Richard James HILLS | 24 Apr 09:22 2014
Picon

Matilda and Herman versus Richard [SEC=UNOFFICIAL]

UNOFFICIAL
 
Richard (“Explaining agreements” thread):
 
>>.....
>>An extreme example of this situation occurred when as dealer I passed
>>with a balanced 6 hcp. What’s the problem? The problem was that my
>>partner, Hashmat Ali, correctly alerted my Pass. I then realised that we
>>had abandoned our long-standing Strong Club system to experiment with
>>a HUM Strong Pass system. So for the rest of the auction I obeyed Law
>>20F by explaining Hashmat’s calls in accordance with our current Strong
>>Pass system, and I also obeyed Law 75A by me bidding in accordance
>>with our once-and-future Strong Club system.
>>
>>We eventually arrived in 3D in a non-fit, -250. The silver lining was that
>>my obedience to Law 20F meant that neither opponent had the AI
>>available to execute a penalty double. J J
 
Herman (“Explaining agreements” thread):
 
>Exactly, and this is the correct thing to do.
>
>However!
>
>Suppose the TD arrives at the table and asks you to prove that you are
>playing the strong pass rather than the strong club. You are claiming
>misbid, but perhaps the TD will not accept this and wish to rule
>misinformation.
>
>In [my] opinion, your actions are the worst possible ethics dWS-wise. Do
>you really want your ethics to depend on which system the TD is going to
>ascribe to you?
 
Richard:
 
Tell a lie because the Director will not believe the truth?
 
No, no and no!
 
My ethics depend upon me trying to tell the truth to the best of my ability,
++not++ upon what an incompetent American Director will eventually
guess is the truth after she seeks advice from an American lawyer (instead
of her seeking Law 85 evidence).
 
By the way, a very funny panel show (broadcast in Britain and Australia)
is “Would I Lie To You?”
 
Herman De Wael:
 
>What if you honestly have no idea which of the two available
>convention cards is lying near your opponent?
 
Richard Hills:
 
I may forget our partnership’s entire system, but I do not forget to
previously complete two identical System Cards. J J
 
Hilaire Belloc, Cautionary Tales (1907),
Matilda [beginning and end of this cautionary poem]:
 
Matilda told such Dreadful Lies,
It made one Gasp and Stretch one’s Eyes;
Her Aunt, who, from her Earliest Youth,
Had kept a Strict Regard for Truth,
Attempted to Believe Matilda:
The effort very nearly killed her,
 
.....
 
That Night a Fire did break out—
You should have heard Matilda Shout!
You should have heard her Scream and Bawl,
And throw the window up and call
To People passing in the Street—
(The rapidly increasing Heat
Encouraging her to obtain
Their confidence)—but all in vain!
For every time She shouted “Fire!”
They only answered “Little Liar!”
And therefore when her Aunt returned,
Matilda, and the House, were Burned.
UNOFFICIAL
 
 


--------------------------------------------------------------------
Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise
the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email,
including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged
and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination
or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the
intended recipient is prohibited. DIBP respects your privacy and has
obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy
policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See:
http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm


---------------------------------------------------------------------

_______________________________________________
Blml mailing list
Blml <at> rtflb.org
http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml
Richard James HILLS | 22 Apr 02:22 2014
Picon

Re: Three incidents [SEC=UNOFFICIAL]

UNOFFICIAL
 
Law 40C, first sentence:
 
“Following this Clarification Period, the opening lead is faced, the play
period begins irrevocably, and dummy’s hand is spread (but see Law 54A
for a faced opening lead out of turn).”
 
Macquarie Dictionary, two defintions of “but”:
 
conjunction 1.  on the contrary; yet: they all went, but I didn't.
2.  except, rather than, or save: anywhere but here.
 
