[BLML] Blml Digest, Vol 36, Issue 1
rfrick at rfrick.info
Wed Mar 7 15:06:12 CET 2012
On Thu, 01 Mar 2012 10:33:25 -0500, Al Levy <allevy at aol.com> wrote:
> Hi Bob,
> Maybe I came in the middle of the 'debate' but what was presented was
> taking a shot that some of the three panelists would have bid without
> the hesitation. No mention was made that they would think that the bid
> was so clear that there was no logical alternative.
Hi Al. You describe a nice picture, one that corresponds to how I would
like things to work. But you seem to undercut everything with your phrase
"and reason". ("if they decide, based on reason or a poll, that pass is a
logical alternative....") If I understand you correctly, the committee is
supposed to use the results of the poll *and their reasoning* to decide if
a call is a logical alternative.
I want to know what this reasoning is and (depending on what it is) how
you justify the committee using it. Suppose I do a good poll, the results
are clear, the judgment I make is straightforward. Actually, it does not
really involve any judgment at all. Can the players appeal that the
results of the poll are wrong?
If the committee is just going to look at the results of the poll too, the
appeal is silly and destined to lose. The committee is right to assess a
If the committee is going to look at the hand, and then *reason* about
what is or is not a logical alternative based on their opinions of the
hand, then the committee is using a different process than the director.
The committee could easily come to a different answer. The players are
completely justified in appealing. (In my second example, it was given
that half of the players would bid without the hesitation and not consider
passing. I find that relatively typical for a bid that is a logical
alternative. People see hands different ways.)
So I wanted to know what this reasoning is that the committee is doing.
They are not blind to the correct bid. They are maybe not in the class of
player. If you want to say there is no possible reasoning for them to do,
great! As far as I am concerned, they don't need to look at the hand.
It is well agreed that they can use their bridge expertise to judge that
the polled players were not of the relevant class. Is that the only reason
for a committee to be involved in this decision?
> In fact, from a director ruling and a prior poll, it was already
> determined (to the reader of this discussion) that Pass was strongly
> considered a logical alternate by many...otherwise the original ruling
> would have been different. So, if the first Director(s) did their
> work...and in the WBF it is strongly assumed to be the case...and in the
> ACBL (in top events) it most assuredly is the case...then that should
> end the matter.
> Further appealing to get a second bite of the apple has its
> consequences. Wanting to start over because there is a probability that
> you will win, even if it is small chance is one's prerogative. (All
> cases fit that description.) In cases like this I would hope the
> committee gives an appeal without merit if they see no change in the
> ruling, even if not unanimous, and if the appealer continues with other
> similar appeals, disciplinary action should be taken. Also, Appeals
> should be posted to further be open and informative, and names of
> players, Directors and committee members should be given.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: blml-request <blml-request at rtflb.org>
> To: blml <blml at rtflb.org>
> Sent: Thu, Mar 1, 2012 6:00 am
> Subject: Blml Digest, Vol 36, Issue 1
> Send Blml mailing list submissions to
> blml at rtflb.org
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> blml-request at rtflb.org
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> blml-owner at rtflb.org
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of Blml digest..."
> Today's Topics:
> 1. Re: 25A - but what now (Alain Gottcheiner)
> 2. Re: Blml Digest, Vol 35, Issue 50 (Robert Frick)
> Message: 1
> Date: Wed, 29 Feb 2012 14:46:21 +0100
> From: Alain Gottcheiner <agot at ulb.ac.be>
> Subject: Re: [BLML] 25A - but what now
> To: Bridge Laws Mailing List <blml at rtflb.org>
> Message-ID: <4F4E2C2D.3000405 at ulb.ac.be>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed
> Le 28/02/2012 20:28, Roger Pewick a ?crit :
>>> Date: Tue, 28 Feb 2012 09:51:00 +0800
>>> From: diggadog at iinet.net.au
>>> To: blml at rtflb.org
>>> Subject: Re: [BLML] 25A - but what now
>>> On 28/02/2012 7:40 AM, Sven Pran wrote:
>>>> Ed Reppert
>>>>>> [Sven Pran]
>>>>>> We had this very discussion in Norway many years ago (when STOP had
>>>>>> just been introduced).
>>>>>> Problem case: A player pulls the STOP card from the bid box and
>>>>>> it on the table in front of him, but it is not his turn to call.
>>>>>> The first recommendation by the Norwegian LC was that the player
>>>>>> should be required to complete his call (skip bid) out of turn and
>>>>>> then apply Laws 29 and 31.
>>>>>> Pretty soon this idea was found untenable and discarded.
>>>>> Okay, but why? What was the reasoning behind this finding?
>>>> [Sven Pran] No justification anywhere in the laws. Also implicit
>>>> of Law 9A3.
>>> Laws Committee Minute
>>> "7. When under Law 25A the Director allows a call to be changed the
>>> withdrawn is deemed never to have happened. No unauthorized information
>>> is conveyed by it. Law 16D does not apply to the change of an
>>> call. If the Director allows a call that should not be allowed under
>>> this Law it is a Director?s error and Law 82C applies."
>>> At the point where the call is withdrawn it may be opportune for the
>>> director to determine that nothing has happened out of turn and return
>>> to the player whose turn it was to call.
>> What the law and its crafters have demonstrated is not knowing the
>> The crucial nexus is [a] the principle of one action per turn and [b]
> principle that what players do, counts.
>> When a player BOOT he has gained turns [plural] while depriving the
> of turns to which they were entitled. To be a rightful remedy it must
> strive to
> restore the turns to their proper balance. But only so much can in fact
> done?. Offender's extra turn must be canceled. The offender's partner
> must be
> silenced until the balance of turns has been restored- which cannot
> before offender has repeated his canceled action. The fact is that every
> communication has the effect of taking a turn. So, even though a bid can
> undone, the spatial communication- the communication of haste/eagerness
> due to
> not waiting for his turn cannot be undone.
> AG : in my own experience, this isn't the main message. The main message
> is that the player was mentally away from the table . Now, occaisonally,
> this might constitute UI.
>> Now, the law states: "?a player may substitute his intended call for an
> unintended call?"
>> In other words, players are entitled to more turns than their opponents.
> AG : No more, IMHO, than when a player picks back his revoke card and
> substitutes a legal card. There will be a penalty, but it is indeed the
> new card which counts.
> Message: 2
> Date: Wed, 29 Feb 2012 14:01:38 -0500
> From: "Robert Frick" <rfrick at rfrick.info>
> Subject: Re: [BLML] Blml Digest, Vol 35, Issue 50
> To: blml at rtflb.org, "Al Levy" <allevy at aol.com>
> Message-ID: <op.wage40owbd67ou at bob-hp>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-15; format=flowed;
> On Sun, 26 Feb 2012 09:54:21 -0500, Al Levy <allevy at aol.com> wrote:
>> Re: Appealing a correct ruling in hopes of getting a different result of
>> the coin flip.
>> The question for the committee is not what they would bid in the absence
>> of a hesitation, but if Pass is a logical alternative. So, even if all
>> three panelists would have bid at the table without the hesitation, if
>> the decide, based on reason or a poll, that pass is a logical
> Hi Al.
> based on reason? What is the possible reason?
> If I poll 3 players, and they are all bidding, and apparently none are
> seriously considering passing, isn't that end-of-story? What other
> conclusion could anyone reach except the pass is a logical alternative?
> (No one challenged the quality of the polling process.)
> Should the committee decide, based on their own reasoning, what players
> *of that ability evaluating the hand that way) will bid? One committee
> member tried that -- she guessed they would all pass.
> Or if you think a logical alternative is just an alternative that is
> logical, then I can see a reasoning process. But I don't read the lawbook
> that way. And if it supposed to be read that way, I am not sure why I
> would have bothered with a poll.
>> , then they will rule against the appeal and, in cases like this, should
>> rule it frivolous. Ruling it frivolous, in itself, just says that the
>> ruling is clear and without doubt.
>> Further comments...
>> (1) The Directors' decision should be assumed to be correct (WBF);
>> (2) The Appeals should be published, with all names involved. It is
>> important for future appeals that it set a clear standard;
>> (3) Players who continually appeal in this type of situation (trying to
>> get a better ruling even though they know they have been given a fair
>> shot and are likely to be ruled against), establish a 'reputation' and
>> have to live with it.
>> (4) Repeat offenders should be disciplined.
>> AL Levy
> Blml mailing list
> Blml at rtflb.org
> End of Blml Digest, Vol 36, Issue 1
More information about the Blml