Klaatu barada nikto [SEC=UNOFFICIAL]

[r***@immi.gov.au]

Associated Press, May 25th 1994
http://www.skeptictank.org/files//ufo2/12senaln.htm

[snip]
Others named as space aliens are Sens. William
Cohen, R-Maine; Dennis DeConcini, D-Ariz.;
Christopher Dodd, D-Conn.; Jay Rockefeller,
D-W.Va.; John Glenn, D-Ohio; Orrin Hatch,
R-Utah; Nancy Kassebaum, R-Kan.; Sam Nunn,
D-Ga.; and Alan Simpson, R-Wyo.

The final five "came out of the alien closet two
years ago," the paper quotes author and UFO
specialist Nathaniel Dean as saying.

But Simpson spokesman Charles Pelkey
remained mysterious about his boss' status.

"We've got only one thing to say: Klaatu barada
nikto," Pelkey said.

That was an alien code from "The Day the Earth
Stood Still," a 1951 science fiction movie about a
robot-aided alien who lands in Washington and
warns of the dangers of war.
[snip]

Richard Hills:

So a now-defunct tabloid "Weekly World News"
named 12 USA Senators as aliens. This must be
true, since it was written in a newspaper.

So a now-deleted assertion named the Laws of
Duplicate Bridge as riddled with loopholes. This
must be true, since it was written in a blml post.
(The crank made the beginner's error of failing
to distinguish between Lawful receipt of UI and
unLawful use of UI.)

In fact the Drafting Committee carefully removed
any possibility of a loophole (an action consistent
with the letter of the Law which is nevertheless
contrary to the intent of the Law) by including
sweeping principle-based Laws in the 2007
Lawbook. For example, the revised Law 72A:

"Duplicate bridge tournaments should be played
in strict accordance with the Laws. The chief
object is to obtain a higher score than other
contestants whilst complying with the lawful
procedures and ethical standards set out in
these laws."


--------------------------------------------------------------------
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. DIAC 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


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

[Robert Frick]

A pro is watching two clients play. He observes that there was a bid was
not properly explained. The client is playing the hand. The pro explains
the bid before the opening lead.

That, not being proper procedure, is UI to both side. Well, according to
the lawbook, of course no one would rule that way.

The client is now obligated to use this UI to explain the bid correctly.
Then it becomes AI to the defenders.

This is to the disadvantage of the defenders. They would tend to be do
better with the mistaken explanation. They can, in hindsight, argue that
they would have done something different (except of course if what they
did worked well). At least in ACBL-land, they enter a hypothetical world
where they get the benefit of close decisions in the play.

And Ed says, "Yes this is the way bridge is supposed to be played." I
don't get it.

And Richard says it isn't a loophole? This is what the law was supposed to
do?

Again. Richard was making a really nice point about principle-based rules.
Then he mentioned the WBFLC minute that leads to these problems. It has
none of the signs of principle based rules. For example, there is nothing
in the rule allowing the director flexibility in deciding how to make the
ruling. It has all the signs of being whatever you call the opposite.

For example, a principle-based rule would be, "a card is played when it
looks played." In contrast, the laws attempt to precisely describe when a
card is played or not played, so they are an example of whatever you call
the opposite.



On Wed, 30 May 2012 20:55:04 -0400, <***@immi.gov.au> wrote:

>
> Associated Press, May 25th 1994
> http://www.skeptictank.org/files//ufo2/12senaln.htm
>
> [snip]
> Others named as space aliens are Sens. William
> Cohen, R-Maine; Dennis DeConcini, D-Ariz.;
> Christopher Dodd, D-Conn.; Jay Rockefeller,
> D-W.Va.; John Glenn, D-Ohio; Orrin Hatch,
> R-Utah; Nancy Kassebaum, R-Kan.; Sam Nunn,
> D-Ga.; and Alan Simpson, R-Wyo.
>
> The final five "came out of the alien closet two
> years ago," the paper quotes author and UFO
> specialist Nathaniel Dean as saying.
>
> But Simpson spokesman Charles Pelkey
> remained mysterious about his boss' status.
>
> "We've got only one thing to say: Klaatu barada
> nikto," Pelkey said.
>
> That was an alien code from "The Day the Earth
> Stood Still," a 1951 science fiction movie about a
> robot-aided alien who lands in Washington and
> warns of the dangers of war.
> [snip]
>
> Richard Hills:
>
> So a now-defunct tabloid "Weekly World News"
> named 12 USA Senators as aliens. This must be
> true, since it was written in a newspaper.
>
> So a now-deleted assertion named the Laws of
> Duplicate Bridge as riddled with loopholes. This
> must be true, since it was written in a blml post.
> (The crank made the beginner's error of failing
> to distinguish between Lawful receipt of UI and
> unLawful use of UI.)
>
> In fact the Drafting Committee carefully removed
> any possibility of a loophole (an action consistent
> with the letter of the Law which is nevertheless
> contrary to the intent of the Law) by including
> sweeping principle-based Laws in the 2007
> Lawbook. For example, the revised Law 72A:
>
> "Duplicate bridge tournaments should be played
> in strict accordance with the Laws. The chief
> object is to obtain a higher score than other
> contestants whilst complying with the lawful
> procedures and ethical standards set out in
> these laws."
>
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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. DIAC 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
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>


--
The end of one day is always the start of a next. *

*This offer expires Dec. 21, 2012

[r***@immi.gov.au]

Richard Hills, December 2008:

>>Last night in a key event
>>equivalent to the Bermuda Bowl;
>>the penultimate Swiss match in
>>the Consolation section of a
>>Canberra Bridge Club teams
>>championship. :-)
>>
>>Imps
>>Dlr: North
>>Vul: North-South
>>
>>The Aussie Acol bidding has gone:
>>
>>WEST.....NORTH....EAST.....SOUTH
>>---......1S.......Pass.....1NT
>>Pass.....Pass.....Pass
>>
>>Dummy
>>KQT42
>>K
>>AT6
>>QJ94
>>
>>Declarer
>>A7
>>7653
>>9873
>>AT8
>>
>>West leads the nine of spades to
>>dummy's deuce, East's five and
>>declarer's ace. At this point
>>declarer asks East about the
>>system meaning of the nine of
>>spades. East replies that West is
>>promising the ten of spades but
>>denying another higher honour.
>>
>>So at this point all four players
>>know that West's opening lead is
>>a false card.
>>
>>At trick two declarer leads the
>>seven of spades, and the trey
>>appears from West. Declarer now
>>has to decide whether West's
>>opening lead was a falsecard
>>from:
>>
>>(a) 9863 (systemic opening lead
>>eight of spades), or
>>
>>(b) 973 (systemic opening lead
>>seven of spades), or
>>
>>(c) J983 (systemic opening lead
>>trey of spades).
>>
>>At the table declarer guesses
>>wrong, one off. East-West
>>narrowly win the equivalent-to-
>>Bermuda-Bowl-event, and their
>>octogenarian kibitzer is wild
>>with applause. :-)
>>
>>However, from East's point of
>>view there was a distinct
>>possibility that West's opening
>>lead was not a false card, but a
>>memory failure. If the
>>hypothetical 2018 De Wael Law-
>>book had been in effect last
>>night (which has as its
>>hypothetical touchstone "do not
>>provide UI to partner"), then
>>East's De Wael answer to
>>declarer's question would have
>>been either:
>>
>>(x) the nine of spades denies a
>>higher honour, or
>>
>>(y) the nine of spades promises
>>a higher honour, often but not
>>necessarily the ten,
>>
>>depending upon whether or not
>>East held the jack of spades.
>>
>>After such an answer declarer
>>could not possibly misguess the
>>spades, which serves as a
>>counter-example to the assertion
>>that De Wael infractions of the
>>actual 2008 Lawbook necessarily
>>seek to gain a score advantage
>>for De Wael acolytes.

[snip December 2008 HDW complaint]

Jeff Easterson, December 2008:

>Herman seems to feel that he has
>copy written his name and can
>forbid others from using it. A
>debatable position. But I see two
>possible simple solutions which
>would avoid the problem.
>
>(1) He could change his name.
>
>(2) He could stop sending
>postings on which others might
>comment.
>
>But perhaps I misunderstand. The
>problem for Herman (good grief,
>I've used his name without
>seeking written permission) does
>not seem to be the ridicule and
>"misrepresentation" but the usage
>of the name. Or is this wrong?
>Will he allow his name to be used
>if there is no ridicule or
>"misrepresentation"? Confused

Richard Hills, 1st June 2012:

In times past I was overly harsh
in my critiques of Herman De Wael.
Anyone with a sense of humor, as
shown by Herman's love of cricket
(and Monty Python) cannot be too
bad.

Nowadays it is the humorless
blmler "For Crib Trek" who perhaps
should

(1) change her name, or

(2) stop sending postings, and

(3) when trying a Google search
for "anagram", it asks "did you
mean: nag a ram" :-)

Best wishes,

Hilda R. Lirsch

--------------------------------------------------------------------
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. DIAC 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


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

[r***@immi.gov.au]

Thomas Cathcart & Daniel Klein,
Aristotle and an Aardvark go to Washington:

SHE: That third baseman is a terrific player.
HE: Hell, if I had his skills, I'd be that good too.

Law 40A1(b), first sentence:

Each partnership has a duty to make available
its partnership understandings to opponents
before commencing play against them.

Eric Landau, 4th December 2008:

[snip]
>But the first sentence of L40A1(b)
>unambiguously requires a partnership to
>supply a "100% complete encyclopedia"
[snip]

David Burn, 5th December 2008:

No, it does not, any more than "Passengers
must take all their personal belongings with
them when leaving the train" means that you
may not board the train having left any of your
personal possessions at home.

David Burn
London, England

--------------------------------------------------------------------
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. DIAC 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


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

[r***@immi.gov.au]

Herman De Wael, 11th June 2007:

[snip]

>>I do not use authority, Sven, I use logic.
>>Comment on my logic, don't use authority.

Grattan Endicott, 12th June 2007:

>+=+ And that is it really. For Herman his
>'logic' is superior to any interpretation
>authorized by the Statutes and ByLaws of
>the Federations, Zones, World Federation,
>under whose auspices the tournaments are
>organized in which he plays. 'Nuff said - no
>point inarguing with a brick wall. At the same
>time it is not by the application of Herman's
>'logic' that the Directors and appeals
>committees will determine the law in those
>tournaments. +=+

[snip]

>+=+ I read, too, that :
>
>"The fallacy consists of giving reasons for
>your thesis without considering reasons
>against it, or giving reasons against an
>opposing view without considering reasons
>for it."
>
>With respect to the author of that sophistry, I
>respond quite simply that the fallacy lies in
>the suggestion that reasons, opinions, other
>than those of authority, have any importance.
>We are dealing with a game that has rules
>and also Directors empowered to determine
>their application in play, authorities with
>power to determine the principles and the
>interpretations of the rules that the Directors
>and appeals committees, like the players,
>are subject to.
>
>One can discuss preferences, desirability,
>but not the fact of a law when that fact is laid
>down by an authority empowered to say how
>it shall be construed. +=+

[snip]

>a judgement each of us [the WBF drafting
>committee] makes as to the realism of the
>author (some contributors are perhaps
>judged to be more 'with the game' than
>others).
>
>If we have a common concern it may be
>lest some of what is written here could lead
>the inexperienced reader to award a
>semblance of gravitas to assertions and
>propositions that are at variance with the laws
>and interpretations by which the game is
>currently ordered. ~ Grattan ~ +=+

Richard Hills, 4th June 2012:

A recent thread demonstrated Grattan's point.

Steve Willner carefully read the exact words
of Law 28B. So he therefore logically proved
that when Law 28B and Law 29A were
inconsistent, Law 28B would logically over-
ride Law 29A.

Another blmler carefully read the exact words
of a different Law, Law 29B. So she therefore
logically proved that when Law 28B and Law
29A were inconsistent, Law 29A would
logically over-ride Law 28B.

Sven Pran resolved the debate by quoting
Authority, the official Guide to the 1987 Laws.
Since Law 28B and Law 29 have remained
substantially unchanged between the 1987
and 2007 editions of the Lawbook (except
for the replacement of "penalty" with
"rectification") that Authority is still relevant.

Best wishes,

Richard Hills

P.S. Since "flame wars" are prohibited by
Henk's ground rules, I will apply the "lead
us not into temptation" principle by deleting
posts from particular blmlers unread.

--------------------------------------------------------------------
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. DIAC 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


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

[r***@immi.gov.au]

Sydney Morning Herald editorial, 6 June 2012:

[snip]
various media spruikers have encouraged the
public not to "believe in" climate change - as if
climate science were some kind of religious
dogma, a matter of faith or fashion or personal
taste and not a rational appraisal of a large
body of objective evidence.
[snip]
The basis of the argument of most so-called
sceptics appears to be a pathetically flawed
syllogism along the following lines: "The
implications of climate science's conclusions
about human-caused climate change are so
profound that, if true, everyone's behaviour
would have to change. I'm blowed if I'm
going to change. Therefore climate science
is nonsense."
[snip]

Richard Hills:

A pathetically flawed syllogism nearly caused
me to unsubscribe from blml. But a blmler
with whom I almost invariably disagree
begged me to reconsider, kindly granting me
a stunning set of compliments.

"Please ignore the spoil-sports and re-
consider your decision, Richard. I often
disagree with you but we all enjoy your posts.
Your understanding of the laws is better than
most. You’ve taught us lots about many other
subjects. Above all, we appreciate your
sense of humour."

On the other hand a non-spoilsport, the
respected senior EBU Director Gordon
Rainsford, is bored with the excessive
frequency of my blml posts.

So here is the (shuffle and) deal. As a
compromise I will remain subscribed to
blml, and I will continue to respond to
blml posts with my usual excessive
frequency.

BUT...

My responses to blml posts will not appear
on blml itself, instead appearing at:

http://boardgamegeek.com/thread/812456/the-2007-2008-laws-of-duplicate-bridge

To suppress the annoying advertisements
at that site, read my postings in "printer
friendly" mode.

Those two Tea Party blmlers who detest
my postings can now easily avoid them by
never clicking upon the above link.

Au revoir,

Richard Hills

--------------------------------------------------------------------
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. DIAC 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


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

[Ken Johnston]

Will it be easier to subscribe to Boardgamegeek?
 
Regards


________________________________
From: "***@immi.gov.au" <***@immi.gov.au>
To: Bridge Laws Mailing List <***@rtflb.org>
Sent: Thursday, 7 June 2012, 0:30
Subject: Re: [BLML] Logic (was Klaatu) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL]


Sydney Morning Herald editorial, 6 June 2012:

[snip]
various media spruikers have encouraged the
public not to "believe in" climate change - as if
climate science were some kind of religious
dogma, a matter of faith or fashion or personal
taste and not a rational appraisal of a large
body of objective evidence.
[snip]
The basis of the argument of most so-called
sceptics appears to be a pathetically flawed
syllogism along the following lines: "The
implications of climate science's conclusions
about human-caused climate change are so
profound that, if true, everyone's behaviour
would have to change. I'm blowed if I'm
going to change. Therefore climate science
is nonsense."
[snip]

Richard Hills:

A pathetically flawed syllogism nearly caused
me to unsubscribe from blml. But a blmler
with whom I almost invariably disagree
begged me to reconsider, kindly granting me
a stunning set of compliments.

"Please ignore the spoil-sports and re-
consider your decision, Richard. I often
disagree with you but we all enjoy your posts.
Your understanding of the laws is better than
most. You’ve taught us lots about many other
subjects. Above all, we appreciate your
sense of humour."

On the other hand a non-spoilsport, the
respected senior EBU Director Gordon
Rainsford, is bored with the excessive
frequency of my blml posts.

So here is the (shuffle and) deal. As a
compromise I will remain subscribed to
blml, and I will continue to respond to
blml posts with my usual excessive
frequency.

BUT...

My responses to blml posts will not appear
on blml itself, instead appearing at:

http://boardgamegeek.com/thread/812456/the-2007-2008-laws-of-duplicate-bridge

To suppress the annoying advertisements
at that site, read my postings in "printer
friendly" mode.

Those two Tea Party blmlers who detest
my postings can now easily avoid them by
never clicking upon the above link.

Au revoir,

Richard Hills

--------------------------------------------------------------------
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. DIAC 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


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

[r***@immi.gov.au]

Ken Johnston asked:

>Will it be easier to subscribe to BoardGameGeek?
>
>Regards

If any blmler wishes to gain a free subscription to
BoardGameGeek, then that blmler should visit
the BGG home page at:

http://boardgamegeek.com/

and click on the "Register" box in the top left-
hand corner. Once that is done, the blmler will
be able to add her or his own posts to:

http://boardgamegeek.com/thread/812456/the-2007-2008-laws-of-duplicate-bridge

Au revoir,

Richard Hills
DIAC Social Club movies coordinator

--------------------------------------------------------------------
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. DIAC 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


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

[Brian]

On 06/07/2012 03:06 AM, ***@immi.gov.au wrote:
> Ken Johnston asked:
>
>>Will it be easier to subscribe to BoardGameGeek?
>>
>>Regards
>
> If any blmler wishes to gain a free subscription to
> BoardGameGeek, then that blmler should visit
> the BGG home page at:
>
> http://boardgamegeek.com/
>
> and click on the "Register" box in the top left-
> hand corner. Once that is done, the blmler will
> be able to add her or his own posts to:
>
> http://boardgamegeek.com/thread/812456/the-2007-2008-laws-of-duplicate-bridge
>

I really don't understand why you feel it's necessary for you to post
elsewhere. People who want to filter out certain posters, whether to
delete their messages or just to file them in a different folder, need
to learn how to use the capabilities of their mail program. That seems
a far preferable solution to having BLML fragmented among different
locations.


Brian.

[Gordon Rainsford]

Indeed. Certainly, don't do anything like this on my behalf. I suppose
my post was intended more as an explanation of how things are (why I and
others much prefer the discussions on IBLF to those on BLML) than a
request for you to change. As I also said, it may in any case be too
late for that.

Gordon Rainsford

On 07/06/2012 09:24, Brian wrote:
>> I really don't understand why you feel it's necessary for you to post
>> elsewhere. People who want to filter out certain posters, whether to
>> delete their messages or just to file them in a different folder, need
>> to learn how to use the capabilities of their mail program. That seems
>> a far preferable solution to having BLML fragmented among different
>> locations.

[Tony Musgrove]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: blml-***@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-***@rtflb.org] On Behalf
> Of Gordon Rainsford
> Sent: Thursday, 7 June 2012 6:41 PM
> To: Bridge Laws Mailing List
> Subject: Re: [BLML] Logic (was Klaatu) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL]
>
> Indeed. Certainly, don't do anything like this on my behalf. I suppose
> my post was intended more as an explanation of how things are (why I
and
> others much prefer the discussions on IBLF to those on BLML) than a
> request for you to change. As I also said, it may in any case be too
> late for that.
>
> Gordon Rainsford
>
> On 07/06/2012 09:24, Brian wrote:
> >> I really don't understand why you feel it's necessary for you to
post
> >> elsewhere. People who want to filter out certain posters, whether
to
> >> delete their messages or just to file them in a different folder,
need
> >> to learn how to use the capabilities of their mail program. That
seems
> >> a far preferable solution to having BLML fragmented among different
> >> locations.

[tony] I am also against moving to another platform. I remember I
coughed up $1 only two years ago to ensure the continuation of
BLML, and I think I have about 50c left. I remember when DWS took
his bat and went home, I thought I would never again see a thin
skinned bridge director. When Herman was censured for unparliamentary
language by our moderator, I thought, as one who takes the
Australian parliamentary question time for its entertainment value, that
he, like some of those participants in question time, had perhaps
simply had too good a lunch. So I would say to someone like
Richard, who is quite capable of defending himself in words of
three syllables, or with an apt quote, to return to his accustomed
pillar and dispense erudition until his heart's content.

My only worry is that he seems to be able to compose these
diatribes when he perhaps should be attending to freeing some
of our refugees from their concentration camps, or at the very
least, dispensing movie tickets for the Dept. of Immigration social
club.

Just my 2c worth, so should have 48c to go. Now that Aussie dollar
has slipped below parity, this is not so much these days,

Cheers,

Tony (Sydney)


> _______________________________________________
> Blml mailing list
> ***@rtflb.org
> http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml

[bill kemp]

On 8/06/2012 11:34 AM, Tony Musgrove wrote:
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: blml-***@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-***@rtflb.org] On Behalf
>> Of Gordon Rainsford
>> Sent: Thursday, 7 June 2012 6:41 PM
>> To: Bridge Laws Mailing List
>> Subject: Re: [BLML] Logic (was Klaatu) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL]
>>
>> Indeed. Certainly, don't do anything like this on my behalf. I suppose
>> my post was intended more as an explanation of how things are (why I
> and
>> others much prefer the discussions on IBLF to those on BLML) than a
>> request for you to change. As I also said, it may in any case be too
>> late for that.
>>
>> Gordon Rainsford
>>
>> On 07/06/2012 09:24, Brian wrote:
>>>> I really don't understand why you feel it's necessary for you to
> post
>>>> elsewhere. People who want to filter out certain posters, whether
> to
>>>> delete their messages or just to file them in a different folder,
> need
>>>> to learn how to use the capabilities of their mail program. That
> seems
>>>> a far preferable solution to having BLML fragmented among different
>>>> locations.
> [tony] I am also against moving to another platform. I remember I
> coughed up $1 only two years ago to ensure the continuation of
> BLML, and I think I have about 50c left. I remember when DWS took
> his bat and went home, I thought I would never again see a thin
> skinned bridge director. When Herman was censured for unparliamentary
> language by our moderator, I thought, as one who takes the
> Australian parliamentary question time for its entertainment value, that
> he, like some of those participants in question time, had perhaps
> simply had too good a lunch. So I would say to someone like
> Richard, who is quite capable of defending himself in words of
> three syllables, or with an apt quote, to return to his accustomed
> pillar and dispense erudition until his heart's content.
>
> My only worry is that he seems to be able to compose these
> diatribes when he perhaps should be attending to freeing some
> of our refugees from their concentration camps, or at the very
> least, dispensing movie tickets for the Dept. of Immigration social
> club.
>
> Just my 2c worth, so should have 48c to go. Now that Aussie dollar
> has slipped below parity, this is not so much these days,
>
> Cheers,
>
> Tony (Sydney)

This is also my preferred position (rather than reading Richards posts
on
http://<<boardgamegeek.com/thread/812456/the-2007-2008-laws-of-duplicate-bridge>>
and answering them on BLML which would be my fall back position)

cheers

bill
>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Blml mailing list
>> ***@rtflb.org
>> http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml
> _______________________________________________
> Blml mailing list
> ***@rtflb.org
> http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml
>

[Roger Eymard]

Hi all

After a LOOT suggested by declarer or her partner, declarer spreads his
hand.

L54A : "After a faced opening lead out of turn, declarer may spread his
hand; he becomes dummy. If declarer begins to spread his hand, and in doing
so exposes one or more cards, he must spread his entire hand. Dummy becomes
declarer."

Does that apply if the LOOTer was mistakenly informed by an opponent that it
was his turn to lead ?
IMHO yes, because there is no provision in the Laws saying that L54A applies
only in case of spontaneous LOOT.

L47E.1. : "A lead out of turn (or play of a card) may be retracted without
further rectification if the player was mistakenly informed by an opponent
that it was his turn to lead or play. A lead or play may not be accepted by
his LHO in these circumstances."

Is the LOOTer allowed to retract her card, therefore giving the lead to her
partner with the full knowledge of dummy's cards ?
IMHO yes, because the spreading of her cards by declarer is not an
acceptation of the LOOT, hence not forfeiting the right of the LOOTer to
retract her card.

In summary, both contestants are at fault (L74), L23 may apply against
declarer's side if the choice of becoming dummy is advantageous, but no
restriction applies to defenders if they benefit of the choice of the
leading side with the full view of dummy.

Am I wrong ? Thank you for your advice.

Roger

[Robert Frick]

You ask for advice. But your analysis is stunningly sophisticated.

I would add this to your scenario -- if declarer spreads his hand and
becomes dummy, and the OLOOTer puts his card back in hand, who is on lead?
I think the laws say it is the player who just led out of turn.

It doesn't seem right to allow this player to change his lead once he sees
the dummy (former declarer). So a question is how to get to that ruling. I
am happy just jumping there, but I seem to be a really small minority on
that. I too cannot think of any way to get there using the laws.

Thanks.

