[billw55]

A few observations.

I admit I am puzzled as to why lamford's threads are considered "disruptive" or bad in some other way. Sure, they are highly theoretical. But I don't see this as a problem, especially since there is also a "simple rulings" section that does not contain these threads.

That said, I don't really know the history or intended purpose here. What is BLML? David seems to have ceased logging here, not sure if that affects anything.

Also trying to understand why BBO got involved, and suggested stopping lamford's threads. Are the threads appearing on the BBO home screen, and getting complaints? What is the problem on their end, and why do they consider muting lamford the best solution?

Lastly, there is a law of the internet that should not be forgotten:

------> unmoderated forums turn to garbage.

So I definitely do not want the moderators to leave, or stop doing their (often thankless) work.

[lamford]

Aardv, on 2015-May-19, 02:42, said:

3) Because the rule is not intended to be punitive, we don't want it to force a defender to make a ridiculous play, like crashing discarding honours or leading a card for partner to ruff when he's not allowed to ruff it underruffing with a penalty card when he cannot follow. So we should allow the defender to know the identity of the penalty card to avoid discarding an honour or underruffing with an honour because this would be a ridiculous play. This is currently specified, albeit somewhat ambiguously unambiguously, by 50E150D1(a). The next WBFLC minute will, however, relax further the obligations on defenders with regard to penalty cards by producing a contradictory interpretation of 50D1(a), safe in the knowledge that there can be no further example of their folly from a North London club.

FYP. I do agree however, that a PP on SB is not appropriate in view of the seeming alternative interpretation of the Law, even though I suspect SB knew what the Law unambiguously says.

[lamford]

blackshoe, on 2015-May-18, 18:20, said:

I am pretty sure that BBO will give me considerable latitude in the running of the IBLF. However, it's not "my" forum. David Stevenson started this many years ago on another site, with the goals I have mentioned. As he was unfamiliar with running forums, he asked me to help him out. Then our other host was closed down, and BBO offered us this new home. That's the history, pretty much.

If I see something I don't think is appropriate, I'll do something about it. In fact, I was still considering what, if anything, to do about the "SB" topics when it was suggested to me by BBO that they were somewhat disruptive here, and that we should ask Paul to stop posting them. Not having a better solution immediately to hand, I went along.

I sense a lot of hostility towards me personally here, especially from you Vampyr — and this isn't the first time. My take right now: David and I built these forums to help people out. For myself, I would like to continue doing that, but if the people posting here don't want me, I've got other things I can do with my life. I haven't discussed this with David (haven't had contact with him in quite a while) or with the BBO staff, so I have no idea what would happen next if I left. But if that's what you all want, that's fine with me.

I personally would be pleased if you stay, and I have always agreed with any suggestion you have made to change a post. The restriction by barmar on the nature of initial posts (if it is retained) would mean that I would no longer be interested in contributing to this forum. Actual hands, which usually involve working out how big a penalty one gives after a Ghestem Gaffe, are generally far less interesting.

[lamford]

blackshoe, on 2015-May-18, 17:53, said:

discussion of minutia in the laws goes beyond that purpose.

I think it should be 'minutiae' (although one source listed 'minutia' as singular or plural, so this really is a minutia). I presume you regard the omission in the Laws of any law preventing an insufficient bid, which was the subject of a recent OP, as being a minutia. It would be interesting to know what you would regard as a fundamental.

[blackshoe]

jeffford76, on 2015-May-19, 00:00, said:

I previously suggested in the forum that it would be better with more than one active moderator. No one is going to get all the decisions right, but a larger group will do better on more of them. I would like to suggest again, not that you step down, but that you consider sharing the moderation duty with some other active posters.

Any volunteers, please let me know via PM.

