From owner-bridge-laws Wed May 1 00:31:44 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA27406 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 1 May 1996 00:31:44 +1000 Received: from andrew.cais.com (andrew.cais.com [199.0.216.215]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id AAA27401 for ; Wed, 1 May 1996 00:31:37 +1000 Received: from cais3.cais.com (cais3.cais.com [199.0.216.227]) by andrew.cais.com (8.6.9/8.6.9) with SMTP id KAA19252; Tue, 30 Apr 1996 10:31:06 -0400 Date: Tue, 30 Apr 1996 10:31:06 -0400 (EDT) From: Eric Landau X-Sender: elandau@cais3.cais.com To: Dennis Yovich cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Law 27B In-Reply-To: <199604301247.UAA01435@grunge.iinet.net.au> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk 27.B is one of the worst-worded passages in the Laws; I'm not surprised you're having trouble interpreting it. I do hope it gets fixed in the current round of revisions. The problem, of course, is that it's critical to determine "if the insufficient bid may have been conventional." But players are not expected to have agreements, conventional or otherwise, about their actions over insufficient bids (indeed, in the ACBL it's illegal to have any such agreements). So insufficient bids are, technically, neither conventional nor not conventional; they are undefined. The only way to make sense of the law is to read "may have been conventional" as "may have been conventional IN SOME OTHER AUCTION in which it would have been sufficient." But WHAT other auction? Two possible answers: (1) We can't know, so the question is meaningless. "May have been conventional" refers to the insufficient bid itself, which is incontrovertably not conventional, as it's undefined. But if we accept that, 27.B.2 can never be applied, and is itself meaningless. This can't be what the lawmakers who wrote it intended. (2) Law 27.B imposes a duty on the adjudicators to determine what the most likely other auction (in which the bid would have been sufficient) was, and then determine whether the bid may have been conventional in that auction. In other words, they're forced to decide what auction the bidder thought he was bidding to, which requires them to attempt to read his mind. This may not be something they can do within reason. For instance, if the auction is 1S-P-4NT-P-4D, what should the 4D bidder be presumed to have "thought he was bidding to?" We can substitute any bid by responder from 1NT to 4C; all are possible, none is at all likely, some would make 4D conventional and some not, and there's no reason to choose any one over any other. So neither answer is satisfactory. That suggests a compromise: If there is a likely auction which the bidder can be presumed to have thought to be the actual auction, the adjudicators must determine whether the insufficient bid may have been conventional in that auction. If there is no such likely auction, the insufficient bid is presumed to be undefined, and 27.B.1 applies. That leaves us to define "a likely auction which... can be presumed..." I think we can do that. It's the auction in which a pass is substituted for the last bid made, provided that yields an auction on which the insufficient bid would be legal. If it doesn't, presume undefined and apply 27.B.1. Examples: 1NT-2S-2D. Determine whether 1NT-P-2D might be conventional. 1S-P-1C. Determine whether P-P-1C might be conventional. 1S-4H-P-2S. Determine whether 1S-P-P-2S might be conventional. 1S-P-4NT-P-4D. Presume 4D not conventional, since 1S-P-P-P-4D is not a legal auction. 1S-4H-4NT-P-4D. Presume 4D not conventional, since 1S-4H-P-P-4D is not a legal auction. This approach may not be perfect, but I think it's a lot better than going whole-hog one way or the other. /eric Eric Landau APL Solutions, Inc. elandau@cais.com 1107 Dale Drive (301) 589-4621 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 USA From owner-bridge-laws Wed May 1 00:48:11 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA27967 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 1 May 1996 00:48:11 +1000 Received: from cabra.cri.dk (cabra.cri.dk [130.227.48.5]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id AAA27962 for ; Wed, 1 May 1996 00:47:36 +1000 X-Organization: Computer Resources International A/S, Bregneroedvej 144, DK-3460 Birkeroed, Denmark Received: from nov.cri.dk (nov.cri.dk [130.227.50.162]) by cabra.cri.dk (8.6.12/8.6.10) with SMTP id QAA29402 for ; Tue, 30 Apr 1996 16:46:24 +0200 Received: from CRI-Message_Server by nov.cri.dk with Novell_GroupWise; Tue, 30 Apr 1996 16:46:11 +0200 Message-Id: X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise 4.1 Date: Tue, 30 Apr 1996 16:46:00 +0200 From: Jens Brix Christiansen To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Law 27B -Reply Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk My opinion is flagged with +++ below. >>> Dennis Yovich 01.05.96 02:42 >>> Hi The National Authority Committee of the Australian Bridge Federation hasbeen asked to make a determination about Law 27B, as there appears tobe variations in interpretation among senior directors. Dr Reg Busch hasposed the question to the Committee for an interpretation and poses thefollowing two sides to the question. The interpretation is particularly inreference to an insufficient response to a 4NT Blackwood bid. Hebelieves that the great majority of insufficient Blackwood responses areinadvertent, in that there was never an intention to make a 4 levelresponse, and that in many cases the offender was unconsciously"echoing" his partner's 4 level bid. +++ No doubt this analysis of the causes of insufficient Blackwood responses at the 4 level is correct. Law 27 requires the director to decide, not that a bid has beenconventional, but that it was definitely not conventional. In making hisdecision, the bid in isolation is meaningless. The director must considersuch things as the auction to date, the partnership system, what theoffender thought he was responding to, and the intention in theoffenders mind when he made the bid. +++ Blackwood responses are conventional. See the definition section of the Laws (!). Hence partner is barred after an insufficient Balckwood response. No exceptions. No cause for exception. If the director is quite satisfied that the bid was not conventional he willapply Law 27B1. If he is not so satisfied, then he will apply Law 27B2and will bar partner from bidding. The phrase in 27B2 "if the insufficientbid may have been conventional" could equally well be written "if therewas a possibility that the bid was conventional" or even " in all caseswhere the director is not fully that the bid was not conventional". DrBusch's interpretation is that in every case where he is not satisfied thatthe bid is not conventional, he must bar partner. He feels that this is very Draconian, because the insufficient Blackwood response rarely causesdamage. +++ Yes. It is draconian. So is the penalty for a declarer who has to follow suit once and then find two discards as the opponents cash their suit against his no trump contract -- only he discards once, the follows suit, the discards again, after which he proceeds to take one or more tricks. That could be a reason for proposing a change in the laws (which is not the issue here); but when interpreting the laws, there is no room for being less draconian than specified. The alternative view is: 1. A conventional bid serves by partnership agreement to convey ameaning not necessarily related to the denomination named. How can aninsufficient bid be conventional? How many partnerships have anagreement about a 4NT - 4H sequence? The argument that it would have been conventional ifsufficient is not relevant, because the Law talks about whether aninsufficient bid itself could have been conventional. +++ Not applicable here. Read the definition of conventional in the laws. 2. Law 27B1 (b) provides for an adjusted score if the insufficient biddamaged the opponents, so there is already protection for thenon-offenders. +++ True, but immaterial. 3. There is greater emphasis in the 1987 Laws on equity and redress fordamages, not on punishing infractions. +++ Yes, but not in this case. 4. The phrase in 27B2 "if the insufficient bid may have beenconventional" allows the director discretion in deciding on the possiblityof damage in reaching his decision. This view would consider thequestion of possible damage before applying 27B2. +++ I disagree. The TD is asked to judge whether the bid is conventional; he is not asked to assess whether there was damage. The two views enunciated by Dr Busch in his submission to thecommittee will require resolution, and input from those interested wouldbe appreciated. +++ As you can see, I am not in any way in doubt here as to the interpretation of the laws. I hope this helps. From owner-bridge-laws Wed May 1 01:09:10 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA28095 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 1 May 1996 01:09:10 +1000 Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [128.103.40.170]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id BAA28090 for ; Wed, 1 May 1996 01:09:02 +1000 Received: from cfa183.harvard.edu (cfa183.harvard.edu [131.142.12.59]) by cfa.harvard.edu (8.7.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id LAA27683 for ; Tue, 30 Apr 1996 11:08:58 -0400 (EDT) Received: by cfa183.harvard.edu (5.x/SMI-SVR4) id AA21098; Tue, 30 Apr 1996 11:10:48 -0400 Date: Tue, 30 Apr 1996 11:10:48 -0400 From: willner@cfa183.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Message-Id: <9604301510.AA21098@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Comments on lots of issues X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > > Outrageous (or egregious) Error: an error so blatant that a player > > deliberately committing it could only be trying to lose. Hi, David > From: David Stevenson > Certainly not! You should see some of my errors! This is a very poor > definition because on occasion all human beings (except Pietro Forquet) > make decisions that make it appear that their brains were not switched > on. But why is it a poor definition? "Brain not switched on" is a good alternative, I agree. This is what _I_ mean by outrageous or egregious error. What is your definition? > The whole problem with your approach lies in the word "punish". These > adjustments are **not** punishments. The approach of the TD/AC is to > attempt to achieve equity by adjustments, and perhaps to penalise via > procedural penalties. We have to adjust on a reasonable basis: that > does **not** mean we need proof before we adjust. Agreed we need merely preponderance of the evidence. The effect, though, is that pairs who really do hesitate with both strong and weak hands will suffer unfair adjustments. Evidently you are prepared to accept that, but I don't think it's desirable. > > Personally, I'd rather just let the guilty go in this situation. But > > hit them with serious procedural penalties in situations that are less > > ambiguous. > > This is totally wrong and penalises the so-called non-offending pair. > If you have to maltreat someone, whom do you maltreat: the perpetrator > or the victim? This argument has merit, but we don't know for sure that there was a victim. There was, of course, a perpetrator, but a hesitation in itself is not supposed to be an infraction. If you follow the EBU rule that a slow raise to two always shows strength, you invite people to act unethically. (Make weak raises slowly.) If instead you adjust all the time, you in effect make the hesitation itself an infraction. These options seem less than desirable to me, though if one were to observe that in a given locality, a slow raise nearly always _does_ show strength, the rule would make sense. Perhaps this just comes down to a question of differing observations. The EBU has (in effect) claimed that a slow raise to two is highly likely to show strength. On the basis of my own experience, I doubt that this is so. My experience is obviously much less than the collective experience of those making the rule, but on the other hand, it's easy to see how sample bias _might_ have influenced the EBU conclusion. So which observation do you prefer? From owner-bridge-laws Wed May 1 02:09:05 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA28521 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 1 May 1996 02:09:05 +1000 Received: from cabra.cri.dk (cabra.cri.dk [130.227.48.5]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id CAA28516 for ; Wed, 1 May 1996 02:08:57 +1000 X-Organization: Computer Resources International A/S, Bregneroedvej 144, DK-3460 Birkeroed, Denmark Received: from nov.cri.dk (nov.cri.dk [130.227.50.162]) by cabra.cri.dk (8.6.12/8.6.10) with SMTP id SAA00568 for ; Tue, 30 Apr 1996 18:07:43 +0200 Received: from CRI-Message_Server by nov.cri.dk with Novell_GroupWise; Tue, 30 Apr 1996 18:07:30 +0200 Message-Id: X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise 4.1 Date: Tue, 30 Apr 1996 18:07:23 +0200 From: Jens Brix Christiansen To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Law 27B Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk OK, I will react to Eric's reaction too. "+++" is used to flag my opinion. >>> Eric Landau 30.04.96 16:31 >>> 27.B is one of the worst-worded passages in the Laws; I'm notsurprised you're having trouble interpreting it. I do hope it gets fixed inthe current round of revisions. +++ Agree. Alas, it looks as if it is not going to be much better. The problem, of course, is that it's critical to determine "if the insufficientbid may have been conventional." But players are not expected to haveagreements, conventional or otherwise, about their actions overinsufficient bids (indeed, in the ACBL it's illegal to have any suchagreements). So insufficient bids are, technically, neither conventionalnor not conventional; they are undefined. The only way to make sense of the law is to read "may have been conventional" as "may have been conventional IN SOME OTHERAUCTION in which it would have been sufficient." But WHAT otherauction? +++ This was discussed at length in the European Bridge League's TD course in Milan this January. The TD is expected to discuss that matter with the player making the insufficient bid (after taking him away from the table if necessary). Now if the player says "I did not notice he had opened" (bidding 1D with a 1D opener after RHO has opened 1S), or if he says "I meant 3H (showing hearts, forcing)" after partner opened 2NT, the TD will often be satisfied that the intention of the insufficient bidder was not conventional. If the TD is not satisified, he rules "may have been conventional" and sentences partner to pass during the rest of the auction. +++ The point is, of course, that the TD (the first line of adjudication) can ask the "perpretrator" -- he does not have to read his mind. Two possible answers: (1) We can't know, so the question is meaningless. "May have been conventional" refers to the insufficient bid itself, which is incontrovertably not conventional, as it's undefined. But if we accept that, 27.B.2 can never be applied, and is itself meaningless. This can't be what the lawmakers who wrote it intended. +++ Right. That could not be what they intended. (2) Law 27.B imposes a duty on the adjudicators to determine what the most likely other auction (in which the bid would have been sufficient) was, and then determine whether the bid may have been conventional in that auction. In other words, they're forced to decide what auction the bidder thought he was bidding to, which requires them to attempt to read his mind. This may not be something they can do within reason. +++ Well, to repeat, the TD can (and should) make this decision. If the player cannot make a convincing case, directly off hand, answering the simple question "what did you have in mind", you just rule "may have been conventional". Where is the problem with that? For instance, if the auction is 1S-P-4NT-P-4D, what should the 4D bidder be presumed to have "thought he was bidding to?" We can substituteany bid by responder from 1NT to 4C; all are possible, none is at alllikely, some would make 4D conventional and some not, and there's noreason to choose any one over any other. So neither answer is satisfactory. That suggests a compromise: If there is a likely auction which the bidder can be presumed to have thought to be the actual auction, the adjudicators must determinewhether the insufficient bid may have been conventional in that auction. If there is no such likely auction, the insufficient bid is presumed to be undefined, and 27.B.1 applies. That leaves us to define "a likely auction which... can be presumed..." Ithink we can do that. It's the auction in which a pass is substituted forthe last bid made, provided that yields an auction on which the insufficient bid would be legal. If it doesn't, presume undefined and apply 27.B.1. Examples: 1NT-2S-2D. Determine whether 1NT-P-2D might be conventional. +++ Works here, if the 2D bidder intended 2D as natural. If for some freaky reason he cannot bid 3D naturally, the TD may end up adjusting the score. 1S-P-1C. Determine whether P-P-1C might be conventional. +++ Yes, if the 1C bidder states that he had not seen (or heard) the 1S. But also if he intended 2C and got the level wrong. 1S-4H-P-2S. Determine whether 1S-P-P-2S might be conventional. +++ Yes, but only "oh, he bid 4H!" and an agreement that 2S in 1S-P-P-2S is natural could justify not barring the 2S-bidder's partner. 1S-P-4NT-P-4D. Presume 4D not conventional, since 1S-P-P-P-4D is nota legal auction. +++ This one would almost never be allowed to be changed to 5D, because either 4D is a Balckwood response at the worng level, or 5D would have been a Blackwood response, so the 4D-bidder could not have shown his lovely diamonds except via an irregularity, and the TD will therefore usually find that allowing 5D damages the opponents. 1S-4H-4NT-P-4D. Presume 4D not conventional, since 1S-4H-P-P-4D isnot a legal auction. +++ No further comments. This approach may not be perfect, but I think it's a lot better than goingwhole-hog one way or the other. /eric +++ With luck, I may have convinced Eric that the approach suggested by the EBL actually is operational, and that given the current state of Law 27B is about as equitable as you can get. From owner-bridge-laws Wed May 1 03:04:21 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA28839 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 1 May 1996 03:04:21 +1000 Received: from mail.be.innet.net (mail.be.innet.net [194.7.1.8]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id DAA28834 for ; Wed, 1 May 1996 03:04:15 +1000 Received: from innet.innet.be (pool03-79.innet.be [194.7.10.63]) by mail.be.innet.net (8.7.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id TAA23927; Tue, 30 Apr 1996 19:04:01 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <31865E4F.245E@innet.be> Date: Tue, 30 Apr 1996 18:39:11 +0000 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.0 (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Eric Landau CC: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Law 27B - reply on another point References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Eric Landau wrote: > > 27.B is one of the worst-worded passages in the Laws; I'm not surprised > you're having trouble interpreting it. I do hope it gets fixed in the > current round of revisions. > > The problem, of course, is that it's critical to determine "if the > insufficient bid may have been conventional." But players are not > expected to have agreements, conventional or otherwise, about their > actions over insufficient bids (indeed, in the ACBL it's illegal to have > any such agreements). So insufficient bids are, technically, neither > conventional nor not conventional; they are undefined. > > The only way to make sense of the law is to read "may have been > conventional" as "may have been conventional IN SOME OTHER AUCTION in > which it would have been sufficient." But WHAT other auction? > > Two possible answers: > > (1) We can't know, so the question is meaningless. "May have been > conventional" refers to the insufficient bid itself, which is > incontrovertably not conventional, as it's undefined. But if we accept > that, 27.B.2 can never be applied, and is itself meaningless. This can't > be what the lawmakers who wrote it intended. > > (2) Law 27.B imposes a duty on the adjudicators to determine what the > most likely other auction (in which the bid would have been sufficient) > was, and then determine whether the bid may have been conventional in > that auction. In other words, they're forced to decide what auction the > bidder thought he was bidding to, which requires them to attempt to read > his mind. This may not be something they can do within reason. > > For instance, if the auction is 1S-P-4NT-P-4D, what should the 4D bidder > be presumed to have "thought he was bidding to?" We can substitute any You also have to ask the question : what did he think he was bidding ? In the example above, he might well thought of bidding one ace : 5D. This can be a case of Law 25A, but need not be ! -- Herman DE WAEL E-Mail HermanDW@innet.be Belgium http://www.club.innet.be/~pub02163/index.htm From owner-bridge-laws Wed May 1 03:04:15 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA28832 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 1 May 1996 03:04:15 +1000 Received: from mail.be.innet.net (mail.be.innet.net [194.7.1.8]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id DAA28821 for ; Wed, 1 May 1996 03:04:08 +1000 Received: from innet.innet.be (pool03-79.innet.be [194.7.10.63]) by mail.be.innet.net (8.7.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id TAA23904; Tue, 30 Apr 1996 19:03:58 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <31865AB6.BAE@innet.be> Date: Tue, 30 Apr 1996 18:23:50 +0000 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.0 (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Eric Landau CC: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Law 27B - reply to Eric References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Eric Landau wrote: > The problem, of course, is that it's critical to determine "if the > insufficient bid may have been conventional." But players are not > expected to have agreements, conventional or otherwise, about their > actions over insufficient bids (indeed, in the ACBL it's illegal to have > any such agreements). I hope this means what I hope this means : that you are not allowed to give conventional meaning to your own insufficient bids. You are, I hope, entitled to have agreements about what it means to accept an insufficient bid. Since this is allowed in the rules, you should be allowed to convey special meanings to it. -- Herman DE WAEL E-Mail HermanDW@innet.be Belgium http://www.club.innet.be/~pub02163/index.htm From owner-bridge-laws Wed May 1 03:04:16 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA28833 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 1 May 1996 03:04:16 +1000 Received: from mail.be.innet.net (mail.be.innet.net [194.7.1.8]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id DAA28822 for ; Wed, 1 May 1996 03:04:09 +1000 Received: from innet.innet.be (pool03-79.innet.be [194.7.10.63]) by mail.be.innet.net (8.7.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id TAA23885; Tue, 30 Apr 1996 19:03:46 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <318659A4.6161@innet.be> Date: Tue, 30 Apr 1996 18:19:16 +0000 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.0 (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Dennis Yovich CC: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Law 27B - reply References: <199604301247.UAA01435@grunge.iinet.net.au> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Dennis Yovich wrote (quite a lot) Indeed, the case of 4NT - 4H is a difficult one, and it obviously depends on the reason for the insufficient bid. If offender says he wanted to bid 5H, it is clearly conventional. If offender did not hear 4NT (f.e. thought it was 3NT), 4H can be raised to 5H. However, Law 16 will now certainly apply. The normal case is 4NT (5S) 5H. 5H is obviously conventional. We had a different problem last year. After a 5NT overcall, for minors, partner bid only 5C, Is 5C natural (best minor) or conventional (I have never said I had clubs) ? IMO natural - but several Belgian TD's disagreed. -- Herman DE WAEL E-Mail HermanDW@innet.be Michel Willemslaan 40 tel ++32.3.827.64.45 B-2610 WILRIJK (Antwerpen) fax ++32.3.825.29.19 Belgium http://www.club.innet.be/~pub02163/index.htm From owner-bridge-laws Wed May 1 05:15:08 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA06953 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 1 May 1996 05:15:08 +1000 Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [128.103.40.170]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id FAA06948 for ; Wed, 1 May 1996 05:15:03 +1000 Received: from cfa183.harvard.edu (cfa183.harvard.edu [131.142.12.59]) by cfa.harvard.edu (8.7.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id PAA06453 for ; Tue, 30 Apr 1996 15:14:57 -0400 (EDT) Received: by cfa183.harvard.edu (5.x/SMI-SVR4) id AA21226; Tue, 30 Apr 1996 15:16:48 -0400 Date: Tue, 30 Apr 1996 15:16:48 -0400 From: willner@cfa183.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Message-Id: <9604301916.AA21226@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Law 27B - reply to Eric X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk From: Herman De Wael > I hope this means what I hope this means : that you are not allowed to > give conventional meaning to your own insufficient bids. That amounts to a violation of 72B1, I should think. Not that it will do you much good to have agreements when partner is barred.... :-) > You are, I hope, entitled to have agreements about what it means to > accept an insufficient bid. Since this is allowed in the rules, you > should be allowed to convey special meanings to it. I agree, but there is an ACBL policy that reads: DEFENSES AGAINST OPPONENT'S INFRACTIONS Some players have come up with systems to deal with opponent's infractions. Every effort should be made to make players aware of the fact that these are not allowed. If a pass over an opponent's call out of rotation shows some agreed-on point range, it is conventional. Obviously no conventional call for taking advantage of a call out of rotation has been approved. (Office Policy 4/80) In my view, this policy violates the 1987 Laws and is inconsistent with the new convention regulations, but it has not formally been rescinded. If challenged before the NLC, I doubt the policy would survive, but who wants to go to the trouble? Gary Blaiss, ACBL Chief Tournament Director, was supposed to review the policy, but it is obviously not his highest priority. From owner-bridge-laws Wed May 1 05:16:06 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA06976 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 1 May 1996 05:16:06 +1000 Received: from VNET.IBM.COM (vnet.ibm.com [199.171.26.4]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id FAA06971 for ; Wed, 1 May 1996 05:16:01 +1000 Message-Id: <199604301916.FAA06971@octavia.anu.edu.au> Received: from RCHVMX2 by VNET.IBM.COM (IBM VM SMTP V2R3) with BSMTP id 5878; Tue, 30 Apr 96 15:14:58 EDT Date: Tue, 30 Apr 96 14:12:40 CDT From: "Kent Burghard" To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Law 27B - reply to Eric Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Here is the text of the ACBL regulation that Eric referred to: Defenses Against Opponent's Infractions Some players have come up with systems to deal with opponent's infractions. Every effort should be made to make players aware of the fact that these are not allowed. If a pass over an opponent's call out of rotation shows some agreed-on point range, it is conventional. Obviously no conventional call for taking advantage of a call out of rotation has been approved. This regulation was taken from the ACBL regulations page on the web: http://www.acbl.org/~acbl/regulations/regulate.htm Kent Burghard ACBL Board of Govenors burghard@vnet.ibm.com District 14 & Internet Community From owner-bridge-laws Wed May 1 05:23:39 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA07042 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 1 May 1996 05:23:39 +1000 Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [128.103.40.170]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id FAA07037 for ; Wed, 1 May 1996 05:23:31 +1000 Received: from cfa183.harvard.edu (cfa183.harvard.edu [131.142.12.59]) by cfa.harvard.edu (8.7.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id PAA06118 for ; Tue, 30 Apr 1996 15:23:27 -0400 (EDT) Received: by cfa183.harvard.edu (5.x/SMI-SVR4) id AA21245; Tue, 30 Apr 1996 15:25:17 -0400 Date: Tue, 30 Apr 1996 15:25:17 -0400 From: willner@cfa183.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Message-Id: <9604301925.AA21245@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Law 27B - reply X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: Herman De Wael > Indeed, the case of 4NT - 4H is a difficult one, and it obviously > depends on the reason for the insufficient bid. > If offender says he wanted to bid 5H, it is clearly conventional. I would rather determine this from the context than from what the offender says. (This is really a response to lots of other comments along the same lines.) > If offender did not hear 4NT (f.e. thought it was 3NT), 4H can be raised > to 5H. However, Law 16 will now certainly apply. Law 16C says the 4H bid will be authorized information (though that is supposed to change in the new Laws). What you are looking for is 27B1b. > After a 5NT overcall, for minors, partner bid only 5C, > Is 5C natural (best minor) or conventional (I have never said I had > clubs) ? > IMO natural - but several Belgian TD's disagreed. What was the rest of the auction? If 1S-5NT-P-5C-, natural sounds right to me, at least if 4NT would have been unusual for minors. If 4NT would have been Blackwood, there's a better case for conventional. From owner-bridge-laws Wed May 1 05:55:20 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA07210 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 1 May 1996 05:55:20 +1000 Received: from andrew.cais.com (andrew.cais.com [199.0.216.215]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id FAA07205 for ; Wed, 1 May 1996 05:55:13 +1000 Received: from cais3.cais.com (cais3.cais.com [199.0.216.227]) by andrew.cais.com (8.6.9/8.6.9) with SMTP id PAA00315 for ; Tue, 30 Apr 1996 15:55:08 -0400 Date: Tue, 30 Apr 1996 15:55:08 -0400 (EDT) From: Eric Landau X-Sender: elandau@cais3.cais.com To: Bridge Laws Discussion List Subject: Law 27.B Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk As I read the law, a number of the points Jens made in response to Dennis Yovich's original query were spurious. The only determination called for in the law is whether the insufficient bid "was incontrovertably not conventional" or "may have been conventional." The question of whether the "correction bid" ("lowest sufficient bid in the same denomination") may have been conventional isn't addressed, and is irrelevant to the adjudication. The ACBL's position is that if the insufficient bid is not conventional, not only may it be corrected under 27.B.1(a) regardless of the meaning of the correction, but the knowledge that the original bid was insufficient and was subsequently corrected is authorized to the bidder's partner. In other words, if the correction is conventional, not only is partner not barred, but he may bid using the knowledge that it was not intended to be taken as conventional. The point here is that we cannot consider the meaning of the correction, and so must consider the insufficient bid itself. That leaves the problem of deciding what the bidder meant, or, as I put it earlier, what auction he thought he was bidding to. Jens makes a very good point in his reply to me. I proposed a heuristic rule for (a) deciding whether we can make an a presumption on this, and (b) if we can, telling us what it is. Jens says, why not ask him what he thought he was bidding to, and simply judge the credibility of his reply. That's the right answer in theory, and quite workable in Europe, where the TD really does serve as an adjudicator. I'm not sure how it would go over in ACBL-land, where TDs aren't charged with making bridge judgments; they function more like beat cops, while the AC plays the role of trial jury rather than appelate court, as it does in Europe. (I have no idea which model is better fits Australia.) But while it tells us what to presume, it doesn't answer the question of whether anything can or should be presumed. We can't let the answer depend in any way on the nature of the correction bid. And I'm not comfortable with the notion of automatically applying 27.B.2 when no resonable presumption is available. It still makes more sense to me to say that an undefined bid is not conventional than that it is. /eric Eric Landau APL Solutions, Inc. elandau@cais.com 1107 Dale Drive (301) 589-4621 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 USA From owner-bridge-laws Wed May 1 06:34:36 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA07335 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 1 May 1996 06:34:36 +1000 Received: from andrew.cais.com (andrew.cais.com [199.0.216.215]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id GAA07329 for ; Wed, 1 May 1996 06:34:26 +1000 Received: from cais3.cais.com (cais3.cais.com [199.0.216.227]) by andrew.cais.com (8.6.9/8.6.9) with SMTP id QAA01100; Tue, 30 Apr 1996 16:34:19 -0400 Date: Tue, 30 Apr 1996 16:34:18 -0400 (EDT) From: Eric Landau X-Sender: elandau@cais3.cais.com To: Herman De Wael cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Law 27B - reply to Eric In-Reply-To: <31865AB6.BAE@innet.be> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Tue, 30 Apr 1996, Herman De Wael wrote: > Eric Landau wrote: > > The problem, of course, is that it's critical to determine "if the > > insufficient bid may have been conventional." But players are not > > expected to have agreements, conventional or otherwise, about their > > actions over insufficient bids (indeed, in the ACBL it's illegal to have > > any such agreements). > > I hope this means what I hope this means : that you are not allowed to > give conventional meaning to your own insufficient bids. > You are, I hope, entitled to have agreements about what it means to > accept an insufficient bid. Since this is allowed in the rules, you > should be allowed to convey special meanings to it. I wish it meant what you hope it means, but I'm afraid 'tis not so. The ACBL made its official position clear once again recently when Gary Blaiss responded to a discussion of the topic on r.g.b: A partnership is not allowed to have any agreements whatsoever (conventional or not) about its actions (not just its bids) over an insufficient bid. So here in North America, you are NOT entitled to have an agreement about what it means to accept an insufficient bid. Of course, the ACBL's position is nonsensical. Here's a bit of anecdotal evidence to support that statement; this happened to me a long time ago: I was sitting around in my living room late one evening, after a few pints, talking with a good friend and occasional bridge partner (J. Merrill, once a top U.S. player, now inactive). The conversation turned to bidding over an opponent's insufficient bid. How would basic bidding principles apply to such auctions? If, for instance, the auction started 1S-1D, what would be shown by each of (a) accept 1D and bid 1S, (b) accept 1D and bid 2S, and (c) reject 1D and bid 2S over the inevitable 2D correction? We didn't "invent" anything; we did decide what conclusions would follow from basic bidding theory. A few months later we were playing in a tournament when an insufficient bid arose. J. accepted and jumped. I alerted, and, on inquiry, told the opponents of our theoretical discussion and that, based on it, I was going to assume that this showed a stronger hand than had he rejected the insufficient bid. The opponents called the director, who ruled that this was an illegal agreement; the score would be actual result or A+/A-, whichever was better for the "non-offending" opponents. We appealed to a committee. My argument was that our discussion of bidding theory had happened, and couldn't be made to un-happen; it was a fact. We hadn't set out to make specific agreements, and had not done so, but we admittedly had learned how we each would approach such situations, not necessarily with each other, but with any partner. At the time it came up at the table, I had only two possible choices; I could either tell the opponents about the discussion, which I felt ethically obligated to do in order to achieve full disclosure, or I could say nothing and keep them in the dark. Did the committee really wish to rule that I had made the wrong choice? Under the ACBL's policy, the poor committee was stuck. It made absolutely no sense to rule against me, but seemed to be going directly against ACBL regulations to rule for me. They couldn't go either way. Ultimately, they said that what I had done was clearly illegal, but that since I was trying to be ethical when I could have avoided any adverse ruling by not trying to be ethical, they would let the score stand, but I was under warning not to do it again. For over 25 years now I've been wondering just what it was that I'm not supposed to do again. Discuss bidding theory with bridge-playing friends in my living room? Ever mention insufficient bids in conversation (if so, I'm in trouble now!)? Play bridge with J. Merrill? Try to give full information to my opponents when I know something they don't that might be relevant? If there's a meaningful answer, it eludes me. I must say, Herman, that I'm very impressed that you were able to see right through the ACBL's silly position and strike to the heart of the matter based on a mere parenthetical note in my earlier post! /eric Eric Landau APL Solutions, Inc. elandau@cais.com 1107 Dale Drive (301) 589-4621 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 USA From owner-bridge-laws Wed May 1 06:39:52 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA07386 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 1 May 1996 06:39:52 +1000 Received: from andrew.cais.com (andrew.cais.com [199.0.216.215]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id GAA07381 for ; Wed, 1 May 1996 06:39:47 +1000 Received: from cais3.cais.com (cais3.cais.com [199.0.216.227]) by andrew.cais.com (8.6.9/8.6.9) with SMTP id QAA01163; Tue, 30 Apr 1996 16:39:32 -0400 Date: Tue, 30 Apr 1996 16:39:32 -0400 (EDT) From: Eric Landau X-Sender: elandau@cais3.cais.com To: Herman De Wael cc: Dennis Yovich , bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Law 27B - reply In-Reply-To: <318659A4.6161@innet.be> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Tue, 30 Apr 1996, Herman De Wael wrote: > We had a different problem last year. > > After a 5NT overcall, for minors, partner bid only 5C, > Is 5C natural (best minor) or conventional (I have never said I had > clubs) ? > IMO natural - but several Belgian TD's disagreed. Clearly natural, by definition, since the only message it carries is the bidder's choice of contract. Natural doesn't require any minimum holding in the suit; we've all taken plenty of preferences on singletons. Eric Landau APL Solutions, Inc. elandau@cais.com 1107 Dale Drive (301) 589-4621 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 USA From owner-bridge-laws Wed May 1 07:15:53 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA07554 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 1 May 1996 07:15:53 +1000 Received: from relay-4.mail.demon.net (relay-4.mail.demon.net [158.152.1.108]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id HAA07549 for ; Wed, 1 May 1996 07:15:43 +1000 Received: from post.demon.co.uk ([158.152.1.72]) by relay-4.mail.demon.net id aj00887; 30 Apr 96 21:13 GMT Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by relay-3.mail.demon.net id aa25610; 30 Apr 96 22:03 +0100 Message-ID: <+I496QA$YnhxEwC9@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Tue, 30 Apr 1996 21:21:19 +0100 To: Bridge Laws From: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Law 27B - reply In-Reply-To: <318659A4.6161@innet.be> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 1.12 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Hi Herman >We had a different problem last year. > >After a 5NT overcall, for minors, partner bid only 5C, >Is 5C natural (best minor) or conventional (I have never said I had >clubs) ? >IMO natural - but several Belgian TD's disagreed. Natural: I want to play in clubs. Why not conventional (not showing clubs)? Because it shows clubs: sufficient clubs for this to be better than alternatives. With 10 spades he would have bid 5S so 5C is natural even if it is preference between two doubletons. Cheers -- David Stevenson Bridge Cats Railways Logic /\_/\ Nothing ventured, nothing gained |o o| david@blakjak.demon.co.uk Emails welcome =( @ )= Tel: +44 (0)151 677 7412 Phone before Fax please \~/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed May 1 07:16:42 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA07574 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 1 May 1996 07:16:42 +1000 Received: from relay-2.mail.demon.net (disperse.demon.co.uk [158.152.1.77]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id HAA07569 for ; Wed, 1 May 1996 07:16:35 +1000 Received: from post.demon.co.uk ([158.152.1.72]) by relay-2.mail.demon.net id ae26973; 30 Apr 96 22:16 +0100 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by relay-3.mail.demon.net id aa25616; 30 Apr 96 22:03 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 30 Apr 1996 20:56:37 +0100 To: Bridge Laws From: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Law 27B - reply to Eric In-Reply-To: <31865AB6.BAE@innet.be> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 1.12 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Hi Herman Hi Eric >> The problem, of course, is that it's critical to determine "if the >> insufficient bid may have been conventional." But players are not >> expected to have agreements, conventional or otherwise, about their >> actions over insufficient bids (indeed, in the ACBL it's illegal to have >> any such agreements). > >I hope this means what I hope this means : that you are not allowed to >give conventional meaning to your own insufficient bids. >You are, I hope, entitled to have agreements about what it means to >accept an insufficient bid. Since this is allowed in the rules, you >should be allowed to convey special meanings to it. > Are you telling other countries how to determine their regulations? Sure the Laws allow such agreements: that does not mean that other countries have to allow everything. Cheers -- David Stevenson Bridge Cats Railways Logic /\_/\ Nothing ventured, nothing gained |o o| david@blakjak.demon.co.uk Emails welcome =( @ )= Tel: +44 (0)151 677 7412 Phone before Fax please \~/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed May 1 07:21:01 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA07611 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 1 May 1996 07:21:01 +1000 Received: from relay-4.mail.demon.net (relay-4.mail.demon.net [158.152.1.108]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id HAA07606 for ; Wed, 1 May 1996 07:20:51 +1000 Received: from post.demon.co.uk ([158.152.1.72]) by relay-4.mail.demon.net id cr28992; 30 Apr 96 21:15 GMT Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by relay-3.mail.demon.net id aa25614; 30 Apr 96 22:03 +0100 Message-ID: <1oB$iOAZUnhxEwAl@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Tue, 30 Apr 1996 21:16:26 +0100 To: Bridge Laws From: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Law 27B In-Reply-To: <199604301247.UAA01435@grunge.iinet.net.au> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 1.12 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Hi Dennis: Welcome I was going to write one of my very long replies when I discovered that Jens had written one making all my points! Law 27B is a matter for the TD to determine. How draconian it is is solely a matter for the lawmakers and not for those that use and interpret the Law. 4NT - 4H: the TD judges whether it was definitely natural by questions usually away from the table and proceeds accordingly. ----------- It is silly that there is this distinction based on whether 4H is natural. In the new Law 27B they are considering whether to make a difference based on whether 5H is natural: that is reasonable (why should they be allowed a natural 5H bid after an infraction when they did not have one before). However they should delete the current distinction. Then the Law would be sensible and workable. Cheers -- David Stevenson Bridge Cats Railways Logic /\_/\ Nothing ventured, nothing gained |o o| david@blakjak.demon.co.uk Emails welcome =( @ )= Tel: +44 (0)151 677 7412 Phone before Fax please \~/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed May 1 07:25:12 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA07634 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 1 May 1996 07:25:12 +1000 Received: from relay-2.mail.demon.net (disperse.demon.co.uk [158.152.1.77]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id HAA07629 for ; Wed, 1 May 1996 07:24:58 +1000 Received: from post.demon.co.uk ([158.152.1.72]) by relay-2.mail.demon.net id aa28217; 30 Apr 96 22:23 +0100 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by relay-3.mail.demon.net id aa01521; 30 Apr 96 22:20 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 30 Apr 1996 22:19:52 +0100 To: Bridge Laws From: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Law 27B - reply to Eric In-Reply-To: <199604301916.FAA06971@octavia.anu.edu.au> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 1.12 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Hi Kent: Welcome Hi Eric Hi Steve Hi All >Here is the text of the ACBL regulation that Eric referred to: > > Defenses Against Opponent's Infractions > > Some players have come up with systems to deal with opponent's > infractions. Every effort should be made to make players aware > of the fact that these are not allowed. If a pass over an opponent's > call out of rotation shows some agreed-on point range, > it is conventional. Obviously no conventional call for taking > advantage of a call out of rotation has been approved. > >This regulation was taken from the ACBL regulations page on the web: > http://www.acbl.org/~acbl/regulations/regulate.htm Steve: it seems a perfectly legal regulation to me under L40D. Cheers -- David Stevenson Bridge Cats Railways Logic /\_/\ Nothing ventured, nothing gained |o o| david@blakjak.demon.co.uk Emails welcome =( @ )= Tel: +44 (0)151 677 7412 Phone before Fax please \~/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed May 1 07:28:18 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA07662 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 1 May 1996 07:28:18 +1000 Received: from relay-4.mail.demon.net (relay-4.mail.demon.net [158.152.1.108]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id HAA07645 for ; Wed, 1 May 1996 07:25:27 +1000 Received: from post.demon.co.uk ([158.152.1.72]) by relay-4.mail.demon.net id aa02054; 30 Apr 96 21:20 GMT Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by relay-3.mail.demon.net id aa25618; 30 Apr 96 22:03 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 30 Apr 1996 20:41:47 +0100 To: Bridge Laws From: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Comments on lots of issues In-Reply-To: <9604301510.AA21098@cfa183.harvard.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 1.12 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Hi Steve >> > Outrageous (or egregious) Error: an error so blatant that a player >> > deliberately committing it could only be trying to lose. > >> Certainly not! You should see some of my errors! This is a very poor >> definition because on occasion all human beings (except Pietro Forquet) >> make decisions that make it appear that their brains were not switched >> on. > >But why is it a poor definition? "Brain not switched on" is a good >alternative, I agree. This is what _I_ mean by outrageous or egregious >error. What is your definition? If you say an outrageous error is one that can only be explained either by I was playing to lose or by the assumption that my brain had switched itself off then I could accept that. But *not* both! Perhaps we are merely disagreeing over the meaning of the word deliberately. Suppose after 1H 1S 4H 4S you feel only a nerd would double: I have a blind spot and double: I have made that call deliberately intending it as a winning action. The call may be stupid and will be laughed at by every Bridge player from here to Accra but I have made the call deliberately. Now if you say that I "could only be trying to lose" I shall have you in court and shall sue you for slander. My call may be stupid but I am not trying to lose. ------------- > >> The whole problem with your approach lies in the word "punish". These >> adjustments are **not** punishments. The approach of the TD/AC is to >> attempt to achieve equity by adjustments, and perhaps to penalise via >> procedural penalties. We have to adjust on a reasonable basis: that >> does **not** mean we need proof before we adjust. > >Agreed we need merely preponderance of the evidence. The effect, though, >is that pairs who really do hesitate with both strong and weak hands >will suffer unfair adjustments. Evidently you are prepared to accept >that, but I don't think it's desirable. > >> > Personally, I'd rather just let the guilty go in this situation. But >> > hit them with serious procedural penalties in situations that are less >> > ambiguous. >> >> This is totally wrong and penalises the so-called non-offending pair. >> If you have to maltreat someone, whom do you maltreat: the perpetrator >> or the victim? > >This argument has merit, but we don't know for sure that there was a >victim. There was, of course, a perpetrator, but a hesitation in itself >is not supposed to be an infraction. No, we do not know that there is a victim in an isolated case but let us extend the case to a whole set of cases and see where we get. In the USA on the 30th of February, 2188, the computers show us that 1S was raised to 2S on 12,371 occasions in "simulated" Bridge tournaments. [They are called "simulated" to distinguish them from "real" Bridge tournaments which are of course played completely by computer and you never see partner/opponents/TD/AC: of course even in "simulated" the bids were still entered into the computer: "simulated" tournaments died out early in the 23rd century.] The computers show that the bid was slow on 4,872 occasions. The TD was called on 815 occasions. Game was reached and made on 472 out of the 815 occasions and the computer decided that pass (over 2S) was a logical alternative on 386 out of the 472 occasions. 2S was passed and eight tricks were made on 85 out of the 815 occasions and the computer decided that bidding over 2S was a logical alternative on 49 out of the 85 occasions. The remaining occasions were deemed to be irrelevant. In the 521 occasions where the final contract could have been affected by UI the computer applied the Willner rule of 1998: "Where there is more than one possibility as to the reason for a hesitation or the like no conclusion may be reached and no adjustment may be considered." 4 pairs appealed to the AC (Appeals Computer). Since the computer decided the Willner rule was clear and well known these appeals were deemed to be without merit so all eight players were shot dead. One person argued that 2S was more likely to be strong than weak (as the statistics suggested). He is in hiding and is being sought by the Bridge police. "There is no point in hiding" said the police spokesman. "Castration is the worst thing that is likely to happen to him: he probably won't even be suspended from a single tournament." So what happened to the opponents? In the 386 occasions that the UI might have led to the 4S contract, no fewer than four would have led to the pairs concerned winning their particular tournament. One pair would have gone on a two year round the world tour: they came second and won a week in Detroit. [Third place won a month in Detroit.] One pair would have won a house (each) in Florida but they will now have to be satisfied with a left shoe each (next month they can play for the right shoe). One pair did not really mind: who wants to be President anyway they said bravely. Custer and Smyth were duly executed for murder: the pardon was only given for first place in each direction. This was of course unlucky but as everyone in the USA knows the victims are of no importance: at least none of the pairs who hesitated were treated unfairly. As Steinbrigger said, after the ruling in his favour against Custer and Smyth, "The Willner rule made sure that we got that pardon not Hennessey and Bradley, which is obviously fair". Who can disagree with that? > >If you follow the EBU rule that a slow raise to two always shows >strength, you invite people to act unethically. (Make weak raises >slowly.) If instead you adjust all the time, you in effect make the >hesitation itself an infraction. These options seem less than >desirable to me, though if one were to observe that in a given >locality, a slow raise nearly always _does_ show strength, the rule >would make sense. > When OJ Simpson was acquitted it was because the jury found insufficient evidence to convict. The jury did not "find him innocent" despite a lot of media **** to that effect. This is basic English law, which the USA inherited from us. But that does not mean that the relatives of his alleged victims do not have a right to sue nor does it mean they should lose their case. That court is one of equity, deciding between two sides, and does not require the proof that a murder charge requires. Look Steve, I can see why you are unhappy for the alleged perpetrators but you have to have a more balanced outlook: you must do your best for *both* sides: I am afraid that your approach is blinkered to see one side only. :-) Cheers -- David Stevenson Bridge Cats Railways Logic /\_/\ Nothing ventured, nothing gained |o o| david@blakjak.demon.co.uk Emails welcome =( @ )= Tel: +44 (0)151 677 7412 Phone before Fax please \~/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed May 1 09:26:51 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA08144 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 1 May 1996 09:26:51 +1000 Received: from relay-4.mail.demon.net (relay-4.mail.demon.net [158.152.1.108]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id JAA08139 for ; Wed, 1 May 1996 09:26:34 +1000 Received: from post.demon.co.uk ([158.152.1.72]) by relay-4.mail.demon.net id ac24782; 30 Apr 96 23:21 GMT Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by relay-3.mail.demon.net id aa07466; 30 Apr 96 22:37 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 30 Apr 1996 22:37:11 +0100 To: Bridge Laws From: David Stevenson Subject: Law 27B: further agreements In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 1.12 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Hi Eric Hi Herman Hi All >> > The problem, of course, is that it's critical to determine "if the >> > insufficient bid may have been conventional." But players are not >> > expected to have agreements, conventional or otherwise, about their >> > actions over insufficient bids (indeed, in the ACBL it's illegal to have >> > any such agreements). >> >> I hope this means what I hope this means : that you are not allowed to >> give conventional meaning to your own insufficient bids. >> You are, I hope, entitled to have agreements about what it means to >> accept an insufficient bid. Since this is allowed in the rules, you >> should be allowed to convey special meanings to it. > >I wish it meant what you hope it means, but I'm afraid 'tis not so. The >ACBL made its official position clear once again recently when Gary Blaiss >responded to a discussion of the topic on r.g.b: A partnership is not >allowed to have any agreements whatsoever (conventional or not) about its >actions (not just its bids) over an insufficient bid. So here in North >America, you are NOT entitled to have an agreement about what it means to >accept an insufficient bid. > >Of course, the ACBL's position is nonsensical. Here's a bit of anecdotal >evidence to support that statement; this happened to me a long time ago: > I do not believe that one wrong ruling makes a position nonsensical. >I was sitting around in my living room late one evening, after a few >pints, talking with a good friend and occasional bridge partner (J. >Merrill, once a top U.S. player, now inactive). The conversation turned >to bidding over an opponent's insufficient bid. How would basic bidding >principles apply to such auctions? If, for instance, the auction started >1S-1D, what would be shown by each of (a) accept 1D and bid 1S, (b) >accept 1D and bid 2S, and (c) reject 1D and bid 2S over the inevitable 2D >correction? We didn't "invent" anything; we did decide what conclusions >would follow from basic bidding theory. And why not? > > >A few months later we were playing in a tournament when an insufficient >bid arose. J. accepted and jumped. I alerted, and, on inquiry, told the >opponents of our theoretical discussion and that, based on it, I was >going to assume that this showed a stronger hand than had he rejected the >insufficient bid. The opponents called the director, who ruled that this >was an illegal agreement; the score would be actual result or A+/A-, >whichever was better for the "non-offending" opponents. We appealed to a >committee. > >My argument was that our discussion of bidding theory had happened, and >couldn't be made to un-happen; it was a fact. We hadn't set out to make >specific agreements, and had not done so, but we admittedly had learned >how we each would approach such situations, not necessarily with each >other, but with any partner. At the time it came up at the table, I had >only two possible choices; I could either tell the opponents about the >discussion, which I felt ethically obligated to do in order to achieve >full disclosure, or I could say nothing and keep them in the dark. Did >the committee really wish to rule that I had made the wrong choice? > >Under the ACBL's policy, the poor committee was stuck. No, they could have made the right ruling. > It made >absolutely no sense to rule against me, but seemed to be going directly >against ACBL regulations to rule for me. They couldn't go either way. >Ultimately, they said that what I had done was clearly illegal, but that >since I was trying to be ethical when I could have avoided any adverse >ruling by not trying to be ethical, they would let the score stand, but I >was under warning not to do it again. Well, I suppose this decision on score makes up for the silly ruling. What is illegal? L40D: "The sponsoring organisation may regulate the use of bidding or play conventions." Thus the ACBL may and does ban you from playing conventions in Insufficient Bid-type areas. Is that what you were doing? No! You had a discussion on Bridge theory. You showed excellent ethics by pointing this out. But this is not an agreed convention that you had decided to play and so is not illegal. > >For over 25 years now I've been wondering just what it was that I'm not >supposed to do again. Discuss bidding theory with bridge-playing friends >in my living room? Ever mention insufficient bids in conversation (if >so, I'm in trouble now!)? Play bridge with J. Merrill? Try to give full >information to my opponents when I know something they don't that might >be relevant? If there's a meaningful answer, it eludes me. The answer is that what you are not supposed to do again is to get in front of this particular committee. Really, I do not care whether the ACBL makes a regulation under L40D in this area. But it is legal and it does not apply to the situation you quoted, which IMO was a totally silly ruling. The EBU believes it has a similar rule in this area but has lost it: literally! Cheers -- David Stevenson Bridge Cats Railways Logic /\_/\ Nothing ventured, nothing gained |o o| david@blakjak.demon.co.uk Emails welcome =( @ )= Tel: +44 (0)151 677 7412 Phone before Fax please \~/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed May 1 09:45:52 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA08293 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 1 May 1996 09:45:52 +1000 Received: from pip.dknet.dk (root@pip.dknet.dk [193.88.44.48]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id JAA08280 for ; Wed, 1 May 1996 09:45:45 +1000 Received: from cph12.pip.dknet.dk (cph12.pip.dknet.dk [194.192.0.44]) by pip.dknet.dk (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id BAA03400 for ; Wed, 1 May 1996 01:45:34 +0200 From: jd@pip.dknet.dk (Jesper Dybdal) To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: Law 27B - reply to Eric Date: Tue, 30 Apr 1996 23:45:17 GMT Organization: at home Message-Id: <3186a1b5.1158085@pipmail.dknet.dk> References: In-Reply-To: X-Mailer: Forte Agent .99d/32.182 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Tue, 30 Apr 1996 22:19:52 +0100, David Stevenson wrote: >[Kent Burghard wrote:] >>Here is the text of the ACBL regulation that Eric referred to: >> >> Defenses Against Opponent's Infractions >> >> Some players have come up with systems to deal with opponent's >> infractions. Every effort should be made to make players aware >> of the fact that these are not allowed. If a pass over an opponent's >> call out of rotation shows some agreed-on point range, >> it is conventional. Obviously no conventional call for taking >> advantage of a call out of rotation has been approved. >> >>This regulation was taken from the ACBL regulations page on the web: >> http://www.acbl.org/~acbl/regulations/regulate.htm > > Steve: it seems a perfectly legal regulation to me under L40D. Law 40D allows regulation of _conventions_ only. Though the last half of the ACBL rule above is about conventions, the first part ("Systems to deal with opponents's infractions") seems to me to be a general attempt to regulate also natural agreements - in violation of Law 40D. It seems to me, for instance, that Law 40D cannot be used to forbid Eric's example where the sequences (a) 1S - 1D - accept and bid 1S, (b) 1S - 1D - accept and bid 2S, and (c) 1S - 1D corrected to 2D - 2S all show spade support but different strength. --- Jesper Dybdal From owner-bridge-laws Wed May 1 18:41:42 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id SAA10513 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 1 May 1996 18:41:42 +1000 Received: from sunset.ma.huji.ac.il (sunset.ma.huji.ac.il [132.64.32.12]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id SAA10508 for ; Wed, 1 May 1996 18:41:28 +1000 Received: (from grabiner@localhost) by sunset.ma.huji.ac.il (8.6.11/8.6.10) id LAA05318; Wed, 1 May 1996 11:39:35 +0300 Date: Wed, 1 May 1996 11:39:35 +0300 Message-Id: <199605010839.LAA05318@sunset.ma.huji.ac.il> From: David Joseph Grabiner To: elandau@cais.cais.com CC: dyovich@iinet.net.au, bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au In-reply-to: (message from Eric Landau on Tue, 30 Apr 1996 10:31:06 -0400 (EDT)) Subject: Re: Law 27B Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk You write: > 27.B is one of the worst-worded passages in the Laws; I'm not surprised > you're having trouble interpreting it. I do hope it gets fixed in the > current round of revisions. > The problem, of course, is that it's critical to determine "if the > insufficient bid may have been conventional." But players are not > expected to have agreements, conventional or otherwise, about their > actions over insufficient bids (indeed, in the ACBL it's illegal to have > any such agreements). So insufficient bids are, technically, neither > conventional nor not conventional; they are undefined. > The only way to make sense of the law is to read "may have been > conventional" as "may have been conventional IN SOME OTHER AUCTION in > which it would have been sufficient." But WHAT other auction? > Two possible answers: > (1) We can't know, so the question is meaningless. "May have been > conventional" refers to the insufficient bid itself, which is > incontrovertably not conventional, as it's undefined. But if we accept > that, 27.B.2 can never be applied, and is itself meaningless. This can't > be what the lawmakers who wrote it intended. > (2) Law 27.B imposes a duty on the adjudicators to determine what the > most likely other auction (in which the bid would have been sufficient) > was, and then determine whether the bid may have been conventional in > that auction. In other words, they're forced to decide what auction the > bidder thought he was bidding to, which requires them to attempt to read > his mind. This may not be something they can do within reason. > For instance, if the auction is 1S-P-4NT-P-4D, what should the 4D bidder > be presumed to have "thought he was bidding to?" We can substitute any > bid by responder from 1NT to 4C; all are possible, none is at all likely, > some would make 4D conventional and some not, and there's no reason to > choose any one over any other. > So neither answer is satisfactory. That suggests a compromise: > If there is a likely auction which the bidder can be presumed to have > thought to be the actual auction, the adjudicators must determine whether > the insufficient bid may have been conventional in that auction. If > there is no such likely auction, the insufficient bid is presumed to be > undefined, and 27.B.1 applies. > That leaves us to define "a likely auction which... can be presumed..." > I think we can do that. It's the auction in which a pass is substituted > for the last bid made, provided that yields an auction on which the > insufficient bid would be legal. If it doesn't, presume undefined and > apply 27.B.1. Examples: > 1NT-2S-2D. Determine whether 1NT-P-2D might be conventional. > 1S-P-1C. Determine whether P-P-1C might be conventional. > 1S-4H-P-2S. Determine whether 1S-P-P-2S might be conventional. > 1S-P-4NT-P-4D. Presume 4D not conventional, since 1S-P-P-P-4D is not a > legal auction. > 1S-4H-4NT-P-4D. Presume 4D not conventional, since 1S-4H-P-P-4D is not a > legal auction. > This approach may not be perfect, but I think it's a lot better than > going whole-hog one way or the other. /eric > Eric Landau APL Solutions, Inc. > elandau@cais.com 1107 Dale Drive > (301) 589-4621 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 > Fax (301) 589-4618 USA From owner-bridge-laws Wed May 1 18:47:54 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id SAA10567 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 1 May 1996 18:47:54 +1000 Received: from sunset.ma.huji.ac.il (sunset.ma.huji.ac.il [132.64.32.12]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id SAA10562 for ; Wed, 1 May 1996 18:47:38 +1000 Received: (from grabiner@localhost) by sunset.ma.huji.ac.il (8.6.11/8.6.10) id LAA05431; Wed, 1 May 1996 11:46:02 +0300 Date: Wed, 1 May 1996 11:46:02 +0300 Message-Id: <199605010846.LAA05431@sunset.ma.huji.ac.il> From: David Joseph Grabiner To: elandau@cais.cais.com CC: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au In-reply-to: (message from Eric Landau on Tue, 30 Apr 1996 10:31:06 -0400 (EDT)) Subject: Re: Law 27B Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk You write: > 27.B is one of the worst-worded passages in the Laws; I'm not surprised > you're having trouble interpreting it. I do hope it gets fixed in the > current round of revisions. > The problem, of course, is that it's critical to determine "if the > insufficient bid may have been conventional." But players are not > expected to have agreements, conventional or otherwise, about their > actions over insufficient bids (indeed, in the ACBL it's illegal to have > any such agreements). So insufficient bids are, technically, neither > conventional nor not conventional; they are undefined. The way I have seen it interpreted is, "if the insufficient bid would be conventional when made sufficient." That's a reasonable rule, but it's not what is written. What I would like to see is something like, "If the insufficient bid would be conventional when made sufficient, and it is not likely that the bid itself was intended to have the same meaning." This covers cases such as 2C Stayman in response to 2NT, and 4D responses to Blackwood. > If there is a likely auction which the bidder can be presumed to have > thought to be the actual auction, the adjudicators must determine whether > the insufficient bid may have been conventional in that auction. If > there is no such likely auction, the insufficient bid is presumed to be > undefined, and 27.B.1 applies. This is a reasonable rule. > That leaves us to define "a likely auction which... can be presumed..." > I think we can do that. It's the auction in which a pass is substituted > for the last bid made, provided that yields an auction on which the > insufficient bid would be legal. I wouldn't necessarily presume a pass. > 1S-4H-P-2S. Determine whether 1S-P-P-2S might be conventional. Here, I would presume a 2H overcall. > 1S-P-4NT-P-4D. Presume 4D not conventional, since 1S-P-P-P-4D is not a > legal auction. And here, the 4NT bid could have been interepreted as 3NT. > 1S-4H-4NT-P-4D. Presume 4D not conventional, since 1S-4H-P-P-4D is not a > legal auction. In this case, I agree with the presumption; the only reasonable meaning for 4D is that it was intended as 5D, or as a response to Gerber. -- David Grabiner, grabiner@math.huji.ac.il, http://www.ma.huji.ac.il/~grabiner I speak at the Hebrew University, but not for it. Shop at the Mobius Strip Mall: Always on the same side of the street! Klein Glassworks, Torus Coffee and Donuts, Projective Airlines, etc. From owner-bridge-laws Wed May 1 20:04:19 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id UAA12908 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 1 May 1996 20:04:19 +1000 Received: from cabra.cri.dk (cabra.cri.dk [130.227.48.5]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id UAA12744 for ; Wed, 1 May 1996 20:03:41 +1000 X-Organization: Computer Resources International A/S, Bregneroedvej 144, DK-3460 Birkeroed, Denmark Received: from nov.cri.dk (nov.cri.dk [130.227.50.162]) by cabra.cri.dk (8.6.12/8.6.10) with SMTP id MAA12902 for ; Wed, 1 May 1996 12:02:04 +0200 Received: from CRI-Message_Server by nov.cri.dk with Novell_GroupWise; Wed, 01 May 1996 12:01:52 +0200 Message-Id: X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise 4.1 Date: Wed, 01 May 1996 12:01:36 +0200 From: Jens Brix Christiansen To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Law 27 B 1 - Summary Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I have been too verbose, maybe in my earlier messages.. Here is a concise(?) summary of the EBL-position, as I perceived it as a participant in the EBL TD Course, Milan, January 96. First the law: ---- begin quote ---- 1. Not Conventional, and Corrected by Lowest Sufficient Bid in Same Denomination (a) No Penalty If the insufficient bid was incontrovertibly not conventional, and is corrected by the lowest sufficient bid in the same denomination, the auction proceeds as though the irregularity had not occurred (but see (b) following). (b) Award of Adjusted Score If the Director judges that the insufficient bid conveyed such substantial information as to damage the non-offending side, he shall assign an adjusted score. ---- end quote ---- We also need the definition of "conventional". The laws offer a definition of "convention", which we will accept for this purpose. ---- begin quote ---- Convention 1. A call that serves by partnership agreement to convey a meaning not necessarily related to the denomination named (for definition of conventional pass, see Law 30C ). ---- end quote ---- 1. The TD judges whether the insufficient bid is conventional. Any "rule against the offending side" directives given by the sponsoring organization cannot apply, since we are trying to move the play of the board along here. 2. In 27 B 1 (a), only the meaning of the insufficient bid, not the meaning of the corrected bid, is the object of the TD's judgement. 3. The TD is advised to take the player aside, ask him what he had in mind when he made the insufficient bid, and allow a correction according to 27 B 1 (a) only if he is convinced that the bid made was not intended as conventional. 4. The TD has to worry whether damage occured once 27 B 1 (a) has been used. The typical case for damage is where the correction of the insufficient bid is a call that would otherwise have been conventional; but that is not the only case. 5. As always, the TD may not forfeit a penalty prescribed by the laws by exercising his judgment to the effect that the penalty is unjustly harsh. 6. When 27 B 1 is used, it is authorized information to everyone that the insufficient bid was intended as natural, and partner may proceed on that assumption. In ACBL-land (at least), the partnership may not have conventions that are agreed especially for this situation. Everywhere, I suppose, the partnership may apply their normal arrangements if they fit the situation, even if they are conventions. Now, revisiting the insufficient 4D response to a Blackwood 4NT, the TD can arrive at several conclusions: a) 4D was intended as 5D (showing 1 ace in a popular implementation of Blackwood). That is a convention. 27 B 1 does not apply. b) 4D was intended as natural; 4NT was misunderstood as, say, 3NT. 27 B 1 (a) does apply, but the TD will probably have to adjust the score. It would now be wrong to bar the 4D- bidder's partner when 4D is corrected to 5D. (This seems silly to me, but it also sesm correct). c) 4D was intended as natural with a weird explanation of the 4D bidder's perception of the state of the auction. The TD will not be convinced that 4D was intended as natural, so 27 B 1 does not apply. In an overwhelming majority of these cases, the TD should have few problems determining which of the three decisions applies. Final note: My impression from Milan is that the current proposal for the 1997 Laws includes a change in Law 27 B 1 to the effect that it applies only if two conditions are fulfilled: i) The insufficient bid is not (intended as) conventional. ii) The lowest sufficient bid in the same denomination is also not conventional. This would do away with what I find silly in (b) above. The above is my best stab at a response to the Australian issue, given according to the current European (i.e. EBL) style. From owner-bridge-laws Wed May 1 20:16:00 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id UAA13242 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 1 May 1996 20:16:00 +1000 Received: from relay-4.mail.demon.net (relay-4.mail.demon.net [158.152.1.108]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id UAA13237 for ; Wed, 1 May 1996 20:15:39 +1000 Received: from post.demon.co.uk ([158.152.1.72]) by relay-4.mail.demon.net id aj06802; 1 May 96 10:15 GMT Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by relay-3.mail.demon.net id aa00967; 1 May 96 11:06 +0100 Message-ID: <5JM8HAAxbzhxEwjP@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Wed, 1 May 1996 11:03:29 +0100 To: Bridge Laws From: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Law 27B - reply to Eric In-Reply-To: <3186a1b5.1158085@pipmail.dknet.dk> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 1.12 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Hi Jesper Hi All >>>Here is the text of the ACBL regulation that Eric referred to: >>> >>> Defenses Against Opponent's Infractions >>> >>> Some players have come up with systems to deal with opponent's >>> infractions. Every effort should be made to make players aware >>> of the fact that these are not allowed. If a pass over an opponent's >>> call out of rotation shows some agreed-on point range, >>> it is conventional. Obviously no conventional call for taking >>> advantage of a call out of rotation has been approved. >>> >>>This regulation was taken from the ACBL regulations page on the web: >>> http://www.acbl.org/~acbl/regulations/regulate.htm >> >> Steve: it seems a perfectly legal regulation to me under L40D. > >Law 40D allows regulation of _conventions_ only. > >Though the last half of the ACBL rule above is about conventions, the >first part ("Systems to deal with opponents's infractions") seems to >me to be a general attempt to regulate also natural agreements - in >violation of Law 40D. > >It seems to me, for instance, that Law 40D cannot be used to forbid >Eric's example where the sequences >(a) 1S - 1D - accept and bid 1S, >(b) 1S - 1D - accept and bid 2S, and >(c) 1S - 1D corrected to 2D - 2S >all show spade support but different strength. I suppose if you really want to go for the letter of the Law then an agreement whether to accept the bid does not fall under the definition of convention: however it clearly is not natural either! The convention is not the bids of 1S or 2S shown above: it is the agreement on whether to accept or not that most players would "feel" was a convention. Cheers -- David Stevenson Bridge Cats Railways Logic /\_/\ Nothing ventured, nothing gained |o o| david@blakjak.demon.co.uk Emails welcome =( @ )= Tel: +44 (0)151 677 7412 Phone before Fax please \~/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed May 1 20:42:24 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id UAA13310 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 1 May 1996 20:42:24 +1000 Received: from kobra.efd.lth.se (f84beo@kobra.efd.lth.se [130.235.19.3]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id UAA13305 for ; Wed, 1 May 1996 20:42:17 +1000 Received: from efd.lth.se (f84beo@jupiter-4 [130.235.19.59]) by kobra.efd.lth.se (8.6.11/8.6.11) with ESMTP id MAA02454; Wed, 1 May 1996 12:41:31 +0200 Message-Id: <199605011041.MAA02454@kobra.efd.lth.se> X-Mailer: exmh version 1.6 4/21/95 To: Herman De Wael cc: Dennis Yovich , bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au, f84beo@efd.lth.se Subject: Re: Law 27B - reply In-reply-to: Your message of "Tue, 30 Apr 1996 18:19:16 -0000." <318659A4.6161@innet.be> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Date: Wed, 01 May 1996 12:41:28 +0200 From: Bjorn-Erik Olsson Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > After a 5NT overcall, for minors, partner bid only 5C, > Is 5C natural (best minor) or conventional (I have never said I had > clubs) ? > IMO natural - but several Belgian TD's disagreed. 5C is natural in the eyes of the law but conventional for alerting purposes, this is if you alert over 3N > Herman DE WAEL E-Mail HermanDW@innet.be ------------------------------------------------ Björn Olsson (f84beo@efd.lth.se) ------------------------------------------------ From owner-bridge-laws Wed May 1 21:09:35 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id VAA13449 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 1 May 1996 21:09:35 +1000 Received: from pip.dknet.dk (root@pip.dknet.dk [193.88.44.48]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id VAA13444 for ; Wed, 1 May 1996 21:09:29 +1000 Received: from cph22.pip.dknet.dk (cph22.pip.dknet.dk [194.192.0.54]) by pip.dknet.dk (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id NAA22601 for ; Wed, 1 May 1996 13:09:13 +0200 From: jd@pip.dknet.dk (Jesper Dybdal) To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: Law 27B - reply to Eric Date: Wed, 01 May 1996 11:08:56 GMT Organization: at home Message-Id: <31874625.2915402@pipmail.dknet.dk> References: <5JM8HAAxbzhxEwjP@blakjak.demon.co.uk> In-Reply-To: <5JM8HAAxbzhxEwjP@blakjak.demon.co.uk> X-Mailer: Forte Agent .99d/32.182 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Hi David, On Wed, 1 May 1996 11:03:29 +0100, David Stevenson wrote: > I suppose if you really want to go for the letter of the Law then an >agreement whether to accept the bid does not fall under the definition >of convention: however it clearly is not natural either! > > The convention is not the bids of 1S or 2S shown above: it is the >agreement on whether to accept or not that most players would "feel" was >a convention. The letter of the Law says that the sponsoring organization may regulate "the use of bidding or play conventions". The "Definitions" section says that a convention is "1. A call that serves by partnership agreement to ... 2. Defender's play that ...". By the letter of the law, all that Law 40D allows the sponsoring organization to regulate is calls and plays with certain (non-natural) agreed meanings. Perhaps it could be argued that an agreement that accepting a bid shows something specific is illegal in the same way that an agreement to put down my pen on the left when I have at least 5 hearts is illegal. However, I believe not: the differences are that (a) it should then be considered illegal everywhere, not as a matter of local regulation, and (b) the decision whether to accept a bid or not is obviously intended to be taken after looking at one's own hand, and it therefore necessarily indicates _something_ about the hand, agreement or not. You're right about "feel", of course - but I don't believe that is particularly relevant when interpreting a law that is not about what players may do, but about what organizations may do. In addition, the practical problem with implicit agreements and theoretical discussions like the one Eric told us about disappears when only (strictly) conventional meanings of bids in connection with irregularites are forbidden. As Eric points out, it can be very difficult to avoid creating an implicit understanding about natural bids - but it is easy to avoid conventional agreements. --- Jesper Dybdal From owner-bridge-laws Wed May 1 23:48:14 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA14378 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 1 May 1996 23:48:14 +1000 Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [128.103.40.170]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id XAA14373 for ; Wed, 1 May 1996 23:48:08 +1000 Received: from cfa183.harvard.edu (cfa183.harvard.edu [131.142.12.59]) by cfa.harvard.edu (8.7.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id JAA12660 for ; Wed, 1 May 1996 09:48:00 -0400 (EDT) Received: by cfa183.harvard.edu (5.x/SMI-SVR4) id AA21504; Wed, 1 May 1996 09:49:53 -0400 Date: Wed, 1 May 1996 09:49:53 -0400 From: willner@cfa183.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Message-Id: <9605011349.AA21504@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Law 40D X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: David Stevenson > > Some players have come up with systems to deal with opponent's > > infractions. Every effort should be made to make players aware > > of the fact that these are not allowed. If a pass over an opponent's > > call out of rotation shows some agreed-on point range, > > it is conventional. Obviously no conventional call for taking > > advantage of a call out of rotation has been approved. > Steve: it seems a perfectly legal regulation to me under L40D. 1. Agreements need not be conventional. 1S-1C-x : a partnership agrees that this is strictly penalty. Since this agreement is not conventional and is not the partnership's initial action at the one level, no sponsoring organization has authority to ban this agreement. 