3. Let the player choose, according to which one seems less likely to damage his side. Factors to consider are not only which of the above leads to a more pleasant and interesting game but also which one is most likely to be understood and followed by players. We should not underestimate the difficulty of bidding according to one "system" while explaining according to another. Also, there is the question of which rule will be easiest to adjudicate in practice. One difficulty we have now is having to construct a fantasy bidding system that neither of the players actually plays. If it were possible to avoid having to decide what the actual agreement is, that would make things much easier. Due weight also has to be given to precedent and existing practice. I don't have a strong opinion on this issue, but it is far from obvious to me that 1. is the best answer. I don't envy the people who will have to sort through all the issues, but I do hope they will consider the question with open minds. From willner@cfa.harvard.edu Fri Nov 22 16:14:49 2002 From: willner@cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Fri, 22 Nov 2002 11:14:49 -0500 (EST) Subject: [blml] Hand from Bridge Today Message-ID: <200211221614.LAA25337@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> > From: Alain Gottcheiner > It would probably be correct to admit that East save to 7H, and rule 7H-2 > (or perhaps -1). But you can't rule 6SX-1. Sorry, Alain, but that last eludes me. Suppose West had been given a correct explanation before the opening lead. Don't you think it is then likely he would have switched suits at trick 2? From twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Fri Nov 22 17:27:00 2002 From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Date: Fri, 22 Nov 2002 17:27 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [blml] Law 75D2 (was dWS for the beginner) Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20021122163843.01d3f510@pop.ulb.ac.be> > At 15:11 22/11/2002 +0000, Tim West-meads wrote: > > > > An infraction is an infraction when it is written in the laws that > > > it > > > is an infraction, and isn't when it isn't, not when some (even quite > > > competent) person says (s)he sees it isn't. > > > >If it was explicitly written into the laws we wouldn't have this > >discussion. > > AG : the prolegomena to the laws say than when the wording od a law > contains "must", it tells a stern obligation and you will be penalized > if you do otherwise (sorry for the paraphrasing, I'm working on the > basis of the French version : "établit une obligation dont le non > respect est une obligation très sérieuse qui, sauf cas particulier, > sera toujours sanctionnée"). > The verb in the part of L75D is "must", so this sentence was intended > to be strong. In English the only "must" in L75d is in reference to correcting an explanation. The bit about "indicating in any manner.." uses the construction "nor may", to my mind this lessens the obligation to below that of the "shall" in L75c. > Tim : I assume that they considered the placement and context of L75d2 > after L75c to be sufficient to give priority to L75c. > > AG : IMOBO, those who say it should yield to other parts of L75 forgot > the intended (and written) meaning of 'must'. The wording of L75C only > uses the future form, which (once again according to the prolegomena) > makes it slightly less severe. > > No interpretation is needed. Only the use of the first part of the Laws. If no interpretation was needed then everybody here would accept the dWS and players would be penalised for giving an accurate systemic answer in this situation. The WBFLC could issue such an interpretation (they could also issue an interpretation that L75c takes precedence). Until they do players and TDs will continue to adopt the dWS (or not) as they see fit. I do not consider the dWS outrageous, or even a twisting of the law, it is, IMO, a reasonable interpretation. It is not the *only* reasonable interpretation. Note however that Herman sees this as a "choice of infraction" situation and is trying to choose the lesser (he will adjust if the MI so arising damages opps). I believe that there must always be "non-infraction" option for a player - which can only be achieved by recognising that explaining partner's call accurately need not be an infraction. Tim From jurgenr@t-online.de Fri Nov 22 18:10:46 2002 From: jurgenr@t-online.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?J=FCrgen_Rennenkampff?=) Date: Fri, 22 Nov 2002 19:10:46 +0100 Subject: [blml] Hand from Bridge Today Message-ID: >> Bill Bickford wrote: >> >> >The following hand was the subject of a Bridge Today article >> >(September-October 2002 issue). The author reports that he >> was called to >> >rule and consulted (by phone) 8 other directors!! >> >> [...} >> >> >Of the 8 calls, there were 6 different answers. >> >What is the correct ruling????? >> >> What's the problem? >> That means there is a chance that 3 of 8 got it right! >> Isn't that a lot better than the usual borderline >> case where where 8 of 8 TD's get it wrong and there >> are 6 opinions among 8 LC members? >> >> 75 years of lawmaking - and no agreement on the >> simplest eventuality? >Are you rude too, or is this ignorance (probably both)? >What the h*** this has to do with 75 years of lawmaking? >There are hundreds of years of lawmaking and still murders occur. If you think this analogy is apt then I have not been rude enough. For 75 years people have been formulating and revising the Laws, and still the Laws are poorly thought out and very poorly expressed. If established procedures are followed there is no reason to believe that the next revision will bring about more than marginal improvement. A situation has been created where an overwhelming majority of the players does not know the rules of the game they play, and - as the example shows - neither do many TD's. Doesn't this suggest that there is something radically wrong? When competitive Bridge in the largest constituency collapses, which you should expect to happen within the next decade, the absurd obscurity and inconsistency of the laws will be seen as a contributing cause; and what is occurring in these discussions will appear as an incomprehensible and irresponsible danse macabre. Jurgen ton From twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Fri Nov 22 18:22:00 2002 From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Date: Fri, 22 Nov 2002 18:22 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [blml] Hand from Bridge Today Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <200211221614.LAA25337@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> > > From: Alain Gottcheiner > > It would probably be correct to admit that East save to 7H, and rule > > 7H-2 (or perhaps -1). But you can't rule 6SX-1. > > Sorry, Alain, but that last eludes me. Suppose West had been given a > correct explanation before the opening lead. Don't you think it is > then likely he would have switched suits at trick 2? Before leading to trick 2 EW have a) avoided sacrificing against a non-making contract b) found the only lead to beat the slam If West still thinks that South has a strong 2D opener at this point he is completely off his trolley. South has obviously psyched with a Spade one-suiter (there is nothing he can hold even remotely consistent with either an Acol or a Benji 2D call). If we find MI there are, I think, 2 possible adjustments If East bids 7H the "book" lead against a grand is a trump:) East draws trumps, D to A, S ruff, squeeze north in the minors - likely/at all probable - maybe not? South bids 7S over 7H is doubled and West starts DA,CA. 7Sx-2. That seems quite plausible enough to be likely. Tim From willner@cfa.harvard.edu Fri Nov 22 19:25:50 2002 From: willner@cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Fri, 22 Nov 2002 14:25:50 -0500 (EST) Subject: [blml] Hand from Bridge Today Message-ID: <200211221925.OAA25422@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> > From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) > Before leading to trick 2 EW have ... > If West still thinks that South has a strong 2D opener at this point he is > completely off his trolley. That is certainly a reasonable ruling: you are saying that West's second diamond is irrational. I'm not sure I agree, but it is certainly reasonable. That would still leave the OS score to be adjusted to 6Sx-1. Nevertheless, if we believe there is MI (which is still not established by the facts reported), the right question to ask _first_ is what would have happened without the MI. Do you really believe West would have gone wrong had he been told 2D was Benji? By the way, I think at least some other leads beat the slam as well. South cannot reach dummy to take any discards unless the defense helps him out. From ehaa@starpower.net Fri Nov 22 20:40:27 2002 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Fri, 22 Nov 2002 15:40:27 -0500 Subject: [blml] Hand from Bridge Today In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.0.20021122152315.00a93ec0@pop.starpower.net> At 03:42 AM 11/22/02, Kooijman wrote: >There are hundreds of years of lawmaking and still murders occur. But in very few cases are they committed by persons who are ignorant of the fact that they are breaking the law when they do so. And in the rare cases when they are, we hold the murderer not guilty by reason of insanity. The vast majority of infractions against the laws of bridge, OTOH, are committed not by those who intentionally violate them, but by those who do not realize they are doing so. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Fri Nov 22 22:10:44 2002 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Fri, 22 Nov 2002 17:10:44 -0500 Subject: [blml] I don't teach bridge In-Reply-To: <003c01c29123$6cd3d4e0$049a1e18@san.rr.com> Message-ID: On 11/20/02, Marvin L. French wrote: >Ed, if I were to play with you without discussing anything but what >goes on the CC, we would be a partnership. I sure hope so! :-) [snip] >These are partnership agreements, but they are not special partnership >agreements. They are derived from our general knowledge and >experience, hence their meanings need not be disclosed to opponents >(per L75C). Oh, I agree with you. The point is that it seems to me that Grattan's definition leads down a wrong path. It is certainly *possible* for us to assign some meaning other than the ones you mentioned to the calls in the list I snipped. From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Fri Nov 22 22:05:35 2002 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Fri, 22 Nov 2002 17:05:35 -0500 Subject: [blml] I don't teach bridge In-Reply-To: <003b01c29120$c4d26920$049a1e18@san.rr.com> Message-ID: On 11/20/02, Marvin L. French wrote: >Are they picking on me? Ever since they made me Alert strong jump >overcalls, penalty doubles of overcalls, natural 3NT opening based on >a long suit + stoppers, light 2/1 responses, and natural 2NT overcall, >I've had to resist an inclination toward parnoia. You're not paranoid, Marv. They really are after you. :-) From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Fri Nov 22 22:28:07 2002 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Fri, 22 Nov 2002 17:28:07 -0500 Subject: [blml] Law 75D2 (was dWS for the beginner) In-Reply-To: <2700235.1037961702287.JavaMail.root@127.0.0.1> Message-ID: On 11/22/02, dalburn@btopenworld.com wrote: >There isn't any particular problem with that, apart from the rather >curious view held by some people that it's perfectly OK to forget your >system, that if you this you normally get a bad result, and that if by >doing it you occasionally get a good result, you should not be >penalised for lying to the opponents about the methods. lie intransitive verb (past=A0lied, past participle=A0lied, present participle=A0ly=B7ing, 3rd person present singular=A0lies) 1.=A0deliberately say something untrue:=A0to say something that is not tr= ue in a conscious effort to deceive somebody I fail to see how someone who has forgotten his system can be *deliberately* attempting to deceive opponents. And of course, it is entirely possible that a player who has forgotten his system hasn't been asked to describe it, in which case, having said nothing at all, he certainly cannot have lied. From dalburn@btopenworld.com Sat Nov 23 00:50:13 2002 From: dalburn@btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: Sat, 23 Nov 2002 00:50:13 -0000 Subject: [blml] Law 75D2 (was dWS for the beginner) References: Message-ID: <002d01c2928a$48c1d580$f6a423d9@pbncomputer> Ed wrote: >lie intransitive verb (past lied, past participle lied, present participle ly·ing, 3rd person present singular lies) 1. deliberately say something untrue: to say something that is not true in a conscious effort to deceive somebody It's all right, Ed. I speak English. Given that you have quoted definition 1, I suspect that there is a definition 2 that you may have omitted for dramatic purposes. My own dictionary gives: lie (n) a false statement made with the intention of deceiving; anything misleading, or of the nature of imposture; (v) to utter falsehood with the intent to deceive; to give a false impression >I fail to see how someone who has forgotten his system can be *deliberately* attempting to deceive opponents. He isn't. But the point is that intent does not matter; that is why we have all these "could have knowns" in the rules. In this context, "lie" has the (admittedly secondary) meaning of "to utter an untruth". It does not matter whether you were trying to fool the opponents, all that matters is whether or not you succeeded. David Burn London, England From bbickford@charter.net Sat Nov 23 01:41:08 2002 From: bbickford@charter.net (Bill Bickford) Date: Fri, 22 Nov 2002 20:41:08 -0500 Subject: [blml] Hand from Bridge Today (the results) References: <5.1.0.14.0.20021122140230.01d3c520@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <003901c29291$65360ef0$7e97c518@D2GX7R11> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Alain Gottcheiner" To: "Bill Bickford" ; "Bridge Laws Forum" Sent: Friday, November 22, 2002 8:08 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Hand from Bridge Today > At 21:31 21/11/2002 -0500, Bill Bickford wrote: > >The following hand was the subject of a Bridge Today article > >(September-October 2002 issue). The author reports that he was called to > >rule and consulted (by phone) 8 other directors!! > >This happened in the UK. > > > > > > S 2 > > H K9 > > D KJ98752 > > C KQ9 > > > >S 3 S - > >H - H AQT8765432 > >D AQ3 D T4 > >C AJT876532 C 4 > > > > S AKQJT987654 > > H J > > D 6 > > C - > > > >The bidding > > > > S W N E > > 2D (1) 5C 5D(2) 5H > > 6S DBL AP > > > >(1) Intended as Benjaminized Acol unlimited artificial. Not alerted > >(2) Thought 2D was standard Acol (8 playing tricks in diamonds) > > > >West (after 6S) asked North if he was sure and North confirmed his > >understanding. > For those interested, the 6 results were: 1. 6S doubled - result stands NS +1660. 2. 6S doubled - result stands but procedural fine of 20% against NS. 3. 6S stands without double NS +1430. 4. 6S defended correctly NS -100. 5. 6S double stands and defended correctly NS -200. (this result was awarded 3 times) 6. Split ruling - NS 6S doubled -1 and EW 7H doubled down 2. The author in Bridge Today was Danny Roth and he gives an adddress in Essex. He also asks for comments at danny@Dannyroth.demon.co.uk. His theme in the article is to deplore the multiplicity of rulings from (at least he believes) competent directors. Cheers.................................../Bill Bickford > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk Sat Nov 23 06:40:05 2002 From: grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk (grandeval) Date: Sat, 23 Nov 2002 06:40:05 -0000 Subject: [blml] Hand from Bridge Today References: <200211221925.OAA25422@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <001301c292bb$602d0ce0$876b87d9@4nrw70j> Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Friday, November 22, 2002 7:25 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Hand from Bridge Today > > From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) > > Before leading to trick 2 EW have > ... > > If West still thinks that South has a strong 2D opener > > at this point he is completely off his trolley. > > That is certainly a reasonable ruling: you are saying > that West's second diamond is irrational. I'm not sure > I agree, but it is certainly reasonable. That would still > leave the OS score to be adjusted to 6Sx-1. > > Nevertheless, if we believe there is MI (which is still > not established by the facts reported), the right > question to ask _first_ is what would have happened > without the MI. Do you really believe West would have > gone wrong had he been told 2D was Benji? > +=+ 1. If the explanation of the 2D bid is in accordance with the partnership agreement, what offence has occurred? Surely we should be turning our attention to some other table that has more need of us? 2. If the explanation is not in accordance with the partnership agreement we must take into account East's right before the opening lead to change his final pass. As he has lost the opportunity Law 40C applies to get it back for him. 3. Yes, West is irrational and wild. He had seen that lead from A Q x (usually of trumps) in a book and wanted to try it. John Hill got it right when G C H Fox tried it against him sometime about 1966. But West here has not thought about the auction. However, if the East West pair should have been in 7Hx as East suggested, this would be a defence to a contract they would not be in, which in England (uniquely) is not to be deemed "wild or gambling" (the EBU regs do not mention 'irrational', a term to be reserved here for the English guidance to TDs - if it is what I think it is, I have not got my White Book handy). 4. If I am wrong about the English guidance then EW can keep their score, but NS should be adjusted to 7Hx minus 2. ~ G ~ +=+ From hermandw@skynet.be Sat Nov 23 09:56:01 2002 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Sat, 23 Nov 2002 10:56:01 +0100 Subject: [blml] Law 75D2 (was dWS for the beginner) References: Message-ID: <3DDF50B1.1010100@skynet.be> Allow me to insert here a teaser for an argument I will devellop: Tim West-meads wrote: > > You may, if you wish, assume that the lawmakers intended to make *any* > response given in this situation an infraction. I assume that they > considered the placement and context of L75d2 after L75c to be > sufficient to give priority to L75c. Either assumption may be correct but > we both know that the laws are shot full of holes/ambiguities/ > interpretations etc. Surely nobody on this list regards this as an ideal > situation but in the meantime we all interpret the laws as best we can. > I assume that the lawmakers intended to solve the choice of giving UI or MI by writing L75D2. And what did they choose? MI. Imagine what would happen if there were no L75D2. We would be argueing at similar length about what a player should do when he hears his partner give a wrong explanation about his bid. Correct it and give UI? Or keep silent and allow the MI to continue. I can imagine that the majority on this list, who seem to think of MI as the worst crime possible, would be argueing in favour of UI. But the Lawmakers did make their intent known and they wrote L75D2. Which says : "thou shalt not give UI to partner". > Tim > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw@skynet.be Sat Nov 23 10:00:04 2002 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Sat, 23 Nov 2002 11:00:04 +0100 Subject: [blml] Law 75D2 (was dWS for the beginner) References: <200211221611.LAA25333@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <3DDF51A4.4050202@skynet.be> Steve Willner wrote: > > I don't think we will make much further progress arguing about the > existing text. The more important question is what the rule should be > in the future. There seem to be at least three possibilities: > > 1. Give precedence to avoiding MI at the price of giving UI. > 2. Give precedence to avoiding UI at the price of giving MI. > 3. Let the player choose, according to which one seems less likely > to damage his side. > > Factors to consider are not only which of the above leads to a more > pleasant and interesting game but also which one is most likely to be > understood and followed by players. We should not underestimate the > difficulty of bidding according to one "system" while explaining > according to another. Also, there is the question of which rule will > be easiest to adjudicate in practice. One difficulty we have now is > having to construct a fantasy bidding system that neither of the > players actually plays. If it were possible to avoid having to decide > what the actual agreement is, that would make things much easier. Due > weight also has to be given to precedent and existing practice. > > I don't have a strong opinion on this issue, but it is far from obvious > to me that 1. is the best answer. I don't envy the people who will > have to sort through all the issues, but I do hope they will consider > the question with open minds. > Well, considering the wording of L75D2, the lawmakers have already told us that they believed 1. was the best answer in the past. So if you now want to go for 2. it should be all through. Imagine rewriting L75D2: "a player whose partner has given a mistaken explanation shall call the director immediately, and correct the explanation is his presence. The director shall inform the partner as to his obligations under L16 and explain that the corrected information is UI to him." It's Bridge Jim, but not as we know it. > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Sat Nov 23 10:19:00 2002 From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Date: Sat, 23 Nov 2002 10:19 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [blml] Hand from Bridge Today Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <200211221925.OAA25422@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> > > From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) > > Before leading to trick 2 EW have > ... > > If West still thinks that South has a strong 2D opener at this point > > he is completely off his trolley. > > That is certainly a reasonable ruling: you are saying that West's > second diamond is irrational. I'm not saying it is irrational (although I was tempted). I am saying it is completely unrelated to any MI. > I'm not sure I agree, but it is > certainly reasonable. That would still leave the OS score to be > adjusted to 6Sx-1. Not sure. I just can't see that the MI caused any damage or affected the trick 2 decision in any way. > Nevertheless, if we believe there is MI (which is still not established > by the facts reported), the right question to ask _first_ is what would > have happened without the MI. Do you really believe West would have > gone wrong had he been told 2D was Benji? At trick 2 - yes. But I would adjust on the grounds the auction would differ. > By the way, I think at least some other leads beat the slam as well. > South cannot reach dummy to take any discards unless the defense helps > him out. My mistake, S3 lead also beats it. On the CA lead defenders do indeed help declarer get to dummy (after ruffing, drawing trump, and playing a D). Tim From svenpran@online.no Sat Nov 23 10:37:20 2002 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sat, 23 Nov 2002 11:37:20 +0100 Subject: [blml] Law 75D2 (was dWS for the beginner) References: <3DDF50B1.1010100@skynet.be> Message-ID: <001901c292dc$4d9fbd90$70d8fea9@WINXP> From: "Herman De Wael" > Allow me to insert here a teaser for an argument I will devellop: > > Tim West-meads wrote: > > > > > You may, if you wish, assume that the lawmakers intended to make *any* > > response given in this situation an infraction. I assume that they > > considered the placement and context of L75d2 after L75c to be > > sufficient to give priority to L75c. Either assumption may be correct but > > we both know that the laws are shot full of holes/ambiguities/ > > interpretations etc. Surely nobody on this list regards this as an ideal > > situation but in the meantime we all interpret the laws as best we can. > > > > > I assume that the lawmakers intended to solve the choice of giving UI > or MI by writing L75D2. And what did they choose? MI. > Imagine what would happen if there were no L75D2. > We would be argueing at similar length about what a player should do > when he hears his partner give a wrong explanation about his bid. > Correct it and give UI? > Or keep silent and allow the MI to continue. > > I can imagine that the majority on this list, who seem to think of MI > as the worst crime possible, would be argueing in favour of UI. > But the Lawmakers did make their intent known and they wrote L75D2. > Which says : "thou shalt not give UI to partner". Are you sure of your logic here? Obviously when hearing partner give an (in your opinion) wrong explanation you are required to keep quiet. But equally obviously when you are asked about the auction you are required to give the correct (as you know it) explanation. The problem arises when your explanation will reveal that your partner has given a wrong explanation. Let an agreement be that 2D after a 1NT opening is game forcing Stayman (2C is then of course non-forcing Stayman) and consider the auction: N:1NT - S:2D - N:2H At this time East (who is in turn to call) asks for an explanation: South correctly tells him that 1NT is 15-17 North incorrectly says that 2D is transfer and South says that 2H is what? If he hadn't been asked to give an explanation he would of course still have to keep quiet, but now he in my opinion must give the correct explanation, and this explanation is UI to North. Consider the alternative: If South "must" say that 2H is the "normal" transfer response, what will be the basis on which he "must" continue his part of the auction? Effectively switching his system????? Calling as if North holds 4 hearts????? I feel sorry for the legal conflict between Laws 75C and 75D2, but agree with those that consider Law 75C to take precedence. regards Sven From hermandw@skynet.be Sat Nov 23 13:07:38 2002 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Sat, 23 Nov 2002 14:07:38 +0100 Subject: [blml] Law 75D2 (was dWS for the beginner) References: <3DDF50B1.1010100@skynet.be> <001901c292dc$4d9fbd90$70d8fea9@WINXP> Message-ID: <3DDF7D9A.8060500@skynet.be> Sven, just one comment: Sven Pran wrote: >> >>I assume that the lawmakers intended to solve the choice of giving UI >>or MI by writing L75D2. And what did they choose? MI. >>Imagine what would happen if there were no L75D2. >>We would be argueing at similar length about what a player should do >>when he hears his partner give a wrong explanation about his bid. >>Correct it and give UI? >>Or keep silent and allow the MI to continue. >> >>I can imagine that the majority on this list, who seem to think of MI >>as the worst crime possible, would be argueing in favour of UI. >>But the Lawmakers did make their intent known and they wrote L75D2. >>Which says : "thou shalt not give UI to partner". >> > > Are you sure of your logic here? > > Obviously when hearing partner give an (in your opinion) wrong explanation > you are required to keep quiet. But equally obviously when you are asked > about the auction you are required to give the correct (as you know it) > explanation. The problem arises when your explanation will reveal that > your partner has given a wrong explanation. > Obviously ? Why obviously ? Only because the Lawmakers say so ! Without L75D2, there could be just as much justification for saying that "obviously" opponents have the right to correct explanations, so a player hearing his partner misexplain ought to correct this forthwith, never mind UI explanations. Nothing obvious about this one way or the other. Then the Lawmakers have explicitely stated that they consider the MI to be less important than the giving of UI, and they wrote L75D2. And you say that this is "obvious". Yet you don't want to go one step further and say that it should be equally "obvious" that the same preference should be given one round later : MI is preferable to UI. Instead the majority on the list say that it is "obvious" that UI is preferable to MI. I really don't see anything "obvious" here, except one thing = this discussion will not go away. Certainly not with arguments that start with the word Obviously. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw@skynet.be Sat Nov 23 13:17:05 2002 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Sat, 23 Nov 2002 14:17:05 +0100 Subject: [blml] Law 75D2 (was dWS for the beginner) References: <3DDF50B1.1010100@skynet.be> <001901c292dc$4d9fbd90$70d8fea9@WINXP> Message-ID: <3DDF7FD1.5040703@skynet.be> After my comments on your use of the word obviously, I will also comment on your example. Sven Pran wrote: > > Let an agreement be that 2D after a 1NT opening is game forcing > Stayman (2C is then of course non-forcing Stayman) and consider > the auction: N:1NT - S:2D - N:2H > At this time East (who is in turn to call) asks for an explanation: > South correctly tells him that 1NT is 15-17 > North incorrectly says that 2D is transfer > and South says that 2H is what? > dWS : "completion of transfer". > If he hadn't been asked to give an explanation he would of course still have > to keep quiet, but now he in my opinion must give the correct explanation, > and this explanation is UI to North. > In your opinion. Not in mine. > Consider the alternative: If South "must" say that 2H is the "normal" > transfer > response, what will be the basis on which he "must" continue his part of the > auction? On the basis of what he believes it is. What is the problem. What problem is there with bidding as if partner has 4 hearts while explaining (and knowing) that he has not shown these ? > Effectively switching his system????? Of course not. > Calling as if North holds 4 hearts????? Of course - the knowledge that he hasn't is UI. We have no quarrel about this, of course he should continue bidding as if he hadn't heard the mistaken explanation. What has explaining 2He got to do with that? Nothing! Consider the same story again, but have South realize that his initial idea was wrong. In fact the pair are playing transfers, and not forcing Stayman. What should South do now? Well, easy: explain that 2He is completion of transfer, yet bid as if North has shown 4 of them. Why should he have any more difficulty in doing exactly the same if 2Di is in fact stayman ? Mind you, I am merely debunking your argument, not providing one of my own - there is no inherent problem in following the dWS, and there is -trust me, I've done it often- no difficulty in explaining the position to players. They accept that this is the way they should act and they don't have a problem with it. > > I feel sorry for the legal conflict between Laws 75C and 75D2, but agree > with those that consider Law 75C to take precedence. > Sven, I allow you to have your personal opinion, but don't try to write unfounded articles explaining why your personal opinion should be the (only) correct one - you cannot do so. Both positions are equally illegal. Both must therefor be "allowed". > regards Sven > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From svenpran@online.no Sat Nov 23 13:38:37 2002 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sat, 23 Nov 2002 14:38:37 +0100 Subject: [blml] Law 75D2 (was dWS for the beginner) References: <3DDF50B1.1010100@skynet.be> <001901c292dc$4d9fbd90$70d8fea9@WINXP> <3DDF7D9A.8060500@skynet.be> Message-ID: <002001c292f5$a0e525d0$70d8fea9@WINXP> From: "Herman De Wael" > Sven, just one comment: > > Sven Pran wrote: > > >> > >>I assume that the lawmakers intended to solve the choice of giving UI > >>or MI by writing L75D2. And what did they choose? MI. > >>Imagine what would happen if there were no L75D2. > >>We would be argueing at similar length about what a player should do > >>when he hears his partner give a wrong explanation about his bid. > >>Correct it and give UI? > >>Or keep silent and allow the MI to continue. > >> > >>I can imagine that the majority on this list, who seem to think of MI > >>as the worst crime possible, would be argueing in favour of UI. > >>But the Lawmakers did make their intent known and they wrote L75D2. > >>Which says : "thou shalt not give UI to partner". > >> > > > > Are you sure of your logic here? > > > > Obviously when hearing partner give an (in your opinion) wrong explanation > > you are required to keep quiet. But equally obviously when you are asked > > about the auction you are required to give the correct (as you know it) > > explanation. The problem arises when your explanation will reveal that > > your partner has given a wrong explanation. > > > > > Obviously ? > > Why obviously ? > > Only because the Lawmakers say so ! No, because one of the principal features of bridge is that your opponents shall have as much knowledge of your agreements with your partner as you have yourself. That is the basic foundation for making bridge a fair play. > > Without L75D2, there could be just as much justification for saying > that "obviously" opponents have the right to correct explanations, so > a player hearing his partner misexplain ought to correct this > forthwith, never mind UI explanations. > > Nothing obvious about this one way or the other. > Then the Lawmakers have explicitely stated that they consider the MI > to be less important than the giving of UI, and they wrote L75D2. > And you say that this is "obvious". > > Yet you don't want to go one step further and say that it should be > equally "obvious" that the same preference should be given one round > later : MI is preferable to UI. > Instead the majority on the list say that it is "obvious" that UI is > preferable to MI. > > I really don't see anything "obvious" here, except one thing = this > discussion will not go away. Certainly not with arguments that start > with the word Obviously. I took great pain to ensure that I used the word "obviously" only on situations where no conflict between Law 75C and Law 75D2 was possible. (Either because partner has not given any wrong explanation so far or because you are not requested an explanation that if correct will reveal partner's explanation as being wrong). Such cases do not present us with any problem, do they? Sven From svenpran@online.no Sat Nov 23 13:46:13 2002 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sat, 23 Nov 2002 14:46:13 +0100 Subject: [blml] Law 75D2 (was dWS for the beginner) References: <3DDF50B1.1010100@skynet.be> <001901c292dc$4d9fbd90$70d8fea9@WINXP> <3DDF7FD1.5040703@skynet.be> Message-ID: <002601c292f6$b02b8f10$70d8fea9@WINXP> If I understand you correct you prefer to sustain partner's incorrect explanation but continue your part of the auction according to your real system while I prefer to give opponents the correct explanation (but of course only if I am requested to give an explanation). And frankly, my impression is that your attitude is bound to cause damage for opponents if at all possible while mine at least has a chance of securing a "normal play" of the board. But we disagree, I'll let it be at that. regards Sven ----- Original Message ----- From: "Herman De Wael" To: "blml" Sent: Saturday, November 23, 2002 2:17 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Law 75D2 (was dWS for the beginner) > After my comments on your use of the word obviously, I will also > comment on your example. > > Sven Pran wrote: > > > > > Let an agreement be that 2D after a 1NT opening is game forcing > > Stayman (2C is then of course non-forcing Stayman) and consider > > the auction: N:1NT - S:2D - N:2H > > At this time East (who is in turn to call) asks for an explanation: > > South correctly tells him that 1NT is 15-17 > > North incorrectly says that 2D is transfer > > and South says that 2H is what? > > > > > dWS : "completion of transfer". > > > > If he hadn't been asked to give an explanation he would of course still have > > to keep quiet, but now he in my opinion must give the correct explanation, > > and this explanation is UI to North. > > > > > In your opinion. Not in mine. > > > > Consider the alternative: If South "must" say that 2H is the "normal" > > transfer > > response, what will be the basis on which he "must" continue his part of the > > auction? > > > On the basis of what he believes it is. What is the problem. What > problem is there with bidding as if partner has 4 hearts while > explaining (and knowing) that he has not shown these ? > > > > Effectively switching his system????? > > > Of course not. > > > > Calling as if North holds 4 hearts????? > > > Of course - the knowledge that he hasn't is UI. We have no quarrel > about this, of course he should continue bidding as if he hadn't heard > the mistaken explanation. What has explaining 2He got to do with > that? Nothing! > > Consider the same story again, but have South realize that his initial > idea was wrong. In fact the pair are playing transfers, and not > forcing Stayman. What should South do now? Well, easy: explain that > 2He is completion of transfer, yet bid as if North has shown 4 of > them. Why should he have any more difficulty in doing exactly the same > if 2Di is in fact stayman ? > Mind you, I am merely debunking your argument, not providing one of my > own - there is no inherent problem in following the dWS, and there is > -trust me, I've done it often- no difficulty in explaining the > position to players. They accept that this is the way they should act > and they don't have a problem with it. > > > > > > I feel sorry for the legal conflict between Laws 75C and 75D2, but agree > > with those that consider Law 75C to take precedence. > > > > > Sven, I allow you to have your personal opinion, but don't try to > write unfounded articles explaining why your personal opinion should > be the (only) correct one - you cannot do so. > Both positions are equally illegal. Both must therefor be "allowed". > > > > regards Sven > > > > > > > -- > Herman DE WAEL > Antwerpen Belgium > http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > From willner@cfa.harvard.edu Sat Nov 23 16:02:26 2002 From: willner@cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Sat, 23 Nov 2002 11:02:26 -0500 (EST) Subject: [blml] Law 75D2 (was dWS for the beginner) Message-ID: <200211231602.LAA02512@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> > From: "Sven Pran" > If he hadn't been asked to give an explanation he would of course still have > to keep quiet, but now he in my opinion must give the correct explanation, > and this explanation is UI to North. Sven here neatly illustrates one of the problems with the usual view. An opponent, by asking what might be a completely gratuitous question, puts the original side into a UI position. This gives an advantage to players who ask unneeded questions and even to those who deliberately try to create UI for their opponents. Does anyone really want bridge to be played this way? I am not sure of the best answer, but I am sure the question is not a simple one. From Laval_Dubreuil@uqss.uquebec.ca Sat Nov 23 17:23:53 2002 From: Laval_Dubreuil@uqss.uquebec.ca (Laval Dubreuil) Date: Sat, 23 Nov 2002 12:23:53 -0500 Subject: [blml] LOOT - 54C Message-ID: Hi all, After a OLOOT, dummy spreads his cards. Quite easy: The declarer must accept the lead as required by Law 54C....but.... The TD is told that dummy did that voluntarily, having A-Q in the suit of the OLOOT. Is that dummy's action illegal (may be something could be added to Law 54C) ? If the TD deems that dummy did that, does Law 72B applies ? (not so easy to make sure dummy acted voluntarily) Any difference if dummy spreads cards before or after somebody drawn attention to the OLOOT ? Laval Du Breuil Quebec City From karel@esatclear.ie Sun Nov 24 02:15:54 2002 From: karel@esatclear.ie (Karel) Date: Sun, 24 Nov 2002 02:15:54 GMT Subject: [blml] Conventional Psyche - real time Message-ID: <3de0365a.7449.0@esatclear.ie> Boy life is great - here I am trying to get some definitive expert opinion in this area and lo and behold I'm given an actual case. Teams Dealer North N/S Vul 6 board matches North S x H xxxx D Jxx C K9xxx South S AKQJ9xx H Ax D xx C Ax P P 3NT(1) P 4C(2) P 4S P(3) P P (1) On the CC as long solid minor no outside stops and alerted as such (2) Pass or correct (alerted) (3) Opps asked what 4S now was and were told natural solid suit and may now have outside stop(s). Before play commenced E/W called the TD and claimed they were unhappy with the auction. 4S made. On comparing the scores, E/W's teammates at the other table had gotten into 5S - 1. E/w team's lost the match 24/6. At this stage E/W went back to the Td and said they were not happy and that infact the 3NT was a conventional psyche disallowed within the event. [aside - it actually says on the standard blank convention card issued by the irish bridge association and used in this event - "It is illegal to psyche a conventional bid" ], The Td agreed and scraped the board which changed the final score to 21/9. N/S appealed the decision on 2 accounts. (1) They thought that a board could only be cancelled if no "likely" result could be obtained on the board. They felt 4S was a very likely result and board scored on this likely outcome. They pointed out that the 3NT bid was an attempt to play in 3NT which is a superior contact to 4S opposite a bust and indicated sound bidding judgement by E/W (ie) they were never going to the 5 level. They also felt that the explanation of the 4S bid gave the opposition all the information they needed and that the prior bidding had no effect on the final result. Failing that (2) They were prepared to go with the Td's decision to cancel the board subject to (1) but felt that E/W's team had in effect gained 6 Vps against them for a transparent infraction. They felt this gain was unjust and inappropriate. They argued a score of 21/6 (ie) penalise N/S, fair enough, but E/W deserved no gain, would be more equitable. The Committee ruled board cancelled, score 21/9 and deposit forfeitted What say ye ?? -- http://www.iol.ie From HarrisR@missouri.edu Sun Nov 24 04:18:31 2002 From: HarrisR@missouri.edu (Robert E. Harris) Date: Sat, 23 Nov 2002 22:18:31 -0600 Subject: [blml] Friendly opponents and pleasant TDs In-Reply-To: <003001c2911e$abb04ea0$049a1e18@san.rr.com> References: <4A256C78.00191596.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> Message-ID: >Richard Hills wrote: > >> For example, blmlers have an advantage over the >> hoi polloi when exercising rights given, or >> obligations required, by the following Laws: >> >> 9, 11, 16, 20, 21, 25, 40, 42, 43, 53, 61, 65, 66, >> 68, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76 and 79. >> >There are many skills required of a good bridge player, including, but not >limited to: Accurate bidding, skillful play of the hand, adroit defense, table >feel, partner handling, and knowledge of the Laws. Those possessing these >skills have an advantage over those who lack any of them. What else is new? > >Advice to the hoi polloi: RTFLB > >Marv >Marvin L. French >San Diego, California I used to tell people this, but they won't do it. Still, the FLB is one of the cheapest bridge books available, and it is a model of clarity compared with Hardy's 2/1 Game Forcing (or whatever that book is called. Incomprehensible is my suggestiion.) Robert E. Harris Phone: 573-882-3274. Fax: 573-882-2754 Department of Chemistry, University of Missouri-Columbia Columbia, Missouri, USA 65211 From hermandw@skynet.be Sun Nov 24 09:11:01 2002 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Sun, 24 Nov 2002 10:11:01 +0100 Subject: [blml] Law 75D2 (was dWS for the beginner) References: <3DDF50B1.1010100@skynet.be> <001901c292dc$4d9fbd90$70d8fea9@WINXP> <3DDF7D9A.8060500@skynet.be> <000f01c292f5$59ac1d90$70d8fea9@WINXP> Message-ID: <3DE097A5.4020703@skynet.be> Sven, don't you see what I mean ? Sven Pran wrote: > From: "Herman De Wael" > > >>Sven, just one comment: >> >>Sven Pran wrote: >> >> >>> >>>Obviously when hearing partner give an (in your opinion) wrong >>> > explanation > >>>you are required to keep quiet. But equally obviously when you are asked >>>about the auction you are required to give the correct (as you know it) >>>explanation. The problem arises when your explanation will reveal that >>>your partner has given a wrong explanation. >>> >>> >> >>Obviously ? >> >>Why obviously ? >> >>Only because the Lawmakers say so ! >> > > No, because one of the principal features of bridge is that your opponents > shall have as much knowledge of your agreements with your partner as you > have yourself. That is the basic foundation for making bridge a fair play. > Sven, you are right in calling correct information one of the pillars. So is the non-use of UI. That much may be "obvious". But then you go on to say that "obviously" one is more important than another. And that is where you are wrong. There's nothing obvious about that. And there is certainly nothing obvious about MI being more important than UI, since the only law that deals with both of them explicitely makes the giving of UI a worse crime than the giving of MI. > >>Without L75D2, there could be just as much justification for saying >>that "obviously" opponents have the right to correct explanations, so >>a player hearing his partner misexplain ought to correct this >>forthwith, never mind UI explanations. >> >>Nothing obvious about this one way or the other. >>Then the Lawmakers have explicitely stated that they consider the MI >>to be less important than the giving of UI, and they wrote L75D2. >>And you say that this is "obvious". >> >>Yet you don't want to go one step further and say that it should be >>equally "obvious" that the same preference should be given one round >>later : MI is preferable to UI. >>Instead the majority on the list say that it is "obvious" that UI is >>preferable to MI. >> >>I really don't see anything "obvious" here, except one thing = this >>discussion will not go away. Certainly not with arguments that start >>with the word Obviously. >> > > I took great pain to ensure that I used the word "obviously" only on > situations where no conflict between Law 75C and Law 75D2 was > possible. (Either because partner has not given any wrong explanation > so far or because you are not requested an explanation that if correct > will reveal partner's explanation as being wrong). Such cases do not > present us with any problem, do they? > Maybe you took great pain to do so, but you did not succeed. Anyway, my point stands. There is nothing obvious about this. It's a choice the Lawmakers have to make. And have made. > Sven > > > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw@skynet.be Sun Nov 24 09:14:27 2002 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Sun, 24 Nov 2002 10:14:27 +0100 Subject: [blml] Law 75D2 (was dWS for the beginner) References: <3DDF50B1.1010100@skynet.be> <001901c292dc$4d9fbd90$70d8fea9@WINXP> <3DDF7FD1.5040703@skynet.be> <002601c292f6$b02b8f10$70d8fea9@WINXP> Message-ID: <3DE09873.5080109@skynet.be> Sven, sorry. Sven Pran wrote: > If I understand you correct you prefer to sustain partner's > incorrect explanation but continue your part of the auction > according to your real system while I prefer to give > opponents the correct explanation (but of course only if I > am requested to give an explanation). > > And frankly, my impression is that your attitude is bound to > cause damage for opponents if at all possible while mine at > least has a chance of securing a "normal play" of the board. > Giving UI to partner that his previous explanation was wrong. You expect him to continue normally? I am really of the opinion that adding a small amount of MI to the already existing MI gives a far greater chance of finishing the board in some amount of normality. I am not adding (a lot) of MI. You are adding a lot of UI. Which one of us will see the board end without too much of an adjustment here ? > But we disagree, I'll let it be at that. > So will I. > regards Sven > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Herman De Wael" > To: "blml" > Sent: Saturday, November 23, 2002 2:17 PM > Subject: Re: [blml] Law 75D2 (was dWS for the beginner) > > > >>After my comments on your use of the word obviously, I will also >>comment on your example. >> >>Sven Pran wrote: >> >> >>>Let an agreement be that 2D after a 1NT opening is game forcing >>>Stayman (2C is then of course non-forcing Stayman) and consider >>>the auction: N:1NT - S:2D - N:2H >>>At this time East (who is in turn to call) asks for an explanation: >>>South correctly tells him that 1NT is 15-17 >>>North incorrectly says that 2D is transfer >>>and South says that 2H is what? >>> >>> >> >>dWS : "completion of transfer". >> >> >> >>>If he hadn't been asked to give an explanation he would of course still >>> > have > >>>to keep quiet, but now he in my opinion must give the correct >>> > explanation, > >>>and this explanation is UI to North. >>> >>> >> >>In your opinion. Not in mine. >> >> >> >>>Consider the alternative: If South "must" say that 2H is the "normal" >>>transfer >>>response, what will be the basis on which he "must" continue his part of >>> > the > >>>auction? >>> >> >>On the basis of what he believes it is. What is the problem. What >>problem is there with bidding as if partner has 4 hearts while >>explaining (and knowing) that he has not shown these ? >> >> >> >>>Effectively switching his system????? >>> >> >>Of course not. >> >> >> >>>Calling as if North holds 4 hearts????? >>> >> >>Of course - the knowledge that he hasn't is UI. We have no quarrel >>about this, of course he should continue bidding as if he hadn't heard >>the mistaken explanation. What has explaining 2He got to do with >>that? Nothing! >> >>Consider the same story again, but have South realize that his initial >>idea was wrong. In fact the pair are playing transfers, and not >>forcing Stayman. What should South do now? Well, easy: explain that >>2He is completion of transfer, yet bid as if North has shown 4 of >>them. Why should he have any more difficulty in doing exactly the same >>if 2Di is in fact stayman ? >>Mind you, I am merely debunking your argument, not providing one of my >>own - there is no inherent problem in following the dWS, and there is >>-trust me, I've done it often- no difficulty in explaining the >>position to players. They accept that this is the way they should act >>and they don't have a problem with it. >> >> >> >>>I feel sorry for the legal conflict between Laws 75C and 75D2, but agree >>>with those that consider Law 75C to take precedence. >>> >>> >> >>Sven, I allow you to have your personal opinion, but don't try to >>write unfounded articles explaining why your personal opinion should >>be the (only) correct one - you cannot do so. >>Both positions are equally illegal. Both must therefor be "allowed". >> >> >> >>>regards Sven >>> >>> >>> >> >>-- >>Herman DE WAEL >>Antwerpen Belgium >>http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html >> >> >>_______________________________________________ >>blml mailing list >>blml@rtflb.org >>http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml >> >> >> > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw@skynet.be Sun Nov 24 09:16:55 2002 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Sun, 24 Nov 2002 10:16:55 +0100 Subject: [blml] Law 75D2 (was dWS for the beginner) References: <200211231602.LAA02512@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <3DE09907.7030200@skynet.be> Exactly Steve, one more advantage to the dWS. It does not create any difference between askers and non-askers. May dWS problems never see the light because the opponents, once they have heard the first misexplanation, expect to know the meaning of the response. So they don't ask and the dilemma does not surface. But if I know that I can create more UI by asking "useless" questions, I may start to do so. Steve Willner wrote: >>From: "Sven Pran" >>If he hadn't been asked to give an explanation he would of course still have >>to keep quiet, but now he in my opinion must give the correct explanation, >>and this explanation is UI to North. >> > > Sven here neatly illustrates one of the problems with the usual view. > An opponent, by asking what might be a completely gratuitous question, > puts the original side into a UI position. This gives an advantage to > players who ask unneeded questions and even to those who deliberately > try to create UI for their opponents. Does anyone really want bridge > to be played this way? > > I am not sure of the best answer, but I am sure the question is not a > simple one. > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw@skynet.be Sun Nov 24 09:20:20 2002 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Sun, 24 Nov 2002 10:20:20 +0100 Subject: [blml] Conventional Psyche - real time References: <3de0365a.7449.0@esatclear.ie> Message-ID: <3DE099D4.50903@skynet.be> Karel wrote: > Boy life is great - here I am trying to get some definitive expert opinion in > this area and lo and behold I'm given an actual case. > > > Teams Dealer North N/S Vul 6 board matches > > North > S x > H xxxx > D Jxx > C K9xxx > > > South > S AKQJ9xx > H Ax > D xx > C Ax > > P P 3NT(1) P > 4C(2) P 4S P(3) > P P > > (1) On the CC as long solid minor no outside stops and alerted as such > > (2) Pass or correct (alerted) > > (3) Opps asked what 4S now was and were told natural solid suit and may now > have outside stop(s). > > Before play commenced E/W called the TD and claimed they were unhappy with the > auction. 4S made. On comparing the scores, E/W's teammates at the other table > had gotten into 5S - 1. E/w team's lost the match 24/6. > > At this stage E/W went back to the Td and said they were not happy and that > infact the 3NT was a conventional psyche disallowed within the event. [aside > - it actually says on the standard blank convention card issued by the irish > bridge association and used in this event - "It is illegal to psyche a conventional > bid" ], The Td agreed and scraped the board which changed the final score to > 21/9. > > > N/S appealed the decision on 2 accounts. > > (1) They thought that a board could only be cancelled if no "likely" result > could be obtained on the board. They felt 4S was a very likely result and board > scored on this likely outcome. They pointed out that the 3NT bid was an attempt > to play in 3NT which is a superior contact to 4S opposite a bust and indicated > sound bidding judgement by E/W (ie) they were never going to the 5 level. They > also felt that the explanation of the 4S bid gave the opposition all the information > they needed and that the prior bidding had no effect on the final result. > > Failing that > > (2) They were prepared to go with the Td's decision to cancel the board subject > to (1) but felt that E/W's team had in effect gained 6 Vps against them for > a transparent infraction. They felt this gain was unjust and inappropriate. > They argued a score of 21/6 (ie) penalise N/S, fair enough, but E/W deserved > no gain, would be more equitable. > > The Committee ruled board cancelled, score 21/9 and deposit forfeitted > > What say ye ?? Silly regulation. Silly way to describe the 3NT bid. If they had said "trying to make 9 tricks" it would not be a psyche. So you are only punishing players who tell more when letting off players who tell less. Great way of ensuring full disclosure. > -- > http://www.iol.ie > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk Sat Nov 23 18:55:10 2002 From: grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk (grandeval) Date: Sat, 23 Nov 2002 18:55:10 -0000 Subject: [blml] Hand from Bridge Today (the results) References: <5.1.0.14.0.20021122140230.01d3c520@pop.ulb.ac.be> <003901c29291$65360ef0$7e97c518@D2GX7R11> Message-ID: <000801c2939d$a89857e0$15b4193e@4nrw70j> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Forum" Sent: Saturday, November 23, 2002 1:41 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Hand from Bridge Today (the results) > 2. 6S doubled - result stands but procedural fine > of 20% against NS. > +=+ A Director who understands that he has discretion as to the size of a procedural -penalty, and who proposes to exercise it here to allot a PP increased above the norm. This is done either to punish an aggravated offence (not obvious in this) or to offset an unwarranted gain for an OS (which I take to be the objective here). It is some time since I last saw attention drawn to such a possibility. ~ G ~ +=+ From cyaxares@lineone.net Sat Nov 23 19:58:22 2002 From: cyaxares@lineone.net (Grattan Endicott) Date: Sat, 23 Nov 2002 19:58:22 -0000 Subject: [blml] Law 75D2 (was dWS for the beginner) References: <002d01c2928a$48c1d580$f6a423d9@pbncomputer> Message-ID: <001701c2939f$000e5e60$d335e150@endicott> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws" Sent: Saturday, November 23, 2002 12:50 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Law 75D2 (was dWS for the beginner) > >I fail to see how someone who has forgotten his system can be > *deliberately* attempting to deceive opponents. > > He isn't. But the point is that intent does not matter; that is why we > have all these "could have knowns" in the rules. In this context, "lie" > has the (admittedly secondary) meaning of "to utter an untruth". It does > not matter whether you were trying to fool the opponents, all that > matters is whether or not you succeeded. > +=+ "The lie circumstantial" +=+ From svenpran@online.no Sun Nov 24 09:51:39 2002 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sun, 24 Nov 2002 10:51:39 +0100 Subject: [blml] Law 75D2 (was dWS for the beginner) References: <3DDF50B1.1010100@skynet.be> <001901c292dc$4d9fbd90$70d8fea9@WINXP> <3DDF7D9A.8060500@skynet.be> <000f01c292f5$59ac1d90$70d8fea9@WINXP> <3DE097A5.4020703@skynet.be> Message-ID: <000a01c2939f$166cd6f0$70d8fea9@WINXP> From: "Herman De Wael" > Sven, don't you see what I mean ? I think I do And below I repeat what I wrote originally, with the clauses separated and some comments added in the hope that it will become even more clear: Original clause: Obviously when hearing partner give an (in your opinion) wrong explanation you are required to keep quiet. Comment: I suppose this is indeed obvious? Original text: But equally obviously when you are asked about the auction you are required to give the correct (as you know it) explanation. Comment: This second clause applies on the condition that your partner has not so far given a wrong explanation so that there will not be any conflict with Law 75D2. The clause was not assuming an action subsequent to the action described in the first clause above, but completely independent of that. I believed that the addition of the following last clause would be sufficient to make that clear. Original text: The problem arises when your explanation will reveal that your partner has given a wrong explanation. Comment: This last clause applies when the condition for the second clause above is not met. And you cannot find any word "obviously" in this last clause. On the contrary I state that this is where we have a problem. >From thereon I have expressed my opinion on how Law 75 ought to be applied, and I fully accept that you have a different opinion, but I permit myself to doubt that your opinion is suited to secure as far as possible a "normal" play on a board where this Law 75 problem has occurred. .......... > Sven, you are right in calling correct information one of the pillars. > So is the non-use of UI. > That much may be "obvious". There is an interesting distinction here: We agree of course on both "pillars". But it is the *use*, not the *giving* of UI that is essential, that is one of the reasons I consider Law 75C "more important" than Law 75D2 when the conflict arises. > But then you go on to say that "obviously" one is more important than > another. And that is where you are wrong. There's nothing obvious > about that. And I cannot remember using the word "obviously" in this context, I expressed my opinion and (I hope clearly enough) why I have that opinion. (Again: Of course fully accepting that your opinion is different) ....... > Maybe you took great pain to do so, but you did not succeed. Maybe I didn't, maybe I have succeeded now? Sven From svenpran@online.no Sun Nov 24 10:06:16 2002 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sun, 24 Nov 2002 11:06:16 +0100 Subject: [blml] Law 75D2 (was dWS for the beginner) References: <3DDF50B1.1010100@skynet.be> <001901c292dc$4d9fbd90$70d8fea9@WINXP> <3DDF7FD1.5040703@skynet.be> <002601c292f6$b02b8f10$70d8fea9@WINXP> <3DE09873.5080109@skynet.be> Message-ID: <001e01c293a1$20c87120$70d8fea9@WINXP> From: "Herman De Wael" ......... > Giving UI to partner that his previous explanation was wrong. > You expect him to continue normally? Absolutely. It is his duty to avoid becoming aware of his own mistake from you giving a correct explanation. > I am really of the opinion that adding a small amount of MI to the > already existing MI gives a far greater chance of finishing the board > in some amount of normality. > I am not adding (a lot) of MI. > You are adding a lot of UI. > Which one of us will see the board end without too much of an > adjustment here ? Opponents will always have a good case when the only information they have is misinformation. The Director will have to award an adjusted score unless their subsequent claim is ruled as ridiculous. If the misinformation is corrected in time they will only have a case if they can show that partner (with some probability) has used the UI received from your correct explanation in conflict with Law16. Sven From hermandw@skynet.be Sun Nov 24 10:27:22 2002 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Sun, 24 Nov 2002 11:27:22 +0100 Subject: [blml] Law 75D2 (was dWS for the beginner) References: <3DDF50B1.1010100@skynet.be> <001901c292dc$4d9fbd90$70d8fea9@WINXP> <3DDF7FD1.5040703@skynet.be> <002601c292f6$b02b8f10$70d8fea9@WINXP> <3DE09873.5080109@skynet.be> <001e01c293a1$20c87120$70d8fea9@WINXP> Message-ID: <3DE0A98A.9060704@skynet.be> Sven Pran wrote: > From: "Herman De Wael" > ......... > >>Giving UI to partner that his previous explanation was wrong. >>You expect him to continue normally? >> > > Absolutely. It is his duty to avoid becoming aware of his own > mistake from you giving a correct explanation. > We have used different meanings of normally here. Of course it is normal for him to behave as the UI laws prescribe. But that is hardly "normal" bridge. > >>I am really of the opinion that adding a small amount of MI to the >>already existing MI gives a far greater chance of finishing the board >>in some amount of normality. >>I am not adding (a lot) of MI. >>You are adding a lot of UI. >>Which one of us will see the board end without too much of an >>adjustment here ? >> > > Opponents will always have a good case when the only information > they have is misinformation. The Director will have to award an > adjusted score unless their subsequent claim is ruled as ridiculous. > But my point is that the second piece of MI does not add considerably to the original one, since it is in the same direction. Whereas the second UI does add to the first, now making both partners restricted by UI obligations. Which is why, IMO, the board continues more normally under the dWS than under the ClS (Classical School). > If the misinformation is corrected in time they will only have a case > if they can show that partner (with some probability) has used the > UI received from your correct explanation in conflict with Law16. > Yes, but if he has, he usually has a worse score than if he had not received the UI in the first place. And if he hasn't, the TD will make certain that he has. Without UI, the partner can realize he has made a mistake, correct it, and land on his feet. With the UI it will be very hard for him to convince the TD that he would also have realized his mistake without the UI. I am convinced the dWS leads to fewer "disaster" scores than the ClS. It cannot have been the Lawmakers' intent to have every board screwed up by UI. > Sven > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From cyaxares@lineone.net Sun Nov 24 12:23:53 2002 From: cyaxares@lineone.net (Grattan Endicott) Date: Sun, 24 Nov 2002 12:23:53 -0000 Subject: [blml] Law 75D2 (was dWS for the beginner) References: <3DDF50B1.1010100@skynet.be> <001901c292dc$4d9fbd90$70d8fea9@WINXP> <3DDF7D9A.8060500@skynet.be> <000f01c292f5$59ac1d90$70d8fea9@WINXP> <3DE097A5.4020703@skynet.be> Message-ID: <004601c293b6$d65e9950$d335e150@endicott> Grattan Endicott To: "blml" Sent: Sunday, November 24, 2002 9:11 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Law 75D2 (was dWS for the beginner) > Sven, don't you see what I mean ? > +=+ "Had laws not been, we never had been blamed, For not to know we sin is innocence." (D'Avenant) +=+ From cyaxares@lineone.net Sun Nov 24 12:17:46 2002 From: cyaxares@lineone.net (Grattan Endicott) Date: Sun, 24 Nov 2002 12:17:46 -0000 Subject: [blml] Friendly opponents and pleasant TDs References: <4A256C78.00191596.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> Message-ID: <004501c293b6$d50c01a0$d335e150@endicott> Grattan Endicott To: "Marvin L. French" ; Sent: Sunday, November 24, 2002 4:18 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Friendly opponents and pleasant TDs > > > >Advice to the hoi polloi: RTFLB > > > >Marv > >Marvin L. French > >San Diego, California > > > I used to tell people this, but they won't do it. > Still, the FLB is one of the cheapest bridge books > available, and it is a model of clarity compared > with Hardy's 2/1 Game Forcing (or whatever that > book is called. Incomprehensible is my > suggestion.) > +=+ High praise, if faint. ? Thomas Hardy, no - more likely Godfrey Harold. +=+ From cyaxares@lineone.net Sun Nov 24 12:07:42 2002 From: cyaxares@lineone.net (Grattan Endicott) Date: Sun, 24 Nov 2002 12:07:42 -0000 Subject: [blml] Conventional Psyche - real time References: <3de0365a.7449.0@esatclear.ie> <3DE099D4.50903@skynet.be> Message-ID: <004401c293b6$d3dad4a0$d335e150@endicott> Grattan Endicott To: "blml" Sent: Sunday, November 24, 2002 9:20 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Conventional Psyche - real time > Karel wrote: > > > > The Committee ruled board cancelled, score 21/9 and > > deposit forfeitted > > > > What say ye ?? > +=+ I would think an appeal to the national authority on grounds that the 3NT opener is a lawful exercise of bridge judgement. See Law 40E1. Although the principle should be absolute, it is not certain the appeal would succeed since the regulation is made under Law 40D, not 40E. The principle would be properly placed more generally. +=+ > > Silly regulation. < +=+ But exactly the same as the 'silly regulation' that Herman has to apply in EBL championships since wiser men than he have ordained it. My view is that it is a reasonable judgement of those wiser men that psychic conventional openers are destructive in events where pairs play only a few boards against each other, and one they are entitled to make. +=+ > > Silly way to describe the 3NT bid. > +=+ But accurate. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk Sun Nov 24 11:51:16 2002 From: grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk (grandeval) Date: Sun, 24 Nov 2002 11:51:16 -0000 Subject: [blml] Law 75D2 (was dWS for the beginner) References: <200211231602.LAA02512@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> <3DE09907.7030200@skynet.be> Message-ID: <000d01c293b8$79af6ac0$823987d9@4nrw70j> Grattan Endicott To: "blml" Sent: Sunday, November 24, 2002 9:16 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Law 75D2 (was dWS for the beginner) > Steve Willner wrote: > > > > > I am not sure of the best answer, but I am sure the > > question is not a simple one. > > +=+ There is a distinction to be made. 1. Misinformation is a breach of the partnership's duty to opponents. This duty overrides intra-partnership considerations. 2. To give UI to partner is to put him on the spot, since there is only an offence if he makes use of it. He is in a position to avoid damage to opponents, a control that MI does not have until a later stage. ~ G ~ +=+ From hermandw@skynet.be Sun Nov 24 14:45:09 2002 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Sun, 24 Nov 2002 15:45:09 +0100 Subject: [blml] Law 75D2 (was dWS for the beginner) References: <200211231602.LAA02512@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> <3DE09907.7030200@skynet.be> <000d01c293b8$79af6ac0$823987d9@4nrw70j> Message-ID: <3DE0E5F5.3060009@skynet.be> Very True Grattan, grandeval wrote: >>> > +=+ There is a distinction to be made. > 1. Misinformation is a breach of the partnership's duty > to opponents. This duty overrides intra-partnership > considerations. > 2. To give UI to partner is to put him on the spot, since > there is only an offence if he makes use of it. He is in > a position to avoid damage to opponents, a control > that MI does not have until a later stage. > ~ G ~ +=+ > > But then why did the Lawmakers write L75D2 as they did. They were faced with the same dilemma. They could have let the player correct the MI, thereby giving the opponents the correct information that they are entitled to, while indeed putting partner on the spot with his duties not to use the UI. Yet the Lawmakers chose the other route, allowing the MI to persist, while avoiding the giving of more UI. Does this really mean nothing? I don't know when this piece of legislature was put into the laws, but I am convinced that it was done with purpose, and probably after some debate. I would very much like to see that if a debate is conducted inside the WBFLC with regards to the dWS problem, that this debate is conducted in full, and that L75D2 be considered together with it. Because the situation as it now exists is not a good one, and the players might get confused: in the first round the player is to avoid giving UI, while MI persists, but in the second round (if the ClS view is to be believed) the player has to give UI in order for MI to be avoided. If that is the true route to go, then please change L75D2 as well. > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw@skynet.be Sun Nov 24 14:50:14 2002 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Sun, 24 Nov 2002 15:50:14 +0100 Subject: [blml] Conventional Psyche - real time References: <3de0365a.7449.0@esatclear.ie> <3DE099D4.50903@skynet.be> <004401c293b6$d3dad4a0$d335e150@endicott> Message-ID: <3DE0E726.3070902@skynet.be> OK, allow me to rephrase. Grattan Endicott wrote: > >>Silly regulation. >> > < > +=+ But exactly the same as the 'silly regulation' that Herman > has to apply in EBL championships since wiser men than he > have ordained it. My view is that it is a reasonable judgement > of those wiser men that psychic conventional openers are > destructive in events where pairs play only a few boards > against each other, and one they are entitled to make. +=+ > I agree, so allow me to rephrase: silly abuse of regulation. If this be a psyche, and that psyche disallowed, then this should not be called a psyche. Rather a misbid, or better misinformation. >>Silly way to describe the 3NT bid. >> >> > +=+ But accurate. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > Ah no, since it is apparently done on other hands than the one described. I agree with a regulation that says that conventional openings, strong and forcing, are not to be psyched. I don't know the wording of the regulation that apparently applies in Ireland. I don't even know the wording of the regulation that apparently exists in the EBL. I'm sure Grattan can enlighten me there. But I'm quite convinced that it does not say that a conventional opening cannot be psyched. > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From wmevius@hotmail.com Sun Nov 24 15:25:52 2002 From: wmevius@hotmail.com (Willem Mevius) Date: Sun, 24 Nov 2002 15:25:52 +0000 Subject: [blml] Re: [Bridgedudes] Conventional Psyche - real time Message-ID: the law is the law - ew might well have bid 5d in a normal auction (why were they in 5S on the other table?) and NS could have ended up in 5S. I'm not happy about it though - the rule that you're not allowed to psyche a conventional opening bid wasn't intended for cases like these: more for when you play some whacky convention already, which if you psyche it would give you an unfair advantage and would make it tricky to determine whether the psyche was built into the system. bad luck for NS, who should know the rules though. Willem Mevius wmevius@hotmail.com >From: "Karel" >Reply-To: Bridgedudes@yahoogroups.com >To: bridgedudes@yahoogroups.com, blml@rtflb.org >Subject: [Bridgedudes] Conventional Psyche - real time >Date: Sun, 24 Nov 2002 02:15:54 GMT > >Boy life is great - here I am trying to get some definitive expert opinion >in >this area and lo and behold I'm given an actual case. > > >Teams Dealer North N/S Vul 6 board matches > >North >S x >H xxxx >D Jxx >C K9xxx > > >South >S AKQJ9xx >H Ax >D xx >C Ax > >P P 3NT(1) P >4C(2) P 4S P(3) >P P > >(1) On the CC as long solid minor no outside stops and alerted as such > >(2) Pass or correct (alerted) > >(3) Opps asked what 4S now was and were told natural solid suit and may >now >have outside stop(s). > >Before play commenced E/W called the TD and claimed they were unhappy with >the >auction. 4S made. On comparing the scores, E/W's teammates at the other >table >had gotten into 5S - 1. E/w team's lost the match 24/6. > >At this stage E/W went back to the Td and said they were not happy and that >infact the 3NT was a conventional psyche disallowed within the event. >[aside >- it actually says on the standard blank convention card issued by the >irish >bridge association and used in this event - "It is illegal to psyche a >conventional >bid" ], The Td agreed and scraped the board which changed the final score >to >21/9. > > >N/S appealed the decision on 2 accounts. > >(1) They thought that a board could only be cancelled if no "likely" result >could be obtained on the board. They felt 4S was a very likely result and >board >scored on this likely outcome. They pointed out that the 3NT bid was an >attempt >to play in 3NT which is a superior contact to 4S opposite a bust and >indicated >sound bidding judgement by E/W (ie) they were never going to the 5 level. >They >also felt that the explanation of the 4S bid gave the opposition all the >information >they needed and that the prior bidding had no effect on the final result. > >Failing that > >(2) They were prepared to go with the Td's decision to cancel the board >subject >to (1) but felt that E/W's team had in effect gained 6 Vps against them for >a transparent infraction. They felt this gain was unjust and >inappropriate. > They argued a score of 21/6 (ie) penalise N/S, fair enough, but E/W >deserved >no gain, would be more equitable. > >The Committee ruled board cancelled, score 21/9 and deposit forfeitted > >What say ye ?? >-- >http://www.iol.ie _________________________________________________________________ The new MSN 8: smart spam protection and 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail From wayne.burrows@xtra.co.nz Sun Nov 24 19:27:55 2002 From: wayne.burrows@xtra.co.nz (Wayne Burrows) Date: Mon, 25 Nov 2002 08:27:55 +1300 Subject: [blml] Conventional Psyche - real time In-Reply-To: <3de0365a.7449.0@esatclear.ie> Message-ID: <000a01c293ef$9be44390$2d2e37d2@Desktop> > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On > Behalf Of Karel > At this stage E/W went back to the Td and said they were not > happy and that > infact the 3NT was a conventional psyche disallowed within > the event. [aside > - it actually says on the standard blank convention card > issued by the irish > bridge association and used in this event - "It is illegal to > psyche a conventional > bid" ], The Td agreed and scraped the board which changed > the final score to > 21/9. > > > What say ye ?? much snipped A simple case IMO: Convention - 1. A call that, by partnership agreement, conveys a meaning other than willingness to play in the denomination named (or in the last denomination named), or high-card strength or length (three cards or more) there. However, an agreement as to overall strength does not make a call a convention. 2. Defender's play that serves to convey a meaning by agreement rather than inference. These people were willing to play in 3nt therefore by definition this agreement is not conventional; Therefore this is not a psyche of a conventional bid; Therefore no infraction; Therefore no adjustment. Wayne From grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk Sun Nov 24 19:31:07 2002 From: grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk (grandeval) Date: Sun, 24 Nov 2002 19:31:07 -0000 Subject: [blml] Conventional Psyche - real time References: <3de0365a.7449.0@esatclear.ie> <3DE099D4.50903@skynet.be> <004401c293b6$d3dad4a0$d335e150@endicott> <3DE0E726.3070902@skynet.be> Message-ID: <002901c293f0$2e8caac0$39bc193e@4nrw70j> Grattan Endicott To: "blml" Sent: Sunday, November 24, 2002 2:50 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Conventional Psyche - real time > > Ah no, since it is apparently done on other hands than the one described. > +=+ But yes, the agreement is not altered if in an isolated instance a player uses his bridge judgement to make the bid on a different hand. In this case the explanation of 4S is surely gratuitous since the explainer is merely reading the situation and does not have to explain. If their agreement had been 'any solid suit' that would have been stated.+=+ > > I don't even know the wording of the regulation that apparently exists > in the EBL. I'm sure Grattan can enlighten me there. > > But I'm quite convinced that it does not say that a conventional > opening cannot be psyched. > +=+ It depends what you understand the following to mean: "5. b. Psychic artificial or conventional opening bids are prohibited". This is the single addition, in the EBL Systems Policy, applying to pairs competitions, to the provisions of the WBF Systems Policy. It is reinforced by a special mention in the Conditions of Contest, this wording of it taken from the Ladies Pairs CoCs for Tenerife, 2001. I do not have a copy of the Irish Regulations. In my previous comment I did not specify 'EBL Pairs' since I assumed you would know the EBL Systems Policy; my apologies for the assumption. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Sun Nov 24 22:07:50 2002 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 25 Nov 2002 08:07:50 +1000 Subject: [blml] Law 75D2 (was dWS for the beginner) Message-ID: <4A256C7B.00780EBA.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> Herman asked: [snip] >Giving UI to partner that his previous >explanation was wrong. >You expect him to continue normally? [snip] Yes. Law 73C. Best wishes Richard From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Sun Nov 24 22:35:43 2002 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 25 Nov 2002 08:35:43 +1000 Subject: [blml] Conventional Psyche - real time Message-ID: <4A256C7B.007A9BBA.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> Wayne Burrows wrote: >A simple case IMO: > >>Convention - 1. A call that, by partnership >>agreement, conveys a meaning other than >>willingness to play in the denomination named [snip] >These people were willing to play in 3nt >therefore by definition this agreement is not >conventional; [snip] Sure, the 3NT call could have been passed. But the 3NT call also "conveyed a meaning other than willingness", since, by partnership agreement, it promised a solid minor without any outside stoppers. Best wishes Richard From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Sun Nov 24 22:48:16 2002 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 25 Nov 2002 08:48:16 +1000 Subject: [blml] Law 75D2 (was dWS for the beginner) Message-ID: <4A256C7B.007BC244.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> Herman wrote: [big snip] >I am convinced the dWS leads to fewer "disaster" >scores than the ClS. > >It cannot have been the Lawmakers' intent to have >every board screwed up by UI. Even if the De Wael School interpretation of the Laws leads to fewer "disasters" than the Classical School interpretation of Laws, that is of total irrelevance in determining which interpretation is the correct Lawful interpretation. If the Lawmakers' intent was to have minimal MI at the cost of having "every" board screwed up by UI, then so be it. The game of bridge will splinter into idiosyncratic chaos if TDs prefer their own personalised "practical" rulings, to the legal rulings mandated by the Laws. Best wishes Richard From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Sun Nov 24 23:07:07 2002 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 25 Nov 2002 09:07:07 +1000 Subject: [blml] LOOT - 54C Message-ID: <4A256C7B.007D7C66.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> Laval Du Breuil asked: >After a OLOOT, dummy spreads his cards. Quite easy: >The declarer must accept the lead as required by >Law 54C....but.... > >The TD is told that dummy did that voluntarily, >having A-Q in the suit of the OLOOT. > >Is that dummy's action illegal (may be something >could be added to Law 54C)? Dummy's action is a violation of Law 41C. Dummy is permitted to spread their hand after "the opening lead is faced". Spreading dummy after a lead out of turn is extraneous - and therefore, by ruling of the WBF LC, illegal. >If the TD deems that dummy did that, does Law >72B applies? (not so easy to make sure dummy >acted voluntarily) The TD can use the "could have known" provision of Law 72B1. >Any difference if dummy spreads cards before or >after somebody drawn attention to the OLOOT? No difference. "Could have known" is still applicable. Best wishes Richard From siegmund@mosquitonet.com Sun Nov 24 22:07:09 2002 From: siegmund@mosquitonet.com (Gordon Bower) Date: Sun, 24 Nov 2002 13:07:09 -0900 (AKST) Subject: [blml] Sizes of PPs In-Reply-To: <000801c2939d$a89857e0$15b4193e@4nrw70j> Message-ID: On Sat, 23 Nov 2002, grandeval wrote (in the Hand from Bridge Today thread): > > > 2. 6S doubled - result stands but procedural fine > > of 20% against NS. > > > +=+ A Director who understands that he has discretion as to the > size of a procedural -penalty, and who proposes to exercise it > here to allot a PP increased above the norm. Put aside for a moment the question of whether or not using PPs to manipulate the result on a board is smart or allowable. Why is it that 20% of a board is classed as "increased above the norm"? Now, I've heard of the "automatic 60/30" rulings in Europe, which I guess are a 10% fine mixed in with the cancellation of a board (which already assessed a penalty against the side that caused the cancellation). But except in that one case -- fining someone 10% of a board is a joke... even more of a joke that just giving a warning, similar in spirit to someone "selling for one dollar" a big expensive piece to a museum when they really are donating it. Ten percent says "it's unbelievably silly we had to even THINK about a penalty here, but since we HAVE to give one, here's one so small you'll understand it's just to keep up appearances. We don't want to punish you." Do people really take 10% PPs seriously in some parts of the world? I am accustomed to a quarter of a board being the standard size of a slap on the wrist, with the fines for rare "serious infractions" considerably higher still. (The only one you see more than once a year is shuffling a board in mid-session, for which ACBL dictates an automatic full board PP.) I know from experience that if one table plays the wrong board, causing me to give A+/A+ at another table, that they actually *laugh at me* for deducting 20% from their scores for mangling the movement: the players all interpret that as something I do for my own amusement to make the check total come out right, not as any kind of a "punishment" for messing up the movement. GRB From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Sun Nov 24 23:14:54 2002 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 25 Nov 2002 09:14:54 +1000 Subject: [blml] Law 75D2 (was dWS for the beginner) Message-ID: <4A256C7B.007E33D2.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> Steve Willner asked: [snip] >An opponent, by asking what might be a completely >gratuitous question, puts the original side into a >UI position. This gives an advantage to players >who ask unneeded questions and even to those who >deliberately try to create UI for their opponents. >Does anyone really want bridge to be played this >way? [snip] The solution to Steve's problem is not necessarily to adopt the De Wael School of answers. An alternative is to limit questions. The WBF LC has outlawed asking questions to which the answer is already known. The EBU has gone one step further, prohibiting questions for which there is no "need to know" the answer at the time of the question. Best wishes Richard From wayne.burrows@xtra.co.nz Sun Nov 24 22:34:35 2002 From: wayne.burrows@xtra.co.nz (Wayne Burrows) Date: Mon, 25 Nov 2002 11:34:35 +1300 Subject: [blml] Conventional Psyche - real time In-Reply-To: <4A256C7B.007A9BBA.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> Message-ID: <000201c29409$af8746d0$5e9637d2@Desktop> > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On > Behalf Of richard.hills@immi.gov.au > Sent: Monday, 25 November 2002 11:36 a.m. > To: blml@rtflb.org > Subject: RE: [blml] Conventional Psyche - real time > > > > > Wayne Burrows wrote: > > >A simple case IMO: > > > >>Convention - 1. A call that, by partnership > >>agreement, conveys a meaning other than > >>willingness to play in the denomination named > > [snip] > > >These people were willing to play in 3nt > >therefore by definition this agreement is not > >conventional; > > [snip] > > Sure, the 3NT call could have been passed. But > the 3NT call also "conveyed a meaning other > than willingness", since, by partnership > agreement, it promised a solid minor without > any outside stoppers. > > Best wishes > > Richard So a 2NT opening showing 20-22 Balanced is also a convention since it conveys a meaning other than willingness to play there it shows 20-22 points balanced. This is equivalent to 3nt shows x-y points and some particular distribution but offering to play there opposite a suitable partner. Wayne From john@asimere.com Mon Nov 25 00:14:42 2002 From: john@asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Mon, 25 Nov 2002 00:14:42 +0000 Subject: [blml] Friendly opponents and pleasant TDs In-Reply-To: <004501c293b6$d50c01a0$d335e150@endicott> References: <4A256C78.00191596.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> <004501c293b6$d50c01a0$d335e150@endicott> Message-ID: In article <004501c293b6$d50c01a0$d335e150@endicott>, Grattan Endicott writes > >Grattan Endicott+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ >"Asking the ignorant to use the >incomprehensible to decide the >unknowable. " > 'The Jury on Trial' ('American Heritage') >=================================== >----- Original Message ----- >From: "Robert E. Harris" >To: "Marvin L. French" ; >Sent: Sunday, November 24, 2002 4:18 AM >Subject: Re: [blml] Friendly opponents and pleasant TDs > > >> > >> >Advice to the hoi polloi: RTFLB >> > >> >Marv >> >Marvin L. French >> >San Diego, California >> >> >> I used to tell people this, but they won't do it. >> Still, the FLB is one of the cheapest bridge books >> available, and it is a model of clarity compared >> with Hardy's 2/1 Game Forcing (or whatever that >> book is called. Incomprehensible is my >> suggestion.) >> >+=+ High praise, if faint. >? Thomas Hardy, no - more likely Godfrey Harold. +=+ I described Hardy's 2/1 to one of my friends as "comparable to 'recherche de temps perdu' translated into Serbo-Croat" -- John (MadDog) Probst| . ! -^- |icq 10810798 451 Mile End Road | /|__. \:/ |OKb ChienFou London E3 4PA | / @ __) -|- |john@asimere.com +44-(0)20 8983 5818 | /\ --^ | |www.asimere.com/~john From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Mon Nov 25 03:36:44 2002 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Sun, 24 Nov 2002 22:36:44 -0500 Subject: [blml] Law 75D2 (was dWS for the beginner) In-Reply-To: <002d01c2928a$48c1d580$f6a423d9@pbncomputer> Message-ID: On 11/23/02, David Burn wrote: >It's all right, Ed. I speak English. Heh. I daresay you do so better than I. :-) >He isn't. But the point is that intent does not matter; that is why we >have all these "could have knowns" in the rules. In this context, "lie" >has the (admittedly secondary) meaning of "to utter an untruth". It >does not matter whether you were trying to fool the opponents, all that >matters is whether or not you succeeded. Point taken. I suppose my objection to the word is that I know that, at least in these parts, if that word is used in any discussion at the table, the person at whom it is directed will feel severely insulted, whatever the intent, and whatever the laws say. I note also that Law 75, which is I believe what governs this, doesn't use the phrase "could have known". From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Mon Nov 25 04:05:05 2002 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Sun, 24 Nov 2002 23:05:05 -0500 Subject: [blml] Friendly opponents and pleasant TDs In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On 11/23/02, Robert E. Harris wrote: >I used to tell people this, but they won't do it. Still, the FLB is >one of the cheapest bridge books available, and it is a model of >clarity compared with Hardy's 2/1 Game Forcing (or whatever that book >is called. Incomprehensible is my suggestiion.) Heh. I have described Hardy's style as "he won't use one word where ten will do". :-) Still, he was getting better - or perhaps I just became used to his style. I marvel at players who don't like to sit NS because they "don't know how to keep score". More marvelous are those who don't want to *learn* to keep score. The mind boggles. From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Mon Nov 25 03:54:01 2002 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Sun, 24 Nov 2002 22:54:01 -0500 Subject: [blml] Law 75D2 (was dWS for the beginner) In-Reply-To: <3DDF50B1.1010100@skynet.be> Message-ID: On 11/23/02, Herman De Wael wrote: > can imagine that the majority on this list, who seem to think of MI >as the worst crime possible, would be argueing in favour of UI. The worst crime possible (at Bridge) is to deliberately break the rules for advantage. >But the Lawmakers did make their intent known and they wrote L75D2. >Which says : "thou shalt not give UI to partner". Others have already said to you that this is not the case. Let me add my small voice to the fray. You have made a correct bid in your system, and partner has given an explanation of the meaning of your bid which you know to be wrong. You are not allowed to "indicate in any manner" that your partner has made an error. You now assert that this means that you must make a completely fraudulent bid, one that has, potentially, absolutely no relationship to your previous bidding or what you have in your hand. And you must do this simply to prevent partner from realizing he has made a mistake. I don't buy it. I cannot believe that those who crafted the laws intended it. It makes no sense. From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Mon Nov 25 05:25:59 2002 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 25 Nov 2002 15:25:59 +1000 Subject: [blml] Law 75D2 (was dWS for the beginner) Message-ID: <4A256C7C.001C55FC.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> David Burn wrote: [snip] >>He isn't. But the point is that intent does not >>matter; that is why we have all these "could >>have knowns" in the rules. In this context, "lie" >>has the (admittedly secondary) meaning of "to >>utter an untruth". It does not matter whether you >>were trying to fool the opponents, all that >>matters is whether or not you succeeded. Ed Reppert replied: >Point taken. I suppose my objection to the word is >that I know that, at least in these parts, if that >word is used in any discussion at the table, the >person at whom it is directed will feel severely >insulted, whatever the intent, and whatever the >laws say. > >I note also that Law 75, which is I believe what >governs this, doesn't use the phrase "could have >known". The footnote to Law 75 specifically states that lying to partner and opponents by misbidding is - no infraction of Law. The fact that you succeeded in fooling everyone with an untruth according to your agreed system is still - no infraction of Law. Even if you could have known that your misbid would damage the opponents, your call remains - no infraction of Law. Best wishes Richard From shrike@surfbest.net Mon Nov 25 05:23:38 2002 From: shrike@surfbest.net (Doug Couchman) Date: Sun, 24 Nov 2002 23:23:38 -0600 Subject: [blml] Re: Sizes of PPs In-Reply-To: <20021124221603.19801.52597.Mailman@toybox.amsterdamned.org> Message-ID: Richard Hill wrote: > Do people really take 10% PPs seriously in some parts of the world? > I am accustomed to a quarter of a board being the standard size of a slap > on the wrist, with the fines for rare "serious infractions" considerably > higher still. (The only one you see more than once a year is shuffling a > board in mid-session, for which ACBL dictates an automatic full board PP.) Another big one is the penalty for misduplication of a board in an event that is scored across the field: at least a full board penalty, I recall. Doug Couchman Arlington, TX shrike@surfbest.net From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Mon Nov 25 06:25:07 2002 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 25 Nov 2002 16:25:07 +1000 Subject: [blml] Friendly opponents and pleasant TDs Message-ID: <4A256C7C.0021BF4B.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> Ed Reppert wrote: [snip] >I marvel at players who don't like to sit NS >because they "don't know how to keep score". >More marvelous are those who don't want to >*learn* to keep score. The mind boggles. My mind does not boggle at all. If a particular player's objectives includes friendly opponents, pleasant TDs, but *not* memorising the scoring table; then what is wrong with that? However, SOs should make life easy for players who have not memorised the scoring table if, perchance, the movement requires them to score. For example, many Australian SOs have complete scoring tables attached to the reverse of the (large) table numbers. Best wishes Richard From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Mon Nov 25 06:36:00 2002 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 25 Nov 2002 16:36:00 +1000 Subject: [blml] Conventional Psyche - real time Message-ID: <4A256C7C.0022BEDE.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> Wayne Burrows wrote: >>So a 2NT opening showing 20-22 Balanced is also a >>convention since it conveys a meaning other than >>willingness to play there it shows 20-22 points >>balanced. [snip] Yes and no. The 20-22 points does not make a 2NT opening conventional. The Definition of Convention includes the caveat: >However, an agreement as to overall strength does >not make a call a convention. But if a 2NT opening by agreement is balanced, that is no singleton or void, then that is >a meaning other than willingness to play in the >denomination named and therefore makes the 2NT opening conventional. :-) Best wishes Richard From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Mon Nov 25 07:12:45 2002 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 25 Nov 2002 17:12:45 +1000 Subject: [blml] Law Criteria Message-ID: <4A256C7C.00261BA5.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> [snip] >and I would be happy to arrange for >an amplified index of keyword >references since I am sure we have >the equipment to extract them. If >Sven (or anyone) likes to contribute >to a list of useful references >missing currently I shall welcome it. > ~ G ~ +=+ I do not have time to comprehensively check all of the Laws for keywords. However, the current Index (of the European edition of the Laws) fails to include these keywords which appear in Law 1 and Law 2: Duplicate Contract Bridge, Fifty-two, Ace, King, Queen, Jack, Ten, Nine, Eight, Seven, Six, Five, Four, Three, Two, duplicate board, pockets, North, East, South, West. With regard to North, South, East and West; an assiduous TD should not check the current Index under "D" for Direction, but rather look up "A" for Assignment of Seats. :-( Best wishes Richard From wayne.burrows@xtra.co.nz Mon Nov 25 06:20:57 2002 From: wayne.burrows@xtra.co.nz (Wayne Burrows) Date: Mon, 25 Nov 2002 19:20:57 +1300 Subject: [blml] Conventional Psyche - real time In-Reply-To: <4A256C7C.0022BEDE.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> Message-ID: <000601c2944a$d4aeee40$fd2d37d2@Desktop> > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On > Behalf Of richard.hills@immi.gov.au > Wayne Burrows wrote: > > >>So a 2NT opening showing 20-22 Balanced is also a > >>convention since it conveys a meaning other than > >>willingness to play there it shows 20-22 points > >>balanced. > > [snip] > > Yes and no. The 20-22 points does not make a > 2NT opening conventional. The Definition of > Convention includes the caveat: > > >However, an agreement as to overall strength does > >not make a call a convention. Agreed. This would apply to a hand with a long minor as well. If a hand with a solid minor and stoppers is allowed as a non-conventional opening then one with a solid minor and no stoppers is necessarily non-conventional since the only difference is as to overall strength. > > But if a 2NT opening by agreement is balanced, that > is no singleton or void, then that is > > >a meaning other than willingness to play in the > >denomination named > > and therefore makes the 2NT opening conventional. > > :-) I postulate well hope if necessary that the law makers did not intend for this to make a 'natural' 2nt opening conventional any more than the meaning that 1s has four or more spades or five or more spades etc makes a 1s opening conventional. Compare the 2nt opening and the 3nt openings discussed in this thread with a strong artificial 2c opening. In the case of a 2c opening the bidder neither shows a willingness nor an unwillingness to play in clubs. This I believe is what makes 2c a convention. Back to 2nt and 3nt. The 2nt bidder shows a willingness to play in nt by showing a balanced hand. Partner is of course entitled to use this information to take out to his 6 or 7 card major. On the other hand the 3nt bidder shows a willingness to play in nt by showing a source of tricks. In this case partner is entitled to takeout or initiate a takeout to opener's assumed long suit. These are two different treatments of the same non- conventional bid in much the same way that 4-card majors and 5-cards and indeed Canape openings are different treatments of the same non-conventional 1-level suit openings. At any rate I would not rule that a 3nt opening was conventional. Wayne From hermandw@skynet.be Mon Nov 25 08:16:51 2002 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 25 Nov 2002 09:16:51 +0100 Subject: [blml] Law 75D2 (was dWS for the beginner) References: Message-ID: <3DE1DC73.70101@skynet.be> Ed, Ed, Ed, Ed, Ed, .... Ed Reppert wrote: > On 11/23/02, Herman De Wael wrote: > > >>can imagine that the majority on this list, who seem to think of MI >>as the worst crime possible, would be argueing in favour of UI. >> > > The worst crime possible (at Bridge) is to deliberately break the rules > for advantage. > I object very strongly to the implication in this. As I have often said, there is nothing deliberate about this. The player is faced with a dilemma. He cannot do but break one law or another. If he chooses one, that is indeed deliberate. But there is nothing "bad" about that. As for "for advantage", my players should be aware that they are still going to face a TD call for MI. If you still haven't understood this dilemma, I urge you to drop out of this argument altogether. After 200 messages, I am growing tired of explaining it to people who simply don't want to move further. > >>But the Lawmakers did make their intent known and they wrote L75D2. >>Which says : "thou shalt not give UI to partner". >> > > Others have already said to you that this is not the case. Let me add my > small voice to the fray. You are allowed to add your voice, but I'd wish you'd say something sensible. Sadly, you don't: You have made a correct bid in your system, and > partner has given an explanation of the meaning of your bid which you > know to be wrong. You are not allowed to "indicate in any manner" that > your partner has made an error. So far, so good. You now assert that this means that you > must make a completely fraudulent bid, Absolutely and utterly wrong, both according to the laws and as a representation of what I have said. I have never spoken about the bid you are supposed to make. It should be the bid you would have made had your partner correctly explained the system. There is absolutely no difference between the bid a player of the dWS is supposed to make, and the one a player of the ClS should make. Since your previous sentence is so utterly and completely wrong, permit me not to react to your further sentences. one that has, potentially, > absolutely no relationship to your previous bidding or what you have in > your hand. And you must do this simply to prevent partner from realizing > he has made a mistake. I don't buy it. I cannot believe that those who > crafted the laws intended it. It makes no sense. > Indeed - but it was not me who said this. How can anyone, after (presumably) reading so much of what I wrote, understand so little. > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Thu Nov 21 22:12:43 2002 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 22 Nov 2002 08:12:43 +1000 Subject: [blml] Law 75D2 (was dWS for the beginner) Message-ID: <4A256C78.007883EE.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> --0__=NtgVSEKzi0KKZelcSFfIMj8utuBESFEsYKsPVFktltIYis5vOuphyYWR Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Okay, I concede that the WBF LC wrote Law 75D2 in such a way that a person (who wished to interpret Law 75D2 disjointedly from the context of Law 75 as a whole) could interpret Law 75D2 contrary to the explicitly revealed intentions that the WBF LC had when they wrote Law 75D2. If the WBF LC thinks it necessary to prevent such an idiosyncratic interpretation of Law 75D2 in future, then the WBF LC could rewrite the 2005 version of Law 75D2. For example: >A player whose partner has given a mistaken >explanation may not directly correct the error >before the final pass, nor may the player >directly indicate in any manner that a mistake >has been made; a defender may not directly >correct the error until play ends. > >Note: The Law 75C requirement to disclose all >special information conveyed through partnership >agreement or partnership experience if the >player is asked a subsequent question about >partner's subsequent call or play still applies, >even if the disclosure indirectly contradicts >partner's previous mistaken explanation. > >After calling the Director at the earliest legal >opportunity (after the final pass, if the player >is to be declarer or dummy, after play ends, if >the player is to be a defender), the player must >inform the opponents that, in the player's >opinion, their partner --0__=NtgVSEKzi0KKZelcSFfIMj8utuBESFEsYKsPVFktltIYis5vOuphyYWR Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable Content-type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline 's explanation was >erroneous [Footnote 22]. Best wishes Richard = --0__=NtgVSEKzi0KKZelcSFfIMj8utuBESFEsYKsPVFktltIYis5vOuphyYWR-- From HauffHJ@aol.com Fri Nov 22 08:45:28 2002 From: HauffHJ@aol.com (HauffHJ@aol.com) Date: Fri, 22 Nov 2002 03:45:28 EST Subject: [blml] Law Criteria Message-ID: <25.31457759.2b0f48a8@aol.com> --part1_25.31457759.2b0f48a8_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi all, Congratulations to Nigel for the excellent layout of better lAW (six criteria for framing law). Now we have to find the best way to get the existing Law reshaped. Is the actual procedure ok? How can we put BLML ideas in the heads of the appointed makers ? Should there be an BLML archive, where "opinions" are stored under the number of the Law or specific titles ? Could the new law have to sections ?: 1) basic laws ( for friendly players), guidelines only. ( to follow the idea of ACBLs "relaxed rules bridge") 2) extended laws ( for screen users), detailed Should the new law say, that a club ( the sponsoring organisation) is master of the laws used inside the club, and that the Law made by the supreme organisation (WBF) ( or any other regional org.) is a recommendation to every unit below ? Here are some facts to consider Centralised legislation will kill evolution, if laws go to much into detail (exs. Soviet Union) National bodies have sub legislation.What national LAW does not exist in the WBF law ? Is action within a given time a new element in Bridge (stop card). Movements, where fortuitousness ( good or bad cards) is not eliminated, must be considered inferior. ( less club points) Should there be a recommendation for a worldwide used club point system at (basic) club level ? Should law 40 B (alert) establish the assumption, that any player participating in a event higher than (basic) club level did "understand its meaning" ? - . - . - . - . - . - . - . - . - . - . - . - Here is my last question: When did you, dear BLML-reader, play in a simple neighbourhood club, where everybody knows everybody, no Convention Card, no alerts, just simple bridge, and the TD is called only when a revoke must be settled ? Let me finish with the words of ACBLs CEO Jay Baum (Nov.2002): "These days bridge players - some of them,anyway - have become bridge lawyers. Fortunately, men are still men and woman are still woman." ( I believe law makers are not concerned by this quote) Yours Paul Hauff - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - www.scorer123.com; www.bridgeassistant.com http://members.aol.com/HauffHJ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - --part1_25.31457759.2b0f48a8_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi all,
Congratulations to Nigel for the excellent layout of better lAW
(six criteria for framing law).