Richard Hills:
 
It is correct procedure for dummy to spread her cards after a faced opening
lead in turn. Because of the Law 40C word “but”, it is incorrect procedure
(an irregularity / infraction) for dummy to spread her cards after a faced
opening lead out of turn. QED
UNOFFICIAL
 
 


--------------------------------------------------------------------
Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise
the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email,
including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged
and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination
or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the
intended recipient is prohibited. DIBP respects your privacy and has
obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy
policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See:
http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm


---------------------------------------------------------------------

_______________________________________________
Blml mailing list
Blml <at> rtflb.org
http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml
Jeff Easterson | 21 Apr 17:22 2014
Picon

Re: [Doubl] Zögern beim Spiel

Am 21.04.2014 15:28, schrieb Jeff Easterson:
> I disagree!  Wenn ich überzeugt bin dass der Mann ohne Grund gezögert 
> hat, dann:
>
> 1. Ich gebe d. Alleinspieler d. Stich oder zumindest 60%
> 2. Ich bestrafe d. Spieler der gezögert hat.
> 3. Ich rede ernsthaft mit dem Zögerer über unethische Spielweise und, 
> ggf. (unwahrscheinlich normalerweise) behalte ich es mir vor d. Action 
> der Spieler an d. Verband weiter zu berichten
>
> Ciao,  JE
>
> Am 21.04.2014 15:15, schrieb Oskar von dem Hagen:
>> Ein Schaden entsteht doch nur, wenn der Alleinspieler aufgrund des 
>> Zuppelns
>> seinen Plan ändert. Nach 73D tut er das auf eigenes Risiko. Eine 
>> Scorekorrektur
>> scheint mir dieser Regel zu widersprechen.
>>
>> 73F steht allerdings dazu in Widerspruch, denn dort wird der 
>> Alleinspieler bei
>> "eine[m] falschen Rückschluss" aufgrund des Tempowechsels geschützt. Ich
>> verstehe das (inzwischen) als eine Art Kronzeugenregelung: damit das 
>> Vergehen
>> des linken Gegners angezeigt wird, gibt es eine Belohnung (die 
>> eigentlich 73D
>> widerspricht).
>>
>> Unten folgt der Artikel aus dem ACBL Bulletin (March 2074 Bridge 
>> Bulletin
>> p.51).
>>
>> Gruß
>> Oskar
>>
>> "Ruling the Game
>>
>> Q: At a recent sectional, I declared a spade contract with [spades] Q 
>> 10 8 7 5
>> 3 in my hand opposite [spades] A J 9 2 in dummy. After I won the 
>> opening lead
>> in my hand, I played the [spade] Q. After hitching, fumbling, 
>> hesitating and
>> not playing in tempo, my left-hand opponent played low. The queen 
>> lost to the
>> singleton king on my right. I called the director before playing to 
>> the next
>> trick. I explained that I would have gone up with the ace if LHO had 
>> played in
>> tempo. Accordingly, I was awarded the trick. LHO appealed to a 
>> committee who
>> reversed the director. The reason: The percentage play was to 
>> finesse. I played
>> at my own risk. In effect, therefore, my LHO was being told that it's 
>> okay to
>> hitch, hesitate and fumble in obvious finesse situations. "If you can 
>> mislead
>> declarer, go for it!" Is this the way the game should be played?
>>
>> A: Given the facts as stated, I think it is possible that the 
>> director erred in
>> his application of the law and the committee set him correct. Law 73D
>> (Communication: Variations in Tempo or Manner) says, "It is 
>> desirable, though
>> not always required, for players to maintain steady tempo and 
>> unvarying manner.
>> However, players should be particularly careful when variations may 
>> work to the
>> benefit of their side. Otherwise, unintentionally to vary the tempo 
>> or manner
>> in which a call or play is made is not in itself an infraction. 
>> Inferences from
>> such variation may appropriately be drawn only by an opponent and at 
>> his own
>> risk." What causes me the most discomfort about this case is that 
>> neither the
>> director nor the committee addressed the offender's behavior. If it 
>> was really
>> this blatant, the director should assess a procedural penalty. The 
>> committee
>> could also do so. This penalty reduces the score of the offender without
>> increasing or decreasing the score of the non-offending side. The 
>> basis for
>> this action would be Law 90 (Procedural Penalties)."
>>
>>
>> ********** List Info **********
>> Doubl mailing list
>> Doubl <at> imperia.net
>> http://ml.imperia.org/mailman/listinfo/doubl
>> ********************************
>>
>

---
Diese E-Mail ist frei von Viren und Malware, denn der avast! Antivirus Schutz ist aktiv.
http://www.avast.com

_______________________________________________
Blml mailing list
Blml <at> rtflb.org
http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml

Jeff Easterson | 20 Apr 16:00 2014
Picon

for your amusement

I recently went by the local bridge club as they were finishing a 
tournament.  There was great confusion and they seemed unable to score 
the game.  (It is in France and it is all done through computers.)