2. Sponsoring organizations inarguably have authority to regulate _conventional_ agreements. The ACBL's convention charts, however, make no mention of different regulations after an insufficient bid. Conventional doubles are a legal convention. I conclude that a partnership wishing to play the above double as takeout would be allowed to do so under existing ACBL convention regulations. Since these regulations were adopted subsequent to the policy in question, I'd argue that they supersede the policy. I cannot imagine the NLC disagreeing on point 1. I can imagine disagreement on point 2, but I think I'd have a fair chance of winning a (putative) case. From owner-bridge-laws Thu May 2 00:59:24 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA17423 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 2 May 1996 00:59:24 +1000 Received: from pip.dknet.dk (root@pip.dknet.dk [193.88.44.48]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id AAA17418 for ; Thu, 2 May 1996 00:59:16 +1000 Received: from cph21.pip.dknet.dk (cph21.pip.dknet.dk [194.192.0.53]) by pip.dknet.dk (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id QAA02205 for ; Wed, 1 May 1996 16:53:31 +0200 From: jd@pip.dknet.dk (Jesper Dybdal) To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Law 27B - reply to Eric Date: Wed, 01 May 1996 14:53:13 GMT Organization: at home Message-Id: <318774e7.369871@pipmail.dknet.dk> References: <199605011323.QAA02740@sunset.ma.huji.ac.il> In-Reply-To: <199605011323.QAA02740@sunset.ma.huji.ac.il> X-Mailer: Forte Agent .99d/32.182 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Hi David, It seems as if you replied directly to me instead of to bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; I quote your entire text here for everybody to see. On Wed, 1 May 1996 16:23:18 +0300, David Joseph Grabiner wrote: >You write: > >> Hi David, > >> On Wed, 1 May 1996 11:03:29 +0100, David Stevenson >> wrote: >>> I suppose if you really want to go for the letter of the Law then an >>> agreement whether to accept the bid does not fall under the definition >>> of convention: however it clearly is not natural either! >>> >>> The convention is not the bids of 1S or 2S shown above: it is the >>> agreement on whether to accept or not that most players would "feel" was >>> a convention. > >> Perhaps it could be argued that an agreement that accepting a bid >> shows something specific is illegal in the same way that an agreement >> to put down my pen on the left when I have at least 5 hearts is >> illegal. However, I believe not: the differences are that (a) it >> should then be considered illegal everywhere, not as a matter of local >> regulation, and (b) the decision whether to accept a bid or not is >> obviously intended to be taken after looking at one's own hand, and it >> therefore necessarily indicates _something_ about the hand, agreement >> or not. > >This is the problem I have. At the bridge club last night, I opened 1D, >and LHO undercalled 1C. Partner, with xx AJ9xxx AK xxx, chose to accept >the bid and bid 1H. I told her that she should have refused the bid and >bid a more descriptive 2H. Do we now have an agreement? If she accepted your idea that the hand would be shown better in that way, it would seem so. You might say that this is not an agreement but bridge logic - on the other hand, when you have to talk with your partner to agree what bridge logic in a certain situation is, the result is the same as a system agreement. >Bridge logic tells me that if partner refused to accept the bid and bid >2H, she must have a comfortable 2H bid > >The legal problem might come up if partner doubled 1C; are we allowed to >play this as negative if our other doubles of overcalls are negative? I would expect my partner's double in that situation to be negative as a matter of course. I would certainly expect it to be allowed even in the US; in fact, you could easily read the ACBL rule as forbidding you to play a natural double here, since that would be a "system" specifically agreed to handle the irregularity. But note that I am far from the US and definitely not an authority on how ACBL interprets their rule. In Denmark we have no such rule, and as a director I would therefore allow the non-offending side to use any system agreements of that kind, provided it did not violate any general system limitations for the specific event. > >-- >David Grabiner, grabiner@math.huji.ac.il, http://www.ma.huji.ac.il/~grabiner >I speak at the Hebrew University, but not for it. >Shop at the Mobius Strip Mall: Always on the same side of the street! >Klein Glassworks, Torus Coffee and Donuts, Projective Airlines, etc. > --- Jesper Dybdal From owner-bridge-laws Thu May 2 01:59:52 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA17758 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 2 May 1996 01:59:52 +1000 Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [128.103.40.170]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id BAA17753 for ; Thu, 2 May 1996 01:59:45 +1000 Received: from cfa183.harvard.edu (cfa183.harvard.edu [131.142.12.59]) by cfa.harvard.edu (8.7.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id LAA22605 for ; Wed, 1 May 1996 11:59:40 -0400 (EDT) Received: by cfa183.harvard.edu (5.x/SMI-SVR4) id AA21532; Wed, 1 May 1996 12:01:33 -0400 Date: Wed, 1 May 1996 12:01:33 -0400 From: willner@cfa183.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Message-Id: <9605011601.AA21532@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Comments on lots of issues X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: David Stevenson > In the USA on the 30th of February, 2188, the computers show us that > 1S was raised to 2S on 12,371 occasions in "simulated" Bridge > tournaments. ... The computers show > that the bid was slow on 4,872 occasions. The TD was called on 815 > occasions. Game was reached and made on 472 out of the 815 occasions > and the computer decided that pass (over 2S) was a logical alternative > on 386 out of the 472 occasions. 2S was passed and eight tricks were > made on 85 out of the 815 occasions and the computer decided that > bidding over 2S was a logical alternative on 49 out of the 85 occasions. > The remaining occasions were deemed to be irrelevant. > > In the 521 occasions where the final contract could have been affected > by UI the computer applied the Willner rule of 1998: "Where there is > more than one possibility as to the reason for a hesitation or the like > no conclusion may be reached and no adjustment may be considered." Amusing story deleted. This illustrates (or may, if I haven't misinterpreted it) one of the difficulties with the statistical approach. Any conclusion about what a slow raise shows should be based on the 4872 slow bids, NOT merely the 815 cases where a director was called. By the way, the "Willner rule" is not that no adjustment may be considered. It is that the slow raise does not, in itself, show either a strong or weak hand. Other actions or evidence may warrant an adjustment.* > Look Steve, I can see why you are unhappy for the alleged perpetrators > but you have to have a more balanced outlook: you must do your best for > *both* sides: I am afraid that your approach is blinkered to see one > side only. :-) I hate to keep repeating the same points, but evidently my position still is not clear. The difference in our positions is a question of fact. I believe that most players really do make slow raises with both strong and weak hands, and that partner seldom can determine from the hesitation alone which is which. I further believe that some players raise slowly with only strong or only weak but that approximately equal numbers follow each practice. I accept that some disagree with this view of the facts. (Though evidently the EBU accept my view as regards raises from one to three.) If you were to accept my view, would you really think my position is "blinkered to see one side only?" ----- *Partner may often be able to tell from the tone of voice or other mannerisms whether the raise is strong or weak, but we should be prepared to deal with such cases on the facts of each one and not on the basis of a general rule that may or may not apply in the particular case. From owner-bridge-laws Thu May 2 02:28:50 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA18077 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 2 May 1996 02:28:50 +1000 Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [128.103.40.170]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id CAA18072 for ; Thu, 2 May 1996 02:28:45 +1000 Received: from cfa183.harvard.edu (cfa183.harvard.edu [131.142.12.59]) by cfa.harvard.edu (8.7.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id MAA22759 for ; Wed, 1 May 1996 12:28:41 -0400 (EDT) Received: by cfa183.harvard.edu (5.x/SMI-SVR4) id AA21558; Wed, 1 May 1996 12:30:33 -0400 Date: Wed, 1 May 1996 12:30:33 -0400 From: willner@cfa183.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Message-Id: <9605011630.AA21558@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Law 40 X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > >(a) 1S - 1D - accept and bid 1S, > >(b) 1S - 1D - accept and bid 2S, and > >(c) 1S - 1D corrected to 2D - 2S > From: David Stevenson > The convention is not the bids of 1S or 2S shown above: it is the > agreement on whether to accept or not that most players would "feel" was > a convention. 1. A "convention" is a certain class of agreements about a call or play as defined in the Laws. 2. The _act_ of accepting or rejecting the insufficient bid is, arguably, not authorized information under (rats, I can't find the law. It's the one that says agreements must be based on the "conditions" of the current deal). However, the offender's withdrawn calls are authorized information for both sides (16C), so it is clearly legal to base agreements on their existence. What players may "feel" is a convention does not affect the Laws. And further (Why am I always disagreeing with David??), I don't see why anyone would _want_ to ban agreements over an opponent's insufficient bid, though well-intentioned people seem to want to do so. From owner-bridge-laws Thu May 2 03:50:27 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA18498 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 2 May 1996 03:50:27 +1000 Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [128.103.40.170]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id DAA18493 for ; Thu, 2 May 1996 03:50:21 +1000 Received: from cfa183.harvard.edu (cfa183.harvard.edu [131.142.12.59]) by cfa.harvard.edu (8.7.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id NAA22763 for ; Wed, 1 May 1996 13:50:11 -0400 (EDT) Received: by cfa183.harvard.edu (5.x/SMI-SVR4) id AA21605; Wed, 1 May 1996 13:52:06 -0400 Date: Wed, 1 May 1996 13:52:06 -0400 From: willner@cfa183.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Message-Id: <9605011752.AA21605@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Law 27B - reply to Eric X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: jd@pip.dknet.dk (Jesper Dybdal) I agree with almost everything Jesper said, but > As Eric points out, it can be very > difficult to avoid creating an implicit understanding about natural > bids - but it is easy to avoid conventional agreements. Possible, I suppose, but I think "easy" is an overbid. :-) We play negative doubles (in ordinary auctions) and hear: 1S-1C corrected to 2C-x Is that negative or penalty? If negative, obviously it's conventional. If penalty, we must have gone to some effort to agree that our normal agreement over 2C does not apply in this auction. If conventional agreements are forbidden, this double _must_ be penalty, but then how do we bid hands that would normally make a negative double of a 2C overcall?* And why should an opponent's infraction put us, the non-offenders, in this ridiculous position? ----- Yes, we can accept 1C and bid 1H, but a) we are in uncharted waters, lacking agreements, and b) it's doubtful that this shows exactly the same hands as those that would have negative doubled 2C. From owner-bridge-laws Thu May 2 04:07:06 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA18578 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 2 May 1996 04:07:06 +1000 Received: from mipl7.jpl.nasa.gov (mipl7.jpl.nasa.gov [128.149.177.7]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id EAA18568 for ; Thu, 2 May 1996 04:07:00 +1000 Received: from tintin.JPL.NASA.GOV (tintin.jpl.nasa.gov [128.149.102.7]) by mipl7.jpl.nasa.gov (8.6.12/8.6.6) with ESMTP id LAA27940 for <@mipl7.JPL.NASA.GOV:bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au>; Wed, 1 May 1996 11:06:07 -0700 Received: by tintin.JPL.NASA.GOV (940816.SGI.8.6.9/930416.SGI.MIPS) for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au id LAA19665; Wed, 1 May 1996 11:11:35 -0700 Date: Wed, 1 May 1996 11:11:35 -0700 From: jeff@tintin.JPL.NASA.GOV (Jeff Goldsmith) Message-Id: <199605011811.LAA19665@tintin.JPL.NASA.GOV> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk |From: willner@cfa183.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) |To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au | |> From: jd@pip.dknet.dk (Jesper Dybdal) | |I agree with almost everything Jesper said, but | |> As Eric points out, it can be very |> difficult to avoid creating an implicit understanding about natural |> bids - but it is easy to avoid conventional agreements. | |Possible, I suppose, but I think "easy" is an overbid. :-) | |We play negative doubles (in ordinary auctions) and hear: | |1S-1C corrected to 2C-x | |Is that negative or penalty? If negative, obviously it's conventional. |If penalty, we must have gone to some effort to agree that our normal |agreement over 2C does not apply in this auction. | |If conventional agreements are forbidden, this double _must_ be |penalty, but then how do we bid hands that would normally make a |negative double of a 2C overcall?* And why should an opponent's |infraction put us, the non-offenders, in this ridiculous position? | |----- |Yes, we can accept 1C and bid 1H, but a) we are in uncharted waters, |lacking agreements, and b) it's doubtful that this shows exactly |the same hands as those that would have negative doubled 2C. I think the idea the ACBL has in mind is to disallow the following agreement: double of 2C is penalty, but accepting 1C and doubling is takeout. This seems somewhat reasonable to me, or more accurately, less unreasonable than other interpretations of their rule. How ought it really be cast to prevent pairs from getting together and working out defenses to insufficient bids, yet not be ludicrous? --Jeff # Cthulhu in '96! Why vote for the lesser evil? # --- # http://muggy.gg.caltech.edu/~jeff From owner-bridge-laws Thu May 2 05:06:18 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA25457 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 2 May 1996 05:06:18 +1000 Received: from electra.cc.umanitoba.ca (root@electra.cc.umanitoba.ca [130.179.16.23]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id FAA25452 for ; Thu, 2 May 1996 05:06:12 +1000 Received: from ankaa.cc.umanitoba.ca (root@ankaa.cc.umanitoba.ca [130.179.16.47]) by electra.cc.umanitoba.ca (8.7.1/8.7.1) with SMTP id OAA16783 for ; Wed, 1 May 1996 14:06:06 -0500 (CDT) Received: by ankaa.cc.umanitoba.ca (4.1/25-eef) id AA03485; Wed, 1 May 96 14:06:06 CDT Message-Id: <9605011906.AA03485@ankaa.cc.umanitoba.ca> Date: Wed, 01 May 96 14:05 CDT From: Barry Wolk To: Subject: Re: Law 27B Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I just found out about this mailing list this week. I didn't expect to have anything to contribute so quickly. I have seen the following in print: Edgar Kaplan stated that, when Law 27B was being written, the intended interpretation of the phrase "may have been conventional" was "may have been conventional, in the mind of the bidder's partner." It is ridiculous to have a penalty depend on the meaning of a call, instead of on the irregular call itself. In the auction bid bid bid ... 4NT P 4D , we can have the following possibilities: If 4NT was Blackwood, so 4D was intended/interpreted as showing 1 ace, then that is conventional. However, if 4NT was asking for controls, so 4D "showed" the ace of diamonds, then that is natural. It is ridiculous to have different penalties in these 2 cases. Barry Wolk Dept of Mathematics University of Manitoba Winnipeg Manitoba Canada From owner-bridge-laws Thu May 2 06:43:53 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA26865 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 2 May 1996 06:43:53 +1000 Received: from mwunix.mitre.org (mwunix.mitre.org [128.29.154.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id GAA26860 for ; Thu, 2 May 1996 06:43:47 +1000 Received: from mwmgate2.mitre.org (mwmgate2.mitre.org [128.29.155.13]) by mwunix.mitre.org (8.6.10/8.6.4) with SMTP id QAA20588; Wed, 1 May 1996 16:43:32 -0400 Message-Id: <199605012043.QAA20588@mwunix.mitre.org> Date: Wed, 01 May 96 16:43:38 EDT From: D_Hard%huac@MWMGATE1.mitre.org To: wolk@ccm.UManitoba.CA (Barry Wolk), bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re[2]: Law 27B Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Hello to all in the group: I must disagree with Barry when he says " However, if 4NT was asking for controls, so 4D "showed" the ace of diamonds, then that is natural." The bid relays information about the denomination named; however, it neither promises a suit nor offers to play in that denomination--how can it be natural? I would consider it conventional. Don _______________________________________________________________________________ Subject: Re: Law 27B From: wolk@ccm.UManitoba.CA (Barry Wolk) at -smtp- Date: 5/1/96 2:05 PM I just found out about this mailing list this week. I didn't expect to have anything to contribute so quickly. I have seen the following in print: Edgar Kaplan stated that, when Law 27B was being written, the intended interpretation of the phrase "may have been conventional" was "may have been conventional, in the mind of the bidder's partner." It is ridiculous to have a penalty depend on the meaning of a call, instead of on the irregular call itself. In the auction bid bid bid ... 4NT P 4D , we can have the following possibilities: If 4NT was Blackwood, so 4D was intended/interpreted as showing 1 ace, then that is conventional. However, if 4NT was asking for controls, so 4D "showed" the ace of diamonds, then that is natural. It is ridiculous to have different penalties in these 2 cases. Barry Wolk Dept of Mathematics University of Manitoba Winnipeg Manitoba Canada From owner-bridge-laws Thu May 2 07:12:12 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA26946 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 2 May 1996 07:12:12 +1000 Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [128.103.40.170]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id HAA26941 for ; Thu, 2 May 1996 07:12:05 +1000 Received: from cfa183.harvard.edu (cfa183.harvard.edu [131.142.12.59]) by cfa.harvard.edu (8.7.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id RAA05278 for ; Wed, 1 May 1996 17:11:50 -0400 (EDT) Received: by cfa183.harvard.edu (5.x/SMI-SVR4) id AA21729; Wed, 1 May 1996 17:13:45 -0400 Date: Wed, 1 May 1996 17:13:45 -0400 From: willner@cfa183.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Message-Id: <9605012113.AA21729@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: re: conventional X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: D_Hard%huac@MWMGATE1.mitre.org > I must disagree with Barry when he says " However, if 4NT was asking for > controls, so 4D "showed" the ace of diamonds, then that is natural." The bid > relays information about the denomination named; however, it neither promises a > suit nor offers to play in that denomination--how can it be natural? I would > consider it conventional. The problem is a false dichotomy between "natural" and "conventional." We often use this dichotomy in casual bridge talk, but it's not what the Laws say. The Laws give a very specific definition of "convention," as has been recently posted. The opposite for Laws purposes is "not a convention" or "not conventional." Since the 4D bid above is indeed "necessarily related to the denomination named," it is not _under the law_ a convention. Note that a bid that does offer to play in the contract named may be conventional. (Fit jumps are a good example; Flannery 2H is another.) Whether you wish to refer to any of these as "natural" is up to you; that term is not used in the Laws. From owner-bridge-laws Thu May 2 07:14:55 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA26979 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 2 May 1996 07:14:55 +1000 Received: from relay-4.mail.demon.net (relay-4.mail.demon.net [158.152.1.108]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id HAA26974 for ; Thu, 2 May 1996 07:14:48 +1000 Received: from post.demon.co.uk ([158.152.1.72]) by relay-4.mail.demon.net id ap13220; 1 May 96 20:55 GMT Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by relay-3.mail.demon.net id aa18739; 1 May 96 21:50 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 1 May 1996 19:50:43 +0100 To: Bridge Laws From: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Law 40 In-Reply-To: <9605011630.AA21558@cfa183.harvard.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 1.12 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Hi Steve Hi All >What players may "feel" is a convention does not affect the Laws. No: but it might affect their interpretation. > And >further (Why am I always disagreeing with David??), Because you do not know when you are agreeing with him! > I don't see why >anyone would _want_ to ban agreements over an opponent's insufficient >bid, though well-intentioned people seem to want to do so. > Nor do I! I am only arguing whether it is legal: I think it is stupid! Cheers -- David Stevenson Bridge Cats Railways Logic /\_/\ Nothing ventured, nothing gained |o o| david@blakjak.demon.co.uk Emails welcome =( @ )= Tel: +44 (0)151 677 7412 Phone before Fax please \~/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu May 2 07:18:25 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA27007 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 2 May 1996 07:18:25 +1000 Received: from andrew.cais.com (andrew.cais.com [199.0.216.215]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id HAA27002 for ; Thu, 2 May 1996 07:18:19 +1000 Received: from cais3.cais.com (cais3.cais.com [199.0.216.227]) by andrew.cais.com (8.6.9/8.6.9) with SMTP id RAA07437 for ; Wed, 1 May 1996 17:18:14 -0400 Date: Wed, 1 May 1996 17:18:14 -0400 (EDT) From: Eric Landau X-Sender: elandau@cais3.cais.com To: Bridge Laws Discussion List Subject: Agreements about insufficient bids In-Reply-To: <199605011811.LAA19665@tintin.JPL.NASA.GOV> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Wed, 1 May 1996, Jeff Goldsmith wrote: > I think the idea the ACBL has in mind is to disallow the > following agreement: double of 2C is penalty, but accepting > 1C and doubling is takeout. This seems somewhat reasonable > to me, or more accurately, less unreasonable than other interpretations > of their rule. Such an agreement is clearly illegal in ACBL competition. Common sense and bridge logic, though, suggest that this is the natural (dictionary sense, not bridge sense) way to handle the situation. When you take an action that asks partner to bid, it's to your advantage to have him able to start at the lowest possible level. When you double the opponents for penalty, it's to your advantage to have them at as high a level as possible. So it seems obvious that if you can select your opponent's bid between 1C and 2C, you'll always want to make him bid 1C if you're planning to double for takeout and 2C if you're planning to double for penalties. The real problem with the ACBL's rules, though, is that now, having read the above paragraph, you are all poisoned. If you were ever to play in an ACBL event with someone else on this list, whom you know to have read it also, you would, in the eyes of the ACBL, by virtue of merely having participated in a discussion of the subject, have an illegal implicit agreement regarding the use of conventions over insufficient bids. Should the situation arise at the table, you would be unable to ethically double them in either 1C or 2C for either takeout or penalty without taking advantage of illicit prior knowledge of how your partner would be likely to interpret your bid. Since you can't undo the fact that you've had the discussion, you will find yourself in the position of being severely disadvantaged by the fact that your opponents made an insufficient bid. Oops. Sorry, folks. Eric Landau APL Solutions, Inc. elandau@cais.com 1107 Dale Drive (301) 589-4621 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 USA From owner-bridge-laws Thu May 2 08:08:35 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA27136 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 2 May 1996 08:08:35 +1000 Received: from mipl7.jpl.nasa.gov (mipl7.jpl.nasa.gov [128.149.177.7]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id IAA27130 for ; Thu, 2 May 1996 08:08:29 +1000 Received: from tintin.JPL.NASA.GOV (tintin.jpl.nasa.gov [128.149.102.7]) by mipl7.jpl.nasa.gov (8.6.12/8.6.6) with ESMTP id PAA00256 for <@mipl7.JPL.NASA.GOV:bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au>; Wed, 1 May 1996 15:07:04 -0700 Received: by tintin.JPL.NASA.GOV (940816.SGI.8.6.9/930416.SGI.MIPS) for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au id PAA20049; Wed, 1 May 1996 15:12:09 -0700 Date: Wed, 1 May 1996 15:12:09 -0700 From: jeff@tintin.JPL.NASA.GOV (Jeff Goldsmith) Message-Id: <199605012212.PAA20049@tintin.JPL.NASA.GOV> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Subject: Agreements about insufficient bids |From: Eric Landau |To: Bridge Laws Discussion List |On Wed, 1 May 1996, Jeff Goldsmith wrote: | |> I think the idea the ACBL has in mind is to disallow the |> following agreement: double of 2C is penalty, but accepting |> 1C and doubling is takeout. This seems somewhat reasonable |> to me, or more accurately, less unreasonable than other interpretations |> of their rule. | |Such an agreement is clearly illegal in ACBL competition. Here's the text of the rule: "Some players have come up with systems to deal with opponent's infractions. Every effort should be made to make players aware of the fact that these are not allowed. If a pass over an opponent's call out of rotation shows some agreed-on point range, it is conventional. Obviously no conventional call for taking advantage of a call out of rotation has been approved." |Common sense and bridge logic, though, suggest that this is the natural |(dictionary sense, not bridge sense) way to handle the situation. When |you take an action that asks partner to bid, it's to your advantage to |have him able to start at the lowest possible level. When you double the |opponents for penalty, it's to your advantage to have them at as high a |level as possible. So it seems obvious that if you can select your |opponent's bid between 1C and 2C, you'll always want to make him bid 1C |if you're planning to double for takeout and 2C if you're planning to |double for penalties. I agree fully. It seems clear from the text of the rule, that this is exactly what is disapproved: a "system" for handling an infraction, that is, agreements that use as part of their conditions that an infraction has occurred. Therefore, this is illegal. |The real problem with the ACBL's rules, though, is that now, having read |the above paragraph, you are all poisoned. If you were ever to play in |an ACBL event with someone else on this list, whom you know to have read |it also, you would, in the eyes of the ACBL, by virtue of merely having |participated in a discussion of the subject, have an illegal implicit |agreement regarding the use of conventions over insufficient bids. |Should the situation arise at the table, you would be unable to ethically |double them in either 1C or 2C for either takeout or penalty without |taking advantage of illicit prior knowledge of how your partner would be |likely to interpret your bid. Since you can't undo the fact that you've |had the discussion, you will find yourself in the position of being |severely disadvantaged by the fact that your opponents made an |insufficient bid. Nope. You can still play negative doubles against 2C overcalls, even if they are insufficient, or insufficient and later corrected. You are allowed to play negative doubles of 2C overcalls. It is only *expressly* targeted systems that are mentioned in the rule above. It says "deal with," not "occur in the same auction." The one case that seems a little tough to me is defending against 1C overcalls. I think one is necessarily poisoned against them; no agreements that apply to non-infraction overcalls can apply to 1C overcalls. Arguing the other side, one can say "we play negative doubles through 3S," in which case, one can argue that one plays negative doubles of 1C. I don't see a real answer for this one. I think what the rule really states is just that you must play the same methods over an infraction as you would if no infraction had occurred. Is this rule legal? I'm pretty sure it is not. The ACBL could bar *conventions* that target infractions, but cannot bar natural bids that do so. Let's say they choose to do that and be law-abiding. In the current scenario, let's say you play negative doubles through 1S. If the bidding goes 1S-1D, one can then choose to accept the overcall and make a negative double, or not accept it, and if it is made sufficient, then double for penalties. If, however, you were playing negative doubles through 2S, then one could not make a penalty double of either 1D or 2D. Given the law-abiding rule (no conventions targeting infractions) then if one played negative doubles at either level, then one could still choose one option (presumably non-acceptance) and make a (natural) penalty double. If, however, one didn't play negative doubles at all, one could not then accept an insufficient 1D overcall, then double for takeout. Is this whole plan sensible? I agree with the rest of the group, "of course not." IMO, the ACBL ought to just allow agreements targeting infractions, but: (1) if any action by the non-offending side is possibly understandable as encouraging the infraction, then if the side plays different methods that would be nice to have operating given the infraction, then the player who tried to cause the infraction ought to be dealt with extremely harshly. No accidental "drawing offsides" will be tolerated. (2) Nothing not normally allowed is allowed as a result of an infraction. If I pass out of turn, you don't get to use Multi in a GCC event. You may, however, play Precision after a pass out of turn, and 2/1 otherwise. Is the choice here authorized information? I'd judge yes, but I'd also be very suspicious of UI transmitted as a result. Let's say RHO passes at partner's turn. You reject the opportunity to play Precision, and the bidding goes Pass, Pass to you. You open 1S. That is obviously limited to 15 HCP, since with 16+, you'd've taken the opportunity to open a big club. In fact, it's probably limited to 13 HCP or less. Is THIS information authorized? I'd say "yes," but it's less clear. Now let's say you take 20 seconds or so to make the choice. That suggests that you have a bad 14 or so. Is that information authorized? No. How many directors/opponents are going to be able to cope with such a situation? Very few. (3) Confusion/UI/Misinformation resulting from such an agreement is not mitigated by the existance of a previous infraction in any way. Just imagine the morass that could ensue: West North East South ---- ----- ---- ----- 1S 1D->2D Dbl After the June rules changes, West fails to alert the double of 2D, which is a penalty double because E/W play negative doubles of the 1D overcall. N/S are damaged due to the misinformation. E/W are supposed to be forgiven generally due to the recent rules change. But their normally forgivable offense resulted in real damage this time. What a mess. No arguments of the form "if they hadn't committed the infraction, we would not have been in the position that caused our confusion" are acceptable if one has an agreement about such situations. All in all, choosing to allow methods that target infractions seems to have quite a bit of difficulty attached to it. Upon some thought, I'm not convinced that some rule against it is a bad idea in theory. In practice, it contravenes the Laws and thus ought to be stricken. In theory, however, I could live with a rule that prohibits playing methods that target infractions just so I don't have to stay up all night hearing the case in (2). --Jeff # Cthulhu in '96! Why vote for the lesser evil? # --- # http://muggy.gg.caltech.edu/~jeff From owner-bridge-laws Thu May 2 08:35:56 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA27366 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 2 May 1996 08:35:56 +1000 Received: from mwunix.mitre.org (mwunix.mitre.org [128.29.154.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id IAA27361 for ; Thu, 2 May 1996 08:35:51 +1000 Received: from mwmgate2.mitre.org (mwmgate2.mitre.org [128.29.155.13]) by mwunix.mitre.org (8.6.10/8.6.4) with SMTP id SAA11659; Wed, 1 May 1996 18:35:42 -0400 Message-Id: <199605012235.SAA11659@mwunix.mitre.org> Date: Wed, 01 May 96 18:35:44 EDT From: D_Hard%huac@MWMGATE1.mitre.org To: elandau@cais.cais.com (Eric Landau), bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Agreements about insufficient bids Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Eric, I enjoyed your discussion; however, you may be confusing logic, bridge logic, and tactics. I agree that it is good logic and tactics to have your constructive bidding at as low a level as possible as well as having the opponents at a high level before penalty doubling. But is it bridge logic? To me, bridge logic is determining the appropriate course of action based on all legal information. Unless used for unethical purposes, insufficient bids are not a part of bridge. If one followed the laws, they would never occur. Rather than apply the rather harsh penalty for an insufficient bid that I favor (0 for the hand), the laws appear to establish a mechanism to restore equity and allow the hand to continue despite the illegal action. The proposed sequences appear to me as an attempt to improve communications in a well established partnership. Why bother? When was the last time you had an insufficient bid from good opposition? If your opponents can't remember the bidding, do you really need all these gadgets to play LOL(s). If you are allowed to have agreements after an insufficient bid, then one should be allowed to make intentional insufficient bids. This would result in some interesting bidding sequences, but it would not be bridge. I disagree with your premise that a theoretical discussion creates an implicit agreement. Acting on that discussion creates the agreement. In a theoretical sense, I agree with your proposed meanings of the 1S-1C sequences, however, if we were ever to be paired and the sequence came up, what would I do. The first time you would have no idea--if you alerted based on these discussions you are assuming an agreement that does not exist since my solution in these situations is to always reject the insufficient bid and to assume that all of our bids after the corrected bid carry their usual meanings. IMO this procedure follows the intent of the laws which is more important to me than the loss of increased communications capabilities from multiple sequences created from an insufficient bid. Don _______________________________________________________________________________ Subject: Agreements about insufficient bids From: elandau@cais.cais.com (Eric Landau) at -smtp- Date: 5/1/96 5:18 PM On Wed, 1 May 1996, Jeff Goldsmith wrote: > I think the idea the ACBL has in mind is to disallow the > following agreement: double of 2C is penalty, but accepting > 1C and doubling is takeout. This seems somewhat reasonable > to me, or more accurately, less unreasonable than other interpretations > of their rule. Such an agreement is clearly illegal in ACBL competition. Common sense and bridge logic, though, suggest that this is the natural (dictionary sense, not bridge sense) way to handle the situation. When you take an action that asks partner to bid, it's to your advantage to have him able to start at the lowest possible level. When you double the opponents for penalty, it's to your advantage to have them at as high a level as possible. So it seems obvious that if you can select your opponent's bid between 1C and 2C, you'll always want to make him bid 1C if you're planning to double for takeout and 2C if you're planning to double for penalties. The real problem with the ACBL's rules, though, is that now, having read the above paragraph, you are all poisoned. If you were ever to play in an ACBL event with someone else on this list, whom you know to have read it also, you would, in the eyes of the ACBL, by virtue of merely having participated in a discussion of the subject, have an illegal implicit agreement regarding the use of conventions over insufficient bids. Should the situation arise at the table, you would be unable to ethically double them in either 1C or 2C for either takeout or penalty without taking advantage of illicit prior knowledge of how your partner would be likely to interpret your bid. Since you can't undo the fact that you've had the discussion, you will find yourself in the position of being severely disadvantaged by the fact that your opponents made an insufficient bid. Oops. Sorry, folks. Eric Landau APL Solutions, Inc. elandau@cais.com 1107 Dale Drive (301) 589-4621 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 USA From owner-bridge-laws Thu May 2 08:54:37 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA27516 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 2 May 1996 08:54:37 +1000 Received: from mwunix.mitre.org (mwunix.mitre.org [128.29.154.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id IAA27511 for ; Thu, 2 May 1996 08:54:31 +1000 Received: from mwmgate2.mitre.org (mwmgate2.mitre.org [128.29.155.13]) by mwunix.mitre.org (8.6.10/8.6.4) with SMTP id SAA14350; Wed, 1 May 1996 18:54:25 -0400 Message-Id: <199605012254.SAA14350@mwunix.mitre.org> Date: Wed, 01 May 96 18:54:31 EDT From: D_Hard%huac@MWMGATE1.mitre.org To: willner@cfa183.harvard.edu (Steve Willner), bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re[2]: conventional Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Steve, The definition of convention extracted from the laws: Convention 1. A call that serves by partnership agreement to convey a meaning not necessarily related to the denomination named (for definition of conventional pass, see Law 30C ). 2. Defender's play that serves to convey a meaning by agreement rather than inference. Is 4NT asking for controls a conventional bid? I would think so. Are responses to a conventional bid conventional? I would think so. If 5 diamonds showed the A of Diamonds and denied a club control as the response to a 4NT control asking bid, would it be conventional? Again, I would think so, but I am no longer sure. don _______________________________________________________________________________ Subject: re: conventional From: willner@cfa183.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) at -smtp- Date: 5/1/96 5:13 PM > From: D_Hard%huac@MWMGATE1.mitre.org > I must disagree with Barry when he says " However, if 4NT was asking for > controls, so 4D "showed" the ace of diamonds, then that is natural." The bid > relays information about the denomination named; however, it neither promises a > suit nor offers to play in that denomination--how can it be natural? I would > consider it conventional. The problem is a false dichotomy between "natural" and "conventional." We often use this dichotomy in casual bridge talk, but it's not what the Laws say. The Laws give a very specific definition of "convention," as has been recently posted. The opposite for Laws purposes is "not a convention" or "not conventional." Since the 4D bid above is indeed "necessarily related to the denomination named," it is not _under the law_ a convention. Note that a bid that does offer to play in the contract named may be conventional. (Fit jumps are a good example; Flannery 2H is another.) Whether you wish to refer to any of these as "natural" is up to you; that term is not used in the Laws. From owner-bridge-laws Thu May 2 09:38:23 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA27962 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 2 May 1996 09:38:23 +1000 Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [128.103.40.170]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id JAA27957 for ; Thu, 2 May 1996 09:38:17 +1000 Received: from cfa183.harvard.edu (cfa183.harvard.edu [131.142.12.59]) by cfa.harvard.edu (8.7.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id TAA25721 for ; Wed, 1 May 1996 19:38:13 -0400 (EDT) Received: by cfa183.harvard.edu (5.x/SMI-SVR4) id AA21820; Wed, 1 May 1996 19:40:08 -0400 Date: Wed, 1 May 1996 19:40:08 -0400 From: willner@cfa183.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Message-Id: <9605012340.AA21820@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Re[2]: conventional X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > Are responses to a conventional bid conventional? I would think so. Not necessarily. Refer to the definition. I think even you will agree that major suit responses to Stayman are not conventional. > If 5 diamonds showed the A of Diamonds and denied a > club control as the response to a 4NT control asking bid, would it be > conventional? Again, I would think so, but I am no longer sure. This is harder. Is the denial of club control bridge logic or agreement? I'd tend to say the former, but reasonable people might disagree. If 5D denies all other controls (e.g., there are special bids for two or more controls), then it might well be conventional. From owner-bridge-laws Thu May 2 11:31:32 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id LAA29129 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 2 May 1996 11:31:32 +1000 Received: from relay-4.mail.demon.net (relay-4.mail.demon.net [158.152.1.108]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id LAA29124 for ; Thu, 2 May 1996 11:31:18 +1000 Received: from post.demon.co.uk ([158.152.1.72]) by relay-4.mail.demon.net id an13294; 1 May 96 20:55 GMT Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by relay-3.mail.demon.net id aa18742; 1 May 96 21:50 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 1 May 1996 19:45:59 +0100 To: Bridge Laws From: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Comments on lots of issues In-Reply-To: <9605011601.AA21532@cfa183.harvard.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 1.12 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Hi Steve Hi All >This illustrates (or may, if I haven't misinterpreted it) one of the >difficulties with the statistical approach. Any conclusion about what >a slow raise shows should be based on the 4872 slow bids, NOT merely >the 815 cases where a director was called. > True: it should. However we must be reasonably practical. >By the way, the "Willner rule" is not that no adjustment may be considered. >It is that the slow raise does not, in itself, show either a strong or >weak hand. Other actions or evidence may warrant an adjustment.* > >> Look Steve, I can see why you are unhappy for the alleged perpetrators >> but you have to have a more balanced outlook: you must do your best for >> *both* sides: I am afraid that your approach is blinkered to see one >> side only. :-) > >I hate to keep repeating the same points, but evidently my position >still is not clear. The difference in our positions is a question of >fact. I believe that most players really do make slow raises with both >strong and weak hands, and that partner seldom can determine from the >hesitation alone which is which. I further believe that some players >raise slowly with only strong or only weak but that approximately equal >numbers follow each practice. I accept that some disagree with this >view of the facts. (Though evidently the EBU accept my view as regards >raises from one to three.) If you were to accept my view, would you >really think my position is "blinkered to see one side only?" Yes: it is obviously me that has not made it clear. The 1S - 2S is a special case so consider 1S - 3S where the EBU has no agreement. The two sides to which I refer are not the people who think it is strong or weak but the people whose own side hesitate and the people whose opponents hesitate. If a pair use UI (intentionally or not) and gain an advantage and then you rule that you cannot know whether their UI showed a strong or weak hand so no adjustment "to be fair" then you have been unfair to their opponents. I do not think your position gives justice to players whose opponents have UI available. Cheers -- David Stevenson Bridge Cats Railways Logic /\_/\ Nothing ventured, nothing gained |o o| david@blakjak.demon.co.uk Emails welcome =( @ )= Tel: +44 (0)151 677 7412 Phone before Fax please \~/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu May 2 11:53:30 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id LAA29360 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 2 May 1996 11:53:30 +1000 Received: from relay-4.mail.demon.net (relay-4.mail.demon.net [158.152.1.108]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id LAA29355 for ; Thu, 2 May 1996 11:53:23 +1000 Received: from post.demon.co.uk ([158.152.1.72]) by relay-4.mail.demon.net id am13220; 1 May 96 20:55 GMT Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by relay-3.mail.demon.net id aa18733; 1 May 96 21:50 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 1 May 1996 20:07:15 +0100 To: Bridge Laws From: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Law 27 B 1 - Summary In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 1.12 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Hi Jens Hi All You really have spoilt this thread for me by saying everything I would have said: probably better and shorter. Just a point of interest: >Final note: My impression from Milan is that the current proposal >for the 1997 Laws includes a change in Law 27 B 1 to the effect >that it applies only if two conditions are fulfilled: > >i) The insufficient bid is not (intended as) conventional. >ii) The lowest sufficient bid in the same denomination is also not >conventional. > >This would do away with what I find silly in (b) above. It is also very annoying that (i) is still in. Not only does it make the TD's life harder but it is so unnecessary. Just consider a 1D bid over 1NT by a pair who play (a) 1D opening: strong, conventional (b) 1D or 2D overcall over any opening (including 1NT): natural So (ii) above is OK: 2D over 1NT is natural. How much more sensible it would be to allow correction to 2D without penalty whatever he intended to bid! His partner has no idea. The opponents are not going to suffer if he decides to make a natural 2D overcall when he was originally intending to bid a strong 1D. Shoot the lawmakers! Cheers -- David Stevenson Bridge Cats Railways Logic /\_/\ Nothing ventured, nothing gained |o o| david@blakjak.demon.co.uk Emails welcome =( @ )= Tel: +44 (0)151 677 7412 Phone before Fax please \~/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu May 2 15:16:43 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id PAA01332 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 2 May 1996 15:16:43 +1000 Received: from ns.onet.on.ca (ns.onet.on.ca [130.185.89.125]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id PAA01327 for ; Thu, 2 May 1996 15:16:34 +1000 Received: from sqarc.sq.com ([192.31.6.128]) by ns.onet.on.ca with SMTP id <254084>; Thu, 2 May 1996 01:16:50 -0400 Received: from sqrex.sq.com by sqarc.sq.com with smtp (Smail3.1.29.1 #4) id m0uEqkG-000OkgC; Thu, 2 May 96 01:16 EDT Received: by sqrex.sq.com (4.1//ident-1.0) id AA19306; Thu, 2 May 96 01:16:03 EDT Date: Thu, 2 May 96 01:16:03 EDT From: msb@sq.com Message-Id: <9605020516.AA19306@sqrex.sq.com> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Law 27 B 1 - Summary Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > Final note: My impression from Milan is that the current proposal > for the 1997 Laws includes a change in Law 27 B 1 to the effect > that it applies only if two conditions are fulfilled: > > i) The insufficient bid is not (intended as) conventional. > ii) The lowest sufficient bid in the same denomination is also not > conventional. I like the idea of this change, but it seems to me that it would be better yet if it read: EITHER the insufficient bid is clearly not intended as conventional, and the lowest sufficient bid in the same denomination also would not be conventional, OR the insufficient bid is clearly intended to have a certain conventional meaning, and the lowest sufficient bid in the same denomination would have that conventional meaning. An example where the second part would probably apply is: 2C P 2S P 4NT P 5C P 5NT P 5H Assuming standard Blackwood, it seems to me that responder clearly meant to show 2 kings with 6H, and it seems equitable to me to allow 6H to be substituted without penalty if the player is required to make the bid sufficient. Mark Brader \ "'Settlor', (i) in relation to a testamentary trust, msb@sq.com \ means the individual referred to in paragraph (i)." SoftQuad Inc., Toronto \ -- Income Tax Act of Canada (1972-94), 108(1)(h) From owner-bridge-laws Thu May 2 17:05:38 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id RAA01669 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 2 May 1996 17:05:38 +1000 Received: from cabra.cri.dk (cabra.cri.dk [130.227.48.5]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id RAA01663 for ; Thu, 2 May 1996 17:05:03 +1000 X-Organization: Computer Resources International A/S, Bregneroedvej 144, DK-3460 Birkeroed, Denmark Received: from stege.cri.dk (stege.cri.dk [130.227.57.6]) by cabra.cri.dk (8.6.12/8.6.10) with SMTP id JAA24482 for ; Thu, 2 May 1996 09:03:45 +0200 Message-Id: <199605020703.JAA24482@cabra.cri.dk> Date: Thu, 02 May 96 09:03:35 0200 From: Jens Brix Christiansen Organization: CRI (Computer Resources International A/S) X-Mailer: Mozilla 1.22 (Windows; I; 16bit) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Logical alternative benchmark hand Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Here is a hand from the EBL TD course in Milan, January 1996. It illustrates how the concept of *logical alternative* (LA), as laid out in Law 16, is delineated by the EBL. Dealer West. N/S Vulnerable. Teams. S K9732 H J9 D 9543 C 97 S AT8 S Q764 H KQ6 H T8732 D KQJT8 D 762 C A3 C 4 S J H A54 D A C KQJT8652 West North East South 1D P P ...3NT x ...p p 4C x p p p The TD is called after South's call of 4C and West tells him that South huddled before bidding 3NT and North huddled even longer before passing after West's double. All agree on these facts. The TD tells them to continue and South makes 9 tricks. The TD is called again; E/W think that the 4C bid has been influenced by the hesitation. This was a problem on the final written examination. I ruled that the score should be adjusted under Law 16; South had a LA (staying in 3NTx), and the huddle before the pass indicated that running from the double probably was best. I was wrong. The official answer is to let the score stand. There is UI, it is useful, and it indicates the action taken. However, staying in 3NTx is not considered a LA; no substantial minority of Souths would chance playing 3NTx. In order to prevent a side thread, let me also mention that the directions given in the exam ask us, when judgement is involved, to use an approach that minimizes appeals while avoiding a situation where the non-offending side wins its case if it appeals; also, we are asked to assume a good standard of play (i.e. contestants have been selected to play for their country). I am quite certain that in this case Bobby Wolff would adjust the score. My prejudices tell me that the typical AC at an ACBL congress also would adjust the score (but Alan probably is a better judge of that). At any rate, the EBL TD course organizers, who lay out the directions for the rest of us in EBL-land (I could say Europe, but Israel is a very active member), would not adjust the score. From owner-bridge-laws Fri May 3 01:39:28 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA09074 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 3 May 1996 01:39:28 +1000 Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [128.103.40.170]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id BAA09069 for ; Fri, 3 May 1996 01:39:18 +1000 Received: from cfa183.harvard.edu (cfa183.harvard.edu [131.142.12.59]) by cfa.harvard.edu (8.7.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id LAA06916 for ; Thu, 2 May 1996 11:39:08 -0400 (EDT) Received: by cfa183.harvard.edu (5.x/SMI-SVR4) id AA22057; Thu, 2 May 1996 11:41:05 -0400 Date: Thu, 2 May 1996 11:41:05 -0400 From: willner@cfa183.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Message-Id: <9605021541.AA22057@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Comments on lots of issues X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: David Stevenson > If a pair use UI (intentionally or not) and gain an advantage and then > you rule that you cannot know whether their UI showed a strong or weak > hand so no adjustment "to be fair" then you have been unfair to their > opponents. Obviously so. We even agree on the standard of proof (preponderance of the evidence). The question is what evidence is needed to infer use of UI. Is each case to be examined individually, or is there a general rule (derived on statistical grounds, presumably) that is also admitted as evidence? > I do not think your position gives justice to players whose opponents > have UI available. Let me try just once more. The issue is a slow raise from one to two. The EBU asserts that the hesitation shows a maximum raise and adjusts scores accordingly. I assert that the hesitation shows either a maximum or minimum raise and that one cannot tell which without further information. (It might be interesting to discuss how often such further evidence will be available, but for purposes of discussion I'll concede "seldom.") Clearly it's possible that players fall into any of three categories with the following effect: player habit EBU rule "Steve's rule" 1. slow shows maximum always restores equity seldom restores equity 2. slow shows minimum never restores equity seldom restores equity 3. slow could show either 50% removes equity always retains equity It seems to me that one's view of which rule is most equitable must depend on one's view of how many players fall into each category. Do we have merely a factual disagreement on the numbers, or is there some other disagreement I am missing? From owner-bridge-laws Fri May 3 02:19:20 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA09324 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 3 May 1996 02:19:20 +1000 Received: from emout14.mail.aol.com (emout14.mx.aol.com [198.81.11.40]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id CAA09319 for ; Fri, 3 May 1996 02:19:13 +1000 From: AlLeBendig@aol.com Received: by emout14.mail.aol.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) id MAA27110 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Thu, 2 May 1996 12:18:39 -0400 Date: Thu, 2 May 1996 12:18:39 -0400 Message-ID: <960502121838_482749427@emout14.mail.aol.com> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Law 27.B Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In a message dated 96-04-30 16:05:02 EDT Eric writes: > >Jens makes a very good point in his reply to me. I proposed a heuristic >rule for (a) deciding whether we can make an a presumption on this, and >(b) if we can, telling us what it is. Jens says, why not ask him what he >thought he was bidding to, and simply judge the credibility of his reply. >That's the right answer in theory, and quite workable in Europe, where >the TD really does serve as an adjudicator. I'm not sure how it would go >over in ACBL-land, where TDs aren't charged with making bridge judgments; I agree with Jens that this is the most logical approach. I have no problem with our (ACBL) TDs making this determination. They are charged with determining facts and making a decision based on those facts. I can't imagine a situation in which a person tells us what auction he thought he was bidding in and his hand not making it fairly clear whether he is lying. Therefore I think this approach is totally workable here. >they function more like beat cops, while the AC plays the role of trial >jury rather than appelate court, as it does in Europe. (I have no idea >which model is better fits Australia.) > >But while it tells us what to presume, it doesn't answer the question of >whether anything can or should be presumed. We can't let the answer >depend in any way on the nature of the correction bid. And I'm not >comfortable with the notion of automatically applying 27.B.2 when no >resonable presumption is available. It still makes more sense to me to >say that an undefined bid is not conventional than that it is. /eric I still am not comfortable with a blanket statement. I must deal on a case by case basis. Here is new problem. Pro is playing with customer and holds six hearts and a seven count. Customer opens 2NT and pro bids 2D. TD makes proper ruling and pro is "forced" to now bid 4H. They play Jacoby and Texas and this is only way for pro to declare. He of course is adament he heard 1NT. I do not believe him. Would anyone be uncomfortable with me allowing the transfer to still take place based on the assumption that enforcing the penalty damages the opponents? Alan LeBendig From owner-bridge-laws Fri May 3 02:19:37 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA09346 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 3 May 1996 02:19:37 +1000 Received: from emout13.mail.aol.com (emout13.mx.aol.com [198.81.11.39]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id CAA09335 for ; Fri, 3 May 1996 02:19:26 +1000 From: AlLeBendig@aol.com Received: by emout13.mail.aol.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) id MAA20955 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Thu, 2 May 1996 12:18:52 -0400 Date: Thu, 2 May 1996 12:18:52 -0400 Message-ID: <960502121851_482749560@emout13.mail.aol.com> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Law 27B - reply to Eric Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In a message dated 96-04-30 16:39:59 EDT Eric writes: > >A few months later we were playing in a tournament when an insufficient >bid arose. J. accepted and jumped. I alerted, and, on inquiry, told the >opponents of our theoretical discussion and that, based on it, I was >going to assume that this showed a stronger hand than had he rejected the >insufficient bid. The opponents called the director, who ruled that this >was an illegal agreement; the score would be actual result or A+/A-, >whichever was better for the "non-offending" opponents. We appealed to a >committee. > >My argument was that our discussion of bidding theory had happened, and >couldn't be made to un-happen; it was a fact. We hadn't set out to make >specific agreements, and had not done so, but we admittedly had learned >how we each would approach such situations, not necessarily with each >other, but with any partner. At the time it came up at the table, I had >only two possible choices; I could either tell the opponents about the >discussion, which I felt ethically obligated to do in order to achieve >full disclosure, or I could say nothing and keep them in the dark. Did >the committee really wish to rule that I had made the wrong choice? > >Under the ACBL's policy, the poor committee was stuck. It made >absolutely no sense to rule against me, but seemed to be going directly >against ACBL regulations to rule for me. They couldn't go either way. I think they could have comfortably allowed the result to stand, Eric. If I was questioned about some obscure auction and told the opponents that a few years ago my partner and I had discussed the logic involved in a similar situation but had never agreed on how we would resolve it, I have not formed an agreement about that auction. It was merely discussed. In your situation you discussed the logic involved in a given situation which anyone might find themselves placed in. I don't feel this was tantamount to having formed an agreement. I have discussed with several partners that obvious logic will always apply. I can't imagine such an agreement being ruled illegal based on our regulation. I think the original purpose of this regulation was to prevent conventional agreements from being in place. Such as 1S-1C which I now choose to accept and treat 1D as a transfer to hearts. I can see why we might consider that wrong. But I have no problem if someone tells me it is logical to accept and treat 1S as a weak raise. I don't believe that barring logic in such a situation was ever intended. The Regulation specifically addresses systems or conventional calls. However, I will discuss this with the Laws Commission during the Miami NABC. >Ultimately, they said that what I had done was clearly illegal, but that >since I was trying to be ethical when I could have avoided any adverse >ruling by not trying to be ethical, they would let the score stand, but I >was under warning not to do it again. I always feel better when ACs figure out some way to do the right thing. EK has told me more than once that if one doesn't like what a Law says in a given situation, find another Law. There is almost always a way to achieve equity. >For over 25 years now I've been wondering just what it was that I'm not >supposed to do again. Discuss bidding theory with bridge-playing friends >in my living room? Ever mention insufficient bids in conversation (if >so, I'm in trouble now!)? Play bridge with J. Merrill? Try to give full >information to my opponents when I know something they don't that might >be relevant? If there's a meaningful answer, it eludes me. > >I must say, Herman, that I'm very impressed that you were able to see >right through the ACBL's silly position and strike to the heart of the >matter based on a mere parenthetical note in my earlier post! /eric I agree, Eric. It was good that he noticed it and also pointed out how silly it is. Alan LeBendig From owner-bridge-laws Fri May 3 02:19:38 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA09347 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 3 May 1996 02:19:38 +1000 Received: from emout19.mail.aol.com (emout19.mx.aol.com [198.81.11.45]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id CAA09336 for ; Fri, 3 May 1996 02:19:30 +1000 From: AlLeBendig@aol.com Received: by emout19.mail.aol.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) id MAA06526 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Thu, 2 May 1996 12:18:56 -0400 Date: Thu, 2 May 1996 12:18:56 -0400 Message-ID: <960502121856_482749589@emout19.mail.aol.com> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Agreements about insufficient bids Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In a message dated 96-05-01 17:22:31 EDT Eric writes: >The real problem with the ACBL's rules, though, is that now, having read >the above paragraph, you are all poisoned. If you were ever to play in >an ACBL event with someone else on this list, whom you know to have read >it also, you would, in the eyes of the ACBL, by virtue of merely having >participated in a discussion of the subject, have an illegal implicit >agreement regarding the use of conventions over insufficient bids. >Should the situation arise at the table, you would be unable to ethically >double them in either 1C or 2C for either takeout or penalty without >taking advantage of illicit prior knowledge of how your partner would be >likely to interpret your bid. Since you can't undo the fact that you've >had the discussion, you will find yourself in the position of being >severely disadvantaged by the fact that your opponents made an >insufficient bid. Once again, I don't believe this was the intent or the meaning of this regulation. It addresses systems or conventions. Logic falls in neither of those categories. The decisions being discussed are all logical and I would never rule that logical agreements are systems. I can understand why a TD would rule as such (no insult intended) since it could be argued that the Regulation may be applicable. I would hope that an AC would analyze the situation and do the right thing. Alan LeBendig From owner-bridge-laws Fri May 3 02:19:46 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA09370 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 3 May 1996 02:19:46 +1000 Received: from emout10.mail.aol.com (emout10.mx.aol.com [198.81.11.25]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id CAA09345 for ; Fri, 3 May 1996 02:19:37 +1000 From: AlLeBendig@aol.com Received: by emout10.mail.aol.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) id MAA21376 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Thu, 2 May 1996 12:19:03 -0400 Date: Thu, 2 May 1996 12:19:03 -0400 Message-ID: <960502121903_482749622@emout10.mail.aol.com> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Logical alternative benchmark hand Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In a message dated 96-05-02 03:08:59 EDT Jens writes: >Subj: Logical alternative benchmark hand >Date: 96-05-02 03:08:59 EDT >From: jbc@cri.dk (Jens Brix Christiansen) >Sender: owner-bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au >To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au > >Here is a hand from the EBL TD course in Milan, January 1996. It >illustrates how the concept of *logical alternative* (LA), as laid >out in Law 16, is delineated by the EBL. > >Dealer West. N/S Vulnerable. Teams. > > S K9732 > H J9 > D 9543 > C 97 > S AT8 S Q764 > H KQ6 H T8732 > D KQJT8 D 762 > C A3 C 4 > S J > H A54 > D A > C KQJT8652 > >West North East South >1D P P ...3NT >x ...p p 4C >x p p p > >The TD is called after South's call of 4C and West tells him that >South huddled before bidding 3NT and North huddled even longer >before passing after West's double. All agree on these facts. >The TD tells them to continue and South makes 9 tricks. The TD is >called again; E/W think that the 4C bid has been influenced by >the hesitation. > >This was a problem on the final written examination. I ruled that >the score should be adjusted under Law 16; South had a LA (staying >in 3NTx), and the huddle before the pass indicated that running >from the double probably was best. > >I was wrong. The official answer is to let the score stand. I think the official answer is clearly correct. >There is UI, it is useful, and it indicates the action taken. >However, staying in 3NTx is not considered a LA; no substantial >minority of Souths would chance playing 3NTx. If I were to judge it in our terms, I would say that some might consider passing 3NTx, but it would only be briefly and none would give it serious consideration. When I'm making these decisions, I consider everything. This would be one pass I would quickly eliminate. > >In order to prevent a side thread, let me also mention that the >directions given in the exam ask us, when judgement is involved, >to use an approach that minimizes appeals while avoiding a >situation where the non-offending side wins its case if it >appeals; also, we are asked to assume a good standard of play >(i.e. contestants have been selected to play for their country). > >I am quite certain that in this case Bobby Wolff would adjust the >score. My prejudices tell me that the typical AC at an ACBL >congress also would adjust the score (but Alan probably is a >better judge of that). I think you are being unfair to Bobby and our ACs. I don't think Bobby would argue with the table result since a pass is no a LA. He may want to penalize N for hesitating... I never know what an AC is going to do, but I have trouble believing any good one would adjust. >At any rate, the EBL TD course organizers, >who lay out the directions for the rest of us in EBL-land (I could >say Europe, but Israel is a very active member), would not adjust >the score. See, we do agree on some things! Alan LeBendig P. S. Am I ever sorry I complained about the volume of activity! From owner-bridge-laws Fri May 3 02:48:07 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA09479 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 3 May 1996 02:48:07 +1000 Received: from mipl7.jpl.nasa.gov (mipl7.jpl.nasa.gov [128.149.177.7]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id CAA09474 for ; Fri, 3 May 1996 02:48:02 +1000 Received: from tintin.JPL.NASA.GOV (tintin.jpl.nasa.gov [128.149.102.7]) by mipl7.jpl.nasa.gov (8.6.12/8.6.6) with ESMTP id JAA04243 for <@mipl7.JPL.NASA.GOV:bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au>; Thu, 2 May 1996 09:47:20 -0700 Received: by tintin.JPL.NASA.GOV (940816.SGI.8.6.9/930416.SGI.MIPS) for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au id JAA21229; Thu, 2 May 1996 09:52:47 -0700 Date: Thu, 2 May 1996 09:52:47 -0700 From: jeff@tintin.JPL.NASA.GOV (Jeff Goldsmith) Message-Id: <199605021652.JAA21229@tintin.JPL.NASA.GOV> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Subject: Re: Law 27.B |To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au |From: AlLeBendig@aol.com |In a message dated 96-04-30 16:05:02 EDT Eric writes: |Here is new problem. Pro is playing with customer and holds six hearts and a |seven count. Customer opens 2NT and pro bids 2D. TD makes proper ruling and |pro is "forced" to now bid 4H. They play Jacoby and Texas and this is only |way for pro to declare. He of course is adament he heard 1NT. I do not |believe him. Would anyone be uncomfortable with me allowing the transfer to |still take place based on the assumption that enforcing the penalty damages |the opponents? I'd rule ave+/ave- on the basis of Law 23. It'd probably be more equitable to rule that the transfer takes place, but (a) I think this ruling is consistent with the laws, and (b) the pro needs to be told that this particular tactic is not going to work. --Jeff # Cthulhu in '96! Why vote for the lesser evil? # --- # http://muggy.gg.caltech.edu/~jeff From owner-bridge-laws Fri May 3 03:40:11 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA09620 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 3 May 1996 03:40:11 +1000 Received: from mwunix.mitre.org (mwunix.mitre.org [128.29.154.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id DAA09615 for ; Fri, 3 May 1996 03:40:05 +1000 Received: from mwmgate2.mitre.org (mwmgate2.mitre.org [128.29.155.13]) by mwunix.mitre.org (8.6.10/8.6.4) with SMTP id NAA07160; Thu, 2 May 1996 13:39:59 -0400 Message-Id: <199605021739.NAA07160@mwunix.mitre.org> Date: Thu, 02 May 96 13:40:05 EDT From: D_Hard%huac@MWMGATE1.mitre.org To: willner@cfa183.harvard.edu (Steve Willner), bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re[4]: conventional Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Steve, All, In reference to Stayman, I would say that the diamond response is conventional. If you have an agreement about which major suit you show first, than a major suit response could be conventional since it could provide information about the other major suit. For example, you have the agreement that with both major suits you always show hearts first. Than the sequence 1N-2C-2S absolutely denies 4 hearts. Is this inference based on a special partnership agreement sufficient to make the bid conventional or can it be obtained through bridge logic? At this point of time unless you have complete knowledge of all agreements, bridge logic will not allow you to know that the bid denies 4 hearts. As a player, you normally don't care since the future auction will provide this information or, if necessary, you can ask prior to the opening lead. As a director, the application of Law 27B requires a determination if a bid is conventional. It would appear to me that in most cases, the response to a conventional bid could be considered conventional in that it relays information based on special partnership agreements. What is the consensus about the reply to a conventional bid being conventional? Don _______________________________________________________________________________ Subject: Re: Re[2]: conventional From: willner@cfa183.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) at -smtp- Date: 5/1/96 7:40 PM > Are responses to a conventional bid conventional? I would think so. Not necessarily. Refer to the definition. I think even you will agree that major suit responses to Stayman are not conventional. > If 5 diamonds showed the A of Diamonds and denied a > club control as the response to a 4NT control asking bid, would it be > conventional? Again, I would think so, but I am no longer sure. This is harder. Is the denial of club control bridge logic or agreement? I'd tend to say the former, but reasonable people might disagree. If 5D denies all other controls (e.g., there are special bids for two or more controls), then it might well be conventional. From owner-bridge-laws Fri May 3 03:47:49 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA09654 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 3 May 1996 03:47:49 +1000 Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [128.103.40.170]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id DAA09649 for ; Fri, 3 May 1996 03:47:42 +1000 Received: from cfa183.harvard.edu (cfa183.harvard.edu [131.142.12.59]) by cfa.harvard.edu (8.7.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id NAA30360 for ; Thu, 2 May 1996 13:47:37 -0400 (EDT) Received: by cfa183.harvard.edu (5.x/SMI-SVR4) id AA22210; Thu, 2 May 1996 13:49:34 -0400 Date: Thu, 2 May 1996 13:49:34 -0400 From: willner@cfa183.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Message-Id: <9605021749.AA22210@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Law 27.B X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > Would anyone be uncomfortable with me allowing the transfer to > still take place based on the assumption that enforcing the penalty damages > the opponents? I like it! I think, strictly speaking, you have to ask the opponents for permission, but then you can waive the penalty under 81C8. On the other hand, few people are going to complain if you ignore the nicety of asking. The pro will get what he really deserves when the client, completely confused by the happenings, passes 3D. :-) An alternative is to adjust the score under 27B1b. (I also like your comment attributed to EK: if you don't like the result of one law, find another law! The case you mention seems a good time to apply that.) From owner-bridge-laws Fri May 3 06:22:57 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA17818 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 3 May 1996 06:22:57 +1000 Received: from electra.cc.umanitoba.ca (root@electra.cc.umanitoba.ca [130.179.16.23]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id GAA17813 for ; Fri, 3 May 1996 06:22:52 +1000 Received: from ankaa.cc.umanitoba.ca (root@ankaa.cc.umanitoba.ca [130.179.16.47]) by electra.cc.umanitoba.ca (8.7.1/8.7.1) with SMTP id PAA08701 for ; Thu, 2 May 1996 15:22:33 -0500 (CDT) Received: by ankaa.cc.umanitoba.ca (4.1/25-eef) id AA12884; Thu, 2 May 96 15:22:26 CDT Message-Id: <9605022022.AA12884@ankaa.cc.umanitoba.ca> Date: Thu, 02 May 96 15:22 CDT From: Barry Wolk To: Subject: Re: conventional Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk The definition from the Laws of the term "Convention" has already been quoted in this thread. I found the following in the ACBL tech files. >DEFINITION OF TREATMENTS >ACBL defines "treatments" as calls that either indicate a desire to >play in the denomination named, or promise or request values in the >denomination named, but that also, by agreement, give or request >information on which further action can be based. Forcing bids, for >example, are treatments. Cue bids that show or ask about length or >high cards in the suit named are treatments. > >Note: Cue bids do not require an alert. > >DEFINITION OF CONVENTIONS >ACBL defines conventions as calls that, by agreement rather than >logical inference, give or request information unrelated to the >denomination named. Transfer bids, for example, are conventions. >When decoded they convey a message about a suit other than the one >named. Cue bids that show length in suits other than the one named, >are conventions. Barry Wolk Dept of Mathematics University of Manitoba Winnipeg Manitoba Canada From owner-bridge-laws Fri May 3 07:01:04 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA17936 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 3 May 1996 07:01:04 +1000 Received: from andrew.cais.com (andrew.cais.com [199.0.216.215]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id HAA17929 for ; Fri, 3 May 1996 07:00:52 +1000 Received: from cais3.cais.com (cais3.cais.com [199.0.216.227]) by andrew.cais.com (8.6.9/8.6.9) with SMTP id RAA14446 for ; Thu, 2 May 1996 17:00:41 -0400 Date: Thu, 2 May 1996 17:00:41 -0400 (EDT) From: Eric Landau X-Sender: elandau@cais3.cais.com To: Bridge Laws Discussion List Subject: Re: Law 27.B In-Reply-To: <960502121838_482749427@emout14.mail.aol.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Thu, 2 May 1996 AlLeBendig@aol.com wrote: > I agree with Jens that this is the most logical approach. I have no problem > with our (ACBL) TDs making this determination. They are charged with > determining facts and making a decision based on those facts. I can't > imagine a situation in which a person tells us what auction he thought he was > bidding in and his hand not making it fairly clear whether he is lying. > Therefore I think this approach is totally workable here. I'm comfortable with this. Since it's clear that the best way to get a credible assumption about what the bidder though he heard is to quiz him at the table as soon as possible after the infraction, it's got to be up to the TD to do it. It can pass as a "finding of fact." Once the assumption is established, the AC, as a matter of "bridge judgment," can always overrule the director as to whether or not the established "facts" suggest that the bid "may have been conventional." > >But while it tells us what to presume, it doesn't answer the question of > >whether anything can or should be presumed. We can't let the answer > >depend in any way on the nature of the correction bid. And I'm not > >comfortable with the notion of automatically applying 27.B.2 when no > >resonable presumption is available. It still makes more sense to me to > >say that an undefined bid is not conventional than that it is. /eric > > I still am not comfortable with a blanket statement. I must deal on a case > by case basis. Again, I agree. But there may still be individual cases where the appropriate presumption can't be determined, leaving the bid "undefined." In those cases, I'd prefer to presume "not conventional." (Perhaps I'm biased by the numerous occasions on which, in discussing methods, I've made the explicit agreement with a new partner that "if we haven't defined it it's natural.") > Here is new problem. Pro is playing with customer and holds six hearts and a > seven count. Customer opens 2NT and pro bids 2D. TD makes proper ruling and > pro is "forced" to now bid 4H. They play Jacoby and Texas and this is only > way for pro to declare. He of course is adament he heard 1NT. I do not > believe him. Would anyone be uncomfortable with me allowing the transfer to > still take place based on the assumption that enforcing the penalty damages > the opponents? I'm not at all uncomfortable from a moral or ethical standpoint. The legality is a bit tricky. I'd guess that some would call it flatly illegal, citing 12.B ("The Director may not award an adjusted score on the ground that the penalty provided in these Laws is either unduly severe or advantageous to either side" -- does "adjusted score" subsume any action which affects the score?) and 72.A.5 ("After the offending side has paid the prescribed penalty... it is appropriate for [them] to make any call or play advantageous to their side, even though they thereby appear to profit..."). But, on the other hand, the TD/AC has broad powers to restore equity as needed under 72.B.1 IF they find that the pro (may have?) deliberately made the insuffient bid to gain advantage. This is tricky. What the TD could do in this case is to explain to the non-offenders that the penalty prescribed for the infraction might work to their disadvantage, and ask them if they want to "allow" the transfer to "work" at the correct level; if they say they do, he can then waive the penalty and "allow" the pro to bid 3D as a transfer without barring the client. Now if the pro bids 4H anyway both logic and precedent would say that 72.B.1 applies. The best answer would be to rewrite Law 27 so that an insufficient bid may be corrected without penalty whenever either (a) both the IB and the correction are natural, or (b) the correction carries essentially the same conventional meaning as the IB. (b) would eliminate inequities in certain clear-cut cases (this is one; another is, say, 1C-2S-2S, where responder heard 1C-1S-). The underlying approach -- allow the correction when it doesn't change the essential meaning of the bid -- would also solve the problem of a natural IB corrected to a now-suddenly-natural sufficient bid that would otherwise have been conventional. And minor differences subsumed by "essentially" could be handled by making the IB and correction UI to the bidder's partner. /eric Eric Landau APL Solutions, Inc. elandau@cais.com 1107 Dale Drive (301) 589-4621 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 USA From owner-bridge-laws Fri May 3 08:10:08 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA18283 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 3 May 1996 08:10:08 +1000 Received: (from markus@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA18277 for bridge-laws@rgb; Fri, 3 May 1996 08:10:04 +1000 Date: Fri, 3 May 1996 08:10:04 +1000 From: Markus Buchhorn Message-Id: <199605022210.IAA18277@octavia.anu.edu.au> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: From Jeff Goldsmith Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk [Came to me by mistake. Jeff - your mailer appears to be using the wrong field to reply to ('Sender:') (and also losing the Subject: ?)... -Markus] Date: Thu, 2 May 1996 10:57:09 -0700 From: jeff@tintin.JPL.NASA.GOV (Jeff Goldsmith) To: owner-bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au |From: D_Hard%huac@MWMGATE1.mitre.org |Sender: owner-bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au | |Steve, |All, |In reference to Stayman, I would say that the diamond response is conventional. |If you have an agreement about which major suit you show first, than a major |suit response could be conventional since it could provide information about the |other major suit. For example, you have the agreement that with both major |suits you always show hearts first. Than the sequence 1N-2C-2S absolutely |denies 4 hearts. Is this inference based on a special partnership agreement |sufficient to make the bid conventional or can it be obtained through bridge |logic? At this point of time unless you have complete knowledge of all |agreements, bridge logic will not allow you to know that the bid denies 4 |hearts. As a player, you normally don't care since the future auction will |provide this information or, if necessary, you can ask prior to the opening |lead. As a director, the application of Law 27B requires a determination if a |bid is conventional. It would appear to me that in most cases, the response to |a conventional bid could be considered conventional in that it relays |information based on special partnership agreements. What is the consensus |about the reply to a conventional bid being conventional? Playing standard american, 1C-1S denies four hearts unless the bidder has five or more spades. That's information about another suit, yet 1S is not conventional. Stayman responses are pretty similar. --Jeff # Cthulhu in '96! Why vote for the lesser evil? # --- # http://muggy.gg.caltech.edu/~jeff From owner-bridge-laws Fri May 3 10:19:50 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA18851 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 3 May 1996 10:19:50 +1000 Received: from relay-2.mail.demon.net (disperse.demon.co.uk [158.152.1.77]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id KAA18813 for ; Fri, 3 May 1996 10:14:53 +1000 Received: from post.demon.co.uk ([158.152.1.72]) by relay-2.mail.demon.net id au09400; 3 May 96 0:20 +0100 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by relay-3.mail.demon.net id aa24008; 3 May 96 0:10 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 2 May 1996 21:33:09 +0100 To: Bridge Laws From: David Stevenson Subject: Sympathy MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 1.12 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Hi All I was not sure whether to post this to this mailing list or RGB so I have done both! In article , Craig Ganzer writes >In article <4m5gcb$sls@azure.acsu.buffalo.edu>, >Lori T Richau wrote: >> >>East is dealer, and passes, south holds: >> >>S: Kxx >>H: Jx >>D: AKxx >>C: Qxxx >> and of course opens 1d. West passes, and north bids 2 diamonds > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >While I would have opened 1D on this hand because of the suit quality of >the minors, I usually open 1C on this shape (I plan to rebid 1NT, and if >partner must make a response in a 3-card suit, as happens occasionally, >I'd much rather give him the option of bidding 1D). Certainly I don't >think it's automatic to open 1D, although I realize this is not the >mainstream view. > >>which is alerted by south as being an inverted minor type forcing hand. >>East now bids 2h, and it goes all pass.. >> >>North East South West >> - P 1D P >> 2D(!) 2H (al pass) >> >>Result: 2 Hearts made 6 for +230, >>West argued that the forcing type explanation left him room to bid after >>norths rebid, since it was a forcing type hand. South disagreed... >>The argument proceeded that west should take some action at some point in >>the auction, if not at the first opportunity, then at least at the second. >>The ruling went in North-South's favor, after some strange explanation at >>the table..-230 stood, which happened to be a push, cuz the outcome was the >>same at the other table. What should correct ruling be? All four hands >> > >West clearly misbid, and therefore caused his own disaster. Even if he >expected another chance to bid, he "knows" partner is weak and thus >should have taken an advance save. It's silly to plan an auction, as he >apparently did, that allows the opponents maximum room to exchange >information, and then to bid once they know what their correct actions >over the save will be. So I have very little sympathy. So it is a misbid if they do not follow your own approach to how to handle competitive bidding? Some players like to let their opponents exchange information in the belief that it helps them. This may not be your method (and it is not mine) but to say it is a misbid because they do not follow your methods seems a bit extreme. There have been several articles over the recent months that show a lack of sympathy for the problems caused to the non-offending side. If there is an infraction then the opponents have been placed in a position that they should not have had to cope with and it would be a good idea if a lot more sympathy was shown to them when they then take unsuccessful actions. This is especially the case when it is argued, not just here but in several other articles and threads, that an alternative bidding sequence was obvious. Please remember that the people who think it obvious are looking at all four hands. This is like Rixi Markus, of whom it was said "She never made a wrong bid or played a wrong card after the hand was over." When English TDs are trained they are taught to have sympathy for the players and consider their problems. When English AC Chairmen and Appeals Consultants are chosen sympathy for differing problems is a pre- requisite. I hope this is the same throughout the world but several articles have made me think otherwise. So the next time you give a ruling as a TD or as a member of an AC, or give an opinion on a ruling to RGB or elsewhere, remember to have sympathy: remember that while the hand may seem simple to you the original players could only see one hand: you are looking at four. [ My apologies, Craig, for expressing my views so strongly: their strength is the result of many articles not just this one. :):) ] > However, N-S >should be penalized for not knowing their methods; to avoid rewarding E-W >for their poor actions, a 1- or 2-veep penalty (equivalent to 3-5 imps) >would be appropriate. > >As a side note, E-W should have called the director before the auction >ended, once it was established that N-S had passed out a "forcing" auction. Before the auction ended? It was N/S passing an apparently forcing bid that ended the auction! :-) :-) -- David Stevenson Bridge Cats Railways Logic /\_/\ Nothing ventured, nothing gained |- -| david@blakjak.demon.co.uk Emails welcome =( @ )= Tel: +44 (0)151 677 7412 Phone before Fax please \^/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri May 3 10:21:23 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA18868 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 3 May 1996 10:21:23 +1000 Received: from relay-2.mail.demon.net (disperse.demon.co.uk [158.152.1.77]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id KAA18863 for ; Fri, 3 May 1996 10:20:36 +1000 Received: from post.demon.co.uk ([158.152.1.72]) by relay-2.mail.demon.net id au09400; 3 May 96 0:20 +0100 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by relay-3.mail.demon.net id aa24008; 3 May 96 0:10 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 2 May 1996 21:33:09 +0100 To: Bridge Laws From: David Stevenson Subject: Sympathy MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 1.12 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Hi All I was not sure whether to post this to this mailing list or RGB so I have done both! In article , Craig Ganzer writes >In article <4m5gcb$sls@azure.acsu.buffalo.edu>, >Lori T Richau wrote: >> >>East is dealer, and passes, south holds: >> >>S: Kxx >>H: Jx >>D: AKxx >>C: Qxxx >> and of course opens 1d. West passes, and north bids 2 diamonds > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >While I would have opened 1D on this hand because of the suit quality of >the minors, I usually open 1C on this shape (I plan to rebid 1NT, and if >partner must make a response in a 3-card suit, as happens occasionally, >I'd much rather give him the option of bidding 1D). Certainly I don't >think it's automatic to open 1D, although I realize this is not the >mainstream view. > >>which is alerted by south as being an inverted minor type forcing hand. >>East now bids 2h, and it goes all pass.. >> >>North East South West >> - P 1D P >> 2D(!) 2H (al pass) >> >>Result: 2 Hearts made 6 for +230, >>West argued that the forcing type explanation left him room to bid after >>norths rebid, since it was a forcing type hand. South disagreed... >>The argument proceeded that west should take some action at some point in >>the auction, if not at the first opportunity, then at least at the second. >>The ruling went in North-South's favor, after some strange explanation at >>the table..-230 stood, which happened to be a push, cuz the outcome was the >>same at the other table. What should correct ruling be? All four hands >> > >West clearly misbid, and therefore caused his own disaster. Even if he >expected another chance to bid, he "knows" partner is weak and thus >should have taken an advance save. It's silly to plan an auction, as he >apparently did, that allows the opponents maximum room to exchange >information, and then to bid once they know what their correct actions >over the save will be. So I have very little sympathy. So it is a misbid if they do not follow your own approach to how to handle competitive bidding? Some players like to let their opponents exchange information in the belief that it helps them. This may not be your method (and it is not mine) but to say it is a misbid because they do not follow your methods seems a bit extreme. There have been several articles over the recent months that show a lack of sympathy for the problems caused to the non-offending side. If there is an infraction then the opponents have been placed in a position that they should not have had to cope with and it would be a good idea if a lot more sympathy was shown to them when they then take unsuccessful actions. This is especially the case when it is argued, not just here but in several other articles and threads, that an alternative bidding sequence was obvious. Please remember that the people who think it obvious are looking at all four hands. This is like Rixi Markus, of whom it was said "She never made a wrong bid or played a wrong card after the hand was over." When English TDs are trained they are taught to have sympathy for the players and consider their problems. When English AC Chairmen and Appeals Consultants are chosen sympathy for differing problems is a pre- requisite. I hope this is the same throughout the world but several articles have made me think otherwise. So the next time you give a ruling as a TD or as a member of an AC, or give an opinion on a ruling to RGB or elsewhere, remember to have sympathy: remember that while the hand may seem simple to you the original players could only see one hand: you are looking at four. [ My apologies, Craig, for expressing my views so strongly: their strength is the result of many articles not just this one. :):) ] > However, N-S >should be penalized for not knowing their methods; to avoid rewarding E-W >for their poor actions, a 1- or 2-veep penalty (equivalent to 3-5 imps) >would be appropriate. > >As a side note, E-W should have called the director before the auction >ended, once it was established that N-S had passed out a "forcing" auction. Before the auction ended? It was N/S passing an apparently forcing bid that ended the auction! :-) :-) -- David Stevenson Bridge Cats Railways Logic /\_/\ Nothing ventured, nothing gained |- -| david@blakjak.demon.co.uk Emails welcome =( @ )= Tel: +44 (0)151 677 7412 Phone before Fax please \^/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri May 3 10:46:24 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA18957 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 3 May 1996 10:46:24 +1000 Received: from emout10.mail.aol.com (emout10.mx.aol.com [198.81.11.25]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id KAA18951 for ; Fri, 3 May 1996 10:46:15 +1000 From: AlLeBendig@aol.com Received: by emout10.mail.aol.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) id UAA27910 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Thu, 2 May 1996 20:43:57 -0400 Date: Thu, 2 May 1996 20:43:57 -0400 Message-ID: <960502204357_483030421@emout10.mail.aol.com> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Fwd: Comments on lots of issues Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In a message dated 96-05-02 12:18:59 EDT, AlLeBendig writes: << Subj: Re: Comments on lots of issues Date: 96-05-02 12:18:59 EDT From: AlLeBendig To: david@blakjak.demon.co.uk In a message dated 96-05-01 21:34:46 EDT David writes: >Yes: it is obviously me that has not made it clear. The 1S - 2S is a >special case so consider 1S - 3S where the EBU has no agreement. The >two sides to which I refer are not the people who think it is strong or >weak but the people whose own side hesitate and the people whose >opponents hesitate. > > If a pair use UI (intentionally or not) and gain an advantage and then >you rule that you cannot know whether their UI showed a strong or weak >hand so no adjustment "to be fair" then you have been unfair to their >opponents. > > I do not think your position gives justice to players whose opponents >have UI available. David- I basically still side with Steve on this. As I have said, I tend to agree with the EBU policy. However, I am still uncomfortable with a determination I will always rule the same way because I have a feeling. We are in total agreement that after a slow raise there is UI. The EBU is willing to always assign a meaning to the UI, Steve and I are uncomfortable with that. On the surface, the only clear meaning is that partner had a problem. I do not necessarily feel I am being unjust to the non-offenders by refusing to automatically adjust. I will deal on a case by case basis and make decisions based on how I feel about a given situation and pair. As I have said in the past, if I really believe that an injustice was done, I may apply 16B and accomplish the same thing. For those new to this group, such an adjustment would be based on the finding that we believe the given pair had some UI available and did not report it to the TD. To make such a finding we do not have to determine the source of the UI. If it walks like a duck and quacks, it is usually a duck. I am in no way suggesting that the EBL is doing anything wrong since my own beliefs are mirrored in that policy. I, like Steve, am still uncomfortable in applying such a belief on a blanket basis. Alan LeBendig >> --------------------- Forwarded message: Subj: Re: Comments on lots of issues Date: 96-05-02 12:18:59 EDT From: AlLeBendig To: david@blakjak.demon.co.uk In a message dated 96-05-01 21:34:46 EDT David writes: >Yes: it is obviously me that has not made it clear. The 1S - 2S is a >special case so consider 1S - 3S where the EBU has no agreement. The >two sides to which I refer are not the people who think it is strong or >weak but the people whose own side hesitate and the people whose >opponents hesitate. > > If a pair use UI (intentionally or not) and gain an advantage and then >you rule that you cannot know whether their UI showed a strong or weak >hand so no adjustment "to be fair" then you have been unfair to their >opponents. > > I do not think your position gives justice to players whose opponents >have UI available. David- I basically still side with Steve on this. As I have said, I tend to agree with the EBU policy. However, I am still uncomfortable with a determination I will always rule the same way because I have a feeling. We are in total agreement that after a slow raise there is UI. The EBU is willing to always assign a meaning to the UI, Steve and I are uncomfortable with that. On the surface, the only clear meaning is that partner had a problem. I do not necessarily feel I am being unjust to the non-offenders by refusing to automatically adjust. I will deal on a case by case basis and make decisions based on how I feel about a given situation and pair. As I have said in the past, if I really believe that an injustice was done, I may apply 16B and accomplish the same thing. For those new to this group, such an adjustment would be based on the finding that we believe the given pair had some UI available and did not report it to the TD. To make such a finding we do not have to determine the source of the UI. If it walks like a duck and quacks, it is usually a duck. I am in no way suggesting that the EBL is doing anything wrong since my own beliefs are mirrored in that policy. I, like Steve, am still uncomfortable in applying such a belief on a blanket basis. Alan LeBendig From owner-bridge-laws Fri May 3 11:38:51 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id LAA19157 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 3 May 1996 11:38:51 +1000 Received: from relay-4.mail.demon.net (relay-4.mail.demon.net [158.152.1.108]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id LAA19152 for ; Fri, 3 May 1996 11:37:49 +1000 Received: from post.demon.co.uk ([158.152.1.72]) by relay-4.mail.demon.net id ac01391; 3 May 96 1:32 GMT Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by relay-3.mail.demon.net id aa09245; 3 May 96 2:02 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 3 May 1996 00:50:32 +0100 To: Bridge Laws From: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Comments on lots of issues In-Reply-To: <9605021541.AA22057@cfa183.harvard.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 1.12 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Hi Steve Hi All OK, I admit it: I have totally lost track of what you are talking about. The part of the dissertation with which I strongly disagree is the following copied electronically from an earlier mail. > This was exactly my point. There's no way to track all huddles via > the committee system. Unless you are prepared to punish innocent > pairs who do indeed huddle with both strong and weak hands, you have > to let the guilty go. Now that is what I don't agree with, and as far as I am concerned it has got **nothing** to do with a raise to two: I just believe it to be wrong. >> From: David Stevenson > >> If a pair use UI (intentionally or not) and gain an advantage and then >> you rule that you cannot know whether their UI showed a strong or weak >> hand so no adjustment "to be fair" then you have been unfair to their >> opponents. > >Obviously so. We even agree on the standard of proof (preponderance of >the evidence). The question is what evidence is needed to infer use of >UI. Is each case to be examined individually, or is there a general >rule (derived on statistical grounds, presumably) that is also admitted >as evidence? > >> I do not think your position gives justice to players whose opponents >> have UI available. > >Let me try just once more. The issue is a slow raise from one to two. >The EBU asserts that the hesitation shows a maximum raise and adjusts >scores accordingly. I assert that the hesitation shows either a >maximum or minimum raise and that one cannot tell which without further >information. (It might be interesting to discuss how often such further >evidence will be available, but for purposes of discussion I'll concede >"seldom.") Clearly it's possible that players fall into any of three >categories with the following effect: > > player habit EBU rule "Steve's rule" >1. slow shows maximum always restores equity seldom restores equity >2. slow shows minimum never restores equity seldom restores equity >3. slow could show either 50% removes equity always retains equity > >It seems to me that one's view of which rule is most equitable must >depend on one's view of how many players fall into each category. Do >we have merely a factual disagreement on the numbers, or is there some >other disagreement I am missing? Now what has all this to do with that? Cheers -- David Stevenson Bridge Cats Railways Logic /\_/\ Nothing ventured, nothing gained |- -| david@blakjak.demon.co.uk Emails welcome =( @ )= Tel: +44 (0)151 677 7412 Phone before Fax please \^/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri May 3 19:12:05 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id TAA22332 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 3 May 1996 19:12:05 +1000 Received: from sunset.ma.huji.ac.il (sunset.ma.huji.ac.il [132.64.32.12]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id TAA22326 for ; Fri, 3 May 1996 19:11:45 +1000 Received: (from grabiner@localhost) by sunset.ma.huji.ac.il (8.6.11/8.6.10) id MAA02601; Fri, 3 May 1996 12:09:27 +0300 Date: Fri, 3 May 1996 12:09:27 +0300 Message-Id: <199605030909.MAA02601@sunset.ma.huji.ac.il> From: David Joseph Grabiner To: willner@cfa183.harvard.edu CC: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au In-reply-to: <9605021749.AA22210@cfa183.harvard.edu> (willner@cfa183.harvard.edu) Subject: Re: Law 27.B Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk You write: (2NT opening by client, 2D response by pro) >> Would anyone be uncomfortable with me allowing the transfer to >> still take place based on the assumption that enforcing the penalty damages >> the opponents? > I like it! I think, strictly speaking, you have to ask the opponents > for permission, but then you can waive the penalty under 81C8. On the > other hand, few people are going to complain if you ignore the nicety > of asking. > The pro will get what he really deserves when the client, completely > confused by the happenings, passes 3D. :-) And here, if the pro chooses to bid 4H anyway, you can clearly rule that he took advantage of the penalty, and rule an adjustment. You should be able to do this even without the waived penalty, but it's a harder argument to make, and doing it requires that, as a director, you recognize the pro/client pair. -- David Grabiner, grabiner@math.huji.ac.il, http://www.ma.huji.ac.il/~grabiner I speak at the Hebrew University, but not for it. Shop at the Mobius Strip Mall: Always on the same side of the street! Klein Glassworks, Torus Coffee and Donuts, Projective Airlines, etc. From owner-bridge-laws Fri May 3 20:15:41 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id UAA22589 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 3 May 1996 20:15:41 +1000 Received: from relay-4.mail.demon.net (relay-4.mail.demon.net [158.152.1.108]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id UAA22584 for ; Fri, 3 May 1996 20:15:32 +1000 Received: from post.demon.co.uk ([158.152.1.72]) by relay-4.mail.demon.net id af03103; 3 May 96 10:00 GMT Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by relay-3.mail.demon.net id aa23863; 3 May 96 10:42 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 3 May 1996 10:27:52 +0100 To: Bridge Laws From: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Fwd: Comments on lots of issues In-Reply-To: <960502204357_483030421@emout10.mail.aol.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 1.12 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Hi Alan Hi Steve Hi All I am not at all clear what Steve is talking about. See my other posting to the list. >I basically still side with Steve on this. As I have said, I tend to agree >with the EBU policy. However, I am still uncomfortable with a determination >I will always rule the same way because I have a feeling. We are in total >agreement that after a slow raise there is UI. The EBU is willing to always >assign a meaning to the UI, Steve and I are uncomfortable with that. On the >surface, the only clear meaning is that partner had a problem. I do not >necessarily feel I am being unjust to the non-offenders by refusing to >automatically adjust. I will deal on a case by case basis and make decisions >based on how I feel about a given situation and pair. Surely you don't think that I do not rule on a case-by-case basis? We have a helpful guide: nothing more. > As I have said in the >past, if I really believe that an injustice was done, I may apply 16B and >accomplish the same thing. Illegally: sorry Alan: L16B refers to Extraneous Information from Other Sources: Other refers to L16A which is Extraneous Information from Partner: so L16B can **never** be applied to a situation which you are assuming involves partner in some way. > >For those new to this group, such an adjustment would be based on the finding >that we believe the given pair had some UI available and did not report it to >the TD. To make such a finding we do not have to determine the source of the >UI. If it walks like a duck and quacks, it is usually a duck. Sorry: there are two sorts of UI: from partner (L16A) and elsewhere (L16B). > >I am in no way suggesting that the EBL is doing anything wrong since my own >beliefs are mirrored in that policy. I, like Steve, am still uncomfortable >in applying such a belief on a blanket basis. > EBU, not EBL. We do not apply belief on a blanket basis. Our TDs use judgement, yes? This raise to two is a guide. Cheers -- David Stevenson Bridge Cats Railways Logic /\_/\ Nothing ventured, nothing gained |- -| david@blakjak.demon.co.uk Emails welcome =( @ )= Tel: +44 (0)151 677 7412 Phone before Fax please \^/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri May 3 23:41:24 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA25885 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 3 May 1996 23:41:24 +1000 Received: from andrew.cais.com (andrew.cais.com [199.0.216.215]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id XAA25879 for ; Fri, 3 May 1996 23:41:14 +1000 Received: from cais3.cais.com (cais3.cais.com [199.0.216.227]) by andrew.cais.com (8.6.9/8.6.9) with SMTP id JAA13882 for ; Fri, 3 May 1996 09:41:09 -0400 Date: Fri, 3 May 1996 09:41:09 -0400 (EDT) From: Eric Landau X-Sender: elandau@cais3.cais.com To: Bridge Laws Discussion List Subject: Re: Comments on lots of issues In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Fri, 3 May 1996, David Stevenson wrote: > > As I have said in the > >past, if I really believe that an injustice was done, I may apply 16B and > >accomplish the same thing. > > Illegally: sorry Alan: L16B refers to Extraneous Information from > Other Sources: Other refers to L16A which is Extraneous Information from > Partner: so L16B can **never** be applied to a situation which you are > assuming involves partner in some way. > > >For those new to this group, such an adjustment would be based on the finding > >that we believe the given pair had some UI available and did not report it to > >the TD. To make such a finding we do not have to determine the source of the > >UI. If it walks like a duck and quacks, it is usually a duck. > > Sorry: there are two sorts of UI: from partner (L16A) and elsewhere > (L16B). I think this is too fine a point to matter. The distinction Alan is making is between what I've been calling the manifest and the hidden UI. The hidden UI in these cases was presumptively obtained by the bidder from prior observation of the behavior of the person who, on this occasion, is his partner, who may or not have been his partner (or some of each) when the hidden UI was "obtained." Whether we call this "from partner" or "from other sources" doesn't matter a whit. Since these are perforce after-the-fact adjudications, 16.B.1 and 16.B.2 are irrelevant, so the redress available (adjusted score) is the same whether we claim to be ruling under 16.A.2 or 16.B.3. The problem we (Alan and I; I think we're in agreement here) are trying to address is to achieve equity after the exchange of (manifest) UI that appears in isolation to be useless (as previously defined). We believe that requires the committee to have the scope to make determinations case by case as to whether they believe that the "apparently useless" UI was in fact useless or useful. If we presume that it's useful we are forced to punish "offenders" whom we believe to be innocent. So we presume that it's useless, but allow the committee to further presume the existence of the additional hidden UI to account for the "usefulness" they believe the bidder to have taken advantage of in those cases where they believe he did in fact take some advantage. Alan, is this a valid interpretation of your 16.A/16.B distinction? The danger in this approach is that committees may be too quick to assume hidden UI, in which case manifest UI may become de facto illegal. But I'd still rather give committees the power to make case by case judgments and take on the problem of trying to educate them to do so wisely than to require them to make automatic presumptions that force them to punish pairs they believe to be innocent. Eric Landau APL Solutions, Inc. elandau@cais.com 1107 Dale Drive (301) 589-4621 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 USA From owner-bridge-laws Sat May 4 01:33:42 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA29048 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 4 May 1996 01:33:42 +1000 Received: from andrew.cais.com (andrew.cais.com [199.0.216.215]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id BAA29043 for ; Sat, 4 May 1996 01:33:36 +1000 Received: from cais3.cais.com (cais3.cais.com [199.0.216.227]) by andrew.cais.com (8.6.9/8.6.9) with SMTP id LAA17695 for ; Fri, 3 May 1996 11:33:32 -0400 Date: Fri, 3 May 1996 11:33:31 -0400 (EDT) From: Eric Landau X-Sender: elandau@cais3.cais.com To: Bridge Laws Discussion List Subject: Law 27 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I've been trying to come up with a reasonable revision of Law 27 that would address the problems we've been discussing, and have come to realize that I can't for the life of me imagine why it was written as it was in the first place. Prior to the 1987 revisions, the rule was simple. If an IB was corrected to the lowest sufficient bid in the same denomination (LSBSD) partner was not barred, but was not permitted to take advantage of knowledge gained from the IB and subsequent correction. This has numerous advantages over the present law: - Committees are not required to make determinations as to whether an inherently undefined bid "may have been conventional," a judgment which, in the best case, rests on the credibility of the bidder. - The loophole that allows an otherwise unavailble natural bid to be "created" by starting with an IB -- currently legal absent intent, and therefore de facto legal, or very close -- is eliminated. - Equity is served in cases like Alan's 2NT-2D example, where the conventional intent of the IB is obvious and unaffected by the substitution of the LSBSD. - It achieves the desirable result of, effectively, permitting the correction without penalty when the LSBSD has essentially the same meaning as the IB, and does so without requiring the TD or AC to make that determination -- the bidder does that himself, and has sufficient incentive to "self-police," since if he stretches "essentially the same" too far he will likely suffer a disastrous misunderstanding (either at the table or subsequently imposed in a UI adjudication). The only price paid for these advantages, that I can see, would be an increase in UI cases. But at least the committees who had to adjudicate them could do so on the familiar grounds of UI law and precedent instead of in the uncharted territory opened up by Law 27. Can anybody tell me what problem the regulators thought they were trying to solve by rewriting Law 27 in 1987? /eric Eric Landau APL Solutions, Inc. elandau@cais.com 1107 Dale Drive (301) 589-4621 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 USA From owner-bridge-laws Sat May 4 02:18:37 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA29359 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 4 May 1996 02:18:37 +1000 Received: from emout18.mail.aol.com (emout18.mx.aol.com [198.81.11.44]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id CAA29354 for ; Sat, 4 May 1996 02:18:25 +1000 From: AlLeBendig@aol.com Received: by emout18.mail.aol.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) id MAA25435 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Fri, 3 May 1996 12:17:32 -0400 Date: Fri, 3 May 1996 12:17:32 -0400 Message-ID: <960503121732_527425142@emout18.mail.aol.com> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Comments on lots of issues Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In a message dated 96-05-03 06:16:55 EDT David writes: >Subj: Re: Fwd: Comments on lots of issues >Date: 96-05-03 06:16:55 EDT >From: david@blakjak.demon.co.uk (David Stevenson) >Sender: owner-bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au >To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au (Bridge Laws) > >Hi Alan >Hi Steve >Hi All > > I am not at all clear what Steve is talking about. See my other >posting to the list. > >>I basically still side with Steve on this. As I have said, I tend to agree >>with the EBU policy. However, I am still uncomfortable with a determination >>I will always rule the same way because I have a feeling. We are in total >>agreement that after a slow raise there is UI. The EBU is willing to always >>assign a meaning to the UI, Steve and I are uncomfortable with that. On the >>surface, the only clear meaning is that partner had a problem. I do not >>necessarily feel I am being unjust to the non-offenders by refusing to >>automatically adjust. I will deal on a case by case basis and make >decisions >>based on how I feel about a given situation and pair. > > Surely you don't think that I do not rule on a case-by-case basis? We >have a helpful guide: nothing more. I guess it sounds to us like everytime the guide fits the hand, you are willing to adjust. I'm not sure about Steve, but that is what I'm not comfortable with. I need the UI to suggest in a vacuum that the continuation is suggested. As I've said, I agree that your guide is probably right. But I'm still not comfortable applying it everytime the slow raise leads to a successful continuation on minimal values. We never hear about the times it is wrong when partner has extra values but they are the wrong ones. The lucky opponents just laugh and go on. > >> As I have said in the >>past, if I really believe that an injustice was done, I may apply 16B and >>accomplish the same thing. > > Illegally: sorry Alan: L16B refers to Extraneous Information from >Other Sources: Other refers to L16A which is Extraneous Information from >Partner: so L16B can **never** be applied to a situation which you are >assuming involves partner in some way. I respectfully submit that you're wrong, David. In applying 16B we're saying that even though we can't say that the UI from partner suggested your rather strange bidding, we feel you knew something from some source. Since we believe that and you didn't report it to the TD we are going to adjust. We in no way suggest what that source was. We don't have to determine that to apply this Law. But it does get us back to equity when we feel it is necessary. I'd much rather do this than say a slow action had a fairly clear meaning to it when I don't believe it did. Such a ruling does not automatically carry an accusation of bad ethics. However, the suggestion is usually there. Since no sanction is applied, it is merely a bridge decision. > >> >>For those new to this group, such an adjustment would be based on the >finding >>that we believe the given pair had some UI available and did not report it >to >>the TD. To make such a finding we do not have to determine the source of >the >>UI. If it walks like a duck and quacks, it is usually a duck. > > Sorry: there are two sorts of UI: from partner (L16A) and elsewhere >(L16B). >> >>I am in no way suggesting that the EBL is doing anything wrong since my own >>beliefs are mirrored in that policy. I, like Steve, am still uncomfortable >>in applying such a belief on a blanket basis. >> > EBU, not EBL. Sorry about that. I maintain I am covered under 25A. It was clearly inadvertent. >We do not apply belief on a blanket basis. Our TDs use >judgement, yes? This raise to two is a guide. Once again, I only question if the guide is applied everytime it fits. That's what it sounds like... Alan LeBendig From owner-bridge-laws Sun May 5 04:25:40 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA11358 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 5 May 1996 04:25:40 +1000 Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [128.103.40.170]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id EAA11353 for ; Sun, 5 May 1996 04:25:31 +1000 Received: from cfa183.harvard.edu (cfa183.harvard.edu [131.142.12.59]) by cfa.harvard.edu (8.7.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id OAA02912 for ; Sat, 4 May 1996 14:25:26 -0400 (EDT) Received: by cfa183.harvard.edu (5.x/SMI-SVR4) id AA23312; Sat, 4 May 1996 14:27:30 -0400 Date: Sat, 4 May 1996 14:27:30 -0400 From: willner@cfa183.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Message-Id: <9605041827.AA23312@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Comments on lots of issues Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Just thought I'd send something around to break the weekend drought. > From: David Stevenson > OK, I admit it: I have totally lost track of what you are talking > about. The part of the dissertation with which I strongly disagree is > the following copied electronically from an earlier mail. > > > This was exactly my point. There's no way to track all huddles via > > the committee system. Unless you are prepared to punish innocent > > pairs who do indeed huddle with both strong and weak hands, you have > > to let the guilty go. > > Now that is what I don't agree with, and as far as I am concerned it > has got **nothing** to do with a raise to two: I just believe it to be > wrong. No wonder we are having so much trouble agreeing. What I think we are talking about is the EBU rule (?) that a slow raise from one to two is strong. You cannot possibly know that in individual cases; there will be at least some ("innocent") pairs who make slow raises with both weak and strong hands. The EBU rule punishes them when they huddle then raise with the strong version and opener makes a doubtful invitation. This may be for the greater good, but it surely has to be based on a belief that there are few pairs in this category. Thus my table: > > player habit EBU rule "Steve's rule" > >1. slow shows maximum always restores equity seldom restores equity > >2. slow shows minimum never restores equity seldom restores equity > >3. slow could show either 50% removes equity always retains equity Now if the EBU rule is really something like "The committee have observed that a preponderance of slow raises occur when responder is strong, and appeals committees may wish to use this information in cases of doubt.", I don't mind it. (Though I don't endorse it either.) On the other hand, I don't at all care for "A slow raise to two shall be deemed strong unless there is clear evidence to the contrary." The only justification I could see for such a rule is a belief that nearly all pairs who hesitate are in category 1. That is very hard for me to believe, and even if it's true, the rule is rather tough on pairs who are in category 3. (Not to mention encouraging them to change to category 2.) A case by case determination is not at all equivalent to "never adjust," but adjustments will be less frequent (for the category 1 pairs) because you need at least some shred of additional evidence to indicate that the hesitation showed strength. In compensation, you will sometimes adjust for the category 2 pairs when there is evidence that the hesitation showed weakness. Now do we at least agree on what the debate is about? And perhaps even that the rule you prefer will depend on how many pairs you think fall into each category? From owner-bridge-laws Sun May 5 04:37:19 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA11381 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 5 May 1996 04:37:19 +1000 Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [128.103.40.170]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id EAA11376 for ; Sun, 5 May 1996 04:37:13 +1000 Received: from cfa183.harvard.edu (cfa183.harvard.edu [131.142.12.59]) by cfa.harvard.edu (8.7.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id OAA31479 for ; Sat, 4 May 1996 14:37:00 -0400 (EDT) Received: by cfa183.harvard.edu (5.x/SMI-SVR4) id AA23328; Sat, 4 May 1996 14:39:05 -0400 Date: Sat, 4 May 1996 14:39:05 -0400 From: willner@cfa183.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Message-Id: <9605041839.AA23328@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Law 27 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > - The loophole that allows an otherwise unavailble natural bid to be > "created" by starting with an IB -- currently legal absent intent, and > therefore de facto legal, or very close -- is eliminated. Shouldn't gain advantage, though, under 27B1b. Intent has nothing to do with that. Admittedly most directors won't enforce this law. Taking Eric's observations further, what would be wrong _in principle_ with a rule allowing the insufficient bidder to substitute any legal call, but the withdrawn call is UI to partner? That seems to restore equity, but it has the practical problem of leading to much more UI adjudication. Is there some way to solve this practical problem while retaining the underlying idea that the auction should proceed normally as long as the insufficient bid doesn't create an advantage? The distinction conventional versus not conventional may have been an attempt to do that, but it's not the right distinction to make. I've heard that the new laws will indeed make the withdrawn call UI to partner, but it seems to me that they then ought to greatly reduce the conditions under which partner will be barred. Comments? From owner-bridge-laws Thu May 9 04:15:49 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA17243 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 9 May 1996 04:15:49 +1000 Received: from pip.dknet.dk (root@pip.dknet.dk [193.88.44.48]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id EAA17238 for ; Thu, 9 May 1996 04:15:39 +1000 Received: from cph20.pip.dknet.dk (cph20.pip.dknet.dk [194.192.0.52]) by pip.dknet.dk (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id UAA04910 for ; Wed, 8 May 1996 20:04:05 +0200 From: jd@pip.dknet.dk (Jesper Dybdal) To: Bridge Laws List Subject: Slow invitations Date: Wed, 08 May 1996 18:03:46 GMT Organization: at home Message-ID: <3190e1db.10745831@pipmail.dknet.dk> X-Mailer: Forte Agent .99e/32.227 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk It seems to me that we lack one argument in our discussion of slow invitations. Since that discussion has been quiet for some time, let me summarize: this is about the situation where a 1S opening is raised to 3S (invitational limit raise) after a huddle and the opener then takes the successful action on a borderline hand: raising to 4S that wins or passing when 4S does not win. Does the huddle suggest the winning action over the losing action? Is it possible that opener has some knowledge of whether his partner huddles more often with a little extra or with a little less values? A couple of the arguments given earlier were: (a) When in doubt, adjust in order to make quite sure that the side that we know positively to be "innocent" is not damaged. (b) Adjusting in such cases means that opener is effectively barred from taking the winning action after a huddle, and therefore means that it becomes impossible to get a good score when responder has huddled and opener has a borderline hand. Since we do not want to make bridge a game where you are punished for thinking about your bid, do not adjust. The problem with (a) is that the side we rule against will often also be quite innocent. What if opener says "My partner usually has extra values for his huddles, so being an ethical player I carefully passed; it just happened to be right here"? Do we believe that and let him keep his good score? If not, he will certainly find it difficult to have respect for the rules. If we do believe it, where is the limit to what we believe? A typical reaction will be "I do not keep statistics about partner's slow invitations; it is ridiculous to suggest that I knew he had a minimum/maximum". The problem with (b) is of course that we sometimes do not adjust when there actually was useful UI. I would now like to add an additional argument on the side of the non-adjusters: When in doubt, believe in people. Or, to put it another way: If we assume that an irregularity has taken place in situations where we have no real evidence either way, we will turn bridge into a game where the innocent have to prove their innocence. Or, to put it a third way: The first priority in our rules and rulings should be to make the game between four ethical players fair and pleasant. This may be a naive point of view, but I seriously believe that it is important to do everything we can in order to keep bridge the kind of game where the attitude is that "people do not cheat". If bridge organizers do not have that attitude, neither will players, and bridge will become a different and less attractive kind of game. (I freely admit that it may be easier for me to have this point of view than it is for some of you: I'm a director in a little country where the concept of professional players is unknown and where we almost never play for large prizes.) It seems to me that when four ethical players play bridge (and that is, after all, the normal situation), they should need score adjustments only in cases where they can understand and accept the reasoning behind the adjustment. Most players will understand and accept that it is impossible for any of us to judge what we would have done without UI, but they will not accept that they are unable to judge whether a slow invitation carries useful UI. In the 1S-3S situation (where opener says that he has never noticed any particular huddle-style in his partner), there will typically not be useful UI if the players are ethical, and adjusting in that case therefore damages the game between ethical players. Therefore, I believe that we should not adjust, even though that may sometimes damage innocent opponents of unethical players. --- Jesper Dybdal From owner-bridge-laws Thu May 9 08:58:40 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA25804 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 9 May 1996 08:58:40 +1000 Received: from relay-4.mail.demon.net (relay-4.mail.demon.net [158.152.1.108]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id IAA25797 for ; Thu, 9 May 1996 08:58:22 +1000 Received: from post.demon.co.uk ([158.152.1.72]) by relay-4.mail.demon.net id ad06977; 8 May 96 22:52 GMT Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by relay-3.mail.demon.net id aa04771; 8 May 96 23:05 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 8 May 1996 15:24:51 +0100 To: Bridge Laws From: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Law 27 In-Reply-To: <9605041839.AA23328@cfa183.harvard.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 1.12 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Hi Steve Hi Eric Hi All >I've been trying to come up with a reasonable revision of Law 27 that >would address the problems we've been discussing, and have come to >realize that I can't for the life of me imagine why it was written as it >was in the first place. > >Prior to the 1987 revisions, the rule was simple. If an IB was corrected >to the lowest sufficient bid in the same denomination (LSBSD) partner was >not barred, but was not permitted to take advantage of knowledge gained >from the IB and subsequent correction. This has numerous advantages over >the present law: Very true. > >Can anybody tell me what problem the regulators thought they were trying >to solve by rewriting Law 27 in 1987? /eric > No. >Taking Eric's observations further, what would be wrong _in principle_ >with a rule allowing the insufficient bidder to substitute any legal >call, but the withdrawn call is UI to partner? That seems to restore >equity, but it has the practical problem of leading to much more UI >adjudication. Is there some way to solve this practical problem while >retaining the underlying idea that the auction should proceed normally >as long as the insufficient bid doesn't create an advantage? The >distinction conventional versus not conventional may have been an >attempt to do that, but it's not the right distinction to make. No, the current Law is fatuous. If you read my previous posts (and I have argued the same in letters to Kaplan and Endicott) you will see that I believe that you should be allowed to make the bid 'good' without any distinction whether the insufficient bid is conventional or not. This (a) makes life simpler for TD/ACs and (b) would be acceptable to the players. I allowed for the possibility of differentiating on the basis of whether the 'made good' level would be conventional, to stop people reaching contracts they could not reach under their methods, but I do not have strong feelings about this. Putting this simply if a player overcalls 1D over 1NT I do not mind whether he is allowed to correct to 2D without penalty whatever 2D means and whatever he intended by 1D: this is simplest and acceptable to the players. Alternatively if a player overcalls 1D over 1NT I am happy if he is allowed to correct to 2D without penalty only if 2D is natural, whatever he intended by 1D: this is fairly simple and acceptable to the players. Just so long as the meaning of 1D is not taken into account. However I do not like your any correction rule: it will lead to UI problems and we should not seek to increase UI problems. I also doubt whether it would be acceptable to the players. Note: by acceptable to the players I am referring to medium players: very poor or inexperienced players do not understand the simplest laws so considering them is not helpful: top players can look after themselves with any given set of Laws. Cheers -- David Stevenson Bridge Cats Railways Logic /\_/\ Nothing ventured, nothing gained |- -| david@blakjak.demon.co.uk Emails welcome =( @ )= Tel: +44 (0)151 677 7412 Phone before Fax please \^/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu May 9 23:23:42 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA03540 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 9 May 1996 23:23:42 +1000 Received: from andrew.cais.com (andrew.cais.com [199.0.216.215]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id XAA03535 for ; Thu, 9 May 1996 23:23:36 +1000 Received: from cais3.cais.com (cais3.cais.com [199.0.216.227]) by andrew.cais.com (8.6.9/8.6.9) with SMTP id JAA10398 for ; Thu, 9 May 1996 09:23:31 -0400 Date: Thu, 9 May 1996 09:23:31 -0400 (EDT) From: Eric Landau X-Sender: elandau@cais3.cais.com To: Bridge Laws Discussion List Subject: Re: Slow invitations In-Reply-To: <3190e1db.10745831@pipmail.dknet.dk> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Wed, 8 May 1996, Jesper Dybdal wrote: > I would now like to add an additional argument on the side of the > non-adjusters: > When in doubt, believe in people. > > Or, to put it another way: > If we assume that an irregularity has taken place in situations > where we have no real evidence either way, we will turn bridge into > a game where the innocent have to prove their innocence. > > Or, to put it a third way: > The first priority in our rules and rulings should be to make the > game between four ethical players fair and pleasant. > > This may be a naive point of view, but I seriously believe that it is > important to do everything we can in order to keep bridge the kind of > game where the attitude is that "people do not cheat". If bridge > organizers do not have that attitude, neither will players, and bridge > will become a different and less attractive kind of game. Not naive at all, but exactly the point here. Turning irregularities into presumptive infractions punishes some for being unethical but punishes others for being perfectly, even actively, ethical. Ethics only goes so far, and the game loses every time a player thinks "I bent over backwards to do the right thing and got punished for it; I'll know better next time." > (I freely admit that it may be easier for me to have this point of > view than it is for some of you: I'm a director in a little country > where the concept of professional players is unknown and where we > almost never play for large prizes.) Yes, there's a problem here. Amateur games can be played in an atmosphere in which ethics and sportsmanship can be presumed, as bridge was (in North America) when the only thing at stake was master points. You can't run a game or sport that way, though, when there's significant amounts of money on the line. We're still a game of primarily amateurs -- and it's more amateurs we want to attract -- but the small number of pros whose livelihood is affected by their results in competition has eliminated our ability to run our game along strictly amateur lines. We need to ask ourselves whether the typical player is more concerned with being "protected" from the "cutthroat pros" or from the possibility of being "punished" by TDs/ACs when they've done nothing wrong. Or else we have to create a "double standard" for pros and amateurs. The ACBL tried the latter approach a while back (requiring pros to join professional organizations with stringent explicit ethical codes -- this was before the days of "active ethics for everyone"), but it didn't work out; I don't know why, I suspect it was because the pros just ignored the rules and took their pay under the table. > It seems to me that when four ethical players play bridge (and that > is, after all, the normal situation), they should need score > adjustments only in cases where they can understand and accept the > reasoning behind the adjustment. Most players will understand and > accept that it is impossible for any of us to judge what we would have > done without UI, but they will not accept that they are unable to > judge whether a slow invitation carries useful UI. > > In the 1S-3S situation (where opener says that he has never noticed > any particular huddle-style in his partner), there will typically not > be useful UI if the players are ethical, and adjusting in that case > therefore damages the game between ethical players. Therefore, I > believe that we should not adjust, even though that may sometimes > damage innocent opponents of unethical players. The presumption of additional useful UI is a finding of fact. We do have a general notion that on questions of fact we presume that the person most directly involved is telling the truth unless we have clear evidence to the contrary. It does seem odd to single out this particular situation (huddle followed by "right guess") as an exception. /eric Eric Landau APL Solutions, Inc. elandau@cais.com 1107 Dale Drive (301) 589-4621 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 USA From owner-bridge-laws Fri May 10 08:44:45 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA18415 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 10 May 1996 08:44:45 +1000 Received: from relay-2.mail.demon.net (disperse.demon.co.uk [158.152.1.77]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id IAA18404 for ; Fri, 10 May 1996 08:44:15 +1000 Received: from post.demon.co.uk ([158.152.1.72]) by relay-2.mail.demon.net id aa13897; 9 May 96 23:43 +0100 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by relay-3.mail.demon.net id aa28734; 9 May 96 23:43 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 9 May 1996 22:56:18 +0100 To: Bridge Laws From: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Comments on lots of issues In-Reply-To: <9605041827.AA23312@cfa183.harvard.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 1.12 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Hi Steve Hi All In message <9605041827.AA23312@cfa183.harvard.edu>, Steve Willner writes >Just thought I'd send something around to break the weekend drought. > >> From: David Stevenson >> OK, I admit it: I have totally lost track of what you are talking >> about. The part of the dissertation with which I strongly disagree >> is the following copied electronically from an earlier mail. >> >>> This was exactly my point. There's no way to track all huddles via >>> the committee system. Unless you are prepared to punish innocent >>> pairs who do indeed huddle with both strong and weak hands, you have >>> to let the guilty go. >> >> Now that is what I don't agree with, and as far as I am concerned it >>has got **nothing** to do with a raise to two: I just believe it to be >> wrong. > >No wonder we are having so much trouble agreeing. What I think we are >talking about is the EBU rule (?) that a slow raise from one to two is >strong. You cannot possibly know that in individual cases; there will >be at least some ("innocent") pairs who make slow raises with both weak >and strong hands. The EBU rule punishes them when they huddle then >raise with the strong version and opener makes a doubtful invitation. >This may be for the greater good, but it surely has to be based on a >belief that there are few pairs in this category. Thus my table: > > player habit EBU rule "Steve's rule" >1. slow shows maximum always restores equity seldom restores equity >2. slow shows minimum never restores equity seldom restores equity >3. slow could show either 50% removes equity always retains equity > >Now if the EBU rule is really something like "The committee have >observed that a preponderance of slow raises occur when responder is >strong, and appeals committees may wish to use this information in >cases of doubt.", I don't mind it. (Though I don't endorse it either.) >On the other hand, I don't at all care for "A slow raise to two shall >be deemed strong unless there is clear evidence to the contrary." The >only justification I could see for such a rule is a belief that nearly >all pairs who hesitate are in category 1. That is very hard for me to >believe, and even if it's true, the rule is rather tough on pairs who >are in category 3. (Not to mention encouraging them to change to >category 2.) A case by case determination is not at all equivalent to >"never adjust," but adjustments will be less frequent (for the category >1 pairs) because you need at least some shred of additional evidence to >indicate that the hesitation showed strength. In compensation, you >will sometimes adjust for the category 2 pairs when there is evidence >that the hesitation showed weakness. > >Now do we at least agree on what the debate is about? And perhaps even >that the rule you prefer will depend on how many pairs you think fall >into each category? OK! So there are two debates. In England we have a rule to assist TDs. It is not based on experiences in the USA: if you say that the empirical basis for it would be different in the USA, fine: I do not disagree. It is used to help in determining a particular problem: no it does not determine it all on its own. It is not based on what ACs see as some of the posts have suggested: it is based on players' views when playing. You tell me it would not work where you are because the empirical basis is different: fine: I do not disagree. I really cannot see why you want to argue about a trivial little bit of help given to our TDs. If you wish to further this (and I cannot see why) then I shall answer your questions but I shall produce no more arguments pro or anti. The debate that interests me is the view that if we have difficulty determining the meaning of UI then we shall worry more about the rights and treatment of the so-called offending side and not worry about the rights and treatment of the so-called non-offending side. >>> This was exactly my point. There's no way to track all huddles via >>> the committee system. Unless you are prepared to punish innocent >>> pairs who do indeed huddle with both strong and weak hands, you have >>> to let the guilty go. I still think that this is the interesting argument and I strongly disagree with it. Cheers -- David Stevenson Bridge Cats Railways Logic /\_/\ Nothing ventured, nothing gained |- -| david@blakjak.demon.co.uk Emails welcome =( @ )= Tel: +44 (0)151 677 7412 Phone before Fax please ^ From owner-bridge-laws Fri May 10 08:46:16 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA18439 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 10 May 1996 08:46:16 +1000 Received: from relay-2.mail.demon.net (disperse.demon.co.uk [158.152.1.77]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id IAA18430 for ; Fri, 10 May 1996 08:45:21 +1000 Received: from post.demon.co.uk ([158.152.1.72]) by relay-2.mail.demon.net id aa13945; 9 May 96 23:43 +0100 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by relay-3.mail.demon.net id aa28727; 9 May 96 23:43 +0100 Message-ID: <$Au7aZAzDnkxEwK4@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Thu, 9 May 1996 23:25:55 +0100 To: Bridge Laws From: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Slow invitations In-Reply-To: <3190e1db.10745831@pipmail.dknet.dk> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 1.12 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Hi Jesper Hi All In message <3190e1db.10745831@pipmail.dknet.dk>, Jesper Dybdal writes >It seems to me that we lack one argument in our discussion of slow >invitations. > >Since that discussion has been quiet for some time, let me summarize: >this is about the situation where a 1S opening is raised to 3S >(invitational limit raise) after a huddle and the opener then takes >the successful action on a borderline hand: raising to 4S that wins or >passing when 4S does not win. > >Does the huddle suggest the winning action over the losing action? Is >it possible that opener has some knowledge of whether his partner >huddles more often with a little extra or with a little less values? > >A couple of the arguments given earlier were: >(a) When in doubt, adjust in order to make quite sure that the side >that we know positively to be "innocent" is not damaged. >(b) Adjusting in such cases means that opener is effectively barred >from taking the winning action after a huddle, and therefore means >that it becomes impossible to get a good score when responder has >huddled and opener has a borderline hand. Since we do not want to >make bridge a game where you are punished for thinking about your bid, >do not adjust. > >The problem with (a) is that the side we rule against will often also >be quite innocent. What if opener says "My partner usually has extra >values for his huddles, so being an ethical player I carefully passed; >it just happened to be right here"? Do we believe that and let him >keep his good score? If not, he will certainly find it difficult to >have respect for the rules. If we do believe it, where is the limit >to what we believe? A typical reaction will be "I do not keep >statistics about partner's slow invitations; it is ridiculous to >suggest that I knew he had a minimum/maximum". > >The problem with (b) is of course that we sometimes do not adjust when >there actually was useful UI. > > >I would now like to add an additional argument on the side of the >non-adjusters: > When in doubt, believe in people. Both sides, or just the so-called offenders? > > >Or, to put it another way: > If we assume that an irregularity has taken place in situations > where we have no real evidence either way, we will turn bridge into > a game where the innocent have to prove their innocence. > If we assume that an irregularity has not taken place in situations where we have no conclusive evidence either way, we will turn bridge into a game where the victims have to prove they are victims. >Or, to put it a third way: > The first priority in our rules and rulings should be to make the > game between four ethical players fair and pleasant. > But what if the third way conflicts with your approach to the first two? >This may be a naive point of view, but I seriously believe that it is >important to do everything we can in order to keep bridge the kind of >game where the attitude is that "people do not cheat". If bridge >organizers do not have that attitude, neither will players, and bridge >will become a different and less attractive kind of game. > This I do agree with. But we are talking about unintentional use of UI and not cheating in any way. >(I freely admit that it may be easier for me to have this point of >view than it is for some of you: I'm a director in a little country >where the concept of professional players is unknown and where we >almost never play for large prizes.) > >It seems to me that when four ethical players play bridge (and that >is, after all, the normal situation), they should need score >adjustments only in cases where they can understand and accept the >reasoning behind the adjustment. Most players will understand and >accept that it is impossible for any of us to judge what we would have >done without UI, but they will not accept that they are unable to >judge whether a slow invitation carries useful UI. > I have my doubts about what a player who has asked for a ruling is expected to understand. If he does not believe that his opponent's bidding was affected by UI then he would not have called the TD (we are assuming ethical players). >In the 1S-3S situation (where opener says that he has never noticed >any particular huddle-style in his partner), there will typically not >be useful UI if the players are ethical, and adjusting in that case >therefore damages the game between ethical players. Therefore, I >believe that we should not adjust, even though that may sometimes >damage innocent opponents of unethical players. Well when I ask for a ruling in such cases I am going to be very happy if I am ruled against for this reason. I think your approach is not really aimed at ethical players who will take the rough with the smooth. Cheers -- David Stevenson Bridge Cats Railways Logic /\_/\ Nothing ventured, nothing gained |- -| david@blakjak.demon.co.uk Emails welcome =( @ )= Tel: +44 (0)151 677 7412 Phone before Fax please ^ From owner-bridge-laws Fri May 10 08:47:10 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA18459 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 10 May 1996 08:47:10 +1000 Received: from relay-2.mail.demon.net (disperse.demon.co.uk [158.152.1.77]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id IAA18440 for ; Fri, 10 May 1996 08:46:22 +1000 Received: from post.demon.co.uk ([158.152.1.72]) by relay-2.mail.demon.net id aa13803; 9 May 96 23:43 +0100 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by relay-3.mail.demon.net id aa28733; 9 May 96 23:43 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 9 May 1996 23:12:55 +0100 To: Bridge Laws From: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Comments on lots of issues In-Reply-To: <960503121732_527425142@emout18.mail.aol.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 1.12 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In message <960503121732_527425142@emout18.mail.aol.com>, AlLeBendig@aol.com writes >In a message dated 96-05-03 06:16:55 EDT David writes: > >>Subj: Re: Fwd: Comments on lots of issues >>Date: 96-05-03 06:16:55 EDT >>From: david@blakjak.demon.co.uk (David Stevenson) >>Sender: owner-bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au >>To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au (Bridge Laws) >> >>Hi Alan >>Hi Steve >>Hi All >> >> I am not at all clear what Steve is talking about. See my other >>posting to the list. >> >>>I basically still side with Steve on this. As I have said, I tend to agree >>>with the EBU policy. However, I am still uncomfortable with a >determination >>>I will always rule the same way because I have a feeling. We are in total >>>agreement that after a slow raise there is UI. The EBU is willing to >always >>>assign a meaning to the UI, Steve and I are uncomfortable with that. On >the >>>surface, the only clear meaning is that partner had a problem. I do not >>>necessarily feel I am being unjust to the non-offenders by refusing to >>>automatically adjust. I will deal on a case by case basis and make >>decisions >>>based on how I feel about a given situation and pair. >> >> Surely you don't think that I do not rule on a case-by-case basis? We >>have a helpful guide: nothing more. > >I guess it sounds to us like everytime the guide fits the hand, you are >willing to adjust. I'm not sure about Steve, but that is what I'm not >comfortable with. I need the UI to suggest in a vacuum that the continuation >is suggested. As I've said, I agree that your guide is probably right. But >I'm still not comfortable applying it everytime the slow raise leads to a >successful continuation on minimal values. We never hear about the times it >is wrong when partner has extra values but they are the wrong ones. The >lucky opponents just laugh and go on. As I have explained in another article I am sick of trying to defend a tiny and trivial bit of advice to English TDs which various Americans are telling us (a) is wrong because it is based on something that does not happen in the USA and (b) are telling us we apply in ways that we do not. I am not prepared to argue this matter further. It is of no interest. If any of you have any further questions then I shall of course answer them as a matter of courtesy but shall not make any further arguments pro or anti. > > >> >>> As I have said in the >>>past, if I really believe that an injustice was done, I may apply 16B and >>>accomplish the same thing. >> >> Illegally: sorry Alan: L16B refers to Extraneous Information from >>Other Sources: Other refers to L16A which is Extraneous Information from >>Partner: so L16B can **never** be applied to a situation which you are >>assuming involves partner in some way. > >I respectfully submit that you're wrong, David. In applying 16B we're saying >that even though we can't say that the UI from partner suggested your rather >strange bidding, we feel you knew something from some source. Since we >believe that and you didn't report it to the TD we are going to adjust. We >in no way suggest what that source was. We don't have to determine that to >apply this Law. But it does get us back to equity when we feel it is >necessary. I'd much rather do this than say a slow action had a fairly clear >meaning to it when I don't believe it did. Such a ruling does not >automatically carry an accusation of bad ethics. However, the suggestion is >usually there. Since no sanction is applied, it is merely a bridge decision. > I open 1H: my partner bids 3H: with a fine disregard for common-sense I bid 6H which no-one in their right mind would bid: few would even make a slam try. My opponents are a bit miffed when it turns out to be a miracle fit and makes so they call the TD. He decides (or perhaps an AC later decides) that equity is 4H+2 (after all, no-one else bid it) so he rules under L16B that I had UI available. Remember Salem! I cannot believe that you are prepared to assume UI just because the opponents got a good board. Remember "If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, then it is a duck"? This sort of case is "If it walks like a duck and miaouws like a cat, then it is a duck because we say so." Cheers -- David Stevenson Bridge Cats Railways Logic /\_/\ Nothing ventured, nothing gained |- -| david@blakjak.demon.co.uk Emails welcome =( @ )= Tel: +44 (0)151 677 7412 Phone before Fax please ^ From owner-bridge-laws Fri May 10 10:10:51 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA19622 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 10 May 1996 10:10:51 +1000 Received: from pip.dknet.dk (root@pip.dknet.dk [193.88.44.48]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id KAA19617 for ; Fri, 10 May 1996 10:10:41 +1000 Received: from cph17.pip.dknet.dk (cph17.pip.dknet.dk [194.192.0.49]) by pip.dknet.dk (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id CAA16432 for ; Fri, 10 May 1996 02:10:32 +0200 From: jd@pip.dknet.dk (Jesper Dybdal) To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: Slow invitations Date: Fri, 10 May 1996 00:10:13 GMT Organization: at home Message-ID: <31928229.749407@pipmail.dknet.dk> References: <$Au7aZAzDnkxEwK4@blakjak.demon.co.uk> In-Reply-To: <$Au7aZAzDnkxEwK4@blakjak.demon.co.uk> X-Mailer: Forte Agent .99e/32.227 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Hi David, On Thu, 9 May 1996 23:25:55 +0100, David Stevenson wrote: >In message <3190e1db.10745831@pipmail.dknet.dk>, Jesper Dybdal > writes >> When in doubt, believe in people. > Both sides, or just the so-called offenders? Both sides, if at all possible. In a case like the 1S-3S, the so-called non-offenders can hardly know whether there is useful UI. They call the TD because they can see that there is UI, and it is the TD's job to determine whether it was useful (in the sense of "suggesting the action actually taken over some logical alternative"). >> If we assume that an irregularity has taken place in situations >> where we have no real evidence either way, we will turn bridge into >> a game where the innocent have to prove their innocence. >> > If we assume that an irregularity has not taken place in situations >where we have no conclusive evidence either way, we will turn bridge >into a game where the victims have to prove they are victims. I hope not. I hope that we will turn bridge into a game where ethical people can play by the rules and get a reasonable result; but yes, the price for this seems to be that in some cases there will be victims of unethical conduct. >>Or, to put it a third way: >> The first priority in our rules and rulings should be to make the >> game between four ethical players fair and pleasant. >> > But what if the third way conflicts with your approach to the first >two? I hope it doesn't. Maybe I haven't understood what situation you are thinking about here. >>This may be a naive point of view, but I seriously believe that it is >>important to do everything we can in order to keep bridge the kind of >>game where the attitude is that "people do not cheat". If bridge >>organizers do not have that attitude, neither will players, and bridge >>will become a different and less attractive kind of game. >> > This I do agree with. But we are talking about unintentional use of >UI and not cheating in any way. That is an important question, and may be precisely where our opinions differ. It seems to me that knowledge of whether a slow invitation tends to show additional values or the opposite is not in practice unintentional. I find it difficult to believe that partners can have that kind of knowledge about each other unintentionally, and that is why I use the word "unethical" a lot in this discussion. I agree that a player may unintentionally _use_ UI from a slow invitation, but I believe that he will know (and, if he is an ethical player, admit to the TD) that he actually has a knowledge of his partner's specific huddle-style. > I have my doubts about what a player who has asked for a ruling is >expected to understand. If he does not believe that his opponent's >bidding was affected by UI then he would not have called the TD (we are >assuming ethical players). Perhaps not. On the other hand, it is not necessarily unreasonable for an ethical player to want the TD to determine whether his opponent's bidding may be affected by UI: it is, for instance, the TD's job to ask the opener whether his partner often has additional values for a huddle-invitation. In addition, our ethical players may not know that their opponents are also ethical. >>In the 1S-3S situation (where opener says that he has never noticed >>any particular huddle-style in his partner), there will typically not >>be useful UI if the players are ethical, and adjusting in that case >>therefore damages the game between ethical players. Therefore, I >>believe that we should not adjust, even though that may sometimes >>damage innocent opponents of unethical players. > > Well when I ask for a ruling in such cases I am going to be very happy >if I am ruled against for this reason. I think your approach is not >really aimed at ethical players who will take the rough with the smooth. I don't think I understand what you mean here. What I am trying to say is that the existence of unethical players will unavoidably influence our game in a negative way; accepting that, I prefer to let them influence it by getting away with unethical behaviour once in a while rather than by causing us to make strict rules that influence everybody's game negatively. If we follow a style of ruling where it is effectively forbidden to take the successful action on a borderline hand after a slow invitation from partner, then the unethical players have succeeded in making bridge a less pleasant game for everybody else; I'd rather let them get an undeserved top once in a while when there is no real evidence to rule on. --- Jesper Dybdal From owner-bridge-laws Fri May 10 12:16:45 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id MAA20300 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 10 May 1996 12:16:45 +1000 Received: from relay-2.mail.demon.net (disperse.demon.co.uk [158.152.1.77]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id MAA20294 for ; Fri, 10 May 1996 12:16:22 +1000 Received: from post.demon.co.uk ([158.152.1.72]) by relay-2.mail.demon.net id af17967; 10 May 96 3:14 +0100 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by relay-3.mail.demon.net id ab18442; 10 May 96 2:24 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 10 May 1996 02:21:22 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Slow invitations In-Reply-To: <31928229.749407@pipmail.dknet.dk> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 1.12 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Hi Jesper Hi All >>> When in doubt, believe in people. >> Both sides, or just the so-called offenders? >Both sides, if at all possible. In a case like the 1S-3S, the >so-called non-offenders can hardly know whether there is useful UI. >They call the TD because they can see that there is UI, and it is the >TD's job to determine whether it was useful (in the sense of >"suggesting the action actually taken over some logical alternative"). > >>> If we assume that an irregularity has taken place in situations >>> where we have no real evidence either way, we will turn bridge into >>> a game where the innocent have to prove their innocence. >>> >> If we assume that an irregularity has not taken place in situations >>where we have no conclusive evidence either way, we will turn bridge >>into a game where the victims have to prove they are victims. >I hope not. I hope that we will turn bridge into a game where ethical >people can play by the rules and get a reasonable result; but yes, the >price for this seems to be that in some cases there will be victims of >unethical conduct. In most of my recent posts I seem to be fighting a rearguard action to defend the non-offenders. Equity does not mean "let us be as fair as possible to the offenders": it means "let us get as fair a balance as possible between the two sides." >>>Or, to put it a third way: >>> The first priority in our rules and rulings should be to make the >>> game between four ethical players fair and pleasant. >>> >> But what if the third way conflicts with your approach to the first >>two? >I hope it doesn't. Maybe I haven't understood what situation you are >thinking about here. There appears to be some UI. A bid is made which might have been subconsciously affected by it. You cannot be sure it has. You cannot really be sure whether the bid is suggested by the UI. What should you do? The main answer that everyone seems to have produced is "We do not adjust so as not to be unfair to the so-called offenders." Why is that so much more correct than "We do adjust so as not to be unfair to the so-called non-offenders." ? > >>>This may be a naive point of view, but I seriously believe that it is >>>important to do everything we can in order to keep bridge the kind of >>>game where the attitude is that "people do not cheat". If bridge >>>organizers do not have that attitude, neither will players, and bridge >>>will become a different and less attractive kind of game. >>> >> This I do agree with. But we are talking about unintentional use of >>UI and not cheating in any way. >That is an important question, and may be precisely where our opinions >differ. It seems to me that knowledge of whether a slow invitation >tends to show additional values or the opposite is not in practice >unintentional. I find it difficult to believe that partners can have >that kind of knowledge about each other unintentionally, and that is >why I use the word "unethical" a lot in this discussion. I agree that >a player may unintentionally _use_ UI from a slow invitation, but I >believe that he will know (and, if he is an ethical player, admit to >the TD) that he actually has a knowledge of his partner's specific >huddle-style. Really? When my partner huddles I just think "He's going to get it wrong again!" > >> I have my doubts about what a player who has asked for a ruling is >>expected to understand. If he does not believe that his opponent's >>bidding was affected by UI then he would not have called the TD (we are >>assuming ethical players). >Perhaps not. On the other hand, it is not necessarily unreasonable >for an ethical player to want the TD to determine whether his >opponent's bidding may be affected by UI: it is, for instance, the >TD's job to ask the opener whether his partner often has additional >values for a huddle-invitation. In addition, our ethical players may >not know that their opponents are also ethical. > >>>In the 1S-3S situation (where opener says that he has never noticed >>>any particular huddle-style in his partner), there will typically not >>>be useful UI if the players are ethical, and adjusting in that case >>>therefore damages the game between ethical players. Therefore, I >>>believe that we should not adjust, even though that may sometimes >>>damage innocent opponents of unethical players. >> >> Well when I ask for a ruling in such cases I am going to be very happy >>if I am ruled against for this reason. I think your approach is not >>really aimed at ethical players who will take the rough with the smooth. >I don't think I understand what you mean here. > >What I am trying to say is that the existence of unethical players >will unavoidably influence our game in a negative way; accepting that, >I prefer to let them influence it by getting away with unethical >behaviour once in a while rather than by causing us to make strict >rules that influence everybody's game negatively. > >If we follow a style of ruling where it is effectively forbidden to >take the successful action on a borderline hand after a slow >invitation from partner, then the unethical players have succeeded in >making bridge a less pleasant game for everybody else; I'd rather let >them get an undeserved top once in a while when there is no real >evidence to rule on. It all comes back to this. Of course there is evidence to rule on: you ask questions, listen to the answers and so on. What everyone is discussing is overall approach. As a player, playing against ethical opponents, I would prefer TDs to make a decision after a 1S - 3S sequence in each case: I would not like an overall approach of "It can't be done." And if my opponents are not so ethical? We have set the ground rules against the ethical opponents: now we get the same results against the less ethical. Cheers -- David Stevenson Bridge Cats Railways Logic /\_/\ Nothing ventured, nothing gained |- -| david@blakjak.demon.co.uk Emails welcome =< @ >= Tel: +44 (0)151 677 7412 Phone before Fax please ^ From owner-bridge-laws Fri May 10 23:27:21 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA23257 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 10 May 1996 23:27:21 +1000 Received: from andrew.cais.com (andrew.cais.com [199.0.216.215]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id XAA23251 for ; Fri, 10 May 1996 23:27:12 +1000 Received: from cais3.cais.com (cais3.cais.com [199.0.216.227]) by andrew.cais.com (8.6.9/8.6.9) with SMTP id JAA26994 for ; Fri, 10 May 1996 09:26:22 -0400 Date: Fri, 10 May 1996 09:26:22 -0400 (EDT) From: Eric Landau X-Sender: elandau@cais3.cais.com To: Bridge Laws Discussion List Subject: Protect whose rights? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Thu, 9 May 1996, David Stevenson wrote: > The debate that interests me is the view that if we have difficulty > determining the meaning of UI then we shall worry more about the rights > and treatment of the so-called offending side and not worry about the > rights and treatment of the so-called non-offending side. Right on, David. This debate isn't about slow raises, it's about our fundamental attitude toward the difficult moral question faced by all regulators everywhere: How important is punishing the guilty vs. making sure we don't punish the innocent? Our decisions won't be perfect, and every wrong decision does damage. So we must ask which we believe to be more damaging (and, roughly, by how much): (a) A pair whose opponents acted unethically are denied a favorable adjustment that they deserve, or (b) A pair who acted ethically is given an unfavorable adjustment that they do not deserve. Of course, that raises the "meta-question" of "damaging to what?" Our sense of morality? Our enjoyment of the game? The size of our NCBO's membership? The sanity of our TDs and ACs? I'll leave that to the more philosophically inclined, and allow that we can each decide for ourselves. Steve et al argue that (b) is a lot more damaging than (a), so we should write laws that make (b) relatively rare compared to (a). Or, in David's words, we should worry more about the rights of the so-called offending side. David et al disagree. This is certainly an issue that reasonable people can disagree about (as history and the Nightly News repeatedly demonstrate). But if we disagree on the objectives behind the substance and wording of our regulations, we will never agree on what that substance or wording should be. So if we're to regulate effectively, we must formulate a clear and consistent "official" attitude on this overriding moral issue and use it as the basis for writing and interpreting regulations, whatever our personal opinions may be. /eric Eric Landau APL Solutions, Inc. elandau@cais.com 1107 Dale Drive (301) 589-4621 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 USA From owner-bridge-laws Sat May 11 01:06:21 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA26815 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 11 May 1996 01:06:21 +1000 Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [128.103.40.170]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id BAA26808 for ; Sat, 11 May 1996 01:05:44 +1000 Received: from cfa183.harvard.edu (cfa183.harvard.edu [131.142.12.59]) by cfa.harvard.edu (8.7.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id LAA27990 for ; Fri, 10 May 1996 11:05:36 -0400 (EDT) Received: by cfa183.harvard.edu (5.x/SMI-SVR4) id AA01210; Fri, 10 May 1996 11:07:42 -0400 Date: Fri, 10 May 1996 11:07:42 -0400 From: willner@cfa183.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Message-Id: <9605101507.AA01210@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Slow invitations X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Date: Fri, 10 May 1996 02:21:22 +0100 From: David Stevenson Hi, David. > There appears to be some UI. A bid is made which might have been > subconsciously affected by it. You cannot be sure it has. You cannot > really be sure whether the bid is suggested by the UI. What should you > do? This is the right question, but do we really disagree on the answer? Everyone agrees that the TD (and AC if necessary) should investigate and try to determine whether or not the UI suggested the winning action. We agree (I think) that the correct standard of proof is preponderance of the evidence (not a high standard at all; 51-49 if you like). If we conclude that UI was useful and used, of course we will adjust the score. The remaining question is what to do if no additional evidence can be found. Most of us think you should not adjust the score in such a case. We recognize that this lets unethical players get away with their misdeeds but think that's a lesser evil than the alternative. (I can remember bad director's rulings from thirty years ago. I'm sure those were much rarer than cases where my opponents profited from UI, but I don't remember the latter. Even though there's little difference in principle, the psychological effects are much different.) Are you really saying that the score should be adjusted even if, after investigation, there is no evidence whether the UI was useful or not? From owner-bridge-laws Sat May 11 03:40:08 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA29336 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 11 May 1996 03:40:08 +1000 Received: from andrew.cais.com (andrew.cais.com [199.0.216.215]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id DAA29330 for ; Sat, 11 May 1996 03:40:01 +1000 Received: from cais3.cais.com (cais3.cais.com [199.0.216.227]) by andrew.cais.com (8.6.9/8.6.9) with SMTP id NAA14319 for ; Fri, 10 May 1996 13:39:57 -0400 Date: Fri, 10 May 1996 13:39:53 -0400 (EDT) From: Eric Landau X-Sender: elandau@cais3.cais.com To: Bridge Laws Discussion List Subject: Re: Protect whose rights? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Earlier, I wrote (in reply to David): > Our decisions won't be perfect, and every wrong decision does damage. So > we must ask which we believe to be more damaging (and, roughly, by how > much): > > (a) A pair whose opponents acted unethically are denied a favorable > adjustment that they deserve, or > > (b) A pair who acted ethically is given an unfavorable adjustment that > they do not deserve. And Steve wrote (in reply to David): > This is the right question, but do we really disagree on the answer? > Everyone agrees that the TD (and AC if necessary) should investigate > and try to determine whether or not the UI suggested the winning > action. We agree (I think) that the correct standard of proof is > preponderance of the evidence (not a high standard at all; 51-49 if you > like). If we conclude that UI was useful and used, of course we will > adjust the score. Well, I don't agree that this is necessarily the correct standard of proof, which is what I meant to imply by my parenthetical note "by how much." If we assume that (1) we can agree on what we mean by "damage" resulting from a "wrong" ruling, and (2) that our objective in making these determinations is to minimize that damage, then the mathematically "correct standard of proof" is the inverse of the ratio of damage. If we believe that the two kinds of bad rulings are equally damaging, then our standard is as Steve suggests: go with the 51% probability either way; if it's 50%-50% it doesn't matter (flip a coin). But if we think that (b) is, say, three times, or nine times, as "damaging" as (a), then we minimize damage by requiring a 75%, or 90%, probability that the adjustment will be "right" before we make it. And conversely; if we think that (a) is more damaging than (b), we should adjust when the probability of being right is only 25% or 10% or whatever it computes to. So the fancy mathematical reasoning comes down to the same old question: How many guilty players are we willing to let off the hook to avoid convicting one innocent accused? The "preponderance of the evidence" (50% probability) standard implies that the answer to that question is 1. Eric Landau APL Solutions, Inc. elandau@cais.com 1107 Dale Drive (301) 589-4621 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 USA From owner-bridge-laws Sat May 11 05:04:16 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA29931 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 11 May 1996 05:04:16 +1000 Received: from relay-2.mail.demon.net (disperse.demon.co.uk [158.152.1.77]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id FAA29926 for ; Sat, 11 May 1996 05:03:55 +1000 Received: from post.demon.co.uk ([158.152.1.72]) by relay-2.mail.demon.net id aa20488; 10 May 96 19:34 +0100 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by relay-3.mail.demon.net id aa17969; 10 May 96 19:34 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 10 May 1996 18:11:45 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Protect whose rights? In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 1.12 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article , Eric Landau writes >On Thu, 9 May 1996, David Stevenson wrote: > >> The debate that interests me is the view that if we have difficulty >> determining the meaning of UI then we shall worry more about the rights >> and treatment of the so-called offending side and not worry about the >> rights and treatment of the so-called non-offending side. > >Right on, David. This debate isn't about slow raises, it's about our >fundamental attitude toward the difficult moral question faced by all >regulators everywhere: How important is punishing the guilty vs. making >sure we don't punish the innocent? > >Our decisions won't be perfect, and every wrong decision does damage. So >we must ask which we believe to be more damaging (and, roughly, by how >much): > >(a) A pair whose opponents acted unethically are denied a favorable >adjustment that they deserve, or > >(b) A pair who acted ethically is given an unfavorable adjustment that >they do not deserve. > >Of course, that raises the "meta-question" of "damaging to what?" Our >sense of morality? Our enjoyment of the game? The size of our NCBO's >membership? The sanity of our TDs and ACs? I'll leave that to the more >philosophically inclined, and allow that we can each decide for ourselves. > Too long a word for me to worry about. >Steve et al argue that (b) is a lot more damaging than (a), so we should >write laws that make (b) relatively rare compared to (a). Or, in David's >words, we should worry more about the rights of the so-called offending >side. David et al disagree. This is certainly an issue that reasonable >people can disagree about (as history and the Nightly News repeatedly >demonstrate). > Though I only disagree to the extent that I like to treat the sides equally. >But if we disagree on the objectives behind the substance and wording of >our regulations, we will never agree on what that substance or wording >should be. So if we're to regulate effectively, we must formulate a >clear and consistent "official" attitude on this overriding moral issue >and use it as the basis for writing and interpreting regulations, >whatever our personal opinions may be. Or we can argue about the correct attitude. Here we always keep the notion of equity in front of us so feel that we try for balance, though the offenders (sc) lose the benefit of doubt. -- David Stevenson Bridge Cats Railways Logic /\_/\ Nothing ventured, nothing gained |- -| david@blakjak.demon.co.uk Emails welcome =< @ >= Tel: +44 (0)151 677 7412 Phone before Fax please ^ From owner-bridge-laws Sat May 11 07:05:00 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA00688 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 11 May 1996 07:05:00 +1000 Received: from relay-2.mail.demon.net (disperse.demon.co.uk [158.152.1.77]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id HAA00683 for ; Sat, 11 May 1996 07:04:48 +1000 Received: from post.demon.co.uk ([158.152.1.72]) by relay-2.mail.demon.net id aa20531; 10 May 96 19:34 +0100 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by relay-3.mail.demon.net id aa17970; 10 May 96 19:34 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 10 May 1996 18:26:42 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Slow invitations In-Reply-To: <9605101507.AA01210@cfa183.harvard.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 1.12 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article <9605101507.AA01210@cfa183.harvard.edu>, Steve Willner writes >Date: Fri, 10 May 1996 02:21:22 +0100 >From: David Stevenson > >Hi, David. >> There appears to be some UI. A bid is made which might have been >> subconsciously affected by it. You cannot be sure it has. You cannot >> really be sure whether the bid is suggested by the UI. What should you >> do? > >This is the right question, but do we really disagree on the answer? >Everyone agrees that the TD (and AC if necessary) should investigate >and try to determine whether or not the UI suggested the winning >action. We agree (I think) that the correct standard of proof is >preponderance of the evidence (not a high standard at all; 51-49 if you >like). If we conclude that UI was useful and used, of course we will >adjust the score. > >The remaining question is what to do if no additional evidence can be >found. Most of us think you should not adjust the score in such a >case. We recognize that this lets unethical players get away with >their misdeeds but think that's a lesser evil than the alternative. (I >can remember bad director's rulings from thirty years ago. I'm sure >those were much rarer than cases where my opponents profited from UI, >but I don't remember the latter. Even though there's little difference >in principle, the psychological effects are much different.) > >Are you really saying that the score should be adjusted even if, after >investigation, there is no evidence whether the UI was useful or not? No: I just don't remember a single case of "no evidence". Surely you mean a lack of convincing evidence? When a player says "I did not hesitate", "I always bid spades when I have the ace and king", "I just doubled because I don't like these opponents", "I did not hesitate: I was just watching that waitress bend down", "My opponent thought for four minutes", "You are a lying bastard", "Before you rule, did you know that my elder brother is on the ACBL board of Directors" or "Kaplan says..." then you have obtained evidence. You sift, you consider, you conclude, you consider guidelines, you rule. If now you haven't got a clue what to do then I do not mind what you feel you should do but for competent TDs it is rare. --------------------------------- General comment: I have now rearranged my software so that it treats this mailing list the same as RGB. So in future my replies to this will not be personalised, ie they will not start Hi... nor end Cheers. I do not mean to be unfriendly but it does not suit the new arrangement. As always separate emails are welcome. -- David Stevenson Bridge Cats Railways Logic /\_/\ Nothing ventured, nothing gained |- -| david@blakjak.demon.co.uk Emails welcome =< @ >= Tel: +44 (0)151 677 7412 Phone before Fax please ^ From owner-bridge-laws Sun May 12 05:15:04 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA07686 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 12 May 1996 05:15:04 +1000 Received: from pip.dknet.dk (root@pip.dknet.dk [193.88.44.48]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id FAA07681 for ; Sun, 12 May 1996 05:14:57 +1000 Received: from cph19.pip.dknet.dk (cph19.pip.dknet.dk [194.192.0.51]) by pip.dknet.dk (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id VAA15407 for ; Sat, 11 May 1996 21:14:48 +0200 From: jd@pip.dknet.dk (Jesper Dybdal) To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Slow invitations Date: Sat, 11 May 1996 19:14:28 GMT Organization: at home Message-ID: <3194e6c5.19735267@pipmail.dknet.dk> References: In-Reply-To: X-Mailer: Forte Agent .99e/32.227 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Hi David, On Fri, 10 May 1996 02:21:22 +0100, David Stevenson wrote: > [snip] > In most of my recent posts I seem to be fighting a rearguard action to >defend the non-offenders. Equity does not mean "let us be as fair as >possible to the offenders": it means "let us get as fair a balance as >possible between the two sides." > [snip] > There appears to be some UI. A bid is made which might have been >subconsciously affected by it. You cannot be sure it has. You cannot >really be sure whether the bid is suggested by the UI. What should you >do? > [snip] > The main answer that everyone seems to have produced is "We do not >adjust so as not to be unfair to the so-called offenders." Why is that >so much more correct than "We do adjust so as not to be unfair to the >so-called non-offenders." ? In general, I agree whole-heartedly with your efforts to protect the non-offenders. I totally agree, for instance, with every word in your message titled "Sympathy" from about a week ago. My "do not adjust" position in the specific case of a slow invitation is based on the following assumptions: (a) The TD will not usually have any evidence at all to help him determine whether the opener's UI was useful (i.e., suggested the successful action). (b) The opener's UI will only seldom be useful in practice. (c) Ethical players do not normally notice whether their partners typically huddle with a good or bad hand. (d) If an ethical player has noticed a particular huddle-style in his partner, he will admit it. (e) It is very unlikely that any player can subconsciously notice a huddle-style in partner. (f) A large majority of bridge players are ethical players. I believe that these assumptions are correct. You may not agree with all of them. Under those assumptions, it will only happen very rarely that the so-called offenders actually _are_ offenders. At least nine times out of ten where the TD has no specific evidence to help him, all four players are non-offenders: there has been no irregularity at all, and the correct action is not to adjust. In the tenth case, perhaps, there was an irregularity, the word "offender" is appropriate for the opener, and the correct action is to adjust. Unfortunately, the TD cannot distinguish the tenth case from the others. If we adjust in these ten cases, we have punished one offender and nine innocent pairs. These nine pairs will be mad at the director and may lose respect for the laws. If we do not adjust, one offender goes free and one innocent pair has been robbed of their score. Neither the TD nor this innocent pair know that they have been robbed, and the players will therefore typically not be mad at anybody; if they _are_ mad at somebody, that somebody will typically be the unethical opponent rather than the TD. Conclusion: do not adjust. This analysis is of course based totally on my assumed ratio of one irregularity to nine non-irregularities, which in turn is based on the assumptions listed above. If I am wrong and the true ratio is the inverse (nine irregularities out of ten), for example, the conclusion will be the opposite. If you do not agree with my 1:9 assumption, I'd like to know approximately what you believe the ratio to be. > [snip] > Really? When my partner huddles I just think "He's going to get it >wrong again!" Exactly: you do not think "If he now bids 3S, he usually has a little extra, so I'll have to pass with my borderline hand". If you _did_ think so, and he just this once had a minus-huddle, and you made nine tricks in 3S, and the TD adjusted because you were unable to convince him that what you did was eminently ethical, I think you'll feel cheated in a much worse way than if an unethical opponent got away with robbing you of a good score. > [snip] > It all comes back to this. Of course there is evidence to rule on: >you ask questions, listen to the answers and so on. What everyone is >discussing is overall approach. > [snip] If there _is_ specific evidence available, it should of course be followed: I'm only talking about a situation where there is no evidence. And I'm doing that because I believe it to be the normal case in the slow invitation situation. --- Jesper Dybdal From owner-bridge-laws Sun May 12 19:25:28 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id TAA09802 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 12 May 1996 19:25:28 +1000 Received: from relay-2.mail.demon.net (disperse.demon.co.uk [158.152.1.77]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id TAA09797 for ; Sun, 12 May 1996 19:25:17 +1000 Received: from post.demon.co.uk ([158.152.1.72]) by relay-2.mail.demon.net id ad24555; 12 May 96 10:24 +0100 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by relay-3.mail.demon.net id aa03098; 12 May 96 9:28 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Sun, 12 May 1996 03:48:13 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Slow invitations In-Reply-To: <3194e6c5.19735267@pipmail.dknet.dk> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 1.12 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article <3194e6c5.19735267@pipmail.dknet.dk>, Jesper Dybdal writes >Hi David, > >On Fri, 10 May 1996 02:21:22 +0100, David Stevenson > wrote: >> [snip] >> In most of my recent posts I seem to be fighting a rearguard action to >>defend the non-offenders. Equity does not mean "let us be as fair as >>possible to the offenders": it means "let us get as fair a balance as >>possible between the two sides." >> [snip] >> There appears to be some UI. A bid is made which might have been >>subconsciously affected by it. You cannot be sure it has. You cannot >>really be sure whether the bid is suggested by the UI. What should you >>do? >> [snip] >> The main answer that everyone seems to have produced is "We do not >>adjust so as not to be unfair to the so-called offenders." Why is that >>so much more correct than "We do adjust so as not to be unfair to the >>so-called non-offenders." ? > >In general, I agree whole-heartedly with your efforts to protect the >non-offenders. I totally agree, for instance, with every word in your >message titled "Sympathy" from about a week ago. > >My "do not adjust" position in the specific case of a slow invitation >is based on the following assumptions: >(a) The TD will not usually have any evidence at all to help him >determine whether the opener's UI was useful (i.e., suggested the >successful action). Look, please get away from this clause which reminds of the sensational English papers "will not usually have any evidence at all": you always have evidence: surely you mean no conclusive evidence? >(b) The opener's UI will only seldom be useful in practice. >(c) Ethical players do not normally notice whether their partners >typically huddle with a good or bad hand. >(d) If an ethical player has noticed a particular huddle-style in his >partner, he will admit it. >(e) It is very unlikely that any player can subconsciously notice a >huddle-style in partner. (c)(d)(e) are all linked and somewhat doubtful. >(f) A large majority of bridge players are ethical players. > >I believe that these assumptions are correct. You may not agree with >all of them. > >Under those assumptions, it will only happen very rarely that the >so-called offenders actually _are_ offenders. At least nine times out >of ten where the TD has no specific evidence to help him, all four >players are non-offenders: there has been no irregularity at all, and >the correct action is not to adjust. In the tenth case, perhaps, >there was an irregularity, the word "offender" is appropriate for the >opener, and the correct action is to adjust. Unfortunately, the TD >cannot distinguish the tenth case from the others. > >If we adjust in these ten cases, we have punished one offender and >nine innocent pairs. These nine pairs will be mad at the director and >may lose respect for the laws. Oh Jesper! We don't punish! Look, you are talking at the moment of four ethical players, right? well, I believe I am an ethical player. If my partner hesitates and I get adjusted against, that is part of the game: it is like losing a finesse. Why should I get annoyed? No-one has punished me. It is necessary sometime for these rulings to go against me otherwise I will feel hard done by when I am asking for a ruling if I never get a favourable one. Ethical players don't get mad at the TD for ruling against them. Now try fining me and see how I react! That is because I have now been punished: and I can only accept that if the TD is sure that I have done something wrong. > > >If we do not adjust, one offender goes free and one innocent pair has >been robbed of their score. Neither the TD nor this innocent pair >know that they have been robbed, and the players will therefore >typically not be mad at anybody; if they _are_ mad at somebody, that >somebody will typically be the unethical opponent rather than the TD. > Are you sure? I think you have left out of your equation the fact that the TD was called. >Conclusion: do not adjust. > >This analysis is of course based totally on my assumed ratio of one >irregularity to nine non-irregularities, which in turn is based on the >assumptions listed above. If I am wrong and the true ratio is the >inverse (nine irregularities out of ten), for example, the conclusion >will be the opposite. > >If you do not agree with my 1:9 assumption, I'd like to know >approximately what you believe the ratio to be. In my experience ethical players don't call the TD very often when there is UI. I certainly don't. When the TD is called there usually is some reasonable evidence that something is fishy. I would say that with four ethical players at the table then the ratio 1:9 should be 2:3, or perhaps 1:1. I would assume the player has been affected unintentionally. With fewer ethical players at the table, the number of TD calls increases because (a) unethical players are more likely to use UI (b) unethical players are more likely to notice UI (c) unethical players are more likely to believe their opponents are using UI. So the ratio probably does not change much! A paradox! > >> [snip] >> Really? When my partner huddles I just think "He's going to get it >>wrong again!" > >Exactly: you do not think "If he now bids 3S, he usually has a little >extra, so I'll have to pass with my borderline hand". If you _did_ >think so, and he just this once had a minus-huddle, and you made nine >tricks in 3S, and the TD adjusted because you were unable to convince >him that what you did was eminently ethical, I think you'll feel >cheated in a much worse way than if an unethical opponent got away >with robbing you of a good score. I do not feel cheated when I am ruled against after my partner has hesitated even when I am sure the TD is wrong. > > >> [snip] >> It all comes back to this. Of course there is evidence to rule on: >>you ask questions, listen to the answers and so on. What everyone is >>discussing is overall approach. >> [snip] > >If there _is_ specific evidence available, it should of course be >followed: I'm only talking about a situation where there is no >evidence. And I'm doing that because I believe it to be the normal >case in the slow invitation situation. Hmmmmmmmmmmm !! -- David Stevenson Bridge Cats Railways Logic /\_/\ Nothing ventured, nothing gained |- -| david@blakjak.demon.co.uk Emails welcome =< @ >= Tel: +44 (0)151 677 7412 Phone before Fax please ^ From owner-bridge-laws Sun May 12 23:08:43 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA10600 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 12 May 1996 23:08:43 +1000 Received: from relay-2.mail.demon.net (disperse.demon.co.uk [158.152.1.77]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id XAA10595 for ; Sun, 12 May 1996 23:08:35 +1000 Received: from post.demon.co.uk ([158.152.1.72]) by relay-2.mail.demon.net id aa24633; 12 May 96 14:08 +0100 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by relay-3.mail.demon.net id aa22595; 12 May 96 14:07 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Sun, 12 May 1996 13:55:15 +0100 To: Bridge Laws From: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Slow invitations MIME-Version: 1.0 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Forwarded by David Stevenson from Richard Bley, Germany. Hi David, Hi All my english is not perfect, but I hope I can make my point about the slow inv. cases. 1) after establishing the facts, you have to look for an UI. Of course, one player thought. But this is not an UI by itself. It is only an INFORMATION (sorry for that) if there is a logical alternative which is offered by the UI. An example: 1S - ...3S - ? Think about any hand for which it is technically correct to reach 4S about half the time. The question you have to ask now is as follows: Was the bid which the player now made better than 50% in chances of success because of the UI? If yes than there is a use of UI. If not then there is not. This question you can vary for yourself every time. You just have to check the chances of success with and without the hesitation. If there is no real difference, there is no UI. 2) He is even not an offender of law if you cannot say yes to the last question! You are not an offender by thinking about a bid. You are an offender because you used an UI (Law 16). But if there is no offending side, you have to protect every side. 3) Of course it is very difficult to check the question Nr. 1). But his is why it is so interesting to be a TD. Boring Revokes and leads out of turn are very rarely points for interesting cases. 4) Bridge is a game which is so interesting because you have many things to think about. I think it is crazy to punish someone for thinking. Thinking is a most valuable part of the game. Don't punish them for doing something they should do. 5) I think after a hesitation of partner you have to give the players a chance to get a good result by some way. So for that reason, when I have to make a ruling at a tournament, I always ask myself the following question: Well let's assume the player which made the doubtable bid would have made the other bid. And now imagine this action would have been successful. Would I change the score now?: 1S - 3S - ? Let's assume the player bid 4S. Of course this was the successsful action. Now the opponents cry for TD. Now I have to imagine hands, when the 3S has sth to bid, but the partner passed and this was also the successful action. In my opinion, you are not able to give adjusted scores both times. So you as a TD have to decide which action you dislike more. Otherwise you punish someone for thinking. This is not what the rules say (except when they deliberately do that way). well, for everybody who managed to get here another ethical problem: S xxxx H QJ9xxx D - C Qxx The bidding goes 1D (some strange system: no 4card major, 10-15 pts.) by your RHO and you bid 2H (I know you don't like it, but I did it). The LHO bids 2S which is alerted but partner do not ask. He bids 3S. The right opp. passes and you ask for the explanation of 2S: Transfer to clubs. What do you bid now? From owner-bridge-laws Mon May 13 03:18:09 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA14006 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 13 May 1996 03:18:09 +1000 Received: from relay-2.mail.demon.net (disperse.demon.co.uk [158.152.1.77]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id DAA14000 for ; Mon, 13 May 1996 03:17:28 +1000 Received: from post.demon.co.uk ([158.152.1.72]) by relay-2.mail.demon.net id am28334; 12 May 96 18:14 +0100 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by relay-3.mail.demon.net id aa06764; 12 May 96 17:58 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Sun, 12 May 1996 16:01:32 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Subject: New ethical problem In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 1.12 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article , David Stevenson writes >Forwarded by David Stevenson from Richard Bley, Germany. > >well, for everybody who managed to get here another ethical problem: >S xxxx >H QJ9xxx >D - >C Qxx >The bidding goes 1D (some strange system: no 4card major, 10-15 pts.) by your >RHO and you bid 2H (I know you don't like it, but I did it). >The LHO bids 2S which is alerted but partner do not ask. He bids 3S. The right >opp. passes and you ask for the explanation of 2S: Transfer to clubs. >What do you bid now? > I like 2H (well, 3H might be better). I bid 4S. WTP? -- David Stevenson Bridge Cats Railways Logic /\_/\ Nothing ventured, nothing gained |. .| david@blakjak.demon.co.uk Emails welcome =< @ >= Tel: +44 (0)151 677 7412 Phone before Fax please ^ From owner-bridge-laws Mon May 13 03:58:35 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA14156 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 13 May 1996 03:58:35 +1000 Received: from emout16.mail.aol.com (emout16.mx.aol.com [198.81.11.42]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id DAA14151 for ; Mon, 13 May 1996 03:58:28 +1000 From: AlLeBendig@aol.com Received: by emout16.mail.aol.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) id NAA21018 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Sun, 12 May 1996 13:57:55 -0400 Date: Sun, 12 May 1996 13:57:55 -0400 Message-ID: <960512135754_111966306@emout16.mail.aol.com> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Slow invitations Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In a message dated 96-05-12 09:11:12 EDT, David writes: {s} >well, for everybody who managed to get here another ethical problem: >S xxxx >H QJ9xxx >D - >C Qxx >The bidding goes 1D (some strange system: no 4card major, 10-15 pts.) by your >RHO and you bid 2H (I know you don't like it, but I did it). >The LHO bids 2S which is alerted but partner do not ask. He bids 3S. The >right >opp. passes and you ask for the explanation of 2S: Transfer to clubs. >What do you bid now? I know where we're going, but I don't think this is a major problem. I am working under the assumption that partner has spades (cue of artificial bid is natural is a fairly normal agreement, isn't it?). I must assume partner also knows what is happening. Thae fact that he did not inquire is UI. Close call, but I would bid 4S. Partner did voluntarily bid at the 3 level after I preempted. I would accept a pass as a decision. I would not accept anything else. I can't wait to hear the end of this story. It's bound to be good! Alan LeBendig From owner-bridge-laws Mon May 13 05:15:28 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA21981 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 13 May 1996 05:15:28 +1000 Received: from ccnet3.ccnet.com (pisarra@ccnet3.ccnet.com [192.215.96.11]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id FAA21976 for ; Mon, 13 May 1996 05:15:22 +1000 Received: (from pisarra@localhost) by ccnet3.ccnet.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) id MAA22008; Sun, 12 May 1996 12:12:29 -0700 Date: Sun, 12 May 1996 12:12:29 -0700 (PDT) From: Chris Pisarra X-Sender: pisarra@ccnet3 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Slow invitations (fwd) Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Hi all I've been lurking for a couple of weeks, but this discussion just took a fascinating turn, so here goes. Allen wrote: The fact that he did not inquire is UI. Aren't we entering an area of double bind here? If partner *asks* about the cue bid, then bids 3S, surely someone will contend that the question implied something about his hand, and conveyed UI. If it is also the case that not asking carries UI, then what is he to do? No matter what his action, he will have conveyed UI and constrained his partner's bidding. This is clearly untenable in a rational set of laws. I don't claim to have any answers here, but I just don't think that you can reasonably argue that not asking questions conveys UI. On the other hand, arguing with Allen about these issues is not always profitable. Chris Pisarra From owner-bridge-laws Mon May 13 06:17:58 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA22256 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 13 May 1996 06:17:58 +1000 Received: from dub-img-5.compuserve.com (dub-img-5.compuserve.com [198.4.9.5]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id GAA22250 for ; Mon, 13 May 1996 06:17:53 +1000 Received: by dub-img-5.compuserve.com (8.6.10/5.950515) id QAA15779; Sun, 12 May 1996 16:17:18 -0400 Date: 12 May 96 16:15:28 EDT From: Richard Bley <101557.1671@compuserve.com> To: Bridge Laws List Subject: New ethical problem Message-ID: <960512201528_101557.1671_IHK53-1@CompuServe.COM> Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk >Forwarded by David Stevenson from Richard Bley, Germany. Thank you. I thought (!) that it is enough just to click on reply... >>well, for everybody who managed to get here another ethical problem: >>S xxxx >>H QJ9xxx >>D - >>C Qxx >>The bidding goes 1D (some strange system: no 4card major, 10-15 pts.) by your >>RHO and you bid 2H (I know you don't like it, but I did it). >>The LHO bids 2S which is alerted but partner do not ask. He bids 3S. The right >>opp. passes and you ask for the explanation of 2S: Transfer to clubs. >>What do you bid now? >> >> I like 2H (well, 3H might be better). I bid 4S. WTP The problem is of course, that there are other bids. PASS was one of these bids. But would you really have passed with 4 card in spades? That is, I think, impossible and is only possible with UI. One small problem is, is it possible to make an UI by not doing anything? Well that seemed to be easy. The next is, we may have an agreement about this situation. One is called "nothing" and invented by M.Granovetter. This "convention" states that every bid by your opponent is taken as a natural (SAYC) bid. Do you think we have to prove this convention to be played? (In this conv. 3S would be a cue). Last not least? Do you think this hand is good enough for a slam try? What is with 4C or 4D? Cues slam inviting. I think this depends on the approach of your weak twos... Or not??? From owner-bridge-laws Mon May 13 11:41:04 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id LAA23306 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 13 May 1996 11:41:04 +1000 Received: from emout10.mail.aol.com (emout10.mx.aol.com [198.81.11.25]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id LAA23301 for ; Mon, 13 May 1996 11:40:45 +1000 From: AlLeBendig@aol.com Received: by emout10.mail.aol.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) id VAA06106 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Sun, 12 May 1996 21:40:05 -0400 Date: Sun, 12 May 1996 21:40:05 -0400 Message-ID: <960512214002_397480774@emout10.mail.aol.com> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Slow invitations (fwd) Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In a message dated 96-05-12 15:16:48 EDT Chris writes: >Subj: Re: Slow invitations (fwd) >Date: 96-05-12 15:16:48 EDT >From: pisarra@ccnet.com (Chris Pisarra) >Sender: owner-bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au >To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au > > >Hi all > > I've been lurking for a couple of weeks, but this discussion just >took a fascinating turn, so here goes. > >Allen wrote: It's Alan to my friends. > The fact that he did not inquire is UI. > > > Aren't we entering an area of double bind here? If partner >*asks* about the cue bid, then bids 3S, surely someone will contend that >the question implied something about his hand, and conveyed UI. If it is >also the case that not asking carries UI, then what is he to do? No >matter what his action, he will have conveyed UI and constrained his >partner's bidding. This is clearly untenable in a rational set of laws. 2S wasn't a cue-bid, Chris - it was an alerted bid. Partner could almost never be accused of having done anything wrong by asking the explanation of an alerted call. If your partner doesn't ask about a call which has been alerted and you find out later that there is something ambiguous in the auction, you must always assume partner knew what was going on. We are very harsh on players who ask the meaning of a bid when it has no bearing on their action and some relationship to their hand. However, it is generally fair game to say "please explain" when a call has been alerted. Obviously the more experienced one is, the less often you might choose the wrong time to do this. > > I don't claim to have any answers here, but I just don't think >that you can reasonably argue that not asking questions conveys UI. On >the other hand, arguing with Allen about these issues is not always >profitable. That's funny. Some believe they could make a living doing just that. Let me give you an example of some UI from a failure to inquire. You hold: Jx Qx QT9xx Kxxx. With both vul, pairs, LHO opens a Multi 2D. Partner doubles which you have agreed to play as a takeout double of spades. RHO bids 2S (willing to play in 3H, reluctant to play in 3S). Do you bid? Lebensohl is available. Many players would take a call here. You could certainly not be criticized for bidding. The auction ended here and partner's hand was: ATxxx Kxx x AQ9x. What happened was that the multi side had suggested defenses which this pair had agreed to play. The hand with the minors knew his partner was not familiar with multi or defenses to it and after the 2D bid his partner never consulted the suggested defenses before doubling. He maintained later that he could tell what had happened because of his spade length and that is why he chose a pass. The result was down three at the table and the Committee judged that N-S was in possession of UI and chose an action suggested by the UI. An adjustment was issued. Does this clarify how there may be UI because of a failure to inquire? Alan LeBendig From owner-bridge-laws Mon May 13 12:00:04 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id MAA23332 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 13 May 1996 12:00:04 +1000 Received: from relay-4.mail.demon.net (relay-4.mail.demon.net [158.152.1.108]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id LAA23327 for ; Mon, 13 May 1996 11:58:09 +1000 Received: from post.demon.co.uk ([158.152.1.72]) by relay-4.mail.demon.net id ae04407; 13 May 96 1:57 GMT Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by relay-3.mail.demon.net id aa04676; 13 May 96 0:45 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 13 May 1996 00:38:55 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Slow invitations (fwd) In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 1.12 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article , Chris Pisarra writes > I've been lurking for a couple of weeks, but this discussion just >took a fascinating turn, so here goes. Come on in, the water's warm. > >Allen Alan, please. :) >wrote: > The fact that he did not inquire is UI. > > > Aren't we entering an area of double bind here? If partner >*asks* about the cue bid, then bids 3S, surely someone will contend that >the question implied something about his hand, and conveyed UI. If it is >also the case that not asking carries UI, then what is he to do? No >matter what his action, he will have conveyed UI and constrained his >partner's bidding. This is clearly untenable in a rational set of laws. It is very interesting the way that passing UI is felt to be a positive thing when there is no need for that at all. Consider, Chris, that what is UI is not that he asks or that he doesn't ask. The UI is whether he asks. The player is not allowed (L73C) to take any advantage from knowing whether his partner asked. > > > I don't claim to have any answers here, but I just don't think >that you can reasonably argue that not asking questions conveys UI. You see you use the word "conveys" which is a positive sort of attribute. But it is the negative you should consider here. Ask yourself "Is he allowed to base his next bid on *whether* his partner has asked a question?". I am sure you will answer "No way!" -- David Stevenson Bridge Cats Railways Logic /\_/\ Nothing ventured, nothing gained |. .| david@blakjak.demon.co.uk Emails welcome =< @ >= Tel: +44 (0)151 677 7412 Phone before Fax please ^ From owner-bridge-laws Mon May 13 17:11:35 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id RAA24800 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 13 May 1996 17:11:35 +1000 Received: from ccnet3.ccnet.com (pisarra@ccnet3.ccnet.com [192.215.96.11]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id RAA24794 for ; Mon, 13 May 1996 17:11:05 +1000 Received: (from pisarra@localhost) by ccnet3.ccnet.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA28163; Mon, 13 May 1996 00:07:55 -0700 Date: Mon, 13 May 1996 00:07:55 -0700 (PDT) From: Chris Pisarra X-Sender: pisarra@ccnet3 To: David Stevenson cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Slow invitations (fwd) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David wrote: > You see you use the word "conveys" which is a positive sort of > attribute. But it is the negative you should consider here. Ask > yourself "Is he allowed to base his next bid on *whether* his partner > has asked a question?". I am sure you will answer "No way!" I can see your point, of course, I just can't imagine how to implement it. Does this imply that I must always ask for an explanation, in order to avoid giving UI by only asking when it matters? Must I make people tell me that the double was negative, or the jump to 4C was a splinter, or whatever, so that 1 time in 50 I can ask for information I really need? Should I then be calling the director every time someone fails to inquire after I alert my partner's bid? I can just imagine this: 1C (could be short) Alert Pass (no question) Director!!! I would hate to try to explain to any of the West Coast directing staff about the possible UI, but the ACBL rules mandate that the director be summoned in the case of possible UI. Am I required to know what the opponents do or don't understand, so that I can make a value judgement about whether or not they should have asked? This is more than I am capable of. I have long thought that the issue of UI, hesitations, logical alternatives, etc., was leading us into an impenetrable morass from which the game might well not emerge. If we now add the possibility of UI by negative inference, the problems will increase exponentially and we may as well just give up and start square dancing. Since I look awful in polyester, and can't stand women with 23 petticoats and little flat shoes, we'd better find another solution. Chris Chris Pisarra pisarra@ccnet.com From owner-bridge-laws Mon May 13 22:34:48 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id WAA27332 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 13 May 1996 22:34:48 +1000 Received: from relay-2.mail.demon.net (disperse.demon.co.uk [158.152.1.77]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id WAA27313 for ; Mon, 13 May 1996 22:34:38 +1000 Received: from post.demon.co.uk ([158.152.1.72]) by relay-2.mail.demon.net id bm29659; 13 May 96 12:53 +0100 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by relay-3.mail.demon.net id aa13233; 13 May 96 12:46 +0100 Message-ID: <0ZadfMAndxlxEwj6@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Mon, 13 May 1996 12:05:11 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Slow invitations (fwd) In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 1.12 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article , Chris Pisarra writes > > >David wrote: >> You see you use the word "conveys" which is a positive sort of >> attribute. But it is the negative you should consider here. Ask >> yourself "Is he allowed to base his next bid on *whether* his partner >> has asked a question?". I am sure you will answer "No way!" > > I can see your point, of course, I just can't imagine how to >implement it. > > Does this imply that I must always ask for an explanation, in >order to avoid giving UI by only asking when it matters? Must I make >people tell me that the double was negative, or the jump to 4C was a >splinter, or whatever, so that 1 time in 50 I can ask for information I >really need? No, certainly not. You are still thinking in the positive not the negative. You do not try to avoid giving UI with rare exceptions. What should happen is that your partner should avoid acting on it as L73C says. When you play Bridge UI is available from partner the whole time. Is his bid quick or slow? Does he smile or frown? Did he order a drink while waiting for you to bid? Did he have a drink before bidding? Did he consult his scorecard before bidding? Did he show interest in your bid? [Even that has a positive and negative: was his showing of interest simply that he was not looking at the girl's legs at the next table as he had done all through the previous hand?] So what you do is avoid taking notice of these impressions and not making inferences therefrom. [Incidentally, the advantages of screens include that you lose a very large quantity of UI, not just the quick or slow bidding that was originally quoted as the reason for screens.] > > > Should I then be calling the director every time someone fails to >inquire after I alert my partner's bid? I can just imagine this: > >1C (could be short) >Alert >Pass (no question) >Director!!! > > I would hate to try to explain to any of the West Coast directing >staff about the possible UI, but the ACBL rules mandate that the director >be summoned in the case of possible UI. Look, this game has to be played with a commonsense approach to the rules from the majority. [Incidentally, I hear of "problems" with Bridge in the USA: I wonder if the biggest problem is that they simply don't follow that last guideline?] Your approach to ACBL rules should be that you do not call the TD the whole time but that you call him if you really believe there is likely to be a problem. The Laws of the game stress (L73C) that you should bend over backwards not to act on UI. They don't say much on the subjects of not giving UI and checking on opponents' use of UI. That is the way it should be: that is the correct approach. > > Am I required to know what the opponents do or don't understand, >so that I can make a value judgement about whether or not they should >have asked? This is more than I am capable of. And worrying the whole time about whether opponents may be using UI does not qualify as "played with a commonsense approach to the rules". > > I have long thought that the issue of UI, hesitations, logical >alternatives, etc., was leading us into an impenetrable morass from >which the game might well not emerge. If we now add the possibility of >UI by negative inference, the problems will increase exponentially >and we may as well just give up and start square dancing. Since I look >awful in polyester, and can't stand women with 23 petticoats and little >flat shoes, we'd better find another solution. We have. Commonsense. -- David Stevenson Bridge Cats Railways Logic /\_/\ Nothing ventured, nothing gained |. .| david@blakjak.demon.co.uk Emails welcome =< @ >= Tel: +44 (0)151 677 7412 Phone before Fax please ^ From owner-bridge-laws Tue May 14 00:10:09 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA28554 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 14 May 1996 00:10:09 +1000 Received: from andrew.cais.com (andrew.cais.com [199.0.216.215]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id AAA28536 for ; Tue, 14 May 1996 00:10:01 +1000 Received: from cais3.cais.com (cais3.cais.com [199.0.216.227]) by andrew.cais.com (8.6.9/8.6.9) with SMTP id KAA05043 for ; Mon, 13 May 1996 10:00:01 -0400 Date: Mon, 13 May 1996 10:00:01 -0400 (EDT) From: Eric Landau X-Sender: elandau@cais3.cais.com To: Bridge Laws Discussion List Subject: New ethical problem Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk What is happening from partner's viewpoint? There are two possibilities: (1) He is treating 2S as natural, and cue-bidding. He is under no ethical burden to inquire just because there was an alert. He is not responsible for knowing the opponent's methods, or for learning them at the table just because they alerted. And there's no ethical problem with a partnership agreement, whether explicit or implicit, to treat all opponents' undefined bids as though natural. It seems to me that he's in the same legal and ethical position as he would be had your side asked the opponents not to alert, and they hadn't. Surely we wouldn't argue that having requested that the opponents not alert we would be passing UI by not asking what 2S meant, even if the opponents slipped and alerted. UI is, by definition, "Information which is given to a partner by means other than a legal call or play." [ACBL, The Official Encyclopedia of Bridge.] TDs/ACs determine UI infractions by making a pretty standard series of successive judgments, and in all the lists I've seen question #1 is "Was there an irregularity?" Here the answer is clearly No. Partner has done nothing irregular by failing to inquire about 2S, and thus cannot have conveyed UI. (2) He knows that 2S was a transfer, and is bidding 3S natural. But if he knows, he's being extremely ethical. Albeit that his chances of getting caught are nil, he has not inquired, since to do so would be asking a question purely for his partner's benefit. To be strictly ethical, he has carefully left you guessing about what he thinks 2S means. Asking would be deliberately conveying UI, taking you off this guess. Since he has left you the guess, you are free to take it unconstrained by any ethical burden. So I'd argue that your critical decision -- how was partner treating 2S? -- is a "bridge decision" with no ethical implications. If you know the answer by agreement, fine; if not, you are free to back your judgment. In neither case has there been any irregularity which would raise ethical considerations. Eric Landau APL Solutions, Inc. elandau@cais.com 1107 Dale Drive (301) 589-4621 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 USA From owner-bridge-laws Tue May 14 00:45:05 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA01917 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 14 May 1996 00:45:05 +1000 Received: from emout16.mail.aol.com (emout16.mx.aol.com [198.81.11.42]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id AAA01912 for ; Tue, 14 May 1996 00:44:59 +1000 From: AlLeBendig@aol.com Received: by emout16.mail.aol.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA04226 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Mon, 13 May 1996 10:44:25 -0400 Date: Mon, 13 May 1996 10:44:25 -0400 Message-ID: <960513104424_397811593@emout16.mail.aol.com> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Slow invitations (fwd) Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In a message dated 96-05-13 03:13:49 EDT, Chris writes: >Subj: Re: Slow invitations (fwd) >Date: 96-05-13 03:13:49 EDT >From: pisarra@ccnet.com (Chris Pisarra) >Sender: owner-bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au >To: ngrp1@blakjak.demon.co.uk (David Stevenson) >CC: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au > > > >David wrote: >> You see you use the word "conveys" which is a positive sort of >> attribute. But it is the negative you should consider here. Ask >> yourself "Is he allowed to base his next bid on *whether* his partner >> has asked a question?". I am sure you will answer "No way!" > > I can see your point, of course, I just can't imagine how to >implement it. > > Does this imply that I must always ask for an explanation, in >order to avoid giving UI by only asking when it matters? Must I make >people tell me that the double was negative, or the jump to 4C was a >splinter, or whatever, so that 1 time in 50 I can ask for information I >really need? > > Should I then be calling the director every time someone fails to >inquire after I alert my partner's bid? I can just imagine this: Comeon, Chris - now you're getting silly. Most of the time you will be aware of what an alert is for. And furthermore, in any auction in which you are not involved there can never be a reason to ask what is happening. You can always get your information later. This entire discussion is only confusing if you're not paying attention. I first made this reference to a 3S bid which was either natural or a cue bid. I allowed that I suspected the problem might be because partner didn't ask about the meaning of an alerted 2S bid. Once I ask and find out that it was very strange, I just assume partner knew what it meant. Is that difficult? We pretend partner asked and got the information that I now have. In the multi example I gave, we were in a funny position. Partner bid without any knowledge of what was going on and we now know that. This isn't a new area which we have to try to understand. It's as if partner said "Well, I'll make some kind of takeout double and we'll work out later what it means." Had partner looked at the suggested defenses, you would have known that he knew exactly which hand his double showed and likely would have been quite happy to bid. At least it would be reasonable to do so. You're just not allowed to know that he isn't fully aware of what is happening by his actions (in this case not looking). One good idea here is to always look at the suggested defenses regardless of your hand. This way partner hever has any help he shouldn't. Have you ever played a weak NT and found that the opponents only ask the range when they have a fairly good hand? If so, I'm sure it has bothered you just like it has bothered others. Our new procedures of announcing the range should take care of this problem. > >1C (could be short) >Alert >Pass (no question) >Director!!! As I've said, that's silly! > > I would hate to try to explain to any of the West Coast directing >staff about the possible UI, but the ACBL rules mandate that the director >be summoned in the case of possible UI. I thought I was familiar with most of the rules and regulations and you just quoted one I've never heard of. It could be hard to explain it to the TDs since they won't have heard it either. Where could you have possibly come up with such a rule? > > Am I required to know what the opponents do or don't understand, >so that I can make a value judgement about whether or not they should >have asked? This is more than I am capable of. I don't believe that. Such a situation as we are discussing does not come up often. What's more, if it did you would know that something may have gone wrong. I'm sure you have no problem working out when an opponent may have acted on their partner's hesitation. This is only another type of UI. > > I have long thought that the issue of UI, hesitations, logical >alternatives, etc., was leading us into an impenetrable morass from >which the game might well not emerge. If we now add the possibility of >UI by negative inference, the problems will increase exponentially >and we may as well just give up and start square dancing. All we're doing is identifying a source of UI that you hadn't considered, Chris. There is no difference in interpretation of how to deal with that UI. >Since I look >awful in polyester, and can't stand women with 23 petticoats and little >flat shoes, we'd better find another solution. I understand hula hoops are making a comeback. Alan LeBendig From owner-bridge-laws Tue May 14 04:53:27 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA08178 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 14 May 1996 04:53:27 +1000 Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [128.103.40.170]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id EAA08150 for ; Tue, 14 May 1996 04:53:18 +1000 Received: from cfa183.harvard.edu (cfa183.harvard.edu [131.142.12.59]) by cfa.harvard.edu (8.7.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id OAA00750 for ; Mon, 13 May 1996 14:53:10 -0400 (EDT) Received: by cfa183.harvard.edu (5.x/SMI-SVR4) id AA00527; Mon, 13 May 1996 14:55:07 -0400 Date: Mon, 13 May 1996 14:55:07 -0400 From: willner@cfa183.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Message-Id: <9605131855.AA00527@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: New ethical problem X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: Eric Landau > Partner has done nothing irregular by failing to inquire about 2S, and > thus cannot have conveyed UI. I trust we agree that "Please explain?... 3S" and "3S" are not allowed to have different meanings. As a practical matter, (absent screens) I know whether or not partner has inquired about 2S. That information is unauthorized, whether you wish to call it an irregularity or not. The legal question is likely to boil down to whether either an inquiry or a failure to inquire indicates one action over another. Probably neither will, but if there is substantial reason to believe otherwise, the usual rules would seem to apply. (This seems to be pretty much what David said in different language.) > since to do so would be asking a > question purely for his partner's benefit. What is the list's view on this question? Clearly it is unethical to convey information about one's own hand to partner by any means other than legal calls and plays. What about asking about opponents' agreements, to which partner is fully entitled to be informed? Kaplan has given an example where an opponent gave a partial explanation. Kaplan himself knew the full explanation and asked for it, even though he himself didn't need it. The _effect_ of this action was to prevent any possible legal dispute about misinformation. Do we condemn this? What about a case where one doesn't need information at all but is worried that partner might and will not know to ask? Is that different from Kaplan's example? From owner-bridge-laws Tue May 14 07:01:54 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA11847 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 14 May 1996 07:01:54 +1000 Received: from andrew.cais.com (andrew.cais.com [199.0.216.215]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id HAA11842 for ; Tue, 14 May 1996 07:01:45 +1000 Received: from cais3.cais.com (cais3.cais.com [199.0.216.227]) by andrew.cais.com (8.6.9/8.6.9) with SMTP id RAA19727 for ; Mon, 13 May 1996 17:01:41 -0400 Date: Mon, 13 May 1996 17:01:41 -0400 (EDT) From: Eric Landau X-Sender: elandau@cais3.cais.com To: Bridge Laws Discussion List Subject: Re: New ethical problem In-Reply-To: <9605131855.AA00527@cfa183.harvard.edu> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Mon, 13 May 1996, Steve Willner wrote: > > From: Eric Landau > > > Partner has done nothing irregular by failing to inquire about 2S, and > > thus cannot have conveyed UI. > > I trust we agree that "Please explain?... 3S" and "3S" are not allowed > to have different meanings. Certainly. That would be "prearranged communication" (Law 73.B.2), and a far more grievous offense than the sort of "ordinary" (73.B.1) UI we're talking about. > As a practical matter, (absent screens) I know whether or not partner > has inquired about 2S. That information is unauthorized, whether you > wish to call it an irregularity or not. The legal question is likely > to boil down to whether either an inquiry or a failure to inquire > indicates one action over another. Probably neither will, but if there > is substantial reason to believe otherwise, the usual rules would > seem to apply. (This seems to be pretty much what David said in > different language.) Until Steve's message sent me back to the Law book, I'd have said that information from partner's failure to ask a question was authorized. I'd have been wrong. 73.B.1 explicitly mentions "communication between partners... through questions asked or not asked of the opponents." The words "or not asked" are new in the 1987 revisions. > > since to do so would be asking a > > question purely for his partner's benefit. > > What is the list's view on this question? Clearly it is unethical > to convey information about one's own hand to partner by any means > other than legal calls and plays. What about asking about opponents' > agreements, to which partner is fully entitled to be informed? Not so clear. It is clear that it's unethical to convey information by any means other than legal actions. Asking, or not asking, about opps' agreements, however, is a perfectly legal action. All other cases of UI covered by 73.B.1 involve extra-legal sources such as tempo variations, vocal emphasis, gestures or expressions, inappropriate alerts or explanations, etc. One could easily argue that 20.F.1, by explicitly granting the right to ask for an explanation, accords doing so the same status as that of "legal calls and plays." Asking about opponent's agreements for the purpose of making sure that partner is fully informed, however, arguably violates Law 74.C.4, which prohibits "acting during the auction or play so as to call attention to a significant occurrence." > Kaplan has given an example where an opponent gave a partial explanation. > Kaplan himself knew the full explanation and asked for it, even though > he himself didn't need it. The _effect_ of this action was to prevent > any possible legal dispute about misinformation. Do we condemn this? I'd have thought so, but Steve is forcing me to rethink this. > What about a case where one doesn't need information at all but > is worried that partner might and will not know to ask? Is that > different from Kaplan's example? Not if Kaplan knew the full explanation all along and asked originally for his partner's benefit. If, on the other hand, his partner asked originally and Kaplan knew that the reply was deficient, he can argue that he's covered under 20.E ("All players... are responsible for prompt correction of errors in restatement;" 20.F suggests that explanations are covered by the term "restatement"). The problem, of course, is that when an opponent alerts, we inevitably pass information to partner. If we ask before we act, partner knows that we would have acted differently had we received a different explanation. If we do not ask, he knows that we would not have acted differently. Either way, the information could easily be useful. If it's unauthorized as well, then we are placed at a prima facie disadvantage by the fact that an opponent has said the word "alert." This can't be right -- alerts, if they are to have any justification at all, cannot be permitted to work to the detriment of the non-alerting side. Now, if we decide that it's not improper to ask questions when we either know or don't need the answer (i.e. "for partner's benefit") we discover that we can protect ourselves ethically by always asking whenever there's an alert, so our asking can't transmit any information. And thus, to avoid a subsequent ethical problem, we should do so in order to maintain the equity we would have had everyone at the table known what the bid meant with no alert given -- the "ideal" that the alert system strives to attain. But that's patently unworkable -- indeed, we just finished jumping on Chris for suggesting exactly this, and rightfully so. And yet, the folks who revised the Laws in 1987 explicitly added "or not asked," and presumably had a reason to do so. Once again, I'm left wondering what kinds of situations they had in mind when they decided to do this. What would we think if they had changed the wording that now explicitly states that UI can be transmitted by "variations in tempo" to say that UI could be transmitted by "variations in tempo, or lack thereof?" Is this not analogous? /eric Eric Landau APL Solutions, Inc. elandau@cais.com 1107 Dale Drive (301) 589-4621 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 USA From owner-bridge-laws Tue May 14 07:09:40 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA11874 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 14 May 1996 07:09:40 +1000 Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [128.103.40.170]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id HAA11867 for ; Tue, 14 May 1996 07:09:35 +1000 Received: from cfa183.harvard.edu (cfa183.harvard.edu [131.142.12.59]) by cfa.harvard.edu (8.7.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id RAA03617 for ; Mon, 13 May 1996 17:09:31 -0400 (EDT) Received: by cfa183.harvard.edu (5.x/SMI-SVR4) id AA00609; Mon, 13 May 1996 17:11:28 -0400 Date: Mon, 13 May 1996 17:11:28 -0400 From: willner@cfa183.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Message-Id: <9605132111.AA00609@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Slow invitations (fwd) X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > >From: pisarra@ccnet.com (Chris Pisarra) > > I would hate to try to explain to any of the West Coast directing > >staff about the possible UI, but the ACBL rules mandate that the director > >be summoned in the case of possible UI. > From: AlLeBendig@aol.com > I thought I was familiar with most of the rules and regulations and you just > quoted one I've never heard of. It could be hard to explain it to the TDs > since they won't have heard it either. Where could you have possibly come up > with such a rule? I think this is just the ACBL position on 16A1 that a player cannot "reserve rights" but must summon the TD immediately "When a player considers that an opponent has made such information available, and that damage could well result...." The last phrase is significant, of course. There's always all sorts of UI available, but it's fairly rare that it "could well" result in damage. (At least I hope it's rare in your games. I won't play in games where it's common.) From owner-bridge-laws Tue May 14 14:31:39 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id OAA13659 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 14 May 1996 14:31:39 +1000 Received: from relay-2.mail.demon.net (disperse.demon.co.uk [158.152.1.77]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id OAA13649 for ; Tue, 14 May 1996 14:30:13 +1000 Received: from post.demon.co.uk ([158.152.1.72]) by relay-2.mail.demon.net id ah27899; 14 May 96 0:17 +0100 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by relay-3.mail.demon.net id aa25759; 13 May 96 23:52 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 13 May 1996 19:19:43 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: New ethical problem In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 1.12 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article , Eric Landau writes [s] >UI is, by definition, "Information which is given to a partner by means >other than a legal call or play." [ACBL, The Official Encyclopedia of >Bridge.] That's not a particular accurate definition (for the definitive one read L16) but it will do for this argument. > TDs/ACs determine UI infractions by making a pretty standard >series of successive judgments, and in all the lists I've seen question >#1 is "Was there an irregularity?" By which they are referring to the recipient of the UI not the donor. Actually I do not think it a very good list if it starts this way, but never mind. > Here the answer is clearly No. Well, maybe: it is your actions that would be being considered not partner's. > > >Partner has done nothing irregular by failing to inquire about 2S, and >thus cannot have conveyed UI. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ This is just wrong. It is wrong by your definition. It is wrong by the laws of Bridge. Even the least experienced TDs would not agree with this one. If your partner thinks for a long time then passes, he has not committed an infraction unless he has done it deliberately (L73D1 2nd para). But he certainly has given his partner UI! -- David Stevenson Bridge Cats Railways Logic /\_/\ England, UK Nothing ventured, nothing gained [. .] david@blakjak.demon.co.uk Emails welcome =< @ >= Tel: +44 (0)151 677 7412 Phone before Fax please ^ From owner-bridge-laws Tue May 14 17:36:50 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id RAA15380 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 14 May 1996 17:36:50 +1000 Received: from relay-2.mail.demon.net (disperse.demon.co.uk [158.152.1.77]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id RAA15374 for ; Tue, 14 May 1996 17:35:04 +1000 Received: from post.demon.co.uk ([158.152.1.72]) by relay-2.mail.demon.net id al08696; 14 May 96 2:06 +0100 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by relay-3.mail.demon.net id aa12942; 14 May 96 1:50 +0100 Message-ID: <5ZAYwaAMN9lxEwiq@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Tue, 14 May 1996 01:26:52 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: New ethical problem In-Reply-To: <9605131855.AA00527@cfa183.harvard.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 1.12 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article <9605131855.AA00527@cfa183.harvard.edu>, Steve Willner writes >> From: Eric Landau [s] >> since to do so would be asking a >> question purely for his partner's benefit. > >What is the list's view on this question? Clearly it is unethical >to convey information about one's own hand to partner by any means >other than legal calls and plays. What about asking about opponents' >agreements, to which partner is fully entitled to be informed? > >Kaplan has given an example where an opponent gave a partial explanation. >Kaplan himself knew the full explanation and asked for it, even though >he himself didn't need it. The _effect_ of this action was to prevent >any possible legal dispute about misinformation. Do we condemn this? > >What about a case where one doesn't need information at all but >is worried that partner might and will not know to ask? Is that >different from Kaplan's example? EBL 20.5: [I better explain: a reference such as this refers to the Commentary on the Laws published by the European Bridge League. 20.5 is the fifth paragraph concerning Law 20. The EBU published its Director's Guide as a supplement and numbered its paragraphs to follow. Thus EBL 20.11 is followed in the EBU Guide by 20.12.] 'No player should ever ask for a review of the auction, or for an explanation, in order to ensure that partner has understood correctly; this is a deliberate use of an unauthorized channel of communication (see Law 73B1) and is *grossly improper*. A player who receives information by an improper means has a clear duty to act *in ignorance* of what he has thus learned, and where he subsequently has a reasonable choice of actions he will select that which is *not* suggested by what he has learned from the illicit information. It is a case of avoiding any advantage that might accrue to his side (see Laws 73C and 73F1).' This is a direct quote [including the American spelling, which my spellchekka did not like!!]: the words enclosed in *asterisks* are shown in bold type in the book. Only the first sentence has any importance: the rest is telling you what you should do, but the first sentence says why this practice is illegal, and I am not entirely sure that it is convincing. Certainly the belief in England is that it is a reprehensible practice, but that does not make it illegal. Other views please? -- David Stevenson Bridge Cats Railways Logic /\_/\ Nothing ventured, nothing gained |. .| david@blakjak.demon.co.uk Emails welcome =< @ >= Tel: +44 (0)151 677 7412 Phone before Fax please ^ From owner-bridge-laws Tue May 14 20:11:37 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id UAA16571 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 14 May 1996 20:11:37 +1000 Received: from mail.be.innet.net (mail.be.innet.net [194.7.1.8]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id UAA16565 for ; Tue, 14 May 1996 20:11:22 +1000 Received: from innet.innet.be (pool03-85.innet.be [194.7.10.69]) by mail.be.innet.net (8.7.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id MAA12336 for ; Tue, 14 May 1996 12:11:07 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <31986E3F.2D71@innet.be> Date: Tue, 14 May 1996 11:27:59 +0000 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.0 (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: imosed substitution - result Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I have a problem in my district. (Antwerp) The ladies' team competition is played at a single venue. The regulations allow the TD to impose a substitution in case of an incomplete team. The committee will later decide the final result of the match. This is a type of regulation which is quite common, certainly in international competition. Usually, the result is left unchanged for the non-offending team, whereas the offenders get a forfeit score. However, this is because almost always, the substitute cannot be regarded an improvement, so the non-offenders are not damaged. But is f.i. an 25-2 score to the non-offenders ever changed into a forfeit 18-0 ? And in my case, the substitute was a clear improvement. (National junior (lady) player) in second regional division). The offending side won the match 21-9. Should the non-offenders be awarded 18VP ? Or perhaps something like 2 VP extra (making 11) ? I would like to hear your opinions. -- Herman DE WAEL E-Mail HermanDW@innet.be Belgium http://www.club.innet.be/~pub02163/index.htm From owner-bridge-laws Tue May 14 21:32:38 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id VAA16957 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 14 May 1996 21:32:38 +1000 Received: from dub-img-7.compuserve.com (dub-img-7.compuserve.com [198.4.9.8]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id VAA16952 for ; Tue, 14 May 1996 21:32:32 +1000 Received: by dub-img-7.compuserve.com (8.6.10/5.950515) id HAA25852; Tue, 14 May 1996 07:31:53 -0400 Date: 14 May 96 07:30:18 EDT From: Richard Bley <101557.1671@compuserve.com> To: Bridge Laws List Subject: Re: Slow invitations (fwd) Message-ID: <960514113018_101557.1671_IHK53-2@CompuServe.COM> Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Hello All (Allen and Alan and All)...!!!! My comments are marked by +++ Chris wrote: Does this imply that I must always ask for an explanation, in order to avoid giving UI by only asking when it matters? Must I make people tell me that the double was negative, or the jump to 4C was a splinter, or whatever, so that 1 time in 50 I can ask for information I really need? Should I then be calling the director every time someone fails to inquire after I alert my partner's bid? I can just imagine this: 1C (could be short) Alert Pass (no question) Director!!! I would hate to try to explain to any of the West Coast directing staff about the possible UI, but the ACBL rules mandate that the director be summoned in the case of possible UI. +++ I think that's an american problem. If they like to make work to the TD well... :-) Am I required to know what the opponents do or don't understand, so that I can make a value judgement about whether or not they should have asked? This is more than I am capable of. I have long thought that the issue of UI, hesitations, logical alternatives, etc., was leading us into an impenetrable morass from which the game might well not emerge. If we now add the possibility of UI by negative inference, the problems will increase exponentially and we may as well just give up and start square dancing. Since I look awful in polyester, and can't stand women with 23 petticoats and little flat shoes, we'd better find another solution. +++ Just let's imagine the situation we discuss would come up at a tournament with screens. I think that it is very likely that the player with the WJB would think that his partner has a natural bid. So it is a use of UI if you think otherwise. Or not? +++ Well to make the problem a bit tougher. Here is the partner's hand: S AKx H A108x D AK10xx C x The bidding went: 1D 2H 2S 3S P 4C P 4NT P 5C P 6H In fact 6H went down, because of the king of hearts offide (not singleton!). That's perhaps the rerason why they didn't call TD. Well, now imagine 6H would have been made (because of a drop of the king of hearts; but I don't think that's important), would you change the score? See you later...(at least your mail) Richard From owner-bridge-laws Tue May 14 23:57:51 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA17580 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 14 May 1996 23:57:51 +1000 Received: from andrew.cais.com (andrew.cais.com [199.0.216.215]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id XAA17575 for ; Tue, 14 May 1996 23:57:45 +1000 Received: from cais3.cais.com (cais3.cais.com [199.0.216.227]) by andrew.cais.com (8.6.9/8.6.9) with SMTP id JAA13205 for ; Tue, 14 May 1996 09:57:40 -0400 Date: Tue, 14 May 1996 09:57:40 -0400 (EDT) From: Eric Landau X-Sender: elandau@cais3.cais.com To: Bridge Laws Discussion List Subject: Re: New ethical problem In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Mon, 13 May 1996, David Stevenson wrote: > In article , > Eric Landau writes > > TDs/ACs determine UI infractions by making a pretty standard > >series of successive judgments, and in all the lists I've seen question > >#1 is "Was there an irregularity?" > > By which they are referring to the recipient of the UI not the donor. > Actually I do not think it a very good list if it starts this way, but > never mind. > > > Here the answer is clearly No. > > Well, maybe: it is your actions that would be being considered not > partner's. > > >Partner has done nothing irregular by failing to inquire about 2S, and > >thus cannot have conveyed UI. > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > > This is just wrong. It is wrong by your definition. It is wrong by > the laws of Bridge. Even the least experienced TDs would not agree with > this one. I think we may be losing the distinction between an "irregularity" and an "infraction." An irregularity is a deviation from normal procedure. The TD is called when someone believes an irregularity has taken place (as specified by Law 9) -- you don't call the TD on a vague feeling that your opponents are doing something wrong; you call him because something specific has happened. Irregularities are not necessarily infractions in themselves, and never are in UI cases, where we carefully distinguish between "conveying UI" (the irregularity) and "taking advantage of UI" (the infraction). The adjudication starts with an alleged irregularity (the reason the TD was called). The correct procedure in UI cases, as understood in the ACBL, has been written up many times in minor variations, but basically the adjudicators, in order to find in favor of adjusting the at-the-table result, must be able to answer the following series of questions affirmatively: (1) Did the alleged irregularity occur? (A TD called on, say, a hesitation must first establish that the player actually did hesitate.) (2) Did the irregularity result in UI being conveyed? (This is sometimes omitted from the writeups because in the ACBL the answer is inevitably a presumptive yes.) (3) Was the UI useful (i.e. did it suggest one or more LAs over others)? (4) Did the bidder take advantage of the UI (i.e. select one of the suggested alternatives)? (5) Did the bidder's action result in consequent damage to the opponents? Note that it takes one yes to establish that an irregularity has occurred, four yesses to establish that an infraction has been committed. Note also that #1 does indeed concern the action of the alleged transmitter of the UI; his partner's (the alleged infractor's) action is considered only at #4, if we get that far. > If your partner thinks for a long time then passes, he has not > committed an infraction unless he has done it deliberately (L73D1 2nd > para). But he certainly has given his partner UI! That's the two-yes case; he has committed the irregularity ("unmistakable hesitation") and has presumptively given his partner UI. We need two more yesses before he will have been deemed to have committed an infraction. But, in the case at hand, where's the first yes? What has occurred which is irregular? Failing to ask a question in response to an alert is hardly an irregularity analogous to an "unmistakable hesitation." In other words, what was the justification for the TD being called in the first place? If we deem the failure to inquire as irregular, then it's appropriate for them to have called the TD (or, in Europe, reserved their rights to do so to their opponents, per Law 16.A.1) to protect their rights (by establishing that the irregularity has indeed occurred, just as in the hesitation case) in case the irregularity gives rise to a subsequent infraction. But that's Chris's scenario; if we accept it, it becomes appropriate to call the TD every time the opponents fail to inquire, to protect one's equity position. Or was the TD called when in fact the only thing the alleged offenders did "wrong" was to be in a situation which was likely to give rise to a misunderstanding and land on their feet, leaving their opponents feeling like they must have done something wrong in order to have avoided potential disaster and come out ahead? Law 16.A defines "extraneous information from partner" as made available "as by means of a remark, a question, a reply to a question, or by unmistakable hesitation, unwonted speed, special emphasis, tone, gesture, movement, mannerism or the like." Clearly, the listed means are not intended to be exhaustive; UI can be transmitted by any of them or by some other, analogous means which is not listed. So I guess the issue is whether we consider not asking a question in reponse to an alert suitably analogous to the listed examples to qualify as a potential source of UI. I'd say it's not, but that's just my opinion and one vote. Eric Landau APL Solutions, Inc. elandau@cais.com 1107 Dale Drive (301) 589-4621 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 USA From owner-bridge-laws Wed May 15 00:57:48 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA20978 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 15 May 1996 00:57:48 +1000 Received: from emout15.mail.aol.com (emout15.mx.aol.com [198.81.11.41]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id AAA20972 for ; Wed, 15 May 1996 00:57:42 +1000 From: AlLeBendig@aol.com Received: by emout15.mail.aol.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA20865 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Tue, 14 May 1996 10:57:08 -0400 Date: Tue, 14 May 1996 10:57:08 -0400 Message-ID: <960514105708_534936457@emout15.mail.aol.com> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Slow invitations (fwd) Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In a message dated 96-05-14 07:41:23 EDT, Richard writes: >Subj: Re: Slow invitations (fwd) >Date: 96-05-14 07:41:23 EDT >From: 101557.1671@compuserve.com (Richard Bley) >Sender: owner-bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au >To: BRIDGE-LAWS@octavia.anu.edu.au (Bridge Laws List) > >Hello All (Allen and Alan and All)...!!!! >My comments are marked by +++ >Chris wrote: > > Does this imply that I must always ask for an explanation, in >order to avoid giving UI by only asking when it matters? Must I make >people tell me that the double was negative, or the jump to 4C was a >splinter, or whatever, so that 1 time in 50 I can ask for information I >really need? > > > Should I then be calling the director every time someone fails to >inquire after I alert my partner's bid? I can just imagine this: > >1C (could be short) >Alert >Pass (no question) >Director!!! > > I would hate to try to explain to any of the West Coast directing >staff about the possible UI, but the ACBL rules mandate that the director >be summoned in the case of possible UI. > >+++ I think that's an american problem. If they like to make work to >the TD well... :-) This truly is not an American problem. Most TDs would lauch at such a call. > > Am I required to know what the opponents do or don't understand, >so that I can make a value judgement about whether or not they should >have asked? This is more than I am capable of. > > I have long thought that the issue of UI, hesitations, logical >alternatives, etc., was leading us into an impenetrable morass from >which the game might well not emerge. If we now add the possibility of >UI by negative inference, the problems will increase exponentially >and we may as well just give up and start square dancing. Since I look >awful in polyester, and can't stand women with 23 petticoats and little >flat shoes, we'd better find another solution. > >+++ Just let's imagine the situation we discuss would come up at a >tournament with screens. I think that it is very likely that the player >with the WJB would think that his partner has a natural bid. So it is a >use of UI if you think otherwise. Or not? Absolutely. > >+++ Well to make the problem a bit tougher. Here is the partner's hand: >S AKx >H A108x >D AK10xx >C x >The bidding went: >1D 2H 2S 3S >P 4C P 4NT >P 5C P 6H >In fact 6H went down, because of the king of hearts offide (not >singleton!). That's perhaps the rerason why they didn't call TD. >Well, now imagine 6H would have been made (because of a drop of the >king of hearts; but I don't think that's important), would you change >the score? I'm quite sorry I ruined the problem before you had a chance to get more input. In the future I'll deal with the bridge of the matter and not speculate as to what the real problem is. I think the 4C is some kind of safety play that could easily have been based on the "UI". I had already allowed that I felt that pass and 4S were LAs. I must admit that I didn't consider a slam try via 4D. The majority seemed to feel that 4S was routine. Therefore we should allow a continuation to 6H which the cuebidder would now do. I would never force the WJB to correct to spades. I would have been willing to allow the auction to end at 3S but could perhaps have been convinced to allow the 4S bid. So it appears that if the majority concur with the raise we allow the slam to score. Alan LeBendig From owner-bridge-laws Wed May 15 00:57:53 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA20992 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 15 May 1996 00:57:53 +1000 Received: from emout16.mail.aol.com (emout16.mx.aol.com [198.81.11.42]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id AAA20977 for ; Wed, 15 May 1996 00:57:47 +1000 From: AlLeBendig@aol.com Received: by emout16.mail.aol.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA25710 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Tue, 14 May 1996 10:57:13 -0400 Date: Tue, 14 May 1996 10:57:13 -0400 Message-ID: <960514105710_534936474@emout16.mail.aol.com> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: New ethical problem Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In a message dated 96-05-13 15:01:40 EDT, Steve writes: > >What is the list's view on this question? Clearly it is unethical >to convey information about one's own hand to partner by any means >other than legal calls and plays. What about asking about opponents' >agreements, to which partner is fully entitled to be informed? > >Kaplan has given an example where an opponent gave a partial explanation. >Kaplan himself knew the full explanation and asked for it, even though >he himself didn't need it. The _effect_ of this action was to prevent >any possible legal dispute about misinformation. Do we condemn this? I would never condemn this. I have practiced it at times. I think what we are discussing is the fact that the opponents might be having a misunderstanding. By getting an explanation, we may make sure that there is UI for the partnership. The alert procedure itself may not have provided that. I think the most recent example was on rgb in a thread about Michaels. It went: 1D-2D-P-2S-P-3D-AP. 2D was not alerted (correctly) and the diamond bidder went back to real suit which ended auction. Writer was upset. I think it was "Is it worth calling the cops over this." At the time I suggested that had there been an inquiry about the cue bid, we would now be able to deal with the 3D bid with UI present. Absent the inquiry, nothing illegal had occurred if there was no squirming or faces made. I do not ask this question for partner's sake (I have been taught that is clearly illegal) but rather to make sure the misunderstanding is 'public domain'. > >What about a case where one doesn't need information at all but >is worried that partner might and will not know to ask? Is that >different from Kaplan's example? Clearly wrong. Alan LeBendig From owner-bridge-laws Wed May 15 01:13:21 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA21067 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 15 May 1996 01:13:21 +1000 Received: from cabra.cri.dk (cabra.cri.dk [130.227.48.5]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id BAA21058 for ; Wed, 15 May 1996 01:12:20 +1000 X-Organization: Computer Resources International A/S, Bregneroedvej 144, DK-3460 Birkeroed, Denmark Received: from nov.cri.dk (nov.cri.dk [130.227.50.162]) by cabra.cri.dk (8.6.12/8.6.10) with SMTP id RAA05863 for ; Tue, 14 May 1996 17:10:47 +0200 Received: from CRI-Message_Server by nov.cri.dk with Novell_GroupWise; Tue, 14 May 1996 17:10:39 +0200 Message-Id: X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise 4.1 Date: Tue, 14 May 1996 17:10:29 +0200 From: Jens Brix Christiansen To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: New ethical problem Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk OK, I will vote too. My vote is the opposite of Eric's. I say that information whether partner asked a question is information of the sort that you must "bend over backwards" to avoid using in order to comply with L16 and L73. I am basing my interpretation on L16A: -- quote begin -- A. Proper Communication between Partners 1. How Effected Communication between partners during the auction and play should be effected only by means of the calls and plays themselves. -- quote end -- And I find further support in L73: "failure to ask a question". I look at it this way: If an explicit agreement to use the asking of questions to pass information between partners is illegal (and it is -- no doubt about that), then incidental information of the same kind must be "unauthorized". Every breath we take at the table (slight exaggeration here to wake up the reader) is in this way a potential source of UI. We do not consider the mere action that makes such information available to be a deviation from the correct procedures (hey, that is what it would take for it to be an "irregularity"); we only regulate that such information must not be used to communicate between partners. >>> Eric Landau 14.05.96 15:57 So I guess the issue is whether we consider not asking a question in reponse to an alert suitably analogous to the listed examples to qualify as a potential source of UI. I'd say it's not, but that's just my opinion and one vote. From owner-bridge-laws Wed May 15 02:02:41 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA21432 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 15 May 1996 02:02:41 +1000 Received: from mailout1.h1.usa.pipeline.com (data1.h1.usa.pipeline.com [38.8.56.2]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id CAA21427 for ; Wed, 15 May 1996 02:02:33 +1000 Received: from pipe6.t1.usa.pipeline.com by mailout1.h1.usa.pipeline.com (8.6.9/2.1-PSINet/Pipeline) id QAA17314; Tue, 14 May 1996 16:01:57 GMT Received: by pipe6.t1.usa.pipeline.com (8.6.12/SMI-5.4-PSI) id QAA18911; Tue, 14 May 1996 16:01:55 GMT Date: Tue, 14 May 1996 16:01:55 GMT Message-Id: <199605141601.QAA18911@pipe6.t1.usa.pipeline.com> To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Slow invitations From: dyrektor@nyc.pipeline.com (Alan Miller) Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au X-PipeUser: dyrektor X-PipeHub: nyc.pipeline.com X-PipeGCOS: (Alan Miller) X-Mailer: Pipeline v3.5.0 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On May 12, 1996 03:48:13, 'David Stevenson ' wrote: > >With fewer ethical players at the table, the number of TD calls >increases because (a) unethical players are more likely to use UI (b) >unethical players are more likely to notice UI (c) unethical players are >more likely to believe their opponents are using UI. So the ratio >probably does not change much! A paradox! (a) is certainly true. (b) is far from the truth. In my experience, most players who are vilating law 16 are doing so unintentionally -- usually because they are not sensitive to the issues involved. The sort of opponent who notices the break in tempo is not the sort who has the director called on them for this infraction. (c) is also far from true, Yes there are players who think their opponents are "wired" but generally its not the players who others think are "wired." -- Alan Miller From owner-bridge-laws Wed May 15 02:04:46 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA21451 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 15 May 1996 02:04:46 +1000 Received: from mailout1.h1.usa.pipeline.com (data1.h1.usa.pipeline.com [38.8.56.2]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id CAA21446 for ; Wed, 15 May 1996 02:04:37 +1000 Received: from pipe6.t1.usa.pipeline.com by mailout1.h1.usa.pipeline.com (8.6.9/2.1-PSINet/Pipeline) id QAA17627; Tue, 14 May 1996 16:04:03 GMT Received: by pipe6.t1.usa.pipeline.com (8.6.12/SMI-5.4-PSI) id QAA19062; Tue, 14 May 1996 16:04:00 GMT Date: Tue, 14 May 1996 16:04:00 GMT Message-Id: <199605141604.QAA19062@pipe6.t1.usa.pipeline.com> To: AlLeBendig@aol.com Subject: Re: Slow invitations From: dyrektor@nyc.pipeline.com (Alan Miller) Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au X-PipeUser: dyrektor X-PipeHub: nyc.pipeline.com X-PipeGCOS: (Alan Miller) X-Mailer: Pipeline v3.5.0 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On May 12, 1996 13:57:55, 'AlLeBendig@aol.com' wrote: >In a message dated 96-05-12 09:11:12 EDT, David writes: > >{s} > >>well, for everybody who managed to get here another ethical problem: >>S xxxx >>H QJ9xxx >>D - >>C Qxx >>The bidding goes 1D (some strange system: no 4card major, 10-15 pts.) by >your >>RHO and you bid 2H (I know you don't like it, but I did it). >>The LHO bids 2S which is alerted but partner do not ask. He bids 3S. The >>right >>opp. passes and you ask for the explanation of 2S: Transfer to clubs. >>What do you bid now? > >I know where we're going, but I don't think this is a major problem. I am >working under the assumption that partner has spades (cue of artificial bid >is natural is a fairly normal agreement, isn't it?). I must assume partner >also knows what is happening. Thae fact that he did not inquire is UI. >Close call, but I would bid 4S. Partner did voluntarily bid at the 3 level >after I preempted. I would accept a pass as a decision. I would not accept >anything else. > >I can't wait to hear the end of this story. It's bound to be good! > >Alan LeBendig In my book this isn't close at all. The only question is whether you should cue bid 4D. -- Alan Miller From owner-bridge-laws Wed May 15 04:37:18 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA23602 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 15 May 1996 04:37:18 +1000 Received: from suntan.tandem.com (suntan.tandem.com [192.216.221.8]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id EAA23597 for ; Wed, 15 May 1996 04:37:12 +1000 From: FARLEY_WALLY@Tandem.COM Received: from POST.TANDEM.COM by suntan.tandem.com (8.6.12/suntan5.960119) for id LAA20058; Tue, 14 May 1996 11:36:38 -0700 Received: by POST.TANDEM.COM (4.13/4.5) id AA30009; 14 May 96 11:35:56 -0700 Date: 14 May 96 09:41:00 -0700 Message-Id: <199605141135.AA30009@POST.TANDEM.COM> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: New ethical problem Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk JBC said: : OK, I will vote too. : My vote is the opposite of Eric's. I say that information whether : partner asked a question is information of the sort that you must : "bend over backwards" to avoid using in order to comply with : L16 and L73. I am basing my interpretation on L16A: [snip] : And I find further support in L73: "failure to ask a question". : I look at it this way: If an explicit agreement to use the asking of : questions to pass information between partners : is illegal (and it is -- no doubt about that), then incidental : information of the same kind must be "unauthorized". [snip] I'm going to vote with Eric, and I suspect our agreement comes from the influence of the Ayatollah's Correct Bidding Lessons. In the U.S. (or at least, 'on the West Coast, twelve years ago', when I was active) the absence of a question meant exactly one thing -- "I (think I) know what your bidding means". At that time, the ACBL was mandating Alerts for many, many natural calls. It was also getting into high gear with its "Bridge is a timed event" push. A player really didn't have time to ask for an explanation of every alerted call (particularly since many of us played the identical system, which made the 'necessity' of alerting any one-level suit response to 1C seem even sillier ) (system=Walsh). Bidding without asking a question about an alerted call means "I know what this call means" (it means that even if partner inquires and finds out it means something completely off-the-wall). Thus David Stevenson (with his raise to 4S on the given auction) was in perfect concert with our usual agreements -- by not asking the 3S bidder indicated that s/he knew the meaning of the 2S call (and thus the 3S was natural); David's raise confirms this. Regards, WWFiv (aka Wally Farley) From owner-bridge-laws Wed May 15 04:57:29 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA27147 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 15 May 1996 04:57:29 +1000 Received: from mipl7.jpl.nasa.gov (mipl7.jpl.nasa.gov [128.149.177.7]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id EAA27102 for ; Wed, 15 May 1996 04:57:23 +1000 Received: from tintin.JPL.NASA.GOV (tintin.jpl.nasa.gov [128.149.102.7]) by mipl7.jpl.nasa.gov (8.6.12/8.6.6) with ESMTP id LAA03572 for <@mipl7.JPL.NASA.GOV:bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au>; Tue, 14 May 1996 11:56:38 -0700 Received: by tintin.JPL.NASA.GOV (940816.SGI.8.6.9/930416.SGI.MIPS) for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au id MAA08346; Tue, 14 May 1996 12:02:19 -0700 Date: Tue, 14 May 1996 12:02:19 -0700 From: jeff@tintin.JPL.NASA.GOV (Jeff Goldsmith) Message-Id: <199605141902.MAA08346@tintin.JPL.NASA.GOV> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: questions Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Maybe I missed something, but I read the laws somewhat differently than does David, to wit: 73B1 talks about "gratuitous information" and says that information is not to be transmitted between partners by questions asked or not asked. It does not state that the knowledge of question asking is unauthorized, just that you can't ask the meaning of some call in order to transmit information to partner intentionally. I read this to mean that 73B1 is barring nonsense like the opponents' asking "please explain your 1NT you alerted." You might answer "it's forcing for one round, blah, blah..." without four spades, but when holding four spades say, "it's forcing for one round, blah, blah, ... and may conceal a four-card spade suit." That sort of infraction is probably done unintentionally much more often than intentionally, but is expressly barred by 73B1. 73C lists a bunch of cases in which UI can be transmitted, but there just lists "partner's ... question" and fails to mention presence or absense of question. I don't think therefore, that the laws are clear at all about whether or not partner's having asked a question is UI. I think it *ought* to be UI, that any information gleaned through the question asking process is UI except for most of the opponents' explanations, but I'm not at all convinced that said judgment is supported within the laws. --Jeff # Cthulhu in '96! Why vote for the lesser evil? # --- # http://muggy.gg.caltech.edu/~jeff From owner-bridge-laws Wed May 15 05:41:21 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA29872 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 15 May 1996 05:41:21 +1000 Received: from mail.hamburg.netsurf.de (root@[194.64.236.33]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id FAA29867 for ; Wed, 15 May 1996 05:41:11 +1000 Received: from mail.isys.net[193.96.224.33] by mail.hamburg.netsurf.de with smtp (/\==/\ Smail3.1.28.1 #28.1); id m0uJP1s-000P6oC; Tue, 14 May 96 20:41 GMT+0200 Received: from meckwell.local.net by mail.isys.net with smtp (/\oo/\ Smail3.1.29.1 #29.6); id ; Tue, 14 May 96 23:41 MESZ Date: Tue, 14 May 1996 21:45:29 +0100 (GMT+0100) From: Henk Uijterwaal X-Sender: henk@meckwell.local.net Reply-To: henk.uijterwaal@hamburg.netsurf.de To: Herman De Wael cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: imosed substitution - result In-Reply-To: <31986E3F.2D71@innet.be> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Tue, 14 May 1996, Herman De Wael wrote: > The ladies' team competition is played at a single venue. > The regulations allow the TD to impose a substitution in case of an > incomplete team. The committee will later decide the final result of > the match. I have seen these kind of regulations and I hate them. IMHO, the conditions of contest should specify: a) Who can act as a substitute (for example: players in lower flights of the event, with less than X masterpoints, ...) b) What happens if a team does not show up with 4 players including substitutes. (Forfeit, replay the match with N VP penalty for the offenders, ...) c) What happens if a ineligible substitute plays on a team. To have a committee decide on the result after the match, is almost always guesswork. > And in my case, the substitute was a clear improvement. (National > junior (lady) player) in second regional division). > The offending side won the match 21-9. > Should the non-offenders be awarded 18VP ? Or perhaps something like 2 > VP extra (making 11) ? The non-offenders should be awarded 18 VP. Their opponents had a player on the team who, under normal circumstances, would not have been allowed to enter the event in the first place. It is impossible to determine what would have happened if the team had consisted of 4 eligible players, so the non-offenders should get average plus, or 18 VP. Henk ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Henk Uijterwaal Email: henk.uijterwaal@hamburg.netsurf.de (home) henk@desy.de (work) WWW: http://zow00.desy.de:8000/~uijter/TOP.html ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ %DCL-E-NOCFFE, unable to locate coffee - keyboard input suspended. From owner-bridge-laws Wed May 15 09:18:26 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA00888 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 15 May 1996 09:18:26 +1000 Received: from relay-2.mail.demon.net (disperse.demon.co.uk [158.152.1.77]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id JAA00882 for ; Wed, 15 May 1996 09:17:44 +1000 Received: from post.demon.co.uk ([158.152.1.72]) by relay-2.mail.demon.net id av21402; 15 May 96 0:09 +0100 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by relay-3.mail.demon.net id aa21985; 14 May 96 23:49 +0100 Message-ID: <9iCvsTAUTOmxEwJF@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Tue, 14 May 1996 20:53:56 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Slow invitations In-Reply-To: <199605141601.QAA18911@pipe6.t1.usa.pipeline.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 1.12 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article <199605141601.QAA18911@pipe6.t1.usa.pipeline.com>, Alan Miller writes >On May 12, 1996 03:48:13, 'David Stevenson ' >wrote: > > >> >>With fewer ethical players at the table, the number of TD calls >>increases because (a) unethical players are more likely to use UI (b) >>unethical players are more likely to notice UI (c) unethical players are >>more likely to believe their opponents are using UI. So the ratio >>probably does not change much! A paradox! > >(a) is certainly true. (b) is far from the truth. In my experience, most >players who are vilating law 16 are doing so unintentionally -- usually >because they are not sensitive to the issues involved. The sort of >opponent who notices the break in tempo is not the sort who has the >director called on them for this infraction. (c) is also far from true, >Yes there are players who think their opponents are "wired" but generally >its not the players who others think are "wired." > If they are violating Law 16 unintentionally then they are not unethical players. I think this may be a language problem, but I stick by what I said: (b) unethical players are more likely to notice UI (c) unethical players are more likely to believe their opponents are using UI. These are people whose use of UI is in part at least intentional. -- David Stevenson Bridge Cats Railways Logic /\_/\ Liverpool, England, UK Nothing ventured, nothing gained [. .] david@blakjak.demon.co.uk Emails welcome =< @ >= Tel: +44 (0)151 677 7412 Phone before Fax please ^ From owner-bridge-laws Wed May 15 09:36:58 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA00888 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 15 May 1996 09:18:26 +1000 Received: from relay-2.mail.demon.net (disperse.demon.co.uk [158.152.1.77]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id JAA00882 for ; Wed, 15 May 1996 09:17:44 +1000 Received: from post.demon.co.uk ([158.152.1.72]) by relay-2.mail.demon.net id av21402; 15 May 96 0:09 +0100 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by relay-3.mail.demon.net id aa21985; 14 May 96 23:49 +0100 Message-ID: <9iCvsTAUTOmxEwJF@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Tue, 14 May 1996 20:53:56 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Slow invitations In-Reply-To: <199605141601.QAA18911@pipe6.t1.usa.pipeline.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 1.12 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article <199605141601.QAA18911@pipe6.t1.usa.pipeline.com>, Alan Miller writes >On May 12, 1996 03:48:13, 'David Stevenson ' >wrote: > > >> >>With fewer ethical players at the table, the number of TD calls >>increases because (a) unethical players are more likely to use UI (b) >>unethical players are more likely to notice UI (c) unethical players are >>more likely to believe their opponents are using UI. So the ratio >>probably does not change much! A paradox! > >(a) is certainly true. (b) is far from the truth. In my experience, most >players who are vilating law 16 are doing so unintentionally -- usually >because they are not sensitive to the issues involved. The sort of >opponent who notices the break in tempo is not the sort who has the >director called on them for this infraction. (c) is also far from true, >Yes there are players who think their opponents are "wired" but generally >its not the players who others think are "wired." > If they are violating Law 16 unintentionally then they are not unethical players. I think this may be a language problem, but I stick by what I said: (b) unethical players are more likely to notice UI (c) unethical players are more likely to believe their opponents are using UI. These are people whose use of UI is in part at least intentional. -- David Stevenson Bridge Cats Railways Logic /\_/\ Liverpool, England, UK Nothing ventured, nothing gained [. .] david@blakjak.demon.co.uk Emails welcome =< @ >= Tel: +44 (0)151 677 7412 Phone before Fax please ^ From owner-bridge-laws Wed May 15 11:14:04 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id LAA00816 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 15 May 1996 11:14:04 +1000 Received: from relay-4.mail.demon.net (relay-4.mail.demon.net [158.152.1.108]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id LAA00811 for ; Wed, 15 May 1996 11:13:36 +1000 Received: from post.demon.co.uk ([158.152.1.72]) by relay-4.mail.demon.net id an05917; 14 May 96 23:16 GMT Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by relay-3.mail.demon.net id aa21975; 14 May 96 23:49 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 14 May 1996 21:50:51 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: questions In-Reply-To: <199605141902.MAA08346@tintin.JPL.NASA.GOV> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 1.12 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article <199605141902.MAA08346@tintin.JPL.NASA.GOV>, Jeff Goldsmith writes > >Maybe I missed something, but I read the laws somewhat >differently than does David, to wit: > >73B1 talks about "gratuitous information" and says >that information is not to be transmitted between >partners by questions asked or not asked. It does >not state that the knowledge of question asking is >unauthorized, just that you can't ask the meaning >of some call in order to transmit information to >partner intentionally. I read this to mean that >73B1 is barring nonsense like the opponents' asking >"please explain your 1NT you alerted." You might >answer "it's forcing for one round, blah, blah..." >without four spades, but when holding four spades >say, "it's forcing for one round, blah, blah, ... >and may conceal a four-card spade suit." That sort >of infraction is probably done unintentionally much >more often than intentionally, but is expressly >barred by 73B1. > >73C lists a bunch of cases in which UI can be >transmitted, but there just lists "partner's ... >question" and fails to mention presence or absense >of question. > >I don't think therefore, that the laws are clear >at all about whether or not partner's having asked >a question is UI. I think it *ought* to be UI, >that any information gleaned through the question >asking process is UI except for most of the >opponents' explanations, but I'm not at all convinced >that said judgment is supported within the laws. I am afraid, Jeff, that I am confused totally by this. You have produced an article with a new Subject name and without any references to what you are answering. I have read through my recent articles and I am not sure what you are answering. However that does not mean your article is not clear. I totally agree with the second paragraph, which makes the first one even more confusing. The third paragraph does not seem to help. The fourth paragraph is not correct IMO, so this may explain something. The definition of UI is not in the Proprieties but in L16 which basically defines authorised information. Other information is then unauthorised. Whether or not partner has asked a question is information. Is it authorised? No, because the first sentence of L16 does not authorise it. Therefore it is unauthorised. -- David Stevenson Bridge Cats Railways Logic /\_/\ Liverpool, England, UK Nothing ventured, nothing gained [. .] david@blakjak.demon.co.uk Emails welcome =< @ >= Tel: +44 (0)151 677 7412 Phone before Fax please ^ From owner-bridge-laws Wed May 15 15:24:35 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id PAA01762 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 15 May 1996 15:24:35 +1000 Received: from shell.monmouth.com (root@shell.monmouth.com [205.164.220.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id PAA01757 for ; Wed, 15 May 1996 15:24:23 +1000 Received: from lhost.monmouth.com (ppp2.monmouth.com [205.164.220.34]) by shell.monmouth.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id BAA10093 for ; Wed, 15 May 1996 01:20:32 -0400 Message-Id: <199605150520.BAA10093@shell.monmouth.com> Comments: Authenticated sender is From: "reha gur" To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Wed, 15 May 1996 01:16:55 +0000 Subject: Re: New ethical problem Priority: normal X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v2.10) Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Eric Landeau writes: [Stuff deleted] > So I'd argue that your critical decision -- how was partner treating 2S? > -- is a "bridge decision" with no ethical implications. If you know the > answer by agreement, fine; if not, you are free to back your judgment. > In neither case has there been any irregularity which would raise > ethical considerations. I think that this cannot be right. You must assume that partner knows the meaning of the 2S bid. If you had an agreement to pretend that it is natural and bid accordingly, then this should be written up pretty explicitly on your convention card. If you assume such an agreement "on the fly", how can this assumption not be suggested over other assumptions by the fact that partner didn't ask the meaning of the bid (I think we are presuming that we know there is a good chance that partner did not know the meaning without asking)? This would be a clear use of UI. While there is nothing "irregular" about not asking the meaning of an alerted call, we are not permitted to know that partner DOESN'T KNOW the meaning. The only possible result of our "decision" about how partner was treating the 2S bid is that he was treating it exactly as the opponents meant it. --Stefanie Rohan (I know that this is Reha Gur's account. I live with Reha.) From owner-bridge-laws Wed May 15 16:49:50 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id QAA02038 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 15 May 1996 16:49:50 +1000 Received: from ccnet3.ccnet.com (pisarra@ccnet3.ccnet.com [192.215.96.11]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id QAA02027 for ; Wed, 15 May 1996 16:49:18 +1000 Received: (from pisarra@localhost) by ccnet3.ccnet.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA22045; Tue, 14 May 1996 23:46:09 -0700 Date: Tue, 14 May 1996 23:46:08 -0700 (PDT) From: Chris Pisarra X-Sender: pisarra@ccnet3 To: bridge laws list Subject: Re: Slow invitations (fwd) In-Reply-To: <960513104424_397811593@emout16.mail.aol.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Mon, 13 May 1996 AlLeBendig@aol.com wrote: > Comeon, Chris - now you're getting silly. Why, yes, Alan (I'll try to improve my spelling), I was being silly. From the response I have gotten, it appears that I was unaware that this was group for the satire impaired. I'll try to be less subtle in the future. > Most of the time you will be aware of what an alert is for. Indeed I am. Yet if failing to ask the question can be construed as giving UI, then it would seem that I must ask to avoid that happening. Of course I won't be asking all the time, but that's where I am finding a major flaw in this argument. > This entire discussion is only confusing > if you're not paying attention. Nice try. Now see if you can make your points without ad hominem attack. > I first made this reference to a 3S bid > which was either natural or a cue bid. I allowed that I suspected the > problem might be because partner didn't ask about the meaning of an alerted > 2S bid. Once I ask and find out that it was very strange, I just assume > partner knew what it meant. Is that difficult? We pretend partner asked and > got the information that I now have. So? Where was the UI? Why need to pretend anything? I just assume that my partner is a big boy who plays well and is capable of asking any question he wants/needs to. If he doesn't ask, so what? There is only UI if you assume that your partner is incompetent, and then why are you playing? > In the multi example I gave, we were in a funny position. Partner bid > without any knowledge of what was going on and we now know that. This isn't > a new area which we have to try to understand. It's as if partner said > "Well, I'll make some kind of takeout double and we'll work out later what it > means." Had partner looked at the suggested defenses, you would have known > that he knew exactly which hand his double showed and likely would have been > quite happy to bid. At least it would be reasonable to do so. You're just > not allowed to know that he isn't fully aware of what is happening by his > actions (in this case not looking). One good idea here is to always look at > the suggested defenses regardless of your hand. This way partner hever has > any help he shouldn't. So then, should the partner of the multi bidder have called the director after the 3S bid? "Director, he bid without looking at the suggested defenses?" Do you want to try to explain that call to Roger or Max? Remember, Law 9B1a says "The Director must be summoned at once when attention is drawn to an irregularity." > Have you ever played a weak NT and found that the opponents only ask the > range when they have a fairly good hand? If so, I'm sure it has bothered you > just like it has bothered others. Our new procedures of announcing the range > should take care of this problem. They do it over my strong NT's as well. I'm greatly in favor of the new procedure. > >1C (could be short) > >Alert > >Pass (no question) > >Director!!! > > As I've said, that's silly! Precisely. I'm glad you got it. Those years I spent watching Monty Python are finally paying off. > > > > > I would hate to try to explain to any of the West Coast directing > >staff about the possible UI, but the ACBL rules mandate that the director > >be summoned in the case of possible UI. > > I thought I was familiar with most of the rules and regulations and you just > quoted one I've never heard of. It could be hard to explain it to the TDs > since they won't have heard it either. Where could you have possibly come up > with such a rule? In my encyclopedia (can't spell that word without thinking of Jiminy Cricket), page 254, right hand column. ACBL REGULATIONS The following regulations are in effect in ACBL through actions of the ACBL Board of Directors {those meetings you go to before the NABC's} under authority granted by the referenced laws. LAW 16 A. 1. At ACBL sanctioned events, competitors will not be allowed to announce that they reserve the right to summon the Director later. They should summon the Director immediately when they believe there may have been extraneous information available to the opponents resulting in calls or bids which could result in damage to their side. That's where I got it. > All we're doing is identifying a source of UI that you hadn't considered, > Chris. There is no difference in interpretation of how to deal with that UI. Except the question of when to summon the director, and how I need to behave so as not to give that UI. If not asking can really be considered UI, then asking is essentially mandatory--and that really *is* silly. > > >Since I look > >awful in polyester, and can't stand women with 23 petticoats and little > >flat shoes, we'd better find another solution. > > I understand hula hoops are making a comeback. > I never had the coordination for hula hoops--or the hips. Maybe an orange polyester shirt with "Bob's Garage" on the back and some 6 colored shoes. Chris Chris Pisarra pisarra@ccnet.com From owner-bridge-laws Wed May 15 19:19:44 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id TAA02922 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 15 May 1996 19:19:44 +1000 Received: from relay-2.mail.demon.net (disperse.demon.co.uk [158.152.1.77]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id TAA02915 for ; Wed, 15 May 1996 19:19:01 +1000 Received: from post.demon.co.uk ([158.152.1.72]) by relay-2.mail.demon.net id aj17933; 15 May 96 10:18 +0100 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by relay-3.mail.demon.net id aa00928; 15 May 96 0:27 +0100 Message-ID: <8NYfH9A$ZRmxEw7M@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Wed, 15 May 1996 00:25:52 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: New ethical problem In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 1.12 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Would anyone like to know how to really annoy me? Not in the small way that have led to a few recent behind the scenes arguments, but to really really annoy me? Try this: I thought this article was very interesting so I thought about it for some time and eventually produced a long and I hope well reasoned reply. I then marked a very large chunk of it for my spellchekka to check. At that moment my cat Quango arrived, jumped on my lap and put one delicate paw on the keyboard deleting about ten paragraphs. For those of you who are interested the section between *1* and *2* has been typed twice. Cat stew tomorrow, cat rissoles the day after! ------------------------------- In article , Eric Landau writes >On Mon, 13 May 1996, David Stevenson wrote: > >> In article , >> Eric Landau writes > >> > TDs/ACs determine UI infractions by making a pretty standard >> >series of successive judgments, and in all the lists I've seen question >> >#1 is "Was there an irregularity?" >> >> By which they are referring to the recipient of the UI not the donor. >> Actually I do not think it a very good list if it starts this way, but >> never mind. >> >> > Here the answer is clearly No. >> >> Well, maybe: it is your actions that would be being considered not >> partner's. >> >> >Partner has done nothing irregular by failing to inquire about 2S, and >> >thus cannot have conveyed UI. >> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >> >> This is just wrong. It is wrong by your definition. It is wrong by >> the laws of Bridge. Even the least experienced TDs would not agree with >> this one. > >I think we may be losing the distinction between an "irregularity" and an >"infraction." > >An irregularity is a deviation from normal procedure. The TD is called >when someone believes an irregularity has taken place (as specified by >Law 9) -- you don't call the TD on a vague feeling that your opponents >are doing something wrong; you call him because something specific has >happened. Irregularities are not necessarily infractions in themselves, >and never are in UI cases, where we carefully distinguish between >"conveying UI" (the irregularity) and "taking advantage of UI" (the >infraction). The adjudication starts with an alleged irregularity (the >reason the TD was called). *1* It appears that the problem is with the ACBL approach which apparently is incorrect. If you wish to follow the argument easily please put your current ideas of what constitutes UI out of your mind and consider the following. L16: "Players are authorized to base their actions on information from legal calls or plays and from mannerisms of opponents. To base action on other extraneous information may be an infraction of law." This is the definition of UI. The first sentence defines what information is authorised. Any other extraneous information is unauthorised and to base action on it may be an infraction. Let us consider some types of UI that are not generally considered. During the auction: 1 A player is looking at the legs of a waitress for the whole auction. 2 A player writes a new convention card. 3 A player counts on his fingers under the table. 4 A player throws his cards deliberately on the floor. 5 A player asks the meaning of every bid in the auction 1S-3S-4S---. 6 A player picks up a newspaper. 7 A player unwraps and eats a sandwich. 8 N cynlre unf frk jvgu na bccbarag. [ROT-13] 9 A player does not ask any questions. 10 A player asks the TD to remain near the table. 11 A player yawns throughout. 12 A player orders a drink. 13 A player asks the range of 1NT despite it being announced. 14 A player asks when the round ends before considering a bid. 15 A player mutters "Key-card" nearly under his breath. [#4 happened to me on Saturday for the first time ever: RHO was sick of LHO's comments so he threw his hand suddenly on the floor by partner's chair. After a couple of minutes with no one saying anything, he bent down to pick the cards up. Partner helped him, then doubled the final contract and beat it!] Now many of the above are not irregularities but they provide UI just the same, even if in a negative way. Consider a player with a 6-6 16count: will he look at the legs of a waitress for the whole auction? No! But a player with a flat Yarborough might! The point is that UI can be available negatively, whether through #1 or #6 or #9 or #11. So the ACBL is wrong to ask whether there has been an irregularity, although of course in most UI cases there will have been, a hesitation or some such. The term "conveys" UI tends to mislead because it suggests something positive. In fact UI is available (probably on every hand) but is its use that creates problems. > >The correct procedure in UI cases, as understood in the ACBL, has been >written up many times in minor variations, but basically the >adjudicators, in order to find in favor of adjusting the at-the-table >result, must be able to answer the following series of questions >affirmatively: > >(1) Did the alleged irregularity occur? (A TD called on, say, a >hesitation must first establish that the player actually did hesitate.) "Might the player concerned have received UI in consequence of an action of his partner?" This is the EBU question and seems to be more accurate than the ACBL one. >(2) Did the irregularity result in UI being conveyed? (This is sometimes >omitted from the writeups because in the ACBL the answer is inevitably a >presumptive yes.) This is covered by the EBU question above. >(3) Was the UI useful (i.e. did it suggest one or more LAs over others)? > >(4) Did the bidder take advantage of the UI (i.e. select one of the >suggested alternatives)? > >(5) Did the bidder's action result in consequent damage to the opponents? > *2* The EBU has its own wording for (3) to (5) but the effect is the same: it takes all answers to be Yes for an adjustment. >Note that it takes one yes to establish that an irregularity has >occurred, four yesses to establish that an infraction has been >committed. Note also that #1 does indeed concern the action of the >alleged transmitter of the UI; his partner's (the alleged infractor's) >action is considered only at #4, if we get that far. > >> If your partner thinks for a long time then passes, he has not >> committed an infraction unless he has done it deliberately (L73D1 2nd >> para). But he certainly has given his partner UI! > >That's the two-yes case; he has committed the irregularity ("unmistakable >hesitation") and has presumptively given his partner UI. We need two >more yesses before he will have been deemed to have committed an >infraction. > >But, in the case at hand, where's the first yes? What has occurred which >is irregular? Nothing much. > Failing to ask a question in response to an alert is >hardly an irregularity analogous to an "unmistakable hesitation." True: but it clearly constitutes UI. It is information after all: do you believe it is authorised? > >In other words, what was the justification for the TD being called in the >first place? > >If we deem the failure to inquire as irregular, then it's appropriate for >them to have called the TD (or, in Europe, reserved their rights to do >so to their opponents, per Law 16.A.1) to protect their rights (by >establishing that the irregularity has indeed occurred, just as in the >hesitation case) in case the irregularity gives rise to a subsequent >infraction. But that's Chris's scenario; if we accept it, it becomes >appropriate to call the TD every time the opponents fail to inquire, to >protect one's equity position. Not if you want Bridge to continue to be played in the USA. > >Or was the TD called when in fact the only thing the alleged offenders >did "wrong" was to be in a situation which was likely to give rise to a >misunderstanding and land on their feet, leaving their opponents feeling >like they must have done something wrong in order to have avoided >potential disaster and come out ahead? What they may have done wrong is to choose successfully from LAs when UI was present: they have done nothing else wrong. > >Law 16.A defines "extraneous information from partner" as made available >"as by means of a remark, a question, a reply to a question, or by >unmistakable hesitation, unwonted speed, special emphasis, tone, gesture, >movement, mannerism or the like." Clearly, the listed means are not >intended to be exhaustive; UI can be transmitted by any of them or by >some other, analogous means which is not listed. So I guess the issue is >whether we consider not asking a question in reponse to an alert suitably >analogous to the listed examples to qualify as a potential source of UI. >I'd say it's not, but that's just my opinion and one vote. It is a mistake to consider the list in L16A when deciding whether something is UI. Something does not have to be analogous to items in it to be UI. It was never meant to be exhaustive so do not use it in such cases. ----------------------- I have decided that Quango's fate is in your hands. You are the crowd in Nero's day. Thumbs up or thumbs down? Please indicate in any postings to the list or emails to me in the next three days. -- David Stevenson Bridge Cats Railways Logic /\_/\ Liverpool, England, UK Nothing ventured, nothing gained [. .] david@blakjak.demon.co.uk Emails welcome =< @ >= Tel: +44 (0)151 677 7412 Phone before Fax please ^ From owner-bridge-laws Wed May 15 21:26:56 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id VAA04124 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 15 May 1996 21:26:56 +1000 Received: from relay-2.mail.demon.net (disperse.demon.co.uk [158.152.1.77]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id VAA04119 for ; Wed, 15 May 1996 21:26:48 +1000 Received: from post.demon.co.uk ([158.152.1.72]) by relay-2.mail.demon.net id ac00671; 15 May 96 12:04 +0100 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by relay-3.mail.demon.net id ab24007; 15 May 96 12:04 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 15 May 1996 12:00:56 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Slow invitations (fwd) In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 1.12 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article , Chris Pisarra writes [s] Please see my other posts for details. > So? Where was the UI? Why need to pretend anything? I just >assume that my partner is a big boy who plays well and is capable of >asking any question he wants/needs to. If he doesn't ask, so what? >There is only UI if you assume that your partner is incompetent, and then >why are you playing? You cannot say that something is UI when you want it to be. Look, you have information if you have noticed whether partner has asked a question or not. Is it authorised information, ie may you use it as part of your decision-making? If it is not authorised then it is unauthorised. [s] > ACBL REGULATIONS > > The following regulations are in effect in ACBL through actions >of the ACBL Board of Directors {those meetings you go to before the >NABC's} under authority granted by the referenced laws. > >LAW 16 A. 1. > > At ACBL sanctioned events, competitors will not be allowed to >announce that they reserve the right to summon the Director later. They >should summon the Director immediately when they believe there may have >been extraneous information available to the opponents resulting in calls >or bids which could result in damage to their side. That does not tell you what is UI and what is not. [s] -- David Stevenson Bridge Cats Railways Logic /\_/\ Nothing ventured, nothing gained |. .| david@blakjak.demon.co.uk Emails welcome =< @ >= Tel: +44 (0)151 677 7412 Phone before Fax please ^ From owner-bridge-laws Thu May 16 00:47:01 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA09054 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 16 May 1996 00:47:01 +1000 Received: from mipl7.jpl.nasa.gov (mipl7.jpl.nasa.gov [128.149.177.7]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id AAA09049 for ; Thu, 16 May 1996 00:46:55 +1000 Received: from tintin.JPL.NASA.GOV (tintin.jpl.nasa.gov [128.149.102.7]) by mipl7.jpl.nasa.gov (8.6.12/8.6.6) with ESMTP id HAA11511 for <@mipl7.JPL.NASA.GOV:bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au>; Wed, 15 May 1996 07:46:11 -0700 Received: by tintin.JPL.NASA.GOV (940816.SGI.8.6.9/930416.SGI.MIPS) for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au id HAA09111; Wed, 15 May 1996 07:51:42 -0700 Date: Wed, 15 May 1996 07:51:42 -0700 From: jeff@tintin.JPL.NASA.GOV (Jeff Goldsmith) Message-Id: <199605151451.HAA09111@tintin.JPL.NASA.GOV> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Eric Landau writes: |>> > TDs/ACs determine UI infractions by making a pretty standard |>> >series of successive judgments, and in all the lists I've seen question |>> >#1 is "Was there an irregularity?" This is a little off. The normal first question is "Was there an infraction?" This question is a bit too big for some cases, but if it provides a "no" answer, the rest of the problem is usually trivial. Sometimes the crux of the matter is to answer this question. David Stevenson writes: | Now many of the above are not irregularities but they provide UI just |the same, even if in a negative way. Consider a player with a 6-6 |16count: will he look at the legs of a waitress for the whole auction? |No! But a player with a flat Yarborough might! The point is that UI |can be available negatively, whether through #1 or #6 or #9 or #11. Depends on the waitress and the player. :) | I have decided that Quango's fate is in your hands. You are the crowd |in Nero's day. Thumbs up or thumbs down? Please indicate in any |postings to the list or emails to me in the next three days. Spare the critter. He has taught you a useful lesson. If it's worth retyping, it's worth saving. --Jeff # Cthulhu in '96! Why vote for the lesser evil? # --- # http://muggy.gg.caltech.edu/~jeff From owner-bridge-laws Thu May 16 01:26:47 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA09214 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 16 May 1996 01:26:47 +1000 Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [128.103.40.170]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id BAA09209 for ; Thu, 16 May 1996 01:26:39 +1000 Received: from cfa183.harvard.edu (cfa183.harvard.edu [131.142.12.59]) by cfa.harvard.edu (8.7.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id LAA22005 for ; Wed, 15 May 1996 11:26:27 -0400 (EDT) Received: by cfa183.harvard.edu (5.x/SMI-SVR4) id AA01149; Wed, 15 May 1996 11:28:32 -0400 Date: Wed, 15 May 1996 11:28:32 -0400 From: willner@cfa183.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Message-Id: <9605151528.AA01149@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: New ethical problem X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: David Stevenson > "Might the player concerned have received UI in consequence of an > action of his partner?" This is the EBU question and seems to be more > accurate than the ACBL one. This formulation has much to recommend it, but I still don't find it clear. How strong does "might" have to be? More likely than not? Or just a vague possibility? "Is it more likely than not that the player concerned...." seems about right to me, though reasonable people can disagree. Is there an official interpretation? > I have decided that Quango's fate is in your hands. You are the crowd > in Nero's day. Thumbs up or thumbs down? Please indicate in any > postings to the list or emails to me in the next three days. I've never much liked cats myself, though perhaps that's because I'm allergic. Never tried cat stew, though, so I can't offer a recommendation. [This was sent by accident to David alone, who will now get two copies. Sorry David.] From owner-bridge-laws Thu May 16 01:56:02 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA09338 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 16 May 1996 01:56:02 +1000 Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [128.103.40.170]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id BAA09333 for ; Thu, 16 May 1996 01:55:56 +1000 Received: from cfa183.harvard.edu (cfa183.harvard.edu [131.142.12.59]) by cfa.harvard.edu (8.7.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id LAA03167; Wed, 15 May 1996 11:55:44 -0400 (EDT) Received: by cfa183.harvard.edu (5.x/SMI-SVR4) id AA01169; Wed, 15 May 1996 11:57:49 -0400 Date: Wed, 15 May 1996 11:57:49 -0400 From: willner@cfa183.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Message-Id: <9605151557.AA01169@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au, AlLeBendig@aol.com Subject: Asking questions for partner X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Thanks to all who responded to my query: > >Clearly it is unethical > >to convey information about one's own hand to partner by any means > >other than legal calls and plays. What about asking about opponents' > >agreements, to which partner is fully entitled to be informed? (Specifically in the case where asker does not need to know but asker's partner may need to know.) I think we have reached consensus on Cases 1 and 2 below but not on Case 3. Case 1: Any proper request for information elicits a partial answer. (This is Kaplan's case.) Analysis: Failure to give a full answer is at least an irregularity if not an infraction. Law 9A1 gives any player the right to call attention to this, after which the TD must be summoned. The TD will no doubt require that a full explanation be given. If the game is being played in a good spirit, it cannot be very wrong to bypass the TD and simply request the full explanation (even with a leading question). Case 2: There is an improper alert, a failure to alert, or an oral explanation fails to match the convention card. Analysis: We have a definite infraction. The answer is much like Case 1, but there is more reason to call the TD because UI may be an issue. Case 3: Nothing improper has happened, but opponents have an unusual agreement that partner might not be aware of. (Example: 1H-P-4H by a Precision pair need not be preemptive.) Analysis: Regulations seem to forbid asking in this case. (EBL 20.5 was cited, and there's a similar ACBL regulation, I think.) On the other hand, Law 20F1 gives an _unqualified_ right to ask for an explanation of the auction at one's own turn to act. Further, Law 73B1 cited by EBL 20.5 does not seem to me to apply to the case at hand but instead to the case specifically excluded at the start of this thread. How do we reconcile the seeming discrepancy? And perhaps more important, is it good or bad for the game to forbid asking a question in Case 3? How can we enforce a prohibition if we decide one is desirable? [A search of the ACBL web page doesn't yield the regulations I'm looking for. Anybody know where they are?] For reference, EBL 20.5 from David's message: 'No player should ever ask for a review of the auction, or for an explanation, in order to ensure that partner has understood correctly; this is a deliberate use of an unauthorized channel of communication (see Law 73B1) and is *grossly improper*. A player who receives information by an improper means has a clear duty to act *in ignorance* of what he has thus learned, and where he subsequently has a reasonable choice of actions he will select that which is *not* suggested by what he has learned from the illicit information. It is a case of avoiding any advantage that might accrue to his side (see Laws 73C and 73F1).' From owner-bridge-laws Thu May 16 02:41:09 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA09854 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 16 May 1996 02:41:09 +1000 Received: from VNET.IBM.COM (vnet.ibm.com [199.171.26.4]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id CAA09849 for ; Thu, 16 May 1996 02:41:02 +1000 Message-Id: <199605151641.CAA09849@octavia.anu.edu.au> Received: from RCHVMX2 by VNET.IBM.COM (IBM VM SMTP V2R3) with BSMTP id 0165; Wed, 15 May 96 12:40:49 EDT Date: Wed, 15 May 96 11:33:33 CDT From: "Kent Burghard" To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Computer Bridge Laws Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I would like to start a discussion of possible additions/modifications to the Laws for computer bridge games (duplicate bridge games/tournaments which occur with all/some competitors playing over the internet). Now that the ACBL has authorized issuing of masterpoints for computer bridge games, the ACBL's National Laws Commission is looking at what is needed. I know a couple of the people on this subcommittee, and they would probably appreciate our input. Kent Burghard Rochester, Minnesota, USA burghard@worldnet.att.net From owner-bridge-laws Thu May 16 02:45:47 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA09943 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 16 May 1996 02:45:47 +1000 Received: from emout08.mail.aol.com (emout08.mx.aol.com [198.81.11.23]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id CAA09937 for ; Thu, 16 May 1996 02:45:41 +1000 From: AlLeBendig@aol.com Received: by emout08.mail.aol.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) id MAA20173 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Wed, 15 May 1996 12:45:07 -0400 Date: Wed, 15 May 1996 12:45:07 -0400 Message-ID: <960515124505_294717978@emout08.mail.aol.com> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Slow invitations Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In a message dated 96-05-14 19:42:34 EDT, David Stevenson writes: >Subj: Re: Slow invitations >Date: 96-05-14 19:42:34 EDT >From: david@blakjak.demon.co.uk (David Stevenson) >Sender: owner-bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au >Reply-to: ngrp1@blakjak.demon.co.uk (David Stevenson) >To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au > >In article <199605141601.QAA18911@pipe6.t1.usa.pipeline.com>, Alan >Miller writes >>On May 12, 1996 03:48:13, 'David Stevenson ' >>wrote: >> >> >>> >>>With fewer ethical players at the table, the number of TD calls >>>increases because (a) unethical players are more likely to use UI (b) >>>unethical players are more likely to notice UI (c) unethical players are >>>more likely to believe their opponents are using UI. So the ratio >>>probably does not change much! A paradox! >> >>(a) is certainly true. (b) is far from the truth. In my experience, most >>players who are vilating law 16 are doing so unintentionally -- usually >>because they are not sensitive to the issues involved. The sort of >>opponent who notices the break in tempo is not the sort who has the >>director called on them for this infraction. (c) is also far from true, >>Yes there are players who think their opponents are "wired" but generally >>its not the players who others think are "wired." >> > > If they are violating Law 16 unintentionally then they are not >unethical players. I think this may be a language problem, but I stick >by what I said: >(b) unethical players are more likely to notice UI >(c) unethical players are more likely to believe their opponents are >using UI. I think David is 100% correct here. This is an issue we have discussed before amongst our members. Some of our most frequent complainers are considered to be on the dark side, if you will. David is right that these players seem to be more suspicious of others. We have speculated that it is because of their own awareness of what is possible. Alan LeBendig > These are people whose use of UI is in part at least intentional. > > > >-- >David Stevenson Bridge Cats Railways Logic /\_/\ >Liverpool, England, UK Nothing ventured, nothing gained [. .] >david@blakjak.demon.co.uk Emails welcome =< @ >= >Tel: +44 (0)151 677 7412 Phone before Fax please ^ > > >----------------------- Headers -------------------------------- >From owner-bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Tue May 14 19:42:15 1996 >Return-Path: owner-bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au >Received: from octavia.anu.edu.au (octavia.anu.edu.au [150.203.5.35]) by >emin17.mail.aol.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id TAA20968; Tue, 14 May 1996 >19:42:13 -0400 >Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id >JAA00888 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 15 May 1996 09:18:26 +1000 >Received: from relay-2.mail.demon.net (disperse.demon.co.uk [158.152.1.77]) >by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id JAA00882 for >; Wed, 15 May 1996 09:17:44 +1000 >Received: from post.demon.co.uk ([158.152.1.72]) by relay-2.mail.demon.net > id av21402; 15 May 96 0:09 +0100 >Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by relay-3.mail.demon.net > id aa21985; 14 May 96 23:49 +0100 >Message-ID: <9iCvsTAUTOmxEwJF@blakjak.demon.co.uk> >Date: Tue, 14 May 1996 20:53:56 +0100 >To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au >From: David Stevenson >Reply-To: David Stevenson >Subject: Re: Slow invitations >In-Reply-To: <199605141601.QAA18911@pipe6.t1.usa.pipeline.com> >MIME-Version: 1.0 >X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 1.12 >Sender: owner-bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au >Precedence: bulk From owner-bridge-laws Thu May 16 02:45:53 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA09957 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 16 May 1996 02:45:53 +1000 Received: from emout15.mail.aol.com (emout15.mx.aol.com [198.81.11.41]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id CAA09942 for ; Thu, 16 May 1996 02:45:45 +1000 From: AlLeBendig@aol.com Received: by emout15.mail.aol.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) id MAA09738 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Wed, 15 May 1996 12:45:12 -0400 Date: Wed, 15 May 1996 12:45:12 -0400 Message-ID: <960515124511_294718028@emout15.mail.aol.com> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Slow invitations (fwd) Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In a message dated 96-05-15 02:52:34 EDT, Chris Pisarra writes: >Subj: Re: Slow invitations (fwd) >Date: 96-05-15 02:52:34 EDT >From: pisarra@ccnet.com (Chris Pisarra) >Sender: owner-bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au >To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au (bridge laws list) > > >On Mon, 13 May 1996 AlLeBendig@aol.com wrote: >> Comeon, Chris - now you're getting silly. > > Why, yes, Alan (I'll try to improve my spelling), I was being >silly. From the response I have gotten, it appears that I was unaware >that this was group for the satire impaired. I'll try to be less subtle >in the future. > >> Most of the time you will be aware of what an alert is for. > > Indeed I am. Yet if failing to ask the question can be construed >as giving UI, then it would seem that I must ask to avoid that happening. >Of course I won't be asking all the time, but that's where I am finding a >major flaw in this argument. > Failing to ask would never be construed as giving UI. However, if your partner is aware that you don't know something, the fact that you didn't ask for more information leaves him in possession of UI. We are discussing something that would rarely come up. >> This entire discussion is only confusing >> if you're not paying attention. > > Nice try. Now see if you can make your points without ad hominem >attack. But I enjoy it so much. >> I first made this reference to a 3S bid >> which was either natural or a cue bid. I allowed that I suspected the >> problem might be because partner didn't ask about the meaning of an alerted >> 2S bid. Once I ask and find out that it was very strange, I just assume >> partner knew what it meant. Is that difficult? We pretend partner asked >and >> got the information that I now have. > > So? Where was the UI? Why need to pretend anything? I just >assume that my partner is a big boy who plays well and is capable of >asking any question he wants/needs to. If he doesn't ask, so what? >There is only UI if you assume that your partner is incompetent, and then >why are you playing? BINGO! That solves the problem. As long as you take that attitude and react in that fashion there never could be a problem. It could never be construed that the failure to ask by your partner constitutes any type of infraction. It might later be interpreted as such if you bid on the assumption that your partner is now in left field based on what you know to be incompetence combined with his failure to seek more information. > >> In the multi example I gave, we were in a funny position. Partner bid >> without any knowledge of what was going on and we now know that. This >isn't >> a new area which we have to try to understand. It's as if partner said >> "Well, I'll make some kind of takeout double and we'll work out later what >it >> means." Had partner looked at the suggested defenses, you would have known >> that he knew exactly which hand his double showed and likely would have >been >> quite happy to bid. At least it would be reasonable to do so. You're just >> not allowed to know that he isn't fully aware of what is happening by his >> actions (in this case not looking). One good idea here is to always look >at >> the suggested defenses regardless of your hand. This way partner hever has >> any help he shouldn't. > > So then, should the partner of the multi bidder have called the >director after the 3S bid? There was no 3S bid. The partner of the multi bid 2S himself. >"Director, he bid without looking at the >suggested defenses?" Do you want to try to explain that call to Roger or >Max? Remember, Law 9B1a says "The Director must be summoned at once when >attention is drawn to an irregularity." I have been trying to explain that the failure to look is not an irregularity. >> Have you ever played a weak NT and found that the opponents only ask the >> range when they have a fairly good hand? If so, I'm sure it has bothered >you >> just like it has bothered others. Our new procedures of announcing the >range >> should take care of this problem. > > They do it over my strong NT's as well. I'm greatly in favor of >the new procedure. {s-bad humor removed} >> > I would hate to try to explain to any of the West Coast directing >> >staff about the possible UI, but the ACBL rules mandate that the director >> >be summoned in the case of possible UI. >> >> I thought I was familiar with most of the rules and regulations and you >just >> quoted one I've never heard of. It could be hard to explain it to the TDs >> since they won't have heard it either. Where could you have possibly come >up >> with such a rule? > > In my encyclopedia (can't spell that word without thinking of >Jiminy Cricket), page 254, right hand column. > > ACBL REGULATIONS > > The following regulations are in effect in ACBL through actions >of the ACBL Board of Directors {those meetings you go to before the >NABC's} under authority granted by the referenced laws. > >LAW 16 A. 1. > > At ACBL sanctioned events, competitors will not be allowed to >announce that they reserve the right to summon the Director later. They >should summon the Director immediately when they believe there may have >been extraneous information available to the opponents resulting in calls >or bids which could result in damage to their side. > > That's where I got it. Notice that the last sentence does not have a period after opponents. It goes on to say their must be a belief that the extraneous information resulted in calls or plays that may have damaged their side. Let's say you are declarer and before leading to trick 3 your LHO asks partner if during the auction you had shown any diamond strength. Partner answers. No infraction has accurred. LHO now leads to his partner's known entry and RHO leads a diamond. This is when we might summon the director since we are now aware that there may have been an infraction. We don't know for sure, but it is certainly possible. In the multi example, there would be no reason to summon the director after the double because there was a failure to look at the defenses. There would be no reason to summon the TD after the auction. During the play of the hand you would become aware for the first time that the doubler didn't have his bid (as agreed0 and you would later work out that it would appear that the partner allowed that he may not have known what he was doing. A call for the TD after the hand would definitely be timely and totally appropriate. It may have only been at that point that you put together everything that had happened. >> All we're doing is identifying a source of UI that you hadn't considered, >> Chris. There is no difference in interpretation of how to deal with that >UI. > > Except the question of when to summon the director, and how I >need to behave so as not to give that UI. If not asking can really be >considered UI, then asking is essentially mandatory--and that really *is* >silly. Once again, we agree. I tried to explain earlier how rare it would be that your failure to ask would ever be considered relevant UI. And even if it was, it is highly unlikely it could ever matter. Alan LeBendig From owner-bridge-laws Thu May 16 02:46:02 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA09974 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 16 May 1996 02:46:02 +1000 Received: from emout12.mail.aol.com (emout12.mx.aol.com [198.81.11.38]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id CAA09966 for ; Thu, 16 May 1996 02:45:56 +1000 From: AlLeBendig@aol.com Received: by emout12.mail.aol.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) id MAA22979 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Wed, 15 May 1996 12:45:22 -0400 Date: Wed, 15 May 1996 12:45:22 -0400 Message-ID: <960515124522_294718188@emout12.mail.aol.com> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: New ethical problem Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In a message dated 96-05-14 03:43:49 EDT, David Stevenson writes: > 'No player should ever ask for a review of the auction, or for an >explanation, in order to ensure that partner has understood correctly; >this is a deliberate use of an unauthorized channel of communication >(see Law 73B1) and is *grossly improper*. A player who receives >information by an improper means has a clear duty to act *in ignorance* >of what he has thus learned, and where he subsequently has a reasonable >choice of actions he will select that which is *not* suggested by what >he has learned from the illicit information. It is a case of avoiding >any advantage that might accrue to his side (see Laws 73C and 73F1).' > > This is a direct quote [including the American spelling, which my >spellchekka did not like!!]: the words enclosed in *asterisks* are shown >in bold type in the book. Since very few of us are bilingual, David, we appreciate the effort. > > Only the first sentence has any importance: the rest is telling you >what you should do, but the first sentence says why this practice is >illegal, and I am not entirely sure that it is convincing. Certainly >the belief in England is that it is a reprehensible practice, but that >does not make it illegal. > > Other views please? How could anyone ever disagree with this very concise and well worded analysis of what I think everyone wants? Why can't the Laws be published with some like type of commentary to make them easier to interpret. The intentions are not always nearly as clear as this is. I applaud such efforts as this. It would leave ACs much less confused in dealing with such issues. Alan LeBendig From owner-bridge-laws Thu May 16 05:00:01 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA16142 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 16 May 1996 05:00:01 +1000 Received: from mipl7.jpl.nasa.gov (mipl7.jpl.nasa.gov [128.149.177.7]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id EAA16125 for ; Thu, 16 May 1996 04:59:54 +1000 Received: from tintin.JPL.NASA.GOV (tintin.jpl.nasa.gov [128.149.102.7]) by mipl7.jpl.nasa.gov (8.6.12/8.6.6) with ESMTP id LAA14408 for <@mipl7.JPL.NASA.GOV:bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au>; Wed, 15 May 1996 11:59:04 -0700 Received: by tintin.JPL.NASA.GOV (940816.SGI.8.6.9/930416.SGI.MIPS) for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au id MAA09469; Wed, 15 May 1996 12:04:41 -0700 Date: Wed, 15 May 1996 12:04:41 -0700 From: jeff@tintin.JPL.NASA.GOV (Jeff Goldsmith) Message-Id: <199605151904.MAA09469@tintin.JPL.NASA.GOV> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au |David Stevenson says: |In article <199605141902.MAA08346@tintin.JPL.NASA.GOV>, Jeff Goldsmith | writes |> |>Maybe I missed something, but I read the laws somewhat |>differently than does David, to wit: |> |>73B1 talks about "gratuitous information" and says |>that information is not to be transmitted between |>partners by questions asked or not asked. It does |>not state that the knowledge of question asking is |>unauthorized, just that you can't ask the meaning |>of some call in order to transmit information to |>partner intentionally. I read this to mean that |>73B1 is barring nonsense like the opponents' asking |>"please explain your 1NT you alerted." You might |>answer "it's forcing for one round, blah, blah..." |>without four spades, but when holding four spades |>say, "it's forcing for one round, blah, blah, ... |>and may conceal a four-card spade suit." That sort |>of infraction is probably done unintentionally much |>more often than intentionally, but is expressly |>barred by 73B1. |> |>73C lists a bunch of cases in which UI can be |>transmitted, but there just lists "partner's ... |>question" and fails to mention presence or absense |>of question. |> |>I don't think therefore, that the laws are clear |>at all about whether or not partner's having asked |>a question is UI. I think it *ought* to be UI, |>that any information gleaned through the question |>asking process is UI except for most of the |>opponents' explanations, but I'm not at all convinced |>that said judgment is supported within the laws. | | I am afraid, Jeff, that I am confused totally by this. You have |produced an article with a new Subject name and without any references |to what you are answering. I have read through my recent articles and I |am not sure what you are answering. I was replying to something old that I finally got around to reading. | However that does not mean your article is not clear. I totally agree |with the second paragraph, which makes the first one even more |confusing. The third paragraph does not seem to help. | | The fourth paragraph is not correct IMO, so this may explain |something. The definition of UI is not in the Proprieties but in L16 |which basically defines authorised information. Other information is |then unauthorised. The preamble to Law 16 specifies some information which is authorized. The rest of Law 16 lists some information which is unauthorized. The combination of the two lists is not complete, nor anywhere does it say where all other information falls; if one were to add the word "only" to the preamble, your reading would be quite clear. It's also clear that "only" would be incorrect. For example, the vulnerability is authorized information, but is not listed in the preamble to Law 16. Perhaps that is considered totally obvious, but many other data are also obvious and are unauthorized. This is probably rules-quibbling, but how else is one to use the Laws? ...either under extreme scrutiny or simply as a rough guideline. --Jeff # Cthulhu in '96! Why vote for the lesser evil? # --- # http://muggy.gg.caltech.edu/~jeff From owner-bridge-laws Thu May 16 06:55:32 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA18640 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 16 May 1996 06:55:32 +1000 Received: from andrew.cais.com (andrew.cais.com [199.0.216.215]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id GAA18634 for ; Thu, 16 May 1996 06:55:26 +1000 Received: from cais3.cais.com (cais3.cais.com [199.0.216.227]) by andrew.cais.com (8.6.9/8.6.9) with SMTP id PAA16007 for ; Wed, 15 May 1996 15:14:36 -0400 Date: Wed, 15 May 1996 15:14:36 -0400 (EDT) From: Eric Landau X-Sender: elandau@cais3.cais.com To: Bridge Laws Discussion List Subject: UI from questions not asked In-Reply-To: <8NYfH9A$ZRmxEw7M@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk WARNING: LONG (about 15 screens). David's (and others') arguments have now convinced me that the Laws do support the interpretation that UI my be passed by one's failure to ask a question about one's opponents' methods, although I still don't believe that they demand this interpretation. Nevertheless, I'm tempted to change my vote, since I generally believe that where alternative interpretations are possible, it's best to let TDs/ACs rule on individual cases as they come up until a body of reviewable "case law" develops. But I remain concerned that this interpretation will cause more problems than it will solve. If we're considering leaving this particular can of worms open, though, it behooves us to understand what's in it. So, in the spirit of vigorous dialectic, allow me to put aside my own ambiguous feelings on the subject and make the counter-argument to the points David raises... On Wed, 15 May 1996, David Stevenson wrote: > It appears that the problem is with the ACBL approach which apparently > is incorrect. If you wish to follow the argument easily please put your > current ideas of what constitutes UI out of your mind and consider the > following. I don't claim to speak for the ACBL; you're getting my interpretation of their policies, not necessarily theirs. Granted, their approach is different from others', but that doesn't necessarily make it "incorrect." The ACBL's interpretation of the Laws differs from other NCBOs' in a number of areas, and what's right for us may be "incorrect" for others, here as elsewhere. I suspect that the rationale behind their interpretation (to that extent that it has a conscious rationale) may owe more to everyday practical considerations than to legal niceties. > L16: "Players are authorized to base their actions on information from > legal calls or plays and from mannerisms of opponents. To base action on > other extraneous information may be an infraction of law." > > This is the definition of UI. The first sentence defines what > information is authorised. Any other extraneous information is > unauthorised and to base action on it may be an infraction. This sounds compelling, but is out of context. That first sentence is introductory in nature, and gives us the "ideal equity" that the substantive, enumerated laws that follow attempt to support. In effect, it tells us, as players, how we should play the game. But the Laws can't, and don't try to, regulate an unattainable ideal. They do tell us what to do in order to get as close as is practical. It is the enumerated laws that follow the sentence you quoted which tell us, as TDs or AC members, what to do when the ideal is violated. It is those laws that set forth what constitutes a remediable infraction, and what action to take in certain (but not all) cases that deviate from ideal equity. It is therefore to 16.A, not to the introductory sentence, that we must look to decide what authority TDs/ACs have to intervene in cases that may involve "extraneous information from partner." > Let us > consider some types of UI that are not generally considered. And let's also consider how these types of UI would fit a model in which UI infractions must arise from irregularities. > During the auction: > 1 A player is looking at the legs of a waitress for the whole auction. That's an irregularity; it's a potential violation of Law 74.B.1. > 2 A player writes a new convention card. Ditto. > 3 A player counts on his fingers under the table. That's a "movement," which is an explicit potential source of UI under 16.A. > 4 A player throws his cards deliberately on the floor. That potentially violates numerous laws, including 74.A.1, 74.A.2 and 74.C.2. > 5 A player asks the meaning of every bid in the auction 1S-3S-4S---. If he's doing it spuriously, he's violating 74.A.2 and possibly 74.C.7. He should probably be charged with a deliberate attempt to disconcert his opponents, but I don't see how, by itself, this behavior would transmit UI. > 6 A player picks up a newspaper. 74.B.1 and 74.C.6 (the latter a very important and often overlooked source of UI). > 7 A player unwraps and eats a sandwich. Same. > 8 N cynlre unf frk jvgu na bccbarag. David, have you been directing in Wales lately? > 9 A player does not ask any questions. Not an irregularity. This, of course, is the critical case. > 10 A player asks the TD to remain near the table. Also not an irregularity, and not a potential source of UI unless accompanied by an irregularity. Presumably the player wants the TD to monitor his opponents' behavior. How can this give information about his hand? > 11 A player yawns throughout. 74.C.6. > 12 A player orders a drink. Probably innocent; certainly so if the waiter just happens to be passing by at that moment. Otherwise 74.B.4, possibly 74.C.7. > 13 A player asks the range of 1NT despite it being announced. 74.C.4. > 14 A player asks when the round ends before considering a bid. 74.C.6. > 15 A player mutters "Key-card" nearly under his breath. 16.A. It's a "remark." > Now many of the above are not irregularities but they provide UI just > the same, even if in a negative way. Consider a player with a 6-6 > 16count: will he look at the legs of a waitress for the whole auction? > No! But a player with a flat Yarborough might! The point is that UI > can be available negatively, whether through #1 or #6 or #9 or #11. Under the interpretation above, all of them, if done so as to convey UI, can be considered irregularities as suggested above. Where they cannot, it's reasonable to argue that no UI can be transmitted. > So the ACBL is wrong to ask whether there has been an irregularity, > although of course in most UI cases there will have been, a hesitation > or some such. > > The term "conveys" UI tends to mislead because it suggests something > positive. In fact UI is available (probably on every hand) but is its > use that creates problems. And here's the difference in philosophy that leads to the difference in interpretation. The ACBL sees an atmosphere in which UI must be transmitted and received before it can be used. When a player is accused of taking advantage of UI, the first thing that must be established is where the UI came from; did he in fact have any? David notes that at any time, there's a whole lot going on in addition to "legal calls and plays and... mannerisms of opponents," and so sees an atmosphere permeated with UI, "probably [certainly!] on every hand." So UI isn't "irregular;" it's always around us. We always have UI; the only legal issue is whether or not we take advantage of it on a given hand. Our interpretation derives from our world-view; I prefer to take a milder view of the world. > "Might the player concerned have received UI in consequence of an > action of his partner?" This is the EBU question and seems to be more > accurate than the ACBL one. > > >(2) Did the irregularity result in UI being conveyed? (This is sometimes > >omitted from the writeups because in the ACBL the answer is inevitably a > >presumptive yes.) > > This is covered by the EBU question above. First we ask, Did a player take an action which was such that his partner might have received UI in consequence of it? If not, we stop there, as there's now only one possible answer to the question posed by the EBU. This is just another route to the same place. > The EBU has its own wording for (3) to (5) but the effect is the same: > it takes all answers to be Yes for an adjustment. So we agree that we use different algorithms, but they will get the same results if we use the same input assumptions. > >But, in the case at hand, where's the first yes? What has occurred which > >is irregular? > > Nothing much. > > > Failing to ask a question in response to an alert is > >hardly an irregularity analogous to an "unmistakable hesitation." > > True: but it clearly constitutes UI. It is information after all: do > you believe it is authorised? That's a purely semantic point. In our substantive context, we distinguish between "authorized" info (which partner may legitimately use to select a call or play) and "unauthorized" info (which he may not). This distinction is meaningful only when the information being so categorized is such that he might be able to use it to select a call or play. We don't answer the question (which we believe to be meaningful) "Did he have UI?" by saying "Of course he did; he knew what color the walls were and the sex of the players at the next table; that's not authorized, is it?" So, to answer your question, it is neither authorized nor unauthorized; it is meaningless in the context in which those terms are defined. > Not if you want Bridge to continue to be played in the USA. And that, of course, is my primary concern. My instincts tell me that if we're to continue to enjoy organized bridge in the U.S. we'd better be awfully careful about introducing legal interpretations that will clearly exacerbate the pervasive atmosphere of litigiousness that's already threatening our future. It's the bridge lawyers and rule-spouting intimidators who will benefit most if we open up the area of UI adjudication to the philosophy that UI can come from anywhere at all even absent any irregularity. > What they may have done wrong is to choose successfully from LAs when > UI was present: they have done nothing else wrong. What they have clearly done is to choose successfully from LAs when information was present. We haven't established that it is "unauthorized" (that's what we're debating). Even if it is, we still haven't established that it suggested one or more LAs over others, or that a suggested LA was chosen. In your terminology, where it's unauthorized by definition, I'd rephrase that as we haven't established that it's meaningful UI, i.e. that it establishes a context in which the remaining questions can be meaningfully asked and answered. Note that "meaningful" here doesn't imply useful; it merely implies that there's a basis on which we can make a judgment as to whether it's useful. If we do believe that an opponent's bid (alerted or not) can establish a context in which meaningful UI can be transmitted by failing to ask a question, we're back to Chris's notion that it might then be ethically appropriate to "correct" the context to one in which the UI is obviously meaningless, which we can only do (without giving up the ability to ask when we need to know the answer) by asking every time. > It is a mistake to consider the list in L16A when deciding whether > something is UI. Something does not have to be analogous to items in it > to be UI. It was never meant to be exhaustive so do not use it in such > cases. It's a bigger mistake to try to interpret a single passage of law without any reference to the context created by the passages that accompany it. I don't see how we can determine the meaning of the introductory sentence of Law 16 (or any passage in any of the Laws) without reading and understanding the whole of Law 16, the remainder of which defines and elaborates the broad general statement made in that first sentence. Any law, to be understood, must be read complete. I agree, and have said myself, that the laundry list in 16.A is clearly not meant to be exhaustive. But it is there for a reason (presumably to be exemplary), and we shouldn't try to interpret the meaning of Law 16 as though it wasn't there at all. If it sheds no light at all on how the Law is to be interpreted, what does it do? > I have decided that Quango's fate is in your hands. You are the crowd > in Nero's day. Thumbs up or thumbs down? Please indicate in any > postings to the list or emails to me in the next three days. Let poor Quango live; he wouldn't taste very good anyhow. I can tell you from much experience that cats on the keyboard are one of those things that make life so full of delightful (?) surprises. /eric Eric Landau APL Solutions, Inc. elandau@cais.com 1107 Dale Drive (301) 589-4621 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 USA From owner-bridge-laws Thu May 16 13:48:18 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id NAA20596 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 16 May 1996 13:48:18 +1000 Received: from relay-2.mail.demon.net (disperse.demon.co.uk [158.152.1.77]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id NAA20589 for ; Thu, 16 May 1996 13:45:58 +1000 Received: from post.demon.co.uk ([158.152.1.72]) by relay-2.mail.demon.net id aa08567; 16 May 96 0:12 +0100 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by relay-3.mail.demon.net id aa15655; 16 May 96 0:12 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 16 May 1996 00:09:13 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Unauthorised information In-Reply-To: <199605151904.MAA09469@tintin.JPL.NASA.GOV> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 1.12 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article <199605151904.MAA09469@tintin.JPL.NASA.GOV>, Jeff Goldsmith writes >To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au > >|David Stevenson says: >|In article <199605141902.MAA08346@tintin.JPL.NASA.GOV>, Jeff Goldsmith >| writes >|> >|>Maybe I missed something, but I read the laws somewhat >|>differently than does David, to wit: >|> >|>73B1 talks about "gratuitous information" and says >|>that information is not to be transmitted between >|>partners by questions asked or not asked. It does >|>not state that the knowledge of question asking is >|>unauthorized, just that you can't ask the meaning >|>of some call in order to transmit information to >|>partner intentionally. I read this to mean that >|>73B1 is barring nonsense like the opponents' asking >|>"please explain your 1NT you alerted." You might >|>answer "it's forcing for one round, blah, blah..." >|>without four spades, but when holding four spades >|>say, "it's forcing for one round, blah, blah, ... >|>and may conceal a four-card spade suit." That sort >|>of infraction is probably done unintentionally much >|>more often than intentionally, but is expressly >|>barred by 73B1. >|> >|>73C lists a bunch of cases in which UI can be >|>transmitted, but there just lists "partner's ... >|>question" and fails to mention presence or absense >|>of question. >|> >|>I don't think therefore, that the laws are clear >|>at all about whether or not partner's having asked >|>a question is UI. I think it *ought* to be UI, >|>that any information gleaned through the question >|>asking process is UI except for most of the >|>opponents' explanations, but I'm not at all convinced >|>that said judgment is supported within the laws. >| >| I am afraid, Jeff, that I am confused totally by this. You have >|produced an article with a new Subject name and without any references >|to what you are answering. I have read through my recent articles and I >|am not sure what you are answering. > >I was replying to something old that I finally got >around to reading. > >| However that does not mean your article is not clear. I totally agree >|with the second paragraph, which makes the first one even more >|confusing. The third paragraph does not seem to help. >| >| The fourth paragraph is not correct IMO, so this may explain >|something. The definition of UI is not in the Proprieties but in L16 >|which basically defines authorised information. Other information is >|then unauthorised. > >The preamble to Law 16 specifies some information >which is authorized. The rest of Law 16 lists some >information which is unauthorized. The combination of >the two lists is not complete, nor anywhere does it >say where all other information falls; if one were >to add the word "only" to the preamble, your reading >would be quite clear. It's also clear that "only" >would be incorrect. For example, the vulnerability >is authorized information, but is not listed in the >preamble to Law 16. Perhaps that is considered totally >obvious, but many other data are also obvious and are >unauthorized. This is probably rules-quibbling, but >how else is one to use the Laws? ...either under extreme >scrutiny or simply as a rough guideline. No, probably in neither way. We all know the Laws are flawed. and will remain so while they are written by human beings. This is analogous to the Laws of a country, which will always make work for the legal system to interpret. In the same way we must interpret the Laws. The correct basis is probably to follow the letter of the Laws fairly closely, but apply some commonsense to the matter. In a way, what you say about L16 is correct. It is authorised to use the vulnerability of the board, and I could produce another fifteen things that you can use, starting with the knowledge that there is a Law book. But I believe you err in what you find wrong with L16's first sentence: it is the definition of information that is not included. In many situations in the Law book words are used without being defined: custom and practice, accepted language, recommendations from bodies and case law all go to defining such words. [To digress: The definition of convention allows 1NT - 3H to show a singleton or void to be non-conventional. When the lawmakers tried to come up with a better definition they found it was very difficult. Grattan Endicott's suggestion, with which I concur, was to remove any definition of Convention from the Law book, and let the above methods be used to define it.] Now if we accept that the letter of the Law in L16 has a problem, the best, fairest and most workable solution seems to be to allow commonsense to define information for us. I cannot produce a good definition, so a TD/AC might have to make a decision in a close case. However, I think it is obvious that knowledge of the Vulnerability is a far cry from what is said and done at the table. Given that we understand what information is being referred to, and I believe that people who subscribe to this mailing list will have a pretty good idea (although we might argue about borderline cases) then we have to decide whether such "information" is authorised or unauthorised. I believe that the first sentence of L16 defines authorised information. Now the nature of the information that we are considering is that it is usable (consider again the silly examples that I have used elsewhere: if a player knows that another player has so little interest in the hand that he is looking at the legs of a waitress the whole time then he can form some impression about his hand: thus the information is usable). So if it is usable (ie it can be used) then we have to let players know whether they are allowed to use it. Thus it must be authorised or unauthorised. I still believe that L16 only makes sense if you accept that the first sentence defines all usable authorised information, though I accept it is not well written. Thus anything that is not included must be unauthorised. Alternatively there is my argument in another article that I am not going to repeat in full: it is probably wandering round and round the Internet at this moment. Just take two examples: (a) partner looking at legs (as before) (b) partner asking no questions. In both cases you can make deductions about partner's hand. Do you really believe that you should use either one? No? Then they are unauthorised: but neither appears in your list in L16A. [Mind you, surely the negatives of the list are also unauthorised: since a question may be UI does it not follow that lack of a question can be as well?] I have had an idea. Law 16 defines what "information" is authorised: any "information" that is not authorised is unauthorised: "information" is anything that tells a player what is in another player's hand. Neat definition, eh? Just came to me! There is no doubt IMO that the ACBL approach is wrong, and the EBU one is better: but the problem only arises in the rare types of UI: both approaches work equally well with normal types of UI. -------------- Having pointed out problems that could be resolved by the lawmakers in this and certain other articles it would seem a good idea if someone were monitoring articles in this mailing list so that relevant comments could be passed to the lawmakers. I hope someone is. --------------- Jeff: my software treats this mailing list like a Newsgroup: I expect this is true for others out there. It would be a great help if you could include Subjects and use "Reply" so that the your articles will link with others. -- David Stevenson Bridge Cats Railways Logic /\_/\ Liverpool, England, UK Nothing ventured, nothing gained [. .] david@blakjak.demon.co.uk Emails welcome =< @ >= Tel: +44 (0)151 677 7412 Phone before Fax please ^ From owner-bridge-laws Thu May 16 19:55:35 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id TAA23048 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 16 May 1996 19:55:35 +1000 Received: from mail.be.innet.net (mail.be.innet.net [194.7.1.8]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id TAA22980 for ; Thu, 16 May 1996 19:55:15 +1000 Received: from innet.innet.be (pool03-88.innet.be [194.7.10.72]) by mail.be.innet.net (8.7.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id LAA28594 for ; Thu, 16 May 1996 11:54:55 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <319B14A5.3991@innet.be> Date: Thu, 16 May 1996 11:42:29 +0000 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.0 (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: addresses please Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk General Comment to all writers : (I have remarked the same in many other newsgroups and such) This is a forum of serious people. Let's not remain anonymous. If your E-mail address contains a .com or such, please indicate where you are writing from. Certainly in American-European discussions, this is useful. -- Herman DE WAEL E-Mail HermanDW@innet.be Michel Willemslaan 40 tel ++32.3.827.64.45 B-2610 WILRIJK (Antwerpen) fax ++32.3.825.29.19 Belgium http://www.club.innet.be/~pub02163/index.htm From owner-bridge-laws Thu May 16 22:43:55 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id WAA25019 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 16 May 1996 22:43:55 +1000 Received: from andrew.cais.com (andrew.cais.com [199.0.216.215]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id WAA25014 for ; Thu, 16 May 1996 22:43:50 +1000 Received: from cais3.cais.com (cais3.cais.com [199.0.216.227]) by andrew.cais.com (8.6.9/8.6.9) with SMTP id IAA11980 for ; Thu, 16 May 1996 08:43:45 -0400 Date: Thu, 16 May 1996 08:43:45 -0400 (EDT) From: Eric Landau X-Sender: elandau@cais3.cais.com To: Bridge Laws Discussion List Subject: Re: Asking questions for partner In-Reply-To: <9605151557.AA01169@cfa183.harvard.edu> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Wed, 15 May 1996, Steve Willner wrote: > Case 3: Nothing improper has happened, but opponents have an unusual > agreement that partner might not be aware of. (Example: 1H-P-4H by > a Precision pair need not be preemptive.) > > Analysis: Regulations seem to forbid asking in this case. (EBL 20.5 > was cited, and there's a similar ACBL regulation, I think.) On the > other hand, Law 20F1 gives an _unqualified_ right to ask for an > explanation of the auction at one's own turn to act. Further, Law 73B1 > cited by EBL 20.5 does not seem to me to apply to the case at hand but > instead to the case specifically excluded at the start of this thread. > How do we reconcile the seeming discrepancy? And perhaps more > important, is it good or bad for the game to forbid asking a question > in Case 3? How can we enforce a prohibition if we decide one is > desirable? > > [A search of the ACBL web page doesn't yield the regulations I'm looking > for. Anybody know where they are?] I don't think you'll find a specific regulation. The rationale for forbidding asking questions for partner's benefit derives from Law 74.C.4, which forbids "commenting or acting during the auction or play so as to call attention to a significant occurrence." This is widely interpreted to mean that it's unethical to do anything (other than legal calls or plays) for the specific purpose of cluing partner in to what's going on. Eric Landau APL Solutions, Inc. elandau@cais.com 1107 Dale Drive (301) 589-4621 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 USA From owner-bridge-laws Thu May 16 22:56:20 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id WAA25065 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 16 May 1996 22:56:20 +1000 Received: from andrew.cais.com (andrew.cais.com [199.0.216.215]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id WAA25060 for ; Thu, 16 May 1996 22:56:15 +1000 Received: from cais3.cais.com (cais3.cais.com [199.0.216.227]) by andrew.cais.com (8.6.9/8.6.9) with SMTP id IAA14457 for ; Thu, 16 May 1996 08:56:05 -0400 Date: Thu, 16 May 1996 08:56:04 -0400 (EDT) From: Eric Landau X-Sender: elandau@cais3.cais.com To: Bridge Laws Discussion List Subject: Re: Slow invitations (fwd) In-Reply-To: <960515124511_294718028@emout15.mail.aol.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Wed, 15 May 1996 AlLeBendig@aol.com wrote: > Failing to ask would never be construed as giving UI. However, if your > partner is aware that you don't know something, the fact that you didn't ask > for more information leaves him in possession of UI. We are discussing > something that would rarely come up. I don't understand this distinction at all. The fact that you didn't ask for more information leaves partner in possession of UI. Where did it come from? How did he come to possess it? If you had asked for more information, he wouldn't have had the UI. How is this different from your failure to ask being construed as giving UI? Unless there's some subtle semantic point I'm missing, the first two sentences above seem to flatly contradict one another. /eric Eric Landau APL Solutions, Inc. elandau@cais.com 1107 Dale Drive (301) 589-4621 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 USA From owner-bridge-laws Fri May 17 01:11:00 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA28382 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 17 May 1996 01:11:00 +1000 Received: from emout07.mail.aol.com (emout07.mx.aol.com [198.81.11.22]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id BAA28377 for ; Fri, 17 May 1996 01:10:52 +1000 From: AlLeBendig@aol.com Received: by emout07.mail.aol.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) id LAA05427 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Thu, 16 May 1996 11:10:17 -0400 Date: Thu, 16 May 1996 11:10:17 -0400 Message-ID: <960516111016_295494122@emout07.mail.aol.com> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Slow invitations (fwd) Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In a message dated 96-05-16 09:02:22 EDT, Eric Landau writes: >Subj: Re: Slow invitations (fwd) >Date: 96-05-16 09:02:22 EDT >From: elandau@cais.cais.com (Eric Landau) >Sender: owner-bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au >To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au (Bridge Laws Discussion List) > >On Wed, 15 May 1996 AlLeBendig@aol.com wrote: > >> Failing to ask would never be construed as giving UI. However, if your >> partner is aware that you don't know something, the fact that you didn't >ask >> for more information leaves him in possession of UI. We are discussing >> something that would rarely come up. > >I don't understand this distinction at all. The fact that you didn't ask >for more information leaves partner in possession of UI. Where did it >come from? How did he come to possess it? If you had asked for more >information, he wouldn't have had the UI. How is this different from >your failure to ask being construed as giving UI? Unless there's some >subtle semantic point I'm missing, the first two sentences above seem to >flatly contradict one another. /eric Reading only this paragraph, Eric, could easily leave one confused. The writer, Chris Pisarra, was concerned that if there was an alert and he didn't ask the meaning of the bid, he would be accused of giving UI to partner. I was only trying to clarify that the failure to ask would never leave him open to any accusation of having done anything wrong. However, his partner's awareness of that fact could, in a rare instance, lead to the possibility that his partner had used that UI. We're all clear that, unless done intentionally, the person making UI available has done nothing wrong. Alan LeBendig From owner-bridge-laws Fri May 17 02:28:47 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA29158 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 17 May 1996 02:28:47 +1000 Received: from mipl7.jpl.nasa.gov (mipl7.jpl.nasa.gov [128.149.177.7]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id CAA29153 for ; Fri, 17 May 1996 02:28:42 +1000 Received: from tintin.JPL.NASA.GOV (tintin.jpl.nasa.gov [128.149.102.7]) by mipl7.jpl.nasa.gov (8.6.12/8.6.6) with ESMTP id JAA21364 for <@mipl7.JPL.NASA.GOV:bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au>; Thu, 16 May 1996 09:27:13 -0700 Received: by tintin.JPL.NASA.GOV (940816.SGI.8.6.9/930416.SGI.MIPS) for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au id JAA10326; Thu, 16 May 1996 09:32:44 -0700 Date: Thu, 16 May 1996 09:32:44 -0700 From: jeff@tintin.JPL.NASA.GOV (Jeff Goldsmith) Message-Id: <199605161632.JAA10326@tintin.JPL.NASA.GOV> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Subject: UI stuff/definitions/Law 16/quibbling |From: David Stevenson |>To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au | | No, probably in neither way. We all know the Laws are flawed. and |will remain so while they are written by human beings. This is |analogous to the Laws of a country, which will always make work for the |legal system to interpret. In the same way we must interpret the Laws. |The correct basis is probably to follow the letter of the Laws fairly |closely, but apply some commonsense to the matter. I agree completely, but then to claim that the presence or absense of questioning's being UI is stated in the Laws is incorrect. Common sense might well suggest that it is so, and we all agree on that, I think, but it is not the case that the Laws say it. | Now if we accept that the letter of the Law in L16 has a problem, the |best, fairest and most workable solution seems to be to allow |commonsense to define information for us. I cannot produce a good |definition, so a TD/AC might have to make a decision in a close case. |However, I think it is obvious that knowledge of the Vulnerability is a |far cry from what is said and done at the table. Information theory has adequately defined "information," "common knowledge," etc. It always seems strange to me when someone uses those terms in their looser senses. Shrug. | Given that we understand what information is being referred to, and I |believe that people who subscribe to this mailing list will have a |pretty good idea (although we might argue about borderline cases) then |we have to decide whether such "information" is authorised or |unauthorised. I believe that the first sentence of L16 defines |authorised information. Now the nature of the information that we are I don't. I think it tries to give us an idea of where to draw the line, and leaves the details to common sense, case law, committees, and quibblers. |considering is that it is usable (consider again the silly examples that |I have used elsewhere: if a player knows that another player has so |little interest in the hand that he is looking at the legs of a waitress |the whole time then he can form some impression about his hand: thus |the information is usable). So if it is usable (ie it can be used) then |we have to let players know whether they are allowed to use it. Thus it |must be authorised or unauthorised. I agree with that. Yes, all information is either authorized or unauthorized. If it is not useful at the bridge table, it doesn't matter in the slightest which it is. | I still believe that L16 only makes sense if you accept that the first |sentence defines all usable authorised information, though I accept it |is not well written. Thus anything that is not included must be |unauthorised. You aren't being consistent. If you really believe this, then the vulnerability isn't usable (so much for variable systems, saves, etc.) or is unauthorized. We know that's false, so by reducio ad absurdum, the preamble of Law 16 cannot define what information is authorized. It gives us a flavor of what is, and it is a true statement because it doesn't make the claim of completeness. To demand that it does is unreasonable of course, for reasons you mention and others. | Alternatively there is my argument in another article that I am not |going to repeat in full: it is probably wandering round and round the |Internet at this moment. Just take two examples: (a) partner looking at |legs (as before) (b) partner asking no questions. In both cases you |can make deductions about partner's hand. Do you really believe that |you should use either one? No? Then they are unauthorised: but neither |appears in your list in L16A. [Mind you, surely the negatives of the |list are also unauthorised: since a question may be UI does it not |follow that lack of a question can be as well?] Agreed. Moreover, the list in 16A expressly claims that it is not complete. I am simply arguing that the Laws *do not* define UI/AI, but that we have to use our judgment. There are much nastier cases than whether or not partner has asked a question---for example, what exactly is a leading question? The answers to partner's questions are authorized, but if he is careful (careless?) he can cause the transmission of UI. I suspect that such an example will defy catagorization, so I claim that Law 16 does a fine job in its goal. It gives us that some information is authorized and some is unauthorized. That which it doesn't mention is to be judged when needed. | I have had an idea. Law 16 defines what "information" is authorised: |any "information" that is not authorised is unauthorised: "information" |is anything that tells a player what is in another player's hand. Neat |definition, eh? Just came to me! Not good enough. I can tell my partner "lead a club." He doesn't know if I have zero clubs, the AK, or three small, but I have certainly transmitted UI. An even more clear example: during the bidding, I get a peek at declarer's hand. I tell partner what is there. UI. "Information" has already been defined elsewhere; we don't need to redefine it. "Useful information" has also been defined elsewhere. UI is simply useful information that is unauthorized. I think you were on the right track earlier. | Having pointed out problems that could be resolved by the lawmakers in |this and certain other articles it would seem a good idea if someone |were monitoring articles in this mailing list so that relevant comments |could be passed to the lawmakers. I hope someone is. I'm sending a letter to Edgar Kaplan about it. Would you like me to mention it to Chip Martel? [ I think this is from Markus: ] | Jeff: my software treats this mailing list like a Newsgroup: I expect |this is true for others out there. It would be a great help if you |could include Subjects and use "Reply" so that the your articles will |link with others. Sorry about that. I'm using a UNIX mailer that is pretty dumb, so instead of using its broken reply, I save and edit and resend. One of its most annoying characteristics is that it won't allow Subject: lines in the text if input is redirected to it, but instead requires them on the command line, and then trashes them about half the time. The upside is that this mailer is better than my last one...it blew up if I gave it subjects at all...please skip any England puns... --Jeff # Cthulhu in '96! Why vote for the lesser evil? # --- # http://muggy.gg.caltech.edu/~jeff From owner-bridge-laws Fri May 17 03:11:15 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA29291 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 17 May 1996 03:11:15 +1000 Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [128.103.40.170]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id DAA29286 for ; Fri, 17 May 1996 03:11:10 +1000 Received: from cfa183.harvard.edu (cfa183.harvard.edu [131.142.12.59]) by cfa.harvard.edu (8.7.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id NAA15444 for ; Thu, 16 May 1996 13:11:06 -0400 (EDT) Received: by cfa183.harvard.edu (5.x/SMI-SVR4) id AA01552; Thu, 16 May 1996 13:13:13 -0400 Date: Thu, 16 May 1996 13:13:13 -0400 From: willner@cfa183.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Message-Id: <9605161713.AA01552@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: UI stuff/definitions/Law 16/quibbling X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > |From: David Stevenson > | I have had an idea. Law 16 defines what "information" is authorised: > |any "information" that is not authorised is unauthorised: "information" > |is anything that tells a player what is in another player's hand. Neat > |definition, eh? Just came to me! > From: jeff@tintin.JPL.NASA.GOV (Jeff Goldsmith) > Not good enough. I can tell my partner "lead a club." He > doesn't know if I have zero clubs, the AK, or three small, > but I have certainly transmitted UI. Perhaps I'm missing a subtlety, but can we go very far wrong if we just ask "Is it reasonable that this information could suggest one action over another?" If the answer is no, we don't worry. (Whether or not we call it "information" is a dispute about semantics, not about bridge.) If yes, we decide whether the information is authorized or not. > An even more clear > example: during the bidding, I get a peek at declarer's > hand. I tell partner what is there. UI. This fits David's definition. From owner-bridge-laws Fri May 17 03:42:47 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA29572 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 17 May 1996 03:42:47 +1000 Received: from andrew.cais.com (andrew.cais.com [199.0.216.215]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id DAA29567 for ; Fri, 17 May 1996 03:42:38 +1000 Received: from cais3.cais.com (cais3.cais.com [199.0.216.227]) by andrew.cais.com (8.6.9/8.6.9) with SMTP id NAA27377 for ; Thu, 16 May 1996 13:42:33 -0400 Date: Thu, 16 May 1996 13:42:33 -0400 (EDT) From: Eric Landau X-Sender: elandau@cais3.cais.com To: Bridge Laws Discussion List Subject: UI from questions not asked Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I have finally (thanks to a conversation last night with two of our area's leading directors) discovered why the position that failing to ask a question may be a source if UI is bothering me so much. I'd like to go back to the example with which we started the discussion. 1D-2H-2S-3S-P-?. 2S was alerted, but partner did not ask its meaning. Let me fill in some missing background. In the local area where this took place, a majority of pairs play this 2S bid as natural and non- forcing, which (in the ACBL at least) requires an alert. Partner has assumed, carelessly and incorrectly, that that's what the alert was about, which is why he didn't ask. So his interpretation of 2S was an obvious misunderstanding, and obviously innocent of any improper intent (he wasn't trying to give you any info about his hand or bid). You now ask about 2S and discover that it was a transfer to C. Your methods are clear: over 2S natural 3S is a H raise; over 2S transfer 3S shows S. If 3S was H, you have no LA to 4H; if 3S was S you have no LA to 4S. Having revealed that it is a transfer by asking, you are now certain (and correct) that partner intended 3S as H, but your methods call for a 4S bid. The "pro UI" position is that you have an ethical obligation to choose the bid you would have made on the assumption that partner's bid showed whatever it would have shown if partner had full knowledge of the opponents' methods. That bid is 4S. If you bid 4H, you have committed an infraction (use of UI), and (if damage results) your score will be adjusted to the result the TD/AC deems you would have obtained had you bid 4S, which will reduce your score. Now change the scenario very slightly. You, like your partner, simply assume that the opponent alerted because 2S was natural and NF, and you don't inquire either. You have absolutely no idea that there are UI considerations about on this hand. You naively make your normal 4H bid, which appears to you to have no LAs (as it wouldn't if 2S meant what you and partner both thought it did). Is this the same infraction? Should your score still be adjusted? If you must make the bid you would have made on the assumption that partner's bid showed whatever it would have shown if partner had full knowledge of the opponents' methods, it is, since we've already stipulated that that bid is 4S, not 4H. The unstated catch-22 (and last night's key insight) is this: In order to know what partner's bid would show if partner had full knowledge of the opponents' methods, you must have full knowledge of the opponents' methods! Although the idea that you must assume partner was bidding with full knowledge is a simple and appealing one, and solves some problems at the margin, this is its dark side. What it would do, in effect, is to create, out of thin air, a new ethical obligation to know your opponents' methods. And, as I think we'd all agree, there's absolutely nothing in our Laws, rules or ethical canons to support this. Ignorance may not be bliss, but it's not an ethical infraction either, and we mustn't do anything that it would make it one, even if only in rare and unusual circumstances. But if we differentiate these two cases (say, for example, we decide that instead of assuming partner has full knowledge we must assume partner has the same knowledge we do) in order to adjust in the first case but not in the second, that's even worse! It means that in the first case you have been deemed to have committed an ethical infraction, and have received an unfavorable score adjustment, solely because you properly informed yourself as to the meaning of an opponent's bid! The notion that you can lose your equity position and reduce your score by the mere act of discovering what your opponents' bidding means (note that in our example your inquiry and the response can have no effect on partner's actions) is both repugnant and absurd; clearly we don't want any legal interpretions that permit this. So if we decide that there's an ethical obligation to bid 4S in the original case, we will create, as a side-effect, either situations in which one may be "punished" (receive an unfavorable adjustment) for being ignorant of opponents' methods, or situations in which one may be punished for remedying one's ignorance of opponents' methods. I don't believe we want to live with either of those choices. Eric Landau APL Solutions, Inc. elandau@cais.com 1107 Dale Drive (301) 589-4621 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 USA From owner-bridge-laws Fri May 17 04:35:18 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA01137 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 17 May 1996 04:35:18 +1000 Received: from styx.ios.com (root@styx.ios.com [198.4.75.44]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id EAA01086 for ; Fri, 17 May 1996 04:35:03 +1000 Received: (from lighton@localhost) by styx.ios.com (8.6.12/8.6.9) id NAA28959 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 16 May 1996 13:28:54 -0400 Date: Thu, 16 May 1996 13:28:54 -0400 From: Richard Lighton Message-Id: <199605161728.NAA28959@styx.ios.com> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Subject: Re: New ethical problem In a message dated 96-05-14 03:43:49 EDT, David Stevenson writes: (quoting I believe the EBU official interpretations of the laws) > 'No player should ever ask for a review of the auction, or for an > explanation, in order to ensure that partner has understood correctly; > this is a deliberate use of an unauthorized channel of communication > (see Law 73B1) and is *grossly improper*. > [snip] > Only the first sentence has any importance: the rest is telling you > what you should do, but the first sentence says why this practice is > illegal, and I am not entirely sure that it is convincing. Certainly > the belief in England is that it is a reprehensible practice, but that > does not make it illegal. > > Other views please? And Alan LeBendig responded > How could anyone ever disagree with this very concise and well worded > analysis of what I think everyone wants? Why can't the Laws be published > with some like type of commentary to make them easier to interpret. The > intentions are not always nearly as clear as this is. I'm sorry, but I don't think this is what everybody wants. Say my agreements are that over a transfer bid, a double is a takeout of the suit transfered to, but a double of a Stayman bid shows the denomination doubled. So 1NT-pass-2H*-dbl shows a takeout of spades, but 1NT-pass-2C-dbl shows clubs. The bidding goes 1NT-pass-2D* (in a land where special alerts or announcements don't exist) Take three cases: 1. I know that this is Forcing Stayman, but I am fairly sure that partner does not. In this case, if I ask I am telling partner what my double means. I have transmitted no information that he could not find out for himself, but I have given Unauthorised Information. 2. I don't know what 2D means, so I ask so that I can find out what my double might mean. Now, if I pass, partner has Unauthorised Information after the explanation, and he is not allowed to infer that I have the other sort of double. 3. I am playing with someone who I am fairly sure has never even heard of Forcing Stayman. I have absolutely no intention of doubling, but I think partner ought to know what's going on. So I ask. The rules interpretations say that I am doing something bad in 1 and 3, but that I am OK in 2. I think that I should be OK in all three, because the laws say I can always ask. The only case where I am really giving unauthorise Information is 2, where everybody is going to agree that I have done nothing wrong. My own habits are to ask when I want to know, and ask some of the time when I couldn't care less. That way my regular partners don't know whetherI care or not. If I ask, I might not care. If I don't ask, I might already know. I will sometimes ask in case 1, always ask in cases 2 & 3.. And in case 3, I assert nobody is harmed and there is no Unauthorised Information. Richard Lighton (lighton@ios.com) NJ USA From owner-bridge-laws Fri May 17 05:23:14 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA07836 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 17 May 1996 05:23:14 +1000 Received: from pip.dknet.dk (root@pip.dknet.dk [193.88.44.48]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id FAA07831 for ; Fri, 17 May 1996 05:23:04 +1000 Received: from cph2.pip.dknet.dk (cph2.pip.dknet.dk [194.192.0.34]) by pip.dknet.dk (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id VAA01146 for ; Thu, 16 May 1996 21:22:41 +0200 From: jd@pip.dknet.dk (Jesper Dybdal) To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Slow invitations Date: Thu, 16 May 1996 19:22:17 GMT Organization: at home Message-ID: <319b7b6e.23949858@pipmail.dknet.dk> References: In-Reply-To: X-Mailer: Forte Agent .99e/32.227 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Hi David, We are probably not going to end up agreeing on this subject; though I realize that, there were a few points in your message that I would like to comment on. On Sun, 12 May 1996 03:48:13 +0100, David Stevenson wrote: > Oh Jesper! We don't punish! > > Look, you are talking at the moment of four ethical players, right? >well, I believe I am an ethical player. If my partner hesitates and I >get adjusted against, that is part of the game: it is like losing a >finesse. Why should I get annoyed? No-one has punished me. It is >necessary sometime for these rulings to go against me otherwise I will >feel hard done by when I am asking for a ruling if I never get a >favourable one. > > Ethical players don't get mad at the TD for ruling against them. Well, as a general statement that is true. However, if I get adjusted against, I would like to have had a chance to avoid it. When my partner gives me UI by bidding slowly, I do attempt to lean over backwards not to take advantage of that UI; if it happens that my attempt was unsuccessful in the TD's judgment and the score is adjusted, I can usually easily accept that. However, to adjust because I did not lean over backwards when I had no way whatsoever of knowing which direction was backwards is unreasonable - it means that the slow bid in itself makes it impossible for me to choose the successful action, and I would feel unfairly _punished_ for partner's slow bid. Your answer to this may of course be that this won't happen because you, as a TD, in practice is able to judge correctly whether I, as a player, am telling the truth when I say that my partner's slow invitation did not suggest one action over the other and that I had no idea which way was "backwards". If so, then I have no problem with your point of view - in that case I just envy your ability to judge players. Though I agree that in most situations the TD has a reasonable chance of judging who is telling the truth to what degree, I would not myself expect to be able to do so very often in this specific situation where the truth exists only in the head of one person and no-one else has any chance, other than asking him, of knowing whether the slow invitation did in fact suggest one action over another. And when in doubt, I prefer to believe that people are telling the truth. > I think you have left out of your equation the fact >that the TD was called. This is a very interesting aspect that I've had to think about. Assume for the sake of argument that we (the TD's and lawmakers of the world) agree that when there is UI and it is unclear whether it suggests one action over the other, we rule as if it suggested the successful action. Having agreed that, in reality we have a new "rule" of the game: after a slow invitation, a player is not allowed to take the successful action on a borderline hand. (I know that this is a more black-and-white attitude than the one you're arguing, but let's assume it anyway). Assume that when making this "rule", we took into account that "there will usually be something wrong when the TD is called at all". It now happens that I, an ethical player who knows that "rule", open 1S, partner invites game with 3S after thinking for a full minute (which in our partnership does not suggest anything, but that cannot be proved), and I happen to take the successful action (whatever that may be) on my borderline hand. There is now in reality an irregularity: I've broken the "rule", and my opponents, ethical or not, have the _right_ to an adjusted score. If the opponents know the "rule", they should and will call the director in order to get the good score that is their right. If they don't, I'll call the TD myself, since I happen to be the kind of person who do not like to get a good score just because my opponents do not know the rules. Correspondingly, I'll call the TD whenever my opponents break the "rule". As this "rule" becomes more widely known, every beginner will be taught that when his opponents get a good score after a slow invitation, he must call the TD as a matter of course, just like he would after a revoke. The original argument for such a black-and-white "rule" (that it wouldn't matter because the TD wouldn't be called when it was unreasonable) thus does not hold. Taking into account that "the TD was called" is clearly not a theoretically sound practice when making rules and guidelines. It may be usable in practice to a certain degree, but I prefer rules that are also theoretically sound; in this respect, rules that produce a reasonable result even if the TD is called on every hand at every table. --- Jesper Dybdal From owner-bridge-laws Fri May 17 07:05:26 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA08428 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 17 May 1996 07:05:26 +1000 Received: from electra.cc.umanitoba.ca (root@electra.cc.umanitoba.ca [130.179.16.23]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id HAA08423 for ; Fri, 17 May 1996 07:05:21 +1000 Received: from ankaa.cc.umanitoba.ca (root@ankaa.cc.umanitoba.ca [130.179.16.47]) by electra.cc.umanitoba.ca (8.7.1/8.7.1) with SMTP id QAA00653 for ; Thu, 16 May 1996 16:05:16 -0500 (CDT) Received: by ankaa.cc.umanitoba.ca (4.1/25-eef) id AA29283; Thu, 16 May 96 16:05:13 CDT Message-Id: <9605162105.AA29283@ankaa.cc.umanitoba.ca> Date: Thu, 16 May 96 16:03 CDT From: Barry Wolk To: Subject: Re: UI via questions Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Eric Landau wrote: >If we do believe that an opponent's bid (alerted or not) can establish a >context in which meaningful UI can be transmitted by failing to ask a >question, we're back to Chris's notion that it might then be ethically >appropriate to "correct" the context to one in which the UI is obviously >meaningless, which we can only do (without giving up the ability to ask >when we need to know the answer) by asking every time. This came up on rec.games.bridge a while ago. A suggested solution was to ask whenever you need to know (obviously), and also ask at some other random times. How often should you ask these unnecessary(!) questions? That depends on the relative importance you place on the 2 issues, which will vary with the level of the game: 1. Not asking *any* unnecessary questions - if your partner knows that this is your standard procedure, then you are transmitting UI. 2. Asking every time - this annoys the players and delays the game. I don't recall the figures that were suggested, but something like the following seems reasonable: Ask unnecessary questions about 10% of the time in a low-level game, where "annoy the players" is the more important factor. At a higher level, this asking figure should be almost 50%. This suggestion does not solve the problem completely. It helps by eliminating the UI associated with asking a question, but does not help in those cases where you do not ask. One of those "not-asking" cases is what started this discussion. However, the "asking" case is certainly more of a problem in general. Here is another legal twist: if your partner answers an opponent's question incorrectly, you have to hear his answer, because you may be required to correct it later. However, his answer is UI for you. Weird! Barry Wolk Dept of Mathematics University of Manitoba Winnipeg Manitoba Canada From owner-bridge-laws Fri May 17 07:34:58 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA08586 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 17 May 1996 07:34:58 +1000 Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [128.103.40.170]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id HAA08581 for ; Fri, 17 May 1996 07:34:53 +1000 Received: from cfa183.harvard.edu (cfa183.harvard.edu [131.142.12.59]) by cfa.harvard.edu (8.7.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id RAA26259 for ; Thu, 16 May 1996 17:34:34 -0400 (EDT) Received: by cfa183.harvard.edu (5.x/SMI-SVR4) id AA01697; Thu, 16 May 1996 17:36:43 -0400 Date: Thu, 16 May 1996 17:36:43 -0400 From: willner@cfa183.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Message-Id: <9605162136.AA01697@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: UI from questions not asked X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: Eric Landau > I have finally (thanks to a conversation last night with two of our > area's leading directors) discovered why the position that failing to ask > a question may be a source if UI is bothering me so much. Thanks for the thoughtful discussion > 1D-2H-2S-3S-P-?. 2S was alerted, but [3S bidder] did not ask its meaning. ... > Although the idea that you must assume partner was bidding with full > knowledge is a simple and appealing one, and solves some problems at the > margin, this is its dark side. What it would do, in effect, is to > create, out of thin air, a new ethical obligation to know your opponents' > methods. And, as I think we'd all agree, there's absolutely nothing in > our Laws, rules or ethical canons to support this. > But if we differentiate these two cases (say, for example, we decide that > instead of assuming partner has full knowledge we must assume partner has > the same knowledge we do) in order to adjust in the first case but not in > the second, that's even worse! It means that in the first case you have > been deemed to have committed an ethical infraction, and have received > an unfavorable score adjustment, solely because you properly informed > yourself as to the meaning of an opponent's bid! I don't have a solution, but it seems to me that there is a real problem here. The one thing we cannot have is for the meaning of the 3S bid to depend on whether or not the bidder has asked for an explanation of 2S. Scenario 1: advancer has hearts and bids 3S without asking for an explanation of 2S. Overcaller also does not ask, "assuming" that 2S showed spades. Scenario 2: advancer has spades and asks about 2S. Upon finding out that 2S shows clubs, he can bid a natural 3S. Overcaller has, of course, heard the explanation. Nothing unethical _in appearance_ has happened in either scenario, yet _in fact_ I think most of us would judge a pair who behaved this way fairly harshly. However, this is quite a natural way to behave. In scenario 1 advancer has no reason to believe 2S is anything but natural, while in scenario 2, advancer's hand tips him off that something is strange. The _effect_, then, is that the system being played depends on advancer's hand, not on the meaning of the 2S bid. Alan LeBendig's example is another case in point: double of multi 2D is diamonds, but look at defense sheet and then double is takeout of spades. (These may not have been the meanings in the actual case, but the idea should be clear.) The best I can do is that the logic of certain situations _creates_ an ethical obligation to know the opponents' agreements. Anybody have a better idea? I note that behind screens there is no problem; one has no way of knowing whether partner has asked about 2S or not. From owner-bridge-laws Fri May 17 07:38:18 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA08605 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 17 May 1996 07:38:18 +1000 Received: from shell.monmouth.com (root@shell.monmouth.com [205.164.220.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id HAA08600 for ; Fri, 17 May 1996 07:38:06 +1000 Received: from lhost.monmouth.com (ppp9.monmouth.com [205.164.220.41]) by shell.monmouth.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id RAA27992 for ; Thu, 16 May 1996 17:34:09 -0400 Message-Id: <199605162134.RAA27992@shell.monmouth.com> Comments: Authenticated sender is From: "reha gur" To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Thu, 16 May 1996 17:30:29 +0000 Subject: Re: Slow invitations Priority: normal X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v2.10) Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Jesper Dybdal writes: > Well, as a general statement that is true. However, if I get adjusted > against, I would like to have had a chance to avoid it. When my > partner gives me UI by bidding slowly, I do attempt to lean over > backwards not to take advantage of that UI; if it happens that my > attempt was unsuccessful in the TD's judgment and the score is > adjusted, I can usually easily accept that. > > However, to adjust because I did not lean over backwards when I had no > way whatsoever of knowing which direction was backwards is > unreasonable - it means that the slow bid in itself makes it > impossible for me to choose the successful action, and I would feel > unfairly _punished_ for partner's slow bid. I have a big problem with players who "bend over backwards" to do the "ethical" thing. If it works out, the opponents get a bad result that they would not have gotten without the irregularity. Is this fair? Am I alone in thinking it isn't? Doesn't bending over backwards necessitate taking the UI into account? Of course, I see problems associated with my approach. Suppose you bid out of turn and partner is barred, and you choose to bid 2NT. (Well, upon re-reading, I guess this is a little different, since you are not "BOB", but are taking a random shot. Still, this is another subject I would like to see addressed.) Anyway, the field is in 3NT going down. You and your partner, using your methods, would have gotten there. Are you entitled to your top? Are the opponents entitled to their bottom? Certainly the non-offenders have been damaged by the irregularity. Are you only allowed to score average or worse when your side opens the bidding out of turn? This may seem unreasonble to some, but I think it is fair. We should learn not to bid if it is not our turn. > Assume for the sake of argument that we (the TD's and lawmakers of the > world) agree that when there is UI and it is unclear whether it > suggests one action over the other, we rule as if it suggested the > successful action. I think that this is true. If we consider logical alternatives that "MAY have been suggested " by the UI, certainly opposite actions might fall into that category. > > Having agreed that, in reality we have a new "rule" of the game: after > a slow invitation, a player is not allowed to take the successful > action on a borderline hand. (I know that this is a more > black-and-white attitude than the one you're arguing, but let's assume > it anyway). I would actually argue for this "black-and-white" attitude. When partner makes a slow invitation, you are in an ethical bind and are pretty much doomed to a poor score. But partner should be aware of this and should stop making slow invitations. If this means that partner has to adjust all of his bidding to a slower tempo, then so be it. > As this "rule" becomes more widely known, every beginner will be > taught that when his opponents get a good score after a slow > invitation, he must call the TD as a matter of course, just like he > would after a revoke. At least the beginners will learn not to make slow invitaions. Stefanie Rohan From owner-bridge-laws Fri May 17 07:45:46 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA08663 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 17 May 1996 07:45:46 +1000 Received: from shell.monmouth.com (root@shell.monmouth.com [205.164.220.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id HAA08657 for ; Fri, 17 May 1996 07:45:38 +1000 Received: from lhost.monmouth.com (ppp9.monmouth.com [205.164.220.41]) by shell.monmouth.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id RAA28509 for ; Thu, 16 May 1996 17:41:26 -0400 Message-Id: <199605162141.RAA28509@shell.monmouth.com> Comments: Authenticated sender is From: "reha gur" To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Thu, 16 May 1996 17:37:47 +0000 Subject: Re: Slow invitations (fwd) Priority: normal X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v2.10) Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Sorry, I don't know how to indicate who said what. Alan LB: > >> Failing to ask would never be construed as giving UI. However, if your > >> partner is aware that you don't know something, the fact that you didn't > >ask > >> for more information leaves him in possession of UI. We are discussing > >> something that would rarely come up. Eric L: > >I don't understand this distinction at all. The fact that you didn't ask > >for more information leaves partner in possession of UI. Where did it > >come from? How did he come to possess it? If you had asked for more > >information, he wouldn't have had the UI. How is this different from > >your failure to ask being construed as giving UI? Unless there's some > >subtle semantic point I'm missing, the first two sentences above seem to > >flatly contradict one another. /eric Wouldn't the knowledge that partner doesn't know what a bid means constitute "UI from other sources"? From owner-bridge-laws Fri May 17 08:03:37 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA08705 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 17 May 1996 08:03:37 +1000 Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [128.103.40.170]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id IAA08700 for ; Fri, 17 May 1996 08:03:32 +1000 Received: from cfa183.harvard.edu (cfa183.harvard.edu [131.142.12.59]) by cfa.harvard.edu (8.7.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id SAA19703 for ; Thu, 16 May 1996 18:03:28 -0400 (EDT) Received: by cfa183.harvard.edu (5.x/SMI-SVR4) id AA01728; Thu, 16 May 1996 18:05:37 -0400 Date: Thu, 16 May 1996 18:05:37 -0400 From: willner@cfa183.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Message-Id: <9605162205.AA01728@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Asking questions for partner X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > > [A search of the ACBL web page doesn't yield the regulations I'm looking > > for. Anybody know where they are?] > From: Eric Landau > I don't think you'll find a specific regulation. Further search still hasn't located a regulation. Maybe I'm vaguely remembering a posting from Gary Blaiss. > The rationale for > forbidding asking questions for partner's benefit derives from Law > 74.C.4, which forbids "commenting or acting during the auction or play so > as to call attention to a significant occurrence." This is widely > interpreted to mean that it's unethical to do anything (other than legal > calls or plays) for the specific purpose of cluing partner in to what's > going on. May I choose a call or play that will wake partner up if he is sleeping? But if legal calls or plays are proper, why not legal questions? But legal questions include "What is the contract?" (Law 41C), which might well be equivalent to "Wake up, you idiot!" Can anyone say "slippery slope?" :-) Is the ethical question here one of degree, or is there a sharp line to be drawn? Would "logical bridge reason for asking" be sufficient? In practice, having a logical reason for asking ought to satisfy all but the most suspicious committees, so maybe it's the practical criterion. Or maybe it's sufficient but not necessary. There is merit in he suggestion that we ought to ask in a fraction of the cases where we have no need for the information. From owner-bridge-laws Fri May 17 09:38:13 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA09223 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 17 May 1996 09:38:13 +1000 Received: from relay-2.mail.demon.net (disperse.demon.co.uk [158.152.1.77]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id JAA09218 for ; Fri, 17 May 1996 09:37:35 +1000 Received: from post.demon.co.uk ([158.152.1.72]) by relay-2.mail.demon.net id aa11005; 16 May 96 22:04 +0100 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by relay-3.mail.demon.net id ab13485; 16 May 96 22:04 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 16 May 1996 21:56:44 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: UI stuff/definitions/Law 16/quibbling In-Reply-To: <199605161632.JAA10326@tintin.JPL.NASA.GOV> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 1.12 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article <199605161632.JAA10326@tintin.JPL.NASA.GOV>, Jeff Goldsmith writes >|From: David Stevenson [s] > >Information theory has adequately defined "information," >"common knowledge," etc. It always seems strange to me >when someone uses those terms in their looser senses. Shrug. Oh goody! Well since I have never heard of "Information theory", much less know what it is, this is not very helpful. [s] >| I still believe that L16 only makes sense if you accept that the first >|sentence defines all usable authorised information, though I accept it >|is not well written. Thus anything that is not included must be >|unauthorised. > >You aren't being consistent. If you really believe this, then >the vulnerability isn't usable (so much for variable systems, >saves, etc.) or is unauthorized. I am being consistent (whether correct or not) because I argued that it was not "information", thus is not covered by L16. > We know that's false, so >by reducio ad absurdum, the preamble of Law 16 cannot define >what information is authorized. It gives us a flavor of what >is, and it is a true statement because it doesn't make the >claim of completeness. To demand that it does is unreasonable >of course, for reasons you mention and others. I started by saying that it was the definition of "information" that was causing the difficulty, so this does not follow. [s] >| I have had an idea. Law 16 defines what "information" is authorised: >|any "information" that is not authorised is unauthorised: "information" >|is anything that tells a player what is in another player's hand. Neat >|definition, eh? Just came to me! > >Not good enough. I can tell my partner "lead a club." He >doesn't know if I have zero clubs, the AK, or three small, >but I have certainly transmitted UI. He may not know exactly what your club holding is, but I bet he can now exclude certain holdings! And why complicate life: you are not going to deal with this under L16 anyway? > An even more clear >example: during the bidding, I get a peek at declarer's >hand. I tell partner what is there. UI. And that tells partner what you have in your hand (by subtraction). QED. > >"Information" has already been defined elsewhere; we don't need >to redefine it. "Useful information" has also been defined >elsewhere. UI is simply useful information that is unauthorized. >I think you were on the right track earlier. > >| Having pointed out problems that could be resolved by the lawmakers in >|this and certain other articles it would seem a good idea if someone >|were monitoring articles in this mailing list so that relevant comments >|could be passed to the lawmakers. I hope someone is. > >I'm sending a letter to Edgar Kaplan about it. Would you like >me to mention it to Chip Martel? Who is Chip Martel? > > >[ I think this is from Markus: ] > >| Jeff: my software treats this mailing list like a Newsgroup: I expect >|this is true for others out there. It would be a great help if you >|could include Subjects and use "Reply" so that the your articles will >|link with others. No it isn't. It is still from me. > >Sorry about that. I'm using a UNIX mailer that is pretty >dumb, so instead of using its broken reply, I save and >edit and resend. One of its most annoying characteristics >is that it won't allow Subject: lines in the text if input >is redirected to it, but instead requires them on the command >line, and then trashes them about half the time. The upside >is that this mailer is better than my last one...it blew up >if I gave it subjects at all...please skip any England puns... Ohttre. It is completely messing up my Bridge-laws pseudo-newsgroup, and I expect everyone else's. If you send your articles to me instead of two Bridge-laws I shall link them, put a Subject on and forward them. Try, anyway, please. ># Cthulhu in '96! Why vote for the lesser evil? I give in: what is Cthulhu? What does this mean? -- David Stevenson Bridge Cats Railways Logic /\_/\ Liverpool, England, UK Nothing ventured, nothing gained [. .] david@blakjak.demon.co.uk Emails welcome =< @ >= Tel: +44 (0)151 677 7412 Phone before Fax please ^ From owner-bridge-laws Fri May 17 11:13:28 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id LAA09549 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 17 May 1996 11:13:28 +1000 Received: from ns.onet.on.ca (ns.onet.on.ca [130.185.89.125]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id LAA09544 for ; Fri, 17 May 1996 11:13:21 +1000 Received: from sqarc.sq.com ([192.31.6.128]) by ns.onet.on.ca with SMTP id <255210>; Thu, 16 May 1996 21:12:38 -0400 Received: from sqrex.sq.com by sqarc.sq.com with smtp (Smail3.1.29.1 #4) id m0uKE69-000Oj2C; Thu, 16 May 96 21:12 EDT Received: by sqrex.sq.com (4.1//ident-1.0) id AA05730; Thu, 16 May 96 21:12:53 EDT Date: Thu, 16 May 96 21:12:53 EDT From: msb@sq.com Message-Id: <9605170112.AA05730@sqrex.sq.com> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Slow invitations (fwd) Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > Wouldn't the knowledge that partner doesn't know what a bid means > constitute "UI from other sources"? It doesn't seem to me to follow that just because partner didn't ask about a bid, she doesn't know what it means. Even if the bid is one that would not be explained on the convention card, she may, for instance, remember it from a previous session with the same opponents. From owner-bridge-laws Fri May 17 13:34:20 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id NAA10358 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 17 May 1996 13:34:20 +1000 Received: from relay-2.mail.demon.net (disperse.demon.co.uk [158.152.1.77]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id NAA10353 for ; Fri, 17 May 1996 13:34:13 +1000 Received: from post.demon.co.uk ([158.152.1.72]) by relay-2.mail.demon.net id aa10996; 16 May 96 22:04 +0100 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by relay-3.mail.demon.net id ab13483; 16 May 96 22:04 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 16 May 1996 21:19:05 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Slow invitations (fwd) In-Reply-To: <960516111016_295494122@emout07.mail.aol.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 1.12 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article <960516111016_295494122@emout07.mail.aol.com>, AlLeBendig@aol.com writes [s] >We're all clear that, unless done intentionally, the person making UI >available has done nothing wrong. Perhaps we should take a vote on this Alan? Eric said: >> >Partner has done nothing irregular by failing to inquire about 2S, and >> >thus cannot have conveyed UI. >> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ My view, which is spread all over the Internet (!), is that making UI available and irregularities being committed are not interrelated. But I do not think this is everyone's view. -- David Stevenson Bridge Cats Railways Logic /\_/\ Liverpool, England, UK Nothing ventured, nothing gained [. .] david@blakjak.demon.co.uk Emails welcome =< @ >= Tel: +44 (0)151 677 7412 Phone before Fax please ^ From owner-bridge-laws Fri May 17 14:04:05 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id OAA10483 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 17 May 1996 14:04:05 +1000 Received: from shell.monmouth.com (root@shell.monmouth.com [205.164.220.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id OAA10478 for ; Fri, 17 May 1996 14:03:56 +1000 Received: from lhost.monmouth.com (ppp11.monmouth.com [205.164.220.43]) by shell.monmouth.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id XAA26171 for ; Thu, 16 May 1996 23:59:53 -0400 Message-Id: <199605170359.XAA26171@shell.monmouth.com> Comments: Authenticated sender is From: "reha gur" To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Thu, 16 May 1996 23:56:14 +0000 Subject: Re: Slow invitations (fwd) Priority: normal X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v2.10) Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > Date: Thu, 16 May 96 21:12:53 EDT > From: msb@sq.com > To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au > Subject: Re: Slow invitations (fwd) > > Wouldn't the knowledge that partner doesn't know what a bid means > > constitute "UI from other sources"? > > It doesn't seem to me to follow that just because partner didn't ask > about a bid, she doesn't know what it means. Even if the bid is one that > would not be explained on the convention card, she may, for instance, > remember it from a previous session with the same opponents. > Right. That's why I said "partner doesn't know" instead of "Partner didn't ask". Please read before replying. Stefanie From owner-bridge-laws Fri May 17 16:12:28 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id QAA10930 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 17 May 1996 16:12:28 +1000 Received: from relay-2.mail.demon.net (disperse.demon.co.uk [158.152.1.77]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id QAA10925 for ; Fri, 17 May 1996 16:11:56 +1000 Received: from post.demon.co.uk ([158.152.1.72]) by relay-2.mail.demon.net id aa10993; 16 May 96 22:04 +0100 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by relay-3.mail.demon.net id ab13482; 16 May 96 22:04 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 16 May 1996 21:38:47 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: UI from questions not asked In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 1.12 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article , Eric Landau writes > >David's (and others') arguments have now convinced me that the Laws do >support the interpretation that UI my be passed by one's failure to ask a >question about one's opponents' methods, although I still don't believe >that they demand this interpretation. Nevertheless, I'm tempted to >change my vote, since I generally believe that where alternative >interpretations are possible, it's best to let TDs/ACs rule on individual >cases as they come up until a body of reviewable "case law" develops. >But I remain concerned that this interpretation will cause more problems >than it will solve. And this is why I repeat that I think the approach of the ACBL is wrong. All they need to do is to appreciate that UI exists even without an irregularity, and adjust their approach slightly. I have explained not only in the article that led up to this but in other articles floating around recently my approach to this. I should only like to say a couple of things. First, whatever the laws actually say, can you imagine that it is fair to include something like partner's failure to ask questions in your decision making process? This is why I am having such difficulty with this apparent problem. I *cannot* believe there is anyone who believes you can use it so it must be UI: what other option is there? The other main point is that Eric seems to describe some of my offering as irregularities: some of them are, but several of them are not: but I cannot see what difference it makes! > >If we're considering leaving this particular can of worms open, though, >And let's also consider how these types of UI would fit a model in which >UI infractions must arise from irregularities. > >> During the auction: > >> 5 A player asks the meaning of every bid in the auction 1S-3S-4S---. > >If he's doing it spuriously, he's violating 74.A.2 and possibly 74.C.7. >He should probably be charged with a deliberate attempt to disconcert his >opponents, but I don't see how, by itself, this behavior would transmit >UI. Does he normally ask every bid on that auction? Of course not. So you can infer something about his hand, so it is UI, but with no irregularity. >> 8 N cynlre unf frk jvgu na bccbarag. > >David, have you been directing in Wales lately? Don't you know about ROT-13? >> 10 A player asks the TD to remain near the table. > >Also not an irregularity, and not a potential source of UI unless >accompanied by an irregularity. Why not? He has a reason, and it is unlikely to be that the TD is very pretty. So you might infer something: surely that is not authorised. > Presumably the player wants the TD to >monitor his opponents' behavior. Or he is going to tell him something at the end. > How can this give information about his >hand? These are all clues. > >> 11 A player yawns throughout. > >74.C.6. Not necessarily. > >> 12 A player orders a drink. > >Probably innocent; certainly so if the waiter just happens to be passing >by at that moment. Otherwise 74.B.4, possibly 74.C.7. You are really reaching if you consider this an irregularity, but it still gives some inferences about his concentration level and therefore the contents of his hand. >> 14 A player asks when the round ends before considering a bid. > >74.C.6. Same answer. > >Under the interpretation above, all of them, if done so as to convey UI, >can be considered irregularities as suggested above. Where they cannot, >it's reasonable to argue that no UI can be transmitted. What do you mean, "done so as to convey UI"? Of course they are illegal if done intentionally but my argument on UI has nothing to do with intentional transmission of UI. When unintentional, partner still cannot use them as part of the decision making process. >> So the ACBL is wrong to ask whether there has been an irregularity, >> although of course in most UI cases there will have been, a hesitation >> or some such. >> And so I still believe this. [s] >> Not if you want Bridge to continue to be played in the USA. > >And that, of course, is my primary concern. My instincts tell me that if >we're to continue to enjoy organized bridge in the U.S. we'd better be >awfully careful about introducing legal interpretations that will clearly >exacerbate the pervasive atmosphere of litigiousness that's already >threatening our future. It's the bridge lawyers and rule-spouting >intimidators who will benefit most if we open up the area of UI >adjudication to the philosophy that UI can come from anywhere at all even >absent any irregularity. In which case you need to go softly. But the fact that you have a problem in American Bridge does not mean that your approach to UI is correct: it may mean that it is practical. -- David Stevenson Bridge Cats Railways Logic /\_/\ Liverpool, England, UK Nothing ventured, nothing gained [. .] david@blakjak.demon.co.uk Emails welcome =< @ >= Tel: +44 (0)151 677 7412 Phone before Fax please ^ From owner-bridge-laws Fri May 17 19:39:00 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id TAA12035 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 17 May 1996 19:39:00 +1000 Received: from sunset.ma.huji.ac.il (sunset.ma.huji.ac.il [132.64.32.12]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id TAA12029 for ; Fri, 17 May 1996 19:38:49 +1000 Received: (from grabiner@localhost) by sunset.ma.huji.ac.il (8.6.11/8.6.10) id MAA13437; Fri, 17 May 1996 12:37:20 +0300 Date: Fri, 17 May 1996 12:37:20 +0300 Message-Id: <199605170937.MAA13437@sunset.ma.huji.ac.il> From: David Joseph Grabiner To: rgur@monmouth.com CC: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au In-reply-to: <199605162134.RAA27992@shell.monmouth.com> (rgur@monmouth.com) Subject: Re: Slow invitations Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Stefanie Rohan writes: > I have a big problem with players who "bend over backwards" to do the > "ethical" thing. If it works out, the opponents get a bad result > that they would not have gotten without the irregularity. Is this > fair? Am I alone in thinking it isn't? Doesn't bending over > backwards necessitate taking the UI into account? > Of course, I see problems associated with my approach. Suppose > you bid out of turn and partner is barred, and you choose to bid 2NT. > (Well, upon re-reading, I guess this is a little different, since you > are not "BOB", but are taking a random shot. Still, this is another > subject I would like to see addressed.) Anyway, the field is in 3NT > going down. You and your partner, using your > methods, would have gotten there. Are you entitled to your top? Are > the opponents entitled to their bottom? Certainly the non-offenders > have been damaged by the irregularity. Are you only allowed to > score average or worse when your side opens the bidding out of turn? > This may seem unreasonble to some, but I think it is fair. We should learn > not to bid if it is not our turn. Here, there's an actual rule; if you could have known at the time of the irregularity that the penalty would work to your advantage, then there is an adjustment. Otherwise, the penalty is that you are forced to guess at the correct contract, which puts you in an inferior position; the same thing happens if partner makes a bad bid which is not an infraction of the Laws. I think this is also the proper procedure after a UI-type infraction. If partner makes a slow penalty double, I am at a disadvantage because I cannot pull it if leaving it in is a logical alternative. By definition, if leaving it in is a logical alternative, I might have done it, so the opponents cannot claim to be unfairly damaged by my decision to leave it in. -- David Grabiner, grabiner@math.huji.ac.il, http://www.ma.huji.ac.il/~grabiner I speak at the Hebrew University, but not for it. Shop at the Mobius Strip Mall: Always on the same side of the street! Klein Glassworks, Torus Coffee and Donuts, Projective Airlines, etc. From owner-bridge-laws Fri May 17 22:34:44 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id WAA13629 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 17 May 1996 22:34:44 +1000 Received: from pip.dknet.dk (root@pip.dknet.dk [193.88.44.48]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id WAA13618 for ; Fri, 17 May 1996 22:34:36 +1000 Received: from cph19.pip.dknet.dk (cph19.pip.dknet.dk [194.192.0.51]) by pip.dknet.dk (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id OAA05978 for ; Fri, 17 May 1996 14:34:21 +0200 From: jd@pip.dknet.dk (Jesper Dybdal) To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Slow invitations (fwd) Date: Fri, 17 May 1996 12:34:00 GMT Organization: at home Message-ID: <319c639d.368079@pipmail.dknet.dk> References: In-Reply-To: X-Mailer: Forte Agent .99e/32.227 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Thu, 16 May 1996 21:19:05 +0100, David Stevenson wrote: >In article <960516111016_295494122@emout07.mail.aol.com>, >AlLeBendig@aol.com writes > > [s] > >>We're all clear that, unless done intentionally, the person making UI >>available has done nothing wrong. > > Perhaps we should take a vote on this Alan? Eric said: > >>> >Partner has done nothing irregular by failing to inquire about 2S, and >>> >thus cannot have conveyed UI. >>> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > > My view, which is spread all over the Internet (!), is that making UI >available and irregularities being committed are not interrelated. But >I do not think this is everyone's view. I am definitely on David's and Alan's side here. The word "irregularity" has a definition in the Laws: "A deviation from the correct procedures set forth in the Laws". Thinking about your bid before you make it is not a deviation from the correct procedure, but it certainly conveys UI. This is just one example of UI-passing that is not an irregularity. --- Jesper Dybdal From owner-bridge-laws Fri May 17 22:34:46 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id WAA13630 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 17 May 1996 22:34:46 +1000 Received: from pip.dknet.dk (root@pip.dknet.dk [193.88.44.48]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id WAA13619 for ; Fri, 17 May 1996 22:34:37 +1000 Received: from cph19.pip.dknet.dk (cph19.pip.dknet.dk [194.192.0.51]) by pip.dknet.dk (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id OAA05986 for ; Fri, 17 May 1996 14:34:27 +0200 From: jd@pip.dknet.dk (Jesper Dybdal) To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Slow invitations Date: Fri, 17 May 1996 12:34:05 GMT Organization: at home Message-ID: <319c65b0.899263@pipmail.dknet.dk> References: <199605162134.RAA27992@shell.monmouth.com> In-Reply-To: <199605162134.RAA27992@shell.monmouth.com> X-Mailer: Forte Agent .99e/32.227 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Thu, 16 May 1996 17:30:29 +0000, "reha gur" wrote: >I have a big problem with players who "bend over backwards" to do the >"ethical" thing. If it works out, the opponents get a bad result >that they would not have gotten without the irregularity. Is this >fair? Am I alone in thinking it isn't? Doesn't bending over >backwards necessitate taking the UI into account? Law 16 _requires_ us to bend over backwards. And yes, this means that we must take the UI into account. The typical example is a competitive auction: they bid hearts, we bid spaces. My LHO at some time bids 4H, and the instant he does that I decide that I'm going to compete in 4S. Now my partner huddles for 30 seconds before passing, obviously considering to go to 4S himself. RHO passes. I now have to re-evaluate my decision in the light of the UI available to me. Even though my hand is one on which I would bid 4S 100% of the time, I am now by Law 16A not allowed to do so if pass is a logical alternative; i.e., if a significant minority of _other players_ would choose to pass. The UI has removed my right to a personal bidding style - I now have to bend over backwards not to take advantage of it. If I don't bend over backwards and pass in such a situation (assuming that pass is a LA), I will play 4S. If this gets a good score, it will be adjusted to 4H. By doing the bending over voluntarily myself, at least I get to defend this 4H contract myself instead of having the TD do it; that is better because the TD-assigned score will not allow me a good defense. Therefore, passing is my last chance of getting a good score. In addition, it eliminates the irritating situation where I may have to decide whether to help the opponents realize that it may be a good idea to call the TD, and it relieves all the players from the bother and disturbance of a TD call. As you say, if it works out the opponents have gotten a worse score than they would have got otherwise - but it doesn't often work out. When it does, it corresponds exactly to the situation where a penalty card happens to be an advantage to the offending side because it forces the failing player to play a successful card that he would never have choosen of his own accord. Is it fair? Well, I believe it to be a good compromise between fairness and the requirement that a TD should be able to rule. The completely fair rule would of course be that I should ignore the UI. The problem with this is that a TD has no chance whatsoever of knowing whether I succeeded in ignoring it - in fact, I often have no chance of knowing it myself. I therefore prefer the current rule, where the TD can rule based on what other players of my level would normally do. --- Jesper Dybdal From owner-bridge-laws Fri May 17 23:20:30 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA13935 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 17 May 1996 23:20:30 +1000 Received: from relay-2.mail.demon.net (disperse.demon.co.uk [158.152.1.77]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id XAA13927 for ; Fri, 17 May 1996 23:20:22 +1000 Received: from post.demon.co.uk ([158.152.1.72]) by relay-2.mail.demon.net id ab29755; 17 May 96 14:16 +0100 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by relay-3.mail.demon.net id ab11757; 17 May 96 14:16 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 17 May 1996 13:50:02 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Slow invitations In-Reply-To: <319b7b6e.23949858@pipmail.dknet.dk> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 1.12 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article <319b7b6e.23949858@pipmail.dknet.dk>, Jesper Dybdal writes >We are probably not going to end up agreeing on this subject; Looks that way! [s] >Well, as a general statement that is true. However, if I get adjusted >against, I would like to have had a chance to avoid it. When my >partner gives me UI by bidding slowly, I do attempt to lean over >backwards not to take advantage of that UI; if it happens that my >attempt was unsuccessful in the TD's judgment and the score is >adjusted, I can usually easily accept that. > >However, to adjust because I did not lean over backwards when I had no >way whatsoever of knowing which direction was backwards is >unreasonable - it means that the slow bid in itself makes it >impossible for me to choose the successful action, and I would feel >unfairly _punished_ for partner's slow bid. > >Your answer to this may of course be that this won't happen because >you, as a TD, in practice is able to judge correctly whether I, as a >player, am telling the truth when I say that my partner's slow >invitation did not suggest one action over the other and that I had no >idea which way was "backwards". If so, then I have no problem with >your point of view - in that case I just envy your ability to judge >players. My answer is nothing of the sort. Of course it may happen. My answer is that if we as TDs are not prepared to rule on this basis and we as players are not prepared to accept this as a very occasional happening then the innocent victims of this (the opponents) will have suffered some of the time. [s] > >> I think you have left out of your equation the fact >>that the TD was called. > >This is a very interesting aspect that I've had to think about. > >Assume for the sake of argument that we (the TD's and lawmakers of the >world) agree that when there is UI and it is unclear whether it >suggests one action over the other, we rule as if it suggested the >successful action. > >Having agreed that, in reality we have a new "rule" of the game: after >a slow invitation, a player is not allowed to take the successful >action on a borderline hand. (I know that this is a more >black-and-white attitude than the one you're arguing, but let's assume >it anyway). > >Assume that when making this "rule", we took into account that "there >will usually be something wrong when the TD is called at all". > >It now happens that I, an ethical player who knows that "rule", open >1S, partner invites game with 3S after thinking for a full minute >(which in our partnership does not suggest anything, but that cannot >be proved), and I happen to take the successful action (whatever that >may be) on my borderline hand. > >There is now in reality an irregularity: I've broken the "rule", and >my opponents, ethical or not, have the _right_ to an adjusted score. >If the opponents know the "rule", they should and will call the >director in order to get the good score that is their right. If they >don't, I'll call the TD myself, since I happen to be the kind of >person who do not like to get a good score just because my opponents >do not know the rules. Correspondingly, I'll call the TD whenever my >opponents break the "rule". > >As this "rule" becomes more widely known, every beginner will be >taught that when his opponents get a good score after a slow >invitation, he must call the TD as a matter of course, just like he >would after a revoke. > >The original argument for such a black-and-white "rule" (that it >wouldn't matter because the TD wouldn't be called when it was >unreasonable) thus does not hold. I think these are two atrocious suggestions. :) :) When the bidding goes 1S NB 3S=slow NB I want you to bid what you believe to be correct, and if you have any doubt to apply L73C. Most of the time the TD will not be called. That is what I mean by taking it into account. So as a player if you do the "right" thing you will only suffer very rarely. Calling the TD yourself, while obviously correct in many situations is totally unsuitable here. There is no reason to encourage Director calls in potential UI adjustment positions. > > >Taking into account that "the TD was called" is clearly not a >theoretically sound practice when making rules and guidelines. You have to consider what is best for the game. > It may >be usable in practice to a certain degree, but I prefer rules that are >also theoretically sound; in this respect, rules that produce a >reasonable result even if the TD is called on every hand at every >table. I am *not* suggesting using it! -- David Stevenson Bridge Cats Railways Logic /\_/\ Nothing ventured, nothing gained |. .| david@blakjak.demon.co.uk Emails welcome =< @ >= Tel: +44 (0)151 677 7412 Phone before Fax please ^ From owner-bridge-laws Fri May 17 23:40:41 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA14009 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 17 May 1996 23:40:41 +1000 Received: from relay-2.mail.demon.net (disperse.demon.co.uk [158.152.1.77]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id XAA14004 for ; Fri, 17 May 1996 23:40:26 +1000 Received: from post.demon.co.uk ([158.152.1.72]) by relay-2.mail.demon.net id aa29755; 17 May 96 14:16 +0100 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by relay-3.mail.demon.net id ab11755; 17 May 96 14:16 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 17 May 1996 14:06:00 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Slow invitations In-Reply-To: <199605162134.RAA27992@shell.monmouth.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 1.12 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article <199605162134.RAA27992@shell.monmouth.com>, reha gur (Stefanie Rohan) writes >I have a big problem with players who "bend over backwards" to do the >"ethical" thing. If it works out, the opponents get a bad result >that they would not have gotten without the irregularity. Is this >fair? Am I alone in thinking it isn't? Doesn't bending over >backwards necessitate taking the UI into account? In which case you need to talk to the law makers, rather than us (the law interpreters?): L73C. Player Receives Unauthorized Information from Partner When a player has available to him unauthorized information from his partner's remark, question, explanation, gesture, mannerism, special emphasis, inflection, haste or hesitation, he must carefully avoid taking any advantage that might accrue to his side. So it is required by Law to "bend over backwards". > >Of course, I see problems associated with my approach. Suppose >you bid out of turn and partner is barred, and you choose to bid 2NT. >(Well, upon re-reading, I guess this is a little different, since you >are not "BOB", but are taking a random shot. Still, this is another >subject I would like to see addressed.) Anyway, the field is in 3NT >going down. You and your partner, using your >methods, would have gotten there. Are you entitled to your top? Are >the opponents entitled to their bottom? Certainly the non-offenders >have been damaged by the irregularity. Are you only allowed to >score average or worse when your side opens the bidding out of turn? >This may seem unreasonble to some, but I think it is fair. We should learn >not to bid if it is not our turn. Again, you are asking for major law-change. Do I personally think it is fair at the moment? certainly I do. If my opponents create a position because of an infraction where they have to take a wild guess, that will probably get me a good board 40% of the time, a bad board 15% of the time and an average board 45% of the time. IMO it is rather selfish not to allow them their 15% shot: I'm happy enough for them to have this big a disadvantage. [s] >> Having agreed that, in reality we have a new "rule" of the game: after >> a slow invitation, a player is not allowed to take the successful >> action on a borderline hand. (I know that this is a more >> black-and-white attitude than the one you're arguing, but let's assume >> it anyway). > >I would actually argue for this "black-and-white" attitude. When >partner makes a slow invitation, you are in an ethical bind and are >pretty much doomed to a poor score. Oh no, you're not. Most of the time you bid something, play the hand, and move on to the next board. You don't want a rule that alters the vast majority of boards. > But partner should be aware of >this and should stop making slow invitations. If this means that >partner has to adjust all of his bidding to a slower tempo, then so >be it. That is against the Laws of the game and is also the sort of thing that will definitely drive players away from the game. Nothing should ever be done that encourages slow play. -- David Stevenson Bridge Cats Railways Logic /\_/\ Liverpool, England, UK Nothing ventured, nothing gained [. .] david@blakjak.demon.co.uk Emails welcome =< @ >= Tel: +44 (0)151 677 7412 Phone before Fax please ^ From owner-bridge-laws Fri May 17 23:54:44 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA14090 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 17 May 1996 23:54:44 +1000 Received: from emout18.mail.aol.com (emout18.mx.aol.com [198.81.11.44]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id XAA14081 for ; Fri, 17 May 1996 23:54:36 +1000 From: AlLeBendig@aol.com Received: by emout18.mail.aol.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA16527 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Fri, 17 May 1996 09:54:02 -0400 Date: Fri, 17 May 1996 09:54:02 -0400 Message-ID: <960517095400_296263805@emout18.mail.aol.com> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Slow invitations (fwd) Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In a message dated 96-05-16 21:21:20 EDT, you write: >Subj: Re: Slow invitations (fwd) >Date: 96-05-16 21:21:20 EDT >From: msb@sq.com >Sender: owner-bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au >To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au > >> Wouldn't the knowledge that partner doesn't know what a bid means >> constitute "UI from other sources"? > >It doesn't seem to me to follow that just because partner didn't ask >about a bid, she doesn't know what it means. Even if the bid is one that >would not be explained on the convention card, she may, for instance, >remember it from a previous session with the same opponents. That is true and not what is being addressed here. You should assume that partner does know what the call means. If you happen to KNOW partner is not familiar with this "convention" or "treatment" AND didn't ask, that is when you possess UI from some other source. The failure to ask in and of itself is irrelevant to this discussion. It is meaningful only when combined with some other knowledge. Alan LeBendig From owner-bridge-laws Fri May 17 23:54:47 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA14099 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 17 May 1996 23:54:47 +1000 Received: from emout09.mail.aol.com (emout09.mx.aol.com [198.81.11.24]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id XAA14083 for ; Fri, 17 May 1996 23:54:39 +1000 From: AlLeBendig@aol.com Received: by emout09.mail.aol.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA05272 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Fri, 17 May 1996 09:54:06 -0400 Date: Fri, 17 May 1996 09:54:06 -0400 Message-ID: <960517095406_296263839@emout09.mail.aol.com> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Slow invitations (fwd) Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In a message dated 96-05-16 23:45:19 EDT, David Stevenson writes: >Subj: Re: Slow invitations (fwd) >Date: 96-05-16 23:45:19 EDT >From: david@blakjak.demon.co.uk (David Stevenson) >Sender: owner-bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au >Reply-to: ngrp1@blakjak.demon.co.uk (David Stevenson) >To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au > >In article <960516111016_295494122@emout07.mail.aol.com>, >AlLeBendig@aol.com writes > > [s] > >>We're all clear that, unless done intentionally, the person making UI >>available has done nothing wrong. > > Perhaps we should take a vote on this Alan? Eric said: > >>> >Partner has done nothing irregular by failing to inquire about 2S, and >>> >thus cannot have conveyed UI. In my mind, Eric and I are in no way contradicting each other. The failure to inquire in and of itself cannot convey any UI. It must be combined with some other knowledge before you could ever consider it UI. If I sat down in a rubber game with Zia and early on my RHO alerts a call and Zia bids without asking, when this comes back to me I have no UI because of his failure to ask. >>> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > > My view, which is spread all over the Internet (!), is that making UI >available and irregularities being committed are not interrelated. But >I do not think this is everyone's view. I would only disagree with this statement, David, if I believe the person making the UI available is doing so intentionally to assist partner. That is what I meant by my statement which you quote in the opening of this posting. Alan LeBendig From owner-bridge-laws Sat May 18 01:04:32 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA17243 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 18 May 1996 01:04:32 +1000 Received: from pip.dknet.dk (root@pip.dknet.dk [193.88.44.48]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id BAA17235 for ; Sat, 18 May 1996 01:04:00 +1000 Received: from cph17.pip.dknet.dk (cph17.pip.dknet.dk [194.192.0.49]) by pip.dknet.dk (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id RAA12922 for ; Fri, 17 May 1996 17:03:37 +0200 From: jd@pip.dknet.dk (Jesper Dybdal) To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Slow invitations Date: Fri, 17 May 1996 15:03:14 GMT Organization: at home Message-ID: <319c8d1e.10993327@pipmail.dknet.dk> References: In-Reply-To: X-Mailer: Forte Agent .99e/32.227 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Hi David, On Fri, 17 May 1996 13:50:02 +0100, David Stevenson wrote: [snip] > I think these are two atrocious suggestions. :) :) When the bidding >goes 1S NB 3S=slow NB I want you to bid what you believe to be correct, >and if you have any doubt to apply L73C. > > Most of the time the TD will not be called. That is what I mean by >taking it into account. So as a player if you do the "right" thing you >will only suffer very rarely. I hate situations where a player doing the "right" thing will suffer if the TD is called. > Calling the TD yourself, while obviously correct in many situations is >totally unsuitable here. There is no reason to encourage Director calls >in potential UI adjustment positions. If a situation arises at the table in which the TD, if called, would probably adjust the score, then the TD _should_ be called. If I, as opener in our 1S-slow3S situation, know that I've just gotten a result that the TD would probably take away from me if called, then I will certainly advise my opponents to call him (though of course I have no duty of any kind to do so, and I am certainly not suggesting that there is anything wrong in not doing so). If I, as defender in the same situation, know that the TD will adjust to my advantage if I call him, are you then really suggesting that I should not call him? Or that I should call him only if my opponents seem to be nasty unethical types? Isn't that the same thing as saying that the rule used by the TD to determine whether to adjust is unreasonable? I'd rather have the TD called more often (and probably adjust in fewer of the cases where he is called), so that the question of adjustment is more often decided by the TD and the rules than by the random law-knowledge and friendliness of opponents. --- Jesper Dybdal From owner-bridge-laws Sat May 18 04:12:42 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA18568 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 18 May 1996 04:12:42 +1000 Received: from mipl7.jpl.nasa.gov (mipl7.jpl.nasa.gov [128.149.177.7]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id EAA18563 for ; Sat, 18 May 1996 04:12:36 +1000 Received: from tintin.JPL.NASA.GOV (tintin.jpl.nasa.gov [128.149.102.7]) by mipl7.jpl.nasa.gov (8.6.12/8.6.6) with ESMTP id LAA03637 for <@mipl7.JPL.NASA.GOV:bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au>; Fri, 17 May 1996 11:11:40 -0700 Received: by tintin.JPL.NASA.GOV (940816.SGI.8.6.9/930416.SGI.MIPS) for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au id LAA01545; Fri, 17 May 1996 11:17:14 -0700 Date: Fri, 17 May 1996 11:17:14 -0700 From: jeff@tintin.JPL.NASA.GOV (Jeff Goldsmith) Message-Id: <199605171817.LAA01545@tintin.JPL.NASA.GOV> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: UI stuff/definitions/Law 16/quibbling Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Hi, |In article <199605161632.JAA10326@tintin.JPL.NASA.GOV>, Jeff Goldsmith | writes |>|From: David Stevenson [about the information theoretic definition of "information"] Frankly, I don't remember the definition, either, but it is a mess. You'll find that if you try to define information carefully, it's quite hard. And pointless in the context of bridge, since it's a loose environment, where "everyone knows" what it means. |>|sentence defines all usable authorised information, though I accept it |>|is not well written. Thus anything that is not included must be |>|unauthorised. |> |>You aren't being consistent. If you really believe this, then |>the vulnerability isn't usable (so much for variable systems, |>saves, etc.) or is unauthorized. | | I am being consistent (whether correct or not) because I argued that |it was not "information", thus is not covered by L16. Of course the vulnerability is information. So is the knowledge of the cards you hold. They are authorized. Law 16 just doesn't cover them because it wasn't meant to be logically complete. As you said yourself earlier, the laws are not intended to be perfect, but to be read and interpreted. |>Not good enough. I can tell my partner "lead a club." He |>doesn't know if I have zero clubs, the AK, or three small, |>but I have certainly transmitted UI. | | He may not know exactly what your club holding is, but I bet he can |now exclude certain holdings! And why complicate life: you are not |going to deal with this under L16 anyway? Because we are trying to infer other conclusions about Law 16, to wit, what exactly does it cover? I'm arguing that the list in the preamble is not a complete list of authorized information. I think it's totally and utterly obvious that it is not a complete list; I think it's also obvious that to construct one would be pointless and extremely difficult. I'll recap a little--- You claim that the list at the top of L16 is a complete list of authorized information, and that any information not in that list is therefore unauthorized. I claim that's false and gave a counterexample. You claim the counterexample is not valid because it's not "information." I think that's nonsense given any reasonable definition of information. I claim that if the list at the top of L16 is not complete, then we can't assume that the complement of the list is UI. We agree that I = UI + AI, where I is all information. The point behind this quibble is that we are trying to judge if the laws expressly state that choosing to or failing to ask a question is UI. I claim that they don't say and leave it up to our judgment; you claim via the above argument that they say it's UI. We agree that at least in some cases, it reasonably ought to be UI, that one must not base calls or plays on this information, but only debate whether (a) it is always the case, and (b) whether this interpretation is allowed by (my reading) or mandated by (your reading) the laws. |> An even more clear |>example: during the bidding, I get a peek at declarer's |>hand. I tell partner what is there. UI. | | And that tells partner what you have in your hand (by subtraction). |QED. "During the bidding" you don't get to see dummy. Subtract away. It does give you bounds on the hands partner can have (which is information about his hand) but it doesn't tell you what he has, which was your "definition" of information. |>I'm sending a letter to Edgar Kaplan about it. Would you like |>me to mention it to Chip Martel? | | Who is Chip Martel? Heehee...multiple world champion, member of the US National Laws Commission, CS prof at UC Davis. |>Sorry about that. I'm using a UNIX mailer that is pretty |>dumb, so instead of using its broken reply, I save and |>edit and resend. One of its most annoying characteristics |>is that it won't allow Subject: lines in the text if input |>is redirected to it, but instead requires them on the command |>line, and then trashes them about half the time. The upside |>is that this mailer is better than my last one...it blew up |>if I gave it subjects at all...please skip any England puns... | | Ohttre. It is completely messing up my Bridge-laws pseudo-newsgroup, |and I expect everyone else's. If you send your articles to me instead |of two Bridge-laws I shall link them, put a Subject on and forward them. |Try, anyway, please. I've tried a simple script that will (hopefully) set the subject and appelations correctly. Does this work? (It's only mildly a pain in the neck, and is supposed to fool the mailer.) |># Cthulhu in '96! Why vote for the lesser evil? | | I give in: what is Cthulhu? What does this mean? It's not Bridge, Cats, Railways, nor Logic, nor really literature, but it is fiction. See HP Lovecraft's works for much more details. At your own risk --Jeff # Cthulhu in '96! Why vote for the lesser evil? # --- # http://muggy.gg.caltech.edu/~jeff From owner-bridge-laws Sat May 18 07:35:35 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA20894 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 18 May 1996 07:35:35 +1000 Received: from shell.monmouth.com (root@shell.monmouth.com [205.164.220.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id HAA20889 for ; Sat, 18 May 1996 07:35:28 +1000 Received: from lhost.monmouth.com (ppp30.monmouth.com [205.164.220.62]) by shell.monmouth.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id RAA25405 for ; Fri, 17 May 1996 17:31:26 -0400 Message-Id: <199605172131.RAA25405@shell.monmouth.com> Comments: Authenticated sender is From: "reha gur" To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Fri, 17 May 1996 17:27:51 +0000 Subject: Re: Slow invitations Priority: normal X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v2.10) Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Stevenson wrote> > In which case you need to talk to the law makers, rather than us (the > law interpreters?): > L73C. Player Receives Unauthorized Information from Partner > When a player has available to him unauthorized information from his > partner's remark, question, explanation, gesture, mannerism, special > emphasis, inflection, haste or hesitation, he must carefully avoid > taking any advantage that might accrue to his side. > > So it is required by Law to "bend over backwards". Yes, but if the opponents are damaged, aren't they entitled to redress? Isn't this analagous to a situation whre the penalty for a bid out of turn, revoke, penalty card, etc., is not enough to restore equity (12.A.1) and the director is permitted to reward an adjusted score? > > > > >Of course, I see problems associated with my approach. Suppose > >you bid out of turn and partner is barred, and you choose to bid 2NT. > >(Well, upon re-reading, I guess this is a little different, since you > >are not "BOB", but are taking a random shot. Still, this is another > >subject I would like to see addressed.) Anyway, the field is in 3NT > >going down. You and your partner, using your > >methods, would have gotten there. Are you entitled to your top? Are > >the opponents entitled to their bottom? Certainly the non-offenders > >have been damaged by the irregularity. Are you only allowed to > >score average or worse when your side opens the bidding out of turn? > >This may seem unreasonble to some, but I think it is fair. We should learn > >not to bid if it is not our turn. > > Again, you are asking for major law-change. Do I personally think it > is fair at the moment? certainly I do. If my opponents create a > position because of an infraction where they have to take a wild guess, > that will probably get me a good board 40% of the time, a bad board 15% > of the time and an average board 45% of the time. IMO it is rather > selfish not to allow them their 15% shot: I'm happy enough for them to > have this big a disadvantage. I find this fairly persuasive, but I'm under the impression that the "spirit of the law" suggests not allowing even the 15% shot. (snip) > > But partner should be aware of > >this and should stop making slow invitations. If this means that > >partner has to adjust all of his bidding to a slower tempo, then so > >be it. > > That is against the Laws of the game and is also the sort of thing > that will definitely drive players away from the game. Nothing should > ever be done that encourages slow play. It's not against the Laws to do all of your bidding in a (uniform) slow tempo -- I'm not suggesting a 10-second tank on every round of bidding! Stefanie Rohan From owner-bridge-laws Sat May 18 11:55:01 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id LAA21568 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 18 May 1996 11:55:01 +1000 Received: from ccnet3.ccnet.com (pisarra@ccnet3.ccnet.com [192.215.96.11]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id LAA21563 for ; Sat, 18 May 1996 11:54:56 +1000 Received: (from pisarra@localhost) by ccnet3.ccnet.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) id SAA23273; Fri, 17 May 1996 18:52:01 -0700 Date: Fri, 17 May 1996 18:52:01 -0700 (PDT) From: Chris Pisarra X-Sender: pisarra@ccnet3 To: bridge laws list Subject: Re: Slow invitations (fwd) In-Reply-To: <960515124511_294718028@emout15.mail.aol.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Wed, 15 May 1996 AlLeBendig@aol.com wrote: > Failing to ask would never be construed as giving UI. Perfect. A simple, clear rule. I propose that we term this "LeBendig's Law" and include it as the first tautology of the mailing list. > However, if your > partner is aware that you don't know something, the fact that you didn't ask > for more information leaves him in possession of UI. From whence did this UI come? I didn't give it (LeBendig's Law). Did it, like Topsy, just grow? Can it be that two items, my partner's knowledge of me and the fact that I didn't ask a question, neither of which constitute UI, can somehow magically combine to create UI? Chris Pisarra pisarra@ccnet.com From owner-bridge-laws Sat May 18 14:56:23 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id OAA22098 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 18 May 1996 14:56:23 +1000 Received: from shell.monmouth.com (root@shell.monmouth.com [205.164.220.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id OAA22093 for ; Sat, 18 May 1996 14:56:17 +1000 Received: from lhost.monmouth.com (ppp16.monmouth.com [205.164.220.48]) by shell.monmouth.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id AAA22837; Sat, 18 May 1996 00:51:52 -0400 Message-Id: <199605180451.AAA22837@shell.monmouth.com> Comments: Authenticated sender is From: "reha gur" To: David Joseph Grabiner Date: Sat, 18 May 1996 00:48:17 +0000 Subject: Re: Slow invitations CC: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Priority: normal X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v2.10) Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > Date: Fri, 17 May 1996 12:37:20 +0300 > > Here, there's an actual rule; if you could have known at the time of the > irregularity that the penalty would work to your advantage, then there > is an adjustment. Otherwise, the penalty is that you are forced to > guess at the correct contract, which puts you in an inferior position; > the same thing happens if partner makes a bad bid which is not an > infraction of the Laws. > > I think this is also the proper procedure after a UI-type infraction. > If partner makes a slow penalty double, I am at a disadvantage because I > cannot pull it if leaving it in is a logical alternative. By > definition, if leaving it in is a logical alternative, I might have done > it, so the opponents cannot claim to be unfairly damaged by my decision > to leave it in. > What about Law 12.A.1? Does it apply here? I asked this in response to someone else's article, but I wanted to say hi! Stefanie Rohan From owner-bridge-laws Sat May 18 15:06:35 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id PAA22123 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 18 May 1996 15:06:35 +1000 Received: from shell.monmouth.com (root@shell.monmouth.com [205.164.220.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id PAA22118 for ; Sat, 18 May 1996 15:06:29 +1000 Received: from lhost.monmouth.com (ppp16.monmouth.com [205.164.220.48]) by shell.monmouth.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id BAA23351 for ; Sat, 18 May 1996 01:02:44 -0400 Message-Id: <199605180502.BAA23351@shell.monmouth.com> Comments: Authenticated sender is From: "reha gur" To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Sat, 18 May 1996 00:59:06 +0000 Subject: Re: Slow invitations (fwd) Priority: normal X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v2.10) Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Chris Pisara wrote: > On Wed, 15 May 1996 AlLeBendig@aol.com wrote: > > > Failing to ask would never be construed as giving UI. > > Perfect. A simple, clear rule. I propose that we term this > "LeBendig's Law" and include it as the first tautology of the mailing list. > > > However, if your > > partner is aware that you don't know something, the fact that you didn't ask > > for more information leaves him in possession of UI. > > From whence did this UI come? I didn't give it (LeBendig's Law). > Did it, like Topsy, just grow? Can it be that two items, my partner's > knowledge of me and the fact that I didn't ask a question, neither of > which constitute UI, can somehow magically combine to create UI? No, not exactly. But partner MUST assume that you do know what the bid means. If partner knew already (that you didn't know) and knows that you still don't know (because you didn't ask) that is fine -- as long as partner bases his assumptions on the fact that you DID know. Stefanie Rohan From owner-bridge-laws Sat May 18 19:45:51 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id TAA22765 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 18 May 1996 19:45:51 +1000 Received: from mail.be.innet.net (mail.be.innet.net [194.7.1.8]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id TAA22760 for ; Sat, 18 May 1996 19:45:45 +1000 Received: from innet.innet.be (pool03-65.innet.be [194.7.10.49]) by mail.be.innet.net (8.7.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id LAA04469 for ; Sat, 18 May 1996 11:45:38 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <319CC5E8.EA4@innet.be> Date: Fri, 17 May 1996 18:31:04 +0000 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.0 (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: UI from questions not asked References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Eric Landau wrote a whole lot : > > I have finally (thanks to a conversation last night with two of our > area's leading directors) discovered why the position that failing to ask > a question may be a source if UI is bothering me so much. I'd like to go > back to the example with which we started the discussion. > > Now change the scenario very slightly. You, like your partner, simply > assume that the opponent alerted because 2S was natural and NF, and you > don't inquire either. You have absolutely no idea that there are UI > considerations about on this hand. You naively make your normal 4H bid, > which appears to you to have no LAs (as it wouldn't if 2S meant what you > and partner both thought it did). > I was laughing all the way through. This is really funny. But all you say is true, even if somewhat absurd. Have you ever played with screens ? That sort of misunderstanding can always arise. And an answer to the 'ethical obligation to know opponents system'. This exists ! It could fall under Law 74C6 : Lack of intrest. -- Herman DE WAEL E-Mail HermanDW@innet.be Michel Willemslaan 40 tel ++32.3.827.64.45 B-2610 WILRIJK (Antwerpen) fax ++32.3.825.29.19 Belgium http://www.club.innet.be/~pub02163/index.htm From owner-bridge-laws Sat May 18 23:20:36 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA23376 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 18 May 1996 23:20:36 +1000 Received: from mail.be.innet.net (mail.be.innet.net [194.7.1.8]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id XAA23364 for ; Sat, 18 May 1996 23:20:29 +1000 Received: from innet.innet.be (pool03-48.innet.be [194.7.10.32]) by mail.be.innet.net (8.7.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id PAA15469 for ; Sat, 18 May 1996 15:20:23 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <319DC527.768A@innet.be> Date: Sat, 18 May 1996 12:40:07 +0000 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.0 (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Asking questions for partner References: <9605162205.AA01728@cfa183.harvard.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Steve Willner wrote: > May I choose a call or play that will wake partner up if he is > sleeping? But if legal calls or plays are proper, why not legal > questions? But legal questions include "What is the contract?" > (Law 41C), which might well be equivalent to "Wake up, you idiot!" > Can anyone say "slippery slope?" :-) > Always the same problem with the Americans : You can never be blamed for anything you do that might be UI. You can in fact simply tell your partner to 'wake up'. Just as you can tell him to switch spades. But it is an infraction if he *uses* this UI. That is why we say that you should not ask questions like 'what is the contract ?' unless you really want to know. The giving of UI is never an offense, only the listening to it !! -- Herman DE WAEL E-Mail HermanDW@innet.be Michel Willemslaan 40 tel ++32.3.827.64.45 B-2610 WILRIJK (Antwerpen) fax ++32.3.825.29.19 Belgium http://www.club.innet.be/~pub02163/index.htm From owner-bridge-laws Sat May 18 23:20:37 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA23382 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 18 May 1996 23:20:37 +1000 Received: from mail.be.innet.net (mail.be.innet.net [194.7.1.8]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id XAA23366 for ; Sat, 18 May 1996 23:20:31 +1000 Received: from innet.innet.be (pool03-48.innet.be [194.7.10.32]) by mail.be.innet.net (8.7.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id PAA15475 for ; Sat, 18 May 1996 15:20:26 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <319DC7DF.536A@innet.be> Date: Sat, 18 May 1996 12:51:43 +0000 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.0 (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: UI via questions (reply to Barry) References: <9605162105.AA29283@ankaa.cc.umanitoba.ca> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Barry Wolk wrote: > Here is another legal twist: if your partner answers an opponent's > question incorrectly, you have to hear his answer, because you may be > required to correct it later. However, his answer is UI for you. Weird! I think the requirement to correct is something that needs to disappear from the rules. For one thing, it is impractible with screens. When you or partner has made an incorrect explanation : tough : you should suffer all the consequences. Correcting the mistake at an opportune time only inflicts more work on the TD : he should now find out whether players are damaged during the period of wrong explanation. -- Herman DE WAEL E-Mail HermanDW@innet.be Michel Willemslaan 40 tel ++32.3.827.64.45 B-2610 WILRIJK (Antwerpen) fax ++32.3.825.29.19 Belgium http://www.club.innet.be/~pub02163/index.htm From owner-bridge-laws Sat May 18 23:20:39 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA23383 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 18 May 1996 23:20:39 +1000 Received: from mail.be.innet.net (mail.be.innet.net [194.7.1.8]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id XAA23371 for ; Sat, 18 May 1996 23:20:33 +1000 Received: from innet.innet.be (pool03-48.innet.be [194.7.10.32]) by mail.be.innet.net (8.7.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id PAA15483 for ; Sat, 18 May 1996 15:20:28 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <319DCA46.33C6@innet.be> Date: Sat, 18 May 1996 13:01:58 +0000 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.0 (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: addresses please References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Eric Landau wrote: > you can assume that > .com or any other more-than-two-letter suffix indicates a U.S. host. > Eric Landau APL Solutions, Inc. > (301) 589-4621 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 I for one am even more interested than that. I like to know that you're from Maryland (an I do know where that is). -- Herman DE WAEL E-Mail HermanDW@innet.be Michel Willemslaan 40 tel ++32.3.827.64.45 B-2610 WILRIJK (Antwerpen) fax ++32.3.825.29.19 Belgium http://www.club.innet.be/~pub02163/index.htm From owner-bridge-laws Sun May 19 03:01:32 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA27433 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 19 May 1996 03:01:32 +1000 Received: from ns.onet.on.ca (ns.onet.on.ca [130.185.89.125]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id DAA27426 for ; Sun, 19 May 1996 03:01:27 +1000 Received: from sqarc.sq.com ([192.31.6.128]) by ns.onet.on.ca with SMTP id <255488>; Sat, 18 May 1996 13:00:32 -0400 Received: from sqrex.sq.com by sqarc.sq.com with smtp (Smail3.1.29.1 #4) id m0uKpN0-000OjOC; Sat, 18 May 96 13:00 EDT Received: by sqrex.sq.com (4.1//ident-1.0) id AA16325; Sat, 18 May 96 13:00:45 EDT Date: Sat, 18 May 96 13:00:45 EDT From: msb@sq.com Message-Id: <9605181700.AA16325@sqrex.sq.com> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: addresses please Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > Eric Landau wrote: > > you can assume that > > .com or any other more-than-two-letter suffix indicates a U.S. host. This is wrong, and the assumption is a good way to annoy people who are at .com-or-other-more-than-two-letter sites that are outside the US. Those domains were intended as non-national, although it's true that the US has become the only country where they are widely used in preference to the national domains. In particular, there are plenty of .com and .net sites outside the US, and not just in Canada either. Since I'm now unsubscribing from the list, I want to clarify that this has nothing to do with *my* being annoyed at anyone -- I just don't have time to give sufficient thought to the issues being discussed. Bye, all. Mark Brader, msb@sq.com "Don't be silly -- send it to Canada" SoftQuad Inc., Toronto -- British postal worker From owner-bridge-laws Sun May 19 10:09:17 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA28310 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 19 May 1996 10:09:17 +1000 Received: from relay-4.mail.demon.net (relay-4.mail.demon.net [158.152.1.108]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id KAA28304 for ; Sun, 19 May 1996 10:09:03 +1000 Received: from post.demon.co.uk ([158.152.1.72]) by relay-4.mail.demon.net id ab14164; 19 May 96 0:08 GMT Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by relay-3.mail.demon.net id ab18311; 19 May 96 1:05 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Sun, 19 May 1996 00:48:37 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Slow invitations In-Reply-To: <319c8d1e.10993327@pipmail.dknet.dk> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 1.12 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article <319c8d1e.10993327@pipmail.dknet.dk>, Jesper Dybdal writes >> Calling the TD yourself, while obviously correct in many situations is >>totally unsuitable here. There is no reason to encourage Director calls >>in potential UI adjustment positions. > >If a situation arises at the table in which the TD, if called, would >probably adjust the score, then the TD _should_ be called. > >If I, as opener in our 1S-slow3S situation, know that I've just gotten "gotten"? Jesper, you're American! >a result that the TD would probably take away from me if called, then >I will certainly advise my opponents to call him (though of course I >have no duty of any kind to do so, and I am certainly not suggesting >that there is anything wrong in not doing so). I would worry about being thought to be condescending and I would not feel that it was helping the game. > >If I, as defender in the same situation, know that the TD will adjust >to my advantage if I call him, are you then really suggesting that I >should not call him? Or that I should call him only if my opponents >seem to be nasty unethical types? Isn't that the same thing as saying >that the rule used by the TD to determine whether to adjust is >unreasonable? I never suggested you should not call the TD when your opponents have a UI-type auction. > >I'd rather have the TD called more often (and probably adjust in fewer >of the cases where he is called), so that the question of adjustment >is more often decided by the TD and the rules than by the random >law-knowledge and friendliness of opponents. I doubt that this is for the good of the game. -- David Stevenson Bridge Cats Railways Logic /\_/\ Liverpool, England, UK Nothing ventured, nothing gained [o o] david@blakjak.demon.co.uk Emails welcome =< @ >= Tel: +44 (0)151 677 7412 Phone before Fax please ^ From owner-bridge-laws Sun May 19 10:09:25 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA28325 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 19 May 1996 10:09:25 +1000 Received: from relay-4.mail.demon.net (relay-4.mail.demon.net [158.152.1.108]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id KAA28305 for ; Sun, 19 May 1996 10:09:05 +1000 Received: from post.demon.co.uk ([158.152.1.72]) by relay-4.mail.demon.net id ac14183; 19 May 96 0:08 GMT Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by relay-3.mail.demon.net id ab18310; 19 May 96 1:05 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Sun, 19 May 1996 00:41:40 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: UI stuff/definitions/Law 16/quibbling In-Reply-To: <199605171817.LAA01545@tintin.JPL.NASA.GOV> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 1.12 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article <199605171817.LAA01545@tintin.JPL.NASA.GOV>, Jeff Goldsmith writes [s] All right, destroy my logic as much as you like. I don't care. In my view there is certain "stuff" that tells a player what is in another player's hand. Some of this authorised: some of it is not: I believe that the first sentence of L16 tells us which is authorised: any other "stuff" is not. If I use the word "information" you will destroy me with logic so I shall not use the word "information". Now you may disagree with this but at least you cannot disagree by using definitions that I don't understand to destroy the logic. Perhaps I am not wrong! >|>I'm sending a letter to Edgar Kaplan about it. Would you like >|>me to mention it to Chip Martel? >| >| Who is Chip Martel? > >Heehee...multiple world champion, member of the US >National Laws Commission, CS prof at UC Davis. Very hilarious. Sorry that I seem to have missed in my education the courses on American world champions. Though why he should be a professor in making gas at some military establishment I have never heard of is beyond me. If you are in fact serious I believe it would be helpful to mention to major lawmakers matters that might be of interest to them. This may or may not include people that I do not know dependent on what you think. [s] >I've tried a simple script that will (hopefully) set the >subject and appelations correctly. Does this work? (It's >only mildly a pain in the neck, and is supposed to fool the >mailer.) It linked. Well done! :) -- David Stevenson Bridge Cats Railways Logic /\_/\ Liverpool, England, UK Nothing ventured, nothing gained [o o] david@blakjak.demon.co.uk Emails welcome =< @ >= Tel: +44 (0)151 677 7412 Phone before Fax please ^ From owner-bridge-laws Sun May 19 10:36:29 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA28365 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 19 May 1996 10:36:29 +1000 Received: from relay-2.mail.demon.net (disperse.demon.co.uk [158.152.1.77]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id KAA28360 for ; Sun, 19 May 1996 10:36:20 +1000 Received: from post.demon.co.uk ([158.152.1.72]) by relay-2.mail.demon.net id aa17426; 19 May 96 1:36 +0100 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by relay-3.mail.demon.net id ab18303; 19 May 96 1:04 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Sun, 19 May 1996 00:24:15 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Slow invitations In-Reply-To: <199605172131.RAA25405@shell.monmouth.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 1.12 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article <199605172131.RAA25405@shell.monmouth.com>, reha gur writes >David Stevenson wrote> > >> In which case you need to talk to the law makers, rather than us (the >> law interpreters?): >> L73C. Player Receives Unauthorized Information from Partner >> When a player has available to him unauthorized information from his >> partner's remark, question, explanation, gesture, mannerism, special >> emphasis, inflection, haste or hesitation, he must carefully avoid >> taking any advantage that might accrue to his side. >> >> So it is required by Law to "bend over backwards". > >Yes, but if the opponents are damaged, aren't they entitled to >redress? Isn't this analagous to a situation whre the penalty for a >bid out of turn, revoke, penalty card, etc., is not enough to restore >equity (12.A.1) and the director is permitted to reward an adjusted >score? No, if the opponents are damaged by me following the Laws of Bridge they do not get and should not get redress. I don't believe any of the other situations that you quote are analogous in any way. Revokes have their own special Law, which is quite different. I do not know a Law that restores equity for a rub of the green loss from a bid out of turn or a penalty card. >> >> > >> >Of course, I see problems associated with my approach. Suppose >> >you bid out of turn and partner is barred, and you choose to bid 2NT. >> >(Well, upon re-reading, I guess this is a little different, since you >> >are not "BOB", but are taking a random shot. Still, this is another >> >subject I would like to see addressed.) Anyway, the field is in 3NT >> >going down. You and your partner, using your >> >methods, would have gotten there. Are you entitled to your top? Are >> >the opponents entitled to their bottom? Certainly the non-offenders >> >have been damaged by the irregularity. Are you only allowed to >> >score average or worse when your side opens the bidding out of turn? >> >This may seem unreasonble to some, but I think it is fair. We should learn >> >not to bid if it is not our turn. >> >> Again, you are asking for major law-change. Do I personally think it >> is fair at the moment? certainly I do. If my opponents create a >> position because of an infraction where they have to take a wild guess, >> that will probably get me a good board 40% of the time, a bad board 15% >> of the time and an average board 45% of the time. IMO it is rather >> selfish not to allow them their 15% shot: I'm happy enough for them to >> have this big a disadvantage. > > >I find this fairly persuasive, but I'm under the impression that the >"spirit of the law" suggests not allowing even the 15% shot. You play Bridge to win. If you do not allow people to play to win you make a total mockery of the game of Bridge. You are suggesting penalties that allow the game to proceed with only one side allowed to do well on the board. That is an incredibly harsh line to take. It is degrading, depressing and smacks of a level of punishment that Bridge lawmakers do not intend. You bid out of turn. Partner is silenced. You jump to 3NT. When you see the dummy you realise that if this makes you are going to get a 90% board, but the only line to make it is a compound squeeze. If you go off you will probably get 25%. What do you do? Under your rules I would concede one off and get back to a game I can win. To play a compound squeeze to get a result that you know will be taken off you by this terrible rule would be so upsetting that there is no way that I could play the hand out. -- David Stevenson Bridge Cats Railways Logic /\_/\ Liverpool, England, UK Nothing ventured, nothing gained [o o] david@blakjak.demon.co.uk Emails welcome =< @ >= Tel: +44 (0)151 677 7412 Phone before Fax please ^ From owner-bridge-laws Sun May 19 23:05:18 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA00486 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 19 May 1996 23:05:18 +1000 Received: from relay-4.mail.demon.net (relay-4.mail.demon.net [158.152.1.108]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id XAA00481 for ; Sun, 19 May 1996 23:05:11 +1000 Received: from post.demon.co.uk ([158.152.1.72]) by relay-4.mail.demon.net id aa09699; 19 May 96 13:05 GMT Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by relay-3.mail.demon.net id ab11521; 19 May 96 13:37 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Sun, 19 May 1996 13:17:03 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Slow invitations In-Reply-To: <199605180451.AAA22837@shell.monmouth.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 1.12 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article <199605180451.AAA22837@shell.monmouth.com>, reha gur writes >> Date: Fri, 17 May 1996 12:37:20 +0300 >> >> Here, there's an actual rule; if you could have known at the time of the >> irregularity that the penalty would work to your advantage, then there >> is an adjustment. Otherwise, the penalty is that you are forced to >> guess at the correct contract, which puts you in an inferior position; >> the same thing happens if partner makes a bad bid which is not an >> infraction of the Laws. >> >> I think this is also the proper procedure after a UI-type infraction. >> If partner makes a slow penalty double, I am at a disadvantage because I >> cannot pull it if leaving it in is a logical alternative. By >> definition, if leaving it in is a logical alternative, I might have done >> it, so the opponents cannot claim to be unfairly damaged by my decision >> to leave it in. >> > >What about Law 12.A.1? Does it apply here? I asked this in response >to someone else's article, but I wanted to say hi! No, L12A1 says: The Director may award an assigned adjusted score when he judges that these Laws do not provide indemnity to the non-offending contestant for the particular type of violation of law committed by an opponent. Since we are dealing with things covered elsewhere in the Laws, L12A1 does not come into it. It is only for something not covered at all elsewhere. -- David Stevenson Bridge Cats Railways Logic /\_/\ Nothing ventured, nothing gained |. .| david@blakjak.demon.co.uk Emails welcome =< @ >= Tel: +44 (0)151 677 7412 Phone before Fax please ^ From owner-bridge-laws Sun May 19 23:10:17 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA00505 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 19 May 1996 23:10:17 +1000 Received: from relay-4.mail.demon.net (relay-4.mail.demon.net [158.152.1.108]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id XAA00500 for ; Sun, 19 May 1996 23:10:02 +1000 Received: from post.demon.co.uk ([158.152.1.72]) by relay-4.mail.demon.net id aa10966; 19 May 96 13:09 GMT Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by relay-3.mail.demon.net id ab11534; 19 May 96 13:37 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Sun, 19 May 1996 13:29:42 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Asking questions for partner In-Reply-To: <319DC527.768A@innet.be> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 1.12 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article <319DC527.768A@innet.be>, Herman De Wael writes >The giving of UI is never an offense, only the listening to it !! Yes, yes, yes, yes. So let us stop talking about the irregularity of giving UI! Nice one, Herman! -- David Stevenson Bridge Cats Railways Logic /\_/\ Liverpool, England, UK Nothing ventured, nothing gained [o o] david@blakjak.demon.co.uk Emails welcome =< @ >= Tel: +44 (0)151 677 7412 Phone before Fax please ^ From owner-bridge-laws Sun May 19 23:38:27 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA00588 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 19 May 1996 23:38:27 +1000 Received: from pip.dknet.dk (root@pip.dknet.dk [193.88.44.48]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id XAA00578 for ; Sun, 19 May 1996 23:38:20 +1000 Received: from cph30.pip.dknet.dk (cph30.pip.dknet.dk [194.192.0.62]) by pip.dknet.dk (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id PAA24301 for ; Sun, 19 May 1996 15:38:12 +0200 From: jd@pip.dknet.dk (Jesper Dybdal) To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: UI via questions (reply to Barry) Date: Sun, 19 May 1996 13:37:50 GMT Organization: at home Message-ID: <319f1ceb.2222846@pipmail.dknet.dk> References: <9605162105.AA29283@ankaa.cc.umanitoba.ca> <319DC7DF.536A@innet.be> In-Reply-To: <319DC7DF.536A@innet.be> X-Mailer: Forte Agent .99e/32.227 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Sat, 18 May 1996 12:51:43 +0000, Herman De Wael wrote: >I think the requirement to correct is something that needs to disappear >from the rules. For one thing, it is impractible with screens. >When you or partner has made an incorrect explanation : tough : you >should suffer all the consequences. Correcting the mistake at an >opportune time only inflicts more work on the TD : he should now find >out whether players are damaged during the period of wrong explanation. I disagree. It is correct that it does not work with screens; however, that is no reason to abolish a rule that works without screens - the laws are used for bridge at all levels, and screens are used only in a extremely small part of this world's bridge events. The situation where the correction is most important is the one where it is given by declarer or dummy before the lead. In that case, it is very often easy for the TD to determine that the misexplanation did not give problems during the bidding; since a correction was given before the lead, the result can stand. Without the correction, the TD would have had to determine whether the defenders were damaged in the play; this will often be more work, and it would mean that the players did not get the satisfaction of the actually playing for the result. In fact, I'm wondering whether it wouldn't be a good idea to increase the duty to correct by requiring immediate correction. This will give UI to the offending side, but that is their problem. --- Jesper Dybdal From owner-bridge-laws Sun May 19 23:38:28 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA00589 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 19 May 1996 23:38:28 +1000 Received: from pip.dknet.dk (root@pip.dknet.dk [193.88.44.48]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id XAA00579 for ; Sun, 19 May 1996 23:38:22 +1000 Received: from cph30.pip.dknet.dk (cph30.pip.dknet.dk [194.192.0.62]) by pip.dknet.dk (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id PAA24304 for ; Sun, 19 May 1996 15:38:14 +0200 From: jd@pip.dknet.dk (Jesper Dybdal) To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Slow invitations Date: Sun, 19 May 1996 13:37:53 GMT Organization: at home Message-ID: <319f201e.3041573@pipmail.dknet.dk> References: <199605172131.RAA25405@shell.monmouth.com> In-Reply-To: <199605172131.RAA25405@shell.monmouth.com> X-Mailer: Forte Agent .99e/32.227 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Fri, 17 May 1996 17:27:51 +0000, "reha gur" wrote: >Yes, but if the opponents are damaged, aren't they entitled to >redress? Isn't this analagous to a situation whre the penalty for a >bid out of turn, revoke, penalty card, etc., is not enough to restore >equity (12.A.1) and the director is permitted to reward an adjusted >score? Law 12A1 is about providing indemnity for a "particular violation of law committed by an opponent". What do we have here: (a) UI from a slow bid - this is not a violation of law (unless the slowness was deliberate, with the intention of transmitting UI - but that is another matter). (b) A partner which does not violate law 16A; he carefully does _not_ choose a call "that could reasonably have been suggested over another by the extraneous information". So there is no irregularity at all to provide indemnity for, and nothing for the TD to do. If you want adjusted scores in this situation, you must change the laws so that transmitting UI becomes an irregularity. It will then be a game where you are not allowed to think before acting - and I, for one, wouldn't want to play that game. --- Jesper Dybdal From owner-bridge-laws Mon May 20 02:47:15 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA04008 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 20 May 1996 02:47:15 +1000 Received: from sunset.ma.huji.ac.il (sunset.ma.huji.ac.il [132.64.32.12]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id CAA04001 for ; Mon, 20 May 1996 02:46:26 +1000 Received: (from grabiner@localhost) by sunset.ma.huji.ac.il (8.6.11/8.6.10) id TAA17200; Sun, 19 May 1996 19:45:09 +0300 Date: Sun, 19 May 1996 19:45:09 +0300 Message-Id: <199605191645.TAA17200@sunset.ma.huji.ac.il> From: David Joseph Grabiner To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au In-reply-to: (message from David Stevenson on Sun, 19 May 1996 00:24:15 +0100) Subject: Direct vs. indirect damage (was Re: Slow invitations) Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Stevenson writes: > In article <199605172131.RAA25405@shell.monmouth.com>, reha gur > writes >> David Stevenson wrote> >> >>> In which case you need to talk to the law makers, rather than us (the >>> law interpreters?): >>> L73C. Player Receives Unauthorized Information from Partner >>> When a player has available to him unauthorized information from his >>> partner's remark, question, explanation, gesture, mannerism, special >>> emphasis, inflection, haste or hesitation, he must carefully avoid >>> taking any advantage that might accrue to his side. >>> >>> So it is required by Law to "bend over backwards". >> >> Yes, but if the opponents are damaged, aren't they entitled to >> redress? Isn't this analagous to a situation whre the penalty for a >> bid out of turn, revoke, penalty card, etc., is not enough to restore >> equity (12.A.1) and the director is permitted to reward an adjusted >> score? > No, if the opponents are damaged by me following the Laws of Bridge > they do not get and should not get redress. I don't believe any of the > other situations that you quote are analogous in any way. Revokes have > their own special Law, which is quite different. I do not know a Law > that restores equity for a rub of the green loss from a bid out of turn > or a penalty card. I can't find it in the current edition of the Laws, but the older Laws had a footnote which clarified this position. An adjustment is in order if the damage is a direct result of the infraction, but not an indirect result. The footnote then gave two examples. North has AKQxxx of clubs opposite South's singleton in 3NT. East, who holds Jxx, discards on the third club. As a result, declarer goes down three instead of making 3NT; the revoke penalty is only two tricks. East's gain was a direct result of his infraction, so it needs to be adjusted to 3NT making. East bids diamonds out of turn, and South becomes the declarer in 4S. South may require or forbid a diamond lead, and chooses to require one. West doesn't lead a diamond, which tells East that he is void. East thus gives West two diamond ruffs, which would have been an unlikely line of play without the infraction. There is no adjustment. This seems to be the principle in the current cases in the rules about enforced passes causing damage. If the bidder could have known that the enforced pass would cause damage to the non-offending side, then the damage is a direct result of the offense. The same rule should apply to UI. If you leave in a slow double with a questionable hand, you are paying the penalty for using UI; if the contract goes down anyway, this was not a direct result of your infraction. -- David Grabiner, grabiner@math.huji.ac.il, http://www.ma.huji.ac.il/~grabiner I speak at the Hebrew University, but not for it. Shop at the Mobius Strip Mall: Always on the same side of the street! Klein Glassworks, Torus Coffee and Donuts, Projective Airlines, etc. From owner-bridge-laws Mon May 20 05:17:36 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA11999 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 20 May 1996 05:17:36 +1000 Received: from pip.dknet.dk (root@pip.dknet.dk [193.88.44.48]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id FAA11989; Mon, 20 May 1996 05:17:28 +1000 Received: from cph19.pip.dknet.dk (cph19.pip.dknet.dk [194.192.0.51]) by pip.dknet.dk (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id VAA08937; Sun, 19 May 1996 21:17:20 +0200 From: jd@pip.dknet.dk (Jesper Dybdal) To: markus@octavia.anu.edu.au Cc: Bridge Laws List Subject: The bridge-laws list Date: Sun, 19 May 1996 19:16:58 GMT Organization: at home Message-ID: <319f735f.4308925@pipmail.dknet.dk> X-Mailer: Forte Agent .99e/32.227 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Hi Markus, Two suggestions in relation to the bridge-laws list: (a) If it is possible and simple, you might consider configuring majordomo so that it inserts a "Reply-To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au" header in the messages it relays. This would cause the "reply" function in normal mail programs to send the reply to the list by default - which I expect is what we typically want. (b) You might consider mentioning the existence of the bridge-laws list in your automatic bi-weekly post to rgb (unless you and/or Steve have arranged some other form of repeated announcement, of course). And thanks a lot for providing the list. --- Jesper Dybdal From owner-bridge-laws Mon May 20 14:22:21 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id OAA14861 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 20 May 1996 14:22:21 +1000 Received: from hal-pc.org (hal-pc.org [204.52.135.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id OAA14854 for ; Mon, 20 May 1996 14:22:14 +1000 Received: from pm0-48.hal-pc.org (pm0-48.hal-pc.org [206.66.129.48]) by hal-pc.org (8.7.5/8.6.9) with SMTP id XAA07481 for ; Sun, 19 May 1996 23:21:27 -0500 (CDT) Message-ID: <31A010A7.388A@hal-pc.org> Date: Sun, 19 May 1996 23:26:47 -0700 From: Georgiana Gates Organization: Houston Area League of PC users X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.0 (Win16; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List Subject: Unauthorized Information(Americam spelling) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk As if all of the preceding statements in this general thread haven't been to much to bear, try these on for size. Setting the scene: First time partnership; Life Masters Pairs( 2nd best pair event in the USA - 6 sessions with cuts after the 1st & 2nd day); we are playing the auction 1NT P 2NT is a puppet to 3C showing either a club bust (pass) or a 4 by 1 hand with at least game-going values( 3D, 3H, 3S, 3NT, 4C. The 1st 3 bids are the short suit, the last 2 show club shortness with 3NT the weaker); we play the same system after 1NT overcalls; we play both of the above by a passed hand; neither has come up in our patnership. You hold: Kx AQJx Axx Kxxx The auction procedes: Pass by partner, 1 club on your right and I will impose 1NT upon you. It continues pass on your left, 2NT by partner & you alert, of course. There has been NOTHING exceptional to this point. No hesitations . No questions about the alert. No double takes from anyone. Nothing. However, I am sure partner has forgotten our system. There has been nothing about the opponents actions, or from the auction or prior experience with this partner that would lead me to this conclusion. But I would bet the ranch on it (if I had a ranch). Can I follow my hunch? No, IMHO, because however I got my hunch, it MUST be UI. RHO passes & i, perforce, bid 3C. Alert from partner, pass from LHO. Pard continues 3NT (showing 4 by 1 with a stiff club & 10 - 11 HCPs. I alert, RHO passes & once again I stop to consider. Whatever vibrations I have gotten must still not be usable, so I have no choice but to bid 4H. That ends the auction. Now the opponents ask & I explain what systemicaly has occured. The OL is made; dummy tables with the expected balanced 9 count & 3 hearts. The opponents never ask why dummy differs from my explanation & I go on to achieve a good result in an abnormal spot. In reviewing the hand after the session, I came to the conclusion that what set off all the alarm bells was not the presence of something but rather its absence: break in tempo before partner's 2NT call. It was too much in perfect tempo and my subconsious picked up on it. By the way, this is _not_ a hypothetical situation, it really happened. -leslie west- Houston, Texas USA From owner-bridge-laws Mon May 20 20:56:32 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id UAA17440 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 20 May 1996 20:56:32 +1000 Received: from mail.be.innet.net (mail.be.innet.net [194.7.1.8]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id UAA17435 for ; Mon, 20 May 1996 20:56:25 +1000 Received: from innet.innet.be (pool03-85.innet.be [194.7.10.69]) by mail.be.innet.net (8.7.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id MAA29723; Mon, 20 May 1996 12:56:16 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <31A06BB1.4F6B@innet.be> Date: Mon, 20 May 1996 12:55:13 +0000 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.0 (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au, Georgiana Gates Subject: Re: Unauthorized Information(Americam spelling) References: <31A010A7.388A@hal-pc.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Georgiana Gates wrote: > > Can I follow my hunch? No, IMHO, because however I got my hunch, it > MUST be UI. > Since you do not know where you got the hunch from, there can be no I, so I would not rule UI. > In reviewing the hand after the session, I came to the conclusion that > what set off all the alarm bells was not the presence of something but > rather its absence: break in tempo before partner's 2NT call. It was too > much in perfect tempo and my subconsious picked up on it. Now you do cite the I, so it is UI. -- Herman DE WAEL E-Mail HermanDW@innet.be Michel Willemslaan 40 tel ++32.3.827.64.45 B-2610 WILRIJK (Antwerpen) fax ++32.3.825.29.19 Belgium http://www.club.innet.be/~pub02163/index.htm From owner-bridge-laws Mon May 20 21:03:32 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id VAA17523 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 20 May 1996 21:03:32 +1000 Received: from mail.be.innet.net (mail.be.innet.net [194.7.1.8]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id VAA17518 for ; Mon, 20 May 1996 21:03:21 +1000 Received: from innet.innet.be (pool03-85.innet.be [194.7.10.69]) by mail.be.innet.net (8.7.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id NAA00270 for ; Mon, 20 May 1996 13:03:11 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <31A06D57.AC5@innet.be> Date: Mon, 20 May 1996 13:02:15 +0000 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.0 (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: UI via questions (reply to Barry) References: <9605162105.AA29283@ankaa.cc.umanitoba.ca> <319DC7DF.536A@innet.be> <319f1ceb.2222846@pipmail.dknet.dk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Jesper Dybdal wrote: > > I disagree. It is correct that it does not work with screens; > however, that is no reason to abolish a rule that works without > screens - the laws are used for bridge at all levels, and screens are > used only in a extremely small part of this world's bridge events. > But a growing one, and not just in International competition. In the Belgian third division, I played with screens last year, and I was unhappy to be relegated, because I won't be able to play with them (or rather, to impose them on my opponents) next year. > The situation where the correction is most important is the one where > it is given by declarer or dummy before the lead. In that case, it is > very often easy for the TD to determine that the misexplanation did > not give problems during the bidding; since a correction was given > before the lead, the result can stand. Without the correction, the TD > would have had to determine whether the defenders were damaged in the > play; this will often be more work, and it would mean that the players > did not get the satisfaction of the actually playing for the result. > Yes, but this is the most strange thing of it : with screens, this situation can only arise if the offenders are north-south (work it out - of course with the screen NW to SE), so the rule is advantageous to EW !!! > In fact, I'm wondering whether it wouldn't be a good idea to increase > the duty to correct by requiring immediate correction. This will give > UI to the offending side, but that is their problem. Now that IS a good idea. (and I mean it) -- Herman DE WAEL E-Mail HermanDW@innet.be Michel Willemslaan 40 tel ++32.3.827.64.45 B-2610 WILRIJK (Antwerpen) fax ++32.3.825.29.19 Belgium http://www.club.innet.be/~pub02163/index.htm From owner-bridge-laws Mon May 20 23:14:28 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA18787 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 20 May 1996 23:14:28 +1000 Received: from cabra.cri.dk (cabra.cri.dk [130.227.48.5]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id XAA18781 for ; Mon, 20 May 1996 23:14:11 +1000 X-Organization: Computer Resources International A/S, Bregneroedvej 144, DK-3460 Birkeroed, Denmark Received: from nov.cri.dk (nov.cri.dk [130.227.50.162]) by cabra.cri.dk (8.6.12/8.6.10) with SMTP id PAA08412 for ; Mon, 20 May 1996 15:12:27 +0200 Received: from CRI-Message_Server by nov.cri.dk with Novell_GroupWise; Mon, 20 May 1996 15:12:10 +0200 Message-Id: X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise 4.1 Date: Mon, 20 May 1996 15:12:02 +0200 From: Jens Brix Christiansen To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Unauthorized Information(Americam spelling) -Reply Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Leslie (aka Georgiana?), Here is a summary of my ruling in your case: 1. You had UI, as your later analysis showed. 2. You carefully avoided the logical alternative indicated by the UI. 3. No irregularity, score stands. Congratulations on the good score. Thank you for this real life case; it neatly illustrates many of the issues raised in this thread. As an aside, some esteemed British English language users agree with your spelling of "unauthorized", including the Oxford University Press. Interested? Check the alt.usage.english FAQ (which is maintained in the U.S.): http://www.cis.ohio-state.edu/hypertext/faq/ usenet/alt-usage-english-faq/faq.html Jens Brix Christiansen, TD and Laws Committee member, Denmark. English spoken, but beware of the New York dialect. >>> Georgiana Gates 20.05.96 08:26 >>> As if all of the preceding statements in this general thread haven't been to much to bear, try these on for size. Setting the scene: First time partnership; Life Masters Pairs( 2nd best pair event in the USA - 6 sessions with cuts after the 1st & 2nd day); we are playing the auction 1NT P 2NT is a puppet to 3C showing either aclub bust (pass) or a 4 by 1 hand with at least game-going values( 3D,3H, 3S, 3NT, 4C. The 1st 3 bids are the short suit, the last 2 show club shortness with 3NT the weaker); we play the same system after 1NT overcalls; we play both of the above by a passed hand; neither hascome up in our patnership. You hold: Kx AQJx Axx Kxxx The auction procedes: Pass by partner, 1 club on your right and I will impose 1NT upon you. It continues pass on your left, 2NT by partner &you alert, of course. There has been NOTHING exceptional to this point.No hesitations . No questions about the alert. No double takes fromanyone. Nothing. However, I am sure partner has forgotten our system.There has been nothing about the opponents actions, or from theauction or prior experience with this partner that would lead me to thisconclusion. But I would bet the ranch on it (if I had a ranch). Can I follow my hunch? No, IMHO, because however I got my hunch, it MUST be UI. RHO passes & i, perforce, bid 3C. Alert from partner, pass from LHO.Pard continues 3NT (showing 4 by 1 with a stiff club & 10 - 11 HCPs. Ialert, RHO passes & once again I stop to consider. Whatever vibrations Ihave gotten must still not be usable, so I have no choice but to bid 4H. That ends the auction. Now the opponents ask & I explain whatsystemicaly has occured. The OL is made; dummy tables with theexpected balanced 9 count & 3 hearts. The opponents never ask whydummy differs from my explanation & I go on to achieve a good result inan abnormal spot. In reviewing the hand after the session, I came to the conclusion that what set off all the alarm bells was not the presence of something but rather its absence: break in tempo before partner's 2NT call. It was too much in perfect tempo and my subconsious picked up on it. By the way, this is _not_ a hypothetical situation, it really happened. -leslie west- Houston, Texas USA From owner-bridge-laws Mon May 20 23:56:55 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA18925 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 20 May 1996 23:56:55 +1000 Received: from relay-2.mail.demon.net (disperse.demon.co.uk [158.152.1.77]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id XAA18920 for ; Mon, 20 May 1996 23:56:42 +1000 Received: from post.demon.co.uk ([158.152.1.72]) by relay-2.mail.demon.net id ae10334; 20 May 96 14:50 +0100 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by relay-3.mail.demon.net id aa17139; 20 May 96 14:50 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 20 May 1996 13:31:05 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: UI via questions (reply to Barry) In-Reply-To: <31A06D57.AC5@innet.be> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 1.12 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article <31A06D57.AC5@innet.be>, Herman De Wael writes >Jesper Dybdal wrote: >> >> I disagree. It is correct that it does not work with screens; >> however, that is no reason to abolish a rule that works without >> screens - the laws are used for bridge at all levels, and screens are >> used only in a extremely small part of this world's bridge events. >> > >But a growing one, and not just in International competition. >In the Belgian third division, I played with screens last year, and I >was unhappy to be relegated, because I won't be able to play with >them (or rather, to impose them on my opponents) next year. The Premier league uses them in England, so that is 56 matches a year. Nothing else. It may be a growing proportion, but in England I estimate the proportion of their use in events is 0.003% (I am completely serious). I think it needs to grow a bit more to be a major part of the equation. > >> The situation where the correction is most important is the one where >> it is given by declarer or dummy before the lead. In that case, it is >> very often easy for the TD to determine that the misexplanation did >> not give problems during the bidding; since a correction was given >> before the lead, the result can stand. Without the correction, the TD >> would have had to determine whether the defenders were damaged in the >> play; this will often be more work, and it would mean that the players >> did not get the satisfaction of the actually playing for the result. >> > >Yes, but this is the most strange thing of it : with screens, this >situation can only arise if the offenders are north-south (work it out - >of course with the screen NW to SE), so the rule is advantageous to EW >!!! OK, Herman, I have tried to work it out ... and failed. [I think that I am like the little boy saying "The King has got no clothes on".] Perhaps you might explain to us? > >> In fact, I'm wondering whether it wouldn't be a good idea to increase >> the duty to correct by requiring immediate correction. This will give >> UI to the offending side, but that is their problem. > >Now that IS a good idea. (and I mean it) Sounds like another idea for the top players. Consider the effect in clubs before you present such ideas, please. Even with the best will in the world, both players and TDs at club level have difficulty with UI so anything that might increase it cannot be a good idea, surely? -- David Stevenson Bridge Cats Railways Logic /\_/\ Liverpool, England, UK Nothing ventured, nothing gained [o o] david@blakjak.demon.co.uk Emails welcome =< @ >= Tel: +44 (0)151 677 7412 Phone before Fax please ^ From owner-bridge-laws Tue May 21 00:15:29 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA20885 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 21 May 1996 00:15:29 +1000 Received: from relay-2.mail.demon.net (disperse.demon.co.uk [158.152.1.77]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id AAA20609 for ; Tue, 21 May 1996 00:14:30 +1000 Received: from post.demon.co.uk ([158.152.1.72]) by relay-2.mail.demon.net id ac10335; 20 May 96 14:50 +0100 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by relay-3.mail.demon.net id aa17141; 20 May 96 14:50 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 20 May 1996 14:46:05 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Unauthorized Information(Americam spelling) In-Reply-To: <31A06BB1.4F6B@innet.be> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 1.12 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article <31A06BB1.4F6B@innet.be>, Herman De Wael writes >Leslie West {Georgiana Gates} wrote: >> >> Can I follow my hunch? No, IMHO, because however I got my hunch, >> it MUST be UI. >> > >Since you do not know where you got the hunch from, there can be no I, >so I would not rule UI. > >> In reviewing the hand after the session, I came to the conclusion that >> what set off all the alarm bells was not the presence of something but >> rather its absence: break in tempo before partner's 2NT call. It was too >> much in perfect tempo and my subconsious picked up on it. > >Now you do cite the I, so it is UI. It does not make it information whether the person knows from where it came, surely? It might make a difference to application of L73C, whether a person had done their best not to use it, dependent on whether they were aware. UI is a part of the decision making process that may not be used. Players should try to avoid using it (L73C) and TDs should adjust if it might have been used (L16A2/L73F1). This includes UI that has been obtained consciously or subconsciously. This includes UI that a player is aware of or not aware of. Now usually these last two sentences are the same. If a player is aware of it then it has been obtained consciously: if not then subconsciously. Leslie has found an interesting case where this is not so: he was aware of something but did not know where it had come from. It is all very interesting academically, but in practical terms players, TDs and ACs do not need to know whether the UI has been obtained consciously or subconsciously to adjust under L16A2/L73F1. The only difference really is that an ethical player should follow L73C whenever he is aware of UI: obviously he cannot when he isn't. Leslie acted very properly. Sometimes a player acts on a hunch because he is not aware of UI: there is nothing unethical about this if he is not aware: of course it then gets adjusted. In theory you could take action against a player under L73C (and L72B1) for using UI that he was aware of but had not noticed consciously. In practice this would be too difficult. Fortunately it is extremely rare (IMO). -- David Stevenson Bridge Cats Railways Logic /\_/\ Liverpool, England, UK Nothing ventured, nothing gained [o o] david@blakjak.demon.co.uk Emails welcome =< @ >= Tel: +44 (0)151 677 7412 Phone before Fax please ^ From owner-bridge-laws Tue May 21 00:15:54 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA21001 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 21 May 1996 00:15:54 +1000 Received: from emout09.mail.aol.com (emout09.mx.aol.com [198.81.11.24]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id AAA20965 for ; Tue, 21 May 1996 00:15:46 +1000 From: AlLeBendig@aol.com Received: by emout09.mail.aol.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA08441 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Mon, 20 May 1996 10:15:11 -0400 Date: Mon, 20 May 1996 10:15:11 -0400 Message-ID: <960520101510_494635672@emout09.mail.aol.com> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: UI via questions (reply to Barry) Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In a message dated 96-05-19 09:39:53 EDT, Jesper writes: >Subj: Re: UI via questions (reply to Barry) >Date: 96-05-19 09:39:53 EDT >From: jd@pip.dknet.dk (Jesper Dybdal) >Sender: owner-bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au >To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au > >On Sat, 18 May 1996 12:51:43 +0000, Herman De Wael >wrote: >>I think the requirement to correct is something that needs to disappear >>from the rules. For one thing, it is impractible with screens. We have actually had some discussions about checking for MI when the curtain is raised. This would allow each side a chance to clear up MI and allow the TD a chance to establish what might have happened without the MI. >>When you or partner has made an incorrect explanation : tough : you >>should suffer all the consequences. Correcting the mistake at an >>opportune time only inflicts more work on the TD : he should now find >>out whether players are damaged during the period of wrong explanation. > >I disagree. It is correct that it does not work with screens; >however, that is no reason to abolish a rule that works without >screens - the laws are used for bridge at all levels, and screens are >used only in a extremely small part of this world's bridge events. > >The situation where the correction is most important is the one where >it is given by declarer or dummy before the lead. In that case, it is >very often easy for the TD to determine that the misexplanation did >not give problems during the bidding; since a correction was given >before the lead, the result can stand. Without the correction, the TD >would have had to determine whether the defenders were damaged in the >play; this will often be more work, and it would mean that the players >did not get the satisfaction of the actually playing for the result. When these situations arise, I feel it is a determination of how skilled a TD is by his investigation process of non-offenders. We have developed a group of "bridge lawyers" who know to say "I might have done this or that". A good TD can pin them down somewhat as to what is real and what isn't. We have had more than one suggestion that if a player says "I would have bid ____", we assign him a result after the hand based on his bid of ___, even when it turns out that ____ would have been a mistake. This would certainly not allow players a "free shot" at suggesting what action they might have taken without the MI. Otherwise, if ____ turns out that it would have been correct, they generally get the benefit of the doubt. Do y'all (sorry, I don't know the English spelling) think this approach makes any sense? Would the current Laws allow us to to do this? >In fact, I'm wondering whether it wouldn't be a good idea to increase >the duty to correct by requiring immediate correction. This will give >UI to the offending side, but that is their problem. This sounds like a great idea until you consider the problem of forcing the offending side to now act as if they had heard nothing. You're going to create a whole new area of LAs during the auction for TDs and ACs to try and sort out. I still think our current methods work rather well as long as things are done properly by the TD at the end of the auction. I feel we could easily live with the defending side also responsible for disclosure of MI and now judge wether this affected the subsequent defense. At least this would bring the non-offending side up to speed at a time when we could possibly determine real facts as to later when they have seen all 52 cards. It's amazing how accurate they can be at that point. Alan LeBendig Los Angeles From owner-bridge-laws Tue May 21 02:10:06 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA22393 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 21 May 1996 02:10:06 +1000 Received: from andrew.cais.com (andrew.cais.com [199.0.216.215]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id CAA22388 for ; Tue, 21 May 1996 02:09:57 +1000 Received: from cais3.cais.com (cais3.cais.com [199.0.216.227]) by andrew.cais.com (8.6.9/8.6.9) with SMTP id MAA22922 for ; Mon, 20 May 1996 12:09:51 -0400 Date: Mon, 20 May 1996 12:09:51 -0400 (EDT) From: Eric Landau To: Bridge Laws Discussion List Subject: Re: UI from questions not asked In-Reply-To: <319CC5E8.EA4@innet.be> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Fri, 17 May 1996, Herman De Wael wrote: > And an answer to the 'ethical obligation to know opponents system'. > This exists ! It could fall under Law 74C6 : Lack of intrest. Europe must be well ahead of the U.S. in this regard. There is a major debate going on in the ACBL, started not long ago by Bobby Wolff, over whether and to what extent players have an ethical obligation to fully understand their own methods! An ethical obligation to fully understand their opponents' systems would be an order of magnitude further out, and well over the horizon, at least in ACBL-land. I don't see how Law 74.C.6 can be considered relevant. That law concerns "obvious lack of further interest in a deal," and seems clearly intended to prevent transmitting UI to partner about the nature of your hand (i.e. such that you don't believe you can effect the outcome) on that deal. It doesn't forbid showing a uniform level of interest, or lack thereof, throughout the proceedings. You're allowed to simply not give a ---- about what your opponents' bids mean on any hand, and you're allowed to care on some hands but not on others, but, in the latter case, Law 74.C.6 forbids you from doing anything that would tell your partner which are which. Eric Landau APL Solutions, Inc. elandau@cais.com 1107 Dale Drive (301) 589-4621 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 USA From owner-bridge-laws Tue May 21 02:33:15 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA22524 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 21 May 1996 02:33:15 +1000 Received: from mipl7.jpl.nasa.gov (mipl7.jpl.nasa.gov [128.149.177.7]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id CAA22519 for ; Tue, 21 May 1996 02:33:10 +1000 Received: from tintin.JPL.NASA.GOV (tintin.jpl.nasa.gov [128.149.102.7]) by mipl7.jpl.nasa.gov (8.6.12/8.6.6) with ESMTP id JAA13444 for <@mipl7.JPL.NASA.GOV:bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au>; Mon, 20 May 1996 09:32:19 -0700 Received: by tintin.JPL.NASA.GOV (940816.SGI.8.6.9/930416.SGI.MIPS) for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au id JAA03682; Mon, 20 May 1996 09:37:59 -0700 Date: Mon, 20 May 1996 09:37:59 -0700 From: jeff@tintin.JPL.NASA.GOV (Jeff Goldsmith) Message-Id: <199605201637.JAA03682@tintin.JPL.NASA.GOV> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Law 75 discussion Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Herman DE WAEL said: |Barry Wolk wrote: |> Here is another legal twist: if your partner answers an opponent's |> question incorrectly, you have to hear his answer, because you may be |> required to correct it later. However, his answer is UI for you. Weird! | |I think the requirement to correct is something that needs to disappear |from the rules. For one thing, it is impractible with screens. |When you or partner has made an incorrect explanation : tough : you |should suffer all the consequences. Correcting the mistake at an |opportune time only inflicts more work on the TD : he should now find |out whether players are damaged during the period of wrong explanation. I disagree. (1) Explanation rules do not apply to screens. There is nothing wrong with a separate set of rules for screen contests. (2) Only a tiny fraction of bridge uses screens. (Computer bridge is different still.) (3) The highest priority for handling such situations is to maximize the chance that a real bridge result is obtained, not to make the director's life easy. I think Law 75 does a pretty decent job of that. --Jeff # Cthulhu in '96! Why vote for the lesser evil? # --- # http://muggy.gg.caltech.edu/~jeff From owner-bridge-laws Tue May 21 02:38:58 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA22566 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 21 May 1996 02:38:58 +1000 Received: from mipl7.jpl.nasa.gov (mipl7.jpl.nasa.gov [128.149.177.7]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id CAA22561 for ; Tue, 21 May 1996 02:38:53 +1000 Received: from tintin.JPL.NASA.GOV (tintin.jpl.nasa.gov [128.149.102.7]) by mipl7.jpl.nasa.gov (8.6.12/8.6.6) with ESMTP id JAA13468 for <@mipl7.JPL.NASA.GOV:bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au>; Mon, 20 May 1996 09:38:19 -0700 Received: by tintin.JPL.NASA.GOV (940816.SGI.8.6.9/930416.SGI.MIPS) for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au id JAA03693; Mon, 20 May 1996 09:44:06 -0700 Date: Mon, 20 May 1996 09:44:06 -0700 From: jeff@tintin.JPL.NASA.GOV (Jeff Goldsmith) Message-Id: <199605201644.JAA03693@tintin.JPL.NASA.GOV> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: IP domains Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk From owner-bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Sat May 18 10:08:49 1996 |> Eric Landau wrote: |> > you can assume that |> > .com or any other more-than-two-letter suffix indicates a U.S. host. | |This is wrong, and the assumption is a good way to annoy people who are |at .com-or-other-more-than-two-letter sites that are outside the US. |Those domains were intended as non-national, although it's true that the |US has become the only country where they are widely used in preference |to the national domains. In particular, there are plenty of .com and .net |sites outside the US, and not just in Canada either. You are each partially correct. The internet domain name standard was written with the intent that .com, .edu, .gov, .mil, .net, and .org were all US addresses. Additionally, .us was available for American use, plus a few for American territories. There are a few three or more letter names that are international: .int, .arpa (predates the current scheme) and .nato. In practice, however, many American companies have international components, so .com (and to a lesser extent) the other US domains have become somewhat international in scope. So, while .com is defined as "US Commercial," that has become untrue, though accurate in the most part. --Jeff # Cthulhu in '96! Why vote for the lesser evil? # --- # http://muggy.gg.caltech.edu/~jeff From owner-bridge-laws Tue May 21 03:41:08 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA22788 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 21 May 1996 03:41:08 +1000 Received: from dub-img-1.compuserve.com (dub-img-1.compuserve.com [198.4.9.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id DAA22783 for ; Tue, 21 May 1996 03:41:01 +1000 Received: by dub-img-1.compuserve.com (8.6.10/5.950515) id NAA19504; Mon, 20 May 1996 13:40:26 -0400 Date: 20 May 96 13:37:06 EDT From: Richard Bley <101557.1671@compuserve.com> To: Bridge Laws List Subject: Re: UI via questions (reply to Barry) Message-ID: <960520173705_101557.1671_IHK69-1@CompuServe.COM> Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Hi David, Hi Hermann and everybody else of course, (comments with +++) David wrote: >Jesper Dybdal wrote: >> >> I disagree. It is correct that it does not work with screens; >> however, that is no reason to abolish a rule that works without >> screens - the laws are used for bridge at all levels, and screens are >> used only in a extremely small part of this world's bridge events. >> > >But a growing one, and not just in International competition. >In the Belgian third division, I played with screens last year, and I >was unhappy to be relegated, because I won't be able to play with >them (or rather, to impose them on my opponents) next year. The Premier league uses them in England, so that is 56 matches a year. Nothing else. It may be a growing proportion, but in England I estimate the proportion of their use in events is 0.003% (I am completely serious). I think it needs to grow a bit more to be a major part of the equation. > >> The situation where the correction is most important is the one where >> it is given by declarer or dummy before the lead. In that case, it is >> very often easy for the TD to determine that the misexplanation did >> not give problems during the bidding; since a correction was given >> before the lead, the result can stand. Without the correction, the TD >> would have had to determine whether the defenders were damaged in the >> play; this will often be more work, and it would mean that the players >> did not get the satisfaction of the actually playing for the result. >> > >Yes, but this is the most strange thing of it : with screens, this >situation can only arise if the offenders are north-south (work it out - >of course with the screen NW to SE), so the rule is advantageous to EW >!!! OK, Herman, I have tried to work it out ... and failed. [I think that I am like the little boy saying "The King has got no clothes on".] Perhaps you might explain to us? +++ In fact that's my favourite. Hermann and me discussed this point in Ostend very intensively: Only EW have an explanation of Dummy by the other side of the screen. So when they lead the screen opens and then they see the hand which was explained by the other player. ^^^^^ When NS are on lead, they have the explanation of dummy from there own side! It is very improbable that the player with the hand made the wrong explanation... And the partner of the "leader" has no damage (at least in the play). So the king has in fact clothes on :-) >> In fact, I'm wondering whether it wouldn't be a good idea to increase >> the duty to correct by requiring immediate correction. This will give >> UI to the offending side, but that is their problem. > >Now that IS a good idea. (and I mean it) Sounds like another idea for the top players. Consider the effect in clubs before you present such ideas, please. Even with the best will in the world, both players and TDs at club level have difficulty with UI so anything that might increase it cannot be a good idea, surely? I'm not so sure about the advantage for this rule. Do you really want to manage the value of every UI in this case. We (the TD's) will have a lot of fun with this :-() See you later ... Richard From owner-bridge-laws Tue May 21 04:15:11 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA22977 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 21 May 1996 04:15:11 +1000 Received: from andrew.cais.com (andrew.cais.com [199.0.216.215]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id EAA22959 for ; Tue, 21 May 1996 04:15:04 +1000 Received: from cais3.cais.com (cais3.cais.com [199.0.216.227]) by andrew.cais.com (8.6.9/8.6.9) with SMTP id OAA28991 for ; Mon, 20 May 1996 14:14:59 -0400 Date: Mon, 20 May 1996 14:14:59 -0400 (EDT) From: Eric Landau To: Bridge Laws Discussion List Subject: Re: Unauthorized Information(Americam spelling) In-Reply-To: <31A010A7.388A@hal-pc.org> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Sun, 19 May 1996, Georgiana Gates wrote: > As if all of the preceding statements in this general thread haven't been > to much to bear, try these on for size. > > Setting the scene: First time partnership; Life Masters Pairs( 2nd best > pair event in the USA - 6 sessions with cuts after the 1st & 2nd day); we > are playing the auction 1NT P 2NT is a puppet to 3C showing either a club > bust (pass) or a 4 by 1 hand with at least game-going values( 3D, 3H, 3S, > 3NT, 4C. The 1st 3 bids are the short suit, the last 2 show club > shortness with 3NT the weaker); we play the same system after 1NT > overcalls; we play both of the above by a passed hand; neither has come > up in our patnership. > > You hold: Kx > AQJx > Axx > Kxxx > > The auction procedes: Pass by partner, 1 club on your right and I will > impose 1NT upon you. It continues pass on your left, 2NT by partner & you > alert, of course. There has been NOTHING exceptional to this point. No > hesitations . No questions about the alert. No double takes from anyone. > Nothing. However, I am sure partner has forgotten our system. There has > been nothing about the opponents actions, or from the auction or prior > experience with this partner that would lead me to this conclusion. But I > would bet the ranch on it (if I had a ranch). > > Can I follow my hunch? No, IMHO, because however I got my hunch, it > MUST be UI. > > RHO passes & i, perforce, bid 3C. Alert from partner, pass from LHO. Pard > continues 3NT (showing 4 by 1 with a stiff club & 10 - 11 HCPs. I alert, > RHO passes & once again I stop to consider. Whatever vibrations I have > gotten must still not be usable, so I have no choice but to bid 4H. > > That ends the auction. Now the opponents ask & I explain what systemicaly > has occured. The OL is made; dummy tables with the expected balanced 9 > count & 3 hearts. The opponents never ask why dummy differs from my > explanation & I go on to achieve a good result in an abnormal spot. > > In reviewing the hand after the session, I came to the conclusion that > what set off all the alarm bells was not the presence of something but > rather its absence: break in tempo before partner's 2NT call. It was too > much in perfect tempo and my subconsious picked up on it. > > By the way, this is _not_ a hypothetical situation, it really happened. > > -leslie west- > Houston, Texas USA This is an interesting case, and gives considerable insight into the ongoing debate over the irregularity-infraction connection. We need to distinguish two kinds of "ethics." "Active ethics" concerns the duty of all players to play the game at the highest levels of fairness, openness and sportsmanship. It delineates how players ought to behave. "Legal ethics" concerns the ethical constraints imposed by the Laws and the ability of TDs/ACs to adjudicate redress in cases where those constraints may have been violated. The ACBL's ongoing "active ethics campaign" attempts to educate players to the fact that these are different, that there are situations covered by active ethics that just don't fall into the realm of legal ethics, that legal ethics don't cover (or provide redress for) many situations that are nonetheless ethical in nature, and that "actively ethical" players should do the "right thing" in these situations even though not doing so would not violate the law or subject them to adjudication. We no longer subscribe to the view that if it isn't against the rules, it is therefore prima facie ethical and proper. Leslie's case is a perfect example. Believing herself to be in possession of UI, she took the actively ethical course of ignoring the information she intuited she must have, even though she would not have violated legal ethics -- would not have done anything that would be subject to adjudication -- had she not done so. I, and others, have been arguing that, as a practical matter, one cannot be deemed to have made UI available without committing an irregularity. David, and others, have argued that UI can, in fact, be given even when no possible irregularity has occurred. Now we can agree. UI (of the sort we're talking about, i.e. UI under Law 16.A) can come from anywhere, and need not result from an irregularity. Active ethics requires that UI from any source whatsoever, whether or not it is covered by the Laws, must not be used. Legal ethics, on the other hand, pertain to cases where an irregularity has occurred, accounting for the UI having been given, and it may have been subsequently used, which would consitute a violation of legal ethics, i.e. an infraction. The death-trap that awaits organized bridge is that we might come to believe that we can do away with the distinction between active and legal ethics, and decide that we can legislate against "the appearance of" any violation of active ethics principles. We simply cannot. Yet, IMO, this is exactly what we'd be trying to do if we conclude that, given the fact that one can commit a legal-ethical infraction by taking advantage of UI from a question, one can equally commit a legal-ethical infraction by taking advantage of UI from a lack of a question. In Leslie's case, we all agree that (1) there was no irregularity; (2) she had UI; (3) she behaved ethically. Where we disagree is over the question of whether, had she taken some other, less actively ethical, action, she would have been subject to a potential adjudication (in real life, this could only happen if she were to volunteer the "facts" of the case after the fact, but that's beside the point). If we were to accept that we can adjudicate cases of UI resulting from partner's failure to ask a question, we are forced to accept that we can equally well adjudicate cases of UI resulting from partner's failure to break tempo. Which of us would want to sit on the committee that hears the first case brought to adjudicate a claim of "he didn't bend over backwards to avoid taking advantage of the fact that his partner didn't hesitate"?! Had Leslie not made her actively-ethical 4H bid, would any of us want to seriously adjudicate a claim for redress raised by her opponents? Leslie felt that "however [she] got [her] hunch, it MUST be UI," and acted accordingly. Had she not had this insight, and acted in accord with her hunch, she would have given the appearance of violating the same ethical canons that led her to the "right" action at the table. To adjudicate this (absent Leslie's own "self-adjudication") we would have to subscribe to the principle that however one gets a "hunch," it must be UI. That's back to making lucky guesses illegal. I'm defending a hand. I have a variety of clues about the hand from legal sources such as declarer's play to this point and his demeanor, when he chose to think, how confident he appears, etc. I put this all together subconsciously and up out of my subconscious comes a "hunch" to lead a club, which I do, and it turns out to be the winning play. Now if I'm Mike Lawrence or Eric Jannersten (both of whom have written books on reading the opponents' cards) I can go back over all the subtle cues and inferences and figure out exactly how I was able to come to my conclusion quickly and accurately enough to have appeared to me as a "hunch," based on authorized information and bridge logic. But since I'm a mere mortal, I may not be able to reconstruct and articulate my instant instinctive reasoning. I had the same information, drew the same conclusion, and made the same play. I may even be every bit as good a bridge player as Messrs. Lawrence or Jannersten, but lack their analytical ability, articulateness or acuteness in post-mortem analyses. Does this mean that "however I got my hunch, it MUST be UI" for me, but not for a Lawrence or a Jannersten? Eric Landau APL Solutions, Inc. elandau@cais.com 1107 Dale Drive (301) 589-4621 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 USA From owner-bridge-laws Tue May 21 07:29:57 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA01400 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 21 May 1996 07:29:57 +1000 Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [128.103.40.170]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id HAA01395 for ; Tue, 21 May 1996 07:29:49 +1000 Received: from cfa183.harvard.edu (cfa183.harvard.edu [131.142.12.59]) by cfa.harvard.edu (8.7.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id RAA01333 for ; Mon, 20 May 1996 17:29:44 -0400 (EDT) Received: by cfa183.harvard.edu (5.x/SMI-SVR4) id AA03214; Mon, 20 May 1996 17:31:46 -0400 Date: Mon, 20 May 1996 17:31:46 -0400 From: willner@cfa183.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Message-Id: <9605202131.AA03214@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: UI from questions not asked X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: David Stevenson > The other main point is that Eric seems to describe some of my > offering as irregularities: some of them are, but several of them are > not: but I cannot see what difference it makes! I don't think it makes a difference today, but it did under the 1975 Laws. If UI came from a normal question and answer or other entirely proper actions, the restrictions were much less severe than if the UI came from an irregularity or denigrated conduct (e.g. partner's hesitation). You couldn't do something weird that could _only_ have been suggested by UI, but you could take any normal action without "bending over backwards." That sort of rule strikes me as fair and useful, and I don't know why it was dropped. > >> 8 N cynlre unf frk jvgu na bccbarag. > > > >David, have you been directing in Wales lately? Hmmm... I thought the question about Wales (not David's, of course) related to the habits of the Welsh, not to the language, but I see I was wrong. > From: Eric Landau > UI (of the sort we're talking about, i.e. UI under Law 16.A) can come > from anywhere, and need not result from an irregularity. Active ethics > requires that UI from any source whatsoever, whether or not it is covered > by the Laws, must not be used. Legal ethics, on the other hand, pertain > to cases where an irregularity has occurred, accounting for the UI having > been given, and it may have been subsequently used, which would consitute > a violation of legal ethics, i.e. an infraction. This is a reasonable point of view, but I don't think everyone would agree. The change in the current Laws from 1975 would seem to argue that even perfectly proper information may still be unauthorized. The obvious example is partner's correct answer to an opponent's question. That is not in any way an irregularity, but it is still UI. > In Leslie's case, we all agree that (1) there was no irregularity; (2) > she had UI; (3) she behaved ethically. Where we disagree is over the > question of whether, had she taken some other, less actively ethical, > action, she would have been subject to a potential adjudication I think an adjustment would have been possible. > (in real > life, this could only happen if she were to volunteer the "facts" of the > case after the fact, but that's beside the point). Quite likely but not certain. Some committees would apply the "Rule of Coincidence." Partner misbid, she fielded it, hence there "must" have been UI, even if we cannot tell what it was. The score is rather less likely to be adjusted than in, say, a blatant hesitation case, but the possibility exists. > If we were to accept > that we can adjudicate cases of UI resulting from partner's failure to > ask a question, we are forced to accept that we can equally well > adjudicate cases of UI resulting from partner's failure to break tempo. Yes. Another example mentioned in The Bridge World hinged on "four NOTRUMP" versus "FOUR notrump." In practice, that case was not adjudicated, though (in retrospect) it probably should have been. > To > adjudicate this (absent Leslie's own "self-adjudication") we would have > to subscribe to the principle that however one gets a "hunch," it must be > UI. That's back to making lucky guesses illegal. No, only lucky guesses that correspond to _partner's_ also having done something funny. > I'm defending a hand. I have a variety of clues about the hand from > legal sources such as declarer's play to this point and his demeanor, > when he chose to think, how confident he appears, etc. I put this all > together subconsciously and up out of my subconscious comes a "hunch" to > lead a club, which I do, and it turns out to be the winning play. As you say, there is a very slippery slope here. In this example, it's not at all clear whether your "hunch" came from partner's or declarer's demeanor. I wouldn't think of adjusting unless there were an identifiable act by your partner that might have been a clue. (I suspect David Stevenson's view might differ.) In the first case, though, it was _partner's_ hand that was odd, and if there was a clue, it's over- whelmingly likely it came from partner. Kaplan gives a rather humorous example. Partner psyches, and you field it. Adjust the score. It's overwhelmingly likely that you had UI or that your agreements were not as stated. If, however, RHO asked lots of questions, thereby indicating a good hand, and LHO was staring at the (now removed) "Frequent Psyches" marked on your convention card, score stands. (Kaplan's version of this is much better than mine, but I hope the point comes across.) I don't see how one can maintain that _the present rules_ require an (identifiable) irregularity for there to be an adjustment. One may, of course, advocate that the rules _ought_ to say that. From owner-bridge-laws Tue May 21 07:51:48 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA01485 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 21 May 1996 07:51:48 +1000 Received: from mipl7.jpl.nasa.gov (mipl7.jpl.nasa.gov [128.149.177.7]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id HAA01480 for ; Tue, 21 May 1996 07:51:43 +1000 Received: from tintin.JPL.NASA.GOV (tintin.jpl.nasa.gov [128.149.102.7]) by mipl7.jpl.nasa.gov (8.6.12/8.6.6) with ESMTP id OAA28043 for <@mipl7.JPL.NASA.GOV:bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au>; Mon, 20 May 1996 14:50:53 -0700 Received: by tintin.JPL.NASA.GOV (940816.SGI.8.6.9/930416.SGI.MIPS) for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au id OAA04124; Mon, 20 May 1996 14:56:36 -0700 Date: Mon, 20 May 1996 14:56:36 -0700 From: jeff@tintin.JPL.NASA.GOV (Jeff Goldsmith) Message-Id: <199605202156.OAA04124@tintin.JPL.NASA.GOV> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Asking questions for partner Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk |David Stevenson sayeth: |In article <319DC527.768A@innet.be>, Herman De Wael |writes | |>The giving of UI is never an offense, only the listening to it !! | | Yes, yes, yes, yes. So let us stop talking about the irregularity of |giving UI! Nice one, Herman! For reasons of giving redress, that's almost true. In fact, listening to it is required by law so that one can fail to take advantage of it if it is present. Law 73B1, however, says "communication" is improper, which imcludes transmission and reception. 73B applies primarily to intentional transmission of UI, but part 1 does not make the distinction. I think that an ethical player will strive to avoid communicating UI in general, but in most accidental cases, there's no penalty for transmission, nor even reception, just abuse. In any case, it's a good rule of thumb to concentrate on the use rather than the transmission, if you are a director. If you are a player, you ought to try to avoid both transmission and abuse. --Jeff # Cthulhu in '96! Why vote for the lesser evil? # --- # http://muggy.gg.caltech.edu/~jeff From owner-bridge-laws Tue May 21 18:13:35 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id SAA03939 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 21 May 1996 18:13:35 +1000 Received: from cabra.cri.dk (cabra.cri.dk [130.227.48.5]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id SAA03934 for ; Tue, 21 May 1996 18:13:27 +1000 X-Organization: Computer Resources International A/S, Bregneroedvej 144, DK-3460 Birkeroed, Denmark Received: from nov.cri.dk (nov.cri.dk [130.227.50.162]) by cabra.cri.dk (8.6.12/8.6.10) with SMTP id KAA20095 for ; Tue, 21 May 1996 10:12:04 +0200 Received: from CRI-Message_Server by nov.cri.dk with Novell_GroupWise; Tue, 21 May 1996 10:11:58 +0200 Message-Id: X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise 4.1 Date: Tue, 21 May 1996 10:11:48 +0200 From: Jens Brix Christiansen To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Rule of Coincidence (was: UI from partner) Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I am starting a new thread here, taking off from some of Steve's comments that if partner misbids and you "field" it, then adjustment can be made based on the rule of coincidence (RoC -- no connection to Taiwan intended). I understand that the reasoning behind the RoC is that the "fielding" could be based on UI or on an undisclosed de facto partnership agreement; the TD does not know exactly which is the case (or in fact whether a true coincidence has taken place); but the mere coincidence is treated as if it were an irregularity that allows (requires?) the TD to redress any damage to the opponents by means of an adjusted score. Of course, the RoC was designed to keep players who psyche "honest" (which is not the same as preventing psyches). In Denmark, we do not use the RoC. Although I did not explicitly check, I believe that the European Bridge League also does not use the RoC; perhaps David could check with Max Bavin? I was (chief) director at the WBF Junior Swiss Pairs championships a few years back, where a committee chaired by Bobby Wolff overruled me by means of the RoC; unfortunately the RoC did not seem applicable from my point of view, and Bobby Wolff then spent 5 minutes preaching the "thou shalt not psyche" gospel to the players, who were left with the impression that psyching is illegal in WBF tournaments. This incident labeled the RoC in my mind as primarily a political instrument of the "psyching is not bridge" movement. Since then, my disgust has worn off somewhat, and I see merit in the RoC, especially the way Steve suggests it might be applied to players who field partners misbid. So, let me know: Who uses the RoC? Who abuses the RoC? Is it possible to arrive at a somewhat harmonized attitude towards the RoC? Should I recommend its use to the Danish Laws and Appeals Committee? And, maybe especially addressed to Eric, is the RoC in conflict with the letter or the spirit of the Laws? Jens Brix Christiansen, (Denmark: 56N, 13E) From owner-bridge-laws Tue May 21 18:25:12 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id SAA04069 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 21 May 1996 18:25:12 +1000 Received: from relay-2.mail.demon.net (disperse.demon.co.uk [158.152.1.77]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id SAA04064 for ; Tue, 21 May 1996 18:25:00 +1000 Received: from post.demon.co.uk ([158.152.1.72]) by relay-2.mail.demon.net id aj22502; 21 May 96 9:24 +0100 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by relay-3.mail.demon.net id aa01788; 21 May 96 9:00 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 21 May 1996 08:54:31 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Unauthorized Information(Americam spelling) In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 1.12 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article , Eric Landau writes >On Sun, 19 May 1996, Georgiana Gates wrote: > >> As if all of the preceding statements in this general thread haven't been >> to much to bear, try these on for size. >> >> Setting the scene: First time partnership; Life Masters Pairs( 2nd best >> pair event in the USA - 6 sessions with cuts after the 1st & 2nd day); we >> are playing the auction 1NT P 2NT is a puppet to 3C showing either a club >> bust (pass) or a 4 by 1 hand with at least game-going values( 3D, 3H, 3S, >> 3NT, 4C. The 1st 3 bids are the short suit, the last 2 show club >> shortness with 3NT the weaker); we play the same system after 1NT >> overcalls; we play both of the above by a passed hand; neither has come >> up in our patnership. >> >> You hold: Kx >> AQJx >> Axx >> Kxxx >> >> The auction procedes: Pass by partner, 1 club on your right and I will >> impose 1NT upon you. It continues pass on your left, 2NT by partner & you >> alert, of course. There has been NOTHING exceptional to this point. No >> hesitations . No questions about the alert. No double takes from anyone. >> Nothing. However, I am sure partner has forgotten our system. There has >> been nothing about the opponents actions, or from the auction or prior >> experience with this partner that would lead me to this conclusion. But I >> would bet the ranch on it (if I had a ranch). >> >> Can I follow my hunch? No, IMHO, because however I got my hunch, it >> MUST be UI. >> >> RHO passes & i, perforce, bid 3C. Alert from partner, pass from LHO. Pard >> continues 3NT (showing 4 by 1 with a stiff club & 10 - 11 HCPs. I alert, >> RHO passes & once again I stop to consider. Whatever vibrations I have >> gotten must still not be usable, so I have no choice but to bid 4H. >> >> That ends the auction. Now the opponents ask & I explain what systemicaly >> has occured. The OL is made; dummy tables with the expected balanced 9 >> count & 3 hearts. The opponents never ask why dummy differs from my >> explanation & I go on to achieve a good result in an abnormal spot. >> >> In reviewing the hand after the session, I came to the conclusion that >> what set off all the alarm bells was not the presence of something but >> rather its absence: break in tempo before partner's 2NT call. It was too >> much in perfect tempo and my subconsious picked up on it. >> >> By the way, this is _not_ a hypothetical situation, it really happened. >> >> -leslie west- >> Houston, Texas USA > >This is an interesting case, and gives considerable insight into the >ongoing debate over the irregularity-infraction connection. > >We need to distinguish two kinds of "ethics." > >"Active ethics" concerns the duty of all players to play the game at the >highest levels of fairness, openness and sportsmanship. It delineates >how players ought to behave. > >"Legal ethics" concerns the ethical constraints imposed by the Laws and >the ability of TDs/ACs to adjudicate redress in cases where those >constraints may have been violated. > >The ACBL's ongoing "active ethics campaign" attempts to educate players >to the fact that these are different, that there are situations covered >by active ethics that just don't fall into the realm of legal ethics, >that legal ethics don't cover (or provide redress for) many situations >that are nonetheless ethical in nature, and that "actively ethical" >players should do the "right thing" in these situations even though not >doing so would not violate the law or subject them to adjudication. We >no longer subscribe to the view that if it isn't against the rules, it is >therefore prima facie ethical and proper. The more general Laws (eg L74) probably cover most things. I don't believe in the view that active ethics differ from legal ethics. Still, I don't think it makes much difference whether "active ethics", an excellent idea, are considered to be covered by the Laws or not. >Leslie's case is a perfect example. Believing herself to be in >possession of UI, she took the actively ethical course of ignoring the >information she intuited she must have, even though she would not have >violated legal ethics -- would not have done anything that would be >subject to adjudication -- had she not done so. > >I, and others, have been arguing that, as a practical matter, one cannot >be deemed to have made UI available without committing an irregularity. >David, and others, have argued that UI can, in fact, be given even when >no possible irregularity has occurred. Now we can agree. > >UI (of the sort we're talking about, i.e. UI under Law 16.A) can come >from anywhere, and need not result from an irregularity. Active ethics >requires that UI from any source whatsoever, whether or not it is covered >by the Laws, must not be used. Legal ethics, on the other hand, pertain >to cases where an irregularity has occurred, accounting for the UI having >been given, and it may have been subsequently used, which would consitute >a violation of legal ethics, i.e. an infraction. And now we disagree. Legal ethics pertain to when UI exists with no need for an irregularity. >The death-trap that awaits organized bridge is that we might come to >believe that we can do away with the distinction between active and legal >ethics, and decide that we can legislate against "the appearance of" any >violation of active ethics principles. We simply cannot. Yet, IMO, this >is exactly what we'd be trying to do if we conclude that, given the fact >that one can commit a legal-ethical infraction by taking advantage of UI >from a question, one can equally commit a legal-ethical infraction by >taking advantage of UI from a lack of a question. The death-trap is when the average player does not believe he needs to look after his own ethics: that is why active ethics is required. Reliance on policing for ethics will eventually kill Bridge. Social pressure against poor ethics also helps considerably. >In Leslie's case, we all agree that (1) there was no irregularity; (2) >she had UI; (3) she behaved ethically. Where we disagree is over the >question of whether, had she taken some other, less actively ethical, >action, she would have been subject to a potential adjudication (in real >life, this could only happen if she were to volunteer the "facts" of the >case after the fact, but that's beside the point). If we were to accept >that we can adjudicate cases of UI resulting from partner's failure to >ask a question, we are forced to accept that we can equally well >adjudicate cases of UI resulting from partner's failure to break tempo. The Law is clear: L73C. You are mixing up the difficulty of applying a Law with its existence. >Which of us would want to sit on the committee that hears the first case >brought to adjudicate a claim of "he didn't bend over backwards to avoid >taking advantage of the fact that his partner didn't hesitate"?! Had >Leslie not made her actively-ethical 4H bid, would any of us want to >seriously adjudicate a claim for redress raised by her opponents? Certainly me! As Richard Bley said recently, these tricky cases are the interesting ones for TDs. Proof is not required: rulings are based on judgment: this would be a tricky one. In the USA I would expect to feel similarly if I was a Chairman of an AC rather than a TD. >Leslie felt that "however [she] got [her] hunch, it MUST be UI," and >acted accordingly. Had she not had this insight, and acted in accord >with her hunch, she would have given the appearance of violating the same >ethical canons that led her to the "right" action at the table. To >adjudicate this (absent Leslie's own "self-adjudication") we would have >to subscribe to the principle that however one gets a "hunch," it must be >UI. That's back to making lucky guesses illegal. And there is no reason to, It is only when you get a hunch and have some feeling, however strong or weak, that it depends on UI (even if you cannot pin down what the UI is) that you need to take this action. >I'm defending a hand. I have a variety of clues about the hand from >legal sources such as declarer's play to this point and his demeanor, >when he chose to think, how confident he appears, etc. I put this all >together subconsciously and up out of my subconscious comes a "hunch" to >lead a club, which I do, and it turns out to be the winning play. > >Now if I'm Mike Lawrence or Eric Jannersten (both of whom have written >books on reading the opponents' cards) I can go back over all the subtle >cues and inferences and figure out exactly how I was able to come to my >conclusion quickly and accurately enough to have appeared to me as a >"hunch," based on authorized information and bridge logic. But since >I'm a mere mortal, I may not be able to reconstruct and articulate my >instant instinctive reasoning. I had the same information, drew the >same conclusion, and made the same play. I may even be every bit as >good a bridge player as Messrs. Lawrence or Jannersten, but lack their >analytical ability, articulateness or acuteness in post-mortem analyses. > >Does this mean that "however I got my hunch, it MUST be UI" for me, but >not for a Lawrence or a Jannersten? No. To be ethical, you must bend over backwards to avoid using UI. That does not mean that you have to do anything in cases where you do not believe that UI is involved. The fact that others then disagree with you (opponents, TD, AC) is irrelevant. If you can justify to your conscience that your bid does not use UI then you have been ethical, whatever others may think. -- David Stevenson Bridge Cats Railways Logic /\_/\ Liverpool, England, UK Nothing ventured, nothing gained [o o] david@blakjak.demon.co.uk Emails welcome =< @ >= Tel: +44 (0)151 677 7412 Phone before Fax please ^ From owner-bridge-laws Tue May 21 20:06:35 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id UAA04786 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 21 May 1996 20:06:35 +1000 Received: from mail.be.innet.net (mail.be.innet.net [194.7.1.8]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id UAA04781 for ; Tue, 21 May 1996 20:06:27 +1000 Received: from innet.innet.be (pool03-74.innet.be [194.7.10.58]) by mail.be.innet.net (8.7.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id MAA05798 for ; Tue, 21 May 1996 12:06:20 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <31A0D175.25@innet.be> Date: Mon, 20 May 1996 20:09:25 +0000 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.0 (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: L47E2a behind screens References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Stevenson wrote: > > I wrote : > >Yes, but this is the most strange thing of it : with screens, this > >situation can only arise if the offenders are north-south (work it out - > >of course with the screen NW to SE), so the rule is advantageous to EW > >!!! > > OK, Herman, I have tried to work it out ... and failed. OK, here goes : (Screen NW to SE) S declarer - W leads - dummy spreads - W has gotten wrong explanation of dummy - director !! but : E declarer - S leads - W is dummy - South sees the cards that were explained to him on his side. Even if there has been a wrong explanation - this cannot be found out at this stage - so there is never case for Law 47E2a. This would not be so bad if the penalty were not so severe : the lead can now be retracted, knowing dummy !! Without screens this is not so bad. Dummy was obliged to correct the explanation. He didn't - tough. But with screens you do not know that partner has misexplained, so how could you correct ? Actually I must share the credit with Richard Bley - we discovered this problem during a late evening beer outing in Oostende last month. -- Herman DE WAEL E-Mail HermanDW@innet.be Michel Willemslaan 40 tel ++32.3.827.64.45 B-2610 WILRIJK (Antwerpen) fax ++32.3.825.29.19 Belgium http://www.club.innet.be/~pub02163/index.htm From owner-bridge-laws Wed May 22 00:31:19 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA08382 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 22 May 1996 00:31:19 +1000 Received: from andrew.cais.com (andrew.cais.com [199.0.216.215]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id AAA08377 for ; Wed, 22 May 1996 00:31:13 +1000 Received: from cais3.cais.com (cais3.cais.com [199.0.216.227]) by andrew.cais.com (8.6.9/8.6.9) with SMTP id KAA04175 for ; Tue, 21 May 1996 10:31:08 -0400 Date: Tue, 21 May 1996 10:31:08 -0400 (EDT) From: Eric Landau Reply-To: Eric Landau To: Bridge Laws Discussion List Subject: Re: UI from questions not asked In-Reply-To: <9605202131.AA03214@cfa183.harvard.edu> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Mon, 20 May 1996, Steve Willner wrote: > I don't think it makes a difference today, but it did under the 1975 > Laws. If UI came from a normal question and answer or other entirely > proper actions, the restrictions were much less severe than if the > UI came from an irregularity or denigrated conduct (e.g. partner's > hesitation). You couldn't do something weird that could _only_ have > been suggested by UI, but you could take any normal action without > "bending over backwards." Quite correct, except that the interpretation you describe was under the 1963 (and previous) laws; the change was made in 1975. > That sort of rule strikes me as fair and useful, and I don't know > why it was dropped. I'm not sure it was dropped -- and I think, to a large extent, that's what's at issue in the current debate. It's quite clear that the 1975 mods made the "rule" (interpretation, actually) inapplicable to methods inquiries, but not at all clear whether it precluded it for other situations. > This is a reasonable point of view, but I don't think everyone would > agree. The change in the current Laws from 1975 would seem to argue > that even perfectly proper information may still be unauthorized. The > obvious example is partner's correct answer to an opponent's question. > That is not in any way an irregularity, but it is still UI. Yes, but it's an explicit exception; Law 75 now goes out of its way to dictate that such knowledge is UI. I suggest that the very fact that Law 75 explicitly makes it UI supports the argument that did it not do so, it would not (or could be interpreted not to) be UI under Law 16. I find Steve's first point compelling; until this explicit exception was written into Law 75, such knowledge was NOT considered UI under Law 16. > I think an adjustment would have been possible. To what? Are you really suggesting that situations should exist (even theoretically) in which, when partner maintains a perfect tempo, one is obligated to bend over backwards to select the bid they would have made if partner had huddled? And that such situations can and should be adjudicated by TDs/ACs? That seems a bit far out. > Quite likely but not certain. Some committees would apply the "Rule of > Coincidence." They probably would, but they'd be wrong. The rule of coincidence is an (arguable) interpretation of Law 40.B; violations of it are considered to constitute "concealed partnership understandings." It has nothing to do with UI, and can be violated when UI is not at issue. > Partner misbid, she fielded it, hence there "must" have > been UI, even if we cannot tell what it was. The score is rather less > likely to be adjusted than in, say, a blatant hesitation case, but the > possibility exists. And this, of course, is the philosophical point at the heart of the ongoing debate. Others are prepared to accept the validity of "Partner misbid, she fielded it, hence there must have been UI." I am not. > Yes. Another example mentioned in The Bridge World hinged on "four > NOTRUMP" versus "FOUR notrump." In practice, that case was not > adjudicated, though (in retrospect) it probably should have been. This has no bearing on the point at issue. Varying inflection is a clear irregularity, and covered explicitly by Law 16 ("a player makes available to his partner... information... by means of... special emphasis, tone... or the like." It's directly analogous to an "unmistakable hesitation." > No, only lucky guesses that correspond to _partner's_ also having done > something funny. Right again. I'm arguing that not asking one's opponents about their methods does not constitute "doing something funny." I'm arguing that maintaining an even tempo does not constitute "doing something funny." If those can qualify as "having done something funny" then the subordinate clause in Steve's statement has no force whatsoever, and he might just as well have written, "No, only lucky guesses." It sounds to me like he's agreeing with my fundamental point, which is that you should not adjust for UI UNLESS the PARTNER of the person who made the lucky guess HAS done something funny. > As you say, there is a very slippery slope here. In this example, it's > not at all clear whether your "hunch" came from partner's or declarer's > demeanor. I wouldn't think of adjusting unless there were an identifiable > act by your partner that might have been a clue. (I suspect David > Stevenson's view might differ.) In the first case, though, it was > _partner's_ hand that was odd, and if there was a clue, it's over- > whelmingly likely it came from partner. And if partner's hand was odd, but there was no clue? It's the same point again: the debate is over whether, in cases where no particular clue can be identified but the bidder "guessed" to take the winning action, we should or should not presume that there must have been some clue that we could not identify. Again, it seems as though Steve is agreeing with me that we should not. > Kaplan gives a rather humorous example. Partner psyches, and you field > it. Adjust the score. It's overwhelmingly likely that you had UI or > that your agreements were not as stated. If, however, RHO asked lots > of questions, thereby indicating a good hand, and LHO was staring at > the (now removed) "Frequent Psyches" marked on your convention card, > score stands. (Kaplan's version of this is much better than mine, > but I hope the point comes across.) Successfully fielded psyches (absent legitimate information which "allows" you to determine that partner psyched, as Kaplan says) are the classic "rule of coincidence" cases. They are adjudicated as "agreements were not as stated" cases, not as "you had UI" cases. > I don't see how one can maintain that _the present rules_ require an > (identifiable) irregularity for there to be an adjustment. One may, > of course, advocate that the rules _ought_ to say that. I do so maintain, and offer a proof by induction: Assume that a committee has granted an adjustment. They must have made an adjudication which arrived at that adjustment. They only adjudicate player appeals, so someone appealed. That appeal had to be an appeal of a ruling made by a TD. So a TD must have made a ruling. That means that someone must have called the TD and requested a ruling. The TD is to be called (for a ruling) only when the player has reason to believe that there may have been an irregularity. So there must have been something which consituted, if not an irregularity, at least an alleged irregularity. If the committee ultimately decides that the allegation is false, the causal chain is broken, and they must rule in favor of the "non-alleging" side. By this reasoning, if it's legitimate for a committee to adjust a score when there has been no irregularity, it must be legitimate to start the adjustment process by calling the TD even though one does not allege that there has been an irregularity. If that's legitimate, then it must be legitimate (and is probably a winning strategy) to call the TD every time the opponents get a good result, in the hope that the TD or AC will find some hidden or presumptive infraction that doesn't require an identifiable irregularity to exist. Eric Landau APL Solutions, Inc. elandau@cais.com 1107 Dale Drive (301) 589-4621 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 USA From owner-bridge-laws Wed May 22 00:36:30 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA08797 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 22 May 1996 00:36:30 +1000 Received: from mail.be.innet.net (mail.be.innet.net [194.7.1.8]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id AAA08778 for ; Wed, 22 May 1996 00:36:23 +1000 Received: from innet.innet.be (pool03-75.innet.be [194.7.10.59]) by mail.be.innet.net (8.7.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id QAA25940 for ; Tue, 21 May 1996 16:36:15 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <31A1BFF9.51F2@innet.be> Date: Tue, 21 May 1996 13:07:05 +0000 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.0 (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Rule of Coincidence (was: UI from partner) References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Jens Brix Christiansen wrote: > Jens Brix Christiansen, (Denmark: 56N, 13E) Is this a reference to my 'addresses please' ? In which case, thank you ! -- Herman DE WAEL From owner-bridge-laws Wed May 22 00:36:37 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA08811 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 22 May 1996 00:36:37 +1000 Received: from mail.be.innet.net (mail.be.innet.net [194.7.1.8]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id AAA08796 for ; Wed, 22 May 1996 00:36:29 +1000 Received: from innet.innet.be (pool03-75.innet.be [194.7.10.59]) by mail.be.innet.net (8.7.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id QAA25946 for ; Tue, 21 May 1996 16:36:19 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <31A1C1F0.5764@innet.be> Date: Tue, 21 May 1996 13:15:28 +0000 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.0 (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Rule of Coincidence (was: UI from partner) References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Jens Brix Christiansen wrote: (this one IS a serious reply) > > I understand that the reasoning behind the RoC is that > the "fielding" could be based on UI or on an undisclosed > de facto partnership agreement; the TD does not know > exactly which is the case (or in fact whether a true > coincidence has taken place); but the mere coincidence > is treated as if it were an irregularity that allows (requires?) > the TD to redress any damage to the opponents by means > of an adjusted score. > I think it is very strange when a psyche is fielded. How often do you psyche ? Once in a thousand deals ? Fielding a psyche would mean that partner also does something *strange*. He can do that also once in a thousand deals. To coincidentally do this on the same deal would be a million-to-one odd. I do not believe in this kind of coincidence. So I ask the fielding player whyever he did this. He has no good explanation. He cannot point to any Authorized Info. He does not want to admit UI of course, so I just rule against him. I think I have followed my own director's logic. I do not need a RoC. But of course this is exactly what the RoC says. So I suggest to just leave the RoC for what it is : a shortcut of saying : I do not believe in this coincidence. > > I was (chief) director at the WBF Junior Swiss Pairs > championships a few years back, where > a committee chaired by Bobby Wolff overruled me by > means of the RoC; unfortunately the RoC did not seem > applicable from my point of view, and Bobby Wolff then > spent 5 minutes preaching the "thou shalt not psyche" gospel > to the players, who were left with the impression that > psyching is illegal in WBF tournaments. This incident > labeled the RoC in my mind as primarily a political > instrument of the "psyching is not bridge" movement. > If a psyche was fielded, it probably was not a real psyche, but a hidden part of a partnership's system. You would need to tell us the complete story (no, don't) to decide on what Mr Wolff was actually saying. -- Herman DE WAEL E-Mail HermanDW@innet.be Michel Willemslaan 40 tel ++32.3.827.64.45 B-2610 WILRIJK (Antwerpen) fax ++32.3.825.29.19 Belgium http://www.club.innet.be/~pub02163/index.htm From owner-bridge-laws Wed May 22 00:47:10 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA09030 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 22 May 1996 00:47:10 +1000 Received: from andrew.cais.com (andrew.cais.com [199.0.216.215]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id AAA09024 for ; Wed, 22 May 1996 00:47:04 +1000 Received: from cais3.cais.com (cais3.cais.com [199.0.216.227]) by andrew.cais.com (8.6.9/8.6.9) with SMTP id KAA05179 for ; Tue, 21 May 1996 10:47:00 -0400 Date: Tue, 21 May 1996 10:47:00 -0400 (EDT) From: Eric Landau To: Bridge Laws Discussion List Subject: Re: Asking questions for partner In-Reply-To: <199605202156.OAA04124@tintin.JPL.NASA.GOV> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Mon, 20 May 1996, Jeff Goldsmith wrote: > For reasons of giving redress, that's almost true. > In fact, listening to it is required by law so that > one can fail to take advantage of it if it is present. That's a rather strange statement. It says that if an opponent indicates that he has a number of questions to ask of my partner, and I take advantage of the impending hiatus to go to the washroom, then should I, upon returning to the table, make a bid which might have been suggested (in the abstract) by partner's replies, I am deemed to have committed an infraction, even though everyone agrees partner's replies couldn't have suggested anything TO ME, since everyone agrees that I didn't hear them. What if I fail to fulfill my legal obligation to "listen to it" because it was given in writing behind a screen? Eric Landau APL Solutions, Inc. elandau@cais.com 1107 Dale Drive (301) 589-4621 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 USA From owner-bridge-laws Wed May 22 01:02:00 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA09179 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 22 May 1996 01:02:00 +1000 Received: from cabra.cri.dk (cabra.cri.dk [130.227.48.5]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id BAA09173 for ; Wed, 22 May 1996 01:01:23 +1000 X-Organization: Computer Resources International A/S, Bregneroedvej 144, DK-3460 Birkeroed, Denmark Received: from nov.cri.dk (nov.cri.dk [130.227.50.162]) by cabra.cri.dk (8.6.12/8.6.10) with SMTP id QAA25637 for ; Tue, 21 May 1996 16:59:41 +0200 Received: from CRI-Message_Server by nov.cri.dk with Novell_GroupWise; Tue, 21 May 1996 16:59:35 +0200 Message-Id: X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise 4.1 Date: Tue, 21 May 1996 16:59:21 +0200 From: Jens Brix Christiansen To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Rule of Coincidence (was: UI from partner) Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk >>> Herman De Wael 21.05.96 15:15 >>> If a psyche was fielded, it probably was not a real psyche, but a hidden part of a partnership's system. You would need to tell us the complete story (no, don't) to decide on what Mr Wolff was actually saying. +++ I won't tell you the complete story, since it distracts from the purpose of this thread. The point was, I guess, that I had ruled that the psyche was not fielded, and still don't think it was. Jens Brix Christiansen, Denmark From owner-bridge-laws Wed May 22 01:40:02 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA09410 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 22 May 1996 01:40:02 +1000 Received: from andrew.cais.com (andrew.cais.com [199.0.216.215]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id BAA09405 for ; Wed, 22 May 1996 01:39:55 +1000 Received: from cais3.cais.com (cais3.cais.com [199.0.216.227]) by andrew.cais.com (8.6.9/8.6.9) with SMTP id LAA07580 for ; Tue, 21 May 1996 11:39:51 -0400 Date: Tue, 21 May 1996 11:39:51 -0400 (EDT) From: Eric Landau To: Bridge Laws Discussion List Subject: Re: Rule of Coincidence (was: UI from partner) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Tue, 21 May 1996, Jens Brix Christiansen wrote: > I am starting a new thread here, taking off from some > of Steve's comments that if partner misbids > and you "field" it, then adjustment can be made based > on the rule of coincidence (RoC -- no connection to > Taiwan intended). > > I understand that the reasoning behind the RoC is that > the "fielding" could be based on UI or on an undisclosed > de facto partnership agreement; the TD does not know > exactly which is the case (or in fact whether a true > coincidence has taken place); but the mere coincidence > is treated as if it were an irregularity that allows (requires?) > the TD to redress any damage to the opponents by means > of an adjusted score. My understanding of the RoC is that the original rationale for it had to do with presuming "undisclosed de facto partnership agreement" specifically, not with presuming UI. Confusion may have arisen because, obviously, an undisclosed agreement is literal UI (it is information; it is unauthorized). But its justification derives from Law 40, not from Law 16. It was, as Jens says, developed in response to a perceived "psyching problem," and is historically closely related to Mr. Wolff's and the ACBL's view, now accepted interpretation of law in the ACBL, that two psychs with the same partner in similar situations consitute a presumptive undisclosed de facto partnership agreement. > Of course, the RoC was designed to keep players who > psyche "honest" (which is not the same as preventing > psyches). In theory not the same. But the ACBL's rules (and the interpretation of the Laws which permits them) nominally "designed to keep players who psych 'honest'" are so Draconian that Edgar Kaplan has summarized them in print as "It's perfectly legal to psych provided you never do it." > In Denmark, we do not use the RoC. Although I did not > explicitly check, I believe that the European Bridge League > also does not use the RoC; perhaps David could check > with Max Bavin? As far as I know, only the ACBL has officially sanctioned the RoC. > I was (chief) director at the WBF Junior Swiss Pairs > championships a few years back, where > a committee chaired by Bobby Wolff overruled me by > means of the RoC; unfortunately the RoC did not seem > applicable from my point of view, and Bobby Wolff then > spent 5 minutes preaching the "thou shalt not psyche" gospel > to the players, who were left with the impression that > psyching is illegal in WBF tournaments. Which is precisely the impression that (at least the original) proponents of the RoC would like everyone to have, despite pious but empty statements to the contrary made only to rationalize away the apparent illegality (from Law 40.A) of the ACBL's "real" stance. > This incident > labeled the RoC in my mind as primarily a political > instrument of the "psyching is not bridge" movement. You were right on target; that's exactly what it was and still is... > Since then, my disgust has worn off somewhat, and I > see merit in the RoC, especially the way Steve suggests > it might be applied to players who field partners misbid. ...but just because it's being used as a political instrument by the anti-psych crowd doesn't necessarily mean that it's without any intrinsic merit. Good deeds can arise from bad motives. > So, let me know: Who uses the RoC? Who abuses the > RoC? Is it possible to arrive at a somewhat harmonized > attitude towards the RoC? Should I recommend its use > to the Danish Laws and Appeals Committee? IMHO, far too many misguided TDs and ACs, most of them, yes, but why would one want to?, and no, respectively. But that's just MHO. > And, maybe especially addressed to Eric, is the RoC > in conflict with the letter or the spirit of the Laws? Personally, I don't like the RoC, and would "vote" that is indeed in conflict with the spirit, if not necessarily the letter, of the Laws. (Even if the letter of the Laws don't preclude it, though, they certainly don't require it.) But the people who would vote for it do make some cogent arguments, and, my personal opinion notwithstanding, I'd have to say that the jury is still out. On the other hand, my understanding is that applying it to pure Law 16.A cases, when there is no issue of a possible concealed understanding, is not only inappropriate under the Laws, but inappropriate under the RoC itself. Eric Landau APL Solutions, Inc. elandau@cais.com 1107 Dale Drive (301) 589-4621 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 USA From owner-bridge-laws Wed May 22 02:20:13 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA09703 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 22 May 1996 02:20:13 +1000 Received: from VNET.IBM.COM (vnet.ibm.com [199.171.26.4]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id CAA09698 for ; Wed, 22 May 1996 02:20:06 +1000 Message-Id: <199605211620.CAA09698@octavia.anu.edu.au> Received: from RCHVMX2 by VNET.IBM.COM (IBM VM SMTP V2R3) with BSMTP id 9734; Tue, 21 May 96 12:19:50 EDT Date: Tue, 21 May 96 11:08:35 CDT From: "Kent Burghard" To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Rule of Coincidence (was: UI from partner) Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In-Reply-To: Here, for the record, is the ACBL regulation describing the Rule of Coincidence used in ACBL sanctioned events. It comes from the ACBL home page at address: http://www.acbl.org/~acbl/regulations/ethics.htm#Coincidence |__ tilde ------------------------------------------------------------------- RULE OF COINCIDENCE The convention card is expected to reflect conventional agreements and should also display partnership style wherever possible. For example, a partnership that lists a 15 to 17 point notrump range and tends to open most 14 point hands in third seat with one notrump has mismarked the convention card. You should indicate (14)15-17 on the card. There is no infraction just because an opponent makes a call which does not match the stated conventional agreements. A player has a right to deviate from announced partnership agreements provided his partner has no awareness of the possibility of deviation. However, whenever his partner's responding action is also unexpected (and successful), there is evidence that such an awareness may exist. The following combination of overbid and underbid is an example of the Rule of Coincidence. East, whose card is marked 15-17, opens one notrump with a balanced 14, West with 10 points decides to bid only 2NT and eight tricks are the maximum available. This "lucky coincidence" is the result of two improbably actions which, in combination, "work". It is a violation of regulation and is subject to a score adjustment on its face. The Rule of Coincidence could also apply to passing partner's forcing bid when he clearly didn't have the values for a forcing bid, underbidding one's values when partner has psyched, and so on. The Rule of Coincidence allows "automatic" score adjustments when these infractions occur. The acting side must convince the director or committee that their actions were actually normal or that they lack the bridge experience to know they were making unusual bids. If the director or opposing side feels it is appropriate, a player memo (recorder form) may be submitted to the appropriate body. Please don't be unreasonable in applying the Rule of Coincidence. Everyone has different skill levels and card judgment. Most important is that inexperienced players be treated with consideration. They are exercising their best judgment, have no intention of do ing anything wrong and DO NOT fall under the jurisdiction of the Rule of Coincidence. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Kent Burghard ACBL Board of Govenors Rochester, Minnesota, USA home: burghard@worldnet.att.net work: burghard@vnet.ibm.com From owner-bridge-laws Wed May 22 02:26:50 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA09758 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 22 May 1996 02:26:50 +1000 Received: from emout18.mail.aol.com (emout18.mx.aol.com [198.81.11.44]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id CAA09750 for ; Wed, 22 May 1996 02:26:45 +1000 From: AlLeBendig@aol.com Received: by emout18.mail.aol.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) id MAA09647 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Tue, 21 May 1996 12:26:11 -0400 Date: Tue, 21 May 1996 12:26:11 -0400 Message-ID: <960521122610_118053320@emout18.mail.aol.com> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: UI from questions not asked Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In a message dated 96-05-20 17:42:03 EDT, Steve Willner writes: >Kaplan gives a rather humorous example. Partner psyches, and you field >it. Adjust the score. It's overwhelmingly likely that you had UI or >that your agreements were not as stated. If, however, RHO asked lots >of questions, thereby indicating a good hand, and LHO was staring at >the (now removed) "Frequent Psyches" marked on your convention card, >score stands. (Kaplan's version of this is much better than mine, >but I hope the point comes across.) The point he made is excellent. If the opponents reaction tells you something has gone wrong, it is certainly legal to make an assumption based on their reaction. Without help from them, you are getting into murky waters if you field the psyche. >I don't see how one can maintain that _the present rules_ require an >(identifiable) irregularity for there to be an adjustment. One may, >of course, advocate that the rules _ought_ to say that. I am really uncomfortable going in this direction. Any such thought process could easily lead to a discussion of an adjustment every time someone does something good. We'll have someone screaming UI after every bad result and we'll be listening to the screams! That is absurd. Bridge lends itself to brilliance and we must accept that fact. Without an identifiable irregularity, I am not willing to discuss an adjustment in most cases. (A fielded psyche is another matter. The potential for UI there is huge.) Alan LeBendig Los Angeles From owner-bridge-laws Wed May 22 02:26:55 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA09774 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 22 May 1996 02:26:55 +1000 Received: from emout16.mail.aol.com (emout16.mx.aol.com [198.81.11.42]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id CAA09756 for ; Wed, 22 May 1996 02:26:48 +1000 From: AlLeBendig@aol.com Received: by emout16.mail.aol.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) id MAA06781 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Tue, 21 May 1996 12:26:09 -0400 Date: Tue, 21 May 1996 12:26:09 -0400 Message-ID: <960521122608_118053298@emout16.mail.aol.com> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Unauthorized Information(Americam spelling) Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In a message dated 96-05-20 00:26:47 EDT, Leslie West (MALE) writes: >Setting the scene: First time partnership; Life Masters Pairs( 2nd best >pair event in the USA - 6 sessions with cuts after the 1st & 2nd day); we >are playing the auction 1NT P 2NT is a puppet to 3C showing either a club >bust (pass) or a 4 by 1 hand with at least game-going values( 3D, 3H, 3S, >3NT, 4C. The 1st 3 bids are the short suit, the last 2 show club >shortness with 3NT the weaker); we play the same system after 1NT >overcalls; we play both of the above by a passed hand; neither has come >up in our patnership. > >You hold: Kx > AQJx > Axx > Kxxx > >The auction procedes: Pass by partner, 1 club on your right and I will >impose 1NT upon you. It continues pass on your left, 2NT by partner & you >alert, of course. There has been NOTHING exceptional to this point. No >hesitations . No questions about the alert. No double takes from anyone. >Nothing. However, I am sure partner has forgotten our system. There has >been nothing about the opponents actions, or from the auction or prior >experience with this partner that would lead me to this conclusion. But I >would bet the ranch on it (if I had a ranch). > >Can I follow my hunch? No, IMHO, because however I got my hunch, it >MUST be UI. > >RHO passes & i, perforce, bid 3C. Alert from partner, And here we have a problem that no one else has mentioned yet. Why did partner alert? Partner intended 2NT as natural and now hears his partner bid 3C. The only reason partner alerted is a reaction to your alert. Had partner not heard your alert (and explanation?) he would have been able to work out that something had gone wrong because the auction cannot exist. However, partner is not supposed to alert just because you have. I have always felt this rule makes it very difficult for the players involved to ignore the UI of partner's failure to alert when they should have expected one. In effect, you switched tracks and partner followed you even though he is not permitted to. Had partner failed to alert 3C (proper), and now bid 3NT, you should have never been permitted to pass. You were now in possession of UI from the failure to alert 3C. An adjustment to 4H would have been made. I would now allow your partner to bid 4NT with most normal hands since he is allowed to realize from the bidding that something has gone terribly wrong. For the same reason I would allow you to pass 4NT. Some situations require you to commit suicide; this is not one of them. >pass from LHO. Pard >continues 3NT (showing 4 by 1 with a stiff club & 10 - 11 HCPs. I alert, >RHO passes & once again I stop to consider. Whatever vibrations I have >gotten must still not be usable, so I have no choice but to bid 4H. > >That ends the auction. Now the opponents ask & I explain what systemicaly >has occured. It sounds like pard did not think this agreement applied here. Therefore your alerts and explanation(s) constitute MI since pard was playing something else. After the final pass, pard is obligated to clarify that he thought 2NT was natural and invitational. >The OL is made; dummy tables with the expected balanced 9 >count & 3 hearts. The opponents never ask why dummy differs from my >explanation & I go on to achieve a good result in an abnormal spot. > >In reviewing the hand after the session, I came to the conclusion that >what set off all the alarm bells was not the presence of something but >rather its absence: break in tempo before partner's 2NT call. It was too >much in perfect tempo and my subconsious picked up on it. As others have pointed out, you did the proper thing once you were aware that you had been "tipped off". Since neither opponent noticed anything, I seriously doubt if there could have been any serious effort made to adjust the result if you had passed or bid 3NT and it had corresponded to partner's hand. If the case had been brought to an AC I was on, I would have suspected some type of UI but with none identified I would have felt I could not adjust. I think very few would have been as ethical as you were. It could have been explained away as a "tendency" (partner frequently forgets this auction) of partner which is legal information for you to have. Alan LeBendig Los Angeles From owner-bridge-laws Wed May 22 02:26:56 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA09777 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 22 May 1996 02:26:56 +1000 Received: from emout08.mail.aol.com (emout08.mx.aol.com [198.81.11.23]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id CAA09757 for ; Wed, 22 May 1996 02:26:49 +1000 From: AlLeBendig@aol.com Received: by emout08.mail.aol.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) id MAA01119 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Tue, 21 May 1996 12:26:16 -0400 Date: Tue, 21 May 1996 12:26:16 -0400 Message-ID: <960521122616_118053350@emout08.mail.aol.com> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Rule of Coincidence (was: UI from partner) Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In a message dated 96-05-21 04:15:24 EDT, Jens writes: >Subj: Rule of Coincidence (was: UI from partner) >Date: 96-05-21 04:15:24 EDT >From: JBC@nov.cri.dk (Jens Brix Christiansen) >Sender: owner-bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au >To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au > >I am starting a new thread here, taking off from some >of Steve's comments that if partner misbids >and you "field" it, then adjustment can be made based >on the rule of coincidence (RoC -- no connection to >Taiwan intended). > >I understand that the reasoning behind the RoC is that >the "fielding" could be based on UI or on an undisclosed >de facto partnership agreement; the TD does not know >exactly which is the case (or in fact whether a true >coincidence has taken place); but the mere coincidence >is treated as if it were an irregularity that allows (requires?) >the TD to redress any damage to the opponents by means >of an adjusted score. > >Of course, the RoC was designed to keep players who >psyche "honest" (which is not the same as preventing >psyches). If everyone will tolerate this, I will reproduce the Rule of Coincidence as it appears in the ACBL Active Ethics Manual: "An integral part of the new regulations is called the 'Rule of Coincidence'. Let us illustrate it with contrasting examples: Situation one: South opens a 12-14 1NT with a 4-3-3-3 11 count. North raises to 3NT with 13 HCP. Whether the contract makes or goes down, no adjustment can be given. North bid his cards normally; South exercised his right to make any bid he wished. The problem arises if South has any history of opening 1NT out of the stated range. If that does happen occaisionally, then the card should be marked (11) 12-14, to indicate that 1NT is occaisionally opened with only 11 HCP. We are NOT referring to opening a good 11 such as AT8 K9 KJT8x xxx with 1NT. Players have the right to reasonable minor variances [these 3 words are italicized] in stated point count ranges. Situation two: South opens a 12-14 1NT with a 4-3-3-3 11 count and N passes with 12 HCP. This 'lucky coincidence' is, all by itself, a violation. It is called 'concomitant unusual actions'; that is, two improbable actions which in combination 'work'. In this example it was a combination of overbid and underbid. The Rule of Coincidence could also apply to passing partner's forcing bid when he clearly didn't have the values for a forcing bid. The purpose of the Rule of Coincidence is to allow 'automatic' score adjustment when the infractions occur. The opposing side does NOT have to go to committee or accuse the other pair of cheating. The burden of proof is on the acting side, who must convince a Director or Committee that their actions were actually normal or that they lack the bridge experience to know they were making unusual bids. If a Director or the opposing side feels it is appropriate, a recorder form can be filled out and submitted to the Tournament Recorder. Please DON'T be unreasonable in applying the Rule of Coincidence to your opponents.[Entire sentence italicized.] Everyone has different skill and card judgement. Also, inexperienced players should be handled with care since they are almost always exercising the best judgement they know with no intent to do anything wrong. END OF RoC. >In Denmark, we do not use the RoC. Although I did not >explicitly check, I believe that the European Bridge League >also does not use the RoC; perhaps David could check >with Max Bavin? > >I was (chief) director at the WBF Junior Swiss Pairs >championships a few years back, where >a committee chaired by Bobby Wolff overruled me by >means of the RoC; unfortunately the RoC did not seem >applicable from my point of view, and Bobby Wolff then >spent 5 minutes preaching the "thou shalt not psyche" gospel >to the players, who were left with the impression that >psyching is illegal in WBF tournaments. This incident >labeled the RoC in my mind as primarily a political >instrument of the "psyching is not bridge" movement. > >Since then, my disgust has worn off somewhat, and I >see merit in the RoC, especially the way Steve suggests >it might be applied to players who field partners misbid. It was not intended to apply to fielding misbids. >So, let me know: Who uses the RoC? Who abuses the >RoC? Is it possible to arrive at a somewhat harmonized >attitude towards the RoC? Should I recommend its use >to the Danish Laws and Appeals Committee? I have seen it abused by committees. It was intended to have a limited scope and has been missapplied on more than one occasion that I am aware of. >And, maybe especially addressed to Eric, is the RoC >in conflict with the letter or the spirit of the Laws? EK originally expressed the opinion that the RoC was indeed illegal. I suggested that, if properly applied, it was a practical application of L16B. There have been no further objections that I am aware of. That's not to say there has not been some occasional grumbling. My personal belief is that it is a good "rule". I know Jon Brissman is lurking somewhere. Since he was instrumental in the drafting of the Active Ethics Manual, perhaps he could get involved in this discussion. Alan LeBendig Los Angeles From owner-bridge-laws Wed May 22 03:53:55 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA10179 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 22 May 1996 03:53:55 +1000 Received: from shell.monmouth.com (root@shell.monmouth.com [205.164.220.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id DAA10164 for ; Wed, 22 May 1996 03:53:46 +1000 Received: from lhost.monmouth.com (ppp35.monmouth.com [205.164.220.67]) by shell.monmouth.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id NAA14182 for ; Tue, 21 May 1996 13:49:53 -0400 Message-Id: <199605211749.NAA14182@shell.monmouth.com> Comments: Authenticated sender is From: "reha gur" To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Tue, 21 May 1996 13:45:36 +0000 Subject: Re: Rule of Coincidence (was: UI from partner) Priority: normal X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v2.10) Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Eric Landau wrote: > On Tue, 21 May 1996, Jens Brix Christiansen wrote: ... > > Of course, the RoC was designed to keep players who > > psyche "honest" (which is not the same as preventing > > psyches). > > In theory not the same. But the ACBL's rules (and the interpretation of > the Laws which permits them) nominally "designed to keep players who psych > 'honest'" are so Draconian that Edgar Kaplan has summarized them in print > as "It's perfectly legal to psych provided you never do it." ... Yes, the ACBL's rules on psyches are too harsh. But one of the biggest problems I see with loosening up the rules is the "obligatory" psyches -- 2H-(x)-2S. Beginning players would rarely, if ever, work this one out. On the other hand, it should be legal to try to pick off the opponents' suit as often as you want. But is it "too easy" when you know that your side has little constructive prospects? Stefanie Rohan From owner-bridge-laws Wed May 22 05:32:32 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA18358 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 22 May 1996 05:32:32 +1000 Received: from pip.dknet.dk (root@pip.dknet.dk [193.88.44.48]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id FAA18352 for ; Wed, 22 May 1996 05:32:21 +1000 Received: from cph1.pip.dknet.dk (cph1.pip.dknet.dk [194.192.0.33]) by pip.dknet.dk (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id VAA28019 for ; Tue, 21 May 1996 21:29:52 +0200 From: jd@pip.dknet.dk (Jesper Dybdal) To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Unauthorized Information(Americam spelling) Date: Tue, 21 May 1996 19:29:29 GMT Organization: at home Message-ID: <31a1f24d.2772837@pipmail.dknet.dk> References: <960521122608_118053298@emout16.mail.aol.com> In-Reply-To: <960521122608_118053298@emout16.mail.aol.com> X-Mailer: Forte Agent .99e/32.227 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Tue, 21 May 1996 12:26:09 -0400, AlLeBendig@aol.com wrote: >And here we have a problem that no one else has mentioned yet. Why did >partner alert? Partner intended 2NT as natural and now hears his partner bid >3C. The only reason partner alerted is a reaction to your alert. Yes. Partner has a duty to alert according to his system, even though he has UI that means that he must continue to _bid_ according to his previous misunderstanding. >Had >partner not heard your alert (and explanation?) he would have been able to >work out that something had gone wrong because the auction cannot exist. > However, partner is not supposed to alert just because you have. I have >always felt this rule makes it very difficult for the players involved to >ignore the UI of partner's failure to alert when they should have expected >one. In effect, you switched tracks and partner followed you even though he >is not permitted to. > >Had partner failed to alert 3C (proper), and now bid 3NT, you should have >never been permitted to pass. You were now in possession of UI from the >failure to alert 3C. An adjustment to 4H would have been made. I would now >allow your partner to bid 4NT with most normal hands since he is allowed to >realize from the bidding that something has gone terribly wrong. For the >same reason I would allow you to pass 4NT. Some situations require you to >commit suicide; this is not one of them. > >>pass from LHO. Pard >>continues 3NT (showing 4 by 1 with a stiff club & 10 - 11 HCPs. I alert, >>RHO passes & once again I stop to consider. Whatever vibrations I have >>gotten must still not be usable, so I have no choice but to bid 4H. >> >>That ends the auction. Now the opponents ask & I explain what systemicaly >>has occured. > >It sounds like pard did not think this agreement applied here. Therefore >your alerts and explanation(s) constitute MI since pard was playing something >else. After the final pass, pard is obligated to clarify that he thought 2NT >was natural and invitational. This depends on the system. If partner, hearing the alert of 2NT, realizes that 2NT is clearly artificial according to his system and that he has misbid, then he has a duty to explain/alert according to the system, but bid on as if 2NT is natural. I find this rule very reasonable, including the fact that he will not have to give his partner UI by not alerting 3C. And he certainly does not have a duty to tell his opponents that he has misbid (I have read of people believing that he should do so as an element of "active ethics", and I am very strongly opposed to that view - if I misbid, I certainly want my slight chance of success through the opponents' misconception of my hand, just as if I had psyched deliberately). If, on the other hand, he still believes that 2NT is natural in the system, then his partner has alerted 2NT incorrectly; he must then of course not alert 3C (provided it is natural in the system), and he must correct the wrong alert. If the system is not clearly agreed, I believe that he should still alert, and, if asked, explain that there is no clear agreement in this situation but that in certain related situations the agreements are .. >As others have pointed out, you did the proper thing once you were aware that >you had been "tipped off". Since neither opponent noticed anything, I >seriously doubt if there could have been any serious effort made to adjust >the result if you had passed or bid 3NT and it had corresponded to partner's >hand. If the case had been brought to an AC I was on, I would have suspected >some type of UI but with none identified I would have felt I could not >adjust. I think very few would have been as ethical as you were. It could >have been explained away as a "tendency" (partner frequently forgets this >auction) of partner which is legal information for you to have. This is a case of perfect ethics. But I don't find it so hard to do; after all, not behaving ethically here involves violating your system deliberately, mistrusting a partner who actually might have his bid. If partner forgets his system so frequently that you assume it for no identifiable reason other than his tendency to forget, then the system agreements that must be provided for the opponents are "we try to play ..., but he forgets it so often that it can just as well be natural". --- Jesper Dybdal From owner-bridge-laws Wed May 22 05:49:10 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA18471 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 22 May 1996 05:49:10 +1000 Received: from andrew.cais.com (andrew.cais.com [199.0.216.215]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id FAA18465 for ; Wed, 22 May 1996 05:49:03 +1000 Received: from cais3.cais.com (cais3.cais.com [199.0.216.227]) by andrew.cais.com (8.6.9/8.6.9) with SMTP id PAA19012 for ; Tue, 21 May 1996 15:48:53 -0400 Date: Tue, 21 May 1996 15:48:53 -0400 (EDT) From: Eric Landau To: Bridge Laws Discussion List Subject: Apology In-Reply-To: <960521122608_118053298@emout16.mail.aol.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Tue, 21 May 1996 AlLeBendig@aol.com wrote: > In a message dated 96-05-20 00:26:47 EDT, Leslie West (MALE) writes: This is a humble and public apology to Mr. West for the post in which I mistakenly referred to him repeatedly as "she." Leslie, if we've ever met, I am truly abject. /eric Eric Landau APL Solutions, Inc. elandau@cais.com 1107 Dale Drive (301) 589-4621 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 USA From owner-bridge-laws Wed May 22 06:11:08 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA18583 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 22 May 1996 06:11:08 +1000 Received: from andrew.cais.com (andrew.cais.com [199.0.216.215]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id GAA18578 for ; Wed, 22 May 1996 06:11:02 +1000 Received: from cais3.cais.com (cais3.cais.com [199.0.216.227]) by andrew.cais.com (8.6.9/8.6.9) with SMTP id QAA19663 for ; Tue, 21 May 1996 16:10:57 -0400 Date: Tue, 21 May 1996 16:10:57 -0400 (EDT) From: Eric Landau To: Bridge Laws Discussion List Subject: Re: Unauthorized Information(Americam spelling) In-Reply-To: <960521122608_118053298@emout16.mail.aol.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Tue, 21 May 1996 AlLeBendig@aol.com wrote: > And here we have a problem that no one else has mentioned yet. Why did > partner alert? Partner intended 2NT as natural and now hears his partner bid > 3C. The only reason partner alerted is a reaction to your alert. Had > partner not heard your alert (and explanation?) he would have been able to > work out that something had gone wrong because the auction cannot exist. > However, partner is not supposed to alert just because you have. I have > always felt this rule makes it very difficult for the players involved to > ignore the UI of partner's failure to alert when they should have expected > one. In effect, you switched tracks and partner followed you even though he > is not permitted to. > > Had partner failed to alert 3C (proper), and now bid 3NT, you should have > never been permitted to pass. You were now in possession of UI from the > failure to alert 3C. An adjustment to 4H would have been made. I would now > allow your partner to bid 4NT with most normal hands since he is allowed to > realize from the bidding that something has gone terribly wrong. For the > same reason I would allow you to pass 4NT. Some situations require you to > commit suicide; this is not one of them. In this case, as Alan notes, "had partner not heard your alert (and explanation) he would have been able to work out that something had gone wrong because the auction cannot exist." In other words, it's quite possible that it was the 3C bid itself, not the fact that it was alerted (and explained), that made him realize that he had made a systemic misbid. In that case, it would seem that he should alert the 3C bid, since his obligation is to fully inform the opponents as to what the actual partnership agreement is, without regard for what he actually holds in his hand. Had the hand been played without alerts, we'd all agree that the systemically impossible 3C bid was authorized info, and that there was no UI and no legal or ethical problem. Are we saying that, when playing with alerts, it's acceptable for a systemically impossible bid to legitimately "wake partner up" to his own misunderstanding only in cases where it was not made in response to an alertable bid? Eric Landau APL Solutions, Inc. elandau@cais.com 1107 Dale Drive (301) 589-4621 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 USA From owner-bridge-laws Wed May 22 06:24:54 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA18661 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 22 May 1996 06:24:54 +1000 Received: from andrew.cais.com (andrew.cais.com [199.0.216.215]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id GAA18655 for ; Wed, 22 May 1996 06:24:46 +1000 Received: from cais3.cais.com (cais3.cais.com [199.0.216.227]) by andrew.cais.com (8.6.9/8.6.9) with SMTP id QAA19818 for ; Tue, 21 May 1996 16:24:42 -0400 Date: Tue, 21 May 1996 16:24:41 -0400 (EDT) From: Eric Landau To: Bridge Laws Discussion List Subject: Re: Rule of Coincidence (was: UI from partner) In-Reply-To: <199605211749.NAA14182@shell.monmouth.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Tue, 21 May 1996, reha gur wrote: > Yes, the ACBL's rules on psyches are too harsh. But one of the biggest > problems I see with loosening up the rules is the "obligatory" psyches > -- 2H-(x)-2S. Beginning players would rarely, if ever, work this one > out. On the other hand, it should be legal to try to pick off the > opponents' suit as often as you want. But is it "too easy" when you > know that your side has little constructive prospects? I've been known to lose a trick in the hope that this will rectify the count for a double squeeze when an obscure entry-killing shift will defeat it. Beginning players would rarely, if ever, work this one out and find the shift to beat me. Yet it should be legal to try to double squeeze the opponents as often as you want. Is it "too easy" to double squeeze them? Should the ACBL consider rules that would make it more difficult? Eric Landau APL Solutions, Inc. elandau@cais.com 1107 Dale Drive (301) 589-4621 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 USA From owner-bridge-laws Wed May 22 06:26:15 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA18684 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 22 May 1996 06:26:15 +1000 Received: from mipl7.jpl.nasa.gov (mipl7.jpl.nasa.gov [128.149.177.7]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id GAA18679 for ; Wed, 22 May 1996 06:26:10 +1000 Received: from tintin.JPL.NASA.GOV (tintin.jpl.nasa.gov [128.149.102.7]) by mipl7.jpl.nasa.gov (8.6.12/8.6.6) with ESMTP id NAA06167 for <@mipl7.JPL.NASA.GOV:bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au>; Tue, 21 May 1996 13:25:17 -0700 Received: by tintin.JPL.NASA.GOV (940816.SGI.8.6.9/930416.SGI.MIPS) for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au id NAA05259; Tue, 21 May 1996 13:31:02 -0700 Date: Tue, 21 May 1996 13:31:02 -0700 From: jeff@tintin.JPL.NASA.GOV (Jeff Goldsmith) Message-Id: <199605212031.NAA05259@tintin.JPL.NASA.GOV> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Psyches Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk From: jd@pip.dknet.dk (Jesper Dybdal) | |On Tue, 21 May 1996 12:26:09 -0400, AlLeBendig@aol.com wrote: | |>And here we have a problem that no one else has mentioned yet. Why did |>partner alert? Partner intended 2NT as natural and now hears his partner bid |>3C. The only reason partner alerted is a reaction to your alert. |Yes. Partner has a duty to alert according to his system, even though |he has UI that means that he must continue to _bid_ according to his |previous misunderstanding. And if you don't know the system, I think it's best to alert and pretend that partner is right until the auction is over, at which point you notify the opponents of everything