Bob


On Fri, 08 Jun 2012 04:52:46 -0400, Roger Eymard <roger-***@orange.fr>
wrote:

> Hi all
>
> After a LOOT suggested by declarer or her partner, declarer spreads his
> hand.
>
> L54A : "After a faced opening lead out of turn, declarer may spread his
> hand; he becomes dummy. If declarer begins to spread his hand, and in
> doing
> so exposes one or more cards, he must spread his entire hand. Dummy
> becomes
> declarer."
>
> Does that apply if the LOOTer was mistakenly informed by an opponent
> that it
> was his turn to lead ?
> IMHO yes, because there is no provision in the Laws saying that L54A
> applies
> only in case of spontaneous LOOT.
>
> L47E.1. : "A lead out of turn (or play of a card) may be retracted
> without
> further rectification if the player was mistakenly informed by an
> opponent
> that it was his turn to lead or play. A lead or play may not be accepted
> by
> his LHO in these circumstances."
>
> Is the LOOTer allowed to retract her card, therefore giving the lead to
> her
> partner with the full knowledge of dummy's cards ?
> IMHO yes, because the spreading of her cards by declarer is not an
> acceptation of the LOOT, hence not forfeiting the right of the LOOTer to
> retract her card.
>
> In summary, both contestants are at fault (L74), L23 may apply against
> declarer's side if the choice of becoming dummy is advantageous, but no
> restriction applies to defenders if they benefit of the choice of the
> leading side with the full view of dummy.
>
> Am I wrong ? Thank you for your advice.
>
> Roger
>
> _______________________________________________
> Blml mailing list
> ***@rtflb.org
> http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml


--
The end of one day is always the start of a next. *

*This offer expires Dec. 21, 2012

[Roger Eymard]

I have not found anything in the Laws which says that the lead remains to
the OLOOTer after she retracts her faced lead. IMHO, not only L47E.1. would
be meaningless if not to give back the opening lead to the normal opener
(normal opener is defined in L41A as the defender on presumed declarer's
left, and (presumed) declarer is defined in the definitions), but it would
be in sheer contradiction with L45C.1. to allow the OLOOTer to retract her
faced lead and to lead another card.

Cases where a player may retract of her own free will a played card and then
play another card without further rectification result always from the play
of a card by an opponent. The spreading of her hand by the (presumed)
declarer is not the play of any card.

Isn't the meaningfulness of each Law, and the coherence of all the Laws
together the touchstone for applying them ?

So, am I right , in such a case of OLOOT suggested by declarer's side,
followed by presumed declarer spreading her hand, to allow the OLOOTer to
maintain or to retract her lead, and, if she retracts, to give the lead to
the "normal" opener, who will lead with full knowledge of now dummy's hand ?

Roger

----- Original Message -----
From: "Robert Frick" <***@rfrick.info>
To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" <***@rtflb.org>; "Roger Eymard"
<roger-***@orange.fr>
Sent: Saturday, June 09, 2012 4:00 AM
Subject: Re: [BLML] LOOT


> You ask for advice. But your analysis is stunningly sophisticated.
>
> I would add this to your scenario -- if declarer spreads his hand and
> becomes dummy, and the OLOOTer puts his card back in hand, who is on lead?
> I think the laws say it is the player who just led out of turn.
>
> It doesn't seem right to allow this player to change his lead once he sees
> the dummy (former declarer). So a question is how to get to that ruling. I
> am happy just jumping there, but I seem to be a really small minority on
> that. I too cannot think of any way to get there using the laws.
>
> Thanks.
>
> Bob
>
>
> On Fri, 08 Jun 2012 04:52:46 -0400, Roger Eymard <roger-***@orange.fr>
> wrote:
>
>> Hi all
>>
>> After a LOOT suggested by declarer or her partner, declarer spreads his
>> hand.
>>
>> L54A : "After a faced opening lead out of turn, declarer may spread his
>> hand; he becomes dummy. If declarer begins to spread his hand, and in
>> doing
>> so exposes one or more cards, he must spread his entire hand. Dummy
>> becomes
>> declarer."
>>
>> Does that apply if the LOOTer was mistakenly informed by an opponent
>> that it
>> was his turn to lead ?
>> IMHO yes, because there is no provision in the Laws saying that L54A
>> applies
>> only in case of spontaneous LOOT.
>>
>> L47E.1. : "A lead out of turn (or play of a card) may be retracted
>> without
>> further rectification if the player was mistakenly informed by an
>> opponent
>> that it was his turn to lead or play. A lead or play may not be accepted
>> by
>> his LHO in these circumstances."
>>
>> Is the LOOTer allowed to retract her card, therefore giving the lead to
>> her
>> partner with the full knowledge of dummy's cards ?
>> IMHO yes, because the spreading of her cards by declarer is not an
>> acceptation of the LOOT, hence not forfeiting the right of the LOOTer to
>> retract her card.
>>
>> In summary, both contestants are at fault (L74), L23 may apply against
>> declarer's side if the choice of becoming dummy is advantageous, but no
>> restriction applies to defenders if they benefit of the choice of the
>> leading side with the full view of dummy.
>>
>> Am I wrong ? Thank you for your advice.
>>
>> Roger
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Blml mailing list
>> ***@rtflb.org
>> http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml
>
>
> --
> The end of one day is always the start of a next. *
>
> *This offer expires Dec. 21, 2012

[Sven Pran]

My impression of this thread so far is that there is a fundamental confusion
between LOOT and OLOOT.

LOOT is a general irregularity which can happen any time during the play
while OLOOT can only happen on the lead to the first trick. Consequently law
that appears relevant to a lead out of turn is overridden by Law 54 (which
specifically applies to opening leads out of turn) whenever there could seem
to be a conflict.

And Law 54 specifies pretty detailed every aspect on what shall happen when
a faced opening lead is made by any player other than presumed declarer's
LHO.

Be aware that there are situations where a card is ruled to be card exposed
during the auction (Law 24) rather than an opening lead out of turn (Law
54)!

> -----Opprinnelig melding-----
> Fra: blml-***@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-***@rtflb.org] På vegne av
> Roger Eymard
> Sendt: 9. juni 2012 14:34
> Til: ***@rfrick.info; Bridge Laws Mailing List
> Emne: Re: [BLML] LOOT
>
> I have not found anything in the Laws which says that the lead remains to
the
> OLOOTer after she retracts her faced lead. IMHO, not only L47E.1. would be
> meaningless if not to give back the opening lead to the normal opener
> (normal opener is defined in L41A as the defender on presumed declarer's
> left, and (presumed) declarer is defined in the definitions), but it would
be in
> sheer contradiction with L45C.1. to allow the OLOOTer to retract her
faced
> lead and to lead another card.
>
> Cases where a player may retract of her own free will a played card and
then
> play another card without further rectification result always from the
play of
> a card by an opponent. The spreading of her hand by the (presumed)
> declarer is not the play of any card.
>
> Isn't the meaningfulness of each Law, and the coherence of all the Laws
> together the touchstone for applying them ?
>
> So, am I right , in such a case of OLOOT suggested by declarer's side,
followed
> by presumed declarer spreading her hand, to allow the OLOOTer to maintain
> or to retract her lead, and, if she retracts, to give the lead to the
"normal"
> opener, who will lead with full knowledge of now dummy's hand ?
>
> Roger
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Robert Frick" <***@rfrick.info>
> To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" <***@rtflb.org>; "Roger Eymard"
> <roger-***@orange.fr>
> Sent: Saturday, June 09, 2012 4:00 AM
> Subject: Re: [BLML] LOOT
>
>
> > You ask for advice. But your analysis is stunningly sophisticated.
> >
> > I would add this to your scenario -- if declarer spreads his hand and
> > becomes dummy, and the OLOOTer puts his card back in hand, who is on
> lead?
> > I think the laws say it is the player who just led out of turn.
> >
> > It doesn't seem right to allow this player to change his lead once he
sees
> > the dummy (former declarer). So a question is how to get to that ruling.
I
> > am happy just jumping there, but I seem to be a really small minority on
> > that. I too cannot think of any way to get there using the laws.
> >
> > Thanks.
> >
> > Bob
> >
> >
> > On Fri, 08 Jun 2012 04:52:46 -0400, Roger Eymard <roger-
> ***@orange.fr>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> Hi all
> >>
> >> After a LOOT suggested by declarer or her partner, declarer spreads his
> >> hand.
> >>
> >> L54A : "After a faced opening lead out of turn, declarer may spread his
> >> hand; he becomes dummy. If declarer begins to spread his hand, and in
> >> doing
> >> so exposes one or more cards, he must spread his entire hand. Dummy
> >> becomes
> >> declarer."
> >>
> >> Does that apply if the LOOTer was mistakenly informed by an opponent
> >> that it
> >> was his turn to lead ?
> >> IMHO yes, because there is no provision in the Laws saying that L54A
> >> applies
> >> only in case of spontaneous LOOT.
> >>
> >> L47E.1. : "A lead out of turn (or play of a card) may be retracted
> >> without
> >> further rectification if the player was mistakenly informed by an
> >> opponent
> >> that it was his turn to lead or play. A lead or play may not be
accepted
> >> by
> >> his LHO in these circumstances."
> >>
> >> Is the LOOTer allowed to retract her card, therefore giving the lead to
> >> her
> >> partner with the full knowledge of dummy's cards ?
> >> IMHO yes, because the spreading of her cards by declarer is not an
> >> acceptation of the LOOT, hence not forfeiting the right of the LOOTer
to
> >> retract her card.
> >>
> >> In summary, both contestants are at fault (L74), L23 may apply against
> >> declarer's side if the choice of becoming dummy is advantageous, but no
> >> restriction applies to defenders if they benefit of the choice of the
> >> leading side with the full view of dummy.
> >>
> >> Am I wrong ? Thank you for your advice.
> >>
> >> Roger
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> Blml mailing list
> >> ***@rtflb.org
> >> http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml
> >
> >
> > --
> > The end of one day is always the start of a next. *
> >
> > *This offer expires Dec. 21, 2012
>
> _______________________________________________
> Blml mailing list
> ***@rtflb.org
> http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml

[Roger Eymard]

Sorry, I always meant OLOOT, and I noticed too late my error after sending
my first post. What happens if declarer spreads her cards after the first
two cards have been played was not my question.

Roger

----- Original Message -----
From: "Sven Pran" <***@online.no>
To: "'Bridge Laws Mailing List'" <***@rtflb.org>
Sent: Saturday, June 09, 2012 2:53 PM
Subject: Re: [BLML] LOOT


My impression of this thread so far is that there is a fundamental confusion
between LOOT and OLOOT.

LOOT is a general irregularity which can happen any time during the play
while OLOOT can only happen on the lead to the first trick. Consequently law
that appears relevant to a lead out of turn is overridden by Law 54 (which
specifically applies to opening leads out of turn) whenever there could seem
to be a conflict.

And Law 54 specifies pretty detailed every aspect on what shall happen when
a faced opening lead is made by any player other than presumed declarer's
LHO.

Be aware that there are situations where a card is ruled to be card exposed
during the auction (Law 24) rather than an opening lead out of turn (Law
54)!

> -----Opprinnelig melding-----
> Fra: blml-***@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-***@rtflb.org] På vegne av
> Roger Eymard
> Sendt: 9. juni 2012 14:34
> Til: ***@rfrick.info; Bridge Laws Mailing List
> Emne: Re: [BLML] LOOT
>
> I have not found anything in the Laws which says that the lead remains to
the
> OLOOTer after she retracts her faced lead. IMHO, not only L47E.1. would be
> meaningless if not to give back the opening lead to the normal opener
> (normal opener is defined in L41A as the defender on presumed declarer's
> left, and (presumed) declarer is defined in the definitions), but it would
be in
> sheer contradiction with L45C.1. to allow the OLOOTer to retract her
faced
> lead and to lead another card.
>
> Cases where a player may retract of her own free will a played card and
then
> play another card without further rectification result always from the
play of
> a card by an opponent. The spreading of her hand by the (presumed)
> declarer is not the play of any card.
>
> Isn't the meaningfulness of each Law, and the coherence of all the Laws
> together the touchstone for applying them ?
>
> So, am I right , in such a case of OLOOT suggested by declarer's side,
followed
> by presumed declarer spreading her hand, to allow the OLOOTer to maintain
> or to retract her lead, and, if she retracts, to give the lead to the
"normal"
> opener, who will lead with full knowledge of now dummy's hand ?
>
> Roger
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Robert Frick" <***@rfrick.info>
> To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" <***@rtflb.org>; "Roger Eymard"
> <roger-***@orange.fr>
> Sent: Saturday, June 09, 2012 4:00 AM
> Subject: Re: [BLML] LOOT
>
>
> > You ask for advice. But your analysis is stunningly sophisticated.
> >
> > I would add this to your scenario -- if declarer spreads his hand and
> > becomes dummy, and the OLOOTer puts his card back in hand, who is on
> lead?
> > I think the laws say it is the player who just led out of turn.
> >
> > It doesn't seem right to allow this player to change his lead once he
sees
> > the dummy (former declarer). So a question is how to get to that ruling.
I
> > am happy just jumping there, but I seem to be a really small minority on
> > that. I too cannot think of any way to get there using the laws.
> >
> > Thanks.
> >
> > Bob
> >
> >
> > On Fri, 08 Jun 2012 04:52:46 -0400, Roger Eymard <roger-
> ***@orange.fr>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> Hi all
> >>
> >> After a LOOT suggested by declarer or her partner, declarer spreads his
> >> hand.
> >>
> >> L54A : "After a faced opening lead out of turn, declarer may spread his
> >> hand; he becomes dummy. If declarer begins to spread his hand, and in
> >> doing
> >> so exposes one or more cards, he must spread his entire hand. Dummy
> >> becomes
> >> declarer."
> >>
> >> Does that apply if the LOOTer was mistakenly informed by an opponent
> >> that it
> >> was his turn to lead ?
> >> IMHO yes, because there is no provision in the Laws saying that L54A
> >> applies
> >> only in case of spontaneous LOOT.
> >>
> >> L47E.1. : "A lead out of turn (or play of a card) may be retracted
> >> without
> >> further rectification if the player was mistakenly informed by an
> >> opponent
> >> that it was his turn to lead or play. A lead or play may not be
accepted
> >> by
> >> his LHO in these circumstances."
> >>
> >> Is the LOOTer allowed to retract her card, therefore giving the lead to
> >> her
> >> partner with the full knowledge of dummy's cards ?
> >> IMHO yes, because the spreading of her cards by declarer is not an
> >> acceptation of the LOOT, hence not forfeiting the right of the LOOTer
to
> >> retract her card.
> >>
> >> In summary, both contestants are at fault (L74), L23 may apply against
> >> declarer's side if the choice of becoming dummy is advantageous, but no
> >> restriction applies to defenders if they benefit of the choice of the
> >> leading side with the full view of dummy.
> >>
> >> Am I wrong ? Thank you for your advice.
> >>
> >> Roger
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> Blml mailing list
> >> ***@rtflb.org
> >> http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml
> >
> >
> > --
> > The end of one day is always the start of a next. *
> >
> > *This offer expires Dec. 21, 2012
>
> _______________________________________________
> Blml mailing list
> ***@rtflb.org
> http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml

[Robert Frick]

Again, there is an OLOOT by a misinformed defender, with LHO then putting
down his hand as dummy. The OLOOT is retracted. Now what? I think...


1. While the player who put down his hand as dummy *was* the "presumed
declarer", his partner is now the presumed declarer. So the OLOOTer is on
lead.


2. I am going to rule that L16D applies to his sight of the dummy. So the
OLOOTer pretty much has to lead the same card.


3. Spreading his hand was not a rectification. As defined, only the
director can do rectifications. So... the player who was supposed to be
declarer can display his hand and become dummy before the irregularity is
noted. After the irregularity is noted, he cannot do this.

None of the laws are exactly what I would like to make these rulings. But,
compared to other situations the laws were not built to handle, this seems
to be a relatively trouble-free way to get to a good ruling.

Bob


On Sat, 09 Jun 2012 08:33:39 -0400, Roger Eymard <roger-***@orange.fr>
wrote:

> I have not found anything in the Laws which says that the lead remains
> to the OLOOTer after she retracts her faced lead. IMHO, not only L47E.1.
> would be meaningless if not to give back the opening lead to the normal
> opener (normal opener is defined in L41A as the defender on presumed
> declarer's left, and (presumed) declarer is defined in the definitions),
> but it would be in sheer contradiction with L45C.1. to allow the
> OLOOTer to retract her faced lead and to lead another card.
>
> Cases where a player may retract of her own free will a played card and
> then play another card without further rectification result always from
> the play of a card by an opponent. The spreading of her hand by the
> (presumed) declarer is not the play of any card.
>
> Isn't the meaningfulness of each Law, and the coherence of all the Laws
> together the touchstone for applying them ?
>
> So, am I right , in such a case of OLOOT suggested by declarer's side,
> followed by presumed declarer spreading her hand, to allow the OLOOTer
> to maintain or to retract her lead, and, if she retracts, to give the
> lead to the "normal" opener, who will lead with full knowledge of now
> dummy's hand ?
>
> Roger
>
> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Robert Frick" <***@rfrick.info>
> To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" <***@rtflb.org>; "Roger Eymard"
> <roger-***@orange.fr>
> Sent: Saturday, June 09, 2012 4:00 AM
> Subject: Re: [BLML] LOOT
>
>
>> You ask for advice. But your analysis is stunningly sophisticated.
>>
>> I would add this to your scenario -- if declarer spreads his hand and
>> becomes dummy, and the OLOOTer puts his card back in hand, who is on
>> lead? I think the laws say it is the player who just led out of turn.
>>
>> It doesn't seem right to allow this player to change his lead once he
>> sees the dummy (former declarer). So a question is how to get to that
>> ruling. I am happy just jumping there, but I seem to be a really small
>> minority on that. I too cannot think of any way to get there using the
>> laws.
>>
>> Thanks.
>>
>> Bob
>>
>>
>> On Fri, 08 Jun 2012 04:52:46 -0400, Roger Eymard
>> <roger-***@orange.fr> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi all
>>>
>>> After a LOOT suggested by declarer or her partner, declarer spreads his
>>> hand.
>>>
>>> L54A : "After a faced opening lead out of turn, declarer may spread his
>>> hand; he becomes dummy. If declarer begins to spread his hand, and in
>>> doing
>>> so exposes one or more cards, he must spread his entire hand. Dummy
>>> becomes
>>> declarer."
>>>
>>> Does that apply if the LOOTer was mistakenly informed by an opponent
>>> that it
>>> was his turn to lead ?
>>> IMHO yes, because there is no provision in the Laws saying that L54A
>>> applies
>>> only in case of spontaneous LOOT.
>>>
>>> L47E.1. : "A lead out of turn (or play of a card) may be retracted
>>> without
>>> further rectification if the player was mistakenly informed by an
>>> opponent
>>> that it was his turn to lead or play. A lead or play may not be
>>> accepted by
>>> his LHO in these circumstances."
>>>
>>> Is the LOOTer allowed to retract her card, therefore giving the lead
>>> to her
>>> partner with the full knowledge of dummy's cards ?
>>> IMHO yes, because the spreading of her cards by declarer is not an
>>> acceptation of the LOOT, hence not forfeiting the right of the LOOTer
>>> to
>>> retract her card.
>>>
>>> In summary, both contestants are at fault (L74), L23 may apply against
>>> declarer's side if the choice of becoming dummy is advantageous, but no
>>> restriction applies to defenders if they benefit of the choice of the
>>> leading side with the full view of dummy.
>>>
>>> Am I wrong ? Thank you for your advice.
>>>
>>> Roger
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Blml mailing list
>>> ***@rtflb.org
>>> http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml
>>
>>
>> -- The end of one day is always the start of a next. *
>>
>> *This offer expires Dec. 21, 2012
>


--
The end of one day is always the start of a next. *

*This offer expires Dec. 21, 2012

[Sven Pran]

> Robert Frick
> Again, there is an OLOOT by a misinformed defender, with LHO then putting
> down his hand as dummy. The OLOOT is retracted. Now what? I think...
>
[Sven Pran]
Rubbish.
Where in Law 54 do you find any possibility for the (misinformed) defender
to retract his OLOOT? He cannot. Law 54 is a specific law that applies on
OLOOT. If there seems to be any conflict with other, more general laws on
lead out of turn then Law 54 takes precedence.

But if you with OLOOT mean that the defender has placed his card face down
(not faced) on the table then no opening lead has been made (by this
defender) and presumed declarer has exposed all his cards during the auction
so Law 24 applies.

>
> 1. While the player who put down his hand as dummy *was* the "presumed
> declarer", his partner is now the presumed declarer. So the OLOOTer is on
> lead.
>
[Sven Pran]
More rubbish.
If the OLOOT was indeed made then it cannot be retracted once presumed
declarer has accepted it, for instance by facing his cards as dummy, and the
"OLOOTer" Is no longer on the lead, he has made his lead, period.

>
> 2. I am going to rule that L16D applies to his sight of the dummy. So the
> OLOOTer pretty much has to lead the same card.
>
[Sven Pran]
Still more rubbish.
Either presumed declarer has become dummy (L54A) or his cards have been
exposed during the auction (L24). In neither case is L16D applicable.

>
> 3. Spreading his hand was not a rectification. As defined, only the
director can
> do rectifications. So... the player who was supposed to be declarer can
> display his hand and become dummy before the irregularity is noted. After
> the irregularity is noted, he cannot do this.

[Sven Pran]
Sure he can, just read (and understand) Law 54A

>
> None of the laws are exactly what I would like to make these rulings. But,
> compared to other situations the laws were not built to handle, this seems
to
> be a relatively trouble-free way to get to a good ruling.
>
> Bob
>
>
> On Sat, 09 Jun 2012 08:33:39 -0400, Roger Eymard <roger-
> ***@orange.fr>
> wrote:
>
> > I have not found anything in the Laws which says that the lead remains
> > to the OLOOTer after she retracts her faced lead. IMHO, not only L47E.1.
> > would be meaningless if not to give back the opening lead to the normal
> > opener (normal opener is defined in L41A as the defender on presumed
> > declarer's left, and (presumed) declarer is defined in the definitions),
> > but it would be in sheer contradiction with L45C.1. to allow the
> > OLOOTer to retract her faced lead and to lead another card.
> >
> > Cases where a player may retract of her own free will a played card and
> > then play another card without further rectification result always from
> > the play of a card by an opponent. The spreading of her hand by the
> > (presumed) declarer is not the play of any card.
> >
> > Isn't the meaningfulness of each Law, and the coherence of all the Laws
> > together the touchstone for applying them ?
> >
> > So, am I right , in such a case of OLOOT suggested by declarer's side,
> > followed by presumed declarer spreading her hand, to allow the OLOOTer
> > to maintain or to retract her lead, and, if she retracts, to give the
> > lead to the "normal" opener, who will lead with full knowledge of now
> > dummy's hand ?
> >
> > Roger
> >
> > ----- Original Message ----- From: "Robert Frick" <***@rfrick.info>
> > To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" <***@rtflb.org>; "Roger Eymard"
> > <roger-***@orange.fr>
> > Sent: Saturday, June 09, 2012 4:00 AM
> > Subject: Re: [BLML] LOOT
> >
> >
> >> You ask for advice. But your analysis is stunningly sophisticated.
> >>
> >> I would add this to your scenario -- if declarer spreads his hand and
> >> becomes dummy, and the OLOOTer puts his card back in hand, who is on
> >> lead? I think the laws say it is the player who just led out of turn.
> >>
> >> It doesn't seem right to allow this player to change his lead once he
> >> sees the dummy (former declarer). So a question is how to get to that
> >> ruling. I am happy just jumping there, but I seem to be a really small
> >> minority on that. I too cannot think of any way to get there using the
> >> laws.
> >>
> >> Thanks.
> >>
> >> Bob
> >>
> >>
> >> On Fri, 08 Jun 2012 04:52:46 -0400, Roger Eymard
> >> <roger-***@orange.fr> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Hi all
> >>>
> >>> After a LOOT suggested by declarer or her partner, declarer spreads
his
> >>> hand.
> >>>
> >>> L54A : "After a faced opening lead out of turn, declarer may spread
his
> >>> hand; he becomes dummy. If declarer begins to spread his hand, and in
> >>> doing
> >>> so exposes one or more cards, he must spread his entire hand. Dummy
> >>> becomes
> >>> declarer."
> >>>
> >>> Does that apply if the LOOTer was mistakenly informed by an opponent
> >>> that it
> >>> was his turn to lead ?
> >>> IMHO yes, because there is no provision in the Laws saying that L54A
> >>> applies
> >>> only in case of spontaneous LOOT.
> >>>
> >>> L47E.1. : "A lead out of turn (or play of a card) may be retracted
> >>> without
> >>> further rectification if the player was mistakenly informed by an
> >>> opponent
> >>> that it was his turn to lead or play. A lead or play may not be
> >>> accepted by
> >>> his LHO in these circumstances."
> >>>
> >>> Is the LOOTer allowed to retract her card, therefore giving the lead
> >>> to her
> >>> partner with the full knowledge of dummy's cards ?
> >>> IMHO yes, because the spreading of her cards by declarer is not an
> >>> acceptation of the LOOT, hence not forfeiting the right of the LOOTer
> >>> to
> >>> retract her card.
> >>>
> >>> In summary, both contestants are at fault (L74), L23 may apply against
> >>> declarer's side if the choice of becoming dummy is advantageous, but
no
> >>> restriction applies to defenders if they benefit of the choice of the
> >>> leading side with the full view of dummy.
> >>>
> >>> Am I wrong ? Thank you for your advice.
> >>>
> >>> Roger
> >>>
> >>> _______________________________________________
> >>> Blml mailing list
> >>> ***@rtflb.org
> >>> http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml
> >>
> >>
> >> -- The end of one day is always the start of a next. *
> >>
> >> *This offer expires Dec. 21, 2012
> >
>
>
> --
> The end of one day is always the start of a next. *
>
> *This offer expires Dec. 21, 2012
> _______________________________________________
> Blml mailing list
> ***@rtflb.org
> http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml

[Tony Musgrove]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: blml-***@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-***@rtflb.org] On Behalf
> Of Sven Pran
> Sent: Sunday, 10 June 2012 3:59 PM
> To: 'Bridge Laws Mailing List'
> Subject: Re: [BLML] LOOT
>
> > Robert Frick
> > Again, there is an OLOOT by a misinformed defender, with LHO then
> putting
> > down his hand as dummy. The OLOOT is retracted. Now what? I think...
> >
[tony] As I understand it, the problem is that one of the declaring
side has suggested to the wrong defender that it is her turn to
lead, and then quickly faced his hand when he sees that the lead
may be favourable to his side. Not having played bridge in the
US before (not for want of trying), I cannot conceive of this sort
of behaviour, but if this is the general standard to be expected
I am glad.

