headers
Ed Reppert | 5 Jul 2002 20:07
Picon

Re: [BLML] The Edgar Kaplan school

On 7/5/02, Herman De Wael wrote:

>if I, as Director, rule that 2Cl=Stayman, then that is on the
>print-out. 

I am reminded of Galileo Galilei's difficulties with the Curia.

Regards,

Ed

mailto:ereppert <at> rochester.rr.com
pgp public key available at ldap://certserver.pgp.com or http://pgpkeys.mit.edu:11371, and on my web site
pgp key id: 0xAEF77BCE
Web site: http://home.rochester.rr.com/anchorage

What we see the people of Kabul celebrating this week is called"freedom." Be thankful for ours. And guard it
well. - Vin Suprynowicz - November 26, 2001
--
========================================================================
(Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo <at> rgb.anu.edu.au with
"(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message.
A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/
Permalink | Reply | 1 comment |
headers
Ed Reppert | 5 Jul 2002 20:21
Picon

[BLML] Alerting later bids [was The Edgar Kaplan school]

On 7/5/02, Alain Gottcheiner wrote:

>If I had alerted and explained the 1S bid, I wouldn't feel compelled to 
>alert the 2H bid as showing only 2 cards. This is but bridge logic. The 
>opponents are not 'entitled' to have their attention drawn to this 
>knowledge (L75C).

This brings to mind something I've puzzled over from time to time, but
never really resolved. Suppose you're playing a forcing club system, and
the auction goes 1C!-1D!-1NT. Now, in the ACBL at least, the alert
regulations require that a 1NT rebid by opener which shows a strong NT
is alertable. But if you have alerted 1C, and explained that it can't
have less than 16 points, or whatever, is an alert of 1NT really
necessary? Shouldn't the opponents be aware enough of what's going on to
realize that 1NT *can't* be the expected 12-14 if we had been playing
Standard American? Personally, I don't see any such qualification in the
alert regs - the bid is alertable, what has gone before is irrelevant.
But I wonder. I suppose the choice was, or at least was perceived to be,
between alerting once in a round and alerting every time, and the latter
was chosen. So I alert it, on the grounds that at least it can't hurt
(except for the inevitable UI to partner).  But I don't know. It seems
silly, at best, and perhaps somewhat insulting to opponents at worst.

Regards,

Ed

mailto:ereppert <at> rochester.rr.com
pgp public key available at ldap://certserver.pgp.com or http://pgpkeys.mit.edu:11371, and on my web site
pgp key id: 0xAEF77BCE
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Eric Landau | 5 Jul 2002 23:15
Favicon

Re: Steps in an appeal analysis

At 07:38 AM 7/5/02, Herman wrote:

>Indeed a minor point, Brian, but a good one.
>
>All your point adds is to turn it into a better example.
>
>Brian Meadows wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 05 Jul 2002 09:38:07 +0200, Herman De Wael wrote:
>><snip>
>>Just a minor point, Herman....
>>
>>>Don't you agree that if one player bids 2Cl with 4-4 in the majors, 
>>>and the other responds 2He with a minimum, 4He and 4Cl, that this 
>>>sounds like Stayman?  Would you, as Director, not also rule that 
>>>"Stayman" is the only correct explanation?  Would you not also feel 
>>>that even if you believe the pair saying they never played together, 
>>>that the opponents were entitled to the knowledge that 2Cl asked for 
>>>the majors?
>>I think if you have 4 hearts and 4 clubs, then responding 2H if
>>you *genuinely* don't know whether 2C is Stayman or natural is
>>only sensible, because with your 4 card support if partner's 2C
>>turns out to be natural, you're probably not going to meet up
>>with a total disaster if partner returns to 3C. The same can't be
>>said for passing 2C if partner holds the classic weak runout,
>>4-4-5-0. The 4C & 4H holding gives you the perfect opportunity to
>>hedge your bets.
>>I think you'd make a far better case to support your views if you
>>gave the responder 4 hearts and only *two* clubs, assuming that
>>two clubs is the minimum that (presumably) opener can hold.
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 5 comments |
headers
Eric Landau | 5 Jul 2002 23:41
Favicon

RE: Fw: Behavioral Obligations

At 09:38 AM 7/5/02, Kooijman wrote:

> > We cannot attempt to clarify where we draw the line unless we agree
> > that there is a line to be drawn *somewhere*.  The WBF tells us that
> > there is no such line -- there are, rather, a near-infinite number of
> > lines, one for every possible "class of player involved".  Once we
> > accept that interpretation, we have no choice but to allow each
> > individual TD or AC facing a claim case to put the line wherever they
> > want to, based on their individual judgments of the "class of player"
> > who made the claim.
> >
> > We can argue all we want about whether a given play is "'irrational'"
> > or "not so irrational", but our arguments will be nothing more than
> > meaningless noises unless and until we agree that there us a
> > distinction there to be made, not a moving target that
> > changes from one
> > player to the next.
>
>This sounds rather punitive towards the WBFLC. And it suggests that our
>(wrong) interpretation is the cause for all problems related to the 
>standard
>of play when a claim is involved. Sounds strange to me, since in my
>jurisdiction it hardly ever is. But let me offer the following: you 
>describe
>in a way so that TD's can use it uniformly what irratinal play is, and 
>then
>the drafting committee considers to give irrational an absolute meaning.
>
>In a Houston case I just commented on with two tricks to go declarer has a
>high trump and another with dummy having a high trump with another
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 5 comments |
headers
Tim West-meads | 6 Jul 2002 01:12
Picon

Re: 1NT overcall is...?

In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20020705140231.00a62d30 <at> pop.ulb.ac.be>
Alain wrote:

> are capable of, but includes cheating, playing in a  state of 
> drunkenness

God I hope not.  The first is, without question, obscene. The latter is 
pretty much inevitable if playing Brighton at "A pint a match" through 
both sessions and the speedball.  Sure if drunks get rowdy/abusive they 
should be expelled but merely being drunk should not be considered a crime 
at the bridge table.

Tim

--
========================================================================
(Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo <at> rgb.anu.edu.au with
"(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message.
A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/
Permalink | Reply | 501 comments |
headers
Nanki Poo | 5 Jul 2002 21:41

Re: Re: Cats!


                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     Dode
Adam Beneschan          Mango MIA
Matthias Berghaus       Lester RB
David Blizzard          Herbie, Mittens
Mike Bolster            Jess
Vitold Brushtunov       Chia
Everett Boyer           Amber
Art Brodsky             Ralph
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
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 1 comment |
headers
David Stevenson | 5 Jul 2002 21:27

Re: Fw: Behavioral Obligations

Steve Willner <willner <at> cfa.harvard.edu> writes
>> From: "Sven Pran" <svenpran <at> online.no>
>> There is obviously a demanding need for clarifications on where we
>> draw the line between "irrational" and not so irrational plays.     
>
>At last a statement on which BLML will unanimously agree!  :-)

  Puh-lease!  Of course there is no such need.

--

-- 
David Stevenson               Bridge   RTFLB   Cats   Railways   /\ /\
Liverpool, England, UK        Fax: +44 870 055 7697                <at>   <at> 
<bridge <at> blakjak.com>          ICQ 20039682      bluejak on OKB  =( + )=
              Lawspage:       http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm      ~
--
========================================================================
(Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo <at> rgb.anu.edu.au with
"(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message.
A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/
Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
David Stevenson | 5 Jul 2002 21:26

Re: Fw: Behavioral Obligations

Alain Gottcheiner <agot <at> ulb.ac.be> writes
>At 08:38 5/07/2002 -0400, Eric Landau wrote:

>>>There is obviously a demanding need for clarifications on where we
>>>draw the line between "irrational" and not so irrational plays.

  I do not think so.  We have lots of theoretical arguments here, but
actually the vast majority of claim rulings are easy enough, and I think
people here are too worried about difficulties which rarely exist.

>>I fully agree; Sven's statement seems obvious and unarguable to me.  Which 
>>is why the WBF interpretation of the footnote is so terribly flawed for 
>>real-life application.

  It may seem unarguable, but really there are no more difficulties than
in deciding LAs after a UI is available.

>>We cannot attempt to clarify where we draw the line unless we agree that 
>>there is a line to be drawn *somewhere*.  The WBF tells us that there is 
>>no such line -- there are, rather, a near-infinite number of lines, one 
>>for every possible "class of player involved".  Once we accept that 
>>interpretation, we have no choice but to allow each individual TD or AC 
>>facing a claim case to put the line wherever they want to, based on their 
>>individual judgments of the "class of player" who made the claim.

  It does not tell us precisely where the line is between an LA and one
that is not, either, but we survive.

>AG : I'm not quite sure about that interpretation (litotes).The common 
>footnote to L69/70/71 speaks of 'inferior for the class of player
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
John (MadDog) Probst | 6 Jul 2002 05:28

Re: 1NT overcall is...?

In article <memo.813999 <at> cix.compulink.co.uk>, Tim West-meads
<twm <at> cix.compulink.co.uk> writes
>In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20020705140231.00a62d30 <at> pop.ulb.ac.be>
>Alain wrote:
>
>> are capable of, but includes cheating, playing in a  state of 
>> drunkenness
>
>God I hope not.  The first is, without question, obscene. The latter is 
>pretty much inevitable if playing Brighton at "A pint a match" through 
>both sessions and the speedball.  Sure if drunks get rowdy/abusive they 
>should be expelled but merely being drunk should not be considered a crime 
>at the bridge table.
>
>Tim
>
Tim, Giovanni and myself would have been thrown out times without number

cheers john
>--
>========================================================================
>(Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo <at> rgb.anu.edu.au with
>"(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message.
>A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/

--

-- 
John (MadDog) Probst|      . !       -^-  |icq 10810798
451 Mile End Road   |     /|__.      \:/  |OKb ChienFou
London E3 4PA       |    /  <at>  __)     -|-  |john <at> asimere.com
+44-(0)20 8983 5818 |   /\   --^      |   |www.probst.demon.co.uk
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 501 comments |
headers
John (MadDog) Probst | 6 Jul 2002 05:48

Re: claim with ace of trumps and one other card

In article <memo.796487 <at> cix.compulink.co.uk>, Tim West-meads
<twm <at> cix.compulink.co.uk> writes
>In-Reply-To: <P3IN9YI6jOJ9EwGi <at> blakjak.demon.co.uk>
>DWS wrote:
>
>>   Let us just see what you want.  We play a match, and reach a situation
>> where 60% of people would bid game, but we know that is correct because
>> of UI.  Because you and I know L73C, we pass as the Law requires.
>
>60% doesn't come in to L73c at all.  But yes we make a pass under L73c 
>when it seems right so to do.
> 
>>   In the other room they bid game despite a similar UI position.  Quite
>> possibly they just misjudged that it was a 60% action: their ethics are
>> irrelevant.  If we follow your line then you and I have just lost 7 imps
>> for being ethical.
>
>Firstly 60% wasn't what I had in mind as "very close to 70%".  I am 
>interested here in cases that are right on the borderline. I could live 
>with a formula like "maximum weighting for inclusion = 55-(5 x (70- 
>estimated %age)).  Which would restrict our loss to 1 IMP.
>
>We could also tackle how we expect players to handle "close 73c 
>decisions".  If you consider the decision on whether a call "carefully 
>avoids taking advantage" to be close then you should always call the TD at 
>the end of the hand.
>
>>   But why should we lose 7 imps for being ethical.  Is that what you
>> *really* want from the Law?
>
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |

Gmane