[BLML] home brewing a solution to AI/UI

Al Levy allevy at aol.com
Wed Sep 26 06:09:55 CEST 2012


Sorry for jumping in without reading all the previous comments regarding a player 'remarking' that he has 13 points.  Clearly this is passing UI to partner, and the Laws of course addresses the situation.


Laws 16 A 3.   No player may base a call or play on other information (such as being designated extraneous).   [this has suggested to some (if you take a player announcing his point count as fitting in this category) that both sides can't use the information]   However...


Law 16 B 1 (a) clarifies the situation, and discusses the specific case of a 'remark'


After a player has made available to his partner extraneous information that may suggest a call or play, as for example, a remark (such as I have 13 hcp...AL)...the partner may not choose from among logical alternatives one that could have demonstrably been suggested ... 


Al Levy




Message: 2
Date: Mon, 24 Sep 2012 11:16:33 -0400
From: "Robert Frick" <rfrick at rfrick.info>
Subject: [BLML] home brewing a solution to AI/UI
To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" <blml at rtflb.org>
Message-ID: <op.wk5bdvhrbd67ou at bob-hp>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-15; format=flowed;
	delsp=yes

On Sun, 23 Sep 2012 21:50:24 -0400, <richard.hills at immi.gov.au> wrote:

> Grattan Endicott, 14th March 2006:
>
>>> ...but if you read the laws all together the indisputable
>>> intent in this matter may be inferred...
>
> Sven Pran:
>
>> ...I shall tend to rule that he said "Thirteen" (or
>> whatever) as part of the manner in which he decided
>> and made his (legal) call...I am generally very reluctant
>> to hold information from anything a player says or does
>> unauthorized to his opponents...
>
> Richard Hills:
>
> I agree with Sven. Although the word "remark" does
> not specifically appear in Law 73D1, thus causing an
> opponent's "remark" to be not specifically AI, when you
> read Law 73D1 together with Laws 73D2 and 73F (which
> each specifically contain the word "remark") then the
> _indisputable intent_ is that an opponent's remark is AI.
>
> Aelius Donatus (grammarian of the 4th century):
>

Actually, you *are* disagreeing with Sven. We all agree on the ruling.  
Sven proposed one way to get there, you are proposing a different way:  
actually including "remarks" in L73D1.


Sven had the problem of explaining how "thirteen" was part of the manner  
of making a call when it was not that player's turn to call and he was not  
intending to call. Your interpretation does not have that problem. Um,  
that's proves you and Sven are getting to the same ruling in a different  
way.

Your home-brewed law still has the same three problems, right?

1. Home-brewing
No one interprets L73D1 as being about remarks. So you are what Ed calls  
"home brewing" your own laws. I of course am not complaining about that, I  
am just pointing out the problems in your ad hoc revision.


2. Remarks are not infractions?

You are essentially interpreting L73D1 as saying (and correct me if I am  
wrong, but you could have rewritten L73D1 yourself to be clear)  
"...Otherwise, unintenionally to vary the tempo or matter in which a play  
or call is made, *or to make a remark*, is not in itself an infraction.  
Inferences from such variation may appropriately be drawn only by an  
opponent and at the opponent's own risk."

So you have that his remark was not in infraction. Sven seemed strongly  
against that and I suspect he will have a lot of company.



3. You don't handle highly similar cases.

In one case, the player tells you he has the ace of diamonds. In another  
case, he shows you the ace of diamonds. We all know that is AI, but L16A  
says the opposite. Using my "home-brewed" law, these are both simple  
rulings handled the same way. Your law handles the first but not the  
second.

Did you want to use a completely different way of handling the second  
case? It's fairly easy. But isn't that making the rules a lot harder than  
they should be? Or maybe this is our personal preferences in home brew,  
but ad hoc rules are prone to error.




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





Message: 1
Date: Sun, 23 Sep 2012 22:06:59 +0200
From: "Sven Pran" <svenpran at online.no>
Subject: Re: [BLML] 2017 Law 40 Executive Summary    [SEC=UNOFFICIAL]
To: "'Bridge Laws Mailing List'" <blml at rtflb.org>
Message-ID: <003d01cd99c6$fdc96120$f95c2360$@online.no>
Content-Type: text/plain;	charset="us-ascii"

> Robert Frick 
> On Sun, 23 Sep 2012 14:11:46 -0400, Sven Pran <svenpran at online.no> wrote:
> 
> >> Robert Frick
> >> On Sun, 23 Sep 2012 11:29:52 -0400, Sven Pran <svenpran at online.no>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> >> Robert Frick
> >> > [...]
> >> >> ignored content: The player announced his HCP to the entire table.
> >> >> I think
> >> > he
> >> >> meant to bid but had his HCP total on his mind. I ruled that this
> >> > information
> >> >> was AI to the opponents and UI to his partner.
> >> >>
> >> >> The lawbook says this is UI to both sides. I claimed that no one
> >> >> follows
> >> > that
> >> >> rule.
> >> >
> >> > [Sven Pran]
> >> > According to which law is this remark ("announcement") UI to
> >> opponents?
> >>
> >> Law 16A. Sorry this wasn't clear. ("Announcement is a technical term
> >> in
> > ACBL-
> >> land. We should stay with the term "remark".)
> >>
> >> Was it
> >> 1. derived from the legal calls and plays of the current board? No.
> >>
> >> 2. authorized information from a withdrawn action? No
> >>
> >> 3. information specified in any law or regulation to be authorized
> >> or,
> > when
> >> not otherwise specified, arising from the legal procedures authorized
> >> in these Laws and in regulations?  No.
> >>
> >> 4. information that the player possessed before he took his hand from
> >> the board? No
> >>
> >> 5. an estimate of their own score, a trait of their opponents, or a
> >> requirement of the tournament regulations? No.
> >>
> >> Then, L16A3: "No player may base a call or play on other information
> >> (such information being designated extraneous)."
> >>
> >>
> >> > Maybe someone should take a look at Law 73D (the part about
> "manner"):
> >> >
> >> > "[...]Otherwise, unintentionally to vary the tempo or manner in
> >> > which a call or play is made is not in itself an infraction.
> >> > Inferences from such variation may appropriately be drawn only by
> >> > an opponent, and at his own risk."
> >>
> >> Intersting, but he was not making a call or play. The tempo or manner
> >> in which he said "thirteen" was not the issue at the table.
> 
> 
> > [Sven Pran]
> > I shall tend to rule that he said "Thirteen" (or whatever) as part of
> > the manner in which he decided and made his (legal) call.
> 
> 
> 1. That does not remotely correspond to the normal use of the English
> language.
[Sven Pran] 
  Agreed. We have an irregularity - so what? 

> 2. With this strange usage, announcing how many high card points you have
> is not an infraction. That's strange.
[Sven Pran] 
 Of course it is an infraction. 

> 3. What if the player argues that he was just accidentally talking out
loud?
> What if it was not even his turn to bid? Those are different situations
for the
> law to address?
> 
> I think you are making the same ruling as everyone else, then arguing that
> the law says something very different from what it says. But nice try, I
could
> not have done as well.

[Sven Pran] 
I am generally very reluctant to hold information from anything a player
says or does unauthorized to his opponents. But opponents of course use such
information on their own risk.








-----Original Message-----
From: blml-request <blml-request at rtflb.org>
To: blml <blml at rtflb.org>
Sent: Sun, Sep 23, 2012 8:59 pm
Subject: Blml Digest, Vol 42, Issue 41


Send Blml mailing list submissions to
	blml at rtflb.org

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
	http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml
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:  2017 Law 40 Executive Summary    [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] (Sven Pran)
   2. Re:  2017 Law 40 Executive Summary    [SEC=UNOFFICIAL]
      (richard.hills at immi.gov.au)
   3. Re:  UI Essay    [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] (richard.hills at immi.gov.au)
   4. Re:  2017 Law 40 Executive Summary    [SEC=UNOFFICIAL]
      (richard.hills at immi.gov.au)


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

Message: 1
Date: Sun, 23 Sep 2012 22:06:59 +0200
From: "Sven Pran" <svenpran at online.no>
Subject: Re: [BLML] 2017 Law 40 Executive Summary    [SEC=UNOFFICIAL]
To: "'Bridge Laws Mailing List'" <blml at rtflb.org>
Message-ID: <003d01cd99c6$fdc96120$f95c2360$@online.no>
Content-Type: text/plain;	charset="us-ascii"

> Robert Frick 
> On Sun, 23 Sep 2012 14:11:46 -0400, Sven Pran <svenpran at online.no> wrote:
> 
> >> Robert Frick
> >> On Sun, 23 Sep 2012 11:29:52 -0400, Sven Pran <svenpran at online.no>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> >> Robert Frick
> >> > [...]
> >> >> ignored content: The player announced his HCP to the entire table.
> >> >> I think
> >> > he
> >> >> meant to bid but had his HCP total on his mind. I ruled that this
> >> > information
> >> >> was AI to the opponents and UI to his partner.
> >> >>
> >> >> The lawbook says this is UI to both sides. I claimed that no one
> >> >> follows
> >> > that
> >> >> rule.
> >> >
> >> > [Sven Pran]
> >> > According to which law is this remark ("announcement") UI to
> >> opponents?
> >>
> >> Law 16A. Sorry this wasn't clear. ("Announcement is a technical term
> >> in
> > ACBL-
> >> land. We should stay with the term "remark".)
> >>
> >> Was it
> >> 1. derived from the legal calls and plays of the current board? No.
> >>
> >> 2. authorized information from a withdrawn action? No
> >>
> >> 3. information specified in any law or regulation to be authorized
> >> or,
> > when
> >> not otherwise specified, arising from the legal procedures authorized
> >> in these Laws and in regulations?  No.
> >>
> >> 4. information that the player possessed before he took his hand from
> >> the board? No
> >>
> >> 5. an estimate of their own score, a trait of their opponents, or a
> >> requirement of the tournament regulations? No.
> >>
> >> Then, L16A3: "No player may base a call or play on other information
> >> (such information being designated extraneous)."
> >>
> >>
> >> > Maybe someone should take a look at Law 73D (the part about
> "manner"):
> >> >
> >> > "[...]Otherwise, unintentionally to vary the tempo or manner in
> >> > which a call or play is made is not in itself an infraction.
> >> > Inferences from such variation may appropriately be drawn only by
> >> > an opponent, and at his own risk."
> >>
> >> Intersting, but he was not making a call or play. The tempo or manner
> >> in which he said "thirteen" was not the issue at the table.
> 
> 
> > [Sven Pran]
> > I shall tend to rule that he said "Thirteen" (or whatever) as part of
> > the manner in which he decided and made his (legal) call.
> 
> 
> 1. That does not remotely correspond to the normal use of the English
> language.
[Sven Pran] 
  Agreed. We have an irregularity - so what? 

> 2. With this strange usage, announcing how many high card points you have
> is not an infraction. That's strange.
[Sven Pran] 
 Of course it is an infraction. 

> 3. What if the player argues that he was just accidentally talking out
loud?
> What if it was not even his turn to bid? Those are different situations
for the
> law to address?
> 
> I think you are making the same ruling as everyone else, then arguing that
> the law says something very different from what it says. But nice try, I
could
> not have done as well.

[Sven Pran] 
I am generally very reluctant to hold information from anything a player
says or does unauthorized to his opponents. But opponents of course use such
information on their own risk.



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

Message: 2
Date: Mon, 24 Sep 2012 08:49:21 +1000
From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au
Subject: Re: [BLML] 2017 Law 40 Executive Summary    [SEC=UNOFFICIAL]
To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" <blml at rtflb.org>
Message-ID:
	<OF5C1CB537.E80BA4BF-ONCA257A82.007A02D4-CA257A82.007D5E64 at immi.local>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

WEST......NORTH.....EAST......SOUTH
2S........Pass......Pass......2NT

David Grabiner:

>The rule is to presume misexplanation
>and not misbid unless there is
>evidence to the contrary.

Richard Hills:

Policy in some Regulating Authorities
under the old 1997 Lawbook was to avoid
gathering evidence and/or to ignore any
and all verbal evidence.

Today, in my opinion, Law 85 (Rulings
on Disputed Facts) usually prevails
over the rare tiebreaking Law 21B1(b):

"The Director is to presume Mistaken
Explanation rather than Mistaken Call
in the absence of evidence to the
contrary."

David Grabiner:

>If 2NT is explained as natural but the
>bidder thinks it is unusual, a misbid
>could be ruled, as unusual does not
>make sense here and it is unlikely that
>the pair actually agreed on it.

Richard Hills:

In my opinion a Director should not rush
in where angels fear to tread with the
default assumption that both players in
a partnership should "make sense".

Rather, Law 85 requires the Director to
determine whether one or both members of
the partnership instead use nonsensical
Tweedledum and Tweedledee logic, so lack
any partnership understanding about 2NT.

Lewis Carroll:

"He's dreaming now," said Tweedledee:
"and what do you think he's dreaming
about?"

Alice said "Nobody can guess that."

"Why, about YOU!" Tweedledee exclaimed,
clapping his hands triumphantly. "And if
he left off dreaming about you, where do
you suppose you'd be?"

"Where I am now, of course," said Alice.

"Not you!" Tweedledee retorted
contemptuously. "You'd be nowhere. Why,
you're only a sort of thing in his
dream!"

"If that there King was to wake," added
Tweedledum, "you'd go out -- bang! --
just like a candle!"

"I shouldn't!" Alice exclaimed
indignantly. "Besides, if I'M only a sort
of thing in his dream, what are YOU, I
should like to know?"

"Ditto" said Tweedledum.

"Ditto, ditto" cried Tweedledee.

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


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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20120923/13fe3e8a/attachment-0001.html 


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

Message: 3
Date: Mon, 24 Sep 2012 10:21:14 +1000
From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au
Subject: Re: [BLML] UI Essay    [SEC=UNOFFICIAL]
To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" <blml at rtflb.org>
Message-ID:
	<OF6F4EA247.F5492E44-ONCA257A83.00015049-CA257A83.0001F1FC at immi.local>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

Ed Reppert, May 2006:

>>I don't think either Richard or I has expressed the
>>opinion that PPs ought not to be "rare" - rather,
>>we are (or at least I am) saying that they ought to
>>be less rare than currently. I suppose the same
>>players who consider PPs "offensive and insulting"
>>consider speeding tickets in the same light. Be
>>that as it may, perhaps the solution is *education*
>>rather than a completely different approach to
>>writing the rules of the game.

Richard Hills, May 2006:

>I fully agree with the solution of *education* of
>inexperienced players. This is why, in my opinion,
>the best and most effective form of procedural
>penalty that a TD can issue is also the mildest
>form of procedural penalty -- a warning.
>
>"Train up a child in the way he should go: and
>when he is old, he will not depart from it."
>(Proverbs 22:6)

Anne Jones, May 2006:

Reminds me of the hand that I played in 1978 with a
wise old bird in a cut in rubber. I led my singleton
and he switched. What a pratt, I had my trump out
ready to ruff !!!! We lost the rubber and he moved
on. He explained to me in the bar after why he had
done that, at considerable cost to himself I hasten to
add. Probably the reason I am now a TD and the
chair of Wales L&EC.

Anne

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


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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20120924/cd2960f8/attachment-0001.html 


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

Message: 4
Date: Mon, 24 Sep 2012 10:38:26 +1000
From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au
Subject: Re: [BLML] 2017 Law 40 Executive Summary    [SEC=UNOFFICIAL]
To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" <blml at rtflb.org>
Message-ID:
	<OFA776B87A.4AF31596-ONCA257A83.0002B044-CA257A83.00038520 at immi.local>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

>>Anyway, no one is going to follow the actual laws,
>>right?

Ed Reppert:

>This is the fundamental flaw in your entire approach.
>Bluntly, it's bullshit. And so is making up your own
>laws. Either rule per the lawbook, or tear up your
>director's card. If you can't figure out how to rule per
>the lawbook, seek expert guidance. If after that you
>*still* don't get it, tear up your director's card.

"Philosophy Now" magazine, book review:

http://philosophynow.org/issues/53/On_Bullshit_by_Harry_Frankfurt

Two key sentences in Petter Naessan's review:

The crux of the matter is that bullshitters hide their lack
of commitment to truth. Since bullshitters ignore truth
instead of acknowledging and subverting it, bullshit is a
greater enemy of truth than lies.

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


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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20120924/96633f90/attachment.html 


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

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


End of Blml Digest, Vol 42, Issue 41
************************************

 

 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20120926/3f68059b/attachment-0001.html 


More information about the Blml mailing list