Cheers

Tony (Sydney)

[Sven Pran]

> Tony Musgrove
> > From: blml-***@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-***@rtflb.org] On Behalf
> > Of Sven Pran
> > Sent: Sunday, 10 June 2012 3:59 PM
> > To: 'Bridge Laws Mailing List'
> > Subject: Re: [BLML] LOOT
> >
> > > Robert Frick
> > > Again, there is an OLOOT by a misinformed defender, with LHO then
> > putting
> > > down his hand as dummy. The OLOOT is retracted. Now what? I think...
> > >
> [tony] As I understand it, the problem is that one of the declaring side
has
> suggested to the wrong defender that it is her turn to lead, and then
quickly
> faced his hand when he sees that the lead may be favourable to his side.
> Not having played bridge in the US before (not for want of trying), I
cannot
> conceive of this sort of behaviour, but if this is the general standard to
be
> expected I am glad.

[Sven Pran]
That would be an obvious and clear Law 23 case; the irregularity being the
incorrect information about which (presumed) defender is to make the opening
lead.

The play should go as prescribed in L54, but if (at end of play) damage to
defending side from the incorrect opening lead (as a consequence of
incorrect information from declaring side) is established the Director
should adjust the score.

[Roger Eymard]

Do you mean that whatever the reason of the faced OLOOT, when declarer
spreads her hand, the OLOOT is accepted ?
IMHO, the reference to L53 in L54B, and the reference to L47E1 in L53A do
preclude that. In case of a suggested (by a player of declarer's side) faced
OLOOT, L54 is therefore limited by L47E1. The OLOOT is not accepted as a
consequence of the (presumed) declarer spreading her hand (and becoming
dummy - nothing in the Laws against L54A), and may be retracted.
IMHO, "rubbish" is not appropriate here.

But then what happens ?
Does "may" in L47E1 mean that the faced OLOOTer has the right to choose to
retract her card or to choose to maintain it, and that the director must
instruct her that way?
If so, and if the OLOOTer decides to retract her card, does the opening lead
belong to the "normal" opener ("presumed" declarer's LHO) ?

A deal from real life :
North: 52
AJ10943
8
AQ42
West: J9743 East: AKQ10
K8 765
A962 KQJ5
K7 J8
South: 86
Q2
10743
109653
East is the presumed declarer in 4S. 1 down if everything follows normally.
But East suggests to North to lead, and spreads her hand, after the lead is
faced, becoming dummy.
If the opening lead remains in North's hand, 4S just made.
If North is allowed to retract her lead, and give back the opening lead to
South, 1 down again.
Note that if North is not allowed to retract her lead, L23 provides the
director with the mean to adjust the score to 1 down (East, when advising
North to make the opening lead, could have known that any value in heart or
club in West's hand would be protected).

Roger

----- Original Message -----
From: "Sven Pran" <***@online.no>
To: "'Bridge Laws Mailing List'" <***@rtflb.org>
Sent: Sunday, June 10, 2012 7:59 AM
Subject: Re: [BLML] LOOT


>> Robert Frick
>> Again, there is an OLOOT by a misinformed defender, with LHO then putting
>> down his hand as dummy. The OLOOT is retracted. Now what? I think...
>>
> [Sven Pran]
> Rubbish.
> Where in Law 54 do you find any possibility for the (misinformed) defender
> to retract his OLOOT? He cannot. Law 54 is a specific law that applies on
> OLOOT. If there seems to be any conflict with other, more general laws on
> lead out of turn then Law 54 takes precedence.
>
> But if you with OLOOT mean that the defender has placed his card face down
> (not faced) on the table then no opening lead has been made (by this
> defender) and presumed declarer has exposed all his cards during the
> auction
> so Law 24 applies.
>
>>
>> 1. While the player who put down his hand as dummy *was* the "presumed
>> declarer", his partner is now the presumed declarer. So the OLOOTer is on
>> lead.
>>
> [Sven Pran]
> More rubbish.
> If the OLOOT was indeed made then it cannot be retracted once presumed
> declarer has accepted it, for instance by facing his cards as dummy, and
> the
> "OLOOTer" Is no longer on the lead, he has made his lead, period.
>
>>
>> 2. I am going to rule that L16D applies to his sight of the dummy. So the
>> OLOOTer pretty much has to lead the same card.
>>
> [Sven Pran]
> Still more rubbish.
> Either presumed declarer has become dummy (L54A) or his cards have been
> exposed during the auction (L24). In neither case is L16D applicable.
>
>>
>> 3. Spreading his hand was not a rectification. As defined, only the
> director can
>> do rectifications. So... the player who was supposed to be declarer can
>> display his hand and become dummy before the irregularity is noted. After
>> the irregularity is noted, he cannot do this.
>
> [Sven Pran]
> Sure he can, just read (and understand) Law 54A
>
>>
>> None of the laws are exactly what I would like to make these rulings.
>> But,
>> compared to other situations the laws were not built to handle, this
>> seems
> to
>> be a relatively trouble-free way to get to a good ruling.
>>
>> Bob
>>
>>
>> On Sat, 09 Jun 2012 08:33:39 -0400, Roger Eymard <roger-
>> ***@orange.fr>
>> wrote:
>>
>> > I have not found anything in the Laws which says that the lead remains
>> > to the OLOOTer after she retracts her faced lead. IMHO, not only
>> > L47E.1.
>> > would be meaningless if not to give back the opening lead to the normal
>> > opener (normal opener is defined in L41A as the defender on presumed
>> > declarer's left, and (presumed) declarer is defined in the
>> > definitions),
>> > but it would be in sheer contradiction with L45C.1. to allow the
>> > OLOOTer to retract her faced lead and to lead another card.
>> >
>> > Cases where a player may retract of her own free will a played card and
>> > then play another card without further rectification result always from
>> > the play of a card by an opponent. The spreading of her hand by the
>> > (presumed) declarer is not the play of any card.
>> >
>> > Isn't the meaningfulness of each Law, and the coherence of all the Laws
>> > together the touchstone for applying them ?
>> >
>> > So, am I right , in such a case of OLOOT suggested by declarer's side,
>> > followed by presumed declarer spreading her hand, to allow the OLOOTer
>> > to maintain or to retract her lead, and, if she retracts, to give the
>> > lead to the "normal" opener, who will lead with full knowledge of now
>> > dummy's hand ?
>> >
>> > Roger
>> >
>> > ----- Original Message ----- From: "Robert Frick" <***@rfrick.info>
>> > To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" <***@rtflb.org>; "Roger Eymard"
>> > <roger-***@orange.fr>
>> > Sent: Saturday, June 09, 2012 4:00 AM
>> > Subject: Re: [BLML] LOOT
>> >
>> >
>> >> You ask for advice. But your analysis is stunningly sophisticated.
>> >>
>> >> I would add this to your scenario -- if declarer spreads his hand and
>> >> becomes dummy, and the OLOOTer puts his card back in hand, who is on
>> >> lead? I think the laws say it is the player who just led out of turn.
>> >>
>> >> It doesn't seem right to allow this player to change his lead once he
>> >> sees the dummy (former declarer). So a question is how to get to that
>> >> ruling. I am happy just jumping there, but I seem to be a really small
>> >> minority on that. I too cannot think of any way to get there using the
>> >> laws.
>> >>
>> >> Thanks.
>> >>
>> >> Bob
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> On Fri, 08 Jun 2012 04:52:46 -0400, Roger Eymard
>> >> <roger-***@orange.fr> wrote:
>> >>
>> >>> Hi all
>> >>>
>> >>> After a LOOT suggested by declarer or her partner, declarer spreads
> his
>> >>> hand.
>> >>>
>> >>> L54A : "After a faced opening lead out of turn, declarer may spread
> his
>> >>> hand; he becomes dummy. If declarer begins to spread his hand, and in
>> >>> doing
>> >>> so exposes one or more cards, he must spread his entire hand. Dummy
>> >>> becomes
>> >>> declarer."
>> >>>
>> >>> Does that apply if the LOOTer was mistakenly informed by an opponent
>> >>> that it
>> >>> was his turn to lead ?
>> >>> IMHO yes, because there is no provision in the Laws saying that L54A
>> >>> applies
>> >>> only in case of spontaneous LOOT.
>> >>>
>> >>> L47E.1. : "A lead out of turn (or play of a card) may be retracted
>> >>> without
>> >>> further rectification if the player was mistakenly informed by an
>> >>> opponent
>> >>> that it was his turn to lead or play. A lead or play may not be
>> >>> accepted by
>> >>> his LHO in these circumstances."
>> >>>
>> >>> Is the LOOTer allowed to retract her card, therefore giving the lead
>> >>> to her
>> >>> partner with the full knowledge of dummy's cards ?
>> >>> IMHO yes, because the spreading of her cards by declarer is not an
>> >>> acceptation of the LOOT, hence not forfeiting the right of the LOOTer
>> >>> to
>> >>> retract her card.
>> >>>
>> >>> In summary, both contestants are at fault (L74), L23 may apply
>> >>> against
>> >>> declarer's side if the choice of becoming dummy is advantageous, but
> no
>> >>> restriction applies to defenders if they benefit of the choice of the
>> >>> leading side with the full view of dummy.
>> >>>
>> >>> Am I wrong ? Thank you for your advice.
>> >>>
>> >>> Roger
>> >>>
>> >>> _______________________________________________
>> >>> Blml mailing list
>> >>> ***@rtflb.org
>> >>> http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> -- The end of one day is always the start of a next. *
>> >>
>> >> *This offer expires Dec. 21, 2012
>> >
>>
>>
>> --
>> The end of one day is always the start of a next. *
>>
>> *This offer expires Dec. 21, 2012
>> _______________________________________________
>> Blml mailing list
>> ***@rtflb.org
>> http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Blml mailing list
> ***@rtflb.org
> http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml

[Ed Reppert]

On Jun 10, 2012, at 10:10 AM, Roger Eymard wrote:

> Do you mean that whatever the reason of the faced OLOOT, when declarer
> spreads her hand, the OLOOT is accepted ?
> IMHO, the reference to L53 in L54B, and the reference to L47E1 in L53A do
> preclude that. In case of a suggested (by a player of declarer's side) faced
> OLOOT, L54 is therefore limited by L47E1. The OLOOT is not accepted as a
> consequence of the (presumed) declarer spreading her hand (and becoming
> dummy - nothing in the Laws against L54A), and may be retracted.
> IMHO, "rubbish" is not appropriate here.
>
> But then what happens ?
> Does "may" in L47E1 mean that the faced OLOOTer has the right to choose to
> retract her card or to choose to maintain it, and that the director must
> instruct her that way?
> If so, and if the OLOOTer decides to retract her card, does the opening lead
> belong to the "normal" opener ("presumed" declarer's LHO) ?
>
> A deal from real life :
> North: 52
> AJ10943
> 8
> AQ42
> West: J9743 East: AKQ10
> K8 765
> A962 KQJ5
> K7 J8
> South: 86
> Q2
> 10743
> 109653
> East is the presumed declarer in 4S. 1 down if everything follows normally.
> But East suggests to North to lead, and spreads her hand, after the lead is
> faced, becoming dummy.
> If the opening lead remains in North's hand, 4S just made.
> If North is allowed to retract her lead, and give back the opening lead to
> South, 1 down again.
> Note that if North is not allowed to retract her lead, L23 provides the
> director with the mean to adjust the score to 1 down (East, when advising
> North to make the opening lead, could have known that any value in heart or
> club in West's hand would be protected).

"May not" in L47E1 is a very strong prohibition. The way that Law 54A is worded, there is no implication that declarer spreading his hand under this law constitutes acceptance of the lead. Therefore, declarer having spread his hand, he is dummy and his partner becomes declarer, but the opening leader now has the option to retract his lead (without it becoming a penalty card). Then his partner, who should have led, is on lead. I like Roger's application of Law 23 after this - if the defenders were damaged, adjust the score — but I wonder if 'without further rectification' in 47E1 is meant just to preclude making the withdrawn card a penalty card, or does it mean that Law 23 cannot be applied? If the latter, then 23 would apply only if the lead is not changed, and the director needs to explain this to the leader *before* he decides whether to change his lead. Of course, in Roger's example, if the lead reverts to the correct player, there may *be* no damage. In other examples, though, there may still be damage.

[Robert Frick]

On Sun, 10 Jun 2012 12:14:25 -0400, Ed Reppert <***@mac.com> wrote:

>
> On Jun 10, 2012, at 10:10 AM, Roger Eymard wrote:
>
>> Do you mean that whatever the reason of the faced OLOOT, when declarer
>> spreads her hand, the OLOOT is accepted ?
>> IMHO, the reference to L53 in L54B, and the reference to L47E1 in L53A
>> do
>> preclude that. In case of a suggested (by a player of declarer's side)
>> faced
>> OLOOT, L54 is therefore limited by L47E1. The OLOOT is not accepted as a
>> consequence of the (presumed) declarer spreading her hand (and becoming
>> dummy - nothing in the Laws against L54A), and may be retracted.
>> IMHO, "rubbish" is not appropriate here.
>>
>> But then what happens ?
>> Does "may" in L47E1 mean that the faced OLOOTer has the right to choose
>> to
>> retract her card or to choose to maintain it, and that the director must
>> instruct her that way?
>> If so, and if the OLOOTer decides to retract her card, does the opening
>> lead
>> belong to the "normal" opener ("presumed" declarer's LHO) ?
>>
>> A deal from real life :
>> North: 52
>> AJ10943
>> 8
>> AQ42
>> West: J9743 East: AKQ10
>> K8 765
>> A962 KQJ5
>> K7 J8
>> South: 86
>> Q2
>> 10743
>> 109653
>> East is the presumed declarer in 4S. 1 down if everything follows
>> normally.
>> But East suggests to North to lead, and spreads her hand, after the
>> lead is
>> faced, becoming dummy.
>> If the opening lead remains in North's hand, 4S just made.
>> If North is allowed to retract her lead, and give back the opening lead
>> to
>> South, 1 down again.
>> Note that if North is not allowed to retract her lead, L23 provides the
>> director with the mean to adjust the score to 1 down (East, when
>> advising
>> North to make the opening lead, could have known that any value in
>> heart or
>> club in West's hand would be protected).
>
> "May not" in L47E1 is a very strong prohibition. The way that Law 54A is
> worded, there is no implication that declarer spreading his hand under
> this law constitutes acceptance of the lead. Therefore, declarer having
> spread his hand, he is dummy and his partner becomes declarer, but the
> opening leader now has the option to retract his lead (without it
> becoming a penalty card). Then his partner, who should have led, is on
> lead.

The natural language meaning of "presumed declarer" would seem to be 'the
person we expect will be declarer'. This seems to work really well in the
context of the laws, where we could even define the "presumed declarer" to
be 'the person who will be declarer unless L54A is invoked'.

So why would partner still be on lead? OLOOTer is now on declarer's left.


> I like Roger's application of Law 23 after this - if the defenders were
> damaged, adjust the score — but I wonder if 'without further
> rectification' in 47E1 is meant just to preclude making the withdrawn
> card a penalty card, or does it mean that Law 23 cannot be applied? If
> the latter, then 23 would apply only if the lead is not changed, and the
> director needs to explain this to the leader *before* he decides whether
> to change his lead. Of course, in Roger's example, if the lead reverts
> to the correct player, there may *be* no damage. In other examples,
> though, there may still be damage.
> _______________________________________________
> Blml mailing list
> ***@rtflb.org
> http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml


--
The end of one day is always the start of a next. *

*This offer expires Dec. 21, 2012

[Sven Pran]

> Robert Frick
[...]
> The natural language meaning of "presumed declarer" would seem to be 'the
> person we expect will be declarer'. This seems to work really well in the
> context of the laws, where we could even define the "presumed declarer" to
> be 'the person who will be declarer unless L54A is invoked'.
>
> So why would partner still be on lead? OLOOTer is now on declarer's left.

[Sven Pran]
"Presumed" declarer primarily caters for the situation in which the auction is continued from the application of Law 21B (when misinformation from presumed declaring side is revealed during the clarification period). The outcome of such a continued auction can for instance very well be that the originally presumed declarer becomes a defender.

But (as you state) it also caters for the situation when presumed declarer becomes dummy by application of Law 54A. The effect of this law is that the OLOOT becomes the legal opening lead as if no irregularity had occurred.

>
> > I like Roger's application of Law 23 after this - if the defenders
> > were damaged, adjust the score — but I wonder if 'without further
> > rectification' in 47E1 is meant just to preclude making the withdrawn
> > card a penalty card, or does it mean that Law 23 cannot be applied? If
> > the latter, then 23 would apply only if the lead is not changed, and
> > the director needs to explain this to the leader *before* he decides
> > whether to change his lead. Of course, in Roger's example, if the lead
> > reverts to the correct player, there may *be* no damage. In other
> > examples, though, there may still be damage.

[Sven Pran]
There is no limitation to an application of law 23 (other than the conditions set out in this law).

[Ed Reppert]

On Jun 11, 2012, at 2:51 AM, Sven Pran wrote:

> There is no limitation to an application of law 23 (other than the conditions set out in this law).

Because?

[Sven Pran]

Definition: "Play period - commences when the opening lead on a board is
faced;"

Law 54E was added in 2007 to make it absolutely clear that an attempt by a
player on the declaring side to make an opening lead shall (instead) be
treated as a card exposed during the auction. Consequently the play period
only commences on a faced opening lead by a defender.

The Director can, and should apply Law 47E1 if an opening lead out of turn
is made by presumed declarer's RHO if this player was mistakenly informed by
an opponent that it was his turn to lead, (implicitly) provided that no card
has subsequently been faced by presumed declarer or dummy. Law 47E1
effectively declares such leads to be NULL and VOID.

However, this discussion is about the situation when presumed declarer faces
his hand subsequent to the OLOOT by his RHO, and then Law 54A applies, there
is no reference here to neither Law 53 nor Law 47, and the implication is
that play continues with presumed declarer as dummy and his partner as
declarer. Allowing the opening lead to be retracted is no option.

So what would be the situation if we could apply Law 47E1 also in this
situation?

As I said above Law 47E1 effectively makes the lead NULL and VOID with the
consequence that play period has not yet commenced.
This means that all presumed declarer's (faced) cards must be treated as
cards exposed prior to play period for which Law 24 applies. This leads to
the following scenario (with South as presumed declarer):

East is told by South that it is his lead and faces a presumed opening lead
after which South faces his hand presuming that he is dummy.
Now the Director applies L47E1 and lets East take back his "lead" while
South's hand remains faced on the table for the time being as cards exposed
prior to play period.
West then makes his opening lead, South takes back his thirteen cards and
North faces his hand as Dummy.
The information from seeing South's cards is AI to both East and West.

Is there anybody who seriously considers this to be how the situation shall
be handled?