Now we have to find the best way to get the existing Law reshaped.
Is the  actual procedure ok?
How can we put BLML ideas in the heads of the appointed makers ?
Should there be an BLML archive, where "opinions" are stored under
the number of the Law or specific titles ?

Could the new law  have to sections ?:
1) basic laws ( for friendly players), guidelines only.
( to follow the idea of ACBLs "relaxed rules bridge")
2) extended laws ( for screen users), detailed

Should the new law say, that a club ( the sponsoring organisation) is master
of the laws used inside the club, and that the Law made by the supreme organisation (WBF)
( or any other regional org.) is a recommendation to every unit below ?


Here are some facts to consider

Centralised legislation will kill evolution, if laws go to much into detail (exs. Soviet Union)

National bodies have sub legislation.What national LAW does not exist in the WBF law ?

Is action within a given time a new element in Bridge (stop card).

Movements, where fortuitousness ( good or bad cards) is not eliminated, must be
considered inferior. ( less club points)

Should there be a recommendation for a worldwide used club point system
at (basic) club level ?

Should law 40 B (alert) establish the assumption, that any player participating in a event higher than (basic) club level did "understand  its meaning" ?

- . - . - . - . - . - . - . - . - . - . - . -
Here is my last question:
When did you, dear BLML-reader, play in a simple neighbourhood club, where everybody knows everybody, no Convention Card, no alerts, just simple bridge, and the TD is called only when a revoke must be settled ?
Let me finish with the words of ACBLs CEO Jay Baum (Nov.2002):
"These days bridge players - some of them,anyway - have become bridge lawyers.
Fortunately, men are still men and woman are still woman."
( I believe law makers are not concerned by this quote)
Yours
Paul Hauff
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
www.scorer123.com; www.bridgeassistant.com
http://members.aol.com/HauffHJ
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

