headers
richard.hills | 1 Apr 2003 01:26
Picon

Re: illogical explanation


>The use of the auction in this way may or
>may not be 'standard' depending on where you
>are playing, but the description of it as
>"Stayman" seems less than complete.
>
>--
>Gordon Rainsford
>London UK

The description "Stayman" is, in my opinion,
adequate for the class of opponent (major
event, experienced pair) involved.

It is true that a 2C Stayman call is forcing
for at least one round in an uncontested
auction.

But only a sponsor should assume that the
forcing nature of Stayman remains a default
when the opponents are scrambling to avoid a
doubled penalty.  An experienced player in a
major event should realise that *any* call
may be passed by an opponent, even if the
denomination is a poor fit, if it results in
an *undoubled* penalty.

Best wishes

Richard
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Laurie Kelso | 1 Apr 2003 01:34
Picon

Re: Appeal to National Authority

 Richard Hills wrote:
>
>WBF Code of Practice:
>
>>Under the laws it is mandatory that arrangements exist for
>>an appeal to be made to the national authority from the
>>decision(s) of an appeal committee. No appeal to the
>>national authority should be entertained if the prior
>>stages of ruling and appeal have not been pursued and
>>exhausted. It is legitimate for the national authority to
>>set some limitation on matters that it will hear; it is a
>>widespread practice, commended by the WBF, that the
>>national authority will not review value judgements except
>>where the appeal committee has made a judgement that can
>>have no basis in its findings of the facts of a case.
>>Debatable matters of law and/or regulation are valid
>>questions for the national authority.
>
>Some years ago, ambiguously written carryforward rules for
>the Australian team playoff resulted in ambiguity about
>whether the two finalist teams had tied, and therefore
>whether an 8-board playoff was required.  One of the teams
>went to the extent of hiring a barrister to appear at the
>National Authority hearing.  (The two teams settled out of
>court, agreeing to a 64-board playoff with no carryforward.)
>
>To avoid any future drawn-out and expensive dramas, the ABF
>abolished its National Authority.  Is the ABF therefore an
>infractor of Law 93C?
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
richard.hills | 1 Apr 2003 03:40
Picon

Re: Appeal to National Authority


>Sorry Richard, but what you have written above
>is just not true!
>
>The ABF does have a duly constituted National
>Authority. If you wish I can (by a private email)
>give you it's current composition.  It last meet
>about nine months ago.
>
>Regards
>Laurie
>(Melbourne, Australia)

My apologies to the ABF for not verifying a second-
hand (and obviously incorrect) assertion I received.

Sven wrote:

>>It may be of interest to know that by regulation
>>the AC in Norwegian national championships *is*
>>the National Authority, there is to be no local
>>AC at such events (or the National Authority is
>>present at the event).

Herman replied:

>As is the case at international championships as
>well. The EBL AC serves as L93C NA as well
>(stipulated in regulations).
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 2 comments |
headers
richard.hills | 1 Apr 2003 04:16
Picon

Re: Active ethics


David Burn wrote:

[big snip]

>There is nothing here about "bending over backwards", or
>any other unlikely piece of callisthenics. DWS seeemed to
>think (indeed, he banged on about it more or less whenever
>the subject arose) that Law 73 said something that Law 16
>does not say.

[snip]

I agree with David Burn that Law 16 and Law 73C are
tautological.

But I agree with David Stevenson that bending over backwards
is a useful metaphor.  In my opinion, the metaphor helps hoi
polloi players avoid self-deception.  Without use of the
metaphor, hoi polloi often fool themselves that "I would
always...", and then opt for a demonstrably suggested
logical alternative from amongst non-suggested logical
alternatives.

Best wishes

Richard

_______________________________________________
blml mailing list
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
richard.hills | 1 Apr 2003 06:46
Picon

RE: Rule of Coincidence (was Psyching)


David Burn wrote:

>Because it is not true. We have got some barmy
>regulations, but these ones are quite sensible. It
>has got nothing to do with the Rule of Coincidence;
>what it has to do with is the rules of bridge.
>
>If X shows four or more spades, and X's partner
>tells the opponents that X has shown four or more
>spades, but then does not act as though X had four
>or more spades, then one of a number of possibilities
>exists (and one of them must be true):
>
>(a) X's partner is lying to the opponents, thereby
>concealing his side's partnership understanding [by
>"lying" I mean "uttering a falsehood", regardless of
>whether he is doing this knowingly or not]
>
>(b) X's partner is telling the truth to the opponents,
>but knows from previous experience that X does not
>often actually have spades in this auction, or type of
>auction; again, this is to conceal his side's actual
>partnership understanding from the opponents
>
>(c) X's partner is telling the truth to the opponents,
>but can deduce from authorised information alone that
>on this occasion X does not have spades; this is
>entirely legal.
>
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
richard.hills | 1 Apr 2003 07:13
Picon

RE: Rule of Coincidence (was Psyching)


Alain wrote (in Illogical Explanation):

[big snip]

>I would have liked to decide according to a
>third way : West knew it was a scramble,
>perhaps lacking a major, and eminently
>passable, but for some reason he made a
>lapsus and said "Stayman", thus giving MI.
>Isn't that possible ? Isn't that more
>plausible that the lucky strike ? And isn't
>that what we should say absent the CC ?

[big snip]

Answer to Question 1: No.  West either did
not give MI, or West deliberately lied.

Answer to Question 2: No.  A temporary
inadvertent lapsus would have been later
corrected by East or West.

Answer to Question 3: Definitely not.  The
absence of the CC is only one factor the TD
needs to weigh in the Law 85 determination
of a disputed fact.

>(there always was a consensus that, if the
>explanation doesn't match the hand, MI is
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
richard.hills | 1 Apr 2003 07:56
Picon

Re: EBU modification of L20F1 (was L20F2)


jp rocafort wrote:

>A new winning strategy will become to use
>systems with uninformative artificial calls
>only intended to compel opponents to give
>info (AI for you and UI for them) according
>to whether they ask or don't.

Fortunately this EBU modification does not
apply in Australia, as opponents would miss
out on a lot of fun at my table.

My pard and I occasionally take our Symmetric
Relay system on the road to a country town's
annual bridge congress.  A popular action by
opponents flabbergasted by our auctions is to
ask after each of our relays.

Opponents then burst into laughter as I give
my deadpan iterations,  "relay, asking me to
describe my hand further"; "relay, asking me
to describe my hand further"; "relay, asking
me to describe my hand further".....

Best wishes

Richard

_______________________________________________
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
richard.hills | 1 Apr 2003 08:38
Picon

Re: Philadelphia NABC Appeal 8


Marv wrote:

[snip]

>The Director Panel who heard the appeal agreed
>that N/S had compromised their position by not
>calling the Director immediately after becoming
>aware of the infraction.

Correct.  Since the display of dummy revealed
the E/W infraction, N/S have also committed an
infraction by not summoning the TD as soon as
dummy appeared.  Law 9A2a and Law 72A6.

[snip]

>However, the declaring side should have called the
>TD to report the misinformation before the opening
>lead was made, and were later told that.

Correct, Law 75D2.

>L11 is not applicable (as I read it), since the
>NOS did not gain by its failure to call the TD
>when dummy came down.

Doubtful.  Law 11A is ambiguously worded:

>>The right to penalise an irregularity may be
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 1 comment |
headers
Herman De Wael | 1 Apr 2003 08:44
Picon

Re: Appeal to National Authority

In fact, Richard sets up an interesting question:

richard.hills <at> immi.gov.au wrote:

> 
> Herman replied:
> 
> 
>>As is the case at international championships as
>>well. The EBL AC serves as L93C NA as well
>>(stipulated in regulations).
>>
> 
>   'I'll be
>        judge, I'll
>      be jury,'
>    Said cunning
>  old Fury:
>     'I'll try
>       the whole
>         cause, and
>             condemn
>                 you
>                   to
>                    death.'
> 

The EBL regulations state that the AC also acts as NA for L93C 
purposes. Does this mean that after an appeal one can re-appeal 
(presumably to a different composition of the same body) under
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 1 comment |
headers
Sven Pran | 1 Apr 2003 08:52
Picon
Picon

RE: Law 13

> Steve Willner
.........
> Either the EW statement is mistaken, or they failed to count their
> cards at the beginning.  At least those are the only simple options I
> see, but perhaps I am missing something.

IMO you are missing the fact that the board was actually played through all
thirteen tricks without anybody noticing that there was anything wrong with
the hands. Furthermore North contradicted the statement by East and West to
the effect that their hands were correct.

Imagine a little test on your own: Pick a board during any tournament,
preferably a board where a major feature is a long suit in one hand; and
make that hand hold 14 cards instead of 13 by giving it another
insignificant card in that suit from the hand of it's partner.

Now show those hands to players who have played it just a couple of rounds
ago and ask if that were the hands they held (without saying anything about
12/14 cards).

My bet is that most players will "recognize" the hands and confirm: "Sure
that was the hands we held". Only when you tell them that there are now 12
and 14 cards will they say: "Hey wait a moment, I think that small club
should be with partner. Was it the three or the four you held?"

Sven

_______________________________________________
blml mailing list
blml <at> rtflb.org
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |

Gmane