> Roger Eymard
> Do you mean that whatever the reason of the faced OLOOT, when declarer
> spreads her hand, the OLOOT is accepted ?
> IMHO, the reference to L53 in L54B, and the reference to L47E1 in L53A do
> preclude that. In case of a suggested (by a player of declarer's side)
faced
> OLOOT, L54 is therefore limited by L47E1. The OLOOT is not accepted as a
> consequence of the (presumed) declarer spreading her hand (and becoming
> dummy - nothing in the Laws against L54A), and may be retracted.
> IMHO, "rubbish" is not appropriate here.
>
> But then what happens ?
> Does "may" in L47E1 mean that the faced OLOOTer has the right to choose to
> retract her card or to choose to maintain it, and that the director must
> instruct her that way?
> If so, and if the OLOOTer decides to retract her card, does the opening
lead
> belong to the "normal" opener ("presumed" declarer's LHO) ?
>
> A deal from real life :
> North: 52
> AJ10943
> 8
> AQ42
> West: J9743 East: AKQ10
> K8 765
> A962 KQJ5
> K7 J8
> South: 86
> Q2
> 10743
> 109653
> East is the presumed declarer in 4S. 1 down if everything follows
normally.
> But East suggests to North to lead, and spreads her hand, after the lead
is
> faced, becoming dummy.
> If the opening lead remains in North's hand, 4S just made.
> If North is allowed to retract her lead, and give back the opening lead to
> South, 1 down again.
> Note that if North is not allowed to retract her lead, L23 provides the
director
> with the mean to adjust the score to 1 down (East, when advising North to
> make the opening lead, could have known that any value in heart or club in
> West's hand would be protected).
>
> Roger
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Sven Pran" <***@online.no>
> To: "'Bridge Laws Mailing List'" <***@rtflb.org>
> Sent: Sunday, June 10, 2012 7:59 AM
> Subject: Re: [BLML] LOOT
>
>
> >> Robert Frick
> >> Again, there is an OLOOT by a misinformed defender, with LHO then
> putting
> >> down his hand as dummy. The OLOOT is retracted. Now what? I think...
> >>
> > [Sven Pran]
> > Rubbish.
> > Where in Law 54 do you find any possibility for the (misinformed)
defender
> > to retract his OLOOT? He cannot. Law 54 is a specific law that applies
on
> > OLOOT. If there seems to be any conflict with other, more general laws
on
> > lead out of turn then Law 54 takes precedence.
> >
> > But if you with OLOOT mean that the defender has placed his card face
> down
> > (not faced) on the table then no opening lead has been made (by this
> > defender) and presumed declarer has exposed all his cards during the
> > auction
> > so Law 24 applies.
> >
> >>
> >> 1. While the player who put down his hand as dummy *was* the
> "presumed
> >> declarer", his partner is now the presumed declarer. So the OLOOTer is
on
> >> lead.
> >>
> > [Sven Pran]
> > More rubbish.
> > If the OLOOT was indeed made then it cannot be retracted once presumed
> > declarer has accepted it, for instance by facing his cards as dummy, and
> > the
> > "OLOOTer" Is no longer on the lead, he has made his lead, period.
> >
> >>
> >> 2. I am going to rule that L16D applies to his sight of the dummy. So
the
> >> OLOOTer pretty much has to lead the same card.
> >>
> > [Sven Pran]
> > Still more rubbish.
> > Either presumed declarer has become dummy (L54A) or his cards have
> been
> > exposed during the auction (L24). In neither case is L16D applicable.
> >
> >>
> >> 3. Spreading his hand was not a rectification. As defined, only the
> > director can
> >> do rectifications. So... the player who was supposed to be declarer can
> >> display his hand and become dummy before the irregularity is noted.
> After
> >> the irregularity is noted, he cannot do this.
> >
> > [Sven Pran]
> > Sure he can, just read (and understand) Law 54A
> >
> >>
> >> None of the laws are exactly what I would like to make these rulings.
> >> But,
> >> compared to other situations the laws were not built to handle, this
> >> seems
> > to
> >> be a relatively trouble-free way to get to a good ruling.
> >>
> >> Bob
> >>
> >>
> >> On Sat, 09 Jun 2012 08:33:39 -0400, Roger Eymard <roger-
> >> ***@orange.fr>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> > I have not found anything in the Laws which says that the lead
remains
> >> > to the OLOOTer after she retracts her faced lead. IMHO, not only
> >> > L47E.1.
> >> > would be meaningless if not to give back the opening lead to the
normal
> >> > opener (normal opener is defined in L41A as the defender on presumed
> >> > declarer's left, and (presumed) declarer is defined in the
> >> > definitions),
> >> > but it would be in sheer contradiction with L45C.1. to allow the
> >> > OLOOTer to retract her faced lead and to lead another card.
> >> >
> >> > Cases where a player may retract of her own free will a played card
and
> >> > then play another card without further rectification result always
from
> >> > the play of a card by an opponent. The spreading of her hand by the
> >> > (presumed) declarer is not the play of any card.
> >> >
> >> > Isn't the meaningfulness of each Law, and the coherence of all the
Laws
> >> > together the touchstone for applying them ?
> >> >
> >> > So, am I right , in such a case of OLOOT suggested by declarer's
side,
> >> > followed by presumed declarer spreading her hand, to allow the
> OLOOTer
> >> > to maintain or to retract her lead, and, if she retracts, to give the
> >> > lead to the "normal" opener, who will lead with full knowledge of now
> >> > dummy's hand ?
> >> >
> >> > Roger
> >> >
> >> > ----- Original Message ----- From: "Robert Frick"
<***@rfrick.info>
> >> > To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" <***@rtflb.org>; "Roger Eymard"
> >> > <roger-***@orange.fr>
> >> > Sent: Saturday, June 09, 2012 4:00 AM
> >> > Subject: Re: [BLML] LOOT
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >> You ask for advice. But your analysis is stunningly sophisticated.
> >> >>
> >> >> I would add this to your scenario -- if declarer spreads his hand
and
> >> >> becomes dummy, and the OLOOTer puts his card back in hand, who is
> on
> >> >> lead? I think the laws say it is the player who just led out of
turn.
> >> >>
> >> >> It doesn't seem right to allow this player to change his lead once
he
> >> >> sees the dummy (former declarer). So a question is how to get to
that
> >> >> ruling. I am happy just jumping there, but I seem to be a really
small
> >> >> minority on that. I too cannot think of any way to get there using
the
> >> >> laws.
> >> >>
> >> >> Thanks.
> >> >>
> >> >> Bob
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> On Fri, 08 Jun 2012 04:52:46 -0400, Roger Eymard
> >> >> <roger-***@orange.fr> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >>> Hi all
> >> >>>
> >> >>> After a LOOT suggested by declarer or her partner, declarer spreads
> > his
> >> >>> hand.
> >> >>>
> >> >>> L54A : "After a faced opening lead out of turn, declarer may spread
> > his
> >> >>> hand; he becomes dummy. If declarer begins to spread his hand, and
> in
> >> >>> doing
> >> >>> so exposes one or more cards, he must spread his entire hand.
> Dummy
> >> >>> becomes
> >> >>> declarer."
> >> >>>
> >> >>> Does that apply if the LOOTer was mistakenly informed by an
> opponent
> >> >>> that it
> >> >>> was his turn to lead ?
> >> >>> IMHO yes, because there is no provision in the Laws saying that
L54A
> >> >>> applies
> >> >>> only in case of spontaneous LOOT.
> >> >>>
> >> >>> L47E.1. : "A lead out of turn (or play of a card) may be retracted
> >> >>> without
> >> >>> further rectification if the player was mistakenly informed by an
> >> >>> opponent
> >> >>> that it was his turn to lead or play. A lead or play may not be
> >> >>> accepted by
> >> >>> his LHO in these circumstances."
> >> >>>
> >> >>> Is the LOOTer allowed to retract her card, therefore giving the
lead
> >> >>> to her
> >> >>> partner with the full knowledge of dummy's cards ?
> >> >>> IMHO yes, because the spreading of her cards by declarer is not an
> >> >>> acceptation of the LOOT, hence not forfeiting the right of the
LOOTer
> >> >>> to
> >> >>> retract her card.
> >> >>>
> >> >>> In summary, both contestants are at fault (L74), L23 may apply
> >> >>> against
> >> >>> declarer's side if the choice of becoming dummy is advantageous,
but
> > no
> >> >>> restriction applies to defenders if they benefit of the choice of
the
> >> >>> leading side with the full view of dummy.
> >> >>>
> >> >>> Am I wrong ? Thank you for your advice.
> >> >>>
> >> >>> Roger
> >> >>>
> >> >>> _______________________________________________
> >> >>> Blml mailing list
> >> >>> ***@rtflb.org
> >> >>> http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> -- The end of one day is always the start of a next. *
> >> >>
> >> >> *This offer expires Dec. 21, 2012
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> The end of one day is always the start of a next. *
> >>
> >> *This offer expires Dec. 21, 2012
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> Blml mailing list
> >> ***@rtflb.org
> >> http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Blml mailing list
> > ***@rtflb.org
> > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml
>
> _______________________________________________
> Blml mailing list
> ***@rtflb.org
> http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml

[Roger Eymard]

----- Original Message -----

From: "Sven Pran" <***@online.no>

To: "'Bridge Laws Mailing List'" <***@rtflb.org>

Sent: Monday, June 11, 2012 12:20 AM

Subject: Re: [BLML] LOOT



> Definition: "Play period - commences when the opening lead on a board is

> faced;"

Agreed. L22B1 ("The auction period ends when, subsequent to the end of the
auction as in A2, either defender faces an opening lead. (If the lead is out
of turn then see Law 54). The interval between the end of the auction and
the end of the auction period is designated the Clarification Period.") adds
some clarification : when an opening lead is faced, whether regular or out
of turn, the auction period is closed, and the play period has started, the
opening lead being the first card played.



> Law 54E was added in 2007 to make it absolutely clear that an attempt by a

> player on the declaring side to make an opening lead shall (instead) be

> treated as a card exposed during the auction. Consequently the play period

> only commences on a faced opening lead by a defender.

Agreed again. The case about which I asked for help from BLML experts is : a
faced OLOOT suggested by declarer's side, followed by the presumed declarer
spreading her hand.



> The Director can, and should apply Law 47E1 if an opening lead out of turn

> is made by presumed declarer's RHO if this player was mistakenly informed
> by

> an opponent that it was his turn to lead, (implicitly) provided that no
> card

> has subsequently been faced by presumed declarer or dummy. Law 47E1

> effectively declares such leads to be NULL and VOID.

Sorry, I cannot find in L47E1 ("A lead out of turn (or play of a card) may
be retracted without further rectification if the player was mistakenly
informed by an opponent that it was his turn to lead or play. A lead or play
may not be accepted by his LHO in these circumstances.") neither any
implicit provision about subsequently faced card by presumed declarer or
dummy, nor any assertion making the faced OLOOT "null and void". There are
other cases in the Laws where a played card may be retracted by the player
without any rectification (apart L16D in some of them) : L47D, L47E2, L53C,
L62C1 for instance. In all these cases, the Laws deal with the retraction of
played cards, and never describe their play as "null and void". When L16D
applies, the played and subsequently retracted card is surely neither null
nor void. Does that imply that it is null and void when L16D is not
mentioned ? IMHO, no.

> However, this discussion is about the situation when presumed declarer
> faces

> his hand subsequent to the OLOOT by his RHO, and then Law 54A applies,
> there

> is no reference here to neither Law 53 nor Law 47, and the implication is

> that play continues with presumed declarer as dummy and his partner as

> declarer. Allowing the opening lead to be retracted is no option.

The point for which I found in L54B ("When a defender faces the opening lead
out of turn declarer may accept the irregular lead as provided in Law 53,
and dummy is spread in accordance with Law 41.") a reference to L47E1 via a
reference to L53 ("Any lead faced out of turn may be treated as a correct
lead (but see Law 47E1). It becomes a correct lead if declarer or either
defender, as the case may be, accepts it by making a statement to that
effect, or if a play is made from the hand next in rotation to the irregular
lead (but see C). If there is no such acceptance or play, the Director will
require that the lead be made from the correct hand (and see Law 47B).") is
about the acceptance of the OLOOT. That's why IMHO the faced OLOOT is not
accepted by the action of spreading her cards by the presumed declarer, and
why the OLOOTer is allowed to retract her lead. Am I wrong because of
understanding in L47E1 "A lead out of turn (or play of a card) may be
retracted without further rectification" as "The OLOOTer is allowed at her
free will to maintain or to retract her card" ?

> So what would be the situation if we could apply Law 47E1 also in this

> situation?

>

> As I said above Law 47E1 effectively makes the lead NULL and VOID with the

> consequence that play period has not yet commenced.

> This means that all presumed declarer's (faced) cards must be treated as

> cards exposed prior to play period for which Law 24 applies. This leads to

> the following scenario (with South as presumed declarer):

>

> East is told by South that it is his lead and faces a presumed opening
> lead

> after which South faces his hand presuming that he is dummy.

> Now the Director applies L47E1 and lets East take back his "lead" while

> South's hand remains faced on the table for the time being as cards
> exposed

> prior to play period.

> West then makes his opening lead, South takes back his thirteen cards and

> North faces his hand as Dummy.

> The information from seeing South's cards is AI to both East and West.

>

> Is there anybody who seriously considers this to be how the situation
> shall

> be handled?

As I wrote above, IMHO, the faced OLOOT is not "null and void". The play
period has started.

Best regards

Roger

>> Roger Eymard

>> Do you mean that whatever the reason of the faced OLOOT, when declarer

>> spreads her hand, the OLOOT is accepted ?

>> IMHO, the reference to L53 in L54B, and the reference to L47E1 in L53A do

>> preclude that. In case of a suggested (by a player of declarer's side)

> faced

>> OLOOT, L54 is therefore limited by L47E1. The OLOOT is not accepted as a

>> consequence of the (presumed) declarer spreading her hand (and becoming

>> dummy - nothing in the Laws against L54A), and may be retracted.

>> IMHO, "rubbish" is not appropriate here.

>>

>> But then what happens ?

>> Does "may" in L47E1 mean that the faced OLOOTer has the right to choose
>> to

>> retract her card or to choose to maintain it, and that the director must

>> instruct her that way?

>> If so, and if the OLOOTer decides to retract her card, does the opening

> lead

>> belong to the "normal" opener ("presumed" declarer's LHO) ?

>>

>> A deal from real life :

>> North: 52

>> AJ10943

>> 8

>> AQ42

>> West: J9743 East: AKQ10

>> K8 765

>> A962 KQJ5

>> K7 J8

>> South: 86

>> Q2

>> 10743

>> 109653

>> East is the presumed declarer in 4S. 1 down if everything follows

> normally.

>> But East suggests to North to lead, and spreads her hand, after the lead

> is

>> faced, becoming dummy.

>> If the opening lead remains in North's hand, 4S just made.

>> If North is allowed to retract her lead, and give back the opening lead
>> to

>> South, 1 down again.

>> Note that if North is not allowed to retract her lead, L23 provides the

> director

>> with the mean to adjust the score to 1 down (East, when advising North to

>> make the opening lead, could have known that any value in heart or club
>> in

>> West's hand would be protected).

>>

>> Roger

>>

>> ----- Original Message -----

>> From: "Sven Pran" <***@online.no>

>> To: "'Bridge Laws Mailing List'" <***@rtflb.org>

>> Sent: Sunday, June 10, 2012 7:59 AM

>> Subject: Re: [BLML] LOOT

>>

>>

>> >> Robert Frick

>> >> Again, there is an OLOOT by a misinformed defender, with LHO then

>> putting

>> >> down his hand as dummy. The OLOOT is retracted. Now what? I think...

>> >>

>> > [Sven Pran]

>> > Rubbish.

>> > Where in Law 54 do you find any possibility for the (misinformed)

> defender

>> > to retract his OLOOT? He cannot. Law 54 is a specific law that applies

> on

>> > OLOOT. If there seems to be any conflict with other, more general laws

> on

>> > lead out of turn then Law 54 takes precedence.

>> >

>> > But if you with OLOOT mean that the defender has placed his card face

>> down

>> > (not faced) on the table then no opening lead has been made (by this

>> > defender) and presumed declarer has exposed all his cards during the

>> > auction

>> > so Law 24 applies.

>> >

>> >>

>> >> 1. While the player who put down his hand as dummy *was* the

>> "presumed

>> >> declarer", his partner is now the presumed declarer. So the OLOOTer is

> on

>> >> lead.

>> >>

>> > [Sven Pran]

>> > More rubbish.

>> > If the OLOOT was indeed made then it cannot be retracted once presumed

>> > declarer has accepted it, for instance by facing his cards as dummy,
>> > and

>> > the

>> > "OLOOTer" Is no longer on the lead, he has made his lead, period.

>> >

>> >>

>> >> 2. I am going to rule that L16D applies to his sight of the dummy. So

> the

>> >> OLOOTer pretty much has to lead the same card.

>> >>

>> > [Sven Pran]

>> > Still more rubbish.

>> > Either presumed declarer has become dummy (L54A) or his cards have

>> been

>> > exposed during the auction (L24). In neither case is L16D applicable.

>> >

>> >>

>> >> 3. Spreading his hand was not a rectification. As defined, only the

>> > director can

>> >> do rectifications. So... the player who was supposed to be declarer
>> >> can

>> >> display his hand and become dummy before the irregularity is noted.

>> After

>> >> the irregularity is noted, he cannot do this.

>> >

>> > [Sven Pran]

>> > Sure he can, just read (and understand) Law 54A

>> >

>> >>

>> >> None of the laws are exactly what I would like to make these rulings.

>> >> But,

>> >> compared to other situations the laws were not built to handle, this

>> >> seems

>> > to

>> >> be a relatively trouble-free way to get to a good ruling.

>> >>

>> >> Bob

>> >>

>> >>

>> >> On Sat, 09 Jun 2012 08:33:39 -0400, Roger Eymard <roger-

>> >> ***@orange.fr>

>> >> wrote:

>> >>

>> >> > I have not found anything in the Laws which says that the lead

> remains

>> >> > to the OLOOTer after she retracts her faced lead. IMHO, not only

>> >> > L47E.1.

>> >> > would be meaningless if not to give back the opening lead to the

> normal

>> >> > opener (normal opener is defined in L41A as the defender on presumed

>> >> > declarer's left, and (presumed) declarer is defined in the

>> >> > definitions),

>> >> > but it would be in sheer contradiction with L45C.1. to allow the

>> >> > OLOOTer to retract her faced lead and to lead another card.

>> >> >

>> >> > Cases where a player may retract of her own free will a played card

> and

>> >> > then play another card without further rectification result always

> from

>> >> > the play of a card by an opponent. The spreading of her hand by the

>> >> > (presumed) declarer is not the play of any card.

>> >> >

>> >> > Isn't the meaningfulness of each Law, and the coherence of all the

> Laws

>> >> > together the touchstone for applying them ?

>> >> >

>> >> > So, am I right , in such a case of OLOOT suggested by declarer's

> side,

>> >> > followed by presumed declarer spreading her hand, to allow the

>> OLOOTer

>> >> > to maintain or to retract her lead, and, if she retracts, to give
>> >> > the

>> >> > lead to the "normal" opener, who will lead with full knowledge of
>> >> > now

>> >> > dummy's hand ?

>> >> >

>> >> > Roger

>> >> >

>> >> > ----- Original Message ----- From: "Robert Frick"

> <***@rfrick.info>

>> >> > To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" <***@rtflb.org>; "Roger Eymard"

>> >> > <roger-***@orange.fr>

>> >> > Sent: Saturday, June 09, 2012 4:00 AM

>> >> > Subject: Re: [BLML] LOOT

>> >> >

>> >> >

>> >> >> You ask for advice. But your analysis is stunningly sophisticated.

>> >> >>

>> >> >> I would add this to your scenario -- if declarer spreads his hand

> and

>> >> >> becomes dummy, and the OLOOTer puts his card back in hand, who is

>> on

>> >> >> lead? I think the laws say it is the player who just led out of

> turn.

>> >> >>

>> >> >> It doesn't seem right to allow this player to change his lead once

> he

>> >> >> sees the dummy (former declarer). So a question is how to get to

> that

>> >> >> ruling. I am happy just jumping there, but I seem to be a really

> small

>> >> >> minority on that. I too cannot think of any way to get there using

> the

>> >> >> laws.

>> >> >>

>> >> >> Thanks.

>> >> >>

>> >> >> Bob

>> >> >>

>> >> >>

>> >> >> On Fri, 08 Jun 2012 04:52:46 -0400, Roger Eymard

>> >> >> <roger-***@orange.fr> wrote:

>> >> >>

>> >> >>> Hi all

>> >> >>>

>> >> >>> After a LOOT suggested by declarer or her partner, declarer
>> >> >>> spreads

>> > his

>> >> >>> hand.

>> >> >>>

>> >> >>> L54A : "After a faced opening lead out of turn, declarer may
>> >> >>> spread

>> > his

>> >> >>> hand; he becomes dummy. If declarer begins to spread his hand, and

>> in

>> >> >>> doing

>> >> >>> so exposes one or more cards, he must spread his entire hand.

>> Dummy

>> >> >>> becomes

>> >> >>> declarer."

>> >> >>>

>> >> >>> Does that apply if the LOOTer was mistakenly informed by an

>> opponent

>> >> >>> that it

>> >> >>> was his turn to lead ?

>> >> >>> IMHO yes, because there is no provision in the Laws saying that

> L54A

>> >> >>> applies

>> >> >>> only in case of spontaneous LOOT.

>> >> >>>

>> >> >>> L47E.1. : "A lead out of turn (or play of a card) may be retracted

>> >> >>> without

>> >> >>> further rectification if the player was mistakenly informed by an

>> >> >>> opponent

>> >> >>> that it was his turn to lead or play. A lead or play may not be

>> >> >>> accepted by

>> >> >>> his LHO in these circumstances."

>> >> >>>

>> >> >>> Is the LOOTer allowed to retract her card, therefore giving the

> lead

>> >> >>> to her

>> >> >>> partner with the full knowledge of dummy's cards ?

>> >> >>> IMHO yes, because the spreading of her cards by declarer is not an

>> >> >>> acceptation of the LOOT, hence not forfeiting the right of the

> LOOTer

>> >> >>> to

>> >> >>> retract her card.

>> >> >>>

>> >> >>> In summary, both contestants are at fault (L74), L23 may apply

>> >> >>> against

>> >> >>> declarer's side if the choice of becoming dummy is advantageous,

> but

>> > no

>> >> >>> restriction applies to defenders if they benefit of the choice of

> the

>> >> >>> leading side with the full view of dummy.

>> >> >>>

>> >> >>> Am I wrong ? Thank you for your advice.

>> >> >>>

>> >> >>> Roger

>> >> >>>

>> >> >>> _______________________________________________

>> >> >>> Blml mailing list

>> >> >>> ***@rtflb.org

>> >> >>> http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml

>> >> >>

>> >> >>

>> >> >> -- The end of one day is always the start of a next. *

>> >> >>

>> >> >> *This offer expires Dec. 21, 2012

>> >> >

>> >>

>> >>

>> >> --

>> >> The end of one day is always the start of a next. *

>> >>

>> >> *This offer expires Dec. 21, 2012

>> >> _______________________________________________

>> >> Blml mailing list

>> >> ***@rtflb.org

>> >> http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml

>> >

>> >

>> > _______________________________________________

>> > Blml mailing list

>> > ***@rtflb.org

>> > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml

>>

>> _______________________________________________

>> Blml mailing list

>> ***@rtflb.org

>> http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml

>

>

> _______________________________________________

> Blml mailing list

> ***@rtflb.org

> http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml

[Sven Pran]

> Roger Eymard
[...]
> Sorry, I cannot find in L47E1 ("A lead out of turn (or play of a card) may
be
> retracted without further rectification if the player was mistakenly
informed
> by an opponent that it was his turn to lead or play. A lead or play may
not be
> accepted by his LHO in these circumstances.") neither any implicit
provision
> about subsequently faced card by presumed declarer or dummy, nor any
> assertion making the faced OLOOT "null and void". There are other cases in
> the Laws where a played card may be retracted by the player without any
> rectification (apart L16D in some of them) : L47D, L47E2, L53C,
> L62C1 for instance. In all these cases, the Laws deal with the retraction
of
> played cards, and never describe their play as "null and void". When L16D
> applies, the played and subsequently retracted card is surely neither null
nor
> void. Does that imply that it is null and void when L16D is not mentioned
?
> IMHO, no.

[Sven Pran]
The effect of Law 47E1 that the card may be retracted without further
rectification implies that the situation is handled as if the lead or play
of the card never took place. The short term for this is that the lead (or
play) is considered NULL and VOID.

> The point for which I found in L54B ("When a defender faces the
opening[Sven Pran]
> lead out of turn declarer may accept the irregular lead as provided in Law
53,
> and dummy is spread in accordance with Law 41.") a reference to L47E1 via
a
> reference to L53 ("Any lead faced out of turn may be treated as a correct
> lead (but see Law 47E1). It becomes a correct lead if declarer or either
> defender, as the case may be, accepts it by making a statement to that
> effect, or if a play is made from the hand next in rotation to the
irregular lead
> (but see C). If there is no such acceptance or play, the Director will
require
> that the lead be made from the correct hand (and see Law 47B).") is about
> the acceptance of the OLOOT. That's why IMHO the faced OLOOT is not
> accepted by the action of spreading her cards by the presumed declarer,
and
> why the OLOOTer is allowed to retract her lead. Am I wrong because of
> understanding in L47E1 "A lead out of turn (or play of a card) may be
> retracted without further rectification" as "The OLOOTer is allowed at her
> free will to maintain or to retract her card" ?

[Sven Pran]

Presumed declarer facing his cards after an OLOOT is not an explicit
acceptance of the OLOOT as specified in Law 54B, but it an action that is
completely covered by Law 54A: Presumed declarer becomes dummy, his partner
becomes declarer and the OLOOT stands as a legal opening lead.

And if presumed declarer can have seen any of his partner's cards (except
cards that in case have been exposed during the auction) then Law 54C
applies. Note that the provision in Law 54C limits this to cards exposed
subsequent to the OLOOT!

Note that in the case of an OLOOT Law 47E1 can only be reached from Law 54B,
never from Laws 54A (presumed declarer begins to face his cards) or 54C
(presumed declarer could have seen any of his partner's cards).

So retracting an OLOOT according to the provisions in Law 47E1 is not an
option once presumed declarer begins to face his cards after the OLOOT.
Nor is it an option if any of presumed dummy's cards has (subsequent to the
OLOOT) been held in a position so that it could have been seen by presumed
declarer.

[Ed Reppert]

On Jun 11, 2012, at 6:25 AM, Sven Pran wrote:

> The effect of Law 47E1 that the card may be retracted without further
> rectification implies that the situation is handled as if the lead or play
> of the card never took place. The short term for this is that the lead (or
> play) is considered NULL and VOID.

Wikipedia: "Void (law): In law, void means of no legal effect. An action, document or transaction which is void is of no legal effect whatsoever: an absolute nullity - the law treats it as if it had never existed or happened."

"Null and void" is redundant. And Sven, there's no need to SHOUT. :-)

[r***@immi.gov.au]

Ed Reppert asserted:

>>"Null and void" is redundant.

"dreamofsafety", 25th May 2011:

Pleonasm Humor

Sometimes on Wikipedia when a "citation is
needed," it doesn't really matter whether
something is true or not...it's great either way.

>From the article about pleonasm:
Some pleonastic phrases, when used in
professional or scholarly writing, may reflect a
standardized usage that has evolved over
time; or a precise meaning familiar to
specialists, but not necessarily to those
outside that discipline. Such examples as
"null and void", "terms and conditions", "each
and all" are legal doublets that are part of
legally operative language that is often drafted
into legal documents. A classic example of
such usage was that by the Lord Chancellor
at the time (1864), Lord Westbury, in the
English case of ex parte Gorely, when he
described a phrase in an Act as "redundant
and pleonastic". The fact that this phrase in
itself was a pleonasm is something which
probably had not escaped the learned judge,
and could be suspected to be evidence of a
particularly Victorian legal sense of humour.
[citation needed]

Sven Pran asserted:

[snip]
>But any doubt about "could have known"
>should be resolved as "could have known".