 --part1_25.31457759.2b0f48a8_boundary-- From hermandw@skynet.be Mon Nov 25 08:25:48 2002 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 25 Nov 2002 09:25:48 +0100 Subject: [blml] Law 75D2 (was dWS for the beginner) References: <4A256C7B.007BC244.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> Message-ID: <3DE1DE8C.40407@skynet.be> I went on-line once again after midnight and found this breakfast message of Richard's. I reacted and saw a millisecond too late that I only sent my reply to Richard. Sorry, Richard, that was not my intent. Having slept on this meanwhile I also write a reply to the list: richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: > > Herman wrote: > > [big snip] > > >>I am convinced the dWS leads to fewer "disaster" >>scores than the ClS. >> >>It cannot have been the Lawmakers' intent to have >>every board screwed up by UI. >> > > Even if the De Wael School interpretation of the Laws > leads to fewer "disasters" than the Classical School > interpretation of Laws, that is of total irrelevance > in determining which interpretation is the correct > Lawful interpretation. > > If the Lawmakers' intent was to have minimal MI at > the cost of having "every" board screwed up by UI, > then so be it. > > The game of bridge will splinter into idiosyncratic > chaos if TDs prefer their own personalised "practical" > rulings, to the legal rulings mandated by the Laws. > This argument has been given many times in the past, and I have corrected it many times. It is wrong on a totally different level than many others, and I would like you to realize this completely: There is no difference whatsoever in the rulings between me and anybody else on this list. The dWS is an advice to players, not to TDs. If the same events unfold at a table in Belgium and Australia, at some point diverging because the Belgian player follows the dWS while the Australian uses ClS, then at both tables a director will come. I want you to know that there will be no difference whether this TD will be Richard, me, or David Stevenson. We shall all give the same ruling (barring personal differences of bridge judgment of course). We have no quarrel about the meaning of the laws, only about the advice to the players. I hope you understand what I mean. I will give the same ruling to the Australian table than Richard. Richard will give the same ruling in Belgium than I would. The ruling in Belgium and Australia will differ, of course, since the players acted differently, but they will not differ because of the school the Director would belong to. That is very important and I want you to understand this completely and not come up with this argument ever again. There is no "splintering into chaos". > Best wishes > > Richard > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From A.Kooijman@dwk.agro.nl Mon Nov 25 08:49:58 2002 From: A.Kooijman@dwk.agro.nl (Kooijman, A.) Date: Mon, 25 Nov 2002 09:49:58 +0100 Subject: [blml] Hand from Bridge Today Message-ID: > At 03:42 AM 11/22/02, Kooijman wrote: > > >There are hundreds of years of lawmaking and still murders occur. > > But in very few cases are they committed by persons who are > ignorant of > the fact that they are breaking the law when they do so. And in the > rare cases when they are, we hold the murderer not guilty by > reason of > insanity. > > The vast majority of infractions against the laws of bridge, > OTOH, are > committed not by those who intentionally violate them, but by > those who > do not realize they are doing so. I agree that my comparison is a poor one. It was directed to the approach described by Jurgen blaming the laws of bridge for all the misery in the (bridge) world. In a latter contribution he accused the laws (and makers) for the predictable collapse of the largest bridge NBO in the world within the coming 10 years. Even if we are able to write laws that are clearer and more consistent, the sport is too complicated to realise easy uniform rulings. Unless we give up equity at all and introduce standard adjusted scores for not mechanical infractions. That reminds me of a ruling given by Kaplan in the Cap Gemini top 16 pairs event years ago. There was a misexplanation of a 3NT bid by Leufkens-Westra against Chagas. Leufkens- Westra won a nunmber of imps on the board. And even with the most favorable assigned adjusted score for Chagas they still would win some imps. But it was not easy to decide upon such score. So Kaplan decided to give average minus/plus. This 5 or so imps less than the worst table result costed the Dutch pair the victory in the total event. Later I asked Kaplan for an explanation and he said that on this level players are supposed to know their system. If not hang them. (More Wolff oriented than I had expected) To Grattan the message that he is in good company had he been in Plovdiv and then being written in my black book (I removed you). Kaplan is in it too. And yes I was the TD in both. And to blml that Kaplan didn't have problems with awarding an artificial adjusted score after a table result had been reached. And to myself that I need to keep firm and that there is a inevitable relation between the complexity of the game and the laws governing the game. And if Jurgen wants to discuss the problems of bridge organizations he needs to be somewhere else. ton From agot@ulb.ac.be Mon Nov 25 09:34:55 2002 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon, 25 Nov 2002 10:34:55 +0100 Subject: [blml] Law 75D2 (was dWS for the beginner) In-Reply-To: <3DDF7D9A.8060500@skynet.be> References: <3DDF50B1.1010100@skynet.be> <001901c292dc$4d9fbd90$70d8fea9@WINXP> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20021125102604.02471050@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 14:07 23/11/2002 +0100, Herman De Wael wrote: >I really don't see anything "obvious" here, except one thing = this >discussion will not go away. Certainly not with arguments that start with >the word Obviously. AG : obviously. One more question to the principal exponent of the principle. Partner makes an impossible bid. You guess which error he made. How do you explain ? eg : 2Da 2Na 4C 2D :Multi 2N : strong relay 4C : nonexistent. To show a strong club hand, you bid 3S. a) Do you alert ? b) what do you explain ? The classical school requires us to alert and say that the bid is nonexistent. UI for no reason. Not a good idea. Not to alert would not be MI _stricto sensu_ , because if a bid has no meaning, you don't have to reveal its meaning ... But, assume an opponent looks at your CC, sees nothing about 4C, guesses that it must show clubs as it wasn't alerted, sees that 3S would show clubs, and asks you (as is his right) "what's the difference here between 3S and 4C ?" What do you answer ? My inclination would be to answer "don't know", but this doesn't fit either with the "explain your system only" school's nor with the dWS's requirements. Thank you for the enlightenment. Alain. From agot@ulb.ac.be Mon Nov 25 09:47:27 2002 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon, 25 Nov 2002 10:47:27 +0100 Subject: [blml] Law 75D2 (was dWS for the beginner) In-Reply-To: <000a01c2939f$166cd6f0$70d8fea9@WINXP> References: <3DDF50B1.1010100@skynet.be> <001901c292dc$4d9fbd90$70d8fea9@WINXP> <3DDF7D9A.8060500@skynet.be> <000f01c292f5$59ac1d90$70d8fea9@WINXP> <3DE097A5.4020703@skynet.be> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20021125104253.0247de70@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 10:51 24/11/2002 +0100, Sven Pran wrote: > > > > Sven, you are right in calling correct information one of the pillars. > > So is the non-use of UI. > > That much may be "obvious". > >There is an interesting distinction here: We agree of course on both >"pillars". > >But it is the *use*, not the *giving* of UI that is essential, that is one >of the reasons I consider Law 75C "more important" than Law 75D2 >when the conflict arises. AG : sorry, Sven. Law 75D2 says that is is important to avoid telling partner there is something going wrong. Another law also says that it is important not to use any UI, of course. You can't discard the opinion expressed by L75D2, for the mere reason that you don't agree. From agot@ulb.ac.be Mon Nov 25 09:52:57 2002 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon, 25 Nov 2002 10:52:57 +0100 Subject: [blml] Law 75D2 (was dWS for the beginner) In-Reply-To: <001e01c293a1$20c87120$70d8fea9@WINXP> References: <3DDF50B1.1010100@skynet.be> <001901c292dc$4d9fbd90$70d8fea9@WINXP> <3DDF7FD1.5040703@skynet.be> <002601c292f6$b02b8f10$70d8fea9@WINXP> <3DE09873.5080109@skynet.be> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20021125104759.02475100@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 11:06 24/11/2002 +0100, Sven Pran wrote: >From: "Herman De Wael" >......... > > Giving UI to partner that his previous explanation was wrong. > > You expect him to continue normally? > >Absolutely. It is his duty to avoid becoming aware of his own >mistake from you giving a correct explanation. > > > I am really of the opinion that adding a small amount of MI to the > > already existing MI gives a far greater chance of finishing the board > > in some amount of normality. > > I am not adding (a lot) of MI. > > You are adding a lot of UI. > > Which one of us will see the board end without too much of an > > adjustment here ? > >Opponents will always have a good case when the only information >they have is misinformation. The Director will have to award an >adjusted score unless their subsequent claim is ruled as ridiculous. > >If the misinformation is corrected in time they will only have a case >if they can show that partner (with some probability) has used the >UI received from your correct explanation in conflict with Law16. AG : what you seem to forget here is that, at the point where dWS comes into play, your side has already given MI. So the question should be : Is it more probable to damage opponents (i) by persisting in giving MI (ii) by transmitting UI I plead that (i) is the usual response. And please note that when I feel that (for reasons pertaining to this particular deal) (ii) is the right answer, I explain the traditional way. To cut it short, I'm not an exponent od the dWS, hard version : "always prefer MI when faced with the dilemma", but of the dWS, reasonable version (which BTW is Herman's) : "give MI or UI, whichever you think will create fewer problems". Best regards, Alain. From svenpran@online.no Mon Nov 25 09:43:07 2002 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon, 25 Nov 2002 10:43:07 +0100 Subject: [blml] Law 75D2 (was dWS for the beginner) References: <3DDF50B1.1010100@skynet.be> <001901c292dc$4d9fbd90$70d8fea9@WINXP> <5.1.0.14.0.20021125102604.02471050@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <008201c29467$0f6c3fd0$70d8fea9@WINXP> From: "Alain Gottcheiner" ....... > One more question to the principal exponent of the principle. > Partner makes an impossible bid. You guess which error he made. How do you > explain ? > > eg : 2Da 2Na > 4C > > 2D :Multi > 2N : strong relay > > 4C : nonexistent. To show a strong club hand, you bid 3S. > a) Do you alert ? > b) what do you explain ? > > The classical school requires us to alert and say that the bid is > nonexistent. UI for no reason. Not a good idea. > Not to alert would not be MI _stricto sensu_ , because if a bid has no > meaning, you don't have to reveal its meaning ... > But, assume an opponent looks at your CC, sees nothing about 4C, guesses > that it must show clubs as it wasn't alerted, sees that 3S would show > clubs, and asks you (as is his right) "what's the difference here between > 3S and 4C ?" > > What do you answer ? My inclination would be to answer "don't know", but > this doesn't fit either with the "explain your system only" school's nor > with the dWS's requirements. With my understanding of Law 75, and under the Norwegian alert rules there is no problem: Our alert rules require us to alert if we are in doubt whether a call is alertable or not, so yes - I alert 4C Giving partner UI gives him a problem which he has to handle (Law 73C) but which should not destroy the board beyond repair. Giving opponents MI generates a problem for them which they cannot be supposed being aware of in time to avoid damage. Thus my answer to any question on the 4C bid will be "I don't know, that call is not an alternative in this call sequence according to our agreements". And there is even a hope that partner is fully aware of what he has done so that my explanation does not give away any UI at all! (That I know our system can hardly be UI to partner?) Sven From agot@ulb.ac.be Mon Nov 25 10:05:40 2002 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon, 25 Nov 2002 11:05:40 +0100 Subject: [blml] Hand from Bridge Today In-Reply-To: <200211221614.LAA25337@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20021125110043.0246fd60@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 11:14 22/11/2002 -0500, Steve Willner wrote: > > From: Alain Gottcheiner > > It would probably be correct to admit that East save to 7H, and rule 7H-2 > > (or perhaps -1). But you can't rule 6SX-1. > >Sorry, Alain, but that last eludes me. Suppose West had been given a >correct explanation before the opening lead. Don't you think it is >then likely he would have switched suits at trick 2? AG : it is possible, but ... a) you must correct the score to what it would have been without the initial MI, not after MI and correction (this is remote) b) and more important, I don't think West could claim he thought that South had 2 diamonds rather than 1 for his strong 2D bid. The play of a second diamond is not a consequence of the wrong explanation. The 6S bid is in itself so strange that West should have understtod what happened, but surely he should know, after the lead, that South could as well have 1 diamond as 2. Thus his continuation was not prompted by the MI. However, it is possible that EW would have defended in 7H, had they been given the right explanation. That's why I suggested 7HX as the adjusted score. Best regards, Alain. From agot@ulb.ac.be Mon Nov 25 10:09:41 2002 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon, 25 Nov 2002 11:09:41 +0100 Subject: [blml] Hand from Bridge Today In-Reply-To: <200211221925.OAA25422@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20021125110745.0246fec0@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 14:25 22/11/2002 -0500, Steve Willner wrote: > > From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) > > Before leading to trick 2 EW have >... > > If West still thinks that South has a strong 2D opener at this point he is > > completely off his trolley. > >That is certainly a reasonable ruling: you are saying that West's >second diamond is irrational. I'm not sure I agree, but it is >certainly reasonable. That would still leave the OS score to be >adjusted to 6Sx-1. > >Nevertheless, if we believe there is MI (which is still not established >by the facts reported), the right question to ask _first_ is what would >have happened without the MI. Do you really believe West would have >gone wrong had he been told 2D was Benji? AG : my feeling is that he could. It all depends of the residual distribution of South's hand, which is not known. Does South have a second diamond, or a club, or both ? Taking your premises as granted, it would lead to a weighted score (about 80% of 6SX-1 and 20% of 6SX= seems about right). From svenpran@online.no Mon Nov 25 10:01:28 2002 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon, 25 Nov 2002 11:01:28 +0100 Subject: [blml] Law 75D2 (was dWS for the beginner) References: <3DDF50B1.1010100@skynet.be> <001901c292dc$4d9fbd90$70d8fea9@WINXP> <3DDF7D9A.8060500@skynet.be> <000f01c292f5$59ac1d90$70d8fea9@WINXP> <3DE097A5.4020703@skynet.be> <5.1.0.14.0.20021125104253.0247de70@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <008801c29469$a08e1c20$70d8fea9@WINXP> From: "Alain Gottcheiner" ........... > At 10:51 24/11/2002 +0100, Sven Pran wrote: > > > > > > > Sven, you are right in calling correct information one of the pillars. > > > So is the non-use of UI. > > > That much may be "obvious". > > > >There is an interesting distinction here: We agree of course on both > >"pillars". > > > >But it is the *use*, not the *giving* of UI that is essential, that is one > >of the reasons I consider Law 75C "more important" than Law 75D2 > >when the conflict arises. > > AG : sorry, Sven. Law 75D2 says that is is important to avoid telling > partner there is something going wrong. Another law also says that it is > important not to use any UI, of course. > You can't discard the opinion expressed by L75D2, for the mere reason that > you don't agree. And I don't. But I have given my opinion on how to interpret and apply Law 75, and in particular the apparent conflict between L75C and L75D2, and I have given my reasons for why I consider L75C to take precedence in such cases. The way I understand it my interpretation fits best with the remainder of the laws. I never refused others to have different opinions but I have still to see any reasoning why L75D2 should take precedence over L75C other than that L75D2 is written as it is so to ...... with L75C when there is a conflict. My own humble suggestion for a solution to this problem would be to rewrite Law 75D2 so that it reads: A player whose partner has given a mistaken explanation may not on his own initiative before the final pass correct the error, nor indicate in any manner that a mistake has been made; a defender ..... Frankly I believe that this must have been the intention of the WBFLC all the time. Sven From hermandw@skynet.be Mon Nov 25 10:03:07 2002 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 25 Nov 2002 11:03:07 +0100 Subject: [blml] Law 75D2 (was dWS for the beginner) References: <3DDF50B1.1010100@skynet.be> <001901c292dc$4d9fbd90$70d8fea9@WINXP> <3DDF7FD1.5040703@skynet.be> <002601c292f6$b02b8f10$70d8fea9@WINXP> <3DE09873.5080109@skynet.be> <5.1.0.14.0.20021125104759.02475100@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <3DE1F55B.8020606@skynet.be> Thanks Alain, for your support, but ... Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > > AG : what you seem to forget here is that, at the point where dWS comes > into play, your side has already given MI. > So the question should be : > > Is it more probable to damage opponents > (i) by persisting in giving MI > (ii) by transmitting UI > > I plead that (i) is the usual response. And please note that when I feel > that (for reasons pertaining to this particular deal) (ii) is the right > answer, I explain the traditional way. > You're on the right track Alain, but when would (i) be damaging ? Given that the MI has already occured, the extra bit of MI can hardly be damaging, and the clearing up of the MI not do away with the damage already done. > To cut it short, I'm not an exponent od the dWS, hard version : "always > prefer MI when faced with the dilemma", but of the dWS, reasonable > version (which BTW is Herman's) : "give MI or UI, whichever you think > will create fewer problems". > I am not of this soft dWS, but in fact from the hard one. Not because I cannot imagine that there are situations where a "soft" dWS would be more beneficial, but because I believe that this is advice to players, who should not be burdened with deciding what will cause problems or not. In the long run, I believe the dWS will cause less problems than the ClS, which is why I urge the players to act in this manner. Of course in the absense of a real decision by the WBFLC, I cannot forbid AG to use the soft dWS and select his choice according to his own wishes at the table. > Best regards, > > Alain. > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From svenpran@online.no Mon Nov 25 10:07:03 2002 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon, 25 Nov 2002 11:07:03 +0100 Subject: [blml] Hand from Bridge Today References: <5.1.0.14.0.20021125110043.0246fd60@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <009201c2946a$674d0420$70d8fea9@WINXP> From: "Alain Gottcheiner" To: "Steve Willner" ; Sent: Monday, November 25, 2002 11:05 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Hand from Bridge Today > At 11:14 22/11/2002 -0500, Steve Willner wrote: > > > From: Alain Gottcheiner > > > It would probably be correct to admit that East save to 7H, and rule 7H-2 > > > (or perhaps -1). But you can't rule 6SX-1. > > > >Sorry, Alain, but that last eludes me. Suppose West had been given a > >correct explanation before the opening lead. Don't you think it is > >then likely he would have switched suits at trick 2? > > AG : it is possible, but ... > a) you must correct the score to what it would have been without the > initial MI, not after MI and correction (this is remote) > b) and more important, I don't think West could claim he thought that South > had 2 diamonds rather than 1 for his strong 2D bid. The play of a second > diamond is not a consequence of the wrong explanation. The 6S bid is in > itself so strange that West should have understtod what happened, but > surely he should know, after the lead, that South could as well have 1 > diamond as 2. Thus his continuation was not prompted by the MI. > However, it is possible that EW would have defended in 7H, had they been > given the right explanation. That's why I suggested 7HX as the adjusted score. > > Best regards, > > Alain. In cases like this any doubt shall be resolved in favour of the non-offending side. Which means that the Director shall not refuse any claim from East or West on what they would have done unless that claim is obviously(!) ridiculous. And the Director shall similarly only accept claims from North and South on what would have happened when such claims are obviously correct. Sven From hermandw@skynet.be Mon Nov 25 10:09:02 2002 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 25 Nov 2002 11:09:02 +0100 Subject: [blml] Law 75D2 (was dWS for the beginner) References: <4A256C78.007883EE.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> Message-ID: <3DE1F6BE.404@skynet.be> I actually believe I understand the sentence Richard concocted here: richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: > > Okay, I concede that the WBF LC wrote Law 75D2 > in such a way that a person (who wished to > interpret Law 75D2 disjointedly from the > context of Law 75 as a whole) could interpret > Law 75D2 contrary to the explicitly revealed > intentions that the WBF LC had when they wrote > Law 75D2. Richard seems to agree that the WBFLC said "UI is worse than MI" when writing L75D2. Yet he fails to take the next logical step: concluding that maybe it is a good idea to continue with the same filosophy and accept the dWS. Rather he wants to rewrite the laws to say that at first UI has to be avoided, but then it must be given. I think this is the third best solution, unless I can think of more than two better ones. I'd even prefer that L75D2 be rewritten and say that the MI must be corrected immediately and UI be given. It's a different game, but at least it'd be consistent. > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From agot@ulb.ac.be Mon Nov 25 10:22:28 2002 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon, 25 Nov 2002 11:22:28 +0100 Subject: [blml] Conventional Psyche - real time In-Reply-To: <3de0365a.7449.0@esatclear.ie> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20021125111338.02456020@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 02:15 24/11/2002 +0000, Karel wrote: >Boy life is great - here I am trying to get some definitive expert opinion in >this area and lo and behold I'm given an actual case. > > >Teams Dealer North N/S Vul 6 board matches > >North >S x >H xxxx >D Jxx >C K9xxx > > >South >S AKQJ9xx >H Ax >D xx >C Ax > >P P 3NT(1) P >4C(2) P 4S P(3) >P P > >(1) On the CC as long solid minor no outside stops and alerted as such > >(2) Pass or correct (alerted) > >(3) Opps asked what 4S now was and were told natural solid suit and may now >have outside stop(s). > >Before play commenced E/W called the TD and claimed they were unhappy with the >auction. 4S made. On comparing the scores, E/W's teammates at the other >table >had gotten into 5S - 1. E/w team's lost the match 24/6. > >At this stage E/W went back to the Td and said they were not happy and that >infact the 3NT was a conventional psyche disallowed within the event. [aside >- it actually says on the standard blank convention card issued by the irish >bridge association and used in this event - "It is illegal to psyche a >conventional >bid" ], The Td agreed and scraped the board which changed the final score to >21/9. > > >N/S appealed the decision on 2 accounts. > >(1) They thought that a board could only be cancelled if no "likely" result >could be obtained on the board. They felt 4S was a very likely result and >board >scored on this likely outcome. They pointed out that the 3NT bid was an >attempt >to play in 3NT which is a superior contact to 4S opposite a bust and indicated >sound bidding judgement by E/W (ie) they were never going to the 5 >level. They >also felt that the explanation of the 4S bid gave the opposition all the >information >they needed and that the prior bidding had no effect on the final result. > >Failing that > >(2) They were prepared to go with the Td's decision to cancel the board >subject >to (1) but felt that E/W's team had in effect gained 6 Vps against them for >a transparent infraction. They felt this gain was unjust and inappropriate. > They argued a score of 21/6 (ie) penalise N/S, fair enough, but E/W deserved >no gain, would be more equitable. > >The Committee ruled board cancelled, score 21/9 and deposit forfeitted AG : me says that it's not a psyche, only an invention, or perhaps North forgot his system and gave MI. Since MI didn't influence the score (it could, if EW had a good defense), result should stand. "To psyche" includes the intention of misleading opponents. Here, the player thought, for best or worse, that bidding 3NT outside the system was good for him. Not long ago, I had this hand in a pairs event : AKQ10xx AQ Q10 Kxx LHO opened 2D (Multi). RHO bid 2H. I bid 3NT (which usually is Gambling type). It was *not* a psyche. It was an attempt at a good contract. To be honest, I played within a so-so fitted partnership, and this increased the probability that partner would let 3NT stand whatever her hand. The case you submit seems quite similar. There are no grounds on which to rule there was a psyche is simply wrong. That's what NS should have told the AC. Best regards, Alain. From agot@ulb.ac.be Mon Nov 25 10:25:08 2002 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon, 25 Nov 2002 11:25:08 +0100 Subject: [blml] Conventional Psyche - real time In-Reply-To: <004401c293b6$d3dad4a0$d335e150@endicott> References: <3de0365a.7449.0@esatclear.ie> <3DE099D4.50903@skynet.be> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20021125112312.02473b40@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 12:07 24/11/2002 +0000, Grattan Endicott wrote: >Grattan Endicott+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ >"I mean you lie - under a mistake." > [Jonathan Swift] >=================================== >----- Original Message ----- >From: "Herman De Wael" >To: "blml" >Sent: Sunday, November 24, 2002 9:20 AM >Subject: Re: [blml] Conventional Psyche - real time > > > > Karel wrote: > > > > > > The Committee ruled board cancelled, score 21/9 and > > > deposit forfeitted > > > > > > What say ye ?? > > >+=+ I would think an appeal to the national authority on grounds >that the 3NT opener is a lawful exercise of bridge judgement. See >Law 40E1. Although the principle should be absolute, it is not >certain the appeal would succeed since the regulation is made >under Law 40D, not 40E. The principle would be properly placed >more generally. +=+ > > > > Silly regulation. >< >+=+ But exactly the same as the 'silly regulation' that Herman >has to apply in EBL championships since wiser men than he >have ordained it. My view is that it is a reasonable judgement >of those wiser men that psychic conventional openers are >destructive in events where pairs play only a few boards >against each other, and one they are entitled to make. AG : IBTD. I don't know what was the case you refer to, but here the bid is not a psyche (a bid made with the purpose of fooling the opponents) but rather a flight-of-fancy bid : the player decided that 3NT would bring him a good score, full stop. Of course, it would create an agreement for the future, etc. From agot@ulb.ac.be Mon Nov 25 10:28:07 2002 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon, 25 Nov 2002 11:28:07 +0100 Subject: [blml] Conventional Psyche - real time In-Reply-To: <000201c29409$af8746d0$5e9637d2@Desktop> References: <4A256C7B.007A9BBA.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20021125112634.024764d0@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 11:34 25/11/2002 +1300, Wayne Burrows wrote: > > -----Original Message----- > > From: blml-admin@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-admin@rtflb.org] On > > Behalf Of richard.hills@immi.gov.au > > Sent: Monday, 25 November 2002 11:36 a.m. > > To: blml@rtflb.org > > Subject: RE: [blml] Conventional Psyche - real time > > > > > > > > > > Wayne Burrows wrote: > > > > >A simple case IMO: > > > > > >>Convention - 1. A call that, by partnership > > >>agreement, conveys a meaning other than > > >>willingness to play in the denomination named > > > > [snip] > > > > >These people were willing to play in 3nt > > >therefore by definition this agreement is not > > >conventional; > > > > [snip] > > > > Sure, the 3NT call could have been passed. But > > the 3NT call also "conveyed a meaning other > > than willingness", since, by partnership > > agreement, it promised a solid minor without > > any outside stoppers. > > > > Best wishes > > > > Richard > >So a 2NT opening showing 20-22 Balanced is also a >convention since it conveys a meaning other than >willingness to play there it shows 20-22 points >balanced. AG : nope. It is expressly written that agreements about range do not per se make a bid conventional. And of course a NT bid that shows a balanced hand can't be conventional ; it is the 'obvious' sense of the bid. That old classical distinction between convention and treatment ... From svenpran@online.no Mon Nov 25 10:25:29 2002 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon, 25 Nov 2002 11:25:29 +0100 Subject: [blml] Conventional Psyche - real time References: <5.1.0.14.0.20021125111338.02456020@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <00a201c2946c$fa1dc8f0$70d8fea9@WINXP> From: "Alain Gottcheiner" > >Boy life is great - here I am trying to get some definitive expert opinion in > >this area and lo and behold I'm given an actual case. > > > > > >Teams Dealer North N/S Vul 6 board matches > > > >North > >S x > >H xxxx > >D Jxx > >C K9xxx > > > > > >South > >S AKQJ9xx > >H Ax > >D xx > >C Ax > > > >P P 3NT(1) P > >4C(2) P 4S P(3) > >P P > > ........... > AG : me says that it's not a psyche, only an invention, or perhaps North > forgot his system and gave MI. Since MI didn't influence the score (it > could, if EW had a good defense), result should stand. > > "To psyche" includes the intention of misleading opponents. Here, the > player thought, for best or worse, that bidding 3NT outside the system was > good for him. > > Not long ago, I had this hand in a pairs event : > > AKQ10xx > AQ > Q10 > Kxx > > LHO opened 2D (Multi). RHO bid 2H. > I bid 3NT (which usually is Gambling type). It was *not* a psyche. It was > an attempt at a good contract. > To be honest, I played within a so-so fitted partnership, and this > increased the probability that partner would let 3NT stand whatever her hand. > > The case you submit seems quite similar. > There are no grounds on which to rule there was a psyche is simply wrong. > That's what NS should have told the AC. Me says: You forget the important difference between a 3NT opening bid and entering the auction with a 3NT bid at a later stage! Sven From agot@ulb.ac.be Mon Nov 25 10:41:29 2002 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon, 25 Nov 2002 11:41:29 +0100 Subject: [blml] Law 75D2 (was dWS for the beginner) In-Reply-To: <008801c29469$a08e1c20$70d8fea9@WINXP> References: <3DDF50B1.1010100@skynet.be> <001901c292dc$4d9fbd90$70d8fea9@WINXP> <3DDF7D9A.8060500@skynet.be> <000f01c292f5$59ac1d90$70d8fea9@WINXP> <3DE097A5.4020703@skynet.be> <5.1.0.14.0.20021125104253.0247de70@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20021125114004.0247a2d0@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 11:01 25/11/2002 +0100, Sven Pran wrote: >From: "Alain Gottcheiner" >........... > > At 10:51 24/11/2002 +0100, Sven Pran wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Sven, you are right in calling correct information one of the pillars. > > > > So is the non-use of UI. > > > > That much may be "obvious". > > > > > >There is an interesting distinction here: We agree of course on both > > >"pillars". > > > > > >But it is the *use*, not the *giving* of UI that is essential, that is >one > > >of the reasons I consider Law 75C "more important" than Law 75D2 > > >when the conflict arises. > > > > AG : sorry, Sven. Law 75D2 says that is is important to avoid telling > > partner there is something going wrong. Another law also says that it is > > important not to use any UI, of course. > > You can't discard the opinion expressed by L75D2, for the mere reason that > > you don't agree. > >And I don't. > >But I have given my opinion on how to interpret and apply Law 75, and in >particular the apparent conflict between L75C and L75D2, and I have given >my reasons for why I consider L75C to take precedence in such cases. The >way I understand it my interpretation fits best with the remainder of the >laws. > >I never refused others to have different opinions but I have still to see >any >reasoning why L75D2 should take precedence over L75C other than that >L75D2 is written as it is so to ...... with L75C when there is a conflict. AG : I didn't say (and Herman didn't say) that L75D2 should take precedence over L75C. We only say that they conflict and that L75C shouldn't take precedence either. >My own humble suggestion for a solution to this problem would be to >rewrite Law 75D2 so that it reads: > >A player whose partner has given a mistaken explanation may not on his >own initiative before the final pass correct the error, nor indicate in any >manner that a mistake has been made; a defender ..... AG : this would not solve the contradiction in any way. From svenpran@online.no Mon Nov 25 10:29:03 2002 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon, 25 Nov 2002 11:29:03 +0100 Subject: [blml] Conventional Psyche - real time References: <4A256C7B.007A9BBA.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> <5.1.0.14.0.20021125112634.024764d0@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <00aa01c2946d$79ba8c10$70d8fea9@WINXP> From: doesn't really matter (all such references removed by me) > > > Subject: RE: [blml] Conventional Psyche - real time > > > >A simple case IMO: > > > > > > > >>Convention - 1. A call that, by partnership > > > >>agreement, conveys a meaning other than > > > >>willingness to play in the denomination named > > > > > > [snip] > > > > > > >These people were willing to play in 3nt > > > >therefore by definition this agreement is not > > > >conventional; > > > > > > [snip] > > > > > > Sure, the 3NT call could have been passed. But > > > the 3NT call also "conveyed a meaning other > > > than willingness", since, by partnership > > > agreement, it promised a solid minor without > > > any outside stoppers. > >So a 2NT opening showing 20-22 Balanced is also a > >convention since it conveys a meaning other than > >willingness to play there it shows 20-22 points > >balanced. > > nope. It is expressly written that agreements about range do not per > se make a bid conventional. And of course a NT bid that shows a balanced > hand can't be conventional ; it is the 'obvious' sense of the bid. > That old classical distinction between convention and treatment ... This discussion reminds me of the old saying: I cannot define an elephant, but I know him when I see him. Sven From agot@ulb.ac.be Mon Nov 25 10:49:09 2002 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon, 25 Nov 2002 11:49:09 +0100 Subject: [blml] Law 75D2 (was dWS for the beginner) In-Reply-To: <3DE1F55B.8020606@skynet.be> References: <3DDF50B1.1010100@skynet.be> <001901c292dc$4d9fbd90$70d8fea9@WINXP> <3DDF7FD1.5040703@skynet.be> <002601c292f6$b02b8f10$70d8fea9@WINXP> <3DE09873.5080109@skynet.be> <5.1.0.14.0.20021125104759.02475100@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20021125114151.0246faf0@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 11:03 25/11/2002 +0100, Herman De Wael wrote: >Thanks Alain, for your support, but ... > >Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > >>AG : what you seem to forget here is that, at the point where dWS comes >>into play, your side has already given MI. >>So the question should be : >>Is it more probable to damage opponents >>(i) by persisting in giving MI >>(ii) by transmitting UI >>I plead that (i) is the usual response. And please note that when I feel >>that (for reasons pertaining to this particular deal) (ii) is the right >>answer, I explain the traditional way. > > >You're on the right track Alain, but when would (i) be damaging ? >Given that the MI has already occured, the extra bit of MI can hardly be >damaging, and the clearing up of the MI not do away with the damage >already done. AG : once in a while it could happen. 1C 1D 1NT 1D explained as no major, not always diamonds (wrong ! we play "up the line") 1NT must then, according to dWS, be alerted and explained as "possibly one or two 4-card majors". It is quite possible that the first bit of MI doesn't influence RHO's bid over 1NT, but the second one does (say he's got a weakish 44 majors and wants to double). In this case, I would prefer not to alert 1NT. If I'm about to pass (or bid 3NT), the UI I give will be unimportant. >>To cut it short, I'm not an exponent od the dWS, hard version : "always >>prefer MI when faced with the dilemma", but of the dWS, reasonable >>version (which BTW is Herman's) : "give MI or UI, whichever you think >>will create fewer problems". > > >I am not of this soft dWS, but in fact from the hard one. >Not because I cannot imagine that there are situations where a "soft" dWS >would be more beneficial, but because I believe that this is advice to >players, who should not be burdened with deciding what will cause problems >or not. In the long run, I believe the dWS will cause less problems than >the ClS, which is why I urge the players to act in this manner. AG : why not tell them the whole "soft dWS" if they are competent enough ? >Of course in the absense of a real decision by the WBFLC, I cannot forbid >AG to use the soft dWS and select his choice according to his own wishes >at the table. From svenpran@online.no Mon Nov 25 10:38:23 2002 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon, 25 Nov 2002 11:38:23 +0100 Subject: [blml] Law 75D2 (was dWS for the beginner) References: <3DDF50B1.1010100@skynet.be> <001901c292dc$4d9fbd90$70d8fea9@WINXP> <3DDF7D9A.8060500@skynet.be> <000f01c292f5$59ac1d90$70d8fea9@WINXP> <3DE097A5.4020703@skynet.be> <5.1.0.14.0.20021125104253.0247de70@pop.ulb.ac.be> <5.1.0.14.0.20021125114004.0247a2d0@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <00b801c2946e$c7a7c6d0$70d8fea9@WINXP> From: "Alain Gottcheiner" .......... > >My own humble suggestion for a solution to this problem would be to > >rewrite Law 75D2 so that it reads: > > > >A player whose partner has given a mistaken explanation may not on his > >own initiative before the final pass correct the error, nor indicate in any > >manner that a mistake has been made; a defender ..... > > AG : this would not solve the contradiction in any way. Oh yes, it will: The moment an opponent has asked for an explanation you give your information on his initiative, thus no conflict with L75D2, nor any conflict with L75C as presumably your explanation will be correct. (Your objection really surprises me) Sven From agot@ulb.ac.be Mon Nov 25 10:51:47 2002 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon, 25 Nov 2002 11:51:47 +0100 Subject: [blml] Hand from Bridge Today In-Reply-To: <009201c2946a$674d0420$70d8fea9@WINXP> References: <5.1.0.14.0.20021125110043.0246fd60@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20021125114939.0246f790@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 11:07 25/11/2002 +0100, Sven Pran wrote: >From: "Alain Gottcheiner" >To: "Steve Willner" ; >Sent: Monday, November 25, 2002 11:05 AM >Subject: Re: [blml] Hand from Bridge Today > > > > At 11:14 22/11/2002 -0500, Steve Willner wrote: > > > > From: Alain Gottcheiner > > > > It would probably be correct to admit that East save to 7H, and rule >7H-2 > > > > (or perhaps -1). But you can't rule 6SX-1. > > > > > >Sorry, Alain, but that last eludes me. Suppose West had been given a > > >correct explanation before the opening lead. Don't you think it is > > >then likely he would have switched suits at trick 2? > > > > AG : it is possible, but ... > > a) you must correct the score to what it would have been without the > > initial MI, not after MI and correction (this is remote) > > b) and more important, I don't think West could claim he thought that >South > > had 2 diamonds rather than 1 for his strong 2D bid. The play of a second > > diamond is not a consequence of the wrong explanation. The 6S bid is in > > itself so strange that West should have understtod what happened, but > > surely he should know, after the lead, that South could as well have 1 > > diamond as 2. Thus his continuation was not prompted by the MI. > > However, it is possible that EW would have defended in 7H, had they been > > given the right explanation. That's why I suggested 7HX as the adjusted >score. > > > > Best regards, > > > > Alain. > >In cases like this any doubt shall be resolved in favour of the >non-offending >side. > >Which means that the Director shall not refuse any claim from East or West >on what they would have done unless that claim is obviously(!) ridiculous. AG : right ! I was merely expressing the opinion that the claim "had I known that South's 2D natural bid could be made on 10-1-1-1 but not on 10-1-2-0, I would have defended otherwise" is obviously ridiculous. Isn't it ? From jurgenr@t-online.de Mon Nov 25 10:41:05 2002 From: jurgenr@t-online.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?J=FCrgen_Rennenkampff?=) Date: Mon, 25 Nov 2002 11:41:05 +0100 Subject: [blml] Law Criteria Message-ID: > At 03:42 AM 11/22/02, Kooijman wrote: > > >There are hundreds of years of lawmaking and still murders occur. > > But in very few cases are they committed by persons who are > ignorant of > the fact that they are breaking the law when they do so. And in the > rare cases when they are, we hold the murderer not guilty by > reason of > insanity. > > The vast majority of infractions against the laws of bridge, > OTOH, are > committed not by those who intentionally violate them, but by > those who > do not realize they are doing so. Ton K.: I agree that my comparison is a poor one. It was directed to the approach described by Jurgen blaming the laws of bridge for all the misery in the (bridge) world. In a latter contribution he accused the laws (and makers) for the predictable collapse of the largest bridge NBO in the world within the coming 10 years. [...] Jurgen R.: This is not at all what I said and very far from what I meant. What I said was this: "the absurd obscurity and inconsistency of the laws will be seen as a contributing cause". In fact, the decline of bridge in the U.S. is a symptom of very general sociological trends that affect all forms of social engagement. The incompetence of the responsible Bridge organizations probably has no more than a marginal effect. Nevertheless, it seems to me that, e.g. for reasons of self-respect, the Laws committee should seek the greatest attainable simplicity and clarity, even if the effect cannot be decisive. If the players do not understand the rules, and if the TD's disagree, it is the fault of the Laws committee(s) and nobody else. The players seem to have given up reading the rule book quite some time ago. Let me give you a revoke example that occurred yesterday: The last 3 cards are, N: S.93, D.10 E: S.K104 S and W irreleant, NT contract being played. E leads SK and N plays D10 and then wins trick 13. Of the players at the table nobody was sure of the correct penalty. The TD did know. At home I reread the revoke laws, L61 to L64, and it seems to me that: (a) It is not surprising that the players do not have the patience to wade through these muddled formulations. (b) Laws such as these can be written in such a way that readers, who generally are not accustomed to parsing complicted text, can understand the content after a single reading. Best Regards, Jürgen From agot@ulb.ac.be Mon Nov 25 10:54:29 2002 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon, 25 Nov 2002 11:54:29 +0100 Subject: [blml] Law 75D2 (was dWS for the beginner) In-Reply-To: <3DE1F6BE.404@skynet.be> References: <4A256C78.007883EE.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20021125115240.024572b0@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 11:09 25/11/2002 +0100, Herman De Wael wrote: >I actually believe I understand the sentence Richard concocted here: > >richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: > >>Okay, I concede that the WBF LC wrote Law 75D2 >>in such a way that a person (who wished to >>interpret Law 75D2 disjointedly from the >>context of Law 75 as a whole) could interpret >>Law 75D2 contrary to the explicitly revealed >>intentions that the WBF LC had when they wrote >>Law 75D2. > > >Richard seems to agree that the WBFLC said "UI is worse than MI" when >writing L75D2. >Yet he fails to take the next logical step: concluding that maybe it is a >good idea to continue with the same filosophy and accept the dWS. > >Rather he wants to rewrite the laws to say that at first UI has to be >avoided, but then it must be given. > >I think this is the third best solution, unless I can think of more than >two better ones. > >I'd even prefer that L75D2 be rewritten and say that the MI must be >corrected immediately and UI be given. It's a different game, but at least >it'd be consistent. AG : I'd prefer explanations to be given in written form and handed to the opponents. Then only them would know about the error. This would have only one drawback : several of us would lack material to post ;-) From agot@ulb.ac.be Mon Nov 25 10:56:50 2002 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon, 25 Nov 2002 11:56:50 +0100 Subject: [blml] Law 75D2 (was dWS for the beginner) In-Reply-To: <00b801c2946e$c7a7c6d0$70d8fea9@WINXP> References: <3DDF50B1.1010100@skynet.be> <001901c292dc$4d9fbd90$70d8fea9@WINXP> <3DDF7D9A.8060500@skynet.be> <000f01c292f5$59ac1d90$70d8fea9@WINXP> <3DE097A5.4020703@skynet.be> <5.1.0.14.0.20021125104253.0247de70@pop.ulb.ac.be> <5.1.0.14.0.20021125114004.0247a2d0@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20021125115542.0244fde0@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 11:38 25/11/2002 +0100, Sven Pran wrote: >From: "Alain Gottcheiner" >.......... > > >My own humble suggestion for a solution to this problem would be to > > >rewrite Law 75D2 so that it reads: > > > > > >A player whose partner has given a mistaken explanation may not on his > > >own initiative before the final pass correct the error, nor indicate in >any > > >manner that a mistake has been made; a defender ..... > > > > AG : this would not solve the contradiction in any way. > >Oh yes, it will: The moment an opponent has asked for an explanation >you give your information on his initiative, thus no conflict with L75D2, >nor any conflict with L75C as presumably your explanation will be correct. AG : the fact that yuor explanation is given on someone else's initiative doesn't lessen the fact that some ways to give it are more damageable than others. >(Your objection really surprises me) AG : honors are even. From A.Kooijman@dwk.agro.nl Mon Nov 25 10:56:47 2002 From: A.Kooijman@dwk.agro.nl (Kooijman, A.) Date: Mon, 25 Nov 2002 11:56:47 +0100 Subject: [blml] Law Criteria Message-ID: > > If the players do not understand the rules, and if the TD's > disagree, it is the fault of the Laws committee(s) and nobody > else.=20 The players seem to have given up reading the rule book > quite some time ago. >=20 > Let me give you a revoke example that occurred yesterday: > The last 3 cards are, > N: S.93, D.10 > E: S.K104 > S and W irreleant, NT contract being played. >=20 > E leads SK and N plays D10 and then wins trick 13. Of the > players at the table nobody was sure of the correct penalty. > The TD did know. At home I reread the revoke laws, > L61 to L64, and it seems to me that: >=20 > (a) It is not surprising that the players do not have the > patience to wade through these muddled formulations. > (b) Laws such as these can be written in such a way that > readers, who generally are not accustomed to parsing > complicted text, can understand the content after a single > reading. >=20 > Best Regards, >=20 > J=FCrgen OK, this one we tried to simplify. ton From A.Kooijman@dwk.agro.nl Mon Nov 25 11:05:08 2002 From: A.Kooijman@dwk.agro.nl (Kooijman, A.) Date: Mon, 25 Nov 2002 12:05:08 +0100 Subject: [blml] Law 75D2 (was dWS for the beginner) Message-ID: > -----Oorspronkelijk bericht----- > Van: Sven Pran [mailto:svenpran@online.no] > Verzonden: maandag 25 november 2002 11:38 > Aan: blml > Onderwerp: Re: [blml] Law 75D2 (was dWS for the beginner) > > > From: "Alain Gottcheiner" > .......... > > >My own humble suggestion for a solution to this problem would be to > > >rewrite Law 75D2 so that it reads: > > > > > >A player whose partner has given a mistaken explanation > may not on his > > >own initiative before the final pass correct the error, > nor indicate in > any > > >manner that a mistake has been made; a defender ..... > > > > AG : this would not solve the contradiction in any way. > > Oh yes, it will: The moment an opponent has asked for an explanation > you give your information on his initiative, thus no conflict > with L75D2, > nor any conflict with L75C as presumably your explanation > will be correct. Let us assume you did your utmost to come up with a sentence that, in your opinion could be put in our lawbook. now, in my language the comma and then 'nor indicate ....' seems to say that this last part is a geneal statement and not related to 'his own initiative'. It is disputable anyway, so not clear. And 'before the final pass' is not what we have for the defenders at this moment. Do you want to change that or is this something you forgot? Or do you need another sentence, making things less clear, or....? ton From larry@charmschool.fsnet.co.uk Mon Nov 25 11:16:43 2002 From: larry@charmschool.fsnet.co.uk (LarryBennett) Date: Mon, 25 Nov 2002 11:16:43 -0000 Subject: [blml] Re: Sizes of PPs References: Message-ID: <000001c29475$0166e440$639087d9@pc> | Richard Hill wrote: | | > Do people really take 10% PPs seriously in some parts of the world? | > I am accustomed to a quarter of a board being the standard size of a slap | > on the wrist, with the fines for rare "serious infractions" considerably | > higher still. (The only one you see more than once a year is shuffling a | > board in mid-session, for which ACBL dictates an automatic full board PP.) | Yes indeed. I handed out a (rare for me) 10% fine recently, where a table had a penalty card, but did'nt call the td. I was called later when the situation had become very complicated, taking several minutes to sort out. The OS who are county level players of many years experience, wanted to appeal, write to the club committee and threatened to go home !! Larry From dalburn@btopenworld.com Mon Nov 25 11:54:40 2002 From: dalburn@btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: 25 Nov 2002 03:54:40 -0800 Subject: [blml] Law 75D2 (was dWS for the beginner) Message-ID: <251102329.14080@webbox.com> Ton wrote: >Let us assume you did your utmost to come up with a sentence that, in your opinion could be put in our lawbook. >now, in my language the comma and then 'nor indicate ....' seems to say that this last part is a general statement and not related to 'his own initiative'. I think that whatever is done, it must be made clear that your primary duty is to explain your methods; if this "corrects" a misexplanation by partner, you must still do it. Neither Richard's wording nor Sven's is of very much use; you need to spell things out: A player whose partner has given a mistaken explanation, and who is asked to explain subsequent calls, must do so in accordance with his side's actual agreements, and must not take into account any information from his partner's mistaken explanation. Apart from this obligation, he must not correct the misexplanation before the final pass, and must not indicate in any manner that a mistake has been made. But I am not at all sure that we have reached anywhere near the bottom of this deep pit. Here is Law 75C: "When explaining the significance of partner's call or play in reply to an opponent's inquiry (see Law 20), a player shall disclose all special information conveyed to him through partnership agreement or partnership experience" My RHO opens 3H. I overcall 4NT. Partner alerts and explains this as minors when I meant it as Blackwood. Do we "agree" about the meaning of 4NT? We do not. What, then, shall I disclose to my opponents about his response of 5D? According to the words above, nothing. It may be, of course, that we have an "agreed" defence to 3H openings, written down somewhere, in which 4NT is defined as Blackwood. If I am sure that this is the case, then perhaps I should tell the opponents that he has one ace. But can I be sure? Perhaps partner thinks that we have an "agreed" defence to 3H openings, written down somewhere, in which 4NT is minors. Why should I be right and he wrong? All that is certain is that, *at this moment in time*, we do not have any information about this sequence deriving from partnership agreement or experience. As a consequence of this, I am not actually obliged to tell the opponents anything about 5D (and, retroactively, nor was my partner obliged to tell the opponents anything about 4NT). Of course, we may have some information at least; we may know that 4NT isn't natural, for example. We have to tell the opponents this. But what else do we have to tell them? And how should we go about it? David Burn London, England From John A. Mac Gregor, Chief TD - CACBF" The auction with N/S vulnerable: N E S W 1H P 2C P! 2H P 3C P 3NT all pass West's hand: s AJ h Txxx d Qxx c xxxx Your choice of opening lead? After 2C by North, East inquires as to whether 2C is game forcing then thinks a while before passing. West chooses to lead the Ace of spades and finds East with KQxxxxx for down three. TD is called and after polling 10 players of which 9 choose a small diamond, rules according to Law 16 and adjusts to 3NT making 7. E/W take this to the AC, who overturns the TD's ruling and restores the table result. Your comments, John From agot@ulb.ac.be Mon Nov 25 13:36:39 2002 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon, 25 Nov 2002 14:36:39 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Influenced opening lead In-Reply-To: <000001c29482$f0189f40$c62a28c4@john> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20021125142906.00a5d160@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 06:18 25/11/2002 -0600, John A. Mac Gregor, Chief TD - CACBF wrote: >The auction with N/S vulnerable: > N E S W > 1H P > 2C P! 2H P > 3C P 3NT all pass > >West's hand: >s AJ >h Txxx >d Qxx >c xxxx > >Your choice of opening lead? > >After 2C by North, East inquires as to whether 2C is game forcing then >thinks a while >before passing. West chooses to lead the Ace of spades and finds East with >KQxxxxx >for down three. > >TD is called and after polling 10 players of which 9 choose a small diamond, >rules >according to Law 16 and adjusts to 3NT making 7. > >E/W take this to the AC, who overturns the TD's ruling and restores the >table result. > >Your comments, AG : only two arguments are needed. a) Partner hesitated ; he's got a long suit. It might as well be KQxxxx spades as AKxxxx diamonds. Therefore, no lead of one unbid suit is suggested over the other. As the other two leads are absurd, the player did not choose "an alternative clearly suggested) by the tempo. b) the spade lead needs less in partner's hand (Q10xxx and CA might be enough ; in diamonds you need at least KJxx(x) and CA) ; thus Spades seem a better lead than Diamonds, at least at teams. The committee should then allow the Spade lead, and tell East that his behavior was slightly improper and cost him in another case (but not against the laws : remember of some posts saying that only *use* of UI is disallowed ?) . By the way, whose idea is it that is is less dangerous to overcall over a 10+ 2C response than over a GF response ? Best regards, Alain. From dalburn@btopenworld.com Mon Nov 25 13:40:00 2002 From: dalburn@btopenworld.com (dalburn@btopenworld.com) Date: Mon, 25 Nov 2002 13:40:00 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [BLML] Influenced opening lead Message-ID: <2442405.1038231600210.JavaMail.root@127.0.0.1> John MacGregor wrote > The auction with N/S vulnerable: > N E S W > 1H P > 2C P! 2H P > 3C P 3NT all pass > West's hand: > s AJ > h Txxx > d Qxx > c xxxx > After 2C by North, East inquires as to whether 2C is game forcing then thinks a while before passing. West chooses to lead the Ace of spades and finds East with KQxxxxx for down three. > TD is called and after polling 10 players of which 9 choose a small diamond, rules according to Law 16 and adjusts to 3NT making 7. > E/W take this to the AC, who overturns the TD's ruling and restores the table result. > Your comments? The AC should be boiled in oil. After East's pause, the ace of spades cannot fail to defeat the contract (when it can be broken), whether East was thinking of overcalling in spades or in diamonds. But West isn't allowed to know that East was thinking of overcalling in anything. You *might* lead the ace of spades on this auction anyway, but it's not as if there aren't any logical alternatives - a heart is clearly no good, but a diamond is certainly possible and even a club could work if partner has the ace of hearts, by forcing declarer to run dummy's suit and squeeze himself. This has the look of an appeals committee anxious to show everyone what jolly fine players they are ("of course, the ace of spades is obvious..."). Well, they may be. But they can stick to playing from now on; a committee is no place for any of them. David Burn London, England From hermandw@skynet.be Mon Nov 25 13:46:40 2002 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 25 Nov 2002 14:46:40 +0100 Subject: [blml] Law 75D2 (was dWS for the beginner) References: <3DDF50B1.1010100@skynet.be> <001901c292dc$4d9fbd90$70d8fea9@WINXP> <3DDF7D9A.8060500@skynet.be> <000f01c292f5$59ac1d90$70d8fea9@WINXP> <3DE097A5.4020703@skynet.be> <5.1.0.14.0.20021125104253.0247de70@pop.ulb.ac.be> <5.1.0.14.0.20021125114004.0247a2d0@pop.ulb.ac.be> <00b801c2946e$c7a7c6d0$70d8fea9@WINXP> Message-ID: <3DE229C0.1040806@skynet.be> Sven Pran wrote: >>> >>>A player whose partner has given a mistaken explanation may not on his >>>own initiative before the final pass correct the error, nor indicate in >>> > any > >>>manner that a mistake has been made; a defender ..... >>> >>AG : this would not solve the contradiction in any way. >> > > Oh yes, it will: The moment an opponent has asked for an explanation > you give your information on his initiative, thus no conflict with L75D2, > nor any conflict with L75C as presumably your explanation will be correct. > Oh no it won't. (I feel a bit of pantomime coming up here) You still have the "in any manner" in there. That means there is still a confllict. > (Your objection really surprises me) > I would suggest you cease to be surprised at anyone objecting to anything. The last time I thought I had written something that nobody objected to it turned out I had mailed it to a wrong mailing list. > Sven > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From svenpran@online.no Mon Nov 25 13:49:55 2002 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon, 25 Nov 2002 14:49:55 +0100 Subject: [blml] Law 75D2 (was dWS for the beginner) References: Message-ID: <001901c29489$8a4c93e0$70d8fea9@WINXP> From: "Kooijman, A > > .......... > >My own humble suggestion for a solution to this problem would be to > >rewrite Law 75D2 so that it reads: > > > >A player whose partner has given a mistaken explanation > >may not on his own initiative before the final pass correct > >the error, nor indicate in any manner that a mistake has > >been made; a defender ..... > > ...... > Let us assume you did your utmost to come up with a sentence that, in your > opinion could be put in our lawbook. > > now, in my language the comma and then 'nor indicate ....' seems to say that > this last part is a geneal statement and not related to 'his own > initiative'. It is disputable anyway, so not clear. This comma which I inserted almost automatically was influenced by Norwegian language syntactical rules. Together with the "nor" it marks the connection of two balanced sentences - namely "correct the error" and "indicate in any manner that a mistake has been made". Thus the specified subject ("A player") and the condition ("on his own initiative") apply to both sentences. May I add that as I have no formal degree in the Norwegian language it may very well be that I am in error here, but at least I trust that there is no longer any room for doubt on what I suggested and that WBFLC if they adopt the idea will be able to put it into undisputable terms? > > And 'before the final pass' is not what we have for the defenders at this > moment. Do you want to change that or is this something you forgot? Or do > you need another sentence, making things less clear, or....? No! As indicated in my text I intended the remainder of the law to remain unchanged. Didn't you notice that I continued "; a defender ....." ? Sven From hermandw@skynet.be Mon Nov 25 14:10:42 2002 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 25 Nov 2002 15:10:42 +0100 Subject: [blml] Law 75D2 (was dWS for the beginner) References: <3DDF50B1.1010100@skynet.be> <001901c292dc$4d9fbd90$70d8fea9@WINXP> <3DDF7FD1.5040703@skynet.be> <002601c292f6$b02b8f10$70d8fea9@WINXP> <3DE09873.5080109@skynet.be> <5.1.0.14.0.20021125104759.02475100@pop.ulb.ac.be> <5.1.0.14.0.20021125114151.0246faf0@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <3DE22F62.3020107@skynet.be> Hello Alain, Alain Gottcheiner wrote: >> >> You're on the right track Alain, but when would (i) be damaging ? >> Given that the MI has already occured, the extra bit of MI can hardly >> be damaging, and the clearing up of the MI not do away with the damage >> already done. > > > AG : once in a while it could happen. > 1C 1D 1NT > 1D explained as no major, not always diamonds (wrong ! we play "up the > line") > 1NT must then, according to dWS, be alerted and explained as "possibly > one or two 4-card majors". > It is quite possible that the first bit of MI doesn't influence RHO's > bid over 1NT, but the second one does (say he's got a weakish 44 majors > and wants to double). > In this case, I would prefer not to alert 1NT. If I'm about to pass (or > bid 3NT), the UI I give will be unimportant. > good example, and correct. > >>> To cut it short, I'm not an exponent od the dWS, hard version : >>> "always prefer MI when faced with the dilemma", but of the dWS, >>> reasonable version (which BTW is Herman's) : "give MI or UI, >>> whichever you think will create fewer problems". >> >> >> >> I am not of this soft dWS, but in fact from the hard one. >> Not because I cannot imagine that there are situations where a "soft" >> dWS would be more beneficial, but because I believe that this is >> advice to players, who should not be burdened with deciding what will >> cause problems or not. In the long run, I believe the dWS will cause >> less problems than the ClS, which is why I urge the players to act in >> this manner. > > > AG : why not tell them the whole "soft dWS" if they are competent enough ? > And who decided who is competent ? And what do we say to the non-competent ones ? > >> Of course in the absense of a real decision by the WBFLC, I cannot >> forbid AG to use the soft dWS and select his choice according to his >> own wishes at the table. > > > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw@skynet.be Mon Nov 25 14:16:38 2002 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 25 Nov 2002 15:16:38 +0100 Subject: [blml] Law 75D2 (was dWS for the beginner) References: <251102329.14080@webbox.com> Message-ID: <3DE230C6.9070905@skynet.be> David has suddenly struck upon the main reason why the dWS is best: David Burn wrote: > > My RHO opens 3H. I overcall 4NT. Partner alerts and explains > this as minors when I meant it as Blackwood. Do we "agree" about > the meaning of 4NT? We do not. What, then, shall I disclose to > my opponents about his response of 5D? According to the words > above, nothing. > According to the dWS: -if I am certain that partner is right : "1Ace" (correct explanation) -if I am certain I was right : still "1Ace" (wrong, but not giving UI) -if I am uncertain : "1Ace" (obviously) According to the ClS: -if I am certain that partner is right : "1Ace" -if I am certain that I was right : "better minor" -if I am uncertain : "?????" Please remember that we are certain of one thing : partner has 1 Ace ! > It may be, of course, that we have an "agreed" defence to 3H > openings, written down somewhere, in which 4NT is defined as > Blackwood. If I am sure that this is the case, then perhaps I > should tell the opponents that he has one ace. But can I be sure? > Perhaps partner thinks that we have an "agreed" defence to 3H > openings, written down somewhere, in which 4NT is minors. Why > should I be right and he wrong? All that is certain is that, > *at this moment in time*, we do not have any information about > this sequence deriving from partnership agreement or experience. > As a consequence of this, I am not actually obliged to tell the > opponents anything about 5D (and, retroactively, nor was my partner > obliged to tell the opponents anything about 4NT). > > Of course, we may have some information at least; we may know > that 4NT isn't natural, for example. We have to tell the opponents > this. But what else do we have to tell them? And how should we > go about it? > Maybe start following the dWS? > David Burn > London, England > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw@skynet.be Mon Nov 25 14:23:29 2002 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 25 Nov 2002 15:23:29 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Influenced opening lead References: <000001c29482$f0189f40$c62a28c4@john> Message-ID: <3DE23261.4060606@skynet.be> I can only offer a Salso appeal to this. But they have not yet been published. Anyway, there an AC decided that even though the UI did not particularly point to one suit rather than another, it did point to the existance of a good lead and so the lead of your shortest suit was deemed illegal. I must say that that case was even less clear than this one. Whyever should one lead ones shortest suit when holding 10HCP of your own? John A. Mac Gregor, Chief TD - CACBF wrote: > The auction with N/S vulnerable: > N E S W > 1H P > 2C P! 2H P > 3C P 3NT all pass > > West's hand: > s AJ > h Txxx > d Qxx > c xxxx > > Your choice of opening lead? > > After 2C by North, East inquires as to whether 2C is game forcing then > thinks a while > before passing. West chooses to lead the Ace of spades and finds East with > KQxxxxx > for down three. > > TD is called and after polling 10 players of which 9 choose a small diamond, > rules > according to Law 16 and adjusts to 3NT making 7. > > E/W take this to the AC, who overturns the TD's ruling and restores the > table result. > > Your comments, > John > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From dalburn@btopenworld.com Mon Nov 25 14:38:47 2002 From: dalburn@btopenworld.com (dalburn@btopenworld.com) Date: Mon, 25 Nov 2002 14:38:47 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [blml] Law 75D2 (was dWS for the beginner) Message-ID: <7838526.1038235127130.JavaMail.root@127.0.0.1> Herman wrote: > David has suddenly struck upon the main reason why the dWS is best: No, he hasn't. The dWS isn't "best"; the dWS is both illegal and terrible. What I would like to know, though, is what Law 75 actually means. I would also like to know what any of Herman's latest message means, since I do not understand a single word of it, and until now I thought I had followed his exposition of the dWS reasonably well. >>My RHO opens 3H. I overcall 4NT. Partner alerts and explains this as minors when I meant it as Blackwood. Do we "agree" about the meaning of 4NT? We do not. What, then, shall I disclose to my opponents about his response of 5D? According to the words above, nothing. > According to the dWS: > -if I am certain that partner is right : "1 Ace" (correct explanation) Eh? If partner is right (i.e. that 4NT is minors), then "one ace" is the wrong explanation (as well as not being what he has got). > -if I am certain I was right : still "1 Ace" (wrong, but not giving UI) Eh? If I am right (i.e. 4NT is Blackwood), then: "1 Ace" is the correct explanation of our methods; but it is not what partner has got; and it provides him with UI. > -if I am uncertain : "1 Ace" (obviously) Eh? If I am uncertain, then it is not obvious at all that I should tell the opponents anything. Law 75C says that I do not have to tell them anything, after all. Why does the dWS say that I should tell the opponents something about our agreement when we obviously do not have one? > According to the ClS: > -if I am certain that partner is right : "1 Ace" I think Herman must just have misread the question, or I am seriously misreading his answers. Partner thinks I have the minors. If he is right, then he is not showing one ace, or any other number of aces. > -if I am certain that I was right : "better minor" Again, if I (who think 4NT is Blackwood) am right, then 5D shows one ace, and I will so explain it, even though I know that he is actually bidding his better minor. > -if I am uncertain : "?????" Then there is nothing I need do, but if I am uncertain, the dWS will not help me any more than the classical method. >Please remember that we are certain of one thing : partner has 1 Ace ! Why? We should proceed as if his bidding showed one ace, but we are not certain that he has one; indeed, since he explained 4NT as minors, we have no idea how many aces he has. >>Of course, we may have some information at least; we may know that 4NT isn't natural, for example. We have to tell the opponents this. But what else do we have to tell them? And how should we go about it? > Maybe start following the dWS? How are we to do that, when its founder does not seem to understand the problem above at all? David Burn London, England From svenpran@online.no Mon Nov 25 14:38:20 2002 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon, 25 Nov 2002 15:38:20 +0100 Subject: [blml] Law 75D2 (was dWS for the beginner) References: <251102329.14080@webbox.com> <3DE230C6.9070905@skynet.be> Message-ID: <003101c29490$4d1d4300$70d8fea9@WINXP> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Herman De Wael" To: "blml" Sent: Monday, November 25, 2002 3:16 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Law 75D2 (was dWS for the beginner) > David has suddenly struck upon the main reason why the dWS is best: > > David Burn wrote: > > > > > My RHO opens 3H. I overcall 4NT. Partner alerts and explains > > this as minors when I meant it as Blackwood. Do we "agree" about > > the meaning of 4NT? We do not. What, then, shall I disclose to > > my opponents about his response of 5D? According to the words > > above, nothing. > > > > > According to the dWS: > -if I am certain that partner is right : "1Ace" (correct explanation) > -if I am certain I was right : still "1Ace" (wrong, but not giving UI) > -if I am uncertain : "1Ace" (obviously) > > According to the ClS: > -if I am certain that partner is right : "1Ace" > -if I am certain that I was right : "better minor" > -if I am uncertain : "?????" > > Please remember that we are certain of one thing : partner has 1 Ace ! Why? You intended it as Blackwood, but partner explained it as both minors! Do we know anything about how many aces he holds? Of course if we did not have his (in?)correct answer we would assume that he holds one ace, and that is what we should tell opponents if asked (as long as we "know" our agreements that 4NT here is Blackwood). > > > > It may be, of course, that we have an "agreed" defence to 3H > > openings, written down somewhere, in which 4NT is defined as > > Blackwood. If I am sure that this is the case, then perhaps I > > should tell the opponents that he has one ace. But can I be sure? > > Perhaps partner thinks that we have an "agreed" defence to 3H > > openings, written down somewhere, in which 4NT is minors. Why > > should I be right and he wrong? All that is certain is that, > > *at this moment in time*, we do not have any information about > > this sequence deriving from partnership agreement or experience. > > As a consequence of this, I am not actually obliged to tell the > > opponents anything about 5D (and, retroactively, nor was my partner > > obliged to tell the opponents anything about 4NT). > > > > Of course, we may have some information at least; we may know > > that 4NT isn't natural, for example. We have to tell the opponents > > this. But what else do we have to tell them? And how should we > > go about it? > > > > > Maybe start following the dWS? > Exceptions do not build general cases. Whatever you do in this case I assume you will find yourself in trouble if opponents can show possible damage from the situation. But by assuring they have the correct information at the earliest legal time you have at least done what you can to reduce or eliminate possible damage. And please do remember that if you cannot show probable evidence of your agreements then the Director is bound to rule MI rather than misbid. In this case I have a strong suspicion that your hand will not fit a "both minors" 4NT bid? Sven From agot@ulb.ac.be Mon Nov 25 15:05:40 2002 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon, 25 Nov 2002 16:05:40 +0100 Subject: [blml] Law 75D2 (was dWS for the beginner) In-Reply-To: <3DE230C6.9070905@skynet.be> References: <251102329.14080@webbox.com> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20021125155107.02485450@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 15:16 25/11/2002 +0100, Herman De Wael wrote: >David has suddenly struck upon the main reason why the dWS is best: > >David Burn wrote: > >>My RHO opens 3H. I overcall 4NT. Partner alerts and explains >>this as minors when I meant it as Blackwood. Do we "agree" about >>the meaning of 4NT? We do not. What, then, shall I disclose to >>my opponents about his response of 5D? According to the words >>above, nothing. > > >According to the dWS: >-if I am certain that partner is right : "1Ace" (correct explanation) >-if I am certain I was right : still "1Ace" (wrong, but not giving UI) >-if I am uncertain : "1Ace" (obviously) AG : seems wrong to me. Unless there is something wrong in its wording or I understood it the wrong way, dWS tells us to explain what partner thinks his response means in his thoughts. Thus, I shall answer 'best minor' in all cases. BTW, it would be strange if they asked me about the bid ; when hearing partner's explanation of my bid, it should be quite obvious what his meant. As usual, on question too much would risk creating UI. I would be prone to answer "guess what" if I was allowed to. >According to the ClS: >-if I am certain that partner is right : "1Ace" >-if I am certain that I was right : "better minor" >-if I am uncertain : "?????" > >Please remember that we are certain of one thing : partner has 1 Ace ! > > >>It may be, of course, that we have an "agreed" defence to 3H >>openings, written down somewhere, in which 4NT is defined as >>Blackwood. If I am sure that this is the case, then perhaps I >>should tell the opponents that he has one ace. But can I be sure? >>Perhaps partner thinks that we have an "agreed" defence to 3H >>openings, written down somewhere, in which 4NT is minors. Why >>should I be right and he wrong? All that is certain is that, >>*at this moment in time*, we do not have any information about >>this sequence deriving from partnership agreement or experience. >>As a consequence of this, I am not actually obliged to tell the >>opponents anything about 5D (and, retroactively, nor was my partner >>obliged to tell the opponents anything about 4NT). >>Of course, we may have some information at least; we may know >>that 4NT isn't natural, for example. We have to tell the opponents >>this. But what else do we have to tell them? And how should we >>go about it? > > >Maybe start following the dWS? > > >>David Burn >>London, England >> >> >>_______________________________________________ >>blml mailing list >>blml@rtflb.org >>http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml >> > > >-- >Herman DE WAEL >Antwerpen Belgium >http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html > > >_______________________________________________ >blml mailing list >blml@rtflb.org >http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From agot@ulb.ac.be Mon Nov 25 15:11:15 2002 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon, 25 Nov 2002 16:11:15 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Influenced opening lead In-Reply-To: <3DE23261.4060606@skynet.be> References: <000001c29482$f0189f40$c62a28c4@john> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20021125160618.02481610@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 15:23 25/11/2002 +0100, Herman De Wael wrote: >I can only offer a Salso appeal to this. >But they have not yet been published. >Anyway, there an AC decided that even though the UI did not particularly >point to one suit rather than another, it did point to the existance of a >good lead and so the lead of your shortest suit was deemed illegal. >I must say that that case was even less clear than this one. Whyever >should one lead ones shortest suit when holding 10HCP of your own? AG : only seven, incidentally. I still think that the question and tempo don't mean anything ; partner could have 4S / 5D and not want to tell it to the opponents when having a 0% chance of playing the contract undoubled. The tempo doesn't, in my wiew, point to the existence of KQxxxx of spades (with which you would bid, if only because of the tempo) rather than AKxxx of diamonds (with or without a side spade suit) ; quite to the contrary. >John A. Mac Gregor, Chief TD - CACBF wrote: > >>The auction with N/S vulnerable: >> N E S W >> 1H P >> 2C P! 2H P >> 3C P 3NT all pass >>West's hand: >>s AJ >>h Txxx >>d Qxx >>c xxxx >>Your choice of opening lead? From svenpran@online.no Mon Nov 25 14:59:47 2002 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon, 25 Nov 2002 15:59:47 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Influenced opening lead References: <000001c29482$f0189f40$c62a28c4@john> <3DE23261.4060606@skynet.be> Message-ID: <003701c29493$4c5b9950$70d8fea9@WINXP> From: "Herman De Wael" > I can only offer a Salso appeal to this. > But they have not yet been published. > Anyway, there an AC decided that even though the UI did not > particularly point to one suit rather than another, it did point to > the existance of a good lead and so the lead of your shortest suit was > deemed illegal. > I must say that that case was even less clear than this one. Whyever > should one lead ones shortest suit when holding 10HCP of your own? > > John A. Mac Gregor, Chief TD - CACBF wrote: > > > The auction with N/S vulnerable: > > N E S W > > 1H P > > 2C P! 2H P > > 3C P 3NT all pass > > > > West's hand: > > s AJ > > h Txxx > > d Qxx > > c xxxx > > > > Your choice of opening lead? Without any possible UI from partner I would not be in doubt but lead the Ace of spades and follow up with the Jack. I may assume partner can be at least as strong as I am, and I have no interesting suit in my own hand to lead from. So I try to find partner's suit. The only real danger with this lead seems to be if South holds exactly Kx in spades and partner has two fairly safe and quick entries. > > > > After 2C by North, East inquires as to whether 2C is game forcing then > > thinks a while > > before passing. West chooses to lead the Ace of spades and finds East with > > KQxxxxx > > for down three. > > > > TD is called and after polling 10 players of which 9 choose a small diamond, > > rules > > according to Law 16 and adjusts to 3NT making 7. > > > > E/W take this to the AC, who overturns the TD's ruling and restores the > > table result. Could partner's question and hesitation suggest anything? Certainly, he could have been in doubt whether to enter the auction with some bid, and the applicable suit can most likely be spades. On assuming that there are no other facts "hidden" in this case I wouldn't even have bothered with a poll but just ruled the same as the TD apparently did. Sven From hermandw@skynet.be Mon Nov 25 15:20:28 2002 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 25 Nov 2002 16:20:28 +0100 Subject: [blml] Law 75D2 (was dWS for the beginner) References: <251102329.14080@webbox.com> <3DE230C6.9070905@skynet.be> <003101c29490$4d1d4300$70d8fea9@WINXP> Message-ID: <3DE23FBC.8090205@skynet.be> Ooops, yes I did read the example in the wrong direction. I am certain that you will have understood what I meant, after changing the wording around. Sven Pran wrote: >> > > Exceptions do not build general cases. > > Whatever you do in this case I assume you will find yourself > in trouble if opponents can show possible damage from the > situation. > That is true, and irrelevant. I have often enough stated that the MI has to be dealt with. If opponents are damaged they shall receive redress. But please also see that: a) the original MI cannot be retracted. Some players may already have made calls that are influenced by the MI. If there is damage, it has already occured; b) the second MI is likely to be inconsequential. Notwithstanding that it is MI, you explanation (in dWS) correctly describes the meaning partner intended, and should therefor be a good representation of his actual holdings. > But by assuring they have the correct information at the > earliest legal time you have at least done what you can to > reduce or eliminate possible damage. > No you haven't. You have corrected earlier MI, but too late to do anything about it. You have given additional information, which is not MI, since it correctly describes the agreement, but which is totally useless in describing anything about partner's hand, since it was not what he intended. So you have not, in fact, reduced or eliminated damage. And you have added another bit of UI to the already existing one. Sorry Sven, but you cannot win arguments here. > And please do remember that if you cannot show probable > evidence of your agreements then the Director is bound to > rule MI rather than misbid. In this case I have a strong > suspicion that your hand will not fit a "both minors" 4NT bid? > Well, considering that my reply and David's post were about two different cases, I doubt if we shall ever know what I have, shall we? > Sven > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From axman22@hotmail.com Mon Nov 25 15:19:11 2002 From: axman22@hotmail.com (Roger Pewick) Date: Mon, 25 Nov 2002 09:19:11 -0600 Subject: [blml] Hand from Bridge Today References: <5.1.0.14.0.20021125110043.0246fd60@pop.ulb.ac.be> <009201c2946a$674d0420$70d8fea9@WINXP> Message-ID: ----- Original Message ----- From: "Sven Pran" To: "blml" Sent: Monday, November 25, 2002 4:07 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Hand from Bridge Today > From: "Alain Gottcheiner" > To: "Steve Willner" ; > Sent: Monday, November 25, 2002 11:05 AM > Subject: Re: [blml] Hand from Bridge Today > > > > At 11:14 22/11/2002 -0500, Steve Willner wrote: > > > > From: Alain Gottcheiner > In cases like this any doubt shall be resolved in favour of the > non-offending > side. > > Which means that the Director shall not refuse any claim from East or West > on what they would have done unless that claim is obviously(!) ridiculous. I personally believe this is a bad standard. The human has a fertile mind. For instance, it is easy To Say: I would have bid X had I been told.... whether or not it was true; because he knows that the score for going down some number of tricks would be preferable to letting through a doubled slam made. I believe that it takes more than words to create damage because there is a great difference between what a player might do and what he chooses to do [without the benefit of a safety net]. regards roger pewick > And the Director shall similarly only accept claims from North and South > on what would have happened when such claims are obviously correct. > > Sven From hermandw@skynet.be Mon Nov 25 15:22:01 2002 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 25 Nov 2002 16:22:01 +0100 Subject: [blml] Law 75D2 (was dWS for the beginner) References: <7838526.1038235127130.JavaMail.root@127.0.0.1> Message-ID: <3DE24019.2050309@skynet.be> With my apologies once more for commenting on the completely opposite case, I shall rewrite my original reply on the correct case, and hope that the confusion will then be solved. See another post dalburn@btopenworld.com wrote: [snip] > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw@skynet.be Mon Nov 25 15:26:13 2002 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 25 Nov 2002 16:26:13 +0100 Subject: [blml] Law 75D2 (was dWS for the beginner) References: <251102329.14080@webbox.com> Message-ID: <3DE24115.5000100@skynet.be> Rewritten reply, now using the correct case as David described it. With reiterated apologies. David Burn wrote: > > My RHO opens 3H. I overcall 4NT. Partner alerts and explains > this as minors when I meant it as Blackwood. Do we "agree" about > the meaning of 4NT? We do not. What, then, shall I disclose to > my opponents about his response of 5D? According to the words > above, nothing. > According to the dWS: -if I am certain that partner is right : "better minor" (correct explanation) -if I am certain that I was right : "better minor" (wrong, but not giving UI) -if I am uncertain : "better minor" (obviously) According to the ClS: -if I am certain that partner is right : "better minor" -if I am certain that I was right : "1 Ace" -if I am uncertain : "?????" Please remember that we are certain of one thing : partner has better diamonds than clubs ! > It may be, of course, that we have an "agreed" defence to 3H > openings, written down somewhere, in which 4NT is defined as > Blackwood. If I am sure that this is the case, then perhaps I > should tell the opponents that he has one ace. But can I be sure? > Perhaps partner thinks that we have an "agreed" defence to 3H > openings, written down somewhere, in which 4NT is minors. Why > should I be right and he wrong? All that is certain is that, > *at this moment in time*, we do not have any information about > this sequence deriving from partnership agreement or experience. > As a consequence of this, I am not actually obliged to tell the > opponents anything about 5D (and, retroactively, nor was my partner > obliged to tell the opponents anything about 4NT). > > Of course, we may have some information at least; we may know > that 4NT isn't natural, for example. We have to tell the opponents > this. But what else do we have to tell them? And how should we > go about it? > Maybe start following the dWS? > David Burn > London, England > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw@skynet.be Mon Nov 25 15:30:49 2002 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 25 Nov 2002 16:30:49 +0100 Subject: [blml] Law 75D2 (was dWS for the beginner) References: <7838526.1038235127130.JavaMail.root@127.0.0.1> Message-ID: <3DE24229.9000609@skynet.be> Having now rewritten my original reply so that it makes sense (I hope), I shall not force David to re-write his entire replay (which consists mainly of quite understandable puzzlement as to how I could ever write such a thing in the first place). David does have one point that is independent of my mistake, and I shall spare him to have to re-write that one and reply to it here: dalburn@btopenworld.com wrote: > >>-if I am uncertain : "?????" >> > > Then there is nothing I need do, but if I am uncertain, the dWS will not help me any more than the classical method. > Yes, that is the beauty of the dWS advice: Since the same answer has to be given whether I believe I was right or partner was, the same answer can also be given when I have no clue as to who is right. And to boot, it is the meaning partner intended as well. > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From willner@cfa.harvard.edu Mon Nov 25 15:34:21 2002 From: willner@cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Mon, 25 Nov 2002 10:34:21 -0500 (EST) Subject: [blml] LOOT - 54C Message-ID: <200211251534.KAA09657@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> > From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au > ... extraneous - and therefore, by > ruling of the WBF LC, illegal. Where did the WBFLC say that? Certainly not the Lille minute, which is very careful to draw a distinction between "extraneous" and "illegal." > Dummy's action is a violation of Law 41C. If dummy's spreading his cards is extraneous -- and I am not at all convinced, given the language of L41C -- the TD should let play continue and eventually rule under L12A1. The question will be whether there is damage, judged according to declarer's "likely" and "at all probable" reactions to the OLOOT had dummy not spread his hand. If believe that L41C authorizes dummy to spread his hand in the circumstances, then of course there is no adjustment (unless there is some other law I am missing). By the way, what's up with "and offender's partner leads face down" in the header of L54? Does L54 not apply at all if there is a faced OLOOT, and correct opening leader has not led? From svenpran@online.no Mon Nov 25 15:41:10 2002 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon, 25 Nov 2002 16:41:10 +0100 Subject: [blml] Law 75D2 (was dWS for the beginner) References: <251102329.14080@webbox.com> <3DE230C6.9070905@skynet.be> <003101c29490$4d1d4300$70d8fea9@WINXP> <3DE23FBC.8090205@skynet.be> Message-ID: <006001c29499$14312f30$70d8fea9@WINXP> From: "Herman De Wael" ..... > If opponents are damaged they shall receive redress. > But please also see that: > a) the original MI cannot be retracted. Some players may already have > made calls that are influenced by the MI. If there is damage, it has > already occured; Of course the original MI cannot be retracted, but it can still be corrected. I feel pretty sure that you, like me, has encountered several MI cases where the MI did not have any immediate influence upon opponents' actions, but where damage would certainly be caused if not corrected until later in the auction. "Had I received correct information on the opening bid I would certainly have doubled the final contract!" A claim like that cannot be dismissed unless the MI has been corrected in time for the defence to make their double anyway. And if the claiming defender is not the one that may retract his final pass due to MI revealed before the opening lead then damage is still most likely caused (which would not have been the case if revelation had occurred at an earlier stage). Sven From rmb1@capulin.cmsc.npl.co.uk Mon Nov 25 15:45:45 2002 From: rmb1@capulin.cmsc.npl.co.uk (Robin Barker) Date: Mon, 25 Nov 2002 15:45:45 GMT Subject: [blml] LOOT - 54C Message-ID: <200211251545.PAA00807@tempest.cmsc.npl.co.uk> > From: Steve Willner > To: blml@rtflb.org > Subject: Re: [blml] LOOT - 54C > > By the way, what's up with "and offender's partner leads face down" in > the header of L54? Does L54 not apply at all if there is a faced > OLOOT, and correct opening leader has not led? > I guess its a bit of attemptedly slick editing that didn't work. Clearly :-) "and the following sections apply." means "and the following sections, which apply to an opening lead out of turn, apply in this case as well." Robin -- Robin Barker | Email: Robin.Barker@npl.co.uk CMSC, Building 10, | Phone: +44 (0) 20 8943 7090 National Physical Laboratory, | Fax: +44 (0) 20 8977 7091 Teddington, Middlesex, UK. TW11 OLW | WWW: http://www.npl.co.uk From willner@cfa.harvard.edu Mon Nov 25 16:05:34 2002 From: willner@cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Mon, 25 Nov 2002 11:05:34 -0500 (EST) Subject: [blml] Conventional Psyche - real time Message-ID: <200211251605.LAA09839@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> > From: "Karel" > P P 3NT(1) P > 4C(2) P 4S P(3) > P P > > (1) On the CC as long solid minor no outside stops and alerted as such I don't think we have enough information to answer. As usual, the first step is to decide what the actual agreement is. On the facts presented, it seems quite possible that it is "solid minor with no outside stops or solid major with outside stops." (In my regular partnership, I'd have expected the 4S bid to show a void and extra length in the minor, but North seems to have interpreted it as intended. This suggests an agreement.) On the other hand, "minors or majors" is a rather silly agreement, so maybe the agreement really is minors only, as shown on the CC. The TD needs to find out. If the agreement does indeed include majors, then this is an ordinary MI case. There should probably be a PP for a mismarked CC because the error is so blatant. If the real agreement is as shown on the CC, then this is indeed looks to be a psych of a conventional bid. We would have to know exactly what the regulations say to be sure, but the definition of "psychic call" in Chapter 1 of the FLB makes no reference to the player's desire to deceive opponents. Unless there is a special definition in the regulation, the 3NT opening bid fits. > The Td agreed and scraped the board Here again we need to know the regulations. If there are none, then the TD should have assigned an adjusted score under L12C2. That score should not include any part of the illegal 3NT bid, put perhaps 4S will turn out to be the likely/at all probable contract by another route. This is an ordinary bridge judgment. In any case, the result at the other table is irrelevant. I understand that the EBU regulations for illegal bids would give 60%/30% in a pair game; this would translate to +3/-3 IMPs on the score and a standard VP penalty (0.5??) to the OS in a team game. Perhaps the Irish regulations are similar, or perhaps not. Is this result just? I doubt it, but it's an inevitable result of the legal but poor regulation. > From: Alain Gottcheiner > And of course a NT bid that shows a balanced > hand can't be conventional This would have been true before 1997; sadly it is no longer so. However, the normal, natural 2NT bids that we expect are probably not conventional even now, given one of the WBFLC interpretations. (I think it may have been from Maastricht, but I'm not certain.) From hermandw@skynet.be Mon Nov 25 16:36:55 2002 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 25 Nov 2002 17:36:55 +0100 Subject: [blml] Law 75D2 (was dWS for the beginner) References: <251102329.14080@webbox.com> <3DE230C6.9070905@skynet.be> <003101c29490$4d1d4300$70d8fea9@WINXP> <3DE23FBC.8090205@skynet.be> <006001c29499$14312f30$70d8fea9@WINXP> Message-ID: <3DE251A7.8050903@skynet.be> Indeed Sven, but ... Sven Pran wrote: > From: "Herman De Wael" > ..... > >>If opponents are damaged they shall receive redress. >>But please also see that: >>a) the original MI cannot be retracted. Some players may already have >>made calls that are influenced by the MI. If there is damage, it has >>already occured; >> > > Of course the original MI cannot be retracted, but it can still be > corrected. I feel pretty sure that you, like me, has encountered > several MI cases where the MI did not have any immediate > influence upon opponents' actions, but where damage would > certainly be caused if not corrected until later in the auction. > > "Had I received correct information on the opening bid I > would certainly have doubled the final contract!" > > A claim like that cannot be dismissed unless the MI has > been corrected in time for the defence to make their double > anyway. > the problem with that argument is that the Laws explicitely say that such a correctio shall not be made "in any manner". So it is really not up to us to use this as an argument for or against the giving of correct explanations of subsequent bids. What you are saying is completely true, but it should not influence our discussion on how to explain a bid that occurs after this first MI. That damage has already been done, and a subsequent and IMO illegal correction should not diminish it. > And if the claiming defender is not the one that may retract his > final pass due to MI revealed before the opening lead then > damage is still most likely caused (which would not have been > the case if revelation had occurred at an earlier stage). > True, but irrelevant. The laws say this correction must not happen. So claiming that the game would be better if the correction does happen is wishing on a star. > Sven > > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Mon Nov 25 09:00:48 2002 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Mon, 25 Nov 2002 04:00:48 -0500 Subject: [blml] Friendly opponents and pleasant TDs In-Reply-To: <4A256C7C.0021BF4B.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> Message-ID: On 11/25/02, richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: >My mind does not boggle at all. If a particular >player's objectives includes friendly opponents, >pleasant TDs, but *not* memorising the scoring >table; then what is wrong with that? Scoring affects both strategy and tactics. If you don't know how to score (note that I never said anything about memorizing the scoring table) then your strategy and tactics will suffer. >However, SOs should make life easy for players >who have not memorised the scoring table if, >perchance, the movement requires them to score. >For example, many Australian SOs have complete >scoring tables attached to the reverse of the >(large) table numbers. At the clubs I play in around here, TDs put two aids to scoring on the table at the beginning of most sessions - in some cases, three. 1. The ACBL produces a small scoring table, which is widely available. 2. Some clubs here, at least, have table cards which have the scoring table on the back. 3. The backs of the bidding cards have the relevant scores on them. Granted, some players are unaware of that, and some who have been told promptly forgot, but the info is there. From mamos@blueyonder.co.uk Mon Nov 25 17:30:15 2002 From: mamos@blueyonder.co.uk (mamos) Date: Mon, 25 Nov 2002 17:30:15 -0000 Subject: [BLML] Influenced opening lead References: <000001c29482$f0189f40$c62a28c4@john> Message-ID: <001001c294a8$50fd2860$b1e41e3e@mikeamos> Uggh Surely partner's pause tells us he has a long suit We have to choose between S + D With less S than D, surely Ds must be right in a UI situation and the TD correct also "I would have led the brilliant S Ace partner but after you hesitated the Laws do not allow me to choose an option suggested ........." Appeals Committee - too clever by half mike ----- Original Message ----- From: "John A. Mac Gregor, Chief TD - CACBF" To: "BLML" Cc: "Gustavo Chediak" Sent: Monday, November 25, 2002 12:18 PM Subject: [BLML] Influenced opening lead > The auction with N/S vulnerable: > N E S W > 1H P > 2C P! 2H P > 3C P 3NT all pass > > West's hand: > s AJ > h Txxx > d Qxx > c xxxx > > Your choice of opening lead? > > After 2C by North, East inquires as to whether 2C is game forcing then > thinks a while > before passing. West chooses to lead the Ace of spades and finds East with > KQxxxxx > for down three. > > TD is called and after polling 10 players of which 9 choose a small diamond, > rules > according to Law 16 and adjusts to 3NT making 7. > > E/W take this to the AC, who overturns the TD's ruling and restores the > table result. > > Your comments, > John > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From rmb1@capulin.cmsc.npl.co.uk Mon Nov 25 17:56:20 2002 From: rmb1@capulin.cmsc.npl.co.uk (Robin Barker) Date: Mon, 25 Nov 2002 17:56:20 GMT Subject: [blml] Friendly opponents and pleasant TDs Message-ID: <200211251756.RAA00884@tempest.cmsc.npl.co.uk> > >My mind does not boggle at all. If a particular > >player's objectives includes friendly opponents, > >pleasant TDs, but *not* memorising the scoring > >table; then what is wrong with that? > > Scoring affects both strategy and tactics. If you don't know how to > score (note that I never said anything about memorizing the scoring > table) then your strategy and tactics will suffer. > > >However, SOs should make life easy for players > >who have not memorised the scoring table if, > >perchance, the movement requires them to score. > >For example, many Australian SOs have complete > >scoring tables attached to the reverse of the > >(large) table numbers. > > At the clubs I play in around here, TDs put two aids to scoring on the > table at the beginning of most sessions - in some cases, three. > > 1. The ACBL produces a small scoring table, which is widely available. > 2. Some clubs here, at least, have table cards which have the scoring > table on the back. > 3. The backs of the bidding cards have the relevant scores on them. > Granted, some players are unaware of that, and some who have been told > promptly forgot, but the info is there. These may be aids to scoring, but they can not be aids to strategy and tactics; as a player may not refer to them when he had a decision (in the auction or play). Footnote 12 to L40E2: "A player is not entitled, during the auction and play periods, to any aids to his memory, calculation or technique." Robin -- Robin Barker | Email: Robin.Barker@npl.co.uk CMSC, Building 10, | Phone: +44 (0) 20 8943 7090 National Physical Laboratory, | Fax: +44 (0) 20 8977 7091 Teddington, Middlesex, UK. TW11 OLW | WWW: http://www.npl.co.uk From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Mon Nov 25 18:06:16 2002 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Mon, 25 Nov 2002 13:06:16 -0500 Subject: [blml] Law 75D2 (was dWS for the beginner) Message-ID: On 11/25/02, Alain Gottcheiner wrote: >The classical school requires us to alert and say that the bid is >nonexistent. Huh? The alert regulations I've read (the ACBLs and the EBUs) say to alert if the call has some meaning which (a) the opponents are unlikely to expect and (b) about which they might like to ask questions. Implicit in this is that (a) you know what the meaning is and (b) you can therefore answer opponents' questions. If partner makes an impossible bid, and you are on a pure guess as to what he's got, Law 75C specifically tells you that you're not required to tell opponents anything. >But, assume an opponent looks at your CC, sees nothing about 4C, >guesses that it must show clubs as it wasn't alerted, sees that 3S >would show clubs, and asks you (as is his right) "what's the difference >here between 3S and 4C ?" Ah, I see. I would say "4C has no meaning in our system, so I don't know". However, there's something else here. You say "as is his right". I don't think so - although it happens in practice and no one ever seems to complain, IME. Law 20 allows questions about the *auction*, and about specific calls only in amplification of an explanation of the auction. So your opponent does *not* have the right to ask that question - not without asking for (and receiving) an explanation of the auction first. From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Mon Nov 25 18:25:27 2002 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Mon, 25 Nov 2002 13:25:27 -0500 Subject: [blml] LOOT - 54C In-Reply-To: <200211251534.KAA09657@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: On 11/25/02, Steve Willner wrote: >By the way, what's up with "and offender's partner leads face down" in >the header of L54? Does L54 not apply at all if there is a faced >OLOOT, and correct opening leader has not led? I believe the answer to your second question is "technically, yes, but everybody knows that the lawmakers didn't really intend that, so you should just ignore it." "If 'everybody knows' such-and-such, then it ain't so." --Robert A. Heinlein, "From the Notebooks of Lazarus Long" From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Mon Nov 25 19:15:45 2002 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Mon, 25 Nov 2002 14:15:45 -0500 Subject: [blml] Friendly opponents and pleasant TDs In-Reply-To: <200211251756.RAA00884@tempest.cmsc.npl.co.uk> Message-ID: On 11/25/02, Robin Barker wrote: >These may be aids to scoring, but they can not be aids to strategy and >tactics; as a player may not refer to them when he had a decision (in >the auction or play). >Footnote 12 to L40E2: "A player is not entitled, during the auction >and play periods, to any aids to his memory, calculation or technique." Who said anything about referring to them "when he has a decision"? Knowledge of the scoring table *is* an aid to strategy - or should be. But you devise your strategy before you ever get to the table. It's an aid to tactics too. Suppose a player is in a position to sacrifice. He either needs to know the scoring table (at least in broad terms) so he can answer for himself the question "will going down two doubled be less negative than letting them make their game?" or he needs to have some rote formula ("sacrifice on Tuesdays when the moon is full...") that tells him what to do. Personally, I prefer the former method. :-) You gain knowledge of the scoring table by referring to it *when appropriate* with an eye toward figuring out answers to questions like the above. Use of it to actually compute the score is secondary. From axman22@hotmail.com Mon Nov 25 19:04:54 2002 From: axman22@hotmail.com (Roger Pewick) Date: Mon, 25 Nov 2002 13:04:54 -0600 Subject: [BLML] Influenced opening lead References: <2442405.1038231600210.JavaMail.root@127.0.0.1> Message-ID: ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Sent: Monday, November 25, 2002 7:40 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Influenced opening lead > John MacGregor wrote > > > The auction with N/S vulnerable: > > N E S W > > 1H P > > 2C P! 2H P > > 3C P 3NT all pass > > > West's hand: > > s AJ > > h Txxx > > d Qxx > > c xxxx > > > After 2C by North, East inquires as to whether 2C is game forcing then thinks a while before passing. West chooses to lead the Ace of spades and finds East with KQxxxxx for down three. > > > TD is called and after polling 10 players of which 9 choose a small diamond, rules according to Law 16 and adjusts to 3NT making 7. > > > E/W take this to the AC, who overturns the TD's ruling and restores the table result. > > > Your comments? > > The AC should be boiled in oil. After East's pause, the ace of spades cannot fail to defeat the contract (when it can be broken), whether East was thinking of overcalling in spades or in diamonds. But West isn't allowed to know that East was thinking of overcalling in anything. You *might* lead the ace of spades on this auction anyway, but it's not as if there aren't any logical alternatives - a heart is clearly no good, but a diamond is certainly possible and even a club could work if partner has the ace of hearts, by forcing declarer to run dummy's suit and squeeze himself. > > This has the look of an appeals committee anxious to show everyone what jolly fine players they are ("of course, the ace of spades is obvious..."). Well, they may be. But they can stick to playing from now on; a committee is no place for any of them. > > David Burn > London, England here are some of my beliefs about bridge: a. never ask questions unless the answer is needed [immediately] b. questions should be the last resort [if the answer is where it is supposed to be on the CC the question is not needed] c. only ask what the agreement is [never ask a leading question ] What I find about this hand is that declarer has invited the defenders to take their best shot. Is it not stupid to bid NT with a wide open and short suit if he is unwilling for the defense to find their best line? The score was influenced by the NS choice of contract taken in spite of extraneous information provided by east. No, I dislike that east has made it easier to imagine beating the contract, but the UI does not in my opinion appreciably suggest between spades and diamonds. If anything, it is the holdings of W that suggest the suit to lead. In my mind, the quality of the club and heart holdings suggest that clubs and hearts will run and to ignore that inference [while many players do indeed] is stupid. And I do not see how a player can be faulted for selecting a S or D. The consultation on the hand yielded that if a diamond had been lead then no adjustment could be justified. But that is not the standard of the law to be applied here: -demonstrably suggested over-. And when a defender has UI that his partner could have a long suit does the difference between a two card and three card holding demonstrably suggest that the suit is the shorter one? More probable yes, but not demonstrably so. This should have been included in the basis for the AC ruling to justify the table result. David B has suggested that the AC was unsuited to render an acceptable decision for the appeal. Perhaps he is right since they did not address the answer in law after hearing evidence that 9 of 10 players would have led a diamond, but ruled that because the AC can justify the SA the table result should stand. I can reiterate that I dislike the situation that was created by east's behavior. But what players have been educated to do is to not use the CC, to ask questions, to ask leading questions, and to take extra time to think when it suits them instead of trying to mask their thinking. I have a difficult time blaming them for what they do when they are met at every turn by ethical challenges that have hazy answers. One thought occurred to me about tunnel vision. There was a case where the auction went P-1H-1N-P; P-X[1]-P-2H; PPP [1] huddle 60-90 seconds With the hand 987x-KJ-Jxxx-xxx it was ruled that Pass was a LA [because 5 hcp is ample to sit for the double] and that 2H was suggested over pass. Supposedly the huddle suggested less than a good hand with long hearts. So the contract was adjusted to 1NX on the HK lead. Now, if this judgement were to be accurately analyzed the conclusion should be that because extra length in hearts [6+] was suggested then the call actually suggested by the huddle was not 2H but Pass. As such, if opener does have the HA now a lead of a side suit to put opener in and a heart through to capture declarer's Q is likely to generate 6 heart tricks along with opener's other winners to set 1NX a bundle- much more than 2H making a lot. Opener's hand was indeed a good hand with six hearts to the ace. Now, is it really right [latching onto a single idea] to punish by enforcing the HK lead [when it is sensible to try to get 4 hcp of value out of the penalty pass] upon the evil 2H bidder that made the one call that kept his side out of 4H making? regards roger pewick From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Mon Nov 25 22:25:14 2002 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 26 Nov 2002 08:25:14 +1000 Subject: [blml] Conventional Psyche - real time Message-ID: <4A256C7C.0079A57E.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> Alain wrote: [snip] >>here the bid is not a psyche (a bid made with the >>purpose of fooling the opponents) but rather a >>flight-of-fancy bid : the player decided that 3NT >>would bring him a good score, full stop. >> >>Of course, it would create an agreement for the >>future, etc. The Lawful definition of Psychic Call includes: >A deliberate and gross misstatement of [snip] >suit length. If 3NT promises a solid minor, is actually holding a solid major *not* a gross misstatement of suit length? Best wishes Richard From thomas.dehn@arcor.de Mon Nov 25 22:08:33 2002 From: thomas.dehn@arcor.de (Thomas Dehn) Date: Mon, 25 Nov 2002 23:08:33 +0100 Subject: [blml] Conventional Psyche - real time References: <3de0365a.7449.0@esatclear.ie> Message-ID: <02b601c294cf$4a9f7320$539690d4@rabbit> From: "Karel" > Boy life is great - here I am trying to get > some definitive expert opinion in > this area and lo and behold I'm given an actual case. > > > Teams Dealer North N/S Vul 6 board matches > > North > S x > H xxxx > D Jxx > C K9xxx > > > South > S AKQJ9xx > H Ax > D xx > C Ax > > P P 3NT(1) P > 4C(2) P 4S P(3) > P P 3NT in 3rd hand with 9 tricks is supposed to be a psyche? And E/W complained? Are you sure they call this bridge in Ireland? I would have let the result stand. Clearly E/W were not damaged by the information they got, and not by the "psyche" either, but by their teammates' overbidding. The ruling to cancel the board is absurd. I see no basis in the law for such a ruling. Thomas From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Tue Nov 26 00:04:49 2002 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 26 Nov 2002 10:04:49 +1000 Subject: [blml] Conventional Psyche - real time Message-ID: <4A256C7C.0082C3D8.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> Thomas Dehn wrote: >3NT in 3rd hand with 9 tricks >is supposed to be a psyche? And E/W complained? >Are you sure they call this bridge in Ireland? Unfortunately, this is called bridge in many jurisdictions. (But the ABF have not yet prohibited conventional psyches.) >I would have let the result stand. Clearly E/W were >not damaged by the information they got, and not >by the "psyche" either, but >by their teammates' overbidding. If local regulations did not specifically require otherwise, I would have let the result stand also. >The ruling to cancel the board is absurd. True, but absurdity is Lawfully irrelevant. >I see no basis in the law for such a ruling. Me neither. Unfortunately, the WBF LC has a different, more authoritative view. The WBF LC has ruled that an SO's Law 40D power to regulate conventions includes the power to over-ride the Law 40A right to psyche. Therefore, the WBF LC has ruled that an SO can prohibit a psyche of a conventional call. There does seem to be one loophole. An SO can regulate that a conventional psyche is illegal. But the consequent regulation specifying cancellation of the board after a conventional psyche is in direct contradiction of the procedure specified by Law 12C2. As far as I am aware, the WBF LC has not yet ruled that a regulation made under Law 40D can over-ride Law 12C2. Of course, I may be wrong. It is possible that the WBF LC has ruled that an SO's regulation made under a particular Law can over-ride all the remaining Laws. :-( Best wishes Richard From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Tue Nov 26 01:38:01 2002 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 26 Nov 2002 11:38:01 +1000 Subject: [blml] asked jesting Pilate Message-ID: <4A256C7D.000775D5.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> In the thread Law 75D2, David Burn wrote: [snip] >It may be, of course, that we have an "agreed" >defence to 3H openings, written down somewhere, >in which 4NT is defined as Blackwood. If I am >sure that this is the case, then perhaps I >should tell the opponents that he has one ace. >But can I be sure? Perhaps partner thinks that >we have an "agreed" defence to 3H openings, >written down somewhere, in which 4NT is minors. > >Why should I be right and he wrong? All that is >certain is that, *at this moment in time*, we >do not have any information about this sequence >deriving from partnership agreement or >experience. [snip] "What is Truth?" was an important question 2000 years ago. It is still an important question in bridge, given that Truth is the basis of the requirement to disclose mandated by Law 75. David Burn seems to be asserting that Truth is relative and contextual. However, Law 75 as a whole seems to me to be to be based on the philosophy that Truth is an absolute. It seems to me that the logical basis of the footnote to Law 75 is that: * If a partnership has agreed that it is Truth that a particular call has a defined partnership meaning of X; * If one or both members of the partnership have temporarily forgotten the Truth, and assume that the call has a meaning of Y; * Then, according to the footnote to Law 75, the Truth that must be disclosed is still X. Best wishes Richard From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Tue Nov 26 02:31:04 2002 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 26 Nov 2002 12:31:04 +1000 Subject: [blml] AC/DC Message-ID: <4A256C7D.000C50ED.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> In the September 2002 edition of the ABF Newsletter, an appellant wrote: [snip] >>>Subsequently I was sought out by the chairman of the >>>appeals committee who wanted to tell me how lucky I >>>was not to "cop a fine". I was told that it was only >>>because the committee was already late for lunch that >>>the possibility of a fine was not considered and >>>that, if considered, it surely would have been >>>imposed. (I am not sure to what extent he spoke for >>>himself or the committee in this regard.) [snip] In the subsequent November 2002 edition of the ABF Newsletter, the chair of the appeals committee replied: [snip] >>I did approach him afterwards and suggest that he may >>have been lucky not to have the score changed to -150, >>which was a strongly considered option. I also noted >>that he had done well to escape a fine for an appeal >>substantially without merit - an option which was not >>canvassed at the meeting but which members subsequently >>agreed was likely had it been considered. [snip] The chair has had a long and distinguished record running various appeals committees at many Australian championships. However, on this particular issue, I believe that the chair has made an error in protocol. The appeals committee did *not* officially determine a fine for an appeal substantially without merit. So, it seems to me, that the chair's subsequent comment to the appellant about "luck", was contrary to this statement in the World Bridge Federation Code of Practice for Appeals Committees: [snip] >committee members should carefully avoid direct >exchanges of opinion with other persons in attendance. [snip] Best wishes Richard From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Tue Nov 26 03:41:23 2002 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 26 Nov 2002 13:41:23 +1000 Subject: [blml] Law Criteria Message-ID: <4A256C7D.0012C0D1.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> Paul Hauff asked: [big snip] >When did you, dear BLML-reader, play in a simple neighbourhood >club, where everybody knows everybody, no Convention Card, no >alerts, just simple bridge, and the TD is called only when a >revoke must be settled? Every Tuesday. >Let me finish with the words of ACBLs CEO Jay Baum (Nov.2002): > >"These days bridge players - some of them,anyway - have become >bridge lawyers. Fortunately, men are still men and woman are >still woman." > >(I believe law makers are not concerned by this quote) Welcome to blml Paul. Do you have any cats? It is true that many blmlers (myself included) enjoy casuistically reasoning the nuances of the Laws. However, it is also true that many blmlers (myself included) bend over backwards to avoid bridge lawyering ourselves to tops against inexperienced opponents. It is furthermore true that many blmlers (myself included) hope that the 2005 edition of the Laws will be less ambiguous - even if that reduces the scope for enjoyable pedantry on blml. :-) Best wishes Richard From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Tue Nov 26 04:47:07 2002 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 26 Nov 2002 14:47:07 +1000 Subject: [blml] Let the crime fit the punishment Message-ID: <4A256C7D.0018C5A7.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> In the thread Hand from Bridge Today, ton wrote: [big snip] >Later I asked Kaplan for an explanation and he >said that on this level players are supposed to >know their system. If not hang them. (More Wolff >oriented than I had expected) [snip] >And to blml that Kaplan didn't have problems >with awarding an artificial adjusted score after >a table result had been reached. [snip] An experienced TD has noted that many ACs miscontrue their role as being to restore equity. Their method of operation is first to determine what an equitable ruling is in their opinion, and only secondarily to rummage through TFLB to find a Law they can twist to legally justify their ruling. This results in such unLawful oddities as: * Reveley rulings, or, * Average-plus to the offending side. Indeed, an experienced commentator has argued that players should be prohibited from informing an AC what TFLB states, since that gives experienced players an inequitable advantage over inexperienced players at an appeal. So, instead of letting the punishment fit the crime, many ACs are Procrusteanly stretching the crime to fit the punishment. Call me naive, but I believe that an AC should: * Firstly, determine the facts; * Second, as a consequence of the determination of facts, the TD should advise the AC which Laws are applicable to the appeal (L93B3); * Third, the AC should rule strictly in accordance with the applicable Laws; * Lastly, if and only if the applicable Laws permit discretion, modify the ruling equitably. Best wishes Richard From shrike@surfbest.net Tue Nov 26 05:40:38 2002 From: shrike@surfbest.net (Doug Couchman) Date: Mon, 25 Nov 2002 23:40:38 -0600 Subject: [blml] influenced opening lead In-Reply-To: <20021126013204.16896.80009.Mailman@toybox.amsterdamned.org> Message-ID: > What I find about this hand is that declarer has invited the defenders > to take their best shot. Is it not stupid to bid NT with a wide open > and short suit if he is unwilling for the defense to find their best > line? Actually, it's not stupid once E tanks -- now, assuming N/S have only one unstopped suit, or only one singly stopped plus only one loser in the bid suits, the contract makes whenever either (1) W makes the wrong lead; or (2) W makes the right lead, but the right lead is demonstrably suggested by the hesitation and the wrong one is not so wrong as to be illogical. > The score was influenced by the NS choice of contract taken in spite of > extraneous information provided by east. No, I dislike that east has > made it easier to imagine beating the contract, but the UI does not in > my opinion appreciably suggest between spades and diamonds. If > anything, it is the holdings of W that suggest the suit to lead. In my > mind, the quality of the club and heart holdings suggest that clubs and > hearts will run and to ignore that inference [while many players do > indeed] is stupid. And I do not see how a player can be faulted for > selecting a S or D. The hesitation does not suggest S over D, but it does suggest that the contract can be beaten by the right lead, and therefore that an ace in an unbid suit is probably best. I think if you change W's hand to: AJx Txxx Qx xxxx (moving a spot from D to S) the SA is still suggested (albeit less clearly) even though it's not in his shortest suit. At matchpoints, I think the problem is rather easy (I know -- it never is) -- the risky SA lead is disallowed. But at IMPS, I submit that any other lead is illogical. But I guess nine out of ten players polled thought otherwise. Apparently I don't know the game very well -- I must be a director. Doug Couchman shrike@surfbest.net From hermandw@skynet.be Tue Nov 26 08:56:26 2002 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 26 Nov 2002 09:56:26 +0100 Subject: [blml] asked jesting Pilate References: <4A256C7D.000775D5.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> Message-ID: <3DE3373A.90203@skynet.be> richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: > > In the thread Law 75D2, David Burn wrote: > > [snip] > > >>It may be, of course, that we have an "agreed" >>defence to 3H openings, written down somewhere, >>in which 4NT is defined as Blackwood. If I am >>sure that this is the case, then perhaps I >>should tell the opponents that he has one ace. >>But can I be sure? Perhaps partner thinks that >>we have an "agreed" defence to 3H openings, >>written down somewhere, in which 4NT is minors. >> >>Why should I be right and he wrong? All that is >>certain is that, *at this moment in time*, we >>do not have any information about this sequence >>deriving from partnership agreement or >>experience. >> > > [snip] > > "What is Truth?" was an important question 2000 > years ago. > > It is still an important question in bridge, given > that Truth is the basis of the requirement to > disclose mandated by Law 75. > > David Burn seems to be asserting that Truth is > relative and contextual. However, Law 75 as a > whole seems to me to be to be based on the > philosophy that Truth is an absolute. > > It seems to me that the logical basis of the > footnote to Law 75 is that: > > * If a partnership has agreed that it is Truth > that a particular call has a defined partnership > meaning of X; > * If one or both members of the partnership > have temporarily forgotten the Truth, and > assume that the call has a meaning of Y; > * Then, according to the footnote to Law 75, the > Truth that must be disclosed is still X. > What I find abhorring in all these cases is not that you seem to be saying that X is True, but that you are also saying that Y is false. While all the time Y is actually what partner has. N:"4NT" E:"?" S:"asking for minors" S:"5Di" W:"?" N:"one ace" or "better diamonds than clubs" While systemically "one ace" may be True, in reality "better diamonds" is true. So why all this writing about "better diamonds" being False? What is Truth, indeed? > Best wishes > > Richard > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From twm@cix.co.uk Tue Nov 26 11:03:00 2002 From: twm@cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Tue, 26 Nov 2002 11:03 +0000 (GMT Standard Time) Subject: [blml] Conventional Psyche - real time In-Reply-To: <3de0365a.7449.0@esatclear.ie> Message-ID: Karel wrote: > Teams Dealer North N/S Vul 6 board matches > > North > S x > H xxxx > D Jxx > C K9xxx > > > South > S AKQJ9xx > H Ax > D xx > C Ax > > P P 3NT(1) P > 4C(2) P 4S P(3) > P P > > (1) On the CC as long solid minor no outside stops and alerted as such > > (2) Pass or correct (alerted) > > (3) Opps asked what 4S now was and were told natural solid suit and > may now have outside stop(s). I have to say that it sounds as if NS were playing an improperly disclosed (though otherwise legal) conventional 3N. Surely this is an MI ruling rather than a psyche ruling? I see no damage from the MI. As it happens any "forbidden" psyche of a conventional bid should surely either be a case of "illegal convention" or "improper disclosure". These are, after all, the reasons SOs give for banning psyches of conventional bids. Tim From agot@ulb.ac.be Tue Nov 26 11:47:22 2002 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Tue, 26 Nov 2002 12:47:22 +0100 Subject: [blml] Conventional Psyche - real time In-Reply-To: <4A256C7C.0079A57E.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20021126124017.02474bd0@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 08:25 26/11/2002 +1000, richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: >Alain wrote: > >[snip] > > >>here the bid is not a psyche (a bid made with the > >>purpose of fooling the opponents) but rather a > >>flight-of-fancy bid : the player decided that 3NT > >>would bring him a good score, full stop. > >> > >>Of course, it would create an agreement for the > >>future, etc. > >The Lawful definition of Psychic Call includes: > > >A deliberate and gross misstatement of > >[snip] > > >suit length. > >If 3NT promises a solid minor, is actually holding >a solid major *not* a gross misstatement of suit >length? AG : your logic is faulty here : to be qualified a psyche, a declaration must fulfill *two* requirements : a) to be a groos misstatement - fulfilled here .AND. b) to be made with the intent to decieve - not fulfilled here. The only intent was to play there - a departure from the system and not a psyche; Departure from the system is not an infraction, but it may create inferences (the next 3NT must be explained otherwise). An example to mark the limit : Jxxx Kxx AJ KQxx Partner opens 1S. If I answer 2D, it is most probably a psyche. If I answer 3NT (to play), it is departure of the system (for any reason, I don't want to make a raise bid). When a bid will, with a high probability, be the final one, it will seldom be a psyche. This is the case of a 4th-in-hand game bid. Best regards, Alain. From agot@ulb.ac.be Tue Nov 26 12:06:09 2002 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Tue, 26 Nov 2002 13:06:09 +0100 Subject: [blml] Law 75D2 (was dWS for the beginner) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20021126130425.02475db0@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 13:06 25/11/2002 -0500, Ed Reppert wrote: >On 11/25/02, Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > > >The classical school requires us to alert and say that the bid is > >nonexistent. > >Huh? The alert regulations I've read (the ACBLs and the EBUs) say to >alert if the call has some meaning which (a) the opponents are unlikely >to expect and (b) about which they might like to ask questions. Implicit >in this is that (a) you know what the meaning is and (b) you can >therefore answer opponents' questions. If partner makes an impossible >bid, and you are on a pure guess as to what he's got, Law 75C >specifically tells you that you're not required to tell opponents >anything. AG : but former posts clearly state that when you don't know whether you should alert, you have to alert. When you don't know the meaning, you don't know whether to alert, ergo you alert. What did I miss ? From agot@ulb.ac.be Tue Nov 26 12:14:19 2002 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Tue, 26 Nov 2002 13:14:19 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Influenced opening lead In-Reply-To: References: <2442405.1038231600210.JavaMail.root@127.0.0.1> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20021126131011.02471650@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 13:04 25/11/2002 -0600, Roger Pewick wrote: >One thought occurred to me about tunnel vision. There was a case where >the auction went P-1H-1N-P; P-X[1]-P-2H; PPP > >[1] huddle 60-90 seconds > >With the hand 987x-KJ-Jxxx-xxx it was ruled that Pass was a LA [because >5 hcp is ample to sit for the double] and that 2H was suggested over >pass. Supposedly the huddle suggested less than a good hand with long >hearts. So the contract was adjusted to 1NX on the HK lead. AG : there lacks an essential information : what does the double mean ? The idea that it is for penalties (in front of the 1NT bid) is a minority one. Most probably, it suggests extra offense. Perhaps 5431 or 6331 pattern and a good (not necessarily whalish) hand. See the discussion in The Bridge World in early 2001. The question about the meaning of the double should have been asked, and the response checked, first. Since my CC tells that "all low-level doubles in front of the bidder are TO", I think my partner is right to take it out. From dalburn@btopenworld.com Tue Nov 26 12:09:27 2002 From: dalburn@btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: 26 Nov 2002 04:09:27 -0800 Subject: [blml] Conventional Psyche - real time Message-ID: <261102330.14967@webbox.com> Alain wrote: >AG : your logic is faulty here : No, it isn't. Once again, people who ought to be concerned only with what the rules require are allowing their view of this to be clouded by their own bridge judgement. >to be qualified a psyche, a declaration must fulfill *two* requirements : >a) to be a groos misstatement - fulfilled here >..AND. >b) to be made with the intent to decieve - not fulfilled here. This is simply not so. Someone who opens 3NT with solid spades, knowing that his opponents will be informed that it shows solid clubs or solid diamonds, intends that his opponents should be misinformed, or in plain English, intends to deceive them. As players, we may all be filled with admiration for this wonderful tactical ploy. But that does not make it other than a gross misstatement with intent to deceive - a psychic call. >The only intent was to play there - a departure from the system and not a psyche This is more of the same; part of the intent to play in 3NT was based on the knowledge that, the opponents not knowing the true nature of declarer's hand, 3NT was more likely than otherwise to make. It can be good bridge to deceive the opponents in this way, of course, even if partner is also deceived. But it is sheer sohpistry to say that a bid intended aas the final contract cannot be a psychic bid. Of course it can, and attempting to deny the fact is yet another example of the Robin Hood Syndrome - because we admire what clever criminals do, we refuse to call them crimes. David Burn London, England From agot@ulb.ac.be Tue Nov 26 12:44:05 2002 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Tue, 26 Nov 2002 13:44:05 +0100 Subject: [blml] Conventional Psyche - real time In-Reply-To: <261102330.14967@webbox.com> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20021126134004.0247cb30@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 04:09 26/11/2002 -0800, David Burn wrote: >Alain wrote: > > >AG : your logic is faulty here : > >No, it isn't. Once again, people who ought to be concerned only >with what the rules require are allowing their view of this to >be clouded by their own bridge judgement. > > >to be qualified a psyche, a declaration must fulfill *two* requirements >: > > >a) to be a groos misstatement - fulfilled here > >..AND. > >b) to be made with the intent to decieve - not fulfilled here. > >This is simply not so. Someone who opens 3NT with solid spades, >knowing that his opponents will be informed that it shows solid >clubs or solid diamonds, intends that his opponents should be >misinformed, or in plain English, intends to deceive them. AG : disagree strongly. In the deal that I mentioned : AKQ10xx AQ Q10 Kxx after 2D p 2H ? (2D = Multi) when I bid 3NT, I had no intention at all to deceive. I intended to play 3NT. It was an invention, not a psyche. I guess that the player implied in the present case reasoned the same way. >It can be good bridge to deceive the opponents in this way, of >course, even if partner is also deceived. But it is sheer sohpistry >to say that a bid intended aas the final contract cannot be a >psychic bid. Of course it can, and attempting to deny the fact >is yet another example of the Robin Hood Syndrome - because we >admire what clever criminals do, we refuse to call them crimes. AG : especially when we did the same and *know* it wasn't a crime, because we can see into our own heads, if not in other person's. And remember, a crime has to be proved, not merely suspected. >David Burn >London, England > > > > >_______________________________________________ >blml mailing list >blml@rtflb.org >http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From dalburn@btopenworld.com Tue Nov 26 12:49:15 2002 From: dalburn@btopenworld.com (dalburn@btopenworld.com) Date: Tue, 26 Nov 2002 12:49:15 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [blml] Conventional Psyche - real time Message-ID: <1480798.1038314955577.JavaMail.root@127.0.0.1> Alain wrote: > >This is simply not so. Someone who opens 3NT with solid spades, > >knowing that his opponents will be informed that it shows solid > >clubs or solid diamonds, intends that his opponents should be > >misinformed, or in plain English, intends to deceive them. > AG : disagree strongly. In the deal that I mentioned : > AKQ10xx AQ Q10 Kxx > after 2D p 2H ? (2D = Multi) > when I bid 3NT, I had no intention at all to deceive. I intended to play 3NT. It was an invention, not a psyche. What did 3NT mean in your system, Alain? What would your partner have told the opponents that it showed? One imagines that he gave them the impression that you had "a hand that wanted to play in 3NT"; they could work out for themselves that you were either strong balanced, or had some trick source, or both. > I guess that the player implied in the present case reasoned the same way. Yes, I expect you probably do. But that does not disguise the fact that the two situations are in no way similar, and that "reasoning in the same way" is therefore impossible. I cannot make any picture in my mind of what tortured process of unreason leads you to deny the screamingly obvious fact: that a man who makes a bid that shows a solid minor when he does not have one is (a) conscious that his opponents may be deceived and (b) intends, or at any rate hopes, that this will happen. > AG : especially when we did the same and *know* it wasn't a crime, because we can see into our own heads Alain, a man who murders people because he believes God is telling him to murder them does not think, from "seeing into his own head", that he is committing a crime. This really is a most dangerous process of non-reasoning that you are following here, and I urge you to abandon it with all the speed you may. David Burn London, England ] From axman22@hotmail.com Tue Nov 26 14:08:13 2002 From: axman22@hotmail.com (Roger Pewick) Date: Tue, 26 Nov 2002 08:08:13 -0600 Subject: [BLML] Influenced opening lead References: <2442405.1038231600210.JavaMail.root@127.0.0.1> <5.1.0.14.0.20021126131011.02471650@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: ----- Original Message ----- From: "Alain Gottcheiner" To: "Roger Pewick" ; Sent: Tuesday, November 26, 2002 6:14 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Influenced opening lead > At 13:04 25/11/2002 -0600, Roger Pewick wrote: > > >One thought occurred to me about tunnel vision. There was a case where > >the auction went P-1H-1N-P; P-X[1]-P-2H; PPP > > > >[1] huddle 60-90 seconds > > > >With the hand 987x-KJ-Jxxx-xxx it was ruled that Pass was a LA [because > >5 hcp is ample to sit for the double] and that 2H was suggested over > >pass. Supposedly the huddle suggested less than a good hand with long > >hearts. So the contract was adjusted to 1NX on the HK lead. > > AG : there lacks an essential information : what does the double mean ? The > idea that it is for penalties (in front of the 1NT bid) is a minority one. > Most probably, it suggests extra offense. Perhaps 5431 or 6331 pattern and > a good (not necessarily whalish) hand. See the discussion in The Bridge > World in early 2001. > The question about the meaning of the double should have been asked, and > the response checked, first. Since my CC tells that "all low-level doubles > in front of the bidder are TO", I think my partner is right to take it out. sorry to not be thorough. The actual auction had never been discussed directly, but in theory it had been discussed that when opener is in front of 1N that opener's cards are devalued so X [or any action] needs to be backed by a suitable hand. This had been the only such sequence of the partnership. It could only be said that the agreement called for a good hand [the inference is that partner would need to do something intelligent]. Though irrelevant, it was my partner who opened the bidding. What was told the TD was that X promised a good hand; [nothing about it being pure penalty in nature which it was not]. regards roger pewick From Laval_Dubreuil@uqss.uquebec.ca Tue Nov 26 14:48:31 2002 From: Laval_Dubreuil@uqss.uquebec.ca (Laval Dubreuil) Date: Tue, 26 Nov 2002 09:48:31 -0500 Subject: TR: [blml] LOOT - 54C Message-ID: Wilner writes: If dummy's spreading his cards is extraneous -- and I am not at all convinced, given the language of L41C -- the TD should let play continue and eventually rule under L12A1. The question will be whether there is damage, judged according to declarer's "likely" and "at all probable" reactions to the OLOOT had dummy not spread his hand. If believe that L41C authorizes dummy to spread his hand in the circumstances, then of course there is no adjustment (unless there is some other law I am missing). _______________________________________________________________________ So I think Law 54C should be more specific and should clearly say that sreading his hand after an OLOOT is illegal for dummy and ...??? May be 54C should applies only when declarer could have seen dummy's cards before the OLOOT ?? Laval Du Breuil Quebec City From twm@cix.co.uk Tue Nov 26 14:54:00 2002 From: twm@cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Tue, 26 Nov 2002 14:54 +0000 (GMT Standard Time) Subject: [blml] Conventional Psyche - real time In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20021126124017.02474bd0@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: Alain wrote: > > > >If 3NT promises a solid minor, is actually holding > >a solid major *not* a gross misstatement of suit > >length? > > AG : your logic is faulty here : > > to be qualified a psyche, a declaration must fulfill *two* requirements > : > > a) to be a groos misstatement - fulfilled here Agreed. > .AND. > b) to be made with the intent to decieve - not fulfilled here. Where do you get this idea? It must be a deliberate choice rather than a misbid. You may, or may not, care whether anybody is deceived but if you deliberately choose an obviously non-systemic call it is a psyche. > The only > intent was to play there - a departure from the system and not a psyche; > Departure from the system is not an infraction, but it may create > inferences (the next 3NT must be explained otherwise). > > An example to mark the limit : > > Jxxx > Kxx > AJ > KQxx > > Partner opens 1S. > If I answer 2D, it is most probably a psyche. > If I answer 3NT (to play), it is departure of the system (for any > reason, I don't want to make a raise bid). It may be a departure from system but is is hardly a gross one. I assume that Jxx,Kxx,AJx,KQxx would be a "book" 3N call in your system. Having the lead come up to AJ doubleton is surely a valid reason for a minor deviation. Tim From idc@macs.hw.ac.uk Tue Nov 26 15:23:40 2002 From: idc@macs.hw.ac.uk (Ian D Crorie) Date: Tue, 26 Nov 2002 15:23:40 +0000 Subject: [blml] Conventional Psyche - real time Message-ID: > Alain wrote: [lines deleted] > > > > to be qualified a psyche, a declaration must fulfill *two* requirements > > > > > > a) to be a groos misstatement - fulfilled here > > .AND. > > b) to be made with the intent to decieve - not fulfilled here. > > > The only > > intent was to play there - a departure from the system and not a psyche; > > Departure from the system is not an infraction, but it may create > > inferences (the next 3NT must be explained otherwise). If you feel people are ganging up on you Alain, it's because we are. :-) May I suggest another example. You, my opponent, open 4D in 3rd seat neither vul holding the following hand: x Qxx KQJxxxxx x and your partner correctly alerts and describes it as showing a good 4S preempt. You haven't forgotten the system; you just decided on the spur of the moment that this was the best bid you could make (pretend for the sake of argument that your normally irreproachable bidding judgment has deserted you). You argue after the hand that you have not psyched, since your intent was to play in 4D. Just as the player with the solid major who opened 3NT did, you were aware that partner might remove 4D since he would expect a different hand, but you argue that you hoped he wouldn't and 4D would be a good spot. Isn't it clear that 4D is a psyche? If not, someone else should have a go ... --- Considering the number of wheels that Microsoft has found reason to invent, one never ceases to be baffled by the minuscule number whose shape even vaguely resembles a circle. -- anon From dalburn@btopenworld.com Tue Nov 26 15:28:19 2002 From: dalburn@btopenworld.com (dalburn@btopenworld.com) Date: Tue, 26 Nov 2002 15:28:19 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [blml] Conventional Psyche - real time Message-ID: <7658284.1038324499652.JavaMail.root@127.0.0.1> TWM wrote: > Where do you get this idea? It must be a deliberate choice rather than a misbid. You may, or may not, care whether anybody is deceived but if you deliberately choose an obviously non-systemic call it is a psyche. Quite so. The Definitions state: Psychic Call A deliberate and gross misstatement of honour strength or suit length. Nothing here about "intent to deceive". Standard and Poor have just upgraded Alain's posts on thie subject from "nonsense" to "complete nonsense". David Burn London, England From agot@ulb.ac.be Tue Nov 26 16:01:04 2002 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Tue, 26 Nov 2002 17:01:04 +0100 Subject: [blml] Conventional Psyche - real time In-Reply-To: <7658284.1038324499652.JavaMail.root@127.0.0.1> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20021126165949.02479350@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 15:28 26/11/2002 +0000, dalburn@btopenworld.com wrote: >TWM wrote: > > > Where do you get this idea? It must be a deliberate choice rather than= =20 > a misbid. You may, or may not, care whether anybody is deceived but if=20 > you deliberately choose an obviously non-systemic call it is a psyche. > >Quite so. The Definitions state: > >Psychic Call >A deliberate and gross misstatement of honour strength or suit length. > >Nothing here about "intent to deceive". Standard and Poor have just=20 >upgraded Alain's posts on thie subject from "nonsense" to "complete= nonsense". AG : OK, translate "volontaire d=E9sinformation" as you wish (from the=20 definitions section of the French version). I stick to "intent to decieve". From dalburn@btopenworld.com Tue Nov 26 16:10:23 2002 From: dalburn@btopenworld.com (dalburn@btopenworld.com) Date: Tue, 26 Nov 2002 16:10:23 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [blml] Conventional Psyche - real time Message-ID: <821994.1038327023316.JavaMail.root@127.0.0.1> Alain wrote: > AG : OK, translate "volontaire d=E9sinformation" as you wish (from the de= finitions section of the French version). I stick to "intent to decieve". Apologies for linguistic chauvinism. I suppose this does illustrate the nee= d for clarity, so that laws can be translated without loss of meaning. I wo= uld not myself translate "volontaire d=E9sinformation" as "intent to deceiv= e". I would think that "volontaire" indicated that the action was "voluntar= y" as opposed to "involuntary", and use the English word "deliberate", beca= use in English the word "voluntary" is not actually the opposite of "involu= ntary" in common parlance. Tim is correct when he says that one may mis-state without caring very much= whether anyone is actually deceived or not; but I think that if one delibe= rately mis-states, one has at any rate as a partial objective that other pl= ayers will be deceived. But the point is that for a call to be psychic, all= that is required is that the player deliberately, as opposed to accidental= ly, mis-states his hand in some major and significant respect; it is not re= quired that he actually intends to deceive (even though he almost always do= es, otherwise what would be the point?) David Burn London, England From willner@cfa.harvard.edu Tue Nov 26 16:12:21 2002 From: willner@cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Tue, 26 Nov 2002 11:12:21 -0500 (EST) Subject: [blml] Conventional Psyche - real time Message-ID: <200211261612.LAA14656@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> > From: Alain Gottcheiner > to be qualified a psyche, a declaration must fulfill *two* requirements : > > a) to be a groos misstatement - fulfilled here > .AND. > b) to be made with the intent to decieve Where do you find b) written? It is not in my copy of TFLB. The correct version of b) is that the misstatement be deliberate, i.e., not an accidental misbid. From agot@ulb.ac.be Tue Nov 26 16:38:41 2002 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Tue, 26 Nov 2002 17:38:41 +0100 Subject: [blml] Conventional Psyche - real time In-Reply-To: <200211261612.LAA14656@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20021126173754.0247e700@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 11:12 26/11/2002 -0500, Steve Willner wrote: > > From: Alain Gottcheiner > > to be qualified a psyche, a declaration must fulfill *two* requirements : > > > > a) to be a groos misstatement - fulfilled here > > .AND. > > b) to be made with the intent to decieve > >Where do you find b) written? It is not in my copy of TFLB. > >The correct version of b) is that the misstatement be deliberate, i.e., >not an accidental misbid. AG : excerpt from the glossary on The Bridge World's site : Psychic (noun) a call made without the values normally associated with it, to deceive the opposition. From willner@cfa.harvard.edu Tue Nov 26 16:33:05 2002 From: willner@cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Tue, 26 Nov 2002 11:33:05 -0500 (EST) Subject: [blml] Conventional Psyche - real time Message-ID: <200211261633.LAA14666@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> > From: Alain Gottcheiner > AG : excerpt from the glossary on The Bridge World's site : > > Psychic > (noun) a call made without the values normally associated with it, to > deceive the opposition. Interesting, and perhaps a better reflection of common usage than the definition in TFLB. I wonder what definition the Irish regulations adopt. From rmb1@capulin.cmsc.npl.co.uk Tue Nov 26 16:44:30 2002 From: rmb1@capulin.cmsc.npl.co.uk (Robin Barker) Date: Tue, 26 Nov 2002 16:44:30 GMT Subject: [blml] Conventional Psyche - real time Message-ID: <200211261644.QAA01208@tempest.cmsc.npl.co.uk> > From: Steve Willner > > > From: Alain Gottcheiner > > AG : excerpt from the glossary on The Bridge World's site : > > > > Psychic > > (noun) a call made without the values normally associated with it, to > > deceive the opposition. > > Interesting, and perhaps a better reflection of common usage than the > definition in TFLB. I wonder what definition the Irish regulations > adopt. The definition is OK, except that "the values normally associated with it" should be something like "the values associated with it by announced partnership agreement". Otherwise any of the following system bids would be a psychic (sic): 1NT (Acol: 12-14) in America 2C (Precision: 5 card suit and 11-15) in America/England 2D ("3 weak twos": 5 card suit and 5-9) in Berkshire, England. [In Berkshire, 2D is normally "Benji" Acol: artificial GF.] Curiously, in England you can psyche a weak 2D but not a Benji 2D. Robin -- Robin Barker | Email: Robin.Barker@npl.co.uk CMSC, Building 10, | Phone: +44 (0) 20 8943 7090 National Physical Laboratory, | Fax: +44 (0) 20 8977 7091 Teddington, Middlesex, UK. TW11 OLW | WWW: http://www.npl.co.uk From mfrench1@san.rr.com Tue Nov 26 20:03:10 2002 From: mfrench1@san.rr.com (Marvin L. French) Date: Tue, 26 Nov 2002 12:03:10 -0800 Subject: [blml] Law 75D2 (was dWS for the beginner) References: <5.1.0.14.0.20021126130425.02475db0@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <001301c29586$dcca58c0$2e2ed2cc@san.rr.com> From: "Alain Gottcheiner" > Ed Reppert wrote: > > Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > > > > >The classical school requires us to alert and say that the bid is > > >nonexistent. > > > >Huh? The alert regulations I've read (the ACBLs and the EBUs) say to > >alert if the call has some meaning which (a) the opponents are unlikely > >to expect and (b) about which they might like to ask questions. Implicit > >in this is that (a) you know what the meaning is and (b) you can > >therefore answer opponents' questions. If partner makes an impossible > >bid, and you are on a pure guess as to what he's got, Law 75C > >specifically tells you that you're not required to tell opponents > >anything. > > AG : but former posts clearly state that when you don't know whether you > should alert, you have to alert. When you don't know the meaning, you don't > know whether to alert, ergo you alert. What did I miss ? > "Former posts" don't establish law. Alerting a call whose meaning is not known to the Alerter, and explained as "unknown," is a cop-out, made with the hope of avoiding any MI penalty if there is MI. "Gee, I think that's a business double, but it's undiscussed, so don't hold me to that." Then, when it turns out to be takeout, "Hey, I said it was undiscussed." No, that should not work. The partner of the ambiguous bidder must assume a meaning and explain it with firm voice if the meaning is Alertable. After all, s/he may be going to act on an assumed meaning, and that makes it an implicit partnership agreement. If this creates MI, live with it, accepting the penalty graciously if there is damage. And then there is the UI associated with (in effect) telling partner a bid is not clearly understood. Not good. It's better that partner know for sure whether a bid has been interpreted corrrectly or not. That UI is easier for both partner and the TD to handle. Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California Off to Phoenix NABC on Thanksgiving Day Call me at Springhill Suites by Marriott ($71) From karel@esatclear.ie Tue Nov 26 20:14:55 2002 From: karel@esatclear.ie (Karel) Date: Tue, 26 Nov 2002 20:14:55 GMT Subject: [blml] Conventional Psyche - real time Message-ID: <3de3d63f.709d.0@esatclear.ie> [Snip] I wonder what definition the Irish regulations adopt. I'd love to know too. Chances are they'll point to the EBL and/or WBF definitions and around we go. I think this, Irish, "Thou Shalt not psyche a conventional bid" was meant to protect the general mass of Irish bridge player but that no thought was given to what should happen if, god forbid, a player actually had the gall to break this sacred law. IMO abit niave. What I was after is what people would rule where they put in this Irish appeal case. The Irish bridge laws btw follow the EBL/WBF laws to the letter with some add ons one of which is this "no conventional psyche". I personally feel that Herman's 1st reaction (ie) that this was an abuse of a rule would be 2nded by most. Note - The appealants in this case where not disputing the Psyche claim. They will undoubtedly change their system alert for this bid to include this new understanding. I think they were just appealing for some common sense to be applied to a, IMO, fairly managable case. Had the cards been different a ruling could be far harder. As it was the contract of 4S or 3NT is extremely easy to arrive at. Had the opponents different cards with which they may have acted, the case would once again become very difficult. As it was they had nothing to say and were uneffected by the psyche. Once they asked about the 4S bid and had it explained they were now infact completely informed and in no way damaged. Infact I'd say, the opps were unworried about the result as i'm sure they expected it to be replicated for a flat board on the other side. The fact that they only sought redress after comparing scores makes this whole case distasteful to my mind. I can't comment (nor am I qualified to do so) on all such cases, but if a probable result can be obtained then IMO it should be used. Should a probable result be questionable, then I'll let more qualified and experienced people trash out a ruling. The OS should be penalised for system abuse but the NOS should not gain when they were not damaged. A result of 21/6 as requested seems more than fair considering the unsportsman like rule abuse. To lose the deposit I must say just astounded me. K. I don't know what the TD was doing when he cancelled the board, -- http://www.iol.ie From John A. Mac Gregor, Chief TD - CACBF" Message-ID: <000001c29589$fcc19b40$bf2a28c4@john> From: "Doug Couchman" | > What I find about this hand is that declarer has invited the defenders | > to take their best shot. Is it not stupid to bid NT with a wide open | > and short suit if he is unwilling for the defense to find their best | > line? | | Actually, it's not stupid once E tanks -- now, assuming N/S have only one | unstopped suit, or only one singly stopped plus only one loser in the bid | suits, the contract makes whenever either (1) W makes the wrong lead; or (2) | W makes the right lead, but the right lead is demonstrably suggested by the | hesitation and the wrong one is not so wrong as to be illogical. | | | > The score was influenced by the NS choice of contract taken in spite of | > extraneous information provided by east. No, I dislike that east has | > made it easier to imagine beating the contract, but the UI does not in | > my opinion appreciably suggest between spades and diamonds. If | > anything, it is the holdings of W that suggest the suit to lead. In my | > mind, the quality of the club and heart holdings suggest that clubs and | > hearts will run and to ignore that inference [while many players do | > indeed] is stupid. And I do not see how a player can be faulted for | > selecting a S or D. | | The hesitation does not suggest S over D, but it does suggest that the | contract can be beaten by the right lead, and therefore that an ace in an | unbid suit is probably best. I think if you change W's hand to: | | AJx | Txxx | Qx | xxxx | | (moving a spot from D to S) the SA is still suggested (albeit less clearly) | even though it's not in his shortest suit. | | At matchpoints, I think the problem is rather easy (I know -- it never is) | -- the risky SA lead is disallowed. But at IMPS, I submit that any other | lead is illogical. But I guess nine out of ten players polled thought | otherwise. Apparently I don't know the game very well -- I must be a | director. | I believe that the hesitation would suggest spades rather than diamonds, especially considering our holdings. If W had a long diamond suit, they might risk the overcall, hoping that if they ran into trouble then E had a chance to save in spades at the 2 level. The same might not hold true if W had a long spade suit. Here, E would have to save at the 3 level in diamonds if spades were trouble. On top of that, we know that partner has one of these suits. Our length in the opponents' suits guarantees that they were thinking of bidding. So they must have a flaw not to have bid. Either they do not have both suits, or one is longer, or their long suit has no quality! Therefore, our short but strong spades clearly suggest the latter. I would stick to the diamond lead and agree with the "Sorry partner, ..." John From svenpran@online.no Tue Nov 26 21:21:41 2002 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Tue, 26 Nov 2002 22:21:41 +0100 Subject: [blml] Conventional Psyche - real time References: <5.1.0.14.0.20021126124017.02474bd0@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <001101c29591$d04c40d0$70d8fea9@WINXP> From: "Alain Gottcheiner" ........... > to be qualified a psyche, a declaration must fulfill *two* requirements : > > a) to be a groos misstatement - fulfilled here > .AND. > b) to be made with the intent to decieve - not fulfilled here. Where in the laws is this a condition for a call to be a psyche? Sven From willner@cfa.harvard.edu Tue Nov 26 21:34:22 2002 From: willner@cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Tue, 26 Nov 2002 16:34:22 -0500 (EST) Subject: [blml] influenced opening lead Message-ID: <200211262134.QAA14913@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> > From: "John A. Mac Gregor, Chief TD - CACBF" > I believe that the hesitation would suggest spades rather than diamonds, > especially considering our holdings. Perhaps careful reasoning will conclude that a spade is suggested, but David B.'s analysis strikes me as sufficient. Once partner says "I have a long suit," the S-A is easy. If his suit isn't spades, a diamond switch at trick two will be just as good as at trick one. (I'm assuming IMP scoring.) So there's no doubt the UI suggests S-A. Given the poll, I think we can agree that a diamond is a LA. :-) I'm curious about what reasoning the AC used. From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Tue Nov 26 23:26:12 2002 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2002 09:26:12 +1000 Subject: [blml] Your message to blml awaits moderator approval Message-ID: <4A256C7D.007F3986.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> The blml spam-filtering software seems to be over-sensitive, focussing on a wide range of keywords in the titles of posts. To reduce delays of postings, and to minimise administrative effort by the moderator, perhaps the verboten keywords could be posted to blml. This would allow a blmler, who starts a new thread in the future, to avoid any spammish words in the thread's title. Best wishes Richard From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Wed Nov 27 00:14:27 2002 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2002 10:14:27 +1000 Subject: [blml] Law 75D2 (was dWS for the beginner) Message-ID: <4A256C7D.0083A45F.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> Marv wrote: >"Former posts" don't establish law. Alerting a >call whose meaning is not known to the Alerter, >nd explained as "unknown," is a cop-out, made >with the hope of avoiding any MI penalty if >there is MI. [snip] >The partner of the ambiguous bidder must >assume a meaning and explain it with firm >voice if the meaning is Alertable. After all, >s/he may be going to act on an assumed meaning, >and that makes it an implicit partnership >agreement. [snip] 1. Marv's post does not establish law either. 2. Accurately explaining that your partnership does not have an agreement may be a "cop- out", but it is also disclosure of explicit and implicit partnership agreement. 3. An assumption by one person is *not* a partnership agreement of two persons. Best wishes Richard From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Wed Nov 27 00:57:18 2002 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2002 10:57:18 +1000 Subject: TR: [blml] LOOT - 54C Message-ID: <4A256C7E.0003BACB.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> Laval Du Breuil wrote: >So I think Law 54C should be more specific and >should clearly say that spreading his hand after >an OLOOT is illegal for dummy and ...??? > >May be 54C should applies only when declarer >could have seen dummy's cards before the OLOOT?? In a previous edition of the Laws, after an OLOOT declarer was permitted to become dummy inadvertantly, but not deliberately (that is, under the old version of the Laws, a call for the TD meant that declarer lost the option). The WBF LC removed this discrepancy, possibly because the old Laws gave an unfair advantage to cluey accidental-on-purpose sponsored partnerships. Similarly, it seems that the current Law 54C gives an unfair advantage to accidental-on- purpose cluey dummies. There are several paths the WBF LC might choose for the 2005 Laws in clarifying or modifying Law 54C. Path 1. When the TD arrives at the table after an OLOOT, the second question the TD asks (after firstly asking the OLOOTer, "Did an opponent tell you to lead?") would be a *joint* question to the original declarer and dummy, "Does either of you accept the lead, which means that dummy is spread, but plays fourth to the trick?" If dummy answers Yes or No before declarer speaks, that decides whether the option is selected. This particular path has a precedent, since this is the procedure followed for the defenders when deciding whether or not a lead out of turn by declarer or dummy is accepted. Path 2. Inadvertent dummy spreading is not an irregularity; deliberate dummy spreading is an irregularity. Path 3. Any dummy spreading is an irregularity, and a "could have known" adjustment may apply. However, Law 54C defines correct procedure after the dummy spreading irregularity. Path 4. Law 54C only applies if a card or cards of dummy were exposed during the auction. Any dummy spreading after an OLOOT is a different irregularity; and a new, different law applies to dummy then. However, I have difficulties conceiving what that new, different Path 4 law could be. Perhaps Laval or another blmler could formulate an appropriate suggestion? Best wishes Richard From adam@tameware.com Tue Nov 26 23:59:12 2002 From: adam@tameware.com (Adam Wildavsky) Date: Tue, 26 Nov 2002 18:59:12 -0500 Subject: [blml] Your message to blml awaits moderator approval In-Reply-To: <4A256C7D.007F3986.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> References: <4A256C7D.007F3986.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> Message-ID: At 9:26 AM +1000 11/27/02, richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: >The blml spam-filtering software seems to be over-sensitive, >focussing on a wide range of keywords in the titles of posts. Warning: The following story is not related in any way to the laws of contract bridge. From http://OpinionJournal.com Best of the Web Today - November 22, 2002 By JAMES TARANTO In the Flesh http://www.activedayton.com/ddn/local/daily/1122flesh.html Librarian James Oda of Piqua, Ohio, "attempted to access the library's new Web site . . . to show it off for the library staff." But access was denied. Why? Turns out Net Nanny, the library's filtering software, had been put off by the library's name: the Flesh Public Library http://www.piquaoh.org/library.htm --named, of course, for Leo Flesh. -- Adam Wildavsky Extreme Programmer Tameware, LLC adam@tameware.com http://www.tameware.com From adam@irvine.com Wed Nov 27 00:11:33 2002 From: adam@irvine.com (Adam Beneschan) Date: Tue, 26 Nov 2002 16:11:33 -0800 Subject: [blml] Your message to blml awaits moderator approval In-Reply-To: Your message of "Tue, 26 Nov 2002 18:59:12 EST." Message-ID: <200211270011.QAA08658@mailhub.irvine.com> Adam Wildavsky wrote: > At 9:26 AM +1000 11/27/02, richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: > >The blml spam-filtering software seems to be over-sensitive, > >focussing on a wide range of keywords in the titles of posts. > > Warning: The following story is not related in any way to the laws of > contract bridge. > > From http://OpinionJournal.com > > Best of the Web Today - November 22, 2002 > By JAMES TARANTO > > In the Flesh http://www.activedayton.com/ddn/local/daily/1122flesh.html > > Librarian James Oda of Piqua, Ohio, "attempted to access the > library's new Web site . . . to show it off for the library staff." > But access was denied. Why? Turns out Net Nanny, the library's > filtering software, had been put off by the library's name: the > Flesh Public Library http://www.piquaoh.org/library.htm --named, of > course, for Leo Flesh. Heh heh. I remember hearing that lots of people had trouble accessing information about Super Bowl Thirty . . . which was known by its Roman numeral, of course . . . -- Adam From steve_wright@writeme.com Wed Nov 27 00:24:19 2002 From: steve_wright@writeme.com (Steve Wright) Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2002 00:24:19 +0000 Subject: [blml] Law Criteria In-Reply-To: <7890822.1037895243035.JavaMail.root@127.0.0.1> References: <7890822.1037895243035.JavaMail.root@127.0.0.1> Message-ID: In message <7890822.1037895243035.JavaMail.root@127.0.0.1>, dalburn@btopenworld.com writes >Grattan wrote: > >> And DB proposes naming the Laws - not >> Henry, Diana or Marvin, perhaps, but possibly with >> Keywords? > >That's the idea. In other games, one refers to "the offside law" or >"the lbw law" without knowing (or needing to know) which number the >relevant law may have. I imagine that we could use "the unauthorised >information law" or "the pass out of turn law" just as readily, though >it may be, for example, that "the claim law" in fact covers several >laws. I don't actually think we should geet rid of the numbers, for >they are a useful shorthand in certain contexts, but I don't think they >should be the primary method by which directors or players refer to the laws. > >David Burn >London, England But would it be "Pass out of turn" or "Pass out of rotation"? Everybody I know refers to it as "out of turn", but try finding that in the current index in TFLB. -- Steve Wright From adam@irvine.com Wed Nov 27 00:52:21 2002 From: adam@irvine.com (Adam Beneschan) Date: Tue, 26 Nov 2002 16:52:21 -0800 Subject: [blml] Law Criteria In-Reply-To: Your message of "Wed, 27 Nov 2002 00:24:19 GMT." Message-ID: <200211270052.QAA08934@mailhub.irvine.com> Steve Wright wrote: > In message <7890822.1037895243035.JavaMail.root@127.0.0.1>, > dalburn@btopenworld.com writes > >Grattan wrote: > > > >> And DB proposes naming the Laws - not > >> Henry, Diana or Marvin, perhaps, but possibly with > >> Keywords? > > > >That's the idea. In other games, one refers to "the offside law" or > >"the lbw law" without knowing (or needing to know) which number the > >relevant law may have. I imagine that we could use "the unauthorised > >information law" or "the pass out of turn law" just as readily, though > >it may be, for example, that "the claim law" in fact covers several > >laws. I don't actually think we should geet rid of the numbers, for > >they are a useful shorthand in certain contexts, but I don't think they > >should be the primary method by which directors or players refer to the laws. > > > >David Burn > >London, England > > But would it be "Pass out of turn" or "Pass out of rotation"? Everybody > I know refers to it as "out of turn", but try finding that in the > current index in TFLB. This would be a problem if there were a multitude of index entries with things like "Pass out of sorts", "Pass out of sight", "Pass out of spite", etc., that would come in between where "Pass out of rotation" is in the index and where one would expect "Pass out of turn" to be found. Since there are no such entries, I can't see that there's a real issue here. -- Adam From mfrench1@san.rr.com Wed Nov 27 01:03:55 2002 From: mfrench1@san.rr.com (Marvin L. French) Date: Tue, 26 Nov 2002 17:03:55 -0800 Subject: [blml] Law Criteria References: <7890822.1037895243035.JavaMail.root@127.0.0.1> Message-ID: <005801c295b0$de5b3fe0$2e2ed2cc@san.rr.com> From: "Steve Wright" > > But would it be "Pass out of turn" or "Pass out of rotation"? Everybody > I know refers to it as "out of turn", but try finding that in the > current index in TFLB. According to the Laws, plays may be made out of turn but calls are made out of rotation. However, legal calls, like legal plays, are made in turn, not in rotation. (Yeah, there are exceptions) There must be some reason for this, but I can't imagine what it is. Does anyone know? Elegant variation, perhaps? Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California Off to Phoenix NABC on Thanksgiving Day Staying at Springhill Suites by Marriott ($71) From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Wed Nov 27 03:37:51 2002 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2002 13:37:51 +1000 Subject: [blml] Law Criteria Message-ID: <4A256C7E.00126CFF.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> >This would be a problem if there were a multitude >of index entries with things like "Pass out of >sorts", "Pass out of sight", "Pass out of spite", >etc., that would come in between where "Pass out of >rotation" is in the index and where one would expect >"Pass out of turn" to be found. Since there are no >such entries, I can't see that there's a real issue >here. > > -- Adam This *particular* problem is not an issue - unless a TD looks up "Turn" in the current Index, and merely finds a reference to Chapter 1 of the Laws. The Definitions in Chapter 1 should include cross- references to all Laws in which the defined term appears. Even better would be to amalgamate the Index and Definitions, with a Lawful description attached to the very key keywords. Noted? Best wishes Richard From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Wed Nov 27 03:49:35 2002 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2002 13:49:35 +1000 Subject: [blml] Law Criteria Message-ID: <4A256C7E.001380B5.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> Marv asked: >According to the Laws, plays may be made out >of turn but calls are made out of rotation. >However, legal calls, like legal plays, are >made in turn, not in rotation. (Yeah, there >are exceptions) > >There must be some reason for this, but I >can't imagine what it is. Does anyone know? >Elegant variation, perhaps? Periphrasis (the elegant Greek word for elegant variation) is a highly recommended technique for oratory. However, in writing an instruction manual, the use of periphrasis is a cardinal sin. To avoid confusion, the same boring obvious word should be repeated redundantly throughout the instruction manual. Best wishes Richard From hermandw@skynet.be Wed Nov 27 08:02:57 2002 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2002 09:02:57 +0100 Subject: [blml] Law 75D2 (was dWS for the beginner) References: <5.1.0.14.0.20021126130425.02475db0@pop.ulb.ac.be> <001301c29586$dcca58c0$2e2ed2cc@san.rr.com> Message-ID: <3DE47C31.3000201@skynet.be> Marvin, do you realize that this is a dWS point of view? Marvin L. French wrote: > > "Gee, I think that's a business double, but it's undiscussed, so don't hold me > to that." Then, when it turns out to be takeout, "Hey, I said it was > undiscussed." > > No, that should not work. The partner of the ambiguous bidder must assume a > meaning and explain it with firm voice if the meaning is Alertable. After all, > s/he may be going to act on an assumed meaning, and that makes it an implicit > partnership agreement. If this creates MI, live with it, accepting the penalty > graciously if there is damage. > > And then there is the UI associated with (in effect) telling partner a bid is > not clearly understood. Not good. It's better that partner know for sure > whether a bid has been interpreted corrrectly or not. That UI is easier for > both partner and the TD to handle. > hear hear !! > Marv > Marvin L. French > San Diego, California > Off to Phoenix NABC on Thanksgiving Day > Call me at Springhill Suites by Marriott ($71) > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From A.Kooijman@dwk.agro.nl Wed Nov 27 08:20:40 2002 From: A.Kooijman@dwk.agro.nl (Kooijman, A.) Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2002 09:20:40 +0100 Subject: [blml] alerting in internet bridge Message-ID: We are working on regulations for internet bridge in the Netherlands. We have a quite succesful group of a couple of thousand players united in 'Stepbridge' which is formally spoken a member of the Dutch Bridge Federation. 'Jack' twice worldchampion computerbridge is an individual member of this club too. This just as an introduction. At this moment the regulation about alerting is such that the player making the call is explaining his own bid and then only to the opponent asking for the meaning. I don't have experience myself with this approach (should get some) but I can imagine both disadvantages and advantages. Should we keep it like this? There should be some experience with other providers? What is your opinion (and if necessary you may include L 75 in your considerations) ton From RCraigH@aol.com Tue Nov 26 18:26:55 2002 From: RCraigH@aol.com (RCraigH@aol.com) Date: Tue, 26 Nov 2002 13:26:55 EST Subject: [blml] Conventional Psych Message-ID: <14a.17f7ba7f.2b1516ef@aol.com> --part1_14a.17f7ba7f.2b1516ef_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit >From the definitions of the Laws: "Psychic Call A deliberate and gross misstatement of honor strength or suit length." The word "deliberate" must be considered an integral part of the definition of a "psychic call." The word "deliberate" means, "Done with or marked by full consciousness of the nature and effects; intentional: 'mistook the oversight for a deliberate insult.'" If a player misbids through lack of memory of his systemic agreements, he has not made a psychic call, because of the lack of deliberateness. Thus, if I open 4D, thinking I am playing NAMYATS, holding eight solid spades and out, and no diamonds, I have not psyched unless I have done so while knowing my system. The director or committee is not permitted to have a pre-formed notion of the correct answer, and must make inquiry, through consulting convention cards, system notes, if available, and the partnership's history. If the convention came up the previous hand, either correctly or incorrectly handled, then I would be inclined to rule "psychic bid" for the second occurrence of a misbid. However, if no recent example of partnership experience exists, I would place heavy emphasis on the instrinsic evidence of the hand to determine the intent of the misbidder. Craig Hemphill --part1_14a.17f7ba7f.2b1516ef_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From the definitions of the Laws:

"Psychic Call
          A deliberate and gross misstatement of honor strength or suit length."

The word "deliberate" must be considered an integral part of the definition of a "psychic call."  The word "deliberate" means,

          "Done with or marked by full consciousness of the nature and effects;
          intentional: 'mistook the oversight for a deliberate insult.'"

If a player misbids through lack of memory of his systemic agreements, he has not made a psychic call, because of the lack of deliberateness.  Thus, if I open 4D, thinking I am playing NAMYATS, holding eight solid spades and out, and no diamonds, I have not psyched unless I have done so while knowing my system. 

The director or committee is not permitted to have a pre-formed notion of the correct answer, and must make inquiry, through consulting convention cards, system notes, if available, and the partnership's history.  If the convention came up the previous hand, either correctly or incorrectly handled, then I would be inclined to rule "psychic bid" for the second occurrence of a misbid.  However, if no recent example of partnership experience exists, I would place heavy emphasis on the instrinsic evidence of the hand to determine the intent of the misbidder.

Craig Hemphill --part1_14a.17f7ba7f.2b1516ef_boundary-- From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Tue Nov 26 22:54:04 2002 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2002 08:54:04 +1000 Subject: [blml] Conventional Psyche - real time Message-ID: <4A256C7D.007C4882.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> --0__=oVLEppdQnFbpAr14PJHzoIond4BFECPTI95ywLVypmhol9WtUSJ7K9fP Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Alain wrote: >>>OK, translate "volontaire d --0__=oVLEppdQnFbpAr14PJHzoIond4BFECPTI95ywLVypmhol9WtUSJ7K9fP Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable Content-type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline =E9sinformation" as you >>>wish (from the definitions section of the French >>>version). I stick to "intent to decieve". David Burn replied: >>Apologies for linguistic chauvinism. I suppose this >>does illustrate the need for clarity, so that laws >>can be translated without loss of meaning. I would >>not myself translate "volontaire d=E9sinformation" as >>"intent to deceive". I would think that >>"volontaire" indicated that the action was >>"voluntary" as opposed to "involuntary", and use >>the English word "deliberate", because in English >>the word "voluntary" is not actually the opposite >>of "involuntary" in common parlance. [snip] On a subsequent post, Alain continued: >excerpt from the glossary on The Bridge World's >site : > >Psychic >(noun) a call made without the values normally >associated with it, to deceive the opposition. Apologies for the WBF's linguistic chauvinism, but the WBF has decreed that the English version of the Laws is the official template; wherever a translation of the Laws differs in meaning from the English version, that translation has no official validity. And, of course, The Bridge World does not have the power to rewrite Chapter 1 of the Laws. However, Alain is to be congratulated in stimulating discussion on what the 2005 Lawful definition of Psychic Call should be. Best wishes Richard = --0__=oVLEppdQnFbpAr14PJHzoIond4BFECPTI95ywLVypmhol9WtUSJ7K9fP-- From ereppert@rochester.rr.com Wed Nov 27 09:00:10 2002 From: ereppert@rochester.rr.com (Ed Reppert) Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2002 04:00:10 -0500 Subject: [blml] Law 75D2 (was dWS for the beginner) Message-ID: On 11/26/02, Alain Gottcheiner wrote: >but former posts clearly state that when you don't know whether you >should alert, you have to alert. When you don't know the meaning, you >don't know whether to alert, ergo you alert. What did I miss ? But you *do* know the meaning. The meaning is "this bid does not exist in our system." "Meaning" in this context means "meaning by partnership agreement". From henk@ripe.net Wed Nov 27 09:05:55 2002 From: henk@ripe.net (Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC)) Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2002 10:05:55 +0100 (CET) Subject: [blml] Your message to blml awaits moderator approval In-Reply-To: <4A256C7D.007F3986.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> Message-ID: On Wed, 27 Nov 2002 richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: > > > The blml spam-filtering software seems to be over-sensitive, > focussing on a wide range of keywords in the titles of posts. No, it does not. It looks at headers, contents and subject line in that order, calculates a score and then files messages with a score above threshold for moderator approval. Most weight is given to the headers. > To reduce delays of postings, and to minimise administrative > effort by the moderator, 2 minutes every other day or so. > perhaps the verboten keywords could be posted to blml. This would allow > a blmler, who starts a new thread in the future, to avoid any spammish > words in the thread's title. Henk ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Henk Uijterwaal Email: henk.uijterwaal@ripe.net RIPE Network Coordination Centre WWW: http://www.ripe.net/home/henk Singel 258 Phone: +31.20.5354414 1016 AB Amsterdam Fax: +31.20.5354445 The Netherlands Mobile: +31.6.55861746 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ That problem that we weren't having yesterday, is it better? (Big ISP NOC) From henk@ripe.net Wed Nov 27 09:22:22 2002 From: henk@ripe.net (Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC)) Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2002 10:22:22 +0100 (CET) Subject: [blml] alerting in internet bridge In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Wed, 27 Nov 2002, Kooijman, A. wrote: > We are working on regulations for internet bridge in the Netherlands. We > have a quite succesful group of a couple of thousand players united in > 'Stepbridge' which is formally spoken a member of the Dutch Bridge > Federation. 'Jack' twice worldchampion computerbridge is an individual > member of this club too. This just as an introduction. > > At this moment the regulation about alerting is such that the player making > the call is explaining his own bid and then only to the opponent asking for > the meaning. I don't have experience myself with this approach (should get > some) but I can imagine both disadvantages and advantages. Should we keep it > like this? There should be some experience with other providers? What is > your opinion (and if necessary you may include L 75 in your considerations) I've never played on Stepbridge, but when I was still active on OKBridge, I liked self-alerts (you alert the bid, then type a 1 word to 1 line explanation, all this is only seen by the opponents). Main reason is that it speeds up the game. Henk ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Henk Uijterwaal Email: henk.uijterwaal@ripe.net RIPE Network Coordination Centre WWW: http://www.ripe.net/home/henk Singel 258 Phone: +31.20.5354414 1016 AB Amsterdam Fax: +31.20.5354445 The Netherlands Mobile: +31.6.55861746 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ That problem that we weren't having yesterday, is it better? (Big ISP NOC) From jurgenr@t-online.de Wed Nov 27 09:38:50 2002 From: jurgenr@t-online.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?J=FCrgen_Rennenkampff?=) Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2002 10:38:50 +0100 Subject: [blml] Laws of Online Bridge[alerting in internet bridge] Message-ID: Ton K. wrote: >We are working on regulations for internet bridge in the Netherlands. We >have a quite successful group of a couple of thousand players united in >'Stepbridge' which is formally spoken a member of the Dutch Bridge >Federation. 'Jack' twice worldchampion computerbridge is an individual >member of this club too. This just as an introduction. >At this moment the regulation about alerting is such that the player making >the call is explaining his own bid and then only to the opponent asking for >the meaning. I don't have experience myself with this approach (should get >some) but I can imagine both disadvantages and advantages. Should we keep it >like this? There should be some experience with other providers? What is >your opinion (and if necessary you may include L 75 in your considerations) >ton In the year 2000, perhaps even earlier, the WBF, in its wisdom, foresaw the need for specific laws to govern online bridge and, in October 2001, such laws were published. More precisely, they were not simply published but also promulgated. Here you should be able to find the information you are seeking. The three most important issues are, of course, the implications of self-alerts, the possibility of a rotating screen, and the elimination of most forms of UI and MI. Evidently the responsible committee worked diligently on these problems, for in the prefix to these laws it says: "At its meetings in Maastricht, September 2000, the WBF Laws Committee gave a detailed scrutiny to the interim report of the Working Party that, upon the initiative of the President, Jose Damiani, had spent the previous year preparing a Code of Laws for Online Bridge." and "The Working Party presented its final report in Paris, October 2001, where the proposals were agreed by the Laws Committee of the WBF and subsequently adopted by the WBF Executive Council. The publication of this Code of Laws in full is a heavy task, even on the internet ...". These laws contain extremely detailed instructions to the programmers, for example: "When a board is to be played it is placed in the centre of the table until play is completed."; and for the players, e.g. "Each player counts his cards face down to be sure he has exactly thirteen; after that, and before making a call, he must inspect the face of his cards." Moreover, the committee must have been gratified to discover that the laws have reached a state very close to perfection. Indeed, it was found that not a single word in the Face-to-Face laws had to be changed and the mere addition of 5 or 6 short paragraphs was sufficient to resolve all of the new issues. Jürgen From A.Kooijman@dwk.agro.nl Wed Nov 27 09:56:33 2002 From: A.Kooijman@dwk.agro.nl (Kooijman, A.) Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2002 10:56:33 +0100 Subject: [blml] Laws of Online Bridge[alerting in internet bridge] Message-ID: Thank you Jurgen,=20 Why did you skip the information that I myself was member of that = committee? And are you aware of the fact that alert regulations are not part of = the laws?=20 ton > -----Oorspronkelijk bericht----- > Van: jurgenr@t-online.de [mailto:jurgenr@t-online.de] > Verzonden: woensdag 27 november 2002 10:39 > Aan: BLML > Onderwerp: [blml] Laws of Online Bridge[alerting in internet bridge] >=20 >=20 > Ton K. wrote: >=20 > >We are working on regulations for internet bridge in the=20 > Netherlands. We > >have a quite successful group of a couple of thousand=20 > players united in > >'Stepbridge' which is formally spoken a member of the Dutch Bridge > >Federation. 'Jack' twice worldchampion computerbridge is an=20 > individual > >member of this club too. This just as an introduction. >=20 > >At this moment the regulation about alerting is such that=20 > the player making > >the call is explaining his own bid and then only to the=20 > opponent asking for > >the meaning. I don't have experience myself with this=20 > approach (should get > >some) but I can imagine both disadvantages and advantages.=20 > Should we keep > it > >like this? There should be some experience with other=20 > providers? What is > >your opinion (and if necessary you may include L 75 in your=20 > considerations) >=20 > >ton >=20 > In the year 2000, perhaps even earlier, the WBF, in its=20 > wisdom, foresaw > the need for specific laws to govern online bridge and, in=20 > October 2001, > such laws were published. More precisely, they were not=20 > simply published > but also promulgated. Here you should be able to find the information > you are seeking. The three most important issues are, of course, the > implications of self-alerts, the possibility of a rotating=20 > screen, and the > elimination of most forms of UI and MI. Evidently the=20 > responsible committee > worked diligently on these problems, for in the prefix to=20 > these laws it > says: >=20 > "At its meetings in Maastricht, September 2000, the WBF Laws=20 > Committee gave > a > detailed scrutiny to the interim report of the Working Party=20 > that, upon the > initiative of the President, Jose Damiani, had spent the previous = year > preparing a > Code of Laws for Online Bridge." >=20 > and >=20 > "The Working Party presented its final report in Paris,=20 > October 2001, where > the > proposals were agreed by the Laws Committee of the WBF and=20 > subsequently > adopted by the WBF Executive Council. The publication of this=20 > Code of Laws > in full > is a heavy task, even on the internet ...". >=20 > These laws contain extremely detailed instructions to the=20 > programmers, for > example: "When a board is to be played it is placed in the=20 > centre of the > table until play is completed."; and for the players, e.g.=20 > "Each player > counts his cards face down to be sure he has exactly > thirteen; after that, and before making a call, he must=20 > inspect the face of > his cards." >=20 > Moreover, the committee must have been gratified to discover that the > laws have reached a state very close to perfection. Indeed, it was > found that not a single word in the Face-to-Face laws had to=20 > be changed and > the > mere addition of 5 or 6 short paragraphs was sufficient to resolve > all of the new issues. >=20 > J=FCrgen >=20 >=20 >=20 > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml >=20 From jurgenr@t-online.de Wed Nov 27 11:03:38 2002 From: jurgenr@t-online.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?J=FCrgen_Rennenkampff?=) Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2002 12:03:38 +0100 Subject: [blml] Laws of Online Bridge[alerting in internet bridge] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > -----Original Message----- > From: Kooijman, A. [mailto:A.Kooijman@dwk.agro.nl] > Sent: Mittwoch, 27. November 2002 10:57 > To: 'jurgenr@t-online.de'; BLML > Subject: RE: [blml] Laws of Online Bridge[alerting in internet bridge] > > > Thank you Jurgen, > > > Why did you skip the information that I myself was member of that > committee? I know that you are a leading member of the Laws committee, but I don't know specifically who is responsible for the 'Laws of Electronic Bridge', and since direct association with this effort is likely to be embarrassing, I don't want to make incorrect assumptions. > > And are you aware of the fact that alert regulations are not part of the > laws? > It seems to me that the question of who alerts is incidental to the question of who explains. The explanation of a bid by the bidder is not new, though not 'normal' according to the laws. But the fact that both opponents have access to the same information, and the possibility of asking both the bidder and his partner about the meaning of a call, is new. This makes most of the Laws dealing with MI and UI meaningless in the online context and raises several new issues. To interpret the 'Online Laws' in their present form to resolve these issues is totally absurd, i.e. an ideal topic for this discussion group. Jürgen > ton > > > > > -----Oorspronkelijk bericht----- > > Van: jurgenr@t-online.de [mailto:jurgenr@t-online.de] > > Verzonden: woensdag 27 november 2002 10:39 > > Aan: BLML > > Onderwerp: [blml] Laws of Online Bridge[alerting in internet bridge] > > > > > > Ton K. wrote: > > > > >We are working on regulations for internet bridge in the > > Netherlands. We > > >have a quite successful group of a couple of thousand > > players united in > > >'Stepbridge' which is formally spoken a member of the Dutch Bridge > > >Federation. 'Jack' twice worldchampion computerbridge is an > > individual > > >member of this club too. This just as an introduction. > > > > >At this moment the regulation about alerting is such that > > the player making > > >the call is explaining his own bid and then only to the > > opponent asking for > > >the meaning. I don't have experience myself with this > > approach (should get > > >some) but I can imagine both disadvantages and advantages. > > Should we keep > > it > > >like this? There should be some experience with other > > providers? What is > > >your opinion (and if necessary you may include L 75 in your > > considerations) > > > > >ton > > > > In the year 2000, perhaps even earlier, the WBF, in its > > wisdom, foresaw > > the need for specific laws to govern online bridge and, in > > October 2001, > > such laws were published. More precisely, they were not > > simply published > > but also promulgated. Here you should be able to find the information > > you are seeking. The three most important issues are, of course, the > > implications of self-alerts, the possibility of a rotating > > screen, and the > > elimination of most forms of UI and MI. Evidently the > > responsible committee > > worked diligently on these problems, for in the prefix to > > these laws it > > says: > > > > "At its meetings in Maastricht, September 2000, the WBF Laws > > Committee gave > > a > > detailed scrutiny to the interim report of the Working Party > > that, upon the > > initiative of the President, Jose Damiani, had spent the previous year > > preparing a > > Code of Laws for Online Bridge." > > > > and > > > > "The Working Party presented its final report in Paris, > > October 2001, where > > the > > proposals were agreed by the Laws Committee of the WBF and > > subsequently > > adopted by the WBF Executive Council. The publication of this > > Code of Laws > > in full > > is a heavy task, even on the internet ...". > > > > These laws contain extremely detailed instructions to the > > programmers, for > > example: "When a board is to be played it is placed in the > > centre of the > > table until play is completed."; and for the players, e.g. > > "Each player > > counts his cards face down to be sure he has exactly > > thirteen; after that, and before making a call, he must > > inspect the face of > > his cards." > > > > Moreover, the committee must have been gratified to discover that the > > laws have reached a state very close to perfection. Indeed, it was > > found that not a single word in the Face-to-Face laws had to > > be changed and > > the > > mere addition of 5 or 6 short paragraphs was sufficient to resolve > > all of the new issues. > > > > Jürgen > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > blml mailing list > > blml@rtflb.org > > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > From jkljkl@gmx.de Wed Nov 27 11:55:30 2002 From: jkljkl@gmx.de (stefan filonardi) Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2002 12:55:30 +0100 Subject: [blml] alerting in internet bridge In-Reply-To: <20021127110006.31883.66309.Mailman@toybox.amsterdamned.org> Message-ID: <3DE4C0C2.11069.112E2D7@localhost> Hello, > Message: 5 > Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2002 09:20:40 +0100 > From: "Kooijman, A." > To: "'blml@rtflb.org'" > Subject: [blml] alerting in internet bridge > At this moment the regulation about alerting is such that the player > making the call is explaining his own bid and then only to the > opponent asking for the meaning. I don't have experience myself with > this approach (should get some) but I can imagine both disadvantages > and advantages. Should we keep it like this? There should be some > experience with other providers? In my experience selfalerting (the maker of the bid explains the meaning of the bid to the opponents, partner will not see the alert nor the explanation) is widely accepted and liked in online bridge. Some disagreement occurs about the question if an opponent is entitled to ask both opp to discover if they are having a misunderstanding. ciao stefan germany From A.Kooijman@dwk.agro.nl Wed Nov 27 12:05:58 2002 From: A.Kooijman@dwk.agro.nl (Kooijman, A.) Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2002 13:05:58 +0100 Subject: [blml] alerting in internet bridge Message-ID: I appreciate this content oriented reaction. But may I draw your attention to both aspects of my question: the self alert and the explanation to just the opponent who asked the question and not to both, apparently influenced by the idea that doing so keeps UI as low as possible. ton > Subject: [blml] alerting in internet bridge > > > At this moment the regulation about alerting is such that the player > > making the call is explaining his own bid and then only to the > > opponent asking for the meaning. I don't have experience myself with > > this approach (should get some) but I can imagine both disadvantages > > and advantages. Should we keep it like this? There should be some > > experience with other providers? > > In my experience selfalerting (the maker of the bid explains the > meaning of the bid to the opponents, partner will not see the alert > nor the explanation) is widely accepted and liked in online bridge. > > Some disagreement occurs about the question if an opponent is > entitled to ask both opp to discover if they are having a > misunderstanding. > > ciao stefan > germany > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From hermandw@skynet.be Wed Nov 27 13:08:12 2002 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2002 14:08:12 +0100 Subject: [blml] UI versus MI - a philosophical approach Message-ID: <3DE4C3BC.6080402@skynet.be> Warning : long. Very soon after the development of the game of bridge as we know it, two pillars of the game have been erected : UI and MI. I am using the blml-abbreviations to describe the highly intricate set of laws that govern these two concepts. We all know what they include separately, but for this thread I want to focus on their interaction. Both concepts are opposed, in effect. There is a flow of information, which has to be transmitted from the bidding side to the opponents, without which there can be made a case for MI. But that same information is also considered UI between the partners who are bidding. Several hundred messages have already been written about which is the more fundamental of the two, but there is no conclusive answer to this. while it is of course true that it is the using of UI that is the infraction, not the giving of it, that does not mean that MI is more important than UI. A player should be allowed to avoid giving UI to his partner, because the restrictions posed on partner are such that in effect the giving of the UI also carries a certain penalty of its own. OTOH it should be noted that the giving of MI is also not an infraction, since there will be no penalty for it in normal cases, only a rectification. Furthermore it should be noted that in the current set of laws, there is no consistent treatment of the interaction between the two. In some instances a player is instructed to avoid giving MI, thereby giving UI; while in other situations, a player is instructed to avoid giving UI, thereby allowing MI to exist. In fact, there are four possible ways in which the lawmakers can solve the dilemma that faces a player who needs to decide between giving MI and UI: 1) The Lawmakers can instruct a player to avoid MI, allowing him to give UI, which will be closely monitored; 2) The Lawmakers can instruct a player to avoid UI, allowing him to give MI, which will be closely monitored; 3) The Lawmakers can leave the choice to the player, who can choose to avoid either UI or MI, thereby giving MI or UI, which will be monitored; 4) The Lawmakers can arrange for the game to be played in such a manner that the information that the opponents need to avoid MI be given in such a manner that no UI exists (there are several ways this can be achieved, including written explanations in F2F bridge). It is my belief that the current Lawmakers have indeed used all these options in different situations. The WBF promoted using screens (option 4). Common questions and answers are governed by option 1. L75D2 is a clear use of optioin 2. The simple case that is the basis for our discussion about the dWS is an example of option 3. (*) (*) No need to discuss this - if after 5 years we have arrived at one conclusion it is that neither camp will succeed in convincing any member of the other camp that there is only one true solution - there are two concurrent possibilities and neither is explicitely and clearly forbidden. We are no longer merely concerned in this forum about how the laws are, we are also starting to be concerned with how the laws should be. I believe that there is a huge burden on the WBFLC to consider clearly theis problem. It is a philosophical one. The future of the game depends on the choices that are being made. I urge the WBFLC not to go lightly over these dilemmas - a mere tinkering with existing words might not be enough. Also I urge the WBF to include on-line bridge and bridge behind screens (and others) into their considerations. It would not be advisable that the Laws and regulations lead to too great a difference between the different ways the game is played. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From ehaa@starpower.net Wed Nov 27 13:51:17 2002 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2002 08:51:17 -0500 Subject: [blml] Your message to blml awaits moderator approval In-Reply-To: References: <4A256C7D.007F3986.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> <4A256C7D.007F3986.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.0.20021127084515.00aa34b0@pop.starpower.net> At 06:59 PM 11/26/02, Adam wrote: >At 9:26 AM +1000 11/27/02, richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: >>The blml spam-filtering software seems to be over-sensitive, >>focussing on a wide range of keywords in the titles of posts. > >Warning: The following story is not related in any way to the laws of >contract bridge. > > From http://OpinionJournal.com > >Best of the Web Today - November 22, 2002 >By JAMES TARANTO > >In the Flesh http://www.activedayton.com/ddn/local/daily/1122flesh.html > >Librarian James Oda of Piqua, Ohio, "attempted to access the library's >new Web site . . . to show it off for the library staff." But access >was denied. Why? Turns out Net Nanny, the library's filtering >software, had been put off by the library's name: the Flesh Public >Library http://www.piquaoh.org/library.htm --named, of course, for >Leo Flesh. I don't know if it's true, but I am told that in 1993, the year after the NFL (American football) established their NFL.com website, they also set up a special website for the SuperBowl, which was called SuperBowlXXVIII.com. The next year it was called SuperBowlXXIX.com, but in the third year they discovered that they had an obvious problem with SuperBowlXXX.com, and were forced to rename it SuperBowl.com (which is what it has been called since). Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 From svenpran@online.no Wed Nov 27 13:52:59 2002 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2002 14:52:59 +0100 Subject: [blml] UI versus MI - a philosophical approach References: <3DE4C3BC.6080402@skynet.be> Message-ID: <007101c2961c$4c0f3170$70d8fea9@WINXP> From: "Herman De Wael" ..... > Warning : long. > > Very soon after the development of the game of bridge as we know it, > two pillars of the game have been erected : UI and MI. > > I am using the blml-abbreviations to describe the highly intricate set > of laws that govern these two concepts. We all know what they include > separately, but for this thread I want to focus on their interaction. > > Both concepts are opposed, in effect. There is a flow of information, > which has to be transmitted from the bidding side to the opponents, > without which there can be made a case for MI. But that same > information is also considered UI between the partners who are bidding. > > Several hundred messages have already been written about which is the > more fundamental of the two, but there is no conclusive answer to > this. while it is of course true that it is the using of UI that is > the infraction, not the giving of it, that does not mean that MI is > more important than UI. A player should be allowed to avoid giving UI > to his partner, because the restrictions posed on partner are such > that in effect the giving of the UI also carries a certain penalty of > its own. OTOH it should be noted that the giving of MI is also not an > infraction, since there will be no penalty for it in normal cases, > only a rectification. Law 16A recognises that UI may be given: "as by means of ..... a reply to a question", and it gives the receiver of such UI specific instructions on how to behave in the possession of the UI. Law 73B1 tells us that partners shall not communicate ".....through explanations given or not given to them" ("them" here points back to the word "opponents" previously in the same law). However, this law concerns communication between partners, not surplus information to partner from communication with opponents. And nowhere in the laws do we find any prescription that opponents shall be given MI in response to questions in order to avoid giving partner UI. Not even Law 75D2 is positive in this respect. > > Furthermore it should be noted that in the current set of laws, there > is no consistent treatment of the interaction between the two. In some > instances a player is instructed to avoid giving MI, thereby giving > UI; while in other situations, a player is instructed to avoid giving > UI, thereby allowing MI to exist. I would like to hear you on which law you claim positively instructs a player to give MI to opponents in order to avoid UI to partner? ....... (snip - I agree with you that we need some clarification) Sven From gordon@gordonrainsford.co.uk Wed Nov 27 14:01:52 2002 From: gordon@gordonrainsford.co.uk (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2002 14:01:52 +0000 Subject: [blml] Your message to blml awaits moderator approval In-Reply-To: <5.2.0.9.0.20021127084515.00aa34b0@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: On Wednesday, November 27, 2002, at 01:51 PM, Eric Landau wrote: > At 06:59 PM 11/26/02, Adam wrote: > >> At 9:26 AM +1000 11/27/02, richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: >>> The blml spam-filtering software seems to be over-sensitive, >>> focussing on a wide range of keywords in the titles of posts. >> >> Warning: The following story is not related in any way to the laws of >> contract bridge. >> >> From http://OpinionJournal.com >> >> Best of the Web Today - November 22, 2002 >> By JAMES TARANTO >> >> In the Flesh >> http://www.activedayton.com/ddn/local/daily/1122flesh.html >> >> Librarian James Oda of Piqua, Ohio, "attempted to access the >> library's new Web site . . . to show it off for the library staff." >> But access was denied. Why? Turns out Net Nanny, the library's >> filtering software, had been put off by the library's name: the Flesh >> Public Library http://www.piquaoh.org/library.htm --named, of >> course, for Leo Flesh. > > I don't know if it's true, but I am told that in 1993, the year after > the NFL (American football) established their NFL.com website, they > also set up a special website for the SuperBowl, which was called > SuperBowlXXVIII.com. The next year it was called SuperBowlXXIX.com, > but in the third year they discovered that they had an obvious problem > with SuperBowlXXX.com, and were forced to rename it SuperBowl.com > (which is what it has been called since). > > > Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net > 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 > Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 The notorious example in the UK was the town of Scunthorpe in Lincolnshire. -- Gordon Rainsford London UK From gordon@gordonrainsford.co.uk Wed Nov 27 14:01:57 2002 From: gordon@gordonrainsford.co.uk (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2002 14:01:57 +0000 Subject: [blml] alerting in internet bridge In-Reply-To: <3DE4C0C2.11069.112E2D7@localhost> Message-ID: On Wednesday, November 27, 2002, at 11:55 AM, stefan filonardi wrote: > Hello, > >> Message: 5 >> Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2002 09:20:40 +0100 >> From: "Kooijman, A." >> To: "'blml@rtflb.org'" >> Subject: [blml] alerting in internet bridge > >> At this moment the regulation about alerting is such that the player >> making the call is explaining his own bid and then only to the >> opponent asking for the meaning. I don't have experience myself with >> this approach (should get some) but I can imagine both disadvantages >> and advantages. Should we keep it like this? There should be some >> experience with other providers? > > In my experience selfalerting (the maker of the bid explains the > meaning of the bid to the opponents, partner will not see the alert > nor the explanation) is widely accepted and liked in online bridge. > > Some disagreement occurs about the question if an opponent is > entitled to ask both opp to discover if they are having a > misunderstanding. > > ciao stefan > germany > There's a further potential problem that needs to be addressed - when the bidder correctly explains the partnership agreement but has deliberately departed from it. It also needs to be clear how much information the opponents are entitled to about the bidder's hand in situations where there is no agreement about the meaning of the bid. -- Gordon Rainsford London UK From willner@cfa.harvard.edu Wed Nov 27 14:11:52 2002 From: willner@cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2002 09:11:52 -0500 (EST) Subject: [blml] alerting in internet bridge Message-ID: <200211271411.JAA22506@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> > From: "Kooijman, A." > ... the self alert and the explanation to just > the opponent who asked the question and not to both, apparently influenced > by the idea that doing so keeps UI as low as possible. I don't play online bridge, so I'm probably missing the obvious, but why wouldn't you want to tell both opponents? I don't see how that generates any UI. (No doubt the _question_ should be hidden. The non-asking opponent has no way to know whether the explanation was spontaneous or prompted by a question from partner.) From jurgenr@t-online.de Wed Nov 27 14:27:28 2002 From: jurgenr@t-online.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?J=FCrgen_Rennenkampff?=) Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2002 15:27:28 +0100 Subject: [blml] alerting in internet bridge Message-ID: > Subject: [blml] alerting in internet bridge > > > At this moment the regulation about alerting is such that the player > > making the call is explaining his own bid and then only to the > > opponent asking for the meaning. I don't have experience myself with > > this approach (should get some) but I can imagine both disadvantages > > and advantages. Should we keep it like this? There should be some > > experience with other providers? > You are right, your question deserves a serious answer regardless of prior sins. I have played on OKbridge regularly for several years and on some other online services occasionally, and I observe the following: 1. Self-alerts and explanation by the bidder are perceived as superior to explanations by bidder's partner. I have never heard the contrary opinion expressed. 2. Clearly, under tournament conditions, all questions and answers should be private. As a consequence practically all of the beloved UI/MI situations disappear completely. Nobody ever needs to hear anything partner has said. Under relaxed conditions such a restriction interferes seriously with the social aspect of the game. I suggest letting the players choose 'tournament mode', 'social mode' and, perhaps other variants. 3. The issue whether one may ask both opponents about the meaning of the same action is clearly one that deserves close scrutiny by a competent Laws Committee. - My own opinion is that this should be allowed since the NOS in this way gets a natural adjustment, namely that they are better informed than the opponents. A residual problem is what should happen if there is a misunderstanding and the NOS is unaware of it until too late to compensate. 4. Under tournament conditions one will want to mask the time taken by partner. There are several possible solutions, the simplest is probably a method that makes each player the screen mate of his RHO; thus partner's and LHO's calls are seen as soon as Pd has acted - or after adding a small random delay. Now if your partner asks a question of his RHO it will concern a call that you have not yet seen and hearing this question defeats the purpose of the screen. (If the electronic screen is such that each player does not see any of the 3 preceding calls until RHO has acted the game slows down significantly.) - In the relaxed game the players could choose the screen mode. Jürgen From willner@cfa.harvard.edu Wed Nov 27 14:28:20 2002 From: willner@cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2002 09:28:20 -0500 (EST) Subject: [blml] UI versus MI - a philosophical approach Message-ID: <200211271428.JAA22636@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> The following comments are in the nature of an amplification of Herman's thoughts. > From: Herman De Wael > A player should be allowed to avoid giving UI > to his partner, because the restrictions posed on partner are such > that in effect the giving of the UI also carries a certain penalty of > its own. Moreover, giving UI may be a violation of L73B1. > OTOH it should be noted that the giving of MI is also not an > infraction, since there will be no penalty for it in normal cases, > only a rectification. It's still an infraction (L75C), but there won't be any effect on the score unless there is damage. > I believe that there is a huge burden on the WBFLC to consider clearly > theis problem. It is a philosophical one. Indeed. May I humbly suggest that the problem is not at all an easy one? It is possible that the best answer is different in different situations. > I urge the WBFLC not to go > lightly over these dilemmas - a mere tinkering with existing words > might not be enough. I don't think mere tinkering with words will be at all adequate. There has to be a careful and conscious decision of what is best. May I also suggest that anyone who thinks the answer is simple should think again before participating in the deliberations? From A.Kooijman@dwk.agro.nl Wed Nov 27 14:30:25 2002 From: A.Kooijman@dwk.agro.nl (Kooijman, A.) Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2002 15:30:25 +0100 Subject: [blml] alerting in internet bridge Message-ID: > > > From: "Kooijman, A." > > ... the self alert and the explanation to just > > the opponent who asked the question and not to both, > apparently influenced > > by the idea that doing so keeps UI as low as possible. > Steve: > I don't play online bridge, so I'm probably missing the obvious, but > why wouldn't you want to tell both opponents? I don't see how that > generates any UI. (No doubt the _question_ should be hidden. The > non-asking opponent has no way to know whether the explanation was > spontaneous or prompted by a question from partner.) > At this moment it is not a question of willingness, I am confronted with a policy which actually is followed. And I might be in a position to change things if there is a good reason for that. For example that all other providers do give both opponents that information. I tend to be in favor of doing so too, the question being what has more weight: possible UI caused by the knowledge that partner asks a question opposite having both opponents on the same track. Steve's suggestion not to inform partner about the question asked but only giving him the explanation only works if such explanations are given frequently. Which could be a nice option too: to explain the conventional and strange bids automatically. This even could be considered to become the standard for the calls below 3NT in normal table bridge (by partner then). Why showing alert cards in stead of telling what a call means? ton From axman22@hotmail.com Wed Nov 27 14:42:04 2002 From: axman22@hotmail.com (Roger Pewick) Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2002 08:42:04 -0600 Subject: [blml] alerting in internet bridge References: Message-ID: ----- Original Message ----- From: "Kooijman, A." To: Sent: Wednesday, November 27, 2002 6:05 AM Subject: RE: [blml] alerting in internet bridge > I appreciate this content oriented reaction. But may I draw your attention > to both aspects of my question: the self alert and the explanation to just > the opponent who asked the question and not to both, apparently influenced > by the idea that doing so keeps UI as low as possible. > > > ton > > > Subject: [blml] alerting in internet bridge > > > > > At this moment the regulation about alerting is such that the player > > > making the call is explaining his own bid and then only to the > > > opponent asking for the meaning. This seems reasonable. If the explanation is given to both then the other one has UI that his partner was interested. After all, on the internet, it can be controlled who 'hears what'. However... > > >I don't have experience myself with > > > this approach (should get some) but I can imagine both disadvantages > > > and advantages. Should we keep it like this? There should be some > > > experience with other providers? > > > > In my experience selfalerting (the maker of the bid explains the > > meaning of the bid to the opponents, partner will not see the alert > > nor the explanation) is widely accepted and liked in online bridge. If the explanation is given automatically [ie no questions] to both, there is no such inference. Yet, imo this is an unacceptable burden on players in general- much, much too distracting and creates a much bigger problem with slowing things down. CC that are hyperlinked seem to be the ultimate answer. regards roger pewick > > Some disagreement occurs about the question if an opponent is > > entitled to ask both opp to discover if they are having a > > misunderstanding. > > > > ciao stefan > > germany From jkljkl@gmx.de Wed Nov 27 14:50:06 2002 From: jkljkl@gmx.de (stefan filonardi) Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2002 15:50:06 +0100 Subject: [blml] alerting in internet bridge In-Reply-To: <20021127142903.11126.12998.Mailman@toybox.amsterdamned.org> Message-ID: <3DE4E9AE.2508.1B2C373@localhost> Hello, On 27 Nov 2002 at 15:29, blml-request@rtflb.org wrote: > I don't play online bridge, so I'm probably missing the obvious, but > why wouldn't you want to tell both opponents? I don't see how that > generates any UI. (No doubt the _question_ should be hidden. The > non-asking opponent has no way to know whether the explanation was > spontaneous or prompted by a question from partner.) Well, lets assume this scenario lho Pd rho Me pass 1NT pass 2D* *now I write voluntarly to both opp pass 2H Marx-sharples Transfers: a) Heart transfer b) invite for 3 NT c) slam-going with suit While or after my pd bids 2H my rho asks for further clarification that I would give with: I show b) or c) by bidding 2S after the relay bid of 2H. If I now write it to both opp should be pretty clear that rho asked. So I personally only answer to the one that asked and that lead us back to the situation with screens. ciao stefan PS of course we can build examples with 3-4 subsequent questions to an alerted bid. How likely is it that you are giving 4 fragments voluntarly instead of being asked? From willner@cfa.harvard.edu Wed Nov 27 14:54:45 2002 From: willner@cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2002 09:54:45 -0500 (EST) Subject: [blml] alerting in internet bridge Message-ID: <200211271454.JAA22926@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> > From: "Kooijman, A." > Steve's suggestion not to inform partner about the question asked but only > giving him the explanation only works if such explanations are given > frequently. Which could be a nice option too: to explain the conventional > and strange bids automatically. I am no doubt influenced by my experience here in the States, where it is normal to ask immediately about any alerted call, regardless of one's hand. (This applies early in the auction; it isn't normal to ask later on when it's obvious our side won't be involved.) If the same habit prevails in online bridge, it is to each player's advantage to offer at least a brief explanation for every alerted call and possibly even for non-alerted ones, whether an opponent asks or not. This can't give UI to partner, who doesn't see any of this. I can see, though, that if the ethic is "don't ask unless you need to know," the mere presence of an explanation would give the UI that partner had asked and was therefore interested. I don't see any good answer except to change the ethic. There can hardly be any reason not to ask in online bridge as long as explainer's partner doesn't see the explanation. > This even could be considered to become the standard for the calls below 3NT > in normal table bridge (by partner then). Why showing alert cards in stead > of telling what a call means? This sounds like an extension of the ACBL's "announcement" system. That certainly has some advantages. Right now, the ACBL announcements are limited to a few specific situations, and the exact word of the announcement is prescribed (e.g., "transfer"). Thus the announcement gives hardly any more UI than a normal alert. One worry for extending the system is that it would be impossible to prescribe the form of explanation, or even the exact situations in which it should be given, and opponents would have no way of knowing whether the explanation of the same call was different on other occasions. This gives a possible opportunity to communicate information about _explainer's_ hand. Of course we have the same opportunity now after opponents ask the "automatic" question. So I'm not sure this is really an objection, but it is a concern. There might be unexpected problems, too, because this is such a radical change. All this ties into Herman's comments about the inherent conflict between UI and full disclosure. As noted, I don't think it's an easy problem. I wonder whether there might be some opportunity to experiment with "extended announcements" to see how well or poorly they might work in practice. In fact, this is a more general comment. All of us have ideas for how the game might be improved, but as we all know, ideas that sound good "on paper" often work out badly in practice. Is there a way to have "experimental games" where new ideas could be tried out? What incentive might players have to participate in such games? Who would want to organize them? How could they include a full cross-section of players, not just experts or just beginners? Just rambling now... time to get back to work. From jkljkl@gmx.de Wed Nov 27 15:18:38 2002 From: jkljkl@gmx.de (stefan filonardi) Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2002 16:18:38 +0100 Subject: [blml] alerting in internet bridge In-Reply-To: <20021127142903.11126.12998.Mailman@toybox.amsterdamned.org> Message-ID: <3DE4F05E.32286.1CCE4F6@localhost> Hello, > Message: 8 > Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2002 14:01:57 +0000 > Subject: Re: [blml] alerting in internet bridge > Cc: blml@rtflb.org > From: Gordon Rainsford > There's a further potential problem that needs to be addressed - when > the bidder correctly explains the partnership agreement but has > deliberately departed from it. Why is it a problem? As long as the laws of bridge asks us to disclose agreements I do not see a difference between Me AKQxx AK xxxxx A f2f bridge online bridge Me opp Pd Me opp PD 2S! 2S! Pd: weak two! Me: weak two! The trouble begins when we can't control what the agreement was. > It also needs to be clear how much information the opponents are > entitled to about the bidder's hand in situations where there is no > agreement about the meaning of the bid. This ends again in the big thread if we are there to teach bridge to our opp :-) Infact there was a discussion in a newsgroup with people saying that you are not allowed to say "no agreement" but you have to explain with which hope you made that bid. Scenario Pd opp Me 1H pass 3S no agreement about splinter but you hope he will get it, should you alert as splinter or not alert and answer to questions with no agreement? ciao stefan From axman22@hotmail.com Wed Nov 27 15:42:19 2002 From: axman22@hotmail.com (Roger Pewick) Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2002 09:42:19 -0600 Subject: [blml] UI versus MI - a philosophical approach References: <3DE4C3BC.6080402@skynet.be> Message-ID: ----- Original Message ----- From: "Herman De Wael" To: "blml" Sent: Wednesday, November 27, 2002 7:08 AM Subject: [blml] UI versus MI - a philosophical approach > It is my belief that the current Lawmakers have indeed used all these > options in different situations. The WBF promoted using screens > (option 4). Common questions and answers are governed by option 1. > L75D2 is a clear use of optioin 2. The simple case that is the basis > for our discussion about the dWS is an example of option 3. (*) > > (*) No need to discuss this - if after 5 years we have arrived at one > conclusion it is that neither camp will succeed in convincing any > member of the other camp that there is only one true solution - I am convinced that there is one best solution and that the 'true solution' is very close to it. However, no one who has contributed to the thread that prompted 'UI vs MI' is anywhere near the best solution. regards roger pewick > Herman DE WAEL From hermandw@skynet.be Wed Nov 27 16:14:16 2002 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2002 17:14:16 +0100 Subject: [blml] UI versus MI - a philosophical approach References: <3DE4C3BC.6080402@skynet.be> <007101c2961c$4c0f3170$70d8fea9@WINXP> Message-ID: <3DE4EF58.2030207@skynet.be> Sven Pran wrote: > > And nowhere in the laws do we find any prescription that opponents > shall be given MI in response to questions in order to avoid giving > partner UI. Not even Law 75D2 is positive in this respect. > > >>Furthermore it should be noted that in the current set of laws, there >>is no consistent treatment of the interaction between the two. In some >>instances a player is instructed to avoid giving MI, thereby giving >>UI; while in other situations, a player is instructed to avoid giving >>UI, thereby allowing MI to exist. >> > > I would like to hear you on which law you claim positively instructs > a player to give MI to opponents in order to avoid UI to partner? > Exactly: L75D2, note that I was saying "allowing MI to exist". Surely not correcting partner's misexplanation is allowing it. And the only reason is because L75D2 explicitely settles the dilemma between MI and UI, in this situation. > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From agot@ulb.ac.be Wed Nov 27 16:31:10 2002 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2002 17:31:10 +0100 Subject: [blml] decision on UI - LA Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20021127172146.02480ec0@pop.ulb.ac.be> Dear blmlists, Here is a case which was submitted to me, from the Belgian competition. Teams, all four players reasonably competent, E/W quite experienced. West's hand (South dealer, vulnerability not mentioned) : KQJxx Kxx AKxxx void 1C X 2Na ...p 3C X p ...3H p 2N : weak club raise East's pass : normal skip-bid tempo 3H : long tempo Questions : is West allowed to bid one again (eg 3S) ? Is pass a LA ? Thank you for your help, Alain. From agot@ulb.ac.be Wed Nov 27 16:41:47 2002 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2002 17:41:47 +0100 Subject: [blml] Law 75D2 (was dWS for the beginner) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20021127174029.0247f190@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 04:00 27/11/2002 -0500, Ed Reppert wrote: >On 11/26/02, Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > > >but former posts clearly state that when you don't know whether you > >should alert, you have to alert. When you don't know the meaning, you > >don't know whether to alert, ergo you alert. What did I miss ? > >But you *do* know the meaning. The meaning is "this bid does not exist >in our system." AG : that suits me. There remais just one question : is such a bid alertable ? Is it conventional ? (at least, it doesn't refer to the denomination used) From agot@ulb.ac.be Wed Nov 27 16:45:32 2002 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2002 17:45:32 +0100 Subject: [blml] UI versus MI - a philosophical approach In-Reply-To: <3DE4C3BC.6080402@skynet.be> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20021127174236.00a55640@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 14:08 27/11/2002 +0100, Herman De Wael wrote: >Warning : long. > >Very soon after the development of the game of bridge as we know it, two >pillars of the game have been erected : UI and MI. > >I am using the blml-abbreviations to describe the highly intricate set of >laws that govern these two concepts. We all know what they include >separately, but for this thread I want to focus on their interaction. > >Both concepts are opposed, in effect. There is a flow of information, >which has to be transmitted from the bidding side to the opponents, >without which there can be made a case for MI. But that same information >is also considered UI between the partners who are bidding. > >Several hundred messages have already been written about which is the more >fundamental of the two, but there is no conclusive answer to this. while >it is of course true that it is the using of UI that is the infraction, >not the giving of it, that does not mean that MI is more important than >UI. A player should be allowed to avoid giving UI to his partner, because >the restrictions posed on partner are such that in effect the giving of >the UI also carries a certain penalty of its own. OTOH it should be noted >that the giving of MI is also not an infraction, since there will be no >penalty for it in normal cases, only a rectification. AG : Sorry, Herman, it *is* an irregularity (see the definition of the word), but it might escape unpunished, because after an irregularity the TD's main duty is to restore equity, and an appreciable part of the time there will be no failure of equity. From agot@ulb.ac.be Wed Nov 27 16:55:54 2002 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2002 17:55:54 +0100 Subject: [blml] UI versus MI - a philosophical approach In-Reply-To: <200211271428.JAA22636@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20021127174649.02479950@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 09:28 27/11/2002 -0500, Steve Willner wrote: >I don't think mere tinkering with words will be at all adequate. There >has to be a careful and conscious decision of what is best. May I also >suggest that anyone who thinks the answer is simple should think again >before participating in the deliberations? AG : there is one principle of Law that could apply. Whether one might call this a simple answer, and whether it would be a good idea to apply it, is open to debate. "If it so happens that the text of two Laws contradict eachother, no citizen may be subject to legal action for not obeying one while trying to obey the other, unless the text of one of those laws explicitly states that it takes preceedence, when needed, upon the other one." One application of this principle is the French 'article 16' of the Police Code : "a policeperson has the right to disobey any order that goes against the Law" , ie when an order (which has Law value) and a Law contradict eachother, deciding in favor of the one or the other is not subject to penalty. What it would mean here is that giving either MI or UI in a dilemma situation would not be an infraction. I don't mean it is right. You asked, however, for a simple solution. Best regards, Alain. >_______________________________________________ >blml mailing list >blml@rtflb.org >http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From gordon@gordonrainsford.co.uk Wed Nov 27 16:56:35 2002 From: gordon@gordonrainsford.co.uk (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2002 16:56:35 +0000 Subject: [blml] alerting in internet bridge In-Reply-To: <3DE4F05E.32286.1CCE4F6@localhost> Message-ID: <304CA06A-0229-11D7-B084-0003936A6522@gordonrainsford.co.uk> On Wednesday, November 27, 2002, at 03:18 PM, stefan filonardi wrote: > Hello, > >> Message: 8 >> Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2002 14:01:57 +0000 >> Subject: Re: [blml] alerting in internet bridge >> Cc: blml@rtflb.org >> From: Gordon Rainsford > >> There's a further potential problem that needs to be addressed - when >> the bidder correctly explains the partnership agreement but has >> deliberately departed from it. > > Why is it a problem? It's a *potential* problem because a) people playing online bridge often don't have good documentation of their methods b) many online players have different understandings of how self-alerting affects their duty of disclosure. c) many online partnerships are short-term and poorly discussed, so are subject to more misunderstandings than f2f partnerships. That's why it needs to be addressed- to clarify to players, directors and service providers what the correct procedure is. > As long as the laws of bridge asks us to > disclose agreements I do not see a difference between > > Me > AKQxx > AK > xxxxx > A > > f2f bridge online bridge > > Me opp Pd Me opp PD > 2S! 2S! > > Pd: weak two! Me: weak two! > > The trouble begins when we can't control what the agreement was. > >> It also needs to be clear how much information the opponents are >> entitled to about the bidder's hand in situations where there is no >> agreement about the meaning of the bid. > > This ends again in the big thread if we are there to teach bridge to > our opp :-) Infact there was a discussion in a newsgroup with people > saying that you are not allowed to say "no agreement" but you have to > explain with which hope you made that bid. > > Scenario > Pd opp Me > 1H pass 3S > > no agreement about splinter but you hope he will get it, should you > alert as splinter or not alert and answer to questions with no > agreement? > > ciao stefan Playing with good players, none of whom I knew (one of whom is a senior ACBL director) we had the auction 1H-(2NT)-3C* which I alerted but stated that we had no agreement - which they knew since we had just started playing. The ACBL director asked me to tell him what I intended it to mean, which I did since I like to have a generous approach to sharing information with my opponents, but I don't really think it's legitimate for them to insist on it. I think they should take the same shot at working it out as my partner had to. -- Gordon Rainsford London UK From svenpran@online.no Wed Nov 27 17:39:05 2002 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2002 18:39:05 +0100 Subject: [blml] UI versus MI - a philosophical approach References: <3DE4C3BC.6080402@skynet.be> <007101c2961c$4c0f3170$70d8fea9@WINXP> <3DE4EF58.2030207@skynet.be> Message-ID: <003201c2963b$e20d1420$70d8fea9@WINXP> From: "Herman De Wael" > Sven Pran wrote: > > > > > And nowhere in the laws do we find any prescription that opponents > > shall be given MI in response to questions in order to avoid giving > > partner UI. Not even Law 75D2 is positive in this respect. > > > > > >>Furthermore it should be noted that in the current set of laws, there > >>is no consistent treatment of the interaction between the two. In some > >>instances a player is instructed to avoid giving MI, thereby giving > >>UI; while in other situations, a player is instructed to avoid giving > >>UI, thereby allowing MI to exist. > >> > > > > I would like to hear you on which law you claim positively instructs > > a player to give MI to opponents in order to avoid UI to partner? > > > > > Exactly: L75D2, note that I was saying "allowing MI to exist". > > Surely not correcting partner's misexplanation is allowing it. True, you can even refuse to answer a question on the ground that you cannot do so without violating L75D2. But directly or indirectly "confirming" the MI as being correct by positively giving a false statement is something more than just "allowing the MI to exist". > > And the only reason is because L75D2 explicitely settles the dilemma > between MI and UI, in this situation. L75D2 doesn't settle the dilemma, it creates it due to the apparent conflict with L75C in certain situations! And L75D2 does not include any instruction to answer a question from opponents with a lie. To sum up my understanding of L75 (Yes I know yours is different) L75C completely instructs a player on how he shall respond to questions from opponents. L75D2 completely describes what actions a player must not take when he becomes aware of partner's erratic explanation of his call. In this context I do not consider giving a correct answer to a question as taking any of the "actions" described in L75D2. The player is not "taking an action" he is responding to opponent's action. Sven From agot@ulb.ac.be Wed Nov 27 18:04:09 2002 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2002 19:04:09 +0100 Subject: [blml] UI versus MI - a philosophical approach In-Reply-To: <003201c2963b$e20d1420$70d8fea9@WINXP> References: <3DE4C3BC.6080402@skynet.be> <007101c2961c$4c0f3170$70d8fea9@WINXP> <3DE4EF58.2030207@skynet.be> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20021127185926.0247fa50@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 18:39 27/11/2002 +0100, Sven Pran wrote: >To sum up my understanding of L75 (Yes I know yours is different) > >L75C completely instructs a player on how he shall respond to >questions from opponents. > >L75D2 completely describes what actions a player must not take >when he becomes aware of partner's erratic explanation of his call. > >In this context I do not consider giving a correct answer to a >question as taking any of the "actions" described in L75D2. The >player is not "taking an action" he is responding to opponent's action. AG : sometimes, alerting will create UI. The dWS implies that you will not alert calls that are not alertable according to partner's understainding of the auction. Example : you open a Dutch 2S (S/m). Partner alerts, is asked and explains as minors. When he bids 3C (P/C in your system), it is alertable. But if you use dWS you don't alert, because 3C is to play over a "minors" 2S. Alerting is not responding to an opponents' auction. It is an action. Here comes L75D2. Best regards, Alain. From hermandw@skynet.be Wed Nov 27 18:38:40 2002 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2002 19:38:40 +0100 Subject: [blml] UI versus MI - a philosophical approach References: <3DE4C3BC.6080402@skynet.be> <007101c2961c$4c0f3170$70d8fea9@WINXP> <3DE4EF58.2030207@skynet.be> <003201c2963b$e20d1420$70d8fea9@WINXP> Message-ID: <3DE51130.8020205@skynet.be> Sven, hold it, hold it, you are completely misunderstanding what I am trying to say here. Sven Pran wrote: >>>> >>>I would like to hear you on which law you claim positively instructs >>>a player to give MI to opponents in order to avoid UI to partner? >>> >>> >> >>Exactly: L75D2, note that I was saying "allowing MI to exist". >> >>Surely not correcting partner's misexplanation is allowing it. >> > > True, you can even refuse to answer a question on the ground that > you cannot do so without violating L75D2. But directly or indirectly > "confirming" the MI as being correct by positively giving a false > statement is something more than just "allowing the MI to exist". > I am NOT talking about the second round here ! Just about the first one ! When my partner misexplains a bid, I have a choice. I can either allow that misexplanation to persist, or I can correct it. That is a dilemma. I must choose between MI and UI. The Lawmakers have chosen for me: they have written L75D2 - instructing me to allow MI in order to avoid UI. OK? > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw@skynet.be Wed Nov 27 18:43:00 2002 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2002 19:43:00 +0100 Subject: [blml] UI versus MI - a philosophical approach References: <3DE4C3BC.6080402@skynet.be> <007101c2961c$4c0f3170$70d8fea9@WINXP> <3DE4EF58.2030207@skynet.be> <003201c2963b$e20d1420$70d8fea9@WINXP> Message-ID: <3DE51234.10603@skynet.be> In my first message, I have told Sven why he was replying to the wrong question. In this one, I shall comment on his answer to a question not put. Sven Pran wrote: > > L75D2 doesn't settle the dilemma, it creates it due to the apparent > conflict with L75C in certain situations! > > And L75D2 does not include any instruction to answer a question from > opponents with a lie. > Yes it does, IMO : "in any manner". > To sum up my understanding of L75 (Yes I know yours is different) > > L75C completely instructs a player on how he shall respond to > questions from opponents. > > L75D2 completely describes what actions a player must not take > when he becomes aware of partner's erratic explanation of his call. > > In this context I do not consider giving a correct answer to a > question as taking any of the "actions" described in L75D2. The > player is not "taking an action" he is responding to opponent's action. > That is semantics to try and prove a point. Doing nothing is just as much an action as doing something. You are entitled to your opinion, but don't try proving it to be the only correct one. You won't succeed. There is no law whatsoever that settles the conflict between the general obligation not to give MI, and the specific obligation in L75D2 not to give UI "in any manner". In the absense of such a law, I contend that both options are equally admissable. > Sven > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From willner@cfa.harvard.edu Wed Nov 27 19:12:08 2002 From: willner@cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2002 14:12:08 -0500 (EST) Subject: [blml] UI versus MI - a philosophical approach Message-ID: <200211271912.OAA24712@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> > From: "Sven Pran" > L75C completely instructs a player on how he shall respond to > questions from opponents. > > L75D2 completely describes what actions a player must not take > when he becomes aware of partner's erratic explanation of his call. The above neatly sums up the current Laws. Further, as far as I can tell, the two requirements are equally strong (per the Preface), and there is no instruction that one supersedes the other. No doubt the textual problems can be fixed with a little bit of wordsmithing, but first the underlying philosophical problem that Herman and others have addressed must be settled. What approach is really best for the game? While I am not certain of anything, I have the suspicion that anyone who is certain of the answer has not thought clearly about the problem. Having thought about this a little longer, I suggest the Laws should try to arrange that insofar as possible, no player gains or loses other than through legal calls and plays. In other words, to the extent possible, the players should "play bridge" and not be impeded by information infractions. Even if one adopts this principle, it is far from clear to me how to apply it to the dilemma under discussion. There certainly are several "simple answers." That does not prove that a _satisfactory_ simple answer exists. From svenpran@online.no Wed Nov 27 19:25:08 2002 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2002 20:25:08 +0100 Subject: [blml] UI versus MI - a philosophical approach References: <3DE4C3BC.6080402@skynet.be> <007101c2961c$4c0f3170$70d8fea9@WINXP> <3DE4EF58.2030207@skynet.be> <003201c2963b$e20d1420$70d8fea9@WINXP> <3DE51130.8020205@skynet.be> Message-ID: <005301c2964a$b3d59320$70d8fea9@WINXP> From: "Herman De Wael" > Sven, hold it, hold it, you are completely misunderstanding what I am > trying to say here. ???????????????? > Sven Pran wrote: > > >>>> > >>>I would like to hear you on which law you claim positively instructs > >>>a player to give MI to opponents in order to avoid UI to partner? > >>> > >>> > >> > >>Exactly: L75D2, note that I was saying "allowing MI to exist". > >> > >>Surely not correcting partner's misexplanation is allowing it. > >> > > > > True, you can even refuse to answer a question on the ground that > > you cannot do so without violating L75D2. But directly or indirectly > > "confirming" the MI as being correct by positively giving a false > > statement is something more than just "allowing the MI to exist". > > > > > I am NOT talking about the second round here ! > Just about the first one ! No problem of any kind exists until an opponent asks your explanation to a call made by your partner after he has misexplained a call by you. But then we may find ourselves in the conflict between concealing from partner that he has given an incorrect explanation to opponents and concealing from opponents the true agreement. First round, second round, later rounds - what is the difference? > When my partner misexplains a bid, I have a choice. I can either allow > that misexplanation to persist, or I can correct it. That is a > dilemma. I must choose between MI and UI. The Lawmakers have chosen > for me: they have written L75D2 - instructing me to allow MI in order > to avoid UI. > > OK? No, what is undisputable is that you cannot do anything to correct the explanation on your own initiative. And I cannot accept that L75D2 instructs anybody to lie to opponents in order to avoid giving partner UI. But the valid argument can equally well be that the lawmakers have chosen for us by writing L75C instructing us to give our opponents the correct information when asked - unconditionally and always. I for one cannot see anything explicit in L75C or L75D2 that gives one law priority over the other. My feeling that L75C takes precedence is based upon my understanding of the laws as a whole. Sven From wrgptfan@fastmail.fm Wed Nov 27 20:26:12 2002 From: wrgptfan@fastmail.fm (David Kent) Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2002 15:26:12 -0500 Subject: [blml] decision on UI - LA Message-ID: <20021127202612.38F35E716@www.fastmail.fm> On Wed, 27 Nov 2002 17:31:10 +0100, "Alain Gottcheiner" said: > Dear blmlists, > > Here is a case which was submitted to me, from the Belgian competition. > > Teams, all four players reasonably competent, E/W quite experienced. > > West's hand (South dealer, vulnerability not mentioned) : > > KQJxx > Kxx > AKxxx > void > > 1C X 2Na ...p > 3C X p ...3H > p > > 2N : weak club raise > East's pass : normal skip-bid tempo > 3H : long tempo > > Questions : is West allowed to bid one again (eg 3S) ? Is pass a LA ? > Well, since Txx xxxx xx xxxx gives you a 'reasonable' play for game, I would think that bidding on must be considered a logical alternative, regardless of the jurisdiction. -- Dave Kent -- http://fastmail.fm - A no graphics, no pop-ups email service From cyaxares@lineone.net Wed Nov 27 08:23:53 2002 From: cyaxares@lineone.net (Grattan Endicott) Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2002 08:23:53 -0000 Subject: [blml] Law Criteria References: <4A256C7E.00126CFF.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> Message-ID: <004501c2965c$cfa04520$e387403e@endicott> Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Wednesday, November 27, 2002 3:37 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Law Criteria > Even better would be to amalgamate the Index and > Definitions, with a Lawful description attached to > the very key keywords. > > Noted? > +=+ I am unconvinced that the Definitions is a good place to index the laws. This has a clumsy feel, and perhaps we have only to overlook one reference to start an argument about whether the definition applies in that case. Definitions is not a place to start from, but one to go to from the law we are reading. ~ G ~ +=+ From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Wed Nov 27 22:32:48 2002 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 28 Nov 2002 08:32:48 +1000 Subject: [blml] PPs on TDs Message-ID: <4A256C7E.007A547B.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> Last night I was playing TD at my local club's walk-in pairs. Board 13: LHO Pard RHO Me Pass 1C(1) 1S Pass 2S Pass Pass Pass (1) Strong and artificial The contract was two off, for the kiss-of-death score of -200. At the end of play LHO deduced the reason for the kiss-of-death. Consequently LHO gave RHO a lengthy free lesson (with footnotes) on how overcalling with a mere four card suit was illegal, immoral, and fattening. While I appreciated LHO's useful tip, which could not help but improve my game in future, I thought that LHO's tutorial was an infraction of Law 74A2. Therefore, I should have summoned myself to the table to correct the infraction. I did not do this, preferring to go for Plan B. As a result, I was an after-the-fact accessory to the infraction of Law 74A2. What PP should I consequently assess against myself? Board 14: LHO AKT QT8752 Q Q32 Me Pard Q86 975432 AKJ9 6 A53 K9 T96 KJ84 RHO J 43 JT87642 A75 LHO Pard RHO Me Pass 3D 3H(1) Double Pass Pass 3NT Double 4S Pass Pass Double Pass Pass Pass (1) Plan B, showing solidarity with RHO In its interpretation of Law 15C, the WBF LC has ruled that making a call with no demonstrable bridge reason is yet another infraction of Law 74A2. My 3H call had no demonstrable bridge reason, since my LHO had already proved (with footnotes) that overcalling on a four card suit was illegal, immoral, and fattening. Furthermore, my call of 3H was a *serious* infraction, since the logical alternative of Double would have reached a contract of 3S +140 instead of 4Sx -100, so I had therefore donated matchpoints to the opponents for no demonstrable bridge reason. What *serious* PP should I have assessed against myself for this infraction, considering that this was my second offence on consecutive boards? :-) Best wishes Richard From twm@cix.co.uk Wed Nov 27 21:50:00 2002 From: twm@cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2002 21:50 +0000 (GMT Standard Time) Subject: [blml] Your message to blml awaits moderator approval In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > The notorious example in the UK was the town of Scunthorpe in > Lincolnshire. I'm pretty sure many people felt that protecting minors from exposure to Scunthorpe was eminently sensible behaviour. Tim From twm@cix.co.uk Wed Nov 27 21:50:00 2002 From: twm@cix.co.uk (Tim West-Meads) Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2002 21:50 +0000 (GMT Standard Time) Subject: [blml] alerting in internet bridge In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Personally I like the providers who keep it the same as f2F. I don't have to worry about opponent reactions when my hand fails to resemble my call (frequent occurrence for me - unpopular with self alerts). I don't worry about opps trying (illegitimately IMO) to discover a misunderstanding. I am aware of any misexplanations by partner and can correct them at the appropriate time. I know that partner is operating on the same explanations from opps that I am. Why worry too much about UI, if people don't understand their obligations they can be taught. Tim From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Wed Nov 27 22:56:02 2002 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 28 Nov 2002 08:56:02 +1000 Subject: [blml] UI versus MI - a philosophical approach Message-ID: <4A256C7E.007C7BA1.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> Sven asked: [snip] >>I would like to hear you on which law you claim >>positively instructs a player to give MI to >>opponents in order to avoid UI to partner? Herman replied: >Exactly: L75D2, note that I was saying "allowing >MI to exist". > >Surely not correcting partner's misexplanation is >allowing it. > >And the only reason is because L75D2 explicitly >settles the dilemma between MI and UI, in this >situation. No, L75D2 *explicitly states* that MI is to be corrected. Deferring the correction of MI is *not* philosophically identical to "allowing MI to exist". Therefore, the philosophical choice between creating UI (in contradistinction to *using* UI), and "allowing MI to exist" has already been made by the WBF - it has decided against MI. Best wishes Richard From cyaxares@lineone.net Thu Nov 28 00:44:19 2002 From: cyaxares@lineone.net (Grattan Endicott) Date: Thu, 28 Nov 2002 00:44:19 -0000 Subject: [blml] UI versus MI - a philosophical approach References: <200211271912.OAA24712@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <002801c29679$3d9f6260$6f17e150@endicott> Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Wednesday, November 27, 2002 7:12 PM Subject: Re: [blml] UI versus MI - a philosophical approach > > Having thought about this a little longer, I suggest the > Laws should try to arrange that insofar as possible, no > player gains or loses other than through legal calls and > plays. In other words, to the extent possible, the players > should "play bridge" and not be impeded by information > infractions. Even if one adopts this principle, it is far > from clear to me how to apply it to the dilemma under > discussion. > > There certainly are several "simple answers." That does > not prove that a _satisfactory_ simple answer exists. > +=+ No, indeed. Any bridge legislator will agree that not even the simplest questions guarantee simple answers. However, be of good cheer; the ethos of the current Laws Review Subcommittee is marinated in a desire to enable as many hands as possible to be determined on a "play bridge" principle; if we overcome the thousand natural shocks that flesh is heir to, we may see a consummation devoutly to be wished. Or, alas, there may be those who would suffocate for envy the child that is not theirs. I have inscribed something into a draft, to ensure the review subcommittee will confront the dilemma. The solution I have written may please no-one - and thus prove highly successful. ~ G ~ +=+ From grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk Wed Nov 27 22:34:29 2002 From: grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk (grandeval) Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2002 22:34:29 -0000 Subject: [blml] Your message to blml awaits moderator approval References: Message-ID: <000801c29679$f2741be0$0c6987d9@4nrw70j> Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Wednesday, November 27, 2002 9:50 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Your message to blml awaits moderator approval > > The notorious example in the UK was the town of > > Scunthorpe in Lincolnshire. > > I'm pretty sure many people felt that protecting minors > from exposure to Scunthorpe was eminently sensible > behaviour. > > Tim > +=+ Majors, too. As you might expect, there is no problem with Penistone - given the lofty tone of the place. +=+ From john@asimere.com Thu Nov 28 01:43:53 2002 From: john@asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Thu, 28 Nov 2002 01:43:53 +0000 Subject: [blml] UI versus MI - a philosophical approach In-Reply-To: <002801c29679$3d9f6260$6f17e150@endicott> References: <200211271912.OAA24712@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> <002801c29679$3d9f6260$6f17e150@endicott> Message-ID: In article <002801c29679$3d9f6260$6f17e150@endicott>, Grattan Endicott writes SW: > Having thought about this a little longer, I suggest the >> Laws should try to arrange that insofar as possible, no >> player gains or loses other than through legal calls and >> plays. In other words, to the extent possible, the players >> should "play bridge" and not be impeded by information >> infractions. Even if one adopts this principle, it is far >> from clear to me how to apply it to the dilemma under >> discussion. >> >> There certainly are several "simple answers." That does >> not prove that a _satisfactory_ simple answer exists. >> GE: >+=+ No, indeed. Any bridge legislator will agree that >not even the simplest questions guarantee simple answers. >However, be of good cheer; the ethos of the current Laws >Review Subcommittee is marinated in a desire to enable >as many hands as possible to be determined on a "play >bridge" principle; if we overcome the thousand natural >shocks that flesh is heir to, we may see a consummation >devoutly to be wished. Or, alas, there may be those who >would suffocate for envy the child that is not theirs. > I have inscribed something into a draft, to ensure >the review subcommittee will confront the dilemma. The >solution I have written may please no-one - and thus >prove highly successful. ~ G ~ +=+ Ah, but it will keep me in work, so that's ok :) -- John (MadDog) Probst| . ! -^- |icq 10810798 451 Mile End Road | /|__. \:/ |OKb ChienFou London E3 4PA | / @ __) -|- |john@asimere.com +44-(0)20 8983 5818 | /\ --^ | |www.asimere.com/~john From brian@wellsborocomputing.com Thu Nov 28 03:36:02 2002 From: brian@wellsborocomputing.com (Brian Meadows) Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2002 22:36:02 -0500 Subject: [blml] PPs on TDs In-Reply-To: <4A256C7E.007A547B.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> References: <4A256C7E.007A547B.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> Message-ID: On Thu, 28 Nov 2002 08:32:48 +1000, Richard Hills wrote: > > >Last night I was playing TD at my local club's >walk-in pairs. > >Board 13: > >LHO Pard RHO Me >Pass 1C(1) 1S Pass >2S Pass Pass Pass > >(1) Strong and artificial > >The contract was two off, for the kiss-of-death >score of -200. At the end of play LHO deduced >the reason for the kiss-of-death. Consequently >LHO gave RHO a lengthy free lesson (with >footnotes) on how overcalling with a mere four >card suit was illegal, immoral, and fattening. > >While I appreciated LHO's useful tip, which >could not help but improve my game in future, I >thought that LHO's tutorial was an infraction >of Law 74A2. Therefore, I should have summoned >myself to the table to correct the infraction. > >I did not do this, preferring to go for Plan B. >As a result, I was an after-the-fact accessory >to the infraction of Law 74A2. What PP should >I consequently assess against myself? > That one's easy. You should be compelled to play an entire session with last night's LHO as your partner. By the time that's over, you should have a full appreciation of the merits of stopping players from giving lectures at the table. >Board 14: > > LHO > AKT > QT8752 > Q > Q32 >Me Pard >Q86 975432 >AKJ9 6 >A53 K9 >T96 KJ84 > RHO > J > 43 > JT87642 > A75 > >LHO Pard RHO Me > Pass 3D 3H(1) >Double Pass Pass 3NT >Double 4S Pass Pass >Double Pass Pass Pass > >(1) Plan B, showing solidarity with RHO > >In its interpretation of Law 15C, the WBF LC >has ruled that making a call with no >demonstrable bridge reason is yet another >infraction of Law 74A2. My 3H call had no >demonstrable bridge reason, since my LHO had >already proved (with footnotes) that >overcalling on a four card suit was illegal, >immoral, and fattening. > >Furthermore, my call of 3H was a *serious* >infraction, since the logical alternative of >Double would have reached a contract of 3S +140 >instead of 4Sx -100, so I had therefore donated >matchpoints to the opponents for no demonstrable >bridge reason. What *serious* PP should I have >assessed against myself for this infraction, >considering that this was my second offence on >consecutive boards? > OK, so make that *two* full sessions you have to play with LHO as your partner, since your actions gave him an excuse (as if he needed one!) to continue the lecture to his partner at the end of the round - "See, I told you four card overcalls don't work, he tried the same thing the following hand and they got a bad score too!". Brian. -- Software development and computer consulting Brian Meadows Tel: 570-724-5172 Wellsboro Computing Services, Inc. Fax: 413-480-2709 RR#5, Box 5A, Wellsboro PA 16901 ICQ: 1981272 http://www.wellsborocomputing.com From mfrench1@san.rr.com Thu Nov 28 05:40:36 2002 From: mfrench1@san.rr.com (Marvin L. French) Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2002 21:40:36 -0800 Subject: [blml] decision on UI - LA References: <5.1.0.14.0.20021127172146.02480ec0@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <002101c296a0$ec995240$2e2ed2cc@san.rr.com> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Alain Gottcheiner" To: "blml" Sent: Wednesday, November 27, 2002 8:31 AM Subject: [blml] decision on UI - LA > Dear blmlists, > > Here is a case which was submitted to me, from the Belgian competition. > > Teams, all four players reasonably competent, E/W quite experienced. > > West's hand (South dealer, vulnerability not mentioned) : > > KQJxx > Kxx > AKxxx > void > > 1C X 2Na ...p > 3C X p ...3H > p > > 2N : weak club raise > East's pass : normal skip-bid tempo > 3H : long tempo > > Questions : is West allowed to bid one again (eg 3S) ? Yes. Is pass a LA ? > No. I doubt that anyone would pass (or bid 4H) with this hand. Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California Off to Phoenix NABC on Thanksgiving Day Staying at Springhill Suites by Marriott ($71) From mfrench1@san.rr.com Thu Nov 28 05:44:56 2002 From: mfrench1@san.rr.com (Marvin L. French) Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2002 21:44:56 -0800 Subject: [blml] decision on UI - LA References: <20021127202612.38F35E716@www.fastmail.fm> Message-ID: <002d01c296a1$4cd936c0$2e2ed2cc@san.rr.com> From: "David Kent" > , "Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > > > > Here is a case which was submitted to me, from the Belgian competition. > > > > Teams, all four players reasonably competent, E/W quite experienced. > > > > West's hand (South dealer, vulnerability not mentioned) : > > > > KQJxx > > Kxx > > AKxxx > > void > > > > 1C X 2Na ...p > > 3C X p ...3H > > p > > > > 2N : weak club raise > > East's pass : normal skip-bid tempo > > 3H : long tempo > > > > Questions : is West allowed to bid one again (eg 3S) ? Is pass a LA ? > > > > Well, since Txx xxxx xx xxxx gives you a 'reasonable' play for game, I > would think that bidding on must be considered a logical alternative, > regardless of the jurisdiction. > Of course bidding on is logical. The question is whether passing would be logical. It would not. Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California Off to Phoenix NABC on Thanksgiving Day Staying at Springhill Suites by Marriott ($71) From grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk Wed Nov 27 22:34:29 2002 From: grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk (grandeval) Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2002 22:34:29 -0000 Subject: [blml] Your message to blml awaits moderator approval References: Message-ID: <000801c296af$8d444520$356187d9@4nrw70j> Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Wednesday, November 27, 2002 9:50 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Your message to blml awaits moderator approval > > The notorious example in the UK was the town of > > Scunthorpe in Lincolnshire. > > I'm pretty sure many people felt that protecting minors > from exposure to Scunthorpe was eminently sensible > behaviour. > > Tim > +=+ Majors, too. As you might expect, there is no problem with Penistone - given the lofty tone of the place. +=+ From cyaxares@lineone.net Thu Nov 28 07:46:34 2002 From: cyaxares@lineone.net (Grattan Endicott) Date: Thu, 28 Nov 2002 07:46:34 -0000 Subject: [blml] UI versus MI - a philosophical approach References: <200211271912.OAA24712@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> <002801c29679$3d9f6260$6f17e150@endicott> Message-ID: <002b01c296b4$3965d590$4b32e150@endicott> Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Thursday, November 28, 2002 1:43 AM Subject: Re: [blml] UI versus MI - a philosophical approach > In article <002801c29679$3d9f6260$6f17e150@endicott>, Grattan Endicott > writes > GE: > > > I have inscribed something into a draft, to ensure > >the review subcommittee will confront the dilemma. The > >solution I have written may please no-one - and thus > >prove highly successful. ~ G ~ +=+ > > Ah, but it will keep me in work, so that's ok :) > -- +=+ Antonio Riccardi, EBL CTD, commented on an earlier draft that it would "keep the TDs busy which would be good for them" +=+ From hermandw@skynet.be Thu Nov 28 08:18:06 2002 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 28 Nov 2002 09:18:06 +0100 Subject: [blml] UI versus MI - a philosophical approach References: <3DE4C3BC.6080402@skynet.be> <007101c2961c$4c0f3170$70d8fea9@WINXP> <3DE4EF58.2030207@skynet.be> <003201c2963b$e20d1420$70d8fea9@WINXP> <3DE51130.8020205@skynet.be> <005301c2964a$b3d59320$70d8fea9@WINXP> Message-ID: <3DE5D13E.7020807@skynet.be> No, no, no, no, no, Sven. This is a philosophical article. Sven Pran wrote: > From: "Herman De Wael" > >>Sven, hold it, hold it, you are completely misunderstanding what I am >>trying to say here. >> > ???????????????? read on! > >>Sven Pran wrote: >> >> >>>>>I would like to hear you on which law you claim positively instructs >>>>>a player to give MI to opponents in order to avoid UI to partner? >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>Exactly: L75D2, note that I was saying "allowing MI to exist". >>>> >>>>Surely not correcting partner's misexplanation is allowing it. >>>> >>>> >>>True, you can even refuse to answer a question on the ground that >>>you cannot do so without violating L75D2. But directly or indirectly >>>"confirming" the MI as being correct by positively giving a false >>>statement is something more than just "allowing the MI to exist". >>> >>> >> >>I am NOT talking about the second round here ! >>Just about the first one ! >> > > No problem of any kind exists until an opponent asks your explanation > to a call made by your partner after he has misexplained a call by you. > But then we may find ourselves in the conflict between concealing from > partner that he has given an incorrect explanation to opponents and > concealing from opponents the true agreement. > Yes a problem exists! And it has been solved already. What I am trying to make you see is that the rest of the Laws do not, in any manner, tell us what to do if partner misexplains. That would be a problem, but for the writing of L75D2. Without L75D2, the same problem that we are talking of in the dWS thread would exist one round earlier. And I happen to believe it is important that the Lawmakers have decided that UI is worse than MI in this instance. > First round, second round, later rounds - what is the difference? > Nothing, exactly - so why would you say that MI > UI in the second round when the Lawmakers have said that UI > MI in the first one? > >>When my partner misexplains a bid, I have a choice. I can either allow >>that misexplanation to persist, or I can correct it. That is a >>dilemma. I must choose between MI and UI. The Lawmakers have chosen >>for me: they have written L75D2 - instructing me to allow MI in order >>to avoid UI. >> >>OK? >> > > No, what is undisputable is that you cannot do anything to correct the > explanation on your own initiative. And I cannot accept that L75D2 > instructs anybody to lie to opponents in order to avoid giving partner UI. > Well, it just says so. "don't correct" it says - that is MI. However you look at it, it is allowing MI to avoid UI. > But the valid argument can equally well be that the lawmakers have chosen > for us by writing L75C instructing us to give our opponents the correct > information when asked - unconditionally and always. > No that is not a valid argument, because L75C is not concerned with UI. > I for one cannot see anything explicit in L75C or L75D2 that gives one > law priority over the other. My feeling that L75C takes precedence is > based upon my understanding of the laws as a whole. > Did you ever consider that your understanding of the Laws as a whole might be flawed? My feelings are based on my understanding of the laws as a whole. So one of us must have a mistaken understanding of the laws as a whole. > Sven > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw@skynet.be Thu Nov 28 08:21:59 2002 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 28 Nov 2002 09:21:59 +0100 Subject: [blml] UI versus MI - a philosophical approach References: <4A256C7E.007C7BA1.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> Message-ID: <3DE5D227.3030605@skynet.be> Bullshit and Baloney, Richard. Sorry to be so harsh, but it is. richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: > > Sven asked: > > [snip] > > >>>I would like to hear you on which law you claim >>>positively instructs a player to give MI to >>>opponents in order to avoid UI to partner? >>> > > Herman replied: > > >>Exactly: L75D2, note that I was saying "allowing >>MI to exist". >> >>Surely not correcting partner's misexplanation is >>allowing it. >> >>And the only reason is because L75D2 explicitly >>settles the dilemma between MI and UI, in this >>situation. >> > > No, L75D2 *explicitly states* that MI is to be > corrected. Deferring the correction of MI is *not* > philosophically identical to "allowing MI to exist". > MI is to be corrected at the correct time - either before the lead or after play. meanwhile, the MI exists. L75D2 tells me not to correct it. I believe that includes breaking L75C one round later. > Therefore, the philosophical choice between creating > UI (in contradistinction to *using* UI), and "allowing > MI to exist" has already been made by the WBF - it has > decided against MI. > Bullshit. Sorry. In the intervening period, L75D2 has clearly decided against UI. > Best wishes > > Richard > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From cyaxares@lineone.net Thu Nov 28 08:27:37 2002 From: cyaxares@lineone.net (Grattan Endicott) Date: Thu, 28 Nov 2002 08:27:37 -0000 Subject: [blml] Your message to blml awaits moderator approval References: <000801c29679$f2741be0$0c6987d9@4nrw70j> Message-ID: <001a01c296b8$1ab53fb0$6743e150@endicott> Grattan Endicott Message-ID: <079d01c29697$96a94920$9b9468d5@default> [Jurgen Rennenkampff] A situation has been created where an overwhelming majority of the players does not know the rules of the game they play, and - as the example shows - neither do many TD's. Doesn't this suggest that there is something radically wrong? [Nigel Guthrie] IMO must of us rank and file players would agree. on the other hand, it seems that most TDs rather like complex, obscure, subjective laws. From jurgenr@t-online.de Thu Nov 28 09:22:05 2002 From: jurgenr@t-online.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?J=FCrgen_Rennenkampff?=) Date: Thu, 28 Nov 2002 10:22:05 +0100 Subject: [blml] UI versus MI - a philosophical approach Message-ID: Grattan: >> > I have inscribed something into a draft, to ensure >> >the review subcommittee will confront the dilemma. The >> >solution I have written may please no-one - and thus >> >prove highly successful. ~ G ~ +=+ Probst: >> Ah, but it will keep me in work, so that's ok :) >> -- Grattan: >+=+ Antonio Riccardi, EBL CTD, commented on an >earlier draft that it would "keep the TDs busy which >would be good for them" +=+ You have a committee making rules for two quite separate but mutually dependent games. The one is a game of cards; the other is a game of adjudication. The more interesting the latter becomes, the less playable the former will be. According to the Natural History of the Committee, viewed as a biological entity, which it is, no proposal can go in at one end and emerge at the other in a simplified form. Thus if the draft makes the adjudication game distinctly more interesting, then the final formulation will do untold damage to the card game. Ideally the function of the arbiter is devoid of all interest, all the decisions are routine, and all the rules well-defined. When arbiters make the rules this is not a probable outcome. Jürgen From agot@ulb.ac.be Thu Nov 28 09:59:31 2002 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Thu, 28 Nov 2002 10:59:31 +0100 Subject: [blml] UI versus MI - a philosophical approach In-Reply-To: <002801c29679$3d9f6260$6f17e150@endicott> References: <200211271912.OAA24712@cfa183.cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20021128105723.01d54ce0@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 00:44 28/11/2002 +0000, Grattan Endicott wrote: >+=+ No, indeed. Any bridge legislator will agree that >not even the simplest questions guarantee simple answers. >However, be of good cheer; the ethos of the current Laws >Review Subcommittee is marinated in a desire to enable >as many hands as possible to be determined on a "play >bridge" principle; if we overcome the thousand natural >shocks that flesh is heir to, we may see a consummation >devoutly to be wished. Or, alas, there may be those who >would suffocate for envy the child that is not theirs. > I have inscribed something into a draft, to ensure >the review subcommittee will confront the dilemma. The >solution I have written may please no-one - and thus >prove highly successful. ~ G ~ +=+ > AG : please allow me to submit a quotation to the Master of the genre : "You know that a good compromise has been reached when both sides are equally unsatisfied" (I would be happy if someone could identify the utterer) From agot@ulb.ac.be Thu Nov 28 10:02:15 2002 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Thu, 28 Nov 2002 11:02:15 +0100 Subject: [blml] PPs on TDs In-Reply-To: <4A256C7E.007A547B.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20021128110041.01d5b300@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 08:32 28/11/2002 +1000, richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: >Last night I was playing TD at my local club's >walk-in pairs. > >Board 13: > >LHO Pard RHO Me >Pass 1C(1) 1S Pass >2S Pass Pass Pass > >(1) Strong and artificial > >The contract was two off, for the kiss-of-death >score of -200. At the end of play LHO deduced >the reason for the kiss-of-death. Consequently >LHO gave RHO a lengthy free lesson (with >footnotes) on how overcalling with a mere four >card suit was illegal, immoral, and fattening. AG : fattening ! By Jove ! *That* was the reason :-( From jurgenr@t-online.de Thu Nov 28 10:57:48 2002 From: jurgenr@t-online.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?J=FCrgen_Rennenkampff?=) Date: Thu, 28 Nov 2002 11:57:48 +0100 Subject: [blml] Sacred Fictions Message-ID: As a naive observer I have been much impressed by the general tendency to treat the Laws as Holy Writ, and thus immutable, but in need of extensive Exegesis. For how can we, mere mortals, presume to properly understand the Word unless enlightened by the Holy Spirit, or, when HE is momentarily unavailable, by the spirit of Edgar Kaplan, and by the wisdom of those who have lived in the Word, and for the Word, and by the Word, and have, therefore, been solemnly anointed Sayers of the Word? There are several revered principles that are clearly contradictory. Three have been mentioned ad nauseam recently: I. Thou shalt inform thine enemy. II. Thou shalt not lie to thine enemy. III. Thou shalt not inform thy friend. Further conflict arises when an additional axiom is recalled: IV. The Lord bestoweth equity, He seeketh not vengeance. It is this last, which is in fact an impossibility, that causes most of the problems. Suppose, for example, that each instance of misbidding and misinforming were penalized quite severely - perhaps by 1/2 board - and once the penalty is paid all UI becomes AI and all MI is corrected. If you think this through you will find that it conforms to common usage in most sports and has, in addition, the positive effect of making it disadvantageous to use bidding systems that exceed memory capacity. Consider how the odd belief that equity needs to be restored arises. In duplicate card games the score has two distinct functions. On the one hand, it measures your performance; on the other hand, it contributes to the scale according to which your opponents' performance is measured. When penalties are added to scores the scale is distorted; therefore, one must not use such scores for scaling purposes. Now that all scoring is done by computer this causes no particular difficulty. In practically any game that comes to mind there is a simple and direct penalty assessed when a rule is broken, and in many games intentional infractions are allowed. I suggest that there is no good reason why Bridge should be different in this respect. Jürgen From hermandw@skynet.be Thu Nov 28 12:15:22 2002 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 28 Nov 2002 13:15:22 +0100 Subject: [blml] Sacred Fictions References: Message-ID: <3DE608DA.9020604@skynet.be> May I congratulate you, J=FCrgen, on your command of the English=20 language, both ancient and modern, as well as on your grasp of some of=20 the problems that blml seem to be burdened with. J=FCrgen Rennenkampff wrote: > As a naive observer I have been much > impressed by the general tendency to > treat the Laws as Holy Writ, and thus > immutable, but in need of extensive Exegesis. >=20 It seems to me as if many a contributor sees the Laws as worthy of=20 capital letters. Trying to infer meaning from text seems to be as=20 difficult as theology, even with some of the prophets in our midst. > For how can we, mere mortals, presume to properly > understand the Word unless enlightened by the > Holy Spirit, or, when HE is momentarily unavailable, > by the spirit of Edgar Kaplan, and by the wisdom of those > who have lived in the Word, and for the Word, > and by the Word, and have, therefore, been solemnly > anointed Sayers of the Word? >=20 > There are several revered principles that are clearly > contradictory. Three have been mentioned ad nauseam > recently: >=20 > I. Thou shalt inform thine enemy. > II. Thou shalt not lie to thine enemy. > III. Thou shalt not inform thy friend. >=20 I don't see any difference between I. and II. If there is, then II. is=20 not a principle, but merely a manifestation of I. > Further conflict arises when an additional axiom > is recalled: >=20 > IV. The Lord bestoweth equity, He seeketh not vengeance. >=20 That is indeed a good way of putting one of the fundamental principles=20 of the Laws. > It is this last, which is in fact an impossibility, > that causes most of the problems. Suppose, for example, > that each instance of misbidding and misinforming were > penalized quite severely - perhaps by 1/2 board - and > once the penalty is paid all UI becomes AI and all MI > is corrected. If you think this through you will find > that it conforms to common usage in most sports and > has, in addition, the positive effect of making it > disadvantageous to use bidding systems that exceed > memory capacity. >=20 You have quite often already said this. I don't believe the problem is=20 as big as you suggest. Nor do I believe that it would go away if you=20 changed the laws in the way you suggest. Nowadays we can say to a=20 table: yes, I do believe this is misinformation, but no, I don't think=20 there was any damage. With Laws such as you suggest, you would have to=20 be very much stricter in deciding on any case where the hand does not=20 fit the explanation. The case of the Irish 3NT comes to mind. You=20 yourself called that a problem. Would it be any less of a problem if=20 the solution were merely to fine the 3NT bidder half a board? They=20 would be just as angry, and their opponents would not be satisfied,=20 having to stay on their bad score. > Consider how the odd belief that equity needs to be restored > arises. In duplicate card games the score has two distinct > functions. On the one hand, it measures your performance; > on the other hand, it contributes to the scale according > to which your opponents' performance is measured. When > penalties are added to scores the scale is distorted; > therefore, one must not use such scores for scaling > purposes. Now that all scoring is done by computer this > causes no particular difficulty. >=20 > In practically any game that comes to mind there > is a simple and direct penalty assessed when a rule > is broken, and in many games intentional infractions are > allowed. I suggest that there is no good reason why > Bridge should be different in this respect. >=20 Nor is there any good reason why it should be the same. There are other sports where intentional infractions are not allowed.=20 Why should Bridge be different to those games? Your suggestion may well be a good one, but it would change the game=20 of bridge far more fundamentally than you might imagine, and I am not=20 certain if that would solve the problems that you seem to attribute to=20 the laws as they currently exist. > J=FCrgen >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml >=20 >=20 >=20 --=20 Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From agot@ulb.ac.be Thu Nov 28 13:23:22 2002 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Thu, 28 Nov 2002 14:23:22 +0100 Subject: [blml] Sacred Fictions In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20021128132702.01d4fe50@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 11:57 28/11/2002 +0100, J=FCrgen Rennenkampff wrote: >In practically any game that comes to mind there >is a simple and direct penalty assessed when a rule >is broken, and in many games intentional infractions are >allowed. AG : I find this statement contradictory. Infraction, noun : any action that is disallowed by the rules / laws. You are merely stating that disallowed actions are allowed. Seems strange. Quite to the contrary, as I said in a former post, in most team sports=20 (Soccer, Lawn Hockey, Cricket ...), intentional infractions are more=20 severely penalized than clumsiness. Only BasketBall is an exception,=20 because of the need of smoothness in the game. At Bridge, it is specifically stated that one of the worst things you could= =20 do is to deliberately infringe some law. That's why some of us are so=20 adamant about looking for a solution to dilemmas (dilemmata ?) that arise=20 when, whatever you do, you infringe a law ... and you know perfectly well=20 that you do. Best regards, Alain. From gester@lineone.net Thu Nov 28 13:13:27 2002 From: gester@lineone.net (gester@lineone.net) Date: Thu, 28 Nov 2002 13:13:27 -0000 Subject: [blml] UI versus MI - a philosophical approach References: Message-ID: <002a01c296e0$48c1db20$3f2a2850@pacific> Grattan Endicott To: "BLML" Sent: Thursday, November 28, 2002 9:22 AM Subject: [blml] UI versus MI - a philosophical approach > > Ideally the function of the arbiter is devoid > of all interest, all the decisions are routine, > and all the rules well-defined. When arbiters make > the rules this is not a probable outcome. > +=+ In a physical sport the judgements are judgements of fact and susceptible to 'routine' decisions. In bridge however well-defined the rules may be they often relate to intent and to mental process and the judgements are intuitive. If you want routine, fact-based rulings you should play Snap. There is a school of thought that says the moment there is an irregularity stop the clock, make a punitive award on the basis of presumed guilt. But the message we receive from most quarters, players, administrators, directors, is that they want irregularities to disturb the game as little as possible, to get a bridge result whenever it can be obtained. To achieve this objective we need the co-operation of players as well as the judgemental skills of directors, and it is to such a scenario for the game environment that we are looking. But nothing can remove the need, when the hand is played out following an irregularity and a bridge result obtained, to have the Director survey the action and say whether the result was obtained fairly, and that will continue to be an intuitive judgement. Such is the nature of the game. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From agot@ulb.ac.be Thu Nov 28 13:37:27 2002 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Thu, 28 Nov 2002 14:37:27 +0100 Subject: [blml] Sacred Fictions In-Reply-To: <3DE608DA.9020604@skynet.be> References: Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20021128143549.01d4eec0@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 13:15 28/11/2002 +0100, Herman De Wael wrote: >>For how can we, mere mortals, presume to properly >>understand the Word unless enlightened by the >>Holy Spirit, or, when HE is momentarily unavailable, >>by the spirit of Edgar Kaplan, and by the wisdom of those >>who have lived in the Word, and for the Word, >>and by the Word, and have, therefore, been solemnly >>anointed Sayers of the Word? >>There are several revered principles that are clearly >>contradictory. Three have been mentioned ad nauseam >>recently: >>I. Thou shalt inform thine enemy. >>II. Thou shalt not lie to thine enemy. >>III. Thou shalt not inform thy friend. > > >I don't see any difference between I. and II. If there is, then II. is not >a principle, but merely a manifestation of I. AG : I means "swear to say all truth" II means "swear to say only the truth" From jurgenr@t-online.de Thu Nov 28 13:40:43 2002 From: jurgenr@t-online.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?J=FCrgen_Rennenkampff?=) Date: Thu, 28 Nov 2002 14:40:43 +0100 Subject: [blml] Sacred Fictions Message-ID: >At 11:57 28/11/2002 +0100, J=FCrgen Rennenkampff wrote: >>In practically any game that comes to mind there >>is a simple and direct penalty assessed when a rule >>is broken, and in many games intentional infractions are >>allowed. >AG : I find this statement contradictory. Sorry - you are right, of course, careless formulation. I meant to say that intentional and unintentional infractions are not distinguished. >Infraction, noun : any action that is disallowed by the rules / laws. >You are merely stating that disallowed actions are allowed. Seems strange. >Quite to the contrary, as I said in a former post, in most team sports=20 >(Soccer, Lawn Hockey, Cricket ...), intentional infractions are more=20 >severely penalized than clumsiness. Only BasketBall is an exception,=20 >because of the need of smoothness in the game. >At Bridge, it is specifically stated that one of the worst things you could= >=20 >do is to deliberately infringe some law. That's why some of us are so=20 >adamant about looking for a solution to dilemmas (dilemmata ?) that arise=20 >when, whatever you do, you infringe a law ... and you know perfectly well=20 >that you do. >Best regards, > Alain. From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Thu Nov 28 15:20:28 2002 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Thu, 28 Nov 2002 15:20:28 -0000 Subject: [blml] decision on UI - LA References: <20021127202612.38F35E716@www.fastmail.fm> Message-ID: <004b01c296f1$b2d84d80$b19468d5@default> [David Kent] Here is a case which was submitted to me, from the Belgian competition. Teams, (South dealer, vulnerability not mentioned) all four players reasonably competent, E/W quite experienced. West: KQJxx Kxx AKxxx void 1C X 2Na ...p 3C X p ...3H p 2N : weak club raise East's pass : normal skip-bid tempo 3H : long tempo Questions : Is West allowed to bid one again (eg 3S) ? Is pass a LA ? [Nigel Guthrie] IMO 3S=10 4H=8 4C=6 P=5 Hence IMO... 1. West is allowed to bid on but may well be ruled against because... 2. Pass is a reasonable alternative made less reasonable by East's naive hesitation. 3. (: A sophisticated East would achieve the same effect with little chance of redress by a long-winded enquiry about North's 2N bid :) 4. (3) is yet another problematic area of the law where my proposed ?simplistic? solutions have been laughed out of court by BLMLists From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Thu Nov 28 16:43:59 2002 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Thu, 28 Nov 2002 16:43:59 -0000 Subject: [blml] PPs on TDs References: <4A256C7E.007A547B.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> Message-ID: <00c001c296fd$647cfbc0$b19468d5@default> [Richard Hills] LHO AKT QT8752 Q Q32 Me Pard Q86 975432 AKJ9 6 A53 K9 T96 KJ84 RHO J 43 JT87642 A75 LHO Pard RHO Me Pass 3D 3H(1) Double Pass Pass 3NT Double 4S Pass Pass Double Pass Pass Pass (1) Plan B, showing solidarity with RHO In its interpretation of Law 15C, the WBF LC has ruled that making a call with no demonstrable bridge reason is yet another infraction of Law 74A2. My 3H call had no demonstrable bridge reason, since my LHO had already proved (with footnotes) that overcalling on a four card suit was illegal, immoral, and fattening. Furthermore, my call of 3H was a *serious* infraction, since the logical alternative of Double would have reached a contract of 3S +140 instead of 4Sx -100, so I had therefore donated matchpoints to the opponents for no demonstrable bridge reason. What *serious* PP should I have assessed against myself for this infraction, considering that this was my second offence on consecutive boards? [Nigel Guthrie] Whatever penalty you imposed on yourself for the second infraction, an AC would probably exonerate you. Your 3H bid seems justified as a preliminary to reaching the cold 3N contract -- an attempt to reassure partner about your heart stop and so minimise the risk of daft competition from that quarter. (Unlucky you sat opposite HH). From svenpran@online.no Thu Nov 28 19:45:19 2002 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu, 28 Nov 2002 20:45:19 +0100 Subject: [blml] Sacred Fictions References: <5.1.0.14.0.20021128132702.01d4fe50@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <001b01c29716$af74fe70$70d8fea9@WINXP> From: "Alain Gottcheiner" At 11:57 28/11/2002 +0100, Jürgen Rennenkampff wrote: >In practically any game that comes to mind there >is a simple and direct penalty assessed when a rule >is broken, and in many games intentional infractions are >allowed. AG : I find this statement contradictory. Infraction, noun : any action that is disallowed by the rules / laws. I think he has a very good point: For instance in socer: A defender who doesn't stop an opponent's attack with every available means, even if it qualifies for a penalty kick, will in most cases be considered to be lacking his guts. I have seen it claimed that the only relly illegal activity in the soccer field is murder. If a player of Bridge intentionally performs an infraction he will find himself very near expulsion from the event. If a player of soccer intentionally stops an opponent with an irregular action out in the field he reduces a possibly dangerous attack to an ordinary free kick and that is all. Yes, there is a difference. Sven From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Thu Nov 28 20:00:25 2002 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Thu, 28 Nov 2002 20:00:25 -0000 Subject: [blml] Law reform References: Message-ID: <00ef01c29718$dbe32160$b19468d5@default> IMO, players would enjoy Contract Bridge more if its laws were more simple, clear, objective comprehensive, enforceable, and universal. Assuming, for the sake of argument, that some change may indeed be necessary, how can it be accomplished? Preliminary thoughts... 1. Market research? How do you assess customer opinion? I don't know. Ordinary players like me know that Bridge law-makers and enforcers perform a thankless task well with good humour. Hence we are reluctant to criticise; but few would recognise the complacent BLML attitude as representative of their views. 2. Market Testing. Currently the autonomy of different Bridge Jurisdictions creates an anarchic tower of Babel. The Committee could turn this chaotic self-serving Bedlam to its own ends, by asking different authorites to try out different law proposals: to assess whether and how they may be implememted and enforced; and to guage their popularity. 3. Legal proof reading. IMO, BLML is a ready made think-tank by which the laws committee can run early drafts of proposed of revised legislation. If BLML fail to spot flaws in draft they have less excuse to complain later. The committee are free to accept or to reject advice, so who can object to this cost-nothing exercise? 4. Versions and revisions. With electronic publishing, the committee could prodoce a new web edition at frequent intervals. Interim revisions could be like service packs (cosmetic changes and mends for dangerous holes) --- rather than complete new versions (: with fresh anomolies :) Why Oh Why must we wait until 2005? Why? From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Thu Nov 28 21:54:32 2002 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 29 Nov 2002 07:54:32 +1000 Subject: [blml] UI versus MI - a philosophical approach Message-ID: <4A256C7F.0076D2EC.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> Herman De Wael wrote: [many big snips from many posts on many threads over many years] >So one of us must have a mistaken >understanding of the laws as a whole. Correct. Best wishes Richard From thomas.dehn@arcor.de Thu Nov 28 22:23:21 2002 From: thomas.dehn@arcor.de (Thomas Dehn) Date: Thu, 28 Nov 2002 23:23:21 +0100 Subject: [blml] decision on UI - LA References: <5.1.0.14.0.20021127172146.02480ec0@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <03df01c2972c$f59f2cc0$4e9590d4@rabbit> "Alain Gottcheiner" wrote: > Here is a case which was submitted to me, from the Belgian competition. > > Teams, all four players reasonably competent, E/W quite experienced. > > West's hand (South dealer, vulnerability not mentioned) : > > KQJxx > Kxx > AKxxx > void > > 1C X 2Na ...p > 3C X p ...3H > p > > 2N : weak club raise > East's pass : normal skip-bid tempo > 3H : long tempo > > Questions : is West allowed to bid one again (eg 3S) ? Is pass a LA ? Was there UI? Yes. Did the UI "demonstrably" suggest bidding 3S over passing? This is not easy, because E might reasonably have been thinking about a penalty pass. OTOH, one might argue that the hesitation shows values which makes bidding 3S less risky. Is pass an LA? This is close, too. Certainly some players would consider passing. Thomas From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Fri Nov 29 01:17:56 2002 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 29 Nov 2002 11:17:56 +1000 Subject: [blml] Law reform Message-ID: <4A256C80.00059C42.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> Nigel Guthrie wrote: >IMO, players would enjoy Contract Bridge more >if its laws were more simple, Yes. >clear, Yes. >objective, No. Objective Laws are not needed; the nature of the game sometimes requires a subjective assessment by the TD. The only objectivity requires is that TDs make *all* their assessments objectively - that is, in an unbiased manner. Fortunately, the vast majority of TDs *are* unbiased. And an even greater percentage of TDs *will be* unbiased, since effective SOs will terminate the employment of recalcitrant TDs. >comprehensive, No. The principle of subsiduarity means that local rules should be drafted by local SOs. >enforceable, Not only enforcable, but also enforced. The WBF LC should carefully avoid creating a Law (for example, the current Law 25B), which is certain to become a dead-letter Law. An unenforced Law reduces the moral suasion of the Laws as a whole. >and universal. No. As has been noted by Jurgen on another thread, it is ridiculous to universally apply the current Laws to online bridge. >Assuming, for the sake of argument, that some >change may indeed be necessary, how can it >be accomplished? Preliminary thoughts... > >1. Market research? [snip] >2. Market Testing? [snip] No and no. The Wooden Horse entered Troy due to an opinion poll. >3. Legal proof reading? IMO, BLML is a ready made > think-tank by which the laws committee can run > early drafts of proposed of revised legislation. Yes. I am looking forward to nitpicking the first publicly released draft of the 2005 Laws. [snip] Best wishes Richard From richard.hills@immi.gov.au Fri Nov 29 03:47:07 2002 From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au (richard.hills@immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 29 Nov 2002 13:47:07 +1000 Subject: [blml] Law Criteria Message-ID: <4A256C80.00134462.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> >+=+ I am unconvinced that the Definitions is a good >place to index the laws. This has a clumsy feel, and >perhaps we have only to overlook one reference >to start an argument about whether the definition >applies in that case. Definitions is not a place to >start from, but one to go to from the law we are >reading. ~ G ~ +=+ An excellent and valid point. In order to Alert a TD that they should go from the law they are reading, perhaps words that have a specific Chapter One definition should be *bolded* wherever such words appear in the main text of the Laws. Best wishes Richard From grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk Fri Nov 29 07:35:23 2002 From: grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk (grandeval) Date: Fri, 29 Nov 2002 07:35:23 -0000 Subject: [blml] Law Criteria References: <4A256C80.00134462.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> Message-ID: <000f01c2977a$029022c0$746a87d9@4nrw70j> Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Friday, November 29, 2002 3:47 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Law Criteria > > > >+=+ I am unconvinced that the Definitions is a good > >place to index the laws. This has a clumsy feel, and > >perhaps we have only to overlook one reference > >to start an argument about whether the definition > >applies in that case. Definitions is not a place to > >start from, but one to go to from the law we are > >reading. ~ G ~ +=+ > > An excellent and valid point. In order to Alert a > TD that they should go from the law they are reading, > perhaps words that have a specific Chapter One > definition should be *bolded* wherever such words > appear in the main text of the Laws. > +=+ Now this is an interesting thought. Noted.+=+ From grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk Fri Nov 29 07:48:40 2002 From: grandeval@vejez.fsnet.co.uk (grandeval) Date: Fri, 29 Nov 2002 07:48:40 -0000 Subject: [blml] Sacred Fictions References: <5.1.0.14.0.20021128132702.01d4fe50@pop.ulb.ac.be> <001b01c29716$af74fe70$70d8fea9@WINXP> Message-ID: <001101c2977b$d3a3e3a0$fa4d87d9@4nrw70j> Grattan Endicott To: "blml" Sent: Thursday, November 28, 2002 7:45 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Sacred Fictions > From: "Alain Gottcheiner" > At 11:57 28/11/2002 +0100, Jürgen Rennenkampff wrote: > > > If a player of soccer intentionally stops an opponent with > an irregular action out in the field he reduces a possibly > dangerous attack to an ordinary free kick and that is all. > +=+ Repeated fouls lead to yellow cards; two yellows make a red. I think maybe the requirement to have consideration for opponents needs to be pointed up. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From hermandw@skynet.be Fri Nov 29 08:36:21 2002 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 29 Nov 2002 09:36:21 +0100 Subject: [blml] Let me try again Message-ID: <3DE72705.3070902@skynet.be> To show you why I am not as crazy as some of you are still convinced I am. Let me start with David Burn's example: North bids 4NT, intended as "minors". South explains this as Blackwood. Now North has two options: 1) He could utter a deep sigh, point to his forehead and murmur "a**e". 2) Or he could remain silent. The first option contains UI to partner, but corrects the MI to opponents. The second option leaves the MI to opponents, and avoids UI to partner. Please realize that the Laws in their whole, do not indicate which of these options the player must take (I'm ignoring L75D2 for the moment). And indeed both options are available (if north also ignores L75D2). It is my belief that the second options is the better one, for North/South. A misexplanation usually also entails a misunderstanding, and this will lead to a bad score. Unless South wakes up. But the only way North can see South waking up is by not saying anything, because if there is UI, any waking up that South does will be judged to be a consequence of this UI and be discounted. But the Lawmakers also gave their opinion, and they wrote L75D2, and settled the dilemma: North must employ option 2. Let us, before going on, analyze what pieces of information are contained in North's (illegal) actions if he selects option one: A) partner, you are an a**e (UI) B) opponents, 4NT was intended as for minors (correction of MI) Now let's go on. North says and does nothing, South bids 5Di, and Wests asks North what this means. Again North has two options: 1) He could answer "preference for diamonds over clubs". 2) He could answer "1 ace". The first is UI to partner, the second is MI to opponents. According to some of you, 1) is not forbidden while 2) is. I don't believe either of these: 1) is forbidden by L75D2, while 2) is not forbidden by L75C. I am convinced of that first, and not very clear upon the second, and I have in the past agreed that 2) is also "illegal". But I will argue to the death with those who say that 1) is not forbidden. L75D2 is adamant: "in any manner". This is a manner. So any and all of you who maintain that there is no dilemma can pack up and leave. David Stevensons' birthday is next week and he's all alone in Liverpool. So all in all, North still has a choice. Now I would be willing to admit that giving MI is not advisable, and that it should be possible to break L75D2 in order to do some greater good. But I'd like you to tell me what this greater good is. The information content of North's reply of "preference for diamonds over clubs" is this: A) partner, you are an a**e (UI) B) opponents, 4NT was intended as for minors (correction of MI) C) partner prefers diamonds over clubs. A) is UI and North is well advised not to give this B) is indeed a correction of MI, but apart from it being already too late, maybe, north is forbidden to say this C) is wrong. South does not have diamonds, he has 1 ace. In my opinion saying "preference for diamonds" is actually MI of sorts. After all, it is incomplete. North should add something like "unless partner thinks 4NT was asking for aces, in which case he is showing 1 ace". Then the full information would be : A) partner, you are an a**e (UI) B) opponents, 4NT was intended as for minors (correction of MI) C1) systemically, partner prefers diamonds over clubs. C2) actually, partner is showing one ace. Compare this with the second option, which has the following content: C2) 1 ace. The difference between the two is now even less important: - there is no UI, certainly not a bad thing; - there is still MI about the bidding, sadly but unavoidable and explicitely foreseen by the Laws - there is MI as to the systemic meaning of one extra round of bidding, but what is that worth to opponents? So why oh why should a player in North's position select option one? - not because the laws say so - we've covered that already - not because it helps the opponents - he's under no obligation to do that, any more than if they don't ask - certainly not because it is to his benefit I really don't see why you're not all converts to the dWS, really I don't. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From svenpran@online.no Fri Nov 29 08:45:46 2002 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Fri, 29 Nov 2002 09:45:46 +0100 Subject: [blml] Let me try again References: <3DE72705.3070902@skynet.be> Message-ID: <001101c29783$b6120760$70d8fea9@WINXP> From: "Herman De Wael" ......... (long snip) > I really don't see why you're not all converts to the dWS, really I don't. Well, I (for one) do - I really do Sven From A.Kooijman@dwk.agro.nl Fri Nov 29 08:47:03 2002 From: A.Kooijman@dwk.agro.nl (Kooijman, A.) Date: Fri, 29 Nov 2002 09:47:03 +0100 Subject: [blml] Let me try again Message-ID: > > To show you why I am not as crazy as some of you are still > convinced I am. > Please realize that the Laws in their whole, do not indicate which of > these options the player must take (I'm ignoring L75D2 for > the moment). This doesn't help you that much, I don't understand what you are saying. 'The laws as a whole do not indicate what to do with a revoke (I am ignoring L 61 - 64 for the moment)'. Do you understand my problem? So I stopped reading here. ton From s.f.kuipers@ngi.nl Fri Nov 29 09:26:44 2002 From: s.f.kuipers@ngi.nl (Simon Kuipers) Date: Fri, 29 Nov 2002 10:26:44 +0100 Subject: [blml] Let me try again In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <4.3.2.20021129101820.00aab780@pop3.tiscali.nl> At 09:47 29-11-2002, Kooijman, A. wrote: >> Please realize that the Laws in their whole, do not indicate which of >> these options the player must take (I'm ignoring L75D2 for >> the moment). > >This doesn't help you that much, I don't understand what you are saying. > >'The laws as a whole do not indicate what to do with a revoke (I am ignoring >L 61 - 64 for the moment)'. Do you understand my problem? > >So I stopped reading here. You shouldn't, Ton. Herman is setting up an argumentation, and * for the moment* he leaves out L75D2. If you would have read on, you would have discovered that according to Herman applying L75D2 only strengthens his argument. It now seems you have chosen an easy escape route to avoid discussion. I hope I am wrong about this. Simon From agot@ulb.ac.be Fri Nov 29 11:21:41 2002 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Fri, 29 Nov 2002 12:21:41 +0100 Subject: [blml] Sacred Fictions In-Reply-To: <001b01c29716$af74fe70$70d8fea9@WINXP> References: <5.1.0.14.0.20021128132702.01d4fe50@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20021129122048.01d30ac0@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 20:45 28/11/2002 +0100, Sven Pran wrote: >From: "Alain Gottcheiner" > >I have seen it claimed that the only relly illegal activity in the soccer >field is murder. > >If a player of Bridge intentionally performs an infraction he will >find himself very near expulsion from the event. > >If a player of soccer intentionally stops an opponent with an irregular >action out in the field he reduces a possibly dangerous attack to >an ordinary free kick and that is all. AG : the Laws say he should be expulsed. The fact that it is not applied does not make it a valuable example for bridge. From svenpran@online.no Fri Nov 29 11:35:41 2002 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Fri, 29 Nov 2002 12:35:41 +0100 Subject: [blml] Sacred Fictions References: <5.1.0.14.0.20021128132702.01d4fe50@pop.ulb.ac.be> <5.1.0.14.0.20021129122048.01d30ac0@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <007601c2979b$731d99c0$70d8fea9@WINXP> From: "Alain Gottcheiner" To: "Sven Pran" ; "blml" Sent: Friday, November 29, 2002 12:21 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Sacred Fictions > At 20:45 28/11/2002 +0100, Sven Pran wrote: > >From: "Alain Gottcheiner" > > > >I have seen it claimed that the only relly illegal activity in the soccer > >field is murder. > > > >If a player of Bridge intentionally performs an infraction he will > >find himself very near expulsion from the event. > > > >If a player of soccer intentionally stops an opponent with an irregular > >action out in the field he reduces a possibly dangerous attack to > >an ordinary free kick and that is all. > > AG : the Laws say he should be expulsed. The fact that it is not applied > does not make it a valuable example for bridge. AFAIK the laws of soccer say that unless the illegal tackle involves danger to opponent the "penalty" is a free kick and nothing more. If danger is apparent (risk of breaking a leg etc.) then a yellow card should be added. But only on repeated such dangerous infractions of the laws (of soccer) do you face expulsion. I prefer bridge where intentional infractions are completely unacceptable. (Is this an indication of a game for gentlemen as opposed to a game for the common masses? In the environments I know the "common masses" behave like gentlemen when they play bridge) Sven From agot@ulb.ac.be Fri Nov 29 13:02:23 2002 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Fri, 29 Nov 2002 14:02:23 +0100 Subject: [blml] Sacred Fictions In-Reply-To: <007601c2979b$731d99c0$70d8fea9@WINXP> References: <5.1.0.14.0.20021128132702.01d4fe50@pop.ulb.ac.be> <5.1.0.14.0.20021129122048.01d30ac0@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20021129135338.01d544f0@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 12:35 29/11/2002 +0100, Sven Pran wrote: >From: "Alain Gottcheiner" >To: "Sven Pran" ; "blml" >Sent: Friday, November 29, 2002 12:21 PM >Subject: Re: [blml] Sacred Fictions > > > > At 20:45 28/11/2002 +0100, Sven Pran wrote: > > >From: "Alain Gottcheiner" > > > > > >I have seen it claimed that the only relly illegal activity in the= soccer > > >field is murder. > > > > > >If a player of Bridge intentionally performs an infraction he will > > >find himself very near expulsion from the event. > > > > > >If a player of soccer intentionally stops an opponent with an irregular > > >action out in the field he reduces a possibly dangerous attack to > > >an ordinary free kick and that is all. > > > > AG : the Laws say he should be expulsed. The fact that it is not applied > > does not make it a valuable example for bridge. > >AFAIK the laws of soccer say that unless the illegal tackle involves >danger to opponent the "penalty" is a free kick and nothing more. > >If danger is apparent (risk of breaking a leg etc.) then a yellow card >should be added. But only on repeated such dangerous infractions >of the laws (of soccer) do you face expulsion. AG : unless I'm badly wrong, at the recent World Cup, the Referees have=20 been instructed to issue a red card for anyone tackling from behind and/or= =20 belatedly. As I said, it wasn't applied uniformly, but that isn't the Lawmakers and=20 Interpretation Committees' fault. Only the pusillanimity (and interests ?)= =20 of several Referees is to be invoked. >I prefer bridge where intentional infractions are completely unacceptable. AG : as I said in a previous post (to J=FCrgen, IIRC), the sentence=20 "infractions are inacceptable" is somewhat pleonastic. An infraction is, by= =20 definition, what won't be accepted from any player. There only remains to say what penalty is to be paid for infracting, but=20 the mere fact that a penalty exist means we won't accept the act causing it. Most infractions to the Highway Code are intentional. In theory, any one=20 could be penalized. This does not mean that the culprit will be forever=20 expelled from the roads. You might add 'alas', but it is a fact that some=20 infractions go unnoticed, others noticed but not penalilzed, and that=20 penalties, when assessed, vary from infraction to infraction. ... ? Could it be the solution, to assess *monetary* penalties to bridge=20 infringements ? >(Is this an indication of a game for gentlemen as opposed to a game for >the common masses? In the environments I know the "common masses" >behave like gentlemen when they play bridge) AG : agreed ; but gentlemen don't. Best regards, Alain. From A.Kooijman@dwk.agro.nl Fri Nov 29 13:25:00 2002 From: A.Kooijman@dwk.agro.nl (Kooijman, A.) Date: Fri, 29 Nov 2002 14:25:00 +0100 Subject: [blml] Let me try again Message-ID: > > At 09:47 29-11-2002, Kooijman, A. wrote: > > >> Please realize that the Laws in their whole, do not > indicate which of > >> these options the player must take (I'm ignoring L75D2 for > >> the moment). > > > >This doesn't help you that much, I don't understand what > you are saying. > > > >'The laws as a whole do not indicate what to do with a > revoke (I am ignoring > >L 61 - 64 for the moment)'. Do you understand my problem? > > > >So I stopped reading here. > > You shouldn't, Ton. Herman is setting up an argumentation, > and * for the > moment* he leaves out L75D2. If you would have read on, you > would have > discovered that according to Herman applying L75D2 only > strengthens his > argument. > > It now seems you have chosen an easy escape route to avoid > discussion. I > hope I am wrong about this. Stupid me, I started reading it and after a while had to discover that Herman still wants to convince me that the present laws do not demand explaining the agreement when it causes UI after partner has misexplained my call. Well, he can't. And please don't start with suggesting that I am trying to avoid discussions choosing for an easy escape. My performance on blml makes that a ridiculous remark. ton > > Simon From agot@ulb.ac.be Fri Nov 29 14:11:13 2002 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Fri, 29 Nov 2002 15:11:13 +0100 Subject: [blml] Let me try again In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20021129150209.01d57ec0@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 14:25 29/11/2002 +0100, Kooijman, A. wrote: > > > > At 09:47 29-11-2002, Kooijman, A. wrote: > > > > >> Please realize that the Laws in their whole, do not > > indicate which of > > >> these options the player must take (I'm ignoring L75D2 for > > >> the moment). > > > > > >This doesn't help you that much, I don't understand what > > you are saying. > > > > > >'The laws as a whole do not indicate what to do with a > > revoke (I am ignoring > > >L 61 - 64 for the moment)'. Do you understand my problem? > > > > > >So I stopped reading here. > > > > You shouldn't, Ton. Herman is setting up an argumentation, > > and * for the > > moment* he leaves out L75D2. If you would have read on, you > > would have > > discovered that according to Herman applying L75D2 only > > strengthens his > > argument. > > > > It now seems you have chosen an easy escape route to avoid > > discussion. I > > hope I am wrong about this. > >Stupid me, I started reading it and after a while had to discover that >Herman still wants to convince me that the present laws do not demand >explaining the agreement when it causes UI after partner has misexplained my >call. Well, he can't. AG : I'm frightfully sorry, Ton. You didn't understand. Herman's thesis is *not* that the Laws allow him to not explain the agreement. It is that, in their present state, they ask you *both* : (i) to explain his agreements fully to the opponents (which means explaining the proper meaning of the bids) (ii) to avoid explaining to partner that something went wrong in the bidding exchange (which disallows explaining the proper meaning of the bids) They are thus self-contradictory and leave you badly placed whichever line of conduct you choose. (this part should be obvious ; now for the debatable part) ... and that, things being as they are, it will often be better to contravene (i) rather than (ii), for several reasons of which the most important is that contravening (i) will only occasionally create penalties, while contravening to (ii) will always make you badly placed. Several contributors have argued that (i) must supersede (ii) in an order or moral or reglementary preceedence, but IMOBO there is no reason to assert this. Best regards, Alain. From s.f.kuipers@ngi.nl Fri Nov 29 14:05:33 2002 From: s.f.kuipers@ngi.nl (Simon Kuipers) Date: Fri, 29 Nov 2002 15:05:33 +0100 Subject: [blml] Let me try again In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <4.3.2.20021129145304.0964a100@pop3.tiscali.nl> At 14:25 29-11-2002, Kooijman, A. wrote: >> >This doesn't help you that much, I don't understand what >> you are saying. >> > >> > >> >So I stopped reading here. >> >And please don't start with suggesting that I am trying to avoid discussions >choosing for an easy escape. My performance on blml makes that a ridiculous >remark. Well, at least when you annnounce in public you stopped reading half way you give the impression you did. Why else sending a reply? >Stupid me, I started reading it and after a while had to discover that >Herman still wants to convince me that the present laws do not demand >explaining the agreement when it causes UI after partner has misexplained my >call. Well, he can't. Maybe because you don't read his postings. Please tell us where Herman went wrong in his analysis. Simon From ehaa@starpower.net Fri Nov 29 14:11:56 2002 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Fri, 29 Nov 2002 09:11:56 -0500 Subject: [blml] Let me try again In-Reply-To: <3DE72705.3070902@skynet.be> Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.0.20021129085416.00a08890@pop.starpower.net> At 03:36 AM 11/29/02, Herman wrote: >To show you why I am not as crazy as some of you are still convinced I am. > >Let me start with David Burn's example: > >North bids 4NT, intended as "minors". > >South explains this as Blackwood. > >Now North has two options: > >1) He could utter a deep sigh, point to his forehead and murmur "a**e". >2) Or he could remain silent. > >The first option contains UI to partner, but corrects the MI to opponents. >The second option leaves the MI to opponents, and avoids UI to partner. > >Please realize that the Laws in their whole, do not indicate which of >these options the player must take (I'm ignoring L75D2 for the moment). > >And indeed both options are available (if north also ignores L75D2). > >It is my belief that the second options is the better one, for >North/South. A misexplanation usually also entails a misunderstanding, >and this will lead to a bad score. Unless South wakes up. But the only >way North can see South waking up is by not saying anything, because >if there is UI, any waking up that South does will be judged to be a >consequence of this UI and be discounted. > >But the Lawmakers also gave their opinion, and they wrote L75D2, and >settled the dilemma: North must employ option 2. > >Let us, before going on, analyze what pieces of information are >contained in North's (illegal) actions if he selects option one: > >A) partner, you are an a**e (UI) >B) opponents, 4NT was intended as for minors (correction of MI) > >Now let's go on. > >North says and does nothing, South bids 5Di, and Wests asks North what >this means. > >Again North has two options: > >1) He could answer "preference for diamonds over clubs". >2) He could answer "1 ace". > >The first is UI to partner, the second is MI to opponents. >According to some of you, 1) is not forbidden while 2) is. I don't >believe either of these: 1) is forbidden by L75D2, while 2) is not >forbidden by L75C. >I am convinced of that first, and not very clear upon the second, and >I have in the past agreed that 2) is also "illegal". >But I will argue to the death with those who say that 1) is not >forbidden. L75D2 is adamant: "in any manner". This is a manner. >So any and all of you who maintain that there is no dilemma can pack >up and leave. David Stevensons' birthday is next week and he's all >alone in Liverpool. > >So all in all, North still has a choice. > >Now I would be willing to admit that giving MI is not advisable, and >that it should be possible to break L75D2 in order to do some greater >good. But I'd like you to tell me what this greater good is. > >The information content of North's reply of "preference for diamonds >over clubs" is this: > >A) partner, you are an a**e (UI) >B) opponents, 4NT was intended as for minors (correction of MI) >C) partner prefers diamonds over clubs. > >A) is UI and North is well advised not to give this >B) is indeed a correction of MI, but apart from it being already too >late, maybe, north is forbidden to say this >C) is wrong. South does not have diamonds, he has 1 ace. > >In my opinion saying "preference for diamonds" is actually MI of >sorts. After all, it is incomplete. North should add something like >"unless partner thinks 4NT was asking for aces, in which case he is >showing 1 ace". > >Then the full information would be : > >A) partner, you are an a**e (UI) >B) opponents, 4NT was intended as for minors (correction of MI) >C1) systemically, partner prefers diamonds over clubs. >C2) actually, partner is showing one ace. > >Compare this with the second option, which has the following content: > >C2) 1 ace. > >The difference between the two is now even less important: >- there is no UI, certainly not a bad thing; >- there is still MI about the bidding, sadly but unavoidable and >explicitely foreseen by the Laws >- there is MI as to the systemic meaning of one extra round of >bidding, but what is that worth to opponents? > >So why oh why should a player in North's position select option one? > >- not because the laws say so - we've covered that already >- not because it helps the opponents - he's under no obligation to do >that, any more than if they don't ask >- certainly not because it is to his benefit > >I really don't see why you're not all converts to the dWS, really I don't. Herman makes a very strong case here, but it is somewhat obfuscated by the verbosity of his argument. Let me see if I can simplify it: North bids 4NT, intended as minors. East inquires. South replies that 4NT is Blackwood. At this point, North could: (a) Say, "No it's not; it is for minors," correcting the MI, but giving UI to South. (b) Remain silent, giving no UI, but allowing the MI to stand uncorrected. The consensually accepted interpretation of L75 requires that he do (b). Now East passes, and South bids 5D. West inquires. North could: (a) Say, "Preference for diamonds over clubs," correcting the MI, but giving UI to South. (b) Say, "One ace," giving no UI, but allowing the MI to stand uncorrected. The consensually accepted interpretation of L75 requires that he do (a). Enough said. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 From svenpran@online.no Fri Nov 29 14:29:19 2002 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Fri, 29 Nov 2002 15:29:19 +0100 Subject: [blml] Let me try again References: <5.1.0.14.0.20021129150209.01d57ec0@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <00c201c297b3$b4418c50$70d8fea9@WINXP> From: "Alain Gottcheiner" .......... > It is that, in their present state, they ask you *both* : > > (i) to explain his agreements fully to the opponents (which means > explaining the proper meaning of the bids) > (ii) to avoid explaining to partner that something went wrong in the > bidding exchange (which disallows explaining the proper meaning of the bids) > > They are thus self-contradictory and leave you badly placed whichever line > of conduct you choose. > > (this part should be obvious ; now for the debatable part) And so far I too fully agree > ... and that, things being as they are, it will often be better to > contravene (i) rather than (ii), for several reasons of which the most > important is that contravening (i) will only occasionally create penalties, > while contravening to (ii) will always make you badly placed. But here my objection goes on this: If NOS afterwards cannot show damage there is no cause for redress whatever happened. (This applies to all cases of MI.) If NOS can claim damage because of the (first) MI they will always have a case for redress if this MI was not corrected in time for them to avoid such damage. And quite separatly from these issues: If OS was "helped" by a violation of Law75D2 to avoid a bad result then they shall have their result adjusted to the result they might have had from the damaging (to them) contract they could have ended in had Law 75D2 not been violated. So I still cannot imagine any case where a violation of Law 75C in order to comply with Law 75D2 can help OS from avoiding the damage to NOS otherwise caused by the first MI. Simple as that. Sven From agot@ulb.ac.be Fri Nov 29 15:29:43 2002 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Fri, 29 Nov 2002 16:29:43 +0100 Subject: [blml] Let me try again In-Reply-To: <00c201c297b3$b4418c50$70d8fea9@WINXP> References: <5.1.0.14.0.20021129150209.01d57ec0@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20021129160200.01d5ea40@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 15:29 29/11/2002 +0100, Sven Pran wrote: >If NOS afterwards cannot show damage there is no cause for >redress whatever happened. (This applies to all cases of MI.) > >If NOS can claim damage because of the (first) MI they will >always have a case for redress if this MI was not corrected in >time for them to avoid such damage. > >And quite separatly from these issues: > >If OS was "helped" by a violation of Law75D2 to avoid a bad >result then they shall have their result adjusted to the result they >might have had from the damaging (to them) contract they could >have ended in had Law 75D2 not been violated. > >So I still cannot imagine any case where a violation of Law 75C >in order to comply with Law 75D2 can help OS from avoiding >the damage to NOS otherwise caused by the first MI. AG : man bites dog. I fully agree. I simply pretend (along with Herman) that : - in a substantial part of the cases, the first MI will not have caused any damage - when this happens, the added MI will usually not create any, either - but transmitting UI will very often create new damage and all sortr of problems to both pairs This is based on my experience of playing intricate systems. One old example comes to my mind : Ax KQxx AKQxxx xx x J10xxx AJxx Qx 1C(1) 1H(2) 1NT(3) 2D(4) 3H(5) 3S(6) 3N(7) 4H(8) (1) strong (2) 7-9 HCP (3) GF relay (4) 4+ diamonds, denies 4+ clubs, may have a longer major (5) strong suit ; described, however, as shortness cum diamond support (2NT would have shown that) (6) facing the genuine 3H bid : cue, agrees hearts ; facing heart shortness : positive response, unrelated to spades, nothing wasted, no Ace. I didn't know at that time (ca 1992) about dWS, but I felt it would be natural to explain what partner's bis meant in his version. (7) after showing strong suit and hearing about spades : to play in partner's version : asking for a cue-bid in either minor (8) in partner's version : no control in any minor We thus arrived at a perfectly normal contract, having given twice MI, but without any consequences (opps could hardly think of bidding anything, and it woudn't have helped them to make a lead-directing double). I corrected the explanations before the lead, of course. One overtrick, no swing. Simple as that. Do you think we would have been out of the woods as easily if I had explained partner's bid as cue, *heart agreement* ? Not only would partner have been under several UI constraints, but it's quite possible he wouldn't have realized what they were, and made a bid that would thereafter be questioned. That partner was a man of very high ethical standards, and he found my attitude perfectly right. He didn't know about the wording of the Laws, but it was, oh so logical to try and avoid UI. Any objections ? Best regards, Alain. From hermandw@skynet.be Fri Nov 29 15:24:06 2002 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 29 Nov 2002 16:24:06 +0100 Subject: [blml] Let me try again References: <5.1.0.14.0.20021129150209.01d57ec0@pop.ulb.ac.be> <00c201c297b3$b4418c50$70d8fea9@WINXP> Message-ID: <3DE78696.7070409@skynet.be> Indeed Sven, simple as that. Sven Pran wrote: > > But here my objection goes on this: > > If NOS afterwards cannot show damage there is no cause for > redress whatever happened. (This applies to all cases of MI.) > Yes, so? > If NOS can claim damage because of the (first) MI they will > always have a case for redress if this MI was not corrected in > time for them to avoid such damage. > Yes, so? > And quite separatly from these issues: > > If OS was "helped" by a violation of Law75D2 to avoid a bad > result then they shall have their result adjusted to the result they > might have had from the damaging (to them) contract they could > have ended in had Law 75D2 not been violated. > It seems strange to me that OS can be helped by breaking L75D2. After all, breaking L75D2 implies giving UI. That UI is dealt with according to L16. No need to drag in L75D2 for that. > So I still cannot imagine any case where a violation of Law 75C > in order to comply with Law 75D2 can help OS from avoiding > the damage to NOS otherwise caused by the first MI. > > Simple as that. > Exactly. But they don't have to avoid the damage caused by the first MI. That has already been done. And L75D2 is very clear about this - they shall not avoid the damage by this MI "in any manner". So there should be no question about the first MI. All that the OS can do, at the point of the second question, is to avoid MI about the second call. But that is impossible, since it will also be an indication "in any manner" of the first mistake. Sven, let me ask you a different question: Suppose East, after hearing the explanation "blackwood" by South, asks North "really?", do you think North has the right to replay "no, not at all". I think you realize that this is breaking L75D2. Now what is the difference between the question "really?" and the question "what is 5Di?". Not a lot, IMO. Now if there were a way in which North could reply to East "actually, partner misexplained 4NT" without South hearing this, I would be the first to say that this is what should happen. But then we are playing a different kind of bridge, not f2f. In that kind of bridge, I'd let North ask the first question straight away. My point is that the answer to the question "what is 5Di?" contains 2 elements : "actually, 4NT was misexplained" and "systemically, 5Di is preference, but obviously he's showing 1 ace". That first element is forbidden by L75D2. The second element is two-fold, the first part being irrelevant, and the second the answer the dWS would give. Please see that NOS are not damaged by MI about 5Di. They remain damaged about 4NT just as much as if they hadn't asked the second question, and that was how the laws intended it. > Sven > > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From hermandw@skynet.be Fri Nov 29 15:27:55 2002 From: hermandw@skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 29 Nov 2002 16:27:55 +0100 Subject: [blml] Let me try again References: <5.2.0.9.0.20021129085416.00a08890@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <3DE7877B.2030500@skynet.be> Eric Landau wrote: > > > Herman makes a very strong case here, but it is somewhat obfuscated by > the verbosity of his argument. Let me see if I can simplify it: > > North bids 4NT, intended as minors. East inquires. South replies that > 4NT is Blackwood. At this point, North could: > > (a) Say, "No it's not; it is for minors," correcting the MI, but giving > UI to South. > (b) Remain silent, giving no UI, but allowing the MI to stand uncorrected. > > The consensually accepted interpretation of L75 requires that he do (b). > No, not the consensus - the Laws! We have no debate about this because we accept the Laws. > Now East passes, and South bids 5D. West inquires. North could: > > (a) Say, "Preference for diamonds over clubs," correcting the MI, but > giving UI to South. > (b) Say, "One ace," giving no UI, but allowing the MI to stand uncorrected. > > The consensually accepted interpretation of L75 requires that he do (a). > No, not the consensus, the majority. We do have a debate about this because the laws are silent about this. And because a minority feel that the answer to both questions ought to be the same. How else are you going to explain this to the players? > Enough said. > apparently not. > > Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net > 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 > Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml@rtflb.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://users.skynet.be/hermandw/index.html From A.Kooijman@dwk.agro.nl Fri Nov 29 15:43:53 2002 From: A.Kooijman@dwk.agro.nl (Kooijman, A.) Date: Fri, 29 Nov 2002 16:43:53 +0100 Subject: [blml] Let me try again Message-ID: me: > >Stupid me, I started reading it and after a while had to > discover that > >Herman still wants to convince me that the present laws do not demand > >explaining the agreement when it causes UI after partner has > misexplained my > >call. Well, he can't. > > AG : I'm frightfully sorry, Ton. You didn't understand. > Herman's thesis is *not* that the Laws allow him to not > explain the agreement. > It is that, in their present state, they ask you *both* : I still think that I did understand it all very well and that once more everybody is repeating what he said before, even the title this time expresses so. So let me quit. ton From gester@lineone.net Fri Nov 29 16:09:00 2002 From: gester@lineone.net (gester@lineone.net) Date: Fri, 29 Nov 2002 16:09:00 -0000 Subject: [blml] Let me try again References: Message-ID: <002201c297c1$ef8be400$101e2850@pacific> Grattan Endicott To: "blml" Sent: Friday, November 29, 2002 3:43 PM Subject: RE: [blml] Let me try again > > > It is that, in their present state, they ask you *both* : > > > I still think that I did understand it all very well and > that once more everybody is repeating what he said > before, even the title this time expresses so. So let > me quit. > +=+ I agree with the general proposition that Herman is given to bizarre attitudes to the laws. But in the matter of conflict between 75C and 75D2 I think he has identified something of an impediment that should be ironed out eventually. It is not any kind of disaster and I am satisfied the absolute requirement is to give opponents the explanation to which they are entitled at the expense of any communication of extraneous matter - and for the present this is what should happen. Herman should not go on arguing about it any longer; no-one should. Anyone encountering such a situation should ignore Herman's suggestions for the resolution of the problem; he is not remotely any kind of authority. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From larry@charmschool.fsnet.co.uk Fri Nov 29 11:58:21 2002 From: larry@charmschool.fsnet.co.uk (LarryBennett) Date: Fri, 29 Nov 2002 11:58:21 -0000 Subject: [blml] Sacred Fictions References: <5.1.0.14.0.20021128132702.01d4fe50@pop.ulb.ac.be> <5.1.0.14.0.20021129122048.01d30ac0@pop.ulb.ac.be> <007601c2979b$731d99c0$70d8fea9@WINXP> Message-ID: <000001c297c3$4a88ee60$d4ee883e@pc> | > At 20:45 28/11/2002 +0100, Sven Pran wrote: | > >From: "Alain Gottcheiner" | > >If a player of Bridge intentionally performs an infraction he will | > >find himself very near expulsion from the event. | > > | > >If a player of soccer intentionally stops an opponent with an irregular | > >action out in the field he reduces a possibly dangerous attack to | > >an ordinary free kick and that is all. | > | > AG : the Laws say he should be expulsed. The fact that it is not applied | > does not make it a valuable example for bridge. | | AFAIK the laws of soccer say that unless the illegal tackle involves | danger to opponent the "penalty" is a free kick and nothing more. | | If danger is apparent (risk of breaking a leg etc.) then a yellow card | should be added. But only on repeated such dangerous infractions | of the laws (of soccer) do you face expulsion. | | I prefer bridge where intentional infractions are completely unacceptable. | | (Is this an indication of a game for gentlemen as opposed to a game for | the common masses? In the environments I know the "common masses" | behave like gentlemen when they play bridge) Whilst on the subject of other games, I believe, as a foreigner, that in proper football (ie US) the rules say that each player must use all their skill to avoid commiting a foul. It means that any infraction is therefore "deliberate". lnb From jurgenr@t-online.de Fri Nov 29 16:22:37 2002 From: jurgenr@t-online.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?J=FCrgen_Rennenkampff?=) Date: Fri, 29 Nov 2002 17:22:37 +0100 Subject: [blml] Law Criteria Message-ID: >[...] In order to Alert a >TD that they should go from the law they are reading, >perhaps words that have a specific Chapter One >definition should be *bolded* wherever such words >appear in the main text of the Laws. This sounds like a fine idea until you visualize the effect: On average several words per sentence would need to be bolded or italicized. It is good that the problem of indexing has been raised, since this is an aspect of publishing that is easily underestimated, and evidently was underestimated in previous editions of the laws. It is much more difficult to make a good index than people tend to think. A look at computer-generated indexes shows why. An interesting fact, possibly relevant here, is that Russian technical books generally have no index at all; instead they have a much more detailed table of contents than Western European books usually have. In practice this works surprisingly well. Jürgen >Best wishes >Richard From ehaa@starpower.net Fri Nov 29 16:47:09 2002 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Fri, 29 Nov 2002 11:47:09 -0500 Subject: Fwd: Re: [blml] Let me try again Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.0.20021129114520.00a0b620@pop.starpower.net> This was accidentally sent privately to Herman, but was intended for the group. Apologies to Herman for the double post. >At 10:27 AM 11/29/02, Herman wrote: > >>Eric Landau wrote: >> >>>Herman makes a very strong case here, but it is somewhat obfuscated >>>by the verbosity of his argument. Let me see if I can simplify it: >>>North bids 4NT, intended as minors. East inquires. South replies >>>that 4NT is Blackwood. At this point, North could: >>>(a) Say, "No it's not; it is for minors," correcting the MI, but >>>giving UI to South. >>>(b) Remain silent, giving no UI, but allowing the MI to stand >>>uncorrected. >>>The consensually accepted interpretation of L75 requires that he do (b). >>No, not the consensus - the Laws! >> >>We have no debate about this because we accept the Laws. > >...as currently interpreted by the WBFLC (and everyone else). > >>>Now East passes, and South bids 5D. West inquires. North could: >>>(a) Say, "Preference for diamonds over clubs," correcting the MI, >>>but giving UI to South. >>>(b) Say, "One ace," giving no UI, but allowing the MI to stand >>>uncorrected. >>>The consensually accepted interpretation of L75 requires that he do (a). >>No, not the consensus, the majority. > >We may have a mere majority rather than a consensus on BLML, but out >there in the real world I think this passes for a consensus. It >certainly does in North America, where the ACBL has publicly and >unambiguously accepted the WBFLC interpretation. > >>We do have a debate about this because the laws are silent about this. > >There is no debate about what the WBFLC's current interpretation >requires. We do have a debate about whether that interpretation is >sensible, and whether it needs to be clarified, or should be changed. > >>And because a minority feel that the answer to both questions ought >>to be the same. > >It does seem as though they should be. Your arguments have convinced >me that the WBFLC's interpretations as to what L75 requires in the >above situations do appear to be inconsistent. To make them sensible, >they must either be changed to make them consistent, or clarified to >resolve the apparent inconsistency. > >>How else are you going to explain this to the players? > >Right now I can't do much better than, "It may sound silly, but that's >what the laws say." > >>>Enough said. >>apparently not. > >Enough, I think, to point out the inherent inconsistency between what >the law, as currently interpreted, requires in these >circumstances. Not enough, certainly, to tell us what the WBFLC >should do about it. > >I suspect that Herman, in his fervor to advance his viewpoint, has >failed to notice that, in the cited post, I was defending it. > >Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net >1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 >Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 From agot@ulb.ac.be Fri Nov 29 17:01:09 2002 From: agot@ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Fri, 29 Nov 2002 18:01:09 +0100 Subject: [blml] Sacred Fictions In-Reply-To: <000001c297c3$4a88ee60$d4ee883e@pc> References: <5.1.0.14.0.20021128132702.01d4fe50@pop.ulb.ac.be> <5.1.0.14.0.20021129122048.01d30ac0@pop.ulb.ac.be> <007601c2979b$731d99c0$70d8fea9@WINXP> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20021129175630.01d59ec0@pop.ulb.ac.be> At 11:58 29/11/2002 +0000, LarryBennett wrote: >Whilst on the subject of other games, I believe, >as a foreigner, that in proper football (ie US) AG : interesting use of the adjective. In French, "propre" (proper, but also clean) is opposed to "dirty". Let everyone conlude. >the rules say that each player must use all >their skill to avoid commiting a foul. It means >that any infraction is therefore "deliberate". AG : SMOn. This is *very* interesting. It means that, taking Larry's interpretation as granted, US Football deals more severely with a foul committed by somebody more skilled (who should, therefore, have had more tools to avoid it). This could be opposed to several contributors who found inadmissible that TFL allow different decisions for the same action by skilled and unskilled players. Best regards, Alain. From ehaa@starpower.net Fri Nov 29 16:51:29 2002 From: ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Fri, 29 Nov 2002 11:51:29 -0500 Subject: [blml] Sacred Fictions In-Reply-To: <000001c297c3$4a88ee60$d4ee883e@pc> References: <5.1.0.14.0.20021128132702.01d4fe50@pop.ulb.ac.be> <5.1.0.14.0.20021129122048.01d30ac0@pop.ulb.ac.be> <007601c2979b$731d99c0$70d8fea9@WINXP> Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.0.20021129114503.00abecb0@pop.starpower.net> At 06:58 AM 11/29/02, LarryBennett wrote: >Whilst on the subject of other games, I believe, >as a foreigner, that in proper football (ie US) >the rules say that each player must use all >their skill to avoid commiting a foul. It means >that any infraction is therefore "deliberate". In American football, the penalty for pass interference by a defender in the end zone is first and goal on the one yard line for the offense. This is the severest penalty allowed by the laws short of ejecting the offending player from the game. Defensive players are trained and expected to commit blatant, obviously intentional, pass interference in the end zone when doing so is the only way to prevent the receiver from catching the ball for a touchdown. They do this routinely, and are applauded for it by their coaches, teammates and fans. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 From svenpran@online.no Fri Nov 29 17:28:45 2002 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Fri, 29 Nov 2002 18:28:45 +0100 Subject: [blml] Let me try again References: <5.1.0.14.0.20021129150209.01d57ec0@pop.ulb.ac.be> <5.1.0.14.0.20021129160200.01d5ea40@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <000d01c297cc$c57a14b0$70d8fea9@WINXP> From: "Alain Gottcheiner" > At 15:29 29/11/2002 +0100, Sven Pran wrote: > > > >If NOS afterwards cannot show damage there is no cause for > >redress whatever happened. (This applies to all cases of MI.) > > > >If NOS can claim damage because of the (first) MI they will > >always have a case for redress if this MI was not corrected in > >time for them to avoid such damage. > > > >And quite separatly from these issues: > > > >If OS was "helped" by a violation of Law75D2 to avoid a bad > >result then they shall have their result adjusted to the result they > >might have had from the damaging (to them) contract they could > >have ended in had Law 75D2 not been violated. > > > >So I still cannot imagine any case where a violation of Law 75C > >in order to comply with Law 75D2 can help OS from avoiding > >the damage to NOS otherwise caused by the first MI. > > AG : man bites dog. I fully agree. I simply pretend (along with Herman) > that : - in a substantial part of the cases, the first MI will not have caused > any damage - when this happens, the added MI will usually not create > any, either - but transmitting UI will very often create new damage and > all sortr of problems to both pairs > > This is based on my experience of playing intricate systems. Are you mind-reading opponents to make sure they are not damaged by your MI? How can you be sure your "experience" is not from opponents not even being aware they have been fooled, or when they were fooled that they realised it didn't matter because they were not damaged? Mind you - I do not, and never advocated that you should offer them a correction on your own initiative. That would be (and I believe we all agree) a direct violation of Law 75D2 while not complying with any other law in the book. But I cannot accept that any relevant information shall be withheld from them when they ask. As a matter of fact, if anything like that were revealed with me as TD I would probably give OS a substantial PP, whatever excuse they brought forward citing Law 75D2. (But it appears to me that consensus in Norway is so solid, I do not run any risk of finding myself in a situation like that). > > One old example comes to my mind : > > Ax KQxx > AKQxxx xx > x J10xxx > AJxx Qx > > 1C(1) 1H(2) > 1NT(3) 2D(4) > 3H(5) 3S(6) > 3N(7) 4H(8) > > (1) strong > (2) 7-9 HCP > (3) GF relay > (4) 4+ diamonds, denies 4+ clubs, may have a longer major > (5) strong suit ; described, however, as shortness cum diamond support (2NT > would have shown that) > (6) facing the genuine 3H bid : cue, agrees hearts ; facing heart shortness > : positive response, unrelated to spades, nothing wasted, no Ace. > > I didn't know at that time (ca 1992) about dWS, but I felt it would be > natural to explain what partner's bis meant in his version. Now that you know the laws I trust you are familiar with the principle that your explanations shall reflect the agreements, not what you believe partner actually tries to indicate with his call. > > (7) after showing strong suit and hearing about spades : to play > in partner's version : asking for a cue-bid in either minor > (8) in partner's version : no control in any minor > > We thus arrived at a perfectly normal contract, having given twice MI, but > without any consequences (opps could hardly think of bidding anything, and > it woudn't have helped them to make a lead-directing double). I corrected > the explanations before the lead, of course. One overtrick, no swing. > Simple as that. > Do you think we would have been out of the woods as easily if I had > explained partner's bid as cue, *heart agreement* ? Not only would partner > have been under several UI constraints, but it's quite possible he wouldn't > have realized what they were, and made a bid that would thereafter be > questioned. Did your opponents really ask for an explanation of each and every bid immediately? They ought to know better. I am not much concerned on the fate of a pair that get themselves astray. The fact that you gave opponents MI two times helped you land in the correct contract. I don't see that as any corroboration of your ideas. You say yourself that if opponents had been given the correct information the second time (revealing that the first explanation was wrong) could have put your partner in a spot and you ending up with a disaster. So what? Isn't that evidence that you helped yourselves from a disaster (for which the primary cause would have been that you used a system with which you were not sufficiently familiar) by keeping your opponents in the dark about your real agreements? I agree this apparently didn't cause them any immediate problem, but YOU avoided a problem using illegal means. If you had been stuck with your misunderstandings and an obligation not to take advantage of the "correct" information given to opponents you might very well have landed in a disaster, that would have been your "penalty" for using a system with which you were not completely familiar. In the example above I could very well have adjusted the score back to what you would have made in 3NT if that had made any difference. (On your own comment to call comment (7) above) Or I could rule for any contract where you might land with the two players consistently adhering to their own understandings of the calls and absolutely no awareness of partner's understanding. > > That partner was a man of very high ethical standards, and he found my > attitude perfectly right. He didn't know about the wording of the Laws, but > it was, oh so logical to try and avoid UI. > > Any objections ? Yes. YOU used the UI that your partner had mistaken the situation to avoid going astray. Sven From svenpran@online.no Fri Nov 29 17:49:56 2002 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Fri, 29 Nov 2002 18:49:56 +0100 Subject: [blml] Let me try again References: <5.1.0.14.0.20021129150209.01d57ec0@pop.ulb.ac.be> <00c201c297b3$b4418c50$70d8fea9@WINXP> <3DE78696.7070409@skynet.be> Message-ID: <001301c297cf$bb40dd50$70d8fea9@WINXP> See my comments to Alain in a separate post for an example of what I think you are overlooking. It is as much damaging opponents when you use the UI that partner has mistaken the situation to avoid your side getting completely astray in the auction. Sven ----- Original Message ----- From: "Herman De Wael" To: "blml" Sent: Friday, November 29, 2002 4:24 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Let me try again > Indeed Sven, simple as that. > > Sven Pran wrote: > > > > > But here my objection goes on this: > > > > If NOS afterwards cannot show damage there is no cause for > > redress whatever happened. (This applies to all cases of MI.) > > > > > Yes, so? > > > > If NOS can claim damage because of the (first) MI they will > > always have a case for redress if this MI was not corrected in > > time for them to avoid such damage. > > > > > Yes, so? > > > > And quite separatly from these issues: > > > > If OS was "helped" by a violation of Law75D2 to avoid a bad > > result then they shall have their result adjusted to the result they > > might have had from the damaging (to them) contract they could > > have ended in had Law 75D2 not been violated. > > > > > It seems strange to me that OS can be helped by breaking L75D2. OS cannot be helped by breaking L75D2 on the simple ground that partner may not use that information. But NOS can be protected. > After all, breaking L75D2 implies giving UI. That UI is dealt with > according to L16. No need to drag in L75D2 for that. > > > > So I still cannot imagine any case where a violation of Law 75C > > in order to comply with Law 75D2 can help OS from avoiding > > the damage to NOS otherwise caused by the first MI. > > > > Simple as that. > > > > > Exactly. > But they don't have to avoid the damage caused by the first MI. That > has already been done. Not at all necessary. NOS may have a choice situation in a later round of the auction when the MI becomes essential. Several other questions may have been asked in between. Or the damage may be that the first offender's partner becomes aware that offender in fact has mistaken the agreements. He shall not use that information for any purpose advantageous to his side! But as shown in Alain's example that is also exactly what might happen - and causing damage to NOS. > And L75D2 is very clear about this - they shall > not avoid the damage by this MI "in any manner". > So there should be no question about the first MI. > All that the OS can do, at the point of the second question, is to > avoid MI about the second call. But that is impossible, since it will > also be an indication "in any manner" of the first mistake. > > Sven, let me ask you a different question: > Suppose East, after hearing the explanation "blackwood" by South, asks > North "really?", do you think North has the right to replay "no, not > at all". I think you realize that this is breaking L75D2. No, that is primarily breaking Law 20F1, but if East insisted he should summon the Director and repeat his question > Now what is the difference between the question "really?" and the > question "what is 5Di?". East has not heard any 5D bid. > > Not a lot, IMO. > Now if there were a way in which North could reply to East "actually, > partner misexplained 4NT" without South hearing this, I would be the > first to say that this is what should happen. But then we are playing > a different kind of bridge, not f2f. In that kind of bridge, I'd let > North ask the first question straight away. > > My point is that the answer to the question "what is 5Di?" contains 2 > elements : > "actually, 4NT was misexplained" and > "systemically, 5Di is preference, but obviously he's showing 1 ace". > That first element is forbidden by L75D2. > The second element is two-fold, the first part being irrelevant, and > the second the answer the dWS would give. > > Please see that NOS are not damaged by MI about 5Di. They remain > damaged about 4NT just as much as if they hadn't asked the second > question, and that was how the laws intended it. NOS can in this case be damaged in three essentially different ways: 1: by not being aware of a favourable double because they know that OS is in a disaster contract 2: by missing the opportunity to throw in a call (for whatever reason they might have) in the auction at some place, not necessarily immediately following the misexplained call and possibly most important: 3: by not obtaining a favourable result which they otherwise would have received as a direct consequence of OS during the auction being subject to misunderstandings from which they have no escape except by violating law 75C and "hiding" behind law 75D2. Sven From svenpran@online.no Fri Nov 29 17:55:12 2002 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Fri, 29 Nov 2002 18:55:12 +0100 Subject: [blml] Sacred Fictions References: <5.1.0.14.0.20021128132702.01d4fe50@pop.ulb.ac.be> <5.1.0.14.0.20021129122048.01d30ac0@pop.ulb.ac.be> <007601c2979b$731d99c0$70d8fea9@WINXP> <000001c297c3$4a88ee60$d4ee883e@pc> Message-ID: <001f01c297d0$774d6db0$70d8fea9@WINXP> From: "LarryBennett" ......... > Whilst on the subject of other games, I believe, > as a foreigner, that in proper football (ie US) > the rules say that each player must use all > their skill to avoid commiting a foul. It means > that any infraction is therefore "deliberate". Alas, soccer is different. The rules say it is a foul when you tackle the player rather than the ball, but the only consequence (outside the penalty field) is a free kick. And a defence player who is reluctant to enter a tackle on an oncoming player for fear of violating these rules is very easily considered a coward. Sven From Walt.Flory@fscv.net Fri Nov 29 19:54:36 2002 From: Walt.Flory@fscv.net (Walt.Flory@fscv.net) Date: Fri, 29 Nov 2002 14:54:36 -0500 Subject: [blml] Sacred Fictions In-Reply-To: <5.2.0.9.0.20021129114503.00abecb0@pop.starpower.net> References: <000001c297c3$4a88ee60$d4ee883e@pc> <5.1.0.14.0.20021128132702.01d4fe50@pop.ulb.ac.be> <5.1.0.14.0.20021129122048.01d30ac0@pop.ulb.ac.be> <007601c2979b$731d99c0$70d8fea9@WINXP> Message-ID: <5.1.1.6.0.20021129144919.027a3a20@mail.fscv.net> >At 06:58 AM 11/29/02, LarryBennett wrote: >>Whilst on the subject of other games, I believe, >>as a foreigner, that in proper football (ie US) >>the rules say that each player must use all >>their skill to avoid commiting a foul. It means >>that any infraction is therefore "deliberate". At 11:51 AM 29/11/2002, Eric Landau wrote: >In American football, the penalty for pass interference by a defender in >the end zone is first and goal on the one yard line for the offense. This >is the severest penalty allowed by the laws short of ejecting the >offending player from the game. > >Defensive players are trained and expected to commit blatant, obviously >intentional, pass interference in the end zone when doing so is the only >way to prevent the receiver from catching the ball for a touchdown. They >do this routinely, and are applauded for it by their coaches, teammates >and fans. This, of course, is as it should be. They are playing by the rules and doing their best to win. What we are doing here is attempting to help write rules for bridge which when followed will guide the players to do what we think it is right for them to do. Walt From Schoderb@aol.com Wed Nov 27 12:11:51 2002 From: Schoderb@aol.com (Schoderb@aol.com) Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2002 07:11:51 EST Subject: [blml] Conventional Psych Message-ID: <162.17bc3572.2b161087@aol.com> --part1_162.17bc3572.2b161087_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit That is so exact it makes my head hurt!!!!!! But, I'm sure you'll get a bunch of gobblygook in reply. Kojak --part1_162.17bc3572.2b161087_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit That is so exact it makes my head hurt!!!!!!  But, I'm sure you'll get a bunch of gobblygook in reply.

Kojak --part1_162.17bc3572.2b161087_boundary-- From RCraigH@aol.com Wed Nov 27 16:16:40 2002 From: RCraigH@aol.com (RCraigH@aol.com) Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2002 11:16:40 EST Subject: [blml] alerting in internet bridge -- Criticism of self alerts Message-ID: <126.1b748f31.2b1649e8@aol.com> --part1_126.1b748f31.2b1649e8_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 11/27/02 9:28:43 AM Eastern Standard Time, jurgenr@t-online.de writes: > 1. Self-alerts and explanation by the bidder are perceived as superior > to explanations by bidder's partner. I have never heard the contrary > opinion expressed. > Let me express the contrary, then. I am assuming that the partners each know the system equally well -- or poorly. Self alerts provide less likelihood of being correct than partner's alerts in situations which may lead to misinformation for the following reason: The actual cards in view of the bidder may influence a desire to make a call that is not in compliance with the partnership agreement. For example, an eight card diamond suit may lead to a desire to bid 4 diamonds, while the partnership agreement is that 4 diamonds shows a solid spade suit. On the other hand, the player interpreting partner's call has only memory to influence his interpretation. On this basis, self alerts are more likely to be incorrect. The second basis for criticising self alerts is the situation in which a p layer wishes to depart from the strict definitions of the bid in the partnership's system. One example would be opening a 15 point hand with 1NT, while playing 12-14 (on the basis that announcing the range is similar to self alerting). Another would be opening Flannery, promising a 45XX hand, when deciding to use that convention with a 3541 hand with three spade honors and the correct range. Not a psych, just a deviation. Opponents having heard from the bidder that the bid means one thing are distressed to learn that the bidder has exercised judgment and varied. The opponents are entitled to know the partnership agreement, not the actual cards held by the bidder, whether in internet bridge or face to face. The possibility of asking both partners the meaning of a bid puts the opponents in a better position than the partnership in the midst of a misunderstanding. Limiting the alert system to explanations by the partner of the bidder keeps the playing field equal, and is more like face to face bridge. It is enough disadvantage to the partnership having the misunderstanding that they are having such misunderstanding and there should not be the additional disadvantage of having the opponents certain of it. Part of bridge is being able to detect misunderstandings by the opponents. Craig Hemphill --part1_126.1b748f31.2b1649e8_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 11/27/02 9:28:43 AM Eastern Standard Time, jurgenr@t-online.de writes:

1. Self-alerts and explanation by the bidder are perceived as superior
to explanations by bidder's partner. I have never heard the contrary
opinion expressed.


Let me express the contrary, then.  I am assuming that the partners each know the system equally well -- or poorly.

Self alerts provide less likelihood of being correct than partner's alerts in situations which may lead to misinformation for the following reason: The actual cards in view of the bidder may influence a desire to make a call that is not in compliance with the partnership agreement.  For example, an eight card diamond suit may lead to a desire to bid 4 diamonds, while the partnership agreement is that 4 diamonds shows a solid spade suit.  On the other hand, the player interpreting partner's call has only memory to influence his interpretation.  On this basis, self alerts are more likely to be incorrect.

The second basis for criticising self alerts is the situation in which a player wishes to depart from the strict definitions of the bid in the partnership's system.  One example would be opening a 15 point hand with 1NT, while playing 12-14 (on the basis that announcing the range is similar to self alerting).  Another would be opening Flannery, promising a 45XX hand, when deciding to use that convention with a 3541 hand with three spade honors and the correct range.  Not a psych, just a deviation.  Opponents having heard from the bidder that the bid means one thing are distressed to learn that the bidder has exercised judgment and varied.

The opponents are entitled to know the partnership agreement, not the actual cards held by the bidder, whether in internet bridge or face to face.  The possibility of asking both partners the meaning of a bid puts the opponents in a better position than the partnership in the midst of a misunderstanding.  Limiting the alert system to explanations by the partner of the bidder keeps the playing field equal, and is more like face to face bridge.  It is enough disadvantage to the partnership having the misunderstanding that they are having such misunderstanding and there should not be the additional disadvantage of having the opponents certain of it.  

Part of bridge is being able to detect misunderstandings by the opponents.

Craig Hemphill --part1_126.1b748f31.2b1649e8_boundary-- From RCraigH@aol.com Thu Nov 28 17:21:12 2002 From: RCraigH@aol.com (RCraigH@aol.com) Date: Thu, 28 Nov 2002 12:21:12 EST Subject: [blml] decision on UI - LA Message-ID: <168.17bffe60.2b17aa88@aol.com> --part1_168.17bffe60.2b17aa88_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 11/28/2002 10:19:16 AM Eastern Standard Time, nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com writes: > [David Kent] > Here is a case which was submitted to me, from > the Belgian competition. Teams, (South dealer, > vulnerability not mentioned) all four players > reasonably competent, E/W quite experienced. > West: KQJxx Kxx AKxxx void > 1C X 2Na ...p > 3C X p ...3H > p > 2N : weak club raise > East's pass : normal skip-bid tempo > 3H : long tempo > Questions : > Is West allowed to bid one again (eg 3S) ? > Is pass a LA ? > Logical Alternatives are Pass, 3S, 4D, and 4C. Does the hesitation suggest one over another? Does it suggest NOT PASSING over the others? It is quite possible the hesitation was between passing the double for penalties and bidding at all. Then the question becomes whether the hesitation suggests MORE or possibly LESS playing values for the chosen call. It is possible that 3H is the last makable contract! The Laws prohibit the partner of the hesitator from choosing the logical alternative that is suggested by the hesitation. It is not clear what the hesitation was about, so I would rule that the player may bid. Or has the rule become that, upon a hesitation, the worst result is mandatory? Craig Hemphill --part1_168.17bffe60.2b17aa88_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 11/28/2002 10:19:16 AM Eastern Standard Time, nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com writes:

[David Kent]
Here is a case which was submitted to me, from
the Belgian competition. Teams, (South dealer,
vulnerability not mentioned) all four players
reasonably competent, E/W quite experienced.
West: KQJxx  Kxx  AKxxx  void
1C  X  2Na ...p
3C  X  p   ...3H
p
2N : weak club raise
East's pass : normal skip-bid tempo
3H : long tempo
Questions :
Is West allowed to bid one again (eg 3S) ?
Is pass a LA ?


Logical Alternatives are Pass, 3S, 4D, and 4C.

Does the hesitation suggest one over another?  Does it suggest NOT PASSING over the others?  It is quite possible the hesitation was between passing the double for penalties and bidding at all.  Then the question becomes whether the hesitation suggests MORE or possibly LESS playing values for the chosen call.  It is possible that 3H is the last makable contract!

The Laws prohibit the partner of the hesitator from choosing the logical alternative that is suggested by the hesitation.  It is not clear what the hesitation was about, so I would rule that the player may bid.  Or has the rule become that, upon a hesitation, the worst result is mandatory? 

Craig Hemphill
 --part1_168.17bffe60.2b17aa88_boundary-- From svenpran@online.no Fri Nov 29 21:30:32 2002 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Fri, 29 Nov 2002 22:30:32 +0100 Subject: [blml] decision on UI - LA References: <168.17bffe60.2b17aa88@aol.com> Message-ID: <003e01c297ee$8cacca20$70d8fea9@WINXP> ----- Original Message ----- From: RCraigH@aol.com To: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com ; blml@rtflb.org Sent: Thursday, November 28, 2002 6:21 PM Subject: Re: [blml] decision on UI - LA In a message dated 11/28/2002 10:19:16 AM Eastern Standard Time, nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com writes: [David Kent] Here is a case which was submitted to me, from the Belgian competition. Teams, (South dealer, vulnerability not mentioned) all four players reasonably competent, E/W quite experienced. West: KQJxx Kxx AKxxx void 1C X 2Na ...p 3C X p ...3H p 2N : weak club raise East's pass : normal skip-bid tempo 3H : long tempo Questions : Is West allowed to bid one again (eg 3S) ? Is pass a LA ? Logical Alternatives are Pass, 3S, 4D, and 4C. Does the hesitation suggest one over another? Does it suggest NOT PASSING over the others? It is quite possible the hesitation was between passing the double for penalties and bidding at all. Then the question becomes whether the hesitation suggests MORE or possibly LESS playing values for the chosen call. It is possible that 3H is the last makable contract! The Laws prohibit the partner of the hesitator from choosing the logical alternative that is suggested by the hesitation. It is not clear what the hesitation was about, so I would rule that the player may bid. Or has the rule become that, upon a hesitation, the worst result is mandatory? Craig Hemphill My comment: Your last quotation is inaccurate, it should read: The Laws prohibit the partner of the hesitator from choosing the logical alternative that could be suggested by the hesitation. Notice the difference between "is suggested" and "could be suggested". So when afterwards judging the case the Director does not need to find that the chosen alternative was (indeed) suggested, it is sufficient to find that it could have been suggested by the hesitation. And yes, if he finds such a connection and the chosen alternative was successful then he has to rule that an illegal alternative was chosen. Sven From thomas.dehn@arcor.de Fri Nov 29 23:24:30 2002 From: thomas.dehn@arcor.de (Thomas Dehn) Date: Sat, 30 Nov 2002 00:24:30 +0100 Subject: [blml] Let me try again References: <3DE72705.3070902@skynet.be> Message-ID: <029f01c29800$01527bc0$7c9590d4@rabbit> Let me summarize what Herman wrote: "use screens" ;-) Thomas From thomas.dehn@arcor.de Fri Nov 29 23:57:48 2002 From: thomas.dehn@arcor.de (Thomas Dehn) Date: Sat, 30 Nov 2002 00:57:48 +0100 Subject: [blml] decision on UI - LA References: <168.17bffe60.2b17aa88@aol.com> <003e01c297ee$8cacca20$70d8fea9@WINXP> Message-ID: <032f01c29803$d9f48600$7c9590d4@rabbit> "Sven Pran" wrote: > My comment: > > Your last quotation is inaccurate, it should read: > The Laws prohibit the partner of the hesitator from choosing the logical > alternative that could be suggested by the hesitation. > > Notice the difference between "is suggested" and "could be suggested". You left out the key word: "demonstrably". L16 A. Extraneous Information from Partner After a player makes available to his partner extraneous information that may suggest a call or play, as by means of a remark, a question, a reply to a question, or by unmistakable hesitation, unwonted speed, special emphasis, tone, gesture, movement, mannerism or the like, the partner may not choose from among logical alternative actions one that could demonstrably have been suggested over another by the extraneous information. Thomas From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Sat Nov 30 00:06:21 2002 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Sat, 30 Nov 2002 00:06:21 -0000 Subject: [blml] Let me try again References: <002201c297c1$ef8be400$101e2850@pacific> Message-ID: <005801c29804$534ad720$699468d5@default> [Grattan Endicott] Anyone encountering such a situation should ignore Herman's suggestions for the resolution of the problem; he is not remotely any kind of authority. [Nigel Guthrie] In the absence of internationally accepted case law, surely the *only* proper authority is the words of the law themselves. If Law-makers do not agree with a rank-and-file interpretation of a badly phrased law, they have a simple, easy, and obvious remedy: publish an official agreed clarification. No need to libel anybody. From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Sat Nov 30 02:19:05 2002 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Sat, 30 Nov 2002 02:19:05 -0000 Subject: [blml] Law reform References: <4A256C80.00059C42.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> Message-ID: <00b901c29816$e37fc820$699468d5@default> [Richard Hills] No [to more objectivity]. Objective Laws are not needed; the nature of the game sometimes requires a subjective assessment by the TD. [Nigel] IMO, the laws of the game *determine* the nature of the game and the game would be better if TDs did not have to assess "actual" motive or skill. (IMO, laws which say "could have" are OK) [Richard] No [not comprehensive]. The principle of subsiduarity means that local rules should be drafted by local SOs. [Nigel] I suppose the laws are comprehensive if they forbid what they do not explicitly permit. Is the "Lille interpretation" part of the laws? But anyway that seems a bad way to proceed. An unfortunate consequence, for example, is that you may not look at opponent's CC before the first hand, unless your local SO explicitly permits you to do so. [Richard] No [not universal]. As has been noted by Jurgen on another thread, it is ridiculous to universally apply the current Laws to online bridge. [Nigel] I agree that different forms of Bridge need slightly different laws; but I wish that the same laws applied to the same form of the game universally (i.e. in every part of the universe -- or at least -- of the world). [Richard] No and no [to maket research and market trials] The Wooden Horse entered Troy due to an opinion poll. [Nigel] "Timeo Danaos et dona ferentes" as Virgil said; or was it David Burn? Neigh! As far as laws are concerned, we would all rather have our own way :) but a game will suffer if potential players dislike its rules :) From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Sat Nov 30 06:26:28 2002 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Sat, 30 Nov 2002 06:26:28 -0000 Subject: [blml] Springboard Message-ID: <00fd01c29839$79232760$699468d5@default> Decisions of TDs and ACs usually surprise me but I can't complain as they are sometimes in my favour. How would you rule on this incident from the last set of boards of a match in the EBU Spring Fours, some years ago. My partner picked up the next board and placed it on the table in the wrong orientation. Although he sat West, he had kept the boards beside him and looked after them throughout the match. Nobody had objected to this. We started to take our hands from the board. North cried "Stop, the EW hands are NS." The others all dropped their cards like hot potatoes but I admitted "I glimpsed the top card of my hand." [some small spot card]. "And I had done a hellish thing, And it would work 'em woe: For all averred, I had killed the bird That made the breeze to blow." I asked the TD if, with opponents' agreement, we could play the board in the correct orientation -- with him watching to ensure that my illicit knowledge was unused. He said No. Q1. Should the TD agree to my solution? I asked the TD if, with opponent's agreement, we could play the board with him acting as a substitute for me. He said No. Q2. Should the TD accede to this suggestion? The TD said we could not play the board but he would consult his colleagues about a ruling. At the end of the match, we scored up to win by an imp or two -- pending the ruling on the disputed board. Q3. Should the TD rush through a ruling to ensure that it reaches us before the result of the match is known? The TD fined my partner for misboarding. This reversed the match result. So we lost. Q4. Do you agree with the TD's ruling? I pathetically suggested that the match be called a tie; and the board be redealt for a sudden death playoff (another board if it was still a tie). The TD answered No. Q5. Is my proposal the Judgement of Solomon? We tried to submit an appeal. The chief TD advised that our appeal could not succeed and might not even be heard. I think the reason was "The agreed facts and the law are clearly against you -- it is not a matter of judgement or of interpretation." Q6. Should you be refused leave to appeal if the facts and the law are clearly against you? Q7. Is this such a case? We packed and left for home. A posse of players who had finished their matches corralled us in the Car park and persuaded us to return. They argued that North is responsible for the boards and cannot delegate that responsibility. The Chief TD was doubtful about this but my partner argued that he did not mind forfeiting his deposit and we were eventually allowed leave to appeal. The AC was made up of players from teams still in contention. Arguably, such players may have views on whom they prefer as future opponents. Q8. Should the AC be recruited from teams that have already been eliminated from the main event? The AC interpreted the rules to say that North is indeed responsible for the boards and should have insisted on taking over that function from West. They cancelled the fine on West and instead fined North a few imps, for dereliction of duty, so that we won comfortably. "Nor dim nor red, like God's own head, The glorious Sun uprist: Then all averred, I had killed the bird That brought the fog and mist." Q9. Is the AC's argument correct? Q10. How do you rule? Q11. All this is from memory. If anybody remembers the case, please feel free to point out errors and add anything relevant. ): Anticlimax: we lost our next match :( "He went like one that hath been stunned, And is of sense forlorn: A sadder and a wiser man, He rose the morrow morn." Samuel Taylor Coleridge: The Rime of the Ancient Mariner From cyaxares@lineone.net Fri Nov 29 08:59:20 2002 From: cyaxares@lineone.net (Grattan Endicott) Date: Fri, 29 Nov 2002 08:59:20 -0000 Subject: [blml] Law reform References: <4A256C80.00059C42.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> Message-ID: <000e01c29844$cd53e260$3e51e150@endicott> Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Friday, November 29, 2002 1:17 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Law reform > > > Yes. I am looking forward to nitpicking the first > publicly released draft of the 2005 Laws. > +=+ Noted. :-) You and 223 others. Memo to colleagues: the next Code of Laws, when issued, to be Restricted for access exclusively by the Initiated. Of course, if received with open arms, the professional nitpickers could get themselves enlisted in their NBOs' response teams, and actually contribute to the formation of, rather than wallow in the wake of, new laws. +=+ From thomas.dehn@arcor.de Sat Nov 30 08:32:27 2002 From: thomas.dehn@arcor.de (Thomas Dehn) Date: Sat, 30 Nov 2002 09:32:27 +0100 Subject: [blml] Sacred Fictions References: <5.1.0.14.0.20021128132702.01d4fe50@pop.ulb.ac.be> <001b01c29716$af74fe70$70d8fea9@WINXP> <001101c2977b$d3a3e3a0$fa4d87d9@4nrw70j> Message-ID: <00aa01c2984c$4302f940$d39690d4@rabbit> "grandeval" wrote: > > From: "Alain Gottcheiner" > > At 11:57 28/11/2002 +0100, Jürgen Rennenkampff wrote: > > > > > If a player of soccer intentionally stops an opponent with > > an irregular action out in the field he reduces a possibly > > dangerous attack to an ordinary free kick and that is all. > > > +=+ Repeated fouls lead to yellow cards; two yellows > make a red. I think maybe the requirement to have > consideration for opponents needs to be pointed up. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ Yep, but a player is supposed to bring such a sacrifice if it improves the team's chance for success. Thomas From thomas.dehn@arcor.de Sat Nov 30 08:40:31 2002 From: thomas.dehn@arcor.de (Thomas Dehn) Date: Sat, 30 Nov 2002 09:40:31 +0100 Subject: [blml] Sacred Fictions References: <5.1.0.14.0.20021128132702.01d4fe50@pop.ulb.ac.be> <5.1.0.14.0.20021129122048.01d30ac0@pop.ulb.ac.be> <007601c2979b$731d99c0$70d8fea9@WINXP> <5.1.0.14.0.20021129175630.01d59ec0@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <00ab01c2984c$433e7ba0$d39690d4@rabbit> "Alain Gottcheiner" wrote: > At 11:58 29/11/2002 +0000, LarryBennett wrote: > >the rules say that each player must use all > >their skill to avoid commiting a foul. It means > >that any infraction is therefore "deliberate". > > AG : SMOn. This is *very* interesting. It means that, taking Larry's > interpretation as granted, US Football deals more severely with a foul > committed by somebody more skilled (who should, therefore, have had more > tools to avoid it). US football allows for effective penalties against most infractions, losing 15 yards is quite painful. Non-US football does not have effective team penalties against a foul far from the penalty area, where the foul prevents a goal. OTOH, US Football does a very poor job at protecting player's health, where at non-US football a red card is an effective penalty preventing fouls which might risk the opponent's health. Thomas From thomas.dehn@arcor.de Sat Nov 30 08:40:58 2002 From: thomas.dehn@arcor.de (Thomas Dehn) Date: Sat, 30 Nov 2002 09:40:58 +0100 Subject: [blml] Sacred Fictions References: Message-ID: <00ac01c2984c$43801880$d39690d4@rabbit> "Jürgen Rennenkampff" wrote: > IV. The Lord bestoweth equity, He seeketh not vengeance. > > It is this last, which is in fact an impossibility, > that causes most of the problems. Suppose, for example, > that each instance of misbidding and misinforming were > penalized quite severely - perhaps by 1/2 board - and > once the penalty is paid all UI becomes AI and all MI > is corrected. If you think this through you will find > that it conforms to common usage in most sports and > has, in addition, the positive effect of making it > disadvantageous to use bidding systems that exceed > memory capacity. Thus, if I misinform opponents, and the misinformation causes them a serious loss, I get penalized, but opponents get to keep their bad score? This can't work. Thomas From svenpran@online.no Sat Nov 30 08:54:32 2002 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sat, 30 Nov 2002 09:54:32 +0100 Subject: [blml] Springboard References: <00fd01c29839$79232760$699468d5@default> Message-ID: <001501c2984e$1a0ac660$70d8fea9@WINXP> From: "Nigel Guthrie" > Decisions of TDs and ACs usually surprise me > but I can't complain as they are sometimes > in my favour. How would you rule on this > incident from the last set of boards of a match > in the EBU Spring Fours, some years ago. > > My partner picked up the next board and placed > it on the table in the wrong orientation. > Although he sat West, he had kept the boards > beside him and looked after them throughout the > match. Nobody had objected to this. > > We started to take our hands from the board. > North cried "Stop, the EW hands are NS." > The others all dropped their cards like hot > potatoes but I admitted "I glimpsed the top card > of my hand." [some small spot card]. > > "And I had done a hellish thing, > And it would work 'em woe: > For all averred, I had killed the bird > That made the breeze to blow." > > I asked the TD if, with opponents' agreement, we > could play the board in the correct orientation > -- with him watching to ensure that my illicit > knowledge was unused. He said No. > > Q1. Should the TD agree to my solution? "Should he?" NO - but he had four options from which to select, see Law 16B: He may follow your suggestion (but he does not need opponent's approval for this decision) He may oreder you to play the board as you had taken the hands from the pockets. (And as I understand this is a teams of four: See to it that they rotate the board at the other table as well) He may insert someone to play that board instead of you and he may award an artificial adjusted score. > > I asked the TD if, with opponent's agreement, we > could play the board with him acting as a > substitute for me. He said No. > > Q2. Should the TD accede to this suggestion? Again he is not bound to such a solution and if he decides to insert a substitute this is no business for the opponents. However, TD should refrain from inserting himself, he has other businesses to attend to and should not be tied up at any table for a prolonged time. > > The TD said we could not play the board but he would consult his > colleagues about a ruling. > At the end of the match, we scored up to win > by an imp or two -- pending the ruling on the > disputed board. > > Q3. Should the TD rush through a ruling to > ensure that it reaches us before the result > of the match is known? Once he let you play the board he had made his ruling. > > The TD fined my partner for misboarding. > This reversed the match result. So we lost. > > Q4. Do you agree with the TD's ruling? He certainly had the authority to do so under Law 90. But I think this ruling should be known to both affected teams at the latest when they begin comparing scores from the two tables. (My opinion) > > I pathetically suggested that the match be > called a tie; and the board be redealt for a > sudden death playoff (another board if it was > still a tie). The TD answered No. > > Q5. Is my proposal the Judgement of Solomon? No, > > We tried to submit an appeal. The chief TD > advised that our appeal could not succeed and > might not even be heard. I think the reason > was "The agreed facts and the law are clearly > against you -- it is not a matter of judgement > or of interpretation." > > Q6. Should you be refused leave to appeal if the > facts and the law are clearly against you? The chief TD adviced you, that is his duty. But he cannot refuse you to file an appeal if you want to lose your money with a probability of say 95% > > Q7. Is this such a case? Impossible to tell for sure, but I believe your appeal would be ruled as wasting the time of the AC. > > We packed and left for home. A posse of players > who had finished their matches corralled us in the > Car park and persuaded us to return. They argued > that North is responsible for the boards and > cannot delegate that responsibility. The Chief > TD was doubtful about this but my partner argued > that he did not mind forfeiting his deposit and > we were eventually allowed leave to appeal. "You packed and left for home"!?!?!?!?!? What kind of attitude is that? > > The AC was made up of players from teams still > in contention. Arguably, such players may have > views on whom they prefer as future opponents. > > Q8. Should the AC be recruited from teams that > have already been eliminated from the main > event? If you do not trust the SO and their committees to be neutral in such respects you have nothing to do in their events. > > The AC interpreted the rules to say that North is > indeed responsible for the boards and should have > insisted on taking over that function from West. > They cancelled the fine on West and instead fined > North a few imps, for dereliction of duty, so that > we won comfortably. > > "Nor dim nor red, like God's own head, > The glorious Sun uprist: > Then all averred, I had killed the bird > That brought the fog and mist." > > Q9. Is the AC's argument correct? I assume this occurred before 1997 when Law 7 was modified so that North no longer is explicditly responsible for correct procedures. Now we have a matter of opinion and NO, I do not agree with the AC in cancelling the fine on West. The fine on North could(!) be OK, I would probably have voted against it because if North had insisted that it was his duty to administer the table it would most likely have created disturbance etc. West had "grabbed" this role and caused the irregularity, there was no reason for cancelling his fine. > > Q10. How do you rule? See above > > Q11. All this is from memory. If anybody > remembers the case, please feel free to > point out errors and add anything > relevant. > > ): Anticlimax: we lost our next match :( poetic justice? Sven From Laval_Dubreuil@uqss.uquebec.ca Sat Nov 30 13:08:03 2002 From: Laval_Dubreuil@uqss.uquebec.ca (Laval Dubreuil) Date: Sat, 30 Nov 2002 08:08:03 -0500 Subject: [blml] Law Criteria In-Reply-To: Message-ID: It is good that the problem of indexing has been raised, since this is an aspect of publishing that is easily underestimated, and evidently was underestimated in previous editions of the laws. It is much more difficult to make a good index than people tend to think. A look at computer-generated indexes shows why. An interesting fact, possibly relevant here, is that Russian technical books generally have no index at all; instead they have a much more detailed table of contents than Western European books usually have. In practice this works surprisingly well. _______________________________________________________ Having work as information scientist for many years I fully agree. An index is not an easy task and not necessarily the best tool in a reference book you use every day. Better presentation and subdivision of chapters, repetition of table of contents at the beginning of every chapters, size of pages, etc.. are alternatives. Laval Du Breuil Quebec City From thomas.dehn@arcor.de Sat Nov 30 13:34:22 2002 From: thomas.dehn@arcor.de (Thomas Dehn) Date: Sat, 30 Nov 2002 14:34:22 +0100 Subject: [blml] I don't teach bridge References: <4A256C75.001ED004.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> <005801c28ed2$96ddf480$049a1e18@san.rr.com> Message-ID: <00b401c29877$22688300$799490d4@rabbit> "Marvin L. French" wrote: > Richard Hills wrote: > > >In short, if I have knowledge that comes from general > > >knowledge and experience, sharing that knowledge with a > > >partner does not make it a *special* partnership agreement. > > > > Agreed. Where we differ is in defining exactly what "general > > knowledge and experience" is. I have a more restrictive view > > of *non-special* agreements. > > > > For example, I would rule that agreeing to lead an ace against > > 7NT is a *non-special* agreement. > > > > On the other hand, I would rule that agreeing that a 4H > > overcall of a 1S opening is always weak is a *special* > > agreement. > > How about a 3S overcall of a 1C opening? > Have you ever known anyone to play > this as other than a weak preemptive bid? Yes. And not just "anyone". Of course the example is bad in so far as playing a 3S overcall of a 1C opening as a weak prremptive bid is not a "special" agreement. But, detailed agreements on suit strength and length shown by the 3S overcall ("always a seven card suit with two of the three top honours", "no side ace, no side void", or "5-8 spades, 0-15 HCP") would still be "special". Thomas From thomas.dehn@arcor.de Sat Nov 30 13:47:11 2002 From: thomas.dehn@arcor.de (Thomas Dehn) Date: Sat, 30 Nov 2002 14:47:11 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Influenced opening lead References: <000001c29482$f0189f40$c62a28c4@john> Message-ID: <00b501c29877$22aba680$799490d4@rabbit> "John A. Mac Gregor, Chief TD - CACBF" wrote: > The auction with N/S vulnerable: > N E S W > 1H P > 2C P! 2H P > 3C P 3NT all pass > > West's hand: > s AJ > h Txxx > d Qxx > c xxxx > > Your choice of opening lead? Leading the SA is obvious. 1.) Leading either a H or a C is just plain absurd. 2.) With four small cards in both hearts and clubs, opponents must have tricks to burn. If you lead the SA, and partner discourages, you can still switch to a diamond, hoping that partner has something good in diamonds, plus possibly one stop in one of their suits. If you lead a diamond, and partner has spades, there will be no second chance, your side will get at most three tricks. 3.) Your S holding is better than your D holding. 4.) Qxx is a very bad holding to find a lead which does not mislead partner. Thomas From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Sat Nov 30 19:13:43 2002 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Sat, 30 Nov 2002 19:13:43 -0000 Subject: [blml] Springboard References: <00fd01c29839$79232760$699468d5@default> <001501c2984e$1a0ac660$70d8fea9@WINXP> Message-ID: <005001c298a7$6776e240$1a9968d5@default> [Sven Pran] "You packed and left for home"!?!?!?!?!? What kind of attitude is that? [Nigel] The Spring Foursomes is a double-elimination competition, at an expensive hotel in Stratford. Rather than stay extra days to kibitz, most teams leave after they have been knocked out. [Sven] The chief TD advised you, that is his duty. But he cannot refuse you to file an appeal [Nigel] We all understood the TD to say that he refused us the right to appeal (I think he said because the facts and laws were clearly against us and it wasn't a matter of judgement or interpretation). Much later, after hearing the views of players in other teams, he granted us leave to appeal, but made his view known to the AC. [Sven] If you do not trust the SO and their committees to be neutral in such respects you have nothing to do in their events. [Nigel] I did. I did. I was delighted with the constitution and erudition of the AC. [Sven] I assume this occurred before 1997 when Law 7 was modified so that North no longer is explicitly responsible for correct procedures. [Nigel] I suppose it must have been but I didn't know that the law changed. How should the ruling go today? [Sven] Now we have a matter of opinion and NO, I do not agree with the AC in cancelling the fine on West. [Nigel] Yes, at the time I said both sides were at fault. ): Anticlimax: we lost our next match :( [Sven] Poetic justice? [Nigel] (: Touché :) And thank you for your reasoned & informative view. From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Sat Nov 30 19:32:46 2002 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Sat, 30 Nov 2002 19:32:46 -0000 Subject: [BLML] Influenced opening lead References: <000001c29482$f0189f40$c62a28c4@john> Message-ID: <005101c298a7$68c693c0$1a9968d5@default> [John A MacGregor] The auction with N/S vulnerable: N E S W 1H P 2C P! 2H P 3C P 3NT all pass West's hand: AJ Txxx Qxx xxxx Your choice of opening lead? After 2C by North, East inquires as to whether 2C is game forcing then thinks a while before passing. West chooses to lead the Ace of spades and finds East with KQxxxxx for down three. TD is called and after polling 10 players of which 9 choose a small diamond, rules according to Law 16 and adjusts to 3NT making 7. E/W take this to the AC, who overturns the TD's ruling and restores the table result. [Nigel Guthrie] IMO: The TD was right, the AC wrong. S:A was a LA that might have been suggested by East's Oscar performance. The TD even proved that D:x was an LA. The AC should keep the EW deposit. If experienced players misinterpret even the simpler laws it is no surprise that most are flummoxed by complex and obscure ones. From nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com Sat Nov 30 20:10:29 2002 From: nigel.guthrie@ntlworld.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Sat, 30 Nov 2002 20:10:29 -0000 Subject: [blml] Let me try again References: <002201c297c1$ef8be400$101e2850@pacific> <005801c29804$534ad720$699468d5@default> Message-ID: <006e01c298ad$00485620$1a9968d5@default> {Nigel Guthrie] Before some one corrects me, let *ME* try again... [Grattan Endicott] Anyone encountering such a situation should ignore Herman's suggestions for the resolution of the problem; he is not remotely any kind of authority. [Nigel] Unless there is officially sanctioned case law, surely the main authority is the words of the law themselves. If Law-makers do not agree with a common rank-and-file interpretation of a badly phrased law, they have a simple, easy, and obvious remedy: publish an official agreed clarification. From svenpran@online.no Sat Nov 30 20:18:41 2002 From: svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sat, 30 Nov 2002 21:18:41 +0100 Subject: [blml] Springboard References: <00fd01c29839$79232760$699468d5@default> <001501c2984e$1a0ac660$70d8fea9@WINXP> <005001c298a7$6776e240$1a9968d5@default> Message-ID: <001e01c298ad$acd8aac0$70d8fea9@WINXP> From: "Nigel Guthrie" > [Sven Pran] > "You packed and left for home"!?!?!?!?!? > What kind of attitude is that? > [Nigel] > The Spring Foursomes is a double-elimination > competition, at an expensive hotel in Stratford. > Rather than stay extra days to kibitz, most teams leave after they > have been knocked out. OK - after being knocked out - that's fine. When I read it first I had the impression that you prepared to leave the tournament in anger before being knocked out. Sorry > [Sven] > The chief TD advised you, that is his duty. > But he cannot refuse you to file an appeal > [Nigel] > We all understood the TD to say that he refused > us the right to appeal (I think he said because > the facts and laws were clearly against us and > it wasn't a matter of judgement or interpretation). > Much later, after hearing the views of players in > other teams, he granted us leave to appeal, but > made his view known to the AC. That too is his duty ......... > [Sven] > I assume this occurred before 1997 when Law 7 was > modified so that North no longer is explicitly responsible for > correct procedures. > [Nigel] > I suppose it must have been but I didn't know that > the law changed. How should the ruling go today? Law 7D: Any contestant remaining at a table throughout a session is primarily responsible for maintaining proper conditions of play at the table. In your case this would (IMO) leave all the blame on the side who actually caused the "damage" by first placing the board the wrong way and next by catching a glimpse of cards before the error could be corrected. But the TD would still have the same four possibilities for his ruling as he had before 1997. regards Sven From shrike@surfbest.net Sat Nov 30 22:15:33 2002 From: shrike@surfbest.net (Doug Couchman) Date: Sat, 30 Nov 2002 16:15:33 -0600 Subject: [blml] that which is sacred In-Reply-To: <20021130083902.1701.21002.Mailman@toybox.amsterdamned.org> Message-ID: > From: Walt.Flory@fscv.net > Subject: Re: [blml] Sacred Fictions > >> Defensive players are trained and expected to commit blatant, obviously >> intentional, pass interference in the end zone when doing so is the only >> way to prevent the receiver from catching the ball for a touchdown. They >> do this routinely, and are applauded for it by their coaches, teammates >> and fans. > > > This, of course, is as it should be. They are playing by the rules and > doing their best to win. > > What we are doing here is attempting to help write rules for bridge which > when followed will guide the players to do what we think it is right for > them to do. This needn't be absolute. Certain types of intentional infractions could be "condoned" in that we penalize them equally whether they are committed intentionally or not. Would it really be an ungentlemanly (or unpleasant) game if players were allowed, no, expected to revoke if it appeared to them that that the gain would exceed the statutory penalty (let's posit no L64C for a moment)? We don't require players to call attention to their revokes; is that not equally ungentlemanly? (I once held a hand where the winning defense, which I saw at the time, was to revoke on the first trick, and to continue to revoke -- seven times -- on the run of partner's blocked suit. Would it be a terrible game if we allowed that behavior to occur, subject to a two-trick penalty? I know, it mightn't be a terrible game but it wouldn't be bridge. I'm not sure that's helpful.) I admit that I cannot see a way to permit intentional signalling, or other secret understandings, and retain the character of the game, but maybe I'm not being sufficiently creative. But the other inviolates are perhaps not quite inviolate.