What had occurred:

There were (originally) 8-1/2 tables (Mitchell) but after the first 
round (or towards the end of the first round) a pair had to withdraw - 
one player was ill.

The director didn't want to play only 21 bds. (8 table Mitchell with a 
table skipped after the 4th round) so he recalled that you could have a 
relay and thus play 24 bds.  Unfortunately he didn't seem to know how to 
do this.  He was playing at NS 1 and took the bds. from table 9 (which 
had been abandoned) to table 8, kept the bds. he had played as a relay 
set and put no relay set between tables 4 and 5, and did not share bds. 
with table 8.  If you are still with me (in this gothic horror) play 
proceded and, of course, starting at the middle of the tournament EW 
pairs started getting bds. they had already played.  (Due to the 
complication of a faulty system this was not at all tables, only a 
few.)  And this happened in the following rounds.  This was not always 
noticed as some EW players played hands for the second time without 
noticing and no one noticed that an EW pair number appeared twice on the 
traveller.  (It didn't always because many NS pairs entered a incorrect 
number for EW (as I later discovered).
Anyway, this was the situation when I entered the club.  In a fit of 
masochism and lunacy I offered to score the tournament.  After all, 
years ago we scored all tournaments per hand.  The computer would not 
accept any results because all of the EW pair numbers did not correspond 
with what was in the system in the computer.

So I started hand-scoring, only to discover that many of the entered EW 
pair numbers were obviously incorrect.  And there were at least 15 (more 
actually) 60% scores. (Not 15 bds, 15 bd. sets).  And I had to check all 
bds. to see who had played a bd. twice without noticing.

Quiz problem (if anyone is still interested)  How long did it take me to 
score the tournament?

Ciao,  JE

---
Diese E-Mail ist frei von Viren und Malware, denn der avast! Antivirus Schutz ist aktiv.
http://www.avast.com

_______________________________________________
Blml mailing list
Blml <at> rtflb.org
http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml

PO Sundelin | 19 Apr 13:24 2014
Picon

Explaining agreements

Rho opens 1 spade
I overcall 1NT (trying to show 15-18)
Partner alerts and explains 1NT as 4hearts and a longer minor, and bids 2 clubs after pass by Lho-

I alert... and say what?
1. Pass or correct
2. Stayman

(As it happens I have four hearts and four clubs in my 16hp NT)
In any case I must bid 2 hearts) but what do I tell opponents?

Easy?
What about them being entitled to be told our agreements?

A - Partner´s alert and explanation reminded me that I had forgotten.
   Our system agreement is that 2 clubs is pass or correct. 
B - I am convinced that partner has forgotten
    Our system agreement is that 2 clubs is Stayman
C - I am not sure who has forgotten
    ???


_______________________________________________
Blml mailing list
Blml <at> rtflb.org
http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml
Steve Willner | 19 Apr 04:04 2014
Picon

Three incidents

Nothing very profound here, but these may be amusing.  I'll welcome all 
comments, but don't feel obliged to comment on all three if you have 
opinions on fewer.  Please say if your answer would differ between a 
club game and a tournament.

For extra credit :-), guess which player I was or whether I was not 
involved at all (thus five choices for each).  Compass directions may 
have been changed to protect the guilty.

1. The Green Card

West is dealer and is studying his cards intently.  East puts a pass 
card on the table.  South picks up the pass card and gives it back to 
East.  East is relieved, North is indifferent, and West is oblivious. 
(That last would normally be a strong clue that I was West, but in this 
case it's not so.)

2. The Relays

South has opened a strong club and is relaying for more information by 
making the cheapest available bid.  North is describing shape and 
strength via artificial bids but has a _fejlgreb_ and wants to change 
his call under L25A.  The Director takes North away from the table to 
sort it out, whereupon _West_ asks South whether the auction so far has 
revealed North's exact shape.

A sidelight is the Director's ruling.  Apparently the ACBL has a 
guideline that step responses are normally "intended" and therefore are 
not changeable under L25A unless there is strong evidence of a 
mechanical problem.  What do people think of this guideline?

3. The Quick Dummy

This one has some actual Laws content.  The auction is over with South 
to become declarer.  East leads face up out of turn.  North immediately 
puts the dummy down before anyone has drawn attention to the LOOT.

The mechanical ruling is obvious: L54C says that the lead is accepted, 
and L54B1 says the play goes in normal order.  The question is whether 
North has committed an irregularity.  If so, L23 could apply.  However, 
L41D says nothing about the opening lead being correct, and North argues 
he has followed correct procedure.  Which Law, if any, has North broken 
or not followed?

"Irregularity — a deviation from correct procedure inclusive of, but not
limited to, those which involve an infraction by a player."
_______________________________________________
Blml mailing list
Blml <at> rtflb.org
http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml

Peter Smulders | 17 Apr 09:28 2014
Picon

Re: Law 78, Neuberg and Ascherman

Very interesting!
Does this method have a name, and is it documented somewhere?
In the notation of
http://www.pjms.nl/NEUBERG/Ascherman_en.html
it amounts to using S = 2k + m - n
instead of eq. (9), and then S/n scales properly with the size of the field.

At 00:12 17-4-2014, you wrote:
>From: "Sven Pran" <svenpran <at> online.no>
>Date: Wed, 16 Apr 2014 20:18:31 +0200
>Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 78, Neuberg and Ascherman
>
>In an event with N tables the "standard" top is 2*(N-1) and bottom is zero.
>
>However I believe that in most events today we instead say that the top is
>(N-1) and bottom is -(N-1).
>
>If the Neuberg or Ascherman formulae are rewritten to work on such scores
>(relative to average) one will discover that Neuberg and Ascherman are
>indeed identical and also very simple to use: The scores are just divided by
>the number of tables for which they apply and multiplied by the number of
>tables for which they are to be adjusted.
>
>So a top score in an event for 20 tables with one table "missing" is
>adjusted from +18 to +18*(20/19) =  18,95

_______________________________________________
Blml mailing list
Blml <at> rtflb.org
http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml

Alain Gottcheiner | 16 Apr 15:28 2014
Picon
Picon

When it helps opponents

Hi all

I'd like your advice on one situation which could happen (and already 
happened) in countries where some calls (like doubles and cues) aren't 
alertable.

1C*    p    1D**    1H
Dbl <at> 

* classical in a 5-card majors framework
** T-Walsh (Hearts)
 <at>  you play support doubles (3 cards and a non-minimum) ; but of course 
here it doesn't make sense if 1H is natural, so it's plain penalties  
(although there is arguably little difference in the type of hands which 
will double)

You're the 1D bidder, and are asked by RHO about the double.

How do you react ?

You might of course say "it depends on the meaning of 1H, so please 
explain first and I'll tell you", but it will draw RHO's attention to 
the fact that 1H might in fact be artificial (some kind of take-out).
You might say "if 1H is natural etc.", with the same effect.
Alas, you may not assume from the lack of alert that 1H is natural and 
answer accordingly, because if it is a cue-bid, it isn't alertable either !

Most problematic : that conditional explanation will make apparent that 
your bid meant hearts. That might be considered as UI to your partner, 
just in case he forgot you're playing T-Walsh (maybe he alerted plain 
Walsh or something else).

So, the question is : are you compelled to remember RHO that 1H might be 
artificial and partner that 1D is ? Or is there some way out ?

Thank you for your help.

   Alain

_______________________________________________
Blml mailing list
Blml <at> rtflb.org
http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml

Peter Smulders | 16 Apr 14:50 2014
Picon

Law 78, Neuberg and Ascherman

Law 78A says:

"In matchpoint scoring each contestant is awarded, for scores made by
different contestants who have played the same board and whose scores are
compared with his, two scoring units (matchpoints or half matchpoints) for
each score inferior to his, one scoring unit for each score equal to his,
and zero scoring units for each score superior to his."

Nothing is said about how to convert the matchpoints to a percentage score,
let alone how to do this in case of boards with different tops.

Is it not time that Ascherman and Neuberg are explicitly incorporated in the laws?

Max Bavin writes on the EBU website
However, it is acknowledged that there are difficulties, not the least being:-
(a) it is difficult (very difficult) to understand; and
(b) it is even more difficult (though not impossible) to perform such calculations without the aid of a computer.
For this reason, and for this reason alone, the formula has not been written into the Laws of Bridge as a "must do it this way".
http://www.ebu.co.uk/documents/laws-and-ethics/articles/neuberg-formula.pdf

I have put some notes on this subject on the internet, showing that Neuberg and Ascherman are not all that difficult to understand, see
http://www.pjms.nl/NEUBERG/index_en.htm

_______________________________________________
Blml mailing list
Blml <at> rtflb.org
http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml
Richard James HILLS | 15 Apr 05:40 2014
Picon

The Good Old Days [SEC=UNOFFICIAL]

UNOFFICIAL
 
Oxford English Dictionary, Teacher Notes:
 
The assembled audiences for The Good Old Days were expected to dress in
period costume (and stick-on side-whiskers and fake moustaches!) and ‘ooh’
and ‘aah’ in all the appropriate places as Sachs introduced the next act with
alliterative attacks of alarming alacrity in a constipated display of
perspicacious polysyllabic peripatetics, culminating in the banging of his
gavel, which heralded the appearance of a teaming torrent of tempting talent
—for our delight and delectation, naturally.
 
Tony Musgrove, nostalgia for the good old days of blml, 9th April 2014:
 
>Sorrowfully, I have a protégé who has taken up directing and she “loves”
>it. The most important advice I could give her is not to subscribe to blml.
>Unlike 20 years ago when authoritative posts by DWS, John Probst,
>Grattan, the Danish guy, the Russian guy, Alan le Bendig etc. could be
>relied upon to illuminate the correct interpretation of the pre 2007 FLB,
>these days it would be very difficult for a neophyte to detect the gurus
>from the heretics, or the merely insane. There are better forums around
>to learn about rulings, or check on interpretations.
>.....
 
Grattan Endicott, blml posting from the good old day of 13th June 2007:
 
+=+ The sadness is that the whole is tainted by the rottenness of a
percentage of the ingredients. Blml allows of an infinite variety of
opinion. This is good. But when a long-winded contributor makes
repetitive assertions as to the Laws of the game, not as opinions of what
is desirable but rather professing an interpretation of Law at variance with
the proper - authorized - interpretation, the value and credibility of the
whole discussion becomes diminished, corrupted, noisome. People turn
aside from the stench, not persevering with research of the wholesome
parts for what golden truths and pearls of wisdom may lie there. ~ G ~ +=+
UNOFFICIAL
 
 


--------------------------------------------------------------------
Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise
the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email,
including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged
and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination
or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the
intended recipient is prohibited. DIBP respects your privacy and has
obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy
policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See:
http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm


---------------------------------------------------------------------

_______________________________________________
Blml mailing list
Blml <at> rtflb.org
http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml
Richard James HILLS | 15 Apr 06:12 2014
Picon

Marvin French [SEC=UNOFFICIAL]

UNOFFICIAL
 
Despite our differences in age and political
philosophy (me the Aussie equivalent of an
Adlai Stevenson Democrat, Marv being an
Eisenhower Republican), we formed an email
friendship discussing movies. Attached is
Marv’s last movie review to me.
 
Best wishes,
 
Richard James Hills
 
>I sent for a Pompeii: First Day documentary
>and it was great. Good acting, good history.
>I had forgotten that Pliny the Elder died
>trying to save survivors.
>
>The Concerto was a film I enjoyed immensely.
>A bunch of Jewish musicians were barred from
>playing in Moscow so many years later they
>got together and pretended to be the Bolshoi
>orchestra, getting a big date in Paris.
>Wonderful story.
>
>Marv
UNOFFICIAL
 
 


--------------------------------------------------------------------
Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise
the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email,
including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged
and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination
or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the
intended recipient is prohibited. DIBP respects your privacy and has
obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy
policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See:
http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm


---------------------------------------------------------------------

_______________________________________________
Blml mailing list
Blml <at> rtflb.org
http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml

Gmane