Richard Hills quibbles:

I may be misunderstanding Sven's point.

If Sven is suggesting that a dispute about
whether the facts justify a Law 23 adjusted
score should be based upon the principle of
"guilty until proven innocent", then I must
respectfully disagree. In my opinion the Law
85 requirement of applying the balance of
probabilities is relevant to "each and all"
other Laws where the facts are disputed.

On the other hand Sven may instead be
referring to the first sentence of Law 84D:

"The Director rules any doubtful point in
favour of the non-offending side."

Before the "terms and conditions" of Law 23
can be invoked, the Director must already
have determined that an offending side
exists. In that case I merely semantically
quibble with Sven's phrase "But any doubt",
which to my mind implies the pleonasm of
"But any and all doubt", i.e. not limited to the
standard of beyond reasonable doubt.

So my nitpicking preference would be the
pleonasm, "But in applying Law 23 the
Director rules each and every doubtful
point in favour of the non-offending side",
i.e. a doubtful point is indeed limited to the
standard of beyond reasonable doubt.

Best wishes,

Richard Hills
DIAC Social Club movies coordinator

--------------------------------------------------------------------
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. DIAC 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


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

[Sven Pran]

The verb <could> in <could have known> implies that a majority balance of
probabilities is not required, a significant probability however small, say
maybe 25%, is sufficient.



***@immi.gov.au

[.]
Sven Pran asserted:

[snip]
>But any doubt about "could have known"
>should be resolved as "could have known".

Richard Hills quibbles:

I may be misunderstanding Sven's point.

If Sven is suggesting that a dispute about
whether the facts justify a Law 23 adjusted
score should be based upon the principle of
"guilty until proven innocent", then I must
respectfully disagree. In my opinion the Law
85 requirement of applying the balance of
probabilities is relevant to "each and all"
other Laws where the facts are disputed.

On the other hand Sven may instead be
referring to the first sentence of Law 84D:

"The Director rules any doubtful point in
favour of the non-offending side."

Before the "terms and conditions" of Law 23
can be invoked, the Director must already
have determined that an offending side
exists. In that case I merely semantically
quibble with Sven's phrase "But any doubt",
which to my mind implies the pleonasm of
"But any and all doubt", i.e. not limited to the
standard of beyond reasonable doubt.

So my nitpicking preference would be the
pleonasm, "But in applying Law 23 the
Director rules each and every doubtful
point in favour of the non-offending side",
i.e. a doubtful point is indeed limited to the
standard of beyond reasonable doubt.

Best wishes,

Richard Hills
DIAC Social Club movies coordinator


--------------------------------------------------------------------
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. DIAC 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
<http://www.immi.gov.au> www.immi.gov.au. See:
http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm


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

[r***@immi.gov.au]

Sven Pran:

>The verb «could» in «could have known» implies
>that a majority balance of probabilities is not
>required, a significant probability however small,
>say maybe 25%, is sufficient.

Richard Hills:

The 2007 "false inference" (a.k.a. Deceptive
Information) Law 73F has retained the "could have
known" criterion from its predecessor, the 1997
Law 73F2.

However...

While the 1997 Law 72B1 used the criteria "could
have known" and "likely to damage", its successor
the 2007 Law 23 uses the criteria "could have been
aware" and "could well damage".

My understanding is that the 2007 change in
language, especially the insertion of the modifying
word "well", was due to a belief by the Drafting
Committee that the 1997 Law 72B1 had too wide a
scope, and that the 2007 Law 23 should be more
judiciously applied.

Best wishes,

Richard Hills
DIAC Social Club movies coordinator

--------------------------------------------------------------------
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. DIAC 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


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

[Eric Landau]

On Jun 12, 2012, at 6:56 PM, ***@immi.gov.au wrote:
> Sven Pran:
>
> >The verb «could» in «could have known» implies
> >that a majority balance of probabilities is not
> >required, a significant probability however small,
> >say maybe 25%, is sufficient.
>
> Richard Hills:
>
> The 2007 "false inference" (a.k.a. Deceptive
> Information) Law 73F has retained the "could have
> known" criterion from its predecessor, the 1997
> Law 73F2.
>
> However...
>
> While the 1997 Law 72B1 used the criteria "could
> have known" and "likely to damage", its successor
> the 2007 Law 23 uses the criteria "could have been
> aware" and "could well damage".
>
> My understanding is that the 2007 change in
> language, especially the insertion of the modifying
> word "well", was due to a belief by the Drafting
> Committee that the 1997 Law 72B1 had too wide a
> scope, and that the 2007 Law 23 should be more
> judiciously applied.
>
That sounds backwards. "Could have been aware" seems weaker than
"could have known", and "could well damage" similarly weaker than
"likely to damage". Weaker criteria means broader applicability, so
it sounds to me like TPTB wanted it used more than the older wording
suggested.


Eric Landau
1107 Dale Drive
Silver Spring MD 20910
***@starpower.net

[r***@immi.gov.au]

Richard Hills, 13th June 2012:

[snip]
>>My understanding is that the 2007 change in
>>language, especially the insertion of the
>>modifying word "well", was due to a belief
>>by the Drafting Committee that the 1997 Law
>>72B1 had too wide a scope, and that the
>>2007 Law 23 should be more judiciously
>>applied.

Eric Landau, 13th June 2012:

>That sounds backwards. "Could have been
>aware" seems weaker than "could have
>known", and "could well damage" similarly
>weaker than "likely to damage". Weaker
>criteria means broader applicability, so it
>sounds to me like TPTB wanted it used
>more than the older wording suggested.

Grattan Endicott, 5th May 2010:

+=+ The dictionary says that used after
'could', 'might' or 'may', the word 'well' is an
intensifier just as 'indeed' would be in these
same situations. To say that something
'could' be the case means that it is a
possibility while the insertion of 'well' calls
for a higher probability than does 'could'
without it. ~ Grattan ~ +=+

Grattan Endicott, 8th August 2008:

+=+ On a personal plane, thinking of 'likely' I
envisage a probability somewhere above
60%; 'could well' suggests to me something
more like 35% or more. This was discussed
in committee at length and it was a deliberate
choice of words after several experiments.

Being potentially aware at the time of the
infraction, not when prodded by some
subsequent occurrence, is also key.
~ G ~ +=+

--------------------------------------------------------------------
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. DIAC 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


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

[r***@immi.gov.au]

Sven Pran:

>>There is no limitation to an application of
>>law 23 (other than the conditions set out
>>in this law).

Ed Reppert:

>Because?

Richard Hills:

Because the 2007 Drafting Committee
abolished the 1997 Chapters, Parts and
Sections with malice aforethought. So the
2007 Drafting Committee fondly believed
that it would obvious to "all and sundry"
(pleonasm alert!) that the 2007 Law 23
applied both to the auction period and also
to the play period.

Unfortunately the 2008 ACBL translation
into the English dialect of American (and
some other translations into non-English
languages) restored Chapters, Parts and
Sections to the Lawbook. This rendered
the scope of Law 23 ambiguous, since it
was now embedded in "Chapter V - The
Auction". The ACBL Laws Commission
has recommended that the 2007 / 2008
Law 23 be renumbered in the 2017
edition of the Laws as Law 70-something.

Best wishes,

Richard Hills

--------------------------------------------------------------------
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. DIAC 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


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

[Ed Reppert]

On Jun 13, 2012, at 1:03 AM, ***@immi.gov.au wrote:

> The ACBL Laws Commission
> has recommended that the 2007 / 2008
> Law 23 be renumbered in the 2017
> edition of the Laws as Law 70-something.

Seems to me it would be better renumbered to be amongst the "General Laws Governing Irregularities" - 9 thru 16, but that would offend some folks who don't want to have to remember that what used to be law 27 is now law 28, or whatever.

[Grattan]

+=+ In trawling through some items misdirected into my Junk Folder I
discover this.

My reaction is that the key here is the Director's opinion. Does
(s)he judge it

credibly possible that at the time of the offence the player could have been
aware

that the non-offending side could be damaged in consequence of it - and did
such

damage occur ?. ~ Grattan ~ +=+



From: blml-***@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-***@rtflb.org] On Behalf Of
Sven Pran
Sent: 12 June 2012 08:29
To: 'Bridge Laws Mailing List'
Subject: Re: [BLML] Pleonasm & Law 23 (was LOOT) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL]



The verb <could> in <could have known> implies that a majority balance of
probabilities



is not required, a significant probability however small, say maybe 25%, is
sufficient.



***@immi.gov.au

[.]
Sven Pran asserted:

[snip]
>But any doubt about "could have known"
>should be resolved as "could have known".

Richard Hills quibbles:

I may be misunderstanding Sven's point.

If Sven is suggesting that a dispute about
whether the facts justify a Law 23 adjusted
score should be based upon the principle of
"guilty until proven innocent", then I must
respectfully disagree. In my opinion the Law
85 requirement of applying the balance of
probabilities is relevant to "each and all"
other Laws where the facts are disputed.

On the other hand Sven may instead be
referring to the first sentence of Law 84D:

"The Director rules any doubtful point in
favour of the non-offending side."

Before the "terms and conditions" of Law 23
can be invoked, the Director must already
have determined that an offending side
exists. In that case I merely semantically
quibble with Sven's phrase "But any doubt",
which to my mind implies the pleonasm of
"But any and all doubt", i.e. not limited to the
standard of beyond reasonable doubt.

So my nitpicking preference would be the
pleonasm, "But in applying Law 23 the
Director rules each and every doubtful
point in favour of the non-offending side",
i.e. a doubtful point is indeed limited to the
standard of beyond reasonable doubt.

Best wishes,

Richard Hills
DIAC Social Club movies coordinator


--------------------------------------------------------------------
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. DIAC 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
<http://www.immi.gov.au> www.immi.gov.au. See:
http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm


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

[Ed Reppert]

On Jun 11, 2012, at 6:25 AM, Sven Pran wrote:

> Presumed declarer facing his cards after an OLOOT is not an explicit
> acceptance of the OLOOT as specified in Law 54B, but it an action that is
> completely covered by Law 54A: Presumed declarer becomes dummy, his partner
> becomes declarer and the OLOOT stands as a legal opening lead.
>
> And if presumed declarer can have seen any of his partner's cards (except
> cards that in case have been exposed during the auction) then Law 54C
> applies. Note that the provision in Law 54C limits this to cards exposed
> subsequent to the OLOOT!
>
> Note that in the case of an OLOOT Law 47E1 can only be reached from Law 54B,
> never from Laws 54A (presumed declarer begins to face his cards) or 54C
> (presumed declarer could have seen any of his partner's cards).
>
> So retracting an OLOOT according to the provisions in Law 47E1 is not an
> option once presumed declarer begins to face his cards after the OLOOT.
> Nor is it an option if any of presumed dummy's cards has (subsequent to the
> OLOOT) been held in a position so that it could have been seen by presumed
> declarer.

You may be right, technically, but it seems to me this is a license to cheat.

[Roger Eymard]

----- Original Message -----
From: "Sven Pran" <***@online.no>
To: "'Bridge Laws Mailing List'" <***@rtflb.org>
Sent: Monday, June 11, 2012 12:25 PM
Subject: Re: [BLML] LOOT


>> Roger Eymard
> [...]
>> Sorry, I cannot find in L47E1 ("A lead out of turn (or play of a card)
>> may
> be
>> retracted without further rectification if the player was mistakenly
> informed
>> by an opponent that it was his turn to lead or play. A lead or play may
> not be
>> accepted by his LHO in these circumstances.") neither any implicit
> provision
>> about subsequently faced card by presumed declarer or dummy, nor any
>> assertion making the faced OLOOT "null and void". There are other cases
>> in
>> the Laws where a played card may be retracted by the player without any
>> rectification (apart L16D in some of them) : L47D, L47E2, L53C,
>> L62C1 for instance. In all these cases, the Laws deal with the retraction
> of
>> played cards, and never describe their play as "null and void". When L16D
>> applies, the played and subsequently retracted card is surely neither
>> null
> nor
>> void. Does that imply that it is null and void when L16D is not mentioned
> ?
>> IMHO, no.
>
> [Sven Pran]
> The effect of Law 47E1 that the card may be retracted without further
> rectification implies that the situation is handled as if the lead or play
> of the card never took place. The short term for this is that the lead (or
> play) is considered NULL and VOID.

If so, the play period has not started, we are still in the auction period
(no opening lead having been made), and we have no other way to handle the
situation than the one you described yourself in a previous post :
[Sven Pran]
"So what would be the situation if we could apply Law 47E1 also in this
situation?

As I said above Law 47E1 effectively makes the lead NULL and VOID with the
consequence that play period has not yet commenced.
This means that all presumed declarer's (faced) cards must be treated as
cards exposed prior to play period for which Law 24 applies. This leads to
the following scenario (with South as presumed declarer):

East is told by South that it is his lead and faces a presumed opening lead
after which South faces his hand presuming that he is dummy.
Now the Director applies L47E1 and lets East take back his "lead" while
South's hand remains faced on the table for the time being as cards exposed
prior to play period.
West then makes his opening lead, South takes back his thirteen cards and
North faces his hand as Dummy.
The information from seeing South's cards is AI to both East and West.

Is there anybody who seriously considers this to be how the situation shall
be handled?"

You seem to consider this way of handling the situation as not really
serious.



>> The point for which I found in L54B ("When a defender faces the
> opening[Sven Pran]
>> lead out of turn declarer may accept the irregular lead as provided in
>> Law
> 53,
>> and dummy is spread in accordance with Law 41.") a reference to L47E1 via
> a
>> reference to L53 ("Any lead faced out of turn may be treated as a correct
>> lead (but see Law 47E1). It becomes a correct lead if declarer or either
>> defender, as the case may be, accepts it by making a statement to that
>> effect, or if a play is made from the hand next in rotation to the
> irregular lead
>> (but see C). If there is no such acceptance or play, the Director will
> require
>> that the lead be made from the correct hand (and see Law 47B).") is about
>> the acceptance of the OLOOT. That's why IMHO the faced OLOOT is not
>> accepted by the action of spreading her cards by the presumed declarer,
> and
>> why the OLOOTer is allowed to retract her lead. Am I wrong because of
>> understanding in L47E1 "A lead out of turn (or play of a card) may be
>> retracted without further rectification" as "The OLOOTer is allowed at
>> her
>> free will to maintain or to retract her card" ?
>
> [Sven Pran]
>
> Presumed declarer facing his cards after an OLOOT is not an explicit
> acceptance of the OLOOT as specified in Law 54B, but it an action that is
> completely covered by Law 54A: Presumed declarer becomes dummy, his
> partner
> becomes declarer and the OLOOT stands as a legal opening lead.

Agreed about who becomes declarer and who becomes dummy. But do you maintain
that as soon as a card belonging to declarer's side is exposed, a faced
OLOOT must stand even when the player was mistakenly informed by an opponent
that it was his turn to lead ? i.e. that L47E1, which allows the OLOOTer to
retract her lead, is voided by the spreading of her cards by the presumed
declarer ?
The improper action of declarer's side when suggesting the lead to the wrong
opponent would then have no consequence, due to another action (the
spreading of the cards) of the same side at fault. Does that seem right ? Is
L23 the only mean to rectify the situation ?
Remark that L23 cannot provide redress when there is no "could have known",
despite the "normal" opener having a 100% obvious efficient lead and the
"wrong" opener having no clue about whatever to lead.

> And if presumed declarer can have seen any of his partner's cards (except
> cards that in case have been exposed during the auction) then Law 54C
> applies. Note that the provision in Law 54C limits this to cards exposed
> subsequent to the OLOOT!
>
> Note that in the case of an OLOOT Law 47E1 can only be reached from Law
> 54B,
> never from Laws 54A (presumed declarer begins to face his cards) or 54C
> (presumed declarer could have seen any of his partner's cards).
>
> So retracting an OLOOT according to the provisions in Law 47E1 is not an
> option once presumed declarer begins to face his cards after the OLOOT.
> Nor is it an option if any of presumed dummy's cards has (subsequent to
> the
> OLOOT) been held in a position so that it could have been seen by presumed
> declarer.

With the consequences described above...

Best regards

Roger

[Sven Pran]

> Roger Eymard
[...]
> Agreed about who becomes declarer and who becomes dummy. But do you
> maintain
> that as soon as a card belonging to declarer's side is exposed, a faced
> OLOOT must stand even when the player was mistakenly informed by an
> opponent
> that it was his turn to lead ? i.e. that L47E1, which allows the OLOOTer
to
> retract her lead, is voided by the spreading of her cards by the presumed
> declarer ?

[Sven Pran]

Provided the card belonging to declaring side is exposed subsequent to the
OLOOT: Yes, because we are now in Law 54A (or Law 54C) territory.

Law 23 is relevant, and the Director should after end of the play probably
investigate whether (in his opinion) the situation justifies an adjusted
score on the board.

> The improper action of declarer's side when suggesting the lead to the
wrong
> opponent would then have no consequence, due to another action (the
> spreading of the cards) of the same side at fault. Does that seem right ?
Is
> L23 the only mean to rectify the situation ?
> Remark that L23 cannot provide redress when there is no "could have
> known",

[Sven Pran]
But any doubt about "could have known" should be resolved as "could have
known".

[...]

[Roger Eymard]

----- Original Message -----
From: "Sven Pran" <***@online.no>
To: "'Bridge Laws Mailing List'" <***@rtflb.org>
Sent: Monday, June 11, 2012 5:10 PM
Subject: Re: [BLML] LOOT


>> Roger Eymard
> [...]
>> Agreed about who becomes declarer and who becomes dummy. But do you
>> maintain
>> that as soon as a card belonging to declarer's side is exposed, a faced
>> OLOOT must stand even when the player was mistakenly informed by an
>> opponent
>> that it was his turn to lead ? i.e. that L47E1, which allows the OLOOTer
> to
>> retract her lead, is voided by the spreading of her cards by the presumed
>> declarer ?
>
> [Sven Pran]
>
> Provided the card belonging to declaring side is exposed subsequent to the
> OLOOT: Yes, because we are now in Law 54A (or Law 54C) territory.
>
> Law 23 is relevant, and the Director should after end of the play probably
> investigate whether (in his opinion) the situation justifies an adjusted
> score on the board.
>
>> The improper action of declarer's side when suggesting the lead to the
> wrong
>> opponent would then have no consequence, due to another action (the
>> spreading of the cards) of the same side at fault. Does that seem right ?
> Is
>> L23 the only mean to rectify the situation ?
>> Remark that L23 cannot provide redress when there is no "could have
>> known",
>
> [Sven Pran]
> But any doubt about "could have known" should be resolved as "could have
> known".
>
> [...]

_
Let me try an example :

North: 982

AQ

974

A10753

West: KJ76 East: Q1043

J10842 K75

J10 6532

92 K8

South: A5

963

AKQ8

QJ64

The auction : South 1NT North 3NT

South is the presumed declarer at 3NT.

But South tells East she has to make the opening lead. East leads an
undescribed card (for instance a small spade) face up and then South spreads
her hand.

According to your opinion, South stays as dummy, North becomes declarer.
L47E1 does not apply and the lead stands, so 3NT made.

Of course, you notice that on the obvious lead of a heart by West, 3NT is 1
down.

So let us try L23 :

"Whenever, in the opinion of the Director, an offender could have been aware
at the time of his irregularity that this could well damage the
non-offending side, he shall require the auction and play to continue (if
not completed). When the play has been completed the Director awards an
adjusted score if he considers the offending side has gained an advantage
through the irregularity*."

Could South have been aware at the time she spreads her hand that there
existed a fatal lead by West, and that no lead from East could defeat the
contract despite the CK being offside ? IMHO no, South cannot have been
aware in any way of the location of the hearts and spades in the three other
hands.

L23 cannot provide any proper rectification in that case if the irregularity
is rectified accordingly to your opinion.

Let us suppose now that I am not wrong in my opinion (sheer supposition !)

According to my opinion, South stays as dummy and North becomes declarer.

But according to L47E1, which I think applicable, East may choose to retract
her lead, and give back the lead to West. If she does so, 1 down. If she
does not, because she does not see that the best chance to defeat the
contract is to find a 5 cards major in West's hand, so be it ! At least, EW
have had a chance to escape the damage, and it is the most the director can
do for them, L23 being of no use.

Best regards

Roger

[Robert Frick]

I can't resolve the conflict. RHO asks who is on lead. I think it is him.
He leads. I put down my hand as dummy. Now someone points out the OLOOT. I
am supposed to be declarer now that my hand has been shown to everyone?
The punishment doesn't fit the crime. RHO has committed the real
infraction. Have I actually committed an infraction? I was wrong about who
was playing the hand, but RHO didn't know either. I didn't have to answer
RHO's question, I was just trying to be nice. (And this resolution also
violates the smaller let's-play-bridge principle.)

I also can't get to that ruling. The laws say I become dummy.

It is not near as bad if I am dummy and LHO gets to select a new opening
lead knowing my hand. But still the punishment doesn't fit the crime (if
there was a crime). And if I expose part of my hand, I am going to be one
very angry bridge player if the director makes me expose the rest of my
hand before letting LHO lead whatever he wants.

But I can't get to that ruling either. If I am dummy, my partner
presumably is the declarer. So RHO is on lead.

In my resolution, which is really good IMO, RHO retracts the lead, but RHO
is still on lead and the sight of now-dummy is UI. The punishment fits the
crime. It is not easy for players to intentionally exploit this
resolution. (And I think it is even better if the right to accept the lead
and be dummy disappears when the OLOOT is noted.)

I can get to that ruling using the laws. But allowing RHO to retract his
lead, then de facto forcing him to lead that same card... that flagrantly
violates the intent of L47E1.

Nice problem.


On Fri, 08 Jun 2012 04:52:46 -0400, Roger Eymard <roger-***@orange.fr>
wrote:

> Hi all
>
> After a LOOT suggested by declarer or her partner, declarer spreads his
> hand.
>
> L54A : "After a faced opening lead out of turn, declarer may spread his
> hand; he becomes dummy. If declarer begins to spread his hand, and in
> doing
> so exposes one or more cards, he must spread his entire hand. Dummy
> becomes
> declarer."
>
> Does that apply if the LOOTer was mistakenly informed by an opponent
> that it
> was his turn to lead ?
> IMHO yes, because there is no provision in the Laws saying that L54A
> applies
> only in case of spontaneous LOOT.
>
> L47E.1. : "A lead out of turn (or play of a card) may be retracted
> without
> further rectification if the player was mistakenly informed by an
> opponent
> that it was his turn to lead or play. A lead or play may not be accepted
> by
> his LHO in these circumstances."
>
> Is the LOOTer allowed to retract her card, therefore giving the lead to
> her
> partner with the full knowledge of dummy's cards ?
> IMHO yes, because the spreading of her cards by declarer is not an
> acceptation of the LOOT, hence not forfeiting the right of the LOOTer to
> retract her card.
>
> In summary, both contestants are at fault (L74), L23 may apply against
> declarer's side if the choice of becoming dummy is advantageous, but no
> restriction applies to defenders if they benefit of the choice of the
> leading side with the full view of dummy.
>
> Am I wrong ? Thank you for your advice.
>
> Roger
>
> _______________________________________________
> Blml mailing list
> ***@rtflb.org
> http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml


--
The end of one day is always the start of a next. *

*This offer expires Dec. 21, 2012

[Ed Reppert]

I have to agree with the others. Speaking as someone who left blml some time ago and who recently came back to see if it had got better, it seems to me that no, it hasn't really got better, but it would be much worse without Richard here. So I ask you, Richard, please reconsider and return to posting here.

Regards,

Ed

[r***@immi.gov.au]

Edmund Burke (1729-1797):

Because half-a-dozen grasshoppers under
a fern make the field ring with their
importunate chink, whilst thousands of great
cattle, reposed beneath the shadow of the
British oak, chew the cud and are silent, pray
do not imagine that those who make the
noise are the only inhabitants of the field; that
of course they are many in number; or that,
after all, they are other than the little shrivelled,
meagre, hopping, though loud and
troublesome insects of the hour.