[mycroft]

0) Looks like I picked a bad weekend to take off bridge. And don't call me Shirley.
1) Wasn't going to mention it, but two people pointed out that "I know partner has a singleton club" is not true. "my ability to guess that partner's likely to have a singleton club is unaffected by the UI" unless specifically a card came out with the ones on either side of it and that was obvious. I didn't factor that in my reasoning; that would be UI, and a problem to the defence. But if we assume that it was just "two cards came out, and in the attempt to stop the bad one from showing, another one bounced from his hand" then there's no UI as to club length. You never know, with the RR: he could be sorting his hand by rank, not suit (joke, but I *have* seen it).
2) I believe we have a situation where "a club is a LA because partner might be able to ruff. But I know that partner can't ruff since he has an MPC he will have to play instead (I don't have to know what the card is, except that not both of them are trumps to make that line). That makes the club not an LA, because there's no AI-valid reason to lead it." Does that mean that there is any reason not to lead the A and kill a card? Okay, now there's only one MPC. Club is still not logical, as there's no potential ruff. However, now, there might be a LA to the other Ace - continuing the suit I played, as that may be short/K in partner's hand.
3) I absolutely think "club would be a logical alternative because partner could ruff, you have to play it even though you know partner has cards that have to be played at the first legal opportunity [that are not trump] that will mean that there is no potential ruff" is invalid. I can see the argument that "I'm not allowed to know what the penalty card *is*, just that it has to be played, so you have to lead a club because partner might have a trump PC" - but I don't believe it, or the "you'll have to crash the Q under your K because the switch rules is 'K from AK after trick 1' " game, which we know from the minute is not required, would be required.
4) As mentioned in the other thread, there's a place for these posts, and it's a needed place. But then I'd say that, wouldn't I?</Keeler, combined with "look at the profile"> I also think there's a place for "give the [expletive deleted] bird an Invitation To The World" (tm Mike Callahan), "and let's get back to ruling the game for the players, not the pedants." Again, as mentioned in the other thread, I think part of the issues with these posts is a conflict between the two groups of people, each of which are working to different agendas, and not accepting the other agenda as relevant/useful/the point of the thread/whatever.

As *I* certainly can't come up with these Law-Kelseyan constructions, and they have a place, and I know of no other place, I hope things can settle as well as possible.

[lamford]

mycroft, on 2015-May-19, 16:45, said:

I believe we have a situation where "a club is a LA because partner might be able to ruff. But I know that partner can't ruff since he has an MPC he will have to play instead (I don't have to know what the card is, except that not both of them are trumps to make that line). That makes the club not an LA, because there's no AI-valid reason to lead it."

I think you have missed some of my arguments. There are plenty of AI-valid reasons to lead a club when partner cannot ruff. If partner has a doubleton, then it is the only defence, hoping that declarer has one of the hands I gave: ♠KQxx ♥xxx ♦xxx ♣Kxx or ♠KQxxx ♥xx ♦xxx ♣Kxx or ♠KQxxx ♥xxx ♦xx ♣Kxx when cashing a red ace fails and a club return will (probably) defeat the contract.

[Lanor Fow]

Though I'm a couple of days late, perhaps, to make this post I wanted to say that I also find the SB posts generally very interesting and would be disappointed if they disappeared. Having been on blml for a time I think they are often much more related to edge cases than the dancing on pins that went on there whilst i was a member.

I hope that a solution can be come to that allows for these posts to continue without having an adverse effect (if there is currently one) on the original purpose of this forum, which I've enjoyed reading since before they moved here.

I also enjoy Lamford's posts and find his opinions interesting and well argued, even if I don't always agree. It would be a shame if he were to leave the forums.

I also agree that moderating forums can be a time consuming and thankless job and think Blackshoe should be commended for the job he does.

[mycroft]

lamford, on 2015-May-20, 08:06, said:

I think you have missed some of my arguments. There are plenty of AI-valid reasons to lead a club when partner cannot ruff. If partner has a doubleton, then it is the only defence, hoping that declarer has one of the hands I gave: ♠KQxx ♥xxx ♦xxx ♣Kxx or ♠KQxxx ♥xx ♦xxx ♣Kxx or ♠KQxxx ♥xxx ♦xx ♣Kxx when cashing a red ace fails and a club return will (probably) defeat the contract.

So, the question becomes, what in the UI demonstrably suggests a singleton club versus your other situations?

If you can answer that, then there is a case. But if not (and I gave cases where the UI might and cases where it might not have demonstrably suggested a stiff club over other constructions), then the player is free to decide how many clubs partner has, and then, and only then, determine what the LAs are given that decision. Otherwise, the same SB declarer is going to say, after the player ran a club and it was right, "but playing A, A, and a club to ruff is a LA because he knows that's the only way to get the trump promotion if there's a singleton club instead".

I think both questions are interesting from the construction:
"the UI made it clear that it was a singleton, because everyone knows partner isn't one of those few who don't sort their cards into suits, so the cards that fell out from either side of the club means that's the only one" or "the way the cards fell out of partner's hand doesn't add any information to the length of the club suit" - are either of those statements possible? Are they legitimate (remember the suggestion to avoid looking at partner specifically in order to avoid getting such kinds of UI (well, usually less dramatic, but))?

and "Assuming there's no UI leading to the length of the club suit, is the A, A, and trump promotion line of play impacted with the MPC UI, or, with only the AI of the MPCs can this be done?"

However, I think conflating the two is a problem.

[Vampyr]

mycroft, on 2015-May-20, 11:55, said:

However, I think conflating the two is a problem.

I totally agree. They are different questions, and are not, in fact, very closely related.

[blackshoe]

mycroft, on 2015-May-20, 11:55, said:

the cards that fell out from either side of the club

Is it established that these cards fell out "from either side of the club" (which I presume means "next to") and not from elsewhere in the hand? Or is that an assumption?

[lamford]

blackshoe, on 2015-May-20, 15:51, said:

Is it established that these cards fell out "from either side of the club" (which I presume means "next to") and not from elsewhere in the hand? Or is that an assumption?

There is no way of knowing how RR sorted his hand. We only know that he has dropped two non-clubs, which increases the chance of the lead being a singleton, which is initially unlikely given that East and South have five clubs between them. Also it is far more likely that he dropped the card next to the opening lead, again increasing the chance that the lead is a singleton, and again UI as it arose from an infraction. If the lead had been a doubleton, then there would be a probability of about 1/6 that he would have dropped another club. If the lead was a singleton, then it would not be possible to have dropped another club. Therefore the penalty cards make it more likely that the lead is a singleton and this is UI. The rank and suit of the penalty cards are also UI to North, although it is argued that if North decides to lead a heart or a diamond then he is allowed to know that South has to play the penalty card on this trick. I am with dburn that North is not allowed to know that South has the ten of hearts or ten of diamonds until they are played.

For a club to be a logical alternative, we should give, say, ten peers of North the fact that South led a club without dropping any penalty cards, and then ask him which suit he would return at trick two. No sane North would cash a red ace. Therefore a club is a logical alternative. Is a non-club demonstrably suggested by the UI of what South's penalty cards are? Of course it is. Cashing the ace of hearts or the ace of diamonds is acting as though you know what the penalty cards are, otherwise you would play a club. There is no need to conclude that there is UI that South has a singleton club from the cards dropped or the speed of the lead. It is enough to conclude that there is UI from the knowledge of the penalty cards which makes cashing the red aces more attractive. I agree that there are two separate pieces of UI which have muddied the waters. Both are reasons to adjust, but "acting as though you know what the penalty cards are" is the main reason.

The other reason to adjust is that the "penalty cards conveyed such information as to damage the offending side". When North used the information of what the penalty cards were he gained and if North cashes the two red aces and then plays the uppercut, we adjust for the damage caused by the use of this information, not for damage caused by the original infraction.