Gordon Rainsford:

>>Indeed. Certainly, don't do anything like
>>this [RH partially leave blml] on my behalf.
>>I suppose my post was intended more as
>>an explanation of how things are
[snip]

Ed Reppert:

>I have to agree with the others. Speaking as
>someone who left blml some time ago and
>who recently came back to see if it had got
>better, it seems to me that no, it hasn't really
>got better, but it would be much worse
>without Richard here. So I ask you, Richard,
>please reconsider and return to posting here.
>
>Regards,
>
>Ed

Richard Hills:

I am extremely gratified that cud-chewing
blml activists and lurkers who enjoy my posts
greatly outnumber "the little shrivelled,
meagre, hopping, though loud and
troublesome insects of the hour" who detest
my posts.

Therefore I will resume full blml membership.

Best wishes,

Richard Hills
DIAC Social Club movies coordinator

Tony Musgrove:

[snip]
>>>My only worry is that he seems to be
>>>able to compose these diatribes when
>>>he perhaps should be attending to
>>>freeing some of our refugees from their
>>>concentration camps, or at the very least,
>>>dispensing movie tickets for the Dept. of
>>>Immigration social club.
[snip]

Doctor Frankenstein:

My operation, Igor, is the Jacoby Transfer
which requires two hearts. Voila! An insect
has gained Richard Hills' humorous heart,
while Richard Hills now has the humourless
heart of an insect.

Richard "grasshopper" Hills:

Tony Musgrove's paragraph above is a
slander on me, so I demand an immediate
retraction and apology. :-) :-)

--------------------------------------------------------------------
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. DIAC 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


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

[Robert Frick]

On Mon, 11 Jun 2012 19:06:59 -0400, <***@immi.gov.au> wrote:

> Edmund Burke (1729-1797):
>
> Because half-a-dozen grasshoppers under
> a fern make the field ring with their
> importunate chink, whilst thousands of great
> cattle, reposed beneath the shadow of the
> British oak, chew the cud and are silent, pray
> do not imagine that those who make the
> noise are the only inhabitants of the field; that
> of course they are many in number; or that,
> after all, they are other than the little shrivelled,
> meagre, hopping, though loud and
> troublesome insects of the hour.
>
> Gordon Rainsford:
>
>>> Indeed. Certainly, don't do anything like
>>> this [RH partially leave blml] on my behalf.
>>> I suppose my post was intended more as
>>> an explanation of how things are
> [snip]
>
> Ed Reppert:
>
>> I have to agree with the others. Speaking as
>> someone who left blml some time ago and
>> who recently came back to see if it had got
>> better, it seems to me that no, it hasn't really
>> got better, but it would be much worse
>> without Richard here. So I ask you, Richard,
>> please reconsider and return to posting here.
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Ed
>
> Richard Hills:
>
> I am extremely gratified that cud-chewing
> blml activists and lurkers who enjoy my posts
> greatly outnumber "the little shrivelled,
> meagre, hopping, though loud and
> troublesome insects of the hour" who detest
> my posts.


Gordon did not say he detests your posts. He just suggested you post less
often, to try to encourage more people to participate.

No one said they enjoyed your relentless insults and garbage, like the
above.

I enjoy your willingness to take a stand on issues. I enjoy your thorough
knowledge of the laws. I enjoy your relentless energy when it is put to
good use, for example detailing the differences between the ACBL lawbook
and the WBF lawbook. You have worthwhile things to contribute, Richard.

Bob

On Wed, 06 Jun 2012 19:30:59 -0400, <***@immi.gov.au> wrote:

> On the other hand a non-spoilsport, the
> respected senior EBU Director Gordon
> Rainsford, is bored with the excessive
> frequency of my blml posts.
>
> So here is the (shuffle and) deal. As a
> compromise I will remain subscribed to
> blml, and I will continue to respond to
> blml posts with my usual excessive
> frequency.
>
> BUT...
>
> My responses to blml posts will not appear
> on blml itself, instead appearing at:
>
> http://boardgamegeek.com/thread/812456/the-2007-2008-laws-of-duplicate-bridge

[Jeff Easterson]

I enjoy Richard's "relentless insults and garbage". I suspect I am not
the only one in blml. I enjoy his humour as well. I do not particularly
enjoy the "relentless insults and garbage" (personal opinion) of Bob
but have no intention of suggesting he stop posting. Every blmler can
choose to read or delete sight unseen what he wants. I appreciate
humour. I don't appreciate long, tedious and humourless postings.
(Naturally personal opinions- anyone is free to disagree.)
Incidentally, I can't recall Richard stating that Bob's (or anyone's)
postings were insults and garbage (but I don't check the archives and
don't trust my memory); his criticism is generally expressed more
subtly. I don't approve of anyone saying that the postings of an
opponent in blml are "relentless insults and garbage". Feel free to
think so but try to express your disagreement less abrasively. (Again a
personal opinion - I don't feel entitled to consider my subjective
reactions and opinion hard and fast rules for all of society. Apparently
there are others who don't share this feeling.)

Ciao, JE

Am 12.06.2012 02:46, schrieb Robert Frick:
> On Mon, 11 Jun 2012 19:06:59 -0400,<***@immi.gov.au> wrote:
>
>> Edmund Burke (1729-1797):
>>
>> Because half-a-dozen grasshoppers under
>> a fern make the field ring with their
>> importunate chink, whilst thousands of great
>> cattle, reposed beneath the shadow of the
>> British oak, chew the cud and are silent, pray
>> do not imagine that those who make the
>> noise are the only inhabitants of the field; that
>> of course they are many in number; or that,
>> after all, they are other than the little shrivelled,
>> meagre, hopping, though loud and
>> troublesome insects of the hour.
>>
>> Gordon Rainsford:
>>
>>>> Indeed. Certainly, don't do anything like
>>>> this [RH partially leave blml] on my behalf.
>>>> I suppose my post was intended more as
>>>> an explanation of how things are
>> [snip]
>>
>> Ed Reppert:
>>
>>> I have to agree with the others. Speaking as
>>> someone who left blml some time ago and
>>> who recently came back to see if it had got
>>> better, it seems to me that no, it hasn't really
>>> got better, but it would be much worse
>>> without Richard here. So I ask you, Richard,
>>> please reconsider and return to posting here.
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>>
>>> Ed
>> Richard Hills:
>>
>> I am extremely gratified that cud-chewing
>> blml activists and lurkers who enjoy my posts
>> greatly outnumber "the little shrivelled,
>> meagre, hopping, though loud and
>> troublesome insects of the hour" who detest
>> my posts.
>
> Gordon did not say he detests your posts. He just suggested you post less
> often, to try to encourage more people to participate.
>
> No one said they enjoyed your relentless insults and garbage, like the
> above.
>
> I enjoy your willingness to take a stand on issues. I enjoy your thorough
> knowledge of the laws. I enjoy your relentless energy when it is put to
> good use, for example detailing the differences between the ACBL lawbook
> and the WBF lawbook. You have worthwhile things to contribute, Richard.
>
> Bob
>
> On Wed, 06 Jun 2012 19:30:59 -0400,<***@immi.gov.au> wrote:
>
>> On the other hand a non-spoilsport, the
>> respected senior EBU Director Gordon
>> Rainsford, is bored with the excessive
>> frequency of my blml posts.
>>
>> So here is the (shuffle and) deal. As a
>> compromise I will remain subscribed to
>> blml, and I will continue to respond to
>> blml posts with my usual excessive
>> frequency.
>>
>> BUT...
>>
>> My responses to blml posts will not appear
>> on blml itself, instead appearing at:
>>
>> http://boardgamegeek.com/thread/812456/the-2007-2008-laws-of-duplicate-bridge
> _______________________________________________
> Blml mailing list
> ***@rtflb.org
> http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml
>

[r***@immi.gov.au]

Jeff Easterson, 12th June 2012:

[snip]
Incidentally, I can't recall Richard stating that
Bob's (or anyone's) postings were insults and
garbage (but I don't check the archives and
don't trust my memory);
[snip]

Wayne Burrows, an anyone, 12th April 2005:

[snip]
>>A sponsoring organization that issues a
>>directive requiring merely a "balance of
>>probabilities" is circumventing the law that
>>requires that the facts be "ascertained".

Richard Hills, insulter, 13th April 2005:

>Balderdash.

Wayne Burrows, an anyone, 12th April 2005:

>>"balance of probabilities" rulings are IMO
>>one of the worst aspects of our game.

Richard Hills, insulter, 13th April 2005:

>Poppycock.

Wayne Burrows, an anyone, 12th April 2005:

>>It is a device to ensure that innocent
>>parties are punished.

Richard Hills, insulter, 13th April 2005:

>Claptrap.

Wayne Burrows, an expert, 12th April 2005:

>>In some cases there is no evidence that
>>an accused party can give that will
>>convince the director or the committee
>>that in fact they are innocent.

Richard Hills, naive fool, 13th April 2005:

>Hogwash.

George Orwell, hogwash refutation,
Politics and the English Language (1946):

But if thought corrupts language, language
can also corrupt thought. A bad usage can
spread by tradition and imitation even
among people who should and do know
better. The debased language that I have
been discussing is in some ways very
convenient. Phrases like a not un-
justifiable assumption, leaves much to
be desired, would serve no good
purpose, a consideration which we
should do well to bear in mind, are a
continuous temptation, a packet of
aspirins always at one's elbow.

Richard Hills, apologiser, 13th June 2012:

Or indeed the language balance of
probabilities corrupting thought so as to
rule an obviously non-offending player as
incorrectly offending. A case once again
in the Aussie news is that many years ago
it was obviously against the balance of
probabilities that a dingo would take a
baby, hence on the balance of
probabilities the baby's mother was
obviously guilty of infanticide. But a new
coroner's inquest has finally and correctly
deemed that the dingo did it.

Wayne Burrows, an expert, 12th April 2005:

>>I have been to the committee only to be
>>told that there is no way to establish the
>>facts therefore we are going to presume
>>you are guilty on "balance of probabilities".
>>
>>There is no basis in law for this approach.
[snip]

Richard Hills, unfair ridiculer, 13th April 2005:

>Now we get down to the nitty-gritty.
>
>No basis in law??? "Balance of
>probabilities" has been the method for
>determining facts in English civil law
>disputes for centuries. But because Wayne
>has not has his version of facts accepted by
>an appeals committee, he wants to change
>to a different method.
>
>And what, pray tell, would Wayne's
>replacement method be? Trial by combat?
>Trial by ordeal?

Richard Hills, apologiser, 13th June 2012:

Firstly I apologise to Wayne Burrows for the
garbage word "poppycock", since the word
has a scatological Dutch derivation.

Secondly, although the 2007 Drafting
Committee did apparently vindicate me by
including "balance of probabilities" into the
new 2007 Law 85A1, the Drafting Committee
actually vindicated Wayne by including the
safeguards "in accordance with the weight
of the evidence" and "he [the Director] is
+++able+++ to collect".

Note the key word "able". If a drongo
Director presumes "on the balance of
probabilities" that the Wayne sitting South
is offending, because that drongo Director
is too lazy to look for collectable evidence
demonstrating that the dingo sitting East is
the actual culprit, then that drongo Director
has perpetrated a Law 82C Director's Error.

Macquarie Dictionary:

drongo, colloquial noun, a slow-witted or
stupid person (from Drongo, the name of
an Australian racehorse in the early 1920s
which never won a race).

--------------------------------------------------------------------
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. DIAC 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


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

[r***@immi.gov.au]

Hubert Phillips, founder of the EBU,
on the 1930 Buller-Culbertson match:

"The Culbertson Forcing System was
definitely vindicated. The contest showed
that 'card sense', intelligent guesswork
fortified by experience, cannot stand up
against a methodical system of conveying
information also fortified by card sense."

Richard Hills:

So-called natural bidders are so used to
Ely Culbertson's approach-forcing
convention nowadays that they forget it
was derided as too scientific by Ely's
opponents in the 1930s, notably by
Colonel Walter Buller who believed
that "British bridge" was better.

Indeed many so-called natural bidders
nowadays refuse to admit that the bridge
basics of takeout doubles and approach-
forcing are technically conventions,
because these "normal" conventions
have been around for aeons, thus
logically proving that they are in fact non-
conventional. :-) :-)

Indeed, the takeout double convention
is older than the game of Contract
Bridge. According to Rex Mackey's "The
Walk of the Oysters", the takeout double
convention was introduced to Auction
Bridge at the beginning of the 1920s. But
then an ethical lady promptly denounced
the takeout double convention as a
gravest possible offence. :-) :-)

Under the 1997 edition of the Lawbook
Laws 27, 29, 30, 31 and 40 distinguished
between calls which were conventional
or non-conventional.

Under the 2007 edition of the Lawbook
Laws 27, 29, 30, 31 and 40 distinguish
instead between calls which are artificial
or non-artificial.

To prevent a Culbertsonian approach-
forcing bid from being deemed artificial,
in the 2007 Definition of "artificial call" the
Drafting Committee included this caveat:

"(not being information taken for granted
by players generally)"

--------------------------------------------------------------------
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. DIAC 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


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

[Ed Reppert]

On Jun 15, 2012, at 2:33 AM, ***@immi.gov.au wrote:

> Hubert Phillips, founder of the EBU,
> on the 1930 Buller-Culbertson match:
>
> "The Culbertson Forcing System was
> definitely vindicated. The contest showed
> that 'card sense', intelligent guesswork
> fortified by experience, cannot stand up
> against a methodical system of conveying
> information also fortified by card sense."
>
> Richard Hills:
>
> So-called natural bidders are so used to
> Ely Culbertson's approach-forcing
> convention nowadays that they forget it
> was derided as too scientific by Ely's
> opponents in the 1930s, notably by
> Colonel Walter Buller who believed
> that "British bridge" was better.
>
> Indeed many so-called natural bidders
> nowadays refuse to admit that the bridge
> basics of takeout doubles and approach-
> forcing are technically conventions,
> because these "normal" conventions
> have been around for aeons, thus
> logically proving that they are in fact non-
> conventional. :-) :-)
>
> Indeed, the takeout double convention
> is older than the game of Contract
> Bridge. According to Rex Mackey's "The
> Walk of the Oysters", the takeout double
> convention was introduced to Auction
> Bridge at the beginning of the 1920s. But
> then an ethical lady promptly denounced
> the takeout double convention as a
> gravest possible offence. :-) :-)
>
> Under the 1997 edition of the Lawbook
> Laws 27, 29, 30, 31 and 40 distinguished
> between calls which were conventional
> or non-conventional.
>
> Under the 2007 edition of the Lawbook
> Laws 27, 29, 30, 31 and 40 distinguish
> instead between calls which are artificial
> or non-artificial.
>
> To prevent a Culbertsonian approach-
> forcing bid from being deemed artificial,
> in the 2007 Definition of "artificial call" the
> Drafting Committee included this caveat:
>
> "(not being information taken for granted
> by players generally)"
>
Does this mean that takeout doubles are not artificial?

[Sven Pran]

Sometime in the thirties there was an intense debate (I don't remember
exactly in which bridge magazine I read it) where the prime position of the
Portland Club was that certain conventions were illegal.

The bridge laws then defined a card as exposed (among other criteria also)
if a player "says something that shows he holds that card". (Remember that
all calls were spoken in those days.)

The Portland Club argument was that whenever the answer to an asking bid
confirmed the presence of a particular card then this card was "exposed".
The same applied to the asking bid itself, remember that the asking bid 4NT
in Culbertson's 4-5NT convention promised (if I remember correct) the King
in suits already bid.

The debate seemed eventually settled by an agreement (and subsequent
modification in the laws) that "says something" does not include legal
(spoken) calls.

[Roger Pewick]

----------------------------------------
> From: ***@online.no
> To: ***@rtflb.org
> Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2012 12:47:31 +0200
> Subject: Re: [BLML] Logic (was Klaatu) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL]
>
> Sometime in the thirties there was an intense debate (I don't remember
> exactly in which bridge magazine I read it) where the prime position of the
> Portland Club was that certain conventions were illegal.
>
> The bridge laws then defined a card as exposed (among other criteria also)
> if a player "says something that shows he holds that card". (Remember that
> all calls were spoken in those days.)
>
> The Portland Club argument was that whenever the answer to an asking bid
> confirmed the presence of a particular card then this card was "exposed".
> The same applied to the asking bid itself, remember that the asking bid 4NT
> in Culbertson's 4-5NT convention promised (if I remember correct) the King
> in suits already bid.
>
> The debate seemed eventually settled by an agreement (and subsequent
> modification in the laws) that "says something" does not include legal
> (spoken) calls.

It would seem that the debate occurred after 1933:

1933- definitions

Exposed Card
(a) Any card dropped face up on the table even though no other player can name it;
(b) Any card dropped elsewhere than on the table when the offender’s partner sees its face, but not when it is seen only by an opponent;
(c) Any card so held by a player that his partner sees any portion of its face, but not a card so held that only an opponent can see it;
(d) Any card held by a player if he has said anything indicating that he holds it;
(e) The last two cards in the hands of an adversary if, before that ad­versary has played to the twelfth trick, his partner has shown his last card;
(f) Any card which under any provision in these laws may be treated as an exposed card.
During the auction the cards of any player may become exposed. Dur­ing the play only cards held by an adversary may become exposed.

1949- deleted from defintions; leaving:

CARD EXPOSED DURING THE AUCTION
26. If during the auction a player faces a card on the table, or sees the face of a card
belonging to his partner:
(a) If an Ace, King, Queen or Jack, or a lower card prematurely led, or more than one card;* (penalty) the owner’s partner must pass when next it is his turn to call. Every such card must be left face up on the table until the auction closes; and if its owner is then a defender, it becomes a penalty card.
(b) If a single card, lower than a Jack and not prematurely led, there is no penalty.
* If two (or more) cards are faced or seen at different times, clause (a) applies to both of them even though one has been picked up as provided in clause (b).


DECLARER EXPOSING CARDS
63. Declarer is never subject to penalty for exposure of a card, and no card of declarer’s ever becomes a penalty card.
64. If declarer plays more than one card he must designate which is his play, and must restore any other card to his hand.
65. If declarer exposes his hand after an opening lead by the wrong defender, and before. dummy has spread any part of his hand, dummy becomes declarer.
66. If declarer intentionally exposes his hand otherwise than as provided in the preceding sec­tion, it is treated as a claim or concession of tricks and section 88 applies.
DEFENDER EXPOSING CARDS
67. If a defender faces a card on the table, or sees the face of a card belonging to his partner before he is entitled to see it in the normal course of play or penalty enforcement; any such card
becomes a penalty card, except as otherwise pro­vided in these laws.*

• Exceptions to section 67: A card led out of turn may be treated as a correct lead (section 55) or may be picked up (section 57-b). An exposed card may not be treated as a penalty card if dummy improperly (section 46-a) draws attention to it, or to the irregularity that caused its exposure.

regards
roger pewick

[r***@immi.gov.au]

Arthur Guiterman:

In Sparkill buried lies that man of mark
Who brought the Obelisk to Central Park,
Redoubtable Commander H.H. Gorringe,
Whose name supplies the long-sought
rhyme for "orange".

Richard Hills:

[snip]
>>in the 2007 Definition of "artificial call" the
>>Drafting Committee included this caveat:
>>
>>"(not being information taken for granted
>>by players generally)"

Ed Reppert:

>Does this mean that takeout doubles are
>not artificial?

Richard Hills:

On February 29th 2013 Hashmat Ali and I
visited the nearby Australian-Ruritanian
Bridge Lodge (ARBL). Because orange is
the Ruritanian national colour, the ARBL
uses customised bidding box cards with a
uniform orange hue. And naturally every
Ruritanian partnership uniformly uses their
national invention, the Very Timid Orange
Club bidding system.

On Board 1 as North I dealt and opened a
Symmetric Relay (system notes emailed
upon request) 2D, promising 6+ diamonds
and denying another 4 card suit, with 10-
14 hcp. Because I am left-handed East's
vision of my orange 2D bidding card was
slightly obscured, so East incorrectly
assumed that I had chosen an orange
Pass card instead. Therefore East also
opened 2D. The Director was summoned
and Hashmat declined the Director's offer
to accept East's undercall.

When the Director then took East away
from the table, she discovered that East
had intended to open the bidding with a
Very Timid 2D, promising minimum
opening values and a 4-4-1-4 distribution.

As all ARBL players knew that Very Timid
2D opening bids are "information taken for
granted by players generally", and since
all ARBL players knew that takeout doubles
are "information taken for granted by
players generally", the Director permitted
East to replace her insufficient 2D bid with
a takeout double under Law 27B1(a),
because both the insufficient bid and the
replacement call were by 2007 Definition
"incontrovertibly not artificial" and also by
2007 Definition both calls were the Law
27B1(a) "same denomination".

2007 Definition of Denomination:

"the suit or no trump specified in a bid"

In this case both the 2D insufficient bid,
and also the takeout double replacement
call, specified the same denominations of
the three non-diamond suits. (In the Very
Timid Orange Club bidding system all
very strong but offshape hands are not
shown with a takeout double, but instead
shown with a cuebid.)

Best wishes,

Very Timid Richard

--------------------------------------------------------------------
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. DIAC 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


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

[Ed Reppert]

On Jun 18, 2012, at 12:56 AM, ***@immi.gov.au wrote:

> [snip]
> >>in the 2007 Definition of "artificial call" the
> >>Drafting Committee included this caveat:
> >>
> >>"(not being information taken for granted
> >>by players generally)"
>
> Ed Reppert:
>
> >Does this mean that takeout doubles are
> >not artificial?

[snip]

I'll take your long tale about Ruritarians as a "yes". Seems like an almighty strange way to run a railroad.

[r***@immi.gov.au]

Richard Hills:

[snip]
>>>in the 2007 Definition of "artificial call" the
>>>Drafting Committee included this caveat:
>>>
>>>"(not being information taken for granted
>>>by players generally)"

Ed Reppert:

>>Does this mean that takeout doubles are
>>not artificial?

[snipped ARBL tall tale]

Ed Reppert:

>I'll take your long tale about Ruritarians as
>a "yes". Seems like an almighty strange
>way to run a railroad.

Richard Hills:

No, take it as a Yes and No. The point of
the Ruritanian shaggy dog story is that a
call may be deemed non-artificial in the
ARBL but instead be deemed artificial in the
ACBL.

Different strokes for different folks.

Walter William Skeat (1835 - 1912):

I gave my darling child a lemon,
That lately grew its fragrant stem on;
And next, to give her pleasure more range,
I offered her a juicy orange.
And nuts, she cracked them in the door-hinge.

--------------------------------------------------------------------
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. DIAC 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


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

[Ed Reppert]

On Jun 18, 2012, at 2:08 AM, ***@immi.gov.au wrote:

> Ed Reppert:
>
> >I'll take your long tale about Ruritarians as
> >a "yes". Seems like an almighty strange
> >way to run a railroad.
>
> Richard Hills:
>
> No, take it as a Yes and No. The point of
> the Ruritanian shaggy dog story is that a
> call may be deemed non-artificial in the
> ARBL but instead be deemed artificial in the
> ACBL.
>
> Different strokes for different folks.
>

Maybe so, but calling a spade an orange (or a banana) still seems almighty strange, and quite a bit beyond "different strokes".

[r***@immi.gov.au]

Donald Rumsfeld, on WMD in Iraq:

The absence of evidence is not the
evidence of absence.
[snip]
Simply because you do not have evidence
that something does exist does not mean
that you have evidence that it doesn't exist.

Aristotle and an Aardvark go to Washington
Thomas Cathcart & Daniel Klein, page 27:

But let's start with the fallacy that Mr.
Rumsfeld nails on the head. It's called the
"argument from ignorance" (argumentum
ad ignorantiam) and it goes like this: Not
knowing a statement is true is taken to be
proof that it is false.
[snip]
It is a mistake along the same lines as those
evil medievals who once said, "I see no
evidence that the earth revolves around the
sun, so it must not." It just ain't necessarily
so, and the secretary has made a solid
point here.

But Rumsfeld is correct only up to a point.
There comes a time when the absence of
evidence really _does_ become evidence
of absence. Copernicus had plenty of
evidence that the earth revolves around
the sun; it just wasn't common-sense
evidence. Had he not been able to
produce _any_ evidence of _any_ sort,
then we _would_ be justified in arguing
that his theory should be assumed to be
false.

Richard Hills, uncommon sense:

[snip]
>>a call may be deemed non-artificial in
>>the ARBL but instead be deemed
>>artificial in the ACBL.
>>
>>Different strokes for different folks.

Ed Reppert, common sense:

>Maybe so, but calling a spade an orange
>(or a banana) still seems almighty strange,
>and quite a bit beyond "different strokes".

Aristotle and an Aardvark go to Washington
Thomas Cathcart & Daniel Klein, page 28:

Two archaeologists, a Greek and an
Egyptian, are arguing over who came from
the more advanced ancient civilisation.

The Greek says, "While digging in Corinth,
we found copper wires buried under the
village. This proves we already had
telephones in the sixth century BCE!"

And the Egyptian replies, "Well, in Giza, we
dug under the ancient village and found no
wires at all, thus proving they had already
gone wireless!"

--------------------------------------------------------------------
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. DIAC 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


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

[Ed Reppert]

On Jun 18, 2012, at 6:32 PM, ***@immi.gov.au wrote:

> Two archaeologists, a Greek and an
> Egyptian, are arguing over who came from
> the more advanced ancient civilisation.
>
> The Greek says, "While digging in Corinth,
> we found copper wires buried under the
> village. This proves we already had
> telephones in the sixth century BCE!"
>
> And the Egyptian replies, "Well, in Giza, we
> dug under the ancient village and found no
> wires at all, thus proving they had already
> gone wireless!"

RPFL!!

[Tony Musgrove]

From: blml-***@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-***@rtflb.org] On Behalf
Of ***@immi.gov.au
Sent: Monday, 18 June 2012 2:57 PM
To: Bridge Laws Mailing List
Subject: Re: [BLML] Logic (was Klaatu) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL]

Arthur Guiterman:

In Sparkill buried lies that man of mark
Who brought the Obelisk to Central Park,
Redoubtable Commander H.H. Gorringe,
Whose name supplies the long-sought
rhyme for "orange".

Richard Hills:

[snip]
>>in the 2007 Definition of "artificial call" the
>>Drafting Committee included this caveat:
>>
>>"(not being information taken for granted
>>by players generally)"

Ed Reppert:

>Does this mean that takeout doubles are
>not artificial?

Richard Hills:

On February 29th 2013 Hashmat Ali and I
visited the nearby Australian-Ruritanian
Bridge Lodge (ARBL). Because orange is
the Ruritanian national colour, the ARBL
uses customised bidding box cards with a
uniform orange hue. And naturally every
Ruritanian partnership uniformly uses their
national invention, the Very Timid Orange
Club bidding system.

On Board 1 as North I dealt and opened a
Symmetric Relay (system notes emailed
upon request) 2D, promising 6+ diamonds
and denying another 4 card suit, with 10-
14 hcp. Because I am left-handed East's
vision of my orange 2D bidding card was
slightly obscured, so East incorrectly
assumed that I had chosen an orange
Pass card instead. Therefore East also
opened 2D. The Director was summoned
and Hashmat declined the Director's offer
to accept East's undercall.

When the Director then took East away
from the table, she discovered that East
had intended to open the bidding with a
Very Timid 2D, promising minimum
opening values and a 4-4-1-4 distribution.

As all ARBL players knew that Very Timid
2D opening bids are "information taken for
granted by players generally", and since
all ARBL players knew that takeout doubles
are "information taken for granted by
players generally", the Director permitted
East to replace her insufficient 2D bid with
a takeout double under Law 27B1(a),
because both the insufficient bid and the
replacement call were by 2007 Definition
"incontrovertibly not artificial" and also by
2007 Definition both calls were the Law
27B1(a) "same denomination".

2007 Definition of Denomination:

"the suit or no trump specified in a bid"

In this case both the 2D insufficient bid,
and also the takeout double replacement
call, specified the same denominations of
the three non-diamond suits. (In the Very
Timid Orange Club bidding system all
very strong but offshape hands are not
shown with a takeout double, but instead
shown with a cuebid.)

Best wishes,

Very Timid Richard

[tony] If everyone agrees with this ,and I think I
do, I would like to cut this out as an example please,

Cheers,

Tony (Sydney)

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

[Steve Willner]

On 2012-06-18 2:10 AM, Tony Musgrove wrote:
> */tony]If everyone agrees with this ,and I think I/*
> */do, I would like to cut this out as an example please,/*

The trouble with Richard's "logic" is that only bids have denomination.

Law 27B1b might apply, but that has nothing to do with artificial.

The general point that "artificial" might depend on the local
environment might or might not be correct, depending on whether one
reads "generally" to mean the whole bridge-playing population worldwide
or only the local cohort. I think one could make a credible argument
that takeout doubles, at least directly over opening suit bids, are not
artificial. I'm afraid I don't care for that result at all, nor do I
think the current definition of artificial is an improvement over the
1987 definition of "conventional." Probably a sensible definition of
this term is just too hard, and all dependence on artificial or not
should be removed from the Laws. I don't expect the 2017 drafting
committee to agree with me, though I believe David Stevenson might.
(For newcomers to BLML, David S. and I are notoriously in disagreement
on a wide range of questions.)

[r***@immi.gov.au]

Steve Willner:

>The trouble with Richard's "logic" is that only
>bids have denomination.

Richard Hills:

Oops, my bad. On a careful rereading of the
Laws I note that after 1NT - (Pass) - 2D transfer
responder's denomination is diamonds
despite responder's suit being hearts. Hence
the necessity for Law 29C:

"If a call out of rotation is artificial, the provisions
of Laws 30, 31 and 32 apply to the
denomination(s) specified, rather than the
denomination named."

Steve Willner:

[snip]
>The general point that "artificial" might depend
>on the local environment might or might not be
>correct, depending on whether one reads
>"generally" to mean the whole bridge-playing
>population worldwide or only the local cohort.

Richard Hills:

Contrary to the Guthriesque philosophy of
rigid world-wide uniformity, I believe the "local
cohort" concept is preferable. An analogous
local cohort precedent is a criterion of Special
Partnership Understanding, as defined by the
second sentence of Law 40B1(a):

"A special partnership understanding is one
whose meaning, in the opinion of the
Regulating Authority, may not be readily
understood and anticipated by a significant
number of players in +++the+++ tournament."

Steve Willner:

[snip]
>nor do I think the current definition of artificial
>is an improvement over the 1987 definition of
>"conventional." Probably a sensible definition
>of this term is just too hard, and all
>dependence on artificial or not should be
>removed from the Laws.
[snip]

Richard Hills:

The 1997 definition of "convention" was indeed
a dingo's breakfast:

"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."

Democritus, c. 460 - c. 370 BCE, philosopher:

By convention there is colour, by convention
sweetness, by convention bitterness, but in
reality there are atoms and space.

--------------------------------------------------------------------
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. DIAC 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


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

[r***@immi.gov.au]

The 1997 Definition of "convention":

"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."

Steve Willner, August 2004, defining a pre-
existing implicit partnership understanding:

[snip]
For example, if we agree to play a certain
range for 1NT, other openings deny a
balanced hand in that range, even without
explicit discussion.
[snip]

Richard Hills, August 2004, redefining a pre-
existing implicit partnership understanding:

Naaah. Steve has led a sheltered life. I
suggest that he reads Mike Lawrence's first
book (of many books), "Judgement At Bridge".

In it, Lawrence related how a Little Old Lady
adopted the old-fashioned advice of Charles
Goren, "Don't open a balanced 16-18 1NT
with a worthless doubleton!"

Since the LOL held 16-18 balanced with a
worthless doubleton in clubs, she was
compelled by her Gorenish system to open
1C instead! :-) :-)

Richard Hills, June 2012:

Under the 1997 Definition of "convention", a
Gorenish 1NT opening bid is technically a
convention. 1NT "conveys a meaning other"
due to its constraints on possible shapes, and
due to its constraints on acceptable values in
a possible doubleton.

Under the 2007 Definition of "artificial call", a
Gorenish 1NT opening bid is technically not
an artificial call, due to the 2007 caveat "not
being information taken for granted by
players generally".

What's the Goren problem?

In my opinion the problem is players falling
into the trap of assuming that their methods
are "normal" and "natural" and "standard",
so those players therefore give inadequate
explanations to opponents using another
set of methods.

Ed Reppert, May 2006:

Heh. even simple conventions can fall prey
to that. Particularly when the asker is trying to
ferret out subtle details. Example. P-1S-2C
(uncontested auction). Now opponent asks
what 2C means. Explanation: Drury. Now, in
the ACBL, and in most other jurisdictions as
well, AFAIK, naming a convention is not
enough, so... next question: tell me more,
please. Answer: Huh? It's Drury, wtp? Q:
Explain what the bid means, please, don't
just name it. A: Okay, he's showing a limit
raise. Q: What would 3S mean? A: limit
raise*. Q: so what's the difference between
2C and 3S? A: Director! This is harassment!

Most novices (and I include in that people
who've been playing in clubs for years, and
never had it driven home that you *must*
give a complete explanation of your
agreements) do *not* understand how to
explain things. And they get upset when
they get called on it.

* in many cases you get this answer
because they haven't thought about it. They
play it as a limit raise by an unpassed hand,
so... If they "have" thought about it, maybe
they think it should show a four card limit
raise, and 2C shows three. Or maybe they
think it should be weak. IAC, they probably
haven't discussed it with partner, so they
really don't *have* an agreement on the
meaning of 3S.

--------------------------------------------------------------------
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. DIAC 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


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

[Alain Gottcheiner]

Le 19/06/2012 7:45, ***@immi.gov.au a écrit :
>
> The 1997 Definition of "convention":
>
> "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."
>
> Steve Willner, August 2004, defining a pre-
> existing implicit partnership understanding:
>
> [snip]
> For example, if we agree to play a certain
> range for 1NT, other openings deny a
> balanced hand in that range, even without
> explicit discussion.
> [snip]
>
AG : up to a certain point. First, many agreements are facultative, most
notably for strategical reasons, e.g.. if playing preemptive jump
raises, I would occasionally not use them with the right hand. Second,
systemic overlappings aren't interdicted per se. Third, a pro or a hog
might be reluctant to use transfers, and there are cases when they may
indeed be avoided (in many partnerships 1NT-4S isn't different from
1NT-2H-2S-4S). And last but not least, you see in every bidding contest
that players with comparable abilities and the same system give
dieeferent answers. (one might classify this in the "overlappings
category", but sometimes they simply have a different opinion about how
this hand should be handled).

Best regards

Alain


>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Blml mailing list
> ***@rtflb.org
> http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml

[Nigel Guthrie]

I prefer ”common-sense” definitions that retain some of the normal dictionary meaning of the words.
In the context of a Bridge auction:
NATURAL: seriously suggesting this as a possible final contract (“What it says on the tin”).
CONVENTIONAL: Having an agreed meaning (instead of -- or in addition to -- the “Natural” meaning).
ARTIFICIAL: having an agreed meaning unrelated to the natural meaning of the call. (“Conventional” but not “Natural”).
According to these definitions, all artificial calls and some natural calls are conventional.

[David Grabiner]

By that definition, almost all early-round natural calls are conventional. An opening 1NT shows a hand suitable for play in NT (natural), but it also has the agreement that it shows 15-17 or 12-14 or 10-12 HCP. A response of 2D to an opening 1S shows a hand with a diamond suit, but it also has the agreement that it shows 10+ points or game-forcing values, depending on the system. A response of 3D to an opening 1S, if natural, either has the agreement that it shows 6-9 points (if weak) or slam interest (if strong). The sequence 1D-2C-2S shows five diamonds and four spades, but some players (particularly those who play 1D-2C game forcing) play that it can be bid on a minimum and others have the additional agreement that it shows 16 points. The sequence 1D-1S-2S shows a minimum opening with spade support (natural, since the minimum opening wants to suggest 2S as the final contract), but it may also have the agreement that it promises four spades.

I would prefer to use the term "treatment" for an agreed natural meaning such as these examples, in which a bid suggests the denomination but also shows an agreed-upon general strength or suit length.

----- Original Message -----
From: Nigel Guthrie
To: Bridge Laws Mailing List
Sent: Tuesday, June 19, 2012 8:55 AM
Subject: Re: [BLML] Logic (was Klaatu) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL]


I prefer ”common-sense” definitions that retain some of the normal dictionary meaning of the words.
In the context of a Bridge auction:
NATURAL: seriously suggesting this as a possible final contract (“What it says on the tin”).
CONVENTIONAL: Having an agreed meaning (instead of -- or in addition to -- the “Natural” meaning).
ARTIFICIAL: having an agreed meaning unrelated to the natural meaning of the call. (“Conventional” but not “Natural”).
According to these definitions, all artificial calls and some natural calls are conventional.

[r***@immi.gov.au]

James Boswell quoting Samuel Johnson:

"The justice or injustice of the cause is to
be decided by the judge."

Hilda R. Lirsch, 29th February 2006:

>>>The Pocket Oxford Dictionary defines
>>>"hypocrisy" as a mere simulation of
>>>Virtue. But how should one define a
>>>Virtuous Umpire of a serious skilful
>>>competitive tournament??
>>>
>>>Does the difference between the
>>>Hypocritical Umpire and the Virtuous
>>>Umpire rest in the fact that the V.U.
>>>intentionally tries cause justice by
>>>being careful to attempt to interpret
>>>accurately and enforce impartially the
>>>Official Rules??

Nigel Guthrie, 6th May 2006:

[snip]
>>In my experience, at and away from the
>>Bridge table, many rationalize rule-
>>breaking; but few consider themselves
>>dishonest.
>>
>>Bridge is a microcosm; players are just
>>people - a mixture of good and evil -
>>but many hypocrites :(

Eric Landau, 8th May 2006:

[snip]
>Everything Nigel writes is true. But
>money, power and sex are serious
>business. Bridge, OTOH, is a game we
>play for fun.

Grattan Endicott, 9th May 2006:

+=+ Personally I have always found
money, power and sex to be fun as well.
~ G ~ +=+

--------------------------------------------------------------------
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. DIAC 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


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

[r***@immi.gov.au]

Jeff Easterson, 12th June 2012:

>I enjoy Richard's "relentless insults and garbage".
>I suspect I am not the only one in blml.

Richard Hills, 10th July 2012:

The multi-player boardgame Eclipse has a rule:

"you may use your Colony Ships at any time
during your turn".

During a recent multi-player contest with my
boardgaming friends, I interpreted this rule as
meaning:

"you may use your Colony Ships at any time
during your turn".

Jeff Easterson, 12th June 2012:

>I enjoy his humour as well.

Richard Hills, 10th July 2012:

But one dogmatic friend applied "common-
sense" to interpret this rule as meaning:

"you may use your Colony Ships at the start
and/or the end of your turn, but you may NOT
interrupt half-way what should common-
sensically be a unitary action".

When I submitted these two differing rule
interpretations to the experts on BoardGame-
Geek, one dryly observed that if "any time"
was not interpreted as "any time", then there
were a thousand possible interpretations.

Indeed, my boardgaming friend is willing to
modify his dogmatic views now that:

(a) he has been given new evidence (the
intent of the Eclipse game designer was
demonstrably suggested by the addition of
the "any time" phrase to the second edition
of the rules), and

(b) he has also been given the expert's
"thousand possible interpretations" Occam's
Razor reasoning.

Will a "common-sensical" blmler who wishes
to fix non-existent problems in The Fabulous
Law Book learn from my boardgaming
friend's "common-sense" error and retraction?

Or is the above question merely me indulging
in "relentless insults and garbage"?

Jeff Easterson, 12th June 2012:

[snip]
>I don't approve of anyone saying that the
>postings of an opponent in blml are
>"relentless insults and garbage". Feel free
>to think so but try to express your dis-
>agreement less abrasively. (Again a
>personal opinion - I don't feel entitled to
>consider my subjective reactions and
>opinion hard and fast rules for all of society.
>Apparently there are others who don't
>share this feeling.)

--------------------------------------------------------------------
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. DIAC 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


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

[Alain Gottcheiner]

Le 19/06/2012 14:55, Nigel Guthrie a écrit :
> I prefer "common-sense" definitions that retain some of the normal
> dictionary meaning of the words.
> In the context of a Bridge auction:
> NATURAL: seriously suggesting this as a possible final contract ("What
> it says on the tin").
> CONVENTIONAL: Having an agreed meaning (instead of -- or in addition
> to -- the "Natural" meaning).
> ARTIFICIAL: having an agreed meaning unrelated to the natural meaning
> of the call. ("Conventional" but not "Natural").
> According to these definitions, a
> ll artificial calls and some natural calls are conventional.

AG : if this is to be taken literally, a 1/1 response is not natural (no
forcing bid is), while Dutch twos are (also being conventional). Is it
intended ?
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Blml mailing list
> ***@rtflb.org
> http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml

[r***@immi.gov.au]

William Shakespeare, The Tempest:

Full fathom five thy father lies;
Of his bones are coral made:
Those are pearls that were his eyes:
Nothing of him that doth fade,
But doth suffer a sea-change
Into something rich and strange.

Alan Gottcheiner:

>AG : up to a certain point. First, many
>agreements are facultative, most notably for
>strategical reasons, e.g.. if playing preemptive
>jump raises, I would occasionally not use them
>with the right hand.
[snip]

Richard Hills:

"Facultative" pre-existing mutual partnership
understandings may or may not have been
Lawful under the 1997 Lawbook, but are now
definitely unLawful under the 2007 Lawbook
because of the new 2007 Law 40C1.

If Alain and partner have an understanding to
avoid preemptive jump raises with the right
hand, then they are _not_ using a preemptive
jump raise method, since Law 40C1 has sea-
changed the original notional partnership
understanding into something rich and strange.

That is, Alain-partner are using the nuanced
partnership understanding of "preemptive jump
raises except with the right hand". Law 40C1
requires that this _must_ be fully explained to
the opponents upon their enquiry, _including_
details of what Alain-partner consider to be the
right hand. (And if Alain and partner differ in
their criteria for the right hand, then Law 40C1
mandates that those individual differences
_must_ also be fully explained.)

Psalm 137, verse 5:

If I forget thee, O Jerusalem: let my right hand
forget her cunning.

--------------------------------------------------------------------
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. DIAC 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


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

[Tony Musgrove]

Tony Musgrove:

[snip]
>>>My only worry is that he seems to be
>>>able to compose these diatribes when
>>>he perhaps should be attending to
>>>freeing some of our refugees from their
>>>concentration camps, or at the very least,
>>>dispensing movie tickets for the Dept. of
>>>Immigration social club.
[snip]

Doctor Frankenstein:

My operation, Igor, is the Jacoby Transfer
which requires two hearts. Voila! An insect
has gained Richard Hills' humorous heart,
while Richard Hills now has the humourless
heart of an insect.

Richard "grasshopper" Hills:

Tony Musgrove's paragraph above is a
slander on me, so I demand an immediate
retraction and apology. :-) :-)

[tony] I have to start with a quotation from my extensive reading
"Apology is only egotism wrong side out" Oliver Wendell Holmes
Naturally I withdraw wholeheartedly and egotistically append the
following story : Many years ago our team drew the formidable Hills
equipage at a country NSW congress. My wife and I were sent in
to battle against Hills and Partner, and our teammates (two LOLs
but excellent players took on the other half of the Hills team. At that
table there was some difference of opinion, a director call, and some
bad
feeling which Richard found out about at the end of the match. We were
astonished to have Richard call at our table, to offer his abject
apologies
for the behaviour of his team mates, whom he vowed never to play
with again. We immediately marked him down as a weirdo eccentric.
At a later congress, our team managed to win our first match but I
incompetently put the result slip with the result reversed. It was not
until
the lunch interval that I discovered my error, and Sean had not trouble
accepting my error as normal for someone of my age. The point of the
story was that the team we beat in round 1 was eroneously drawn against
Hills
in round 2, and got creamed. Our lunch was lubricated with an extra
bottle of
red to celebrate our close escape,

Cheers

Tony (Sydney)


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

[r***@immi.gov.au]

In a parallel thread was this assertion:

"It is a little odd that the opponents can ask
declarer to play out the hand but the
director cannot."

The only legal way for play to continue
after a concession is for one defender to
immediately object to the other defender's
concession, in which case the attempted
concession is "null and void". Law 68B2.

There is no way Jose that opponents may
legally ask declarer to play out the hand
after declarer claims (and/or concedes).

Introduction:

...“should” do (failure to do it is an infraction
jeopardizing the infractor’s rights...

Law 70D3, initial phrase:

In accordance with Law 68D play _should_
have ceased,

Law 68D, final sentence:

_No_ action _may_ be taken pending the
Director’s arrival.

Law 68D, final sentence, paraphrase:

Action _may not_ be taken pending the
Director’s arrival.

Introduction:

...“must not” is the strongest prohibition,
“shall not” is strong but “may not” is
stronger – just short of “must not”...

--------------------------------------------------------------------
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. DIAC 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


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

[Jeff Easterson]

Great Good News. Carry on Richard! JE

Am 12.06.2012 01:06, schrieb ***@immi.gov.au:
>
> Edmund Burke (1729-1797):
>
> Because half-a-dozen grasshoppers under
> a fern make the field ring with their
> importunate chink, whilst thousands of great
> cattle, reposed beneath the shadow of the
> British oak, chew the cud and are silent, pray
> do not imagine that those who make the
> noise are the only inhabitants of the field; that
> of course they are many in number; or that,
> after all, they are other than the little shrivelled,
> meagre, hopping, though loud and
> troublesome insects of the hour.
>
> Gordon Rainsford:
>
> >>Indeed. Certainly, don't do anything like
> >>this [RH partially leave blml] on my behalf.
> >>I suppose my post was intended more as
> >>an explanation of how things are
> [snip]
>
> Ed Reppert:
>
> >I have to agree with the others. Speaking as
> >someone who left blml some time ago and
> >who recently came back to see if it had got
> >better, it seems to me that no, it hasn't really
> >got better, but it would be much worse
> >without Richard here. So I ask you, Richard,
> >please reconsider and return to posting here.
> >
> >Regards,
> >
> >Ed
>
> Richard Hills:
>
> I am extremely gratified that cud-chewing
> blml activists and lurkers who enjoy my posts
> greatly outnumber "the little shrivelled,
> meagre, hopping, though loud and
> troublesome insects of the hour" who detest
> my posts.
>
> Therefore I will resume full blml membership.
>
> Best wishes,
>
> Richard Hills
> DIAC Social Club movies coordinator
>
> Tony Musgrove:
>
> [snip]
> >>>My only worry is that he seems to be
> >>>able to compose these diatribes when
> >>>he perhaps should be attending to
> >>>freeing some of our refugees from their
> >>>concentration camps, or at the very least,
> >>>dispensing movie tickets for the Dept. of
> >>>Immigration social club.
> [snip]
>
> Doctor Frankenstein:
>
> My operation, Igor, is the Jacoby Transfer
> which requires two hearts. Voila! An insect
> has gained Richard Hills' humorous heart,
> while Richard Hills now has the humourless
> heart of an insect.
>
> Richard "grasshopper" Hills:
>
> Tony Musgrove's paragraph above is a
> slander on me, so I demand an immediate
> retraction and apology. :-) :-)
>
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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. DIAC 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
> ***@rtflb.org
> http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml

[Jeff Easterson]

I (also) agree with Tony. Richard, please don't leave us; it would
greatly reduce my interest in blml and almost eliminate the
entertainment value.
I think Richard is vital for blml. In the past years a few of my friends
have resigned from blml but none of them due to Richard. Quite the
opposite - they were angered/bored by constant repetition, endless
arguments and lack of humour of other posters. JE

Am 08.06.2012 05:34, schrieb Tony Musgrove:
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: blml-***@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-***@rtflb.org] On Behalf
>> Of Gordon Rainsford
>> Sent: Thursday, 7 June 2012 6:41 PM
>> To: Bridge Laws Mailing List
>> Subject: Re: [BLML] Logic (was Klaatu) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL]
>>
>> Indeed. Certainly, don't do anything like this on my behalf. I suppose
>> my post was intended more as an explanation of how things are (why I
> and
>> others much prefer the discussions on IBLF to those on BLML) than a
>> request for you to change. As I also said, it may in any case be too
>> late for that.
>>
>> Gordon Rainsford
>>
>> On 07/06/2012 09:24, Brian wrote:
>>>> I really don't understand why you feel it's necessary for you to
> post
>>>> elsewhere. People who want to filter out certain posters, whether
> to
>>>> delete their messages or just to file them in a different folder,
> need
>>>> to learn how to use the capabilities of their mail program. That
> seems
>>>> a far preferable solution to having BLML fragmented among different
>>>> locations.
> [tony] I am also against moving to another platform. I remember I
> coughed up $1 only two years ago to ensure the continuation of
> BLML, and I think I have about 50c left. I remember when DWS took
> his bat and went home, I thought I would never again see a thin
> skinned bridge director. When Herman was censured for unparliamentary
> language by our moderator, I thought, as one who takes the
> Australian parliamentary question time for its entertainment value, that
> he, like some of those participants in question time, had perhaps
> simply had too good a lunch. So I would say to someone like
> Richard, who is quite capable of defending himself in words of
> three syllables, or with an apt quote, to return to his accustomed
> pillar and dispense erudition until his heart's content.
>
> My only worry is that he seems to be able to compose these
> diatribes when he perhaps should be attending to freeing some
> of our refugees from their concentration camps, or at the very
> least, dispensing movie tickets for the Dept. of Immigration social
> club.
>
> Just my 2c worth, so should have 48c to go. Now that Aussie dollar
> has slipped below parity, this is not so much these days,
>
> Cheers,
>
> Tony (Sydney)
>
>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Blml mailing list
>> ***@rtflb.org
>> http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml
> _______________________________________________
> Blml mailing list
> ***@rtflb.org
> http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml
>

[Nigel Guthrie]

[Brian Meadows]
I really don't understand why you feel it's necessary for you to post
elsewhere. People who want to filter out certain posters, whether to
delete their messages or just to file them in a different folder, need
to learn how to use the capabilities of their mail program. That seems
a far preferable solution to having BLML fragmented among different
locations.

[Nigel]
Exactly. A problem can arise only when somebody whom you respect quotes
somebody whose views you find unsettling. Gordon can easily cope with that.

[Robert Frick]

On Fri, 01 Jun 2012 00:22:30 -0400, <***@immi.gov.au> wrote:


>
> In times past I was overly harsh
> in my critiques of Herman De Wael.
> Anyone with a sense of humor, as
> shown by Herman's love of cricket
> (and Monty Python) cannot be too
> bad.

This is called damning with faint praise -- the only good thing about
Herman was his sense of humor. Richard is very skilled and diligent in the
arts of slander and ridicule and knows exactly what he is doing here.

David Burns once posed a problem. I knew it was a trap, and still I walked
headfirst into it. And couldn't figure out how to get out. Herman walked
in and out of the trap like it wasn't there. He was just following his
philosophy, but it was amazing.

Onlist and offlist, he was a decent human being who tried to discuss
things rationally. One can point to several clarifications of the law
resulting from Herman. I liked him. I think he was trying to make bridge a
better game.

Richard, you should have treated him decently because he is a decent human
being.

Or, you should have treated him decently so that people on the list would
think you are a decent human being.

And you should wonder why you *ever* use slander and ridicule and
badgering, and you use it incessantly.

Bob

[Jeff Easterson]

You use the past tense in reference to Herman. Has he died? If he has
I missed the notification. You also describe him as a decent human
being. Did/do you know him? (Not that I disagree with your description
but I'd hesitate to say something like that about someone I didn't know
fairly well.)
Re Richard: If there is slander you can demand redress. If there is
ridicule it might be worthwhile to investigate the source, what is being
ridiculed. In some cases it might be deserved.
And incidentally I fail to see that or why Richard's quasi apology (to
Herman) is faint praise.
In closing: I know Herman and have known him for more than 20 years and
regularly work as a TD with him. (At the same tournaments) But the last
time was about 8 months ago and I haven't heard anything from him since
then. He seems to have stopped contributing to blml. Does anyone know
why? I do hope it is not due to any thing serious (bad health, death,
etc.).

Ciao, JE

Am 02.06.2012 20:54, schrieb Robert Frick:
> On Fri, 01 Jun 2012 00:22:30 -0400,<***@immi.gov.au> wrote:
>
>
>> In times past I was overly harsh
>> in my critiques of Herman De Wael.
>> Anyone with a sense of humor, as
>> shown by Herman's love of cricket
>> (and Monty Python) cannot be too
>> bad.
> This is called damning with faint praise -- the only good thing about
> Herman was his sense of humor. Richard is very skilled and diligent in the
> arts of slander and ridicule and knows exactly what he is doing here.
>
> David Burns once posed a problem. I knew it was a trap, and still I walked
> headfirst into it. And couldn't figure out how to get out. Herman walked
> in and out of the trap like it wasn't there. He was just following his
> philosophy, but it was amazing.
>
> Onlist and offlist, he was a decent human being who tried to discuss
> things rationally. One can point to several clarifications of the law
> resulting from Herman. I liked him. I think he was trying to make bridge a
> better game.
>
> Richard, you should have treated him decently because he is a decent human
> being.
>
> Or, you should have treated him decently so that people on the list would
> think you are a decent human being.
>
> And you should wonder why you *ever* use slander and ridicule and
> badgering, and you use it incessantly.
>
> Bob
>
> _______________________________________________
> Blml mailing list
> ***@rtflb.org
> http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml
>

[Tony Musgrove]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: blml-***@rtflb.org [mailto:blml-***@rtflb.org] On Behalf
> Of Robert Frick
> Sent: Sunday, 3 June 2012 4:55 AM
> To: Bridge Laws Mailing List; ***@immi.gov.au
> Subject: [BLML] Herman
>
> On Fri, 01 Jun 2012 00:22:30 -0400, <***@immi.gov.au> wrote:
>
>
> >
> > In times past I was overly harsh
> > in my critiques of Herman De Wael.
> > Anyone with a sense of humor, as
> > shown by Herman's love of cricket
> > (and Monty Python) cannot be too
> > bad.
>
> This is called damning with faint praise -- the only good thing about
> Herman was his sense of humor. Richard is very skilled and diligent in
the
> arts of slander and ridicule and knows exactly what he is doing here.
>
> David Burns once posed a problem. I knew it was a trap, and still I
walked
> headfirst into it. And couldn't figure out how to get out. Herman
walked
> in and out of the trap like it wasn't there. He was just following his
> philosophy, but it was amazing.

[tony] Richard falls into a trap again. In fact we all enjoyed Hermie
whose arguments, however pig headed had some underlying
sense to them. He had obviously passed a director's examination
and was my guru on scoring for many years. He also ran a most
successful international competition called the SS Finland pairs
which hit just about all continents.

Liking Monty Python is not damning with faint praise. Liking
cricket, and flags are merely idiosyncrasies,

Cheers
Tony (Sydney)

[Jerry Fusselman]

On Sat, Jun 2, 2012 at 1:54 PM, Robert Frick <***@rfrick.info> wrote:

> On Fri, 01 Jun 2012 00:22:30 -0400, <***@immi.gov.au> wrote:
>
>
> >
> > In times past I was overly harsh
> > in my critiques of Herman De Wael.
> > Anyone with a sense of humor, as
> > shown by Herman's love of cricket
> > (and Monty Python) cannot be too
> > bad.
>
> This is called damning with faint praise -- the only good thing about
> Herman was his sense of humor. Richard is very skilled and diligent in the
> arts of slander and ridicule and knows exactly what he is doing here.
>
> David Burns once posed a problem. I knew it was a trap, and still I walked
> headfirst into it. And couldn't figure out how to get out. Herman walked
> in and out of the trap like it wasn't there. He was just following his
> philosophy, but it was amazing.
>
> Onlist and offlist, he was a decent human being who tried to discuss
> things rationally. One can point to several clarifications of the law
> resulting from Herman. I liked him. I think he was trying to make bridge a
> better game.
>
> Richard, you should have treated him decently because he is a decent human
> being.
>
> Or, you should have treated him decently so that people on the list would
> think you are a decent human being.
>
> And you should wonder why you *ever* use slander and ridicule and
> badgering, and you use it incessantly.
>
> Bob
>
>
"I wish that I may never think the smiles of the great and powerful a
sufficient inducement to turn aside from the straight path of honesty and
the convictions of my own mind."

--David Ricardo

As usual, I find Robert both clear and correct. I would voice my
agreements with Robert Frick on BLML more often if his arguments needed
clarification, but he is often too clear for me to feel that I can add
anything.

Richard Hills's posts often make me cringe due to his almost daily use of
slander, ridicule, and ad hominem attacks. Therefore, I lately avoid
reading Richard Hill's words except possibly when someone else quotes him.
The quotes provide more than enough of his slander, etc., for me.
Personally, I think anyone exhibiting such behavior as Richard's so often
(or even much less often) should be banned from BLML regardless of the
frequency of valuable contributions (which is also high in Richard's case),
but maybe that's just me. I do sincerely mean regardless.

Admittedly, Richard Hills contributes 10% or 20% or more of the useful
sentences on BLML, which is a very high contribution rate. It honestly
appears to me that BLML decision makers have decided that this high
contribution rate forgives the frequent slanders, personal ridicules,
and ad hominem attacks. Personally, I am against that calculus, and I
would prefer a BLML with such behavior banned. And I mean truly banned,
not just discouraged until the next several times that it happens, again
and again, year after year.

The Ricardo quote above is an inspiration to me, and it is something that
Herman certainly exemplifies. Herman's behavior, generally well above the
fray of his detractors, is an inspiration to me as well.

As for the dWS, I currently think that it is a good idea and a big
improvement. It helps save the board, for example. I don't like so many
rules about how the bridge player is required to think in difficult
situations requiring lightning decisions. It seems to me better to have
procedures in place to handle whatever happens rather that to try to
legislate case after case requiring a director to divine what is going on
in a player's mind when something goes wrong. Let the rules generally
focus on actions rather than thoughts.

Also, it is not so clear to me that the powers that be have addressed DWS
to any great extent. Their statements might perhaps cover the cases in
which the explainer is 100% sure about which way is the true understanding,
but who can be 100% sure of which understanding is correct, especially
given that the director is the one who determines what the
true understanding is? In virtually every case, an honest explainer's
belief of what the correct (according to the director) systemic
understanding is less than 100%.

Jerry Fusselman

[Tony Musgrove]

Non dWS denier, Jerry Fusselman expounds:

As usual, I find Robert both clear and correct. I would voice my
agreements with Robert Frick on BLML more often if his arguments needed
clarification, but he is often too clear for me to feel that I can add
anything.

Richard Hills's posts often make me cringe due to his almost daily use
of slander, ridicule, and ad hominem attacks. Therefore, I lately avoid
reading Richard Hill's words except possibly when someone else quotes
him. The quotes provide more than enough of his slander, etc., for me.
Personally, I think anyone exhibiting such behavior as Richard's so
often (or even much less often) should be banned from BLML regardless of
the frequency of valuable contributions (which is also high in Richard's
case), but maybe that's just me. I do sincerely mean regardless.
[tony] farbeit from me to defend Richard. I would simply point out that
it is not
only Richard, but most of the European contingent who have patiently
pointed
out Robert's errors in Law, and interpretation of the FLB. I personally
am
not sure whether Robert is yet clear on the difference between an
attempted
revoke and an established revoke.
As one who takes BLML for entertainment (and for the tax deduction), I
would
not continue were Richard to remove himself from the list. In the
absence of
Grattan, David B, Marvin and several others, this list is as boring as
batshit.

Cheers,

Tony (Sydney)

[Robert Frick]

On Sun, 03 Jun 2012 18:45:09 -0400, Tony Musgrove <***@optusnet.com.au>
wrote:

> Non dWS denier, Jerry Fusselman expounds:
> As usual, I find Robert both clear and correct. I would voice my
> agreements with Robert Frick on BLML more often if his arguments needed
> clarification, but he is often too clear for me to feel that I can add
> anything.
> Richard Hills's posts often make me cringe due to his almost daily use
> of slander, ridicule, and ad hominem attacks. Therefore, I lately avoid
> reading Richard Hill's words except possibly when someone else quotes
> him. The quotes provide more than enough of his slander, etc., for me.
> Personally, I think anyone exhibiting such behavior as Richard's so
> often (or even much less often) should be banned from BLML regardless of
> the frequency of valuable contributions (which is also high in Richard's
> case), but maybe that's just me. I do sincerely mean regardless.
> [tony] farbeit from me to defend Richard. I would simply point out that
> it is not
> only Richard, but most of the European contingent who have patiently
> pointed
> out Robert's errors in Law, and interpretation of the FLB. I personally
> am
> not sure whether Robert is yet clear on the difference between an
> attempted
> revoke and an established revoke.

I don't recall seeing the phrase "attempted revoke" in the laws.
Interesting concept. Grattan said that 64B2 and L64B7 apply only to
uncorrected revokes. Ton says they apply only to established revokes. I
assume you are uninterested in the fact that these are two different
interpretations with two different implications. Or that each has problems
and that there is probably a better formulation. That discussion is not
only exceedingly boring, it is complicated and requires attention to
detail. I guess, as you say below, you aren't interested. Fine. Leave me
alone.

To stay on topic, your pointless, ignorant criticism is just badgering.
You see badgering when Richard criticizes me for not making humorous posts
on blml. What is the point of that? Badgering. I love intelligent
criticism. I love rational discussions. I hate the slime and muck. I hate
having to discuss something for the fourth time (as above), I did it only
to show how badgering works.

Bob


> As one who takes BLML for entertainment (and for the tax deduction), I
> would
> not continue were Richard to remove himself from the list. In the
> absence of
> Grattan, David B, Marvin and several others, this list is as boring as
> batshit.
> Cheers,
> Tony (Sydney)
>


--
The end of one day is always the start of a next. *

*This offer expires Dec. 21, 2012

[ton]

'Grattan said that 64B2 and L64B7 apply only to uncorrected revokes. Ton
says they apply only to established revokes. '


ton:

The above is a statement by Bob (Robert Frick) in which he suggests a
difference of opinion between Grattan and myself.

I am not sure what the sentence means; to be more specific in what context
did Grattan use 'uncorrected revoke'? As you might have noticed both laws
speak about established revokes.

If we really have a different opinion that should be solved.

[Robert Frick]

On Mon, 04 Jun 2012 02:48:34 -0400, ton <***@worldonline.nl> wrote:

>
>
>
>
> 'Grattan said that 64B2 and L64B7 apply only to uncorrected revokes. Ton
> says they apply only to established revokes. '
>
>
> ton:
>
> The above is a statement by Bob (Robert Frick) in which he suggests a
> difference of opinion between Grattan and myself.
>
> I am not sure what the sentence means; to be more specific in what
> context
> did Grattan use 'uncorrected revoke'? As you might have noticed both laws
> speak about established revokes.
>
> If we really have a different opinion that should be solved.


Hi Ton. Grattan's original response to L64B7 was that if a unestablished
revoke is corrected, it is not really a revoke and L64B7 does not apply. I
am merely paraphrasing to say that his position is that L64B2 and B7 apply
only to uncorrected revokes. It was taken seriously at the time as
description of what the law was supposed to mean.

Your position and his come to the same result for an unestablished revoke
that is corrected, which was the presenting problem then.

Those two positions lead to different rulings for uncorrected established
revoked. This presumably occurs for when a trick is missing a card (the
player is presumed to have revoked). It can also occur for revokes at
trick 12, where "a revoke, even if established, must be corrected when..."


IMO, the best formulation is neither yours nor Grattan's. L64B2 should
apply only when the first revoke received "a rectification as in A". L64B7
should apply only when both revokes receive a rectification as in A. That
probably corresponds to what you were thinking when you constructed those
laws and when you tried to correct them.

It also has better implications, IMO. Did you really want to cancel the
penalty for the first revoke when the revoke by the other side occurred at
trick 12?

My formulation also nicely handles this situation for L64B2. The defenders
note that declarer revoked. You, director, assess a 1-trick penalty.
Declarer now calls you back after the nonoffending side makes a call on
the next deal and explains that he had previously revoked in that same
suit. There is no penalty for the first revoke. Do you really want to
cancel the penalty for the second revoke?

Bob

I first brought up this problem, this was Grattan's reply.

+=+ I do not believe a revoke is a revoke after it has been corrected. At
that stage it has become what was an attempted revoke. 'To correct' is 'to
put right'. What is right is not wrong.

http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/2011-August/010845.html

[Gordon Rainsford]

On 03/06/2012 23:45, Tony Musgrove wrote:*//*
>
> */As one who takes BLML for entertainment (and for the tax deduction),
> I would/*
>
> */not continue were Richard to remove himself from the list./*
>
One might find that were Richard & Bob to remove themselves from the
list there might be the space for others to start contributing again. Or
perhaps it's too late for that.

Gordon Rainsford

[r***@immi.gov.au]

David Burn, 13th February 2008:

[snip]
>>I think that Herman has been unresponsive
>>to the arguments advanced, especially by
>>those in positions of authority, to resolve
>>the problem (which is to say that I can well
>>understand why Grattan Endicott and Ton
>>Kooijman are a bit fed up with him). I think,
>>as I have said many times, that he is wrong
>>to rely on the "principle" that creation of UI
>>is more to be avoided than creation of MI;
>>and that he is wrong to say that the Laws
>>are somehow "hierarchically" based on
>>that principle.
[snip]

Gordon Rainsford, "a bit fed up":

>One might find that were Richard & Bob to
>remove themselves from the list there
>might be the space for others to start
>contributing again. Or perhaps it's too late
>for that.

Richard Hills:

It is rumoured that a person is proud of
destroying a different (non-bridge) mailing
list by flooding it with a series of heterodox
postings. This forced the original inhabitants
of that mailing list to decamp elsewhere.

Since I do not wish that fate upon blml, I
will take a circuit-breaking sabbatical until
Tuesday 12th June.

Best wishes,

Richard Hills

--------------------------------------------------------------------
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. DIAC 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


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

[Jerry Fusselman]

On Tue, Jun 5, 2012 at 4:50 AM, Gordon Rainsford
<***@btinternet.com> wrote:
>
> One might find that were Richard & Bob to remove themselves from the list
> there might be the space for others to start contributing again. Or perhaps
> it's too late for that.
>

Joking? There is plenty of space. No one has maxed out our space.
Any one of us could fire off twenty BLML posts in a day if we had that
much to say. We're not running out of electrons anytime soon.

I really don't understand those who complain about a high volume of
contributions. Some posters' quality is so high that I read
everything they write, and I want more; some posters have quality so
low that I read almost nothing from them anymore. Some readers would
reverse my judgments. As long as the poster is on topic and
maintaining a certain level of decency and decorum, it be wrong of me
to complain about a post I find less interesting or whatever.

I can't imagine why some think that quantity proves something negative
about quality. It makes no sense. It is judging a book by its
thickness, as if thin is always best. It is as if Bach must have been
a poor composer purely because he wrote so much, and Bilchminyonette
must have been a better composer because he left space for others to
contribute.

[Roger Pewick]

________________________________
> Date: Sat, 2 Jun 2012 19:05:43 -0500
> From: ***@gmail.com
> To: ***@rtflb.org
> Subject: Re: [BLML] Herman
>
>
> On Sat, Jun 2, 2012 at 1:54 PM, Robert Frick
> > wrote:
> On Fri, 01 Jun 2012 00:22:30 -0400,
> > wrote:


> As for the dWS, I currently think that it is a good idea and a big
> improvement. It helps save the board, for example. I don't like so
> many rules about how the bridge player is required to think in
> difficult situations requiring lightning decisions. It seems to me
> better to have procedures in place to handle whatever happens rather
> that to try to legislate case after case requiring a director
> to divine what is going on in a player's mind when something goes
> wrong. Let the rules generally focus on actions rather than thoughts.
>
> Also, it is not so clear to me that the powers that be have addressed
> DWS to any great extent. Their statements might perhaps cover the
> cases in which the explainer is 100% sure about which way is the true
> understanding, but who can be 100% sure of which understanding is
> correct, especially given that the director is the one who determines
> what the true understanding is? In virtually every case, an honest
> explainer's belief of what the correct (according to the director)
> systemic understanding is less than 100%.
>
> Jerry Fusselman

I have reason to suspect that dWS is a mechanism for coping with a situation that is abominable. And, for whatever its shortcomings, I approve of the device for what it is; yet, the device in my opinion is less than satisfactory as it merely copes- while in the end still leaving the abomination to continue to exist unfettered.

I have reason to believe that Herman is satisfied to have the abomination persist since he has so stated. Even so, I have encouraged him to focus his efforts instead upon doing what it takes to eliminate the need to employ the ‘so-called’ dWS; well, the encouragement met with resistance and that was that.

regards
roger pewick

[Herman De Wael]

Dear friends on blml,

I may reassure all of you in saying that I am still very much active and
alive. I have stayed away from blml during the past year and have not
really missed it.
I do keep receiving the posts, but have not read everything.
I must say that I missed this thread earlier, or I would have reassured
you earlier.

Have a good 2013!

Herman.
(still very much convinced that the dWS is the correct one)


Robert Frick schreef:
> On Fri, 01 Jun 2012 00:22:30 -0400, <***@immi.gov.au> wrote:
>
>
>>
>> In times past I was overly harsh
>> in my critiques of Herman De Wael.
>> Anyone with a sense of humor, as
>> shown by Herman's love of cricket
>> (and Monty Python) cannot be too
>> bad.
>
> This is called damning with faint praise -- the only good thing about
> Herman was his sense of humor. Richard is very skilled and diligent in the
> arts of slander and ridicule and knows exactly what he is doing here.
>
> David Burns once posed a problem. I knew it was a trap, and still I walked
> headfirst into it. And couldn't figure out how to get out. Herman walked
> in and out of the trap like it wasn't there. He was just following his
> philosophy, but it was amazing.
>
> Onlist and offlist, he was a decent human being who tried to discuss
> things rationally. One can point to several clarifications of the law
> resulting from Herman. I liked him. I think he was trying to make bridge a
> better game.
>
> Richard, you should have treated him decently because he is a decent human
> being.
>
> Or, you should have treated him decently so that people on the list would
> think you are a decent human being.
>
> And you should wonder why you *ever* use slander and ridicule and
> badgering, and you use it incessantly.
>
> Bob
>
> _______________________________________________
> Blml mailing list
> ***@rtflb.org
> http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml
>
>
> -----
> Geen virus gevonden in dit bericht.
> Gecontroleerd door AVG - www.avg.com
> Versie: 2012.0.1913 / Virusdatabase: 2425/5041 - datum van uitgifte: 06/02/12
>
>

[OMASA Akito]

Ed Reppert <***@mac.com>:

>
>On Jun 10, 2012, at 10:10 AM, Roger Eymard wrote:
>
>> Do you mean that whatever the reason of the faced OLOOT, when declarer
>> spreads her hand, the OLOOT is accepted ?
>> IMHO, the reference to L53 in L54B, and the reference to L47E1 in L53A do
>> preclude that. In case of a suggested (by a player of declarer's side) faced
>> OLOOT, L54 is therefore limited by L47E1. The OLOOT is not accepted as a
>> consequence of the (presumed) declarer spreading her hand (and becoming
>> dummy - nothing in the Laws against L54A), and may be retracted.
>> IMHO, "rubbish" is not appropriate here.
>>
>> But then what happens ?
>> Does "may" in L47E1 mean that the faced OLOOTer has the right to choose to
>> retract her card or to choose to maintain it, and that the director must
>> instruct her that way?
>> If so, and if the OLOOTer decides to retract her card, does the opening lead
>> belong to the "normal" opener ("presumed" declarer's LHO) ?
>>
>> A deal from real life :
>> North: 52
>> AJ10943
>> 8
>> AQ42
>> West: J9743 East: AKQ10
>> K8 765
>> A962 KQJ5
>> K7 J8
>> South: 86
>> Q2
>> 10743
>> 109653
>> East is the presumed declarer in 4S. 1 down if everything follows normally.
>> But East suggests to North to lead, and spreads her hand, after the lead is
>> faced, becoming dummy.
>> If the opening lead remains in North's hand, 4S just made.
>> If North is allowed to retract her lead, and give back the opening lead to
>> South, 1 down again.
>> Note that if North is not allowed to retract her lead, L23 provides the
>> director with the mean to adjust the score to 1 down (East, when advising
>> North to make the opening lead, could have known that any value in heart or
>> club in West's hand would be protected).
>
>"May not" in L47E1 is a very strong prohibition. The way that Law 54A is worded, there is no implication that declarer spreading his hand under this law constitutes acceptance of the lead. Therefore, declarer having spread his hand, he is dummy and his partner becomes declarer, but the opening leader now has the option to retract his lead (without it becoming a penalty card). Then his partner, who should have led, is on lead. I like Roger's application of Law 23 after this - if the defenders were damaged, adjust the score — but I wonder if 'without further rectification' in 47E1 is meant just to preclude making the withdrawn card a penalty card, or does it mean that Law 23 cannot be applied? If the latter, then 23 would apply only if the lead is not changed, and the director needs to explain this to the leader *before* he decides whether to change his lead. Of course, in Roger's example, if the lead reverts to the correct player, there may *be* no damage. In other examples, though, there may still be damage.
>_______________________________________________
>Blml mailing list
>***@rtflb.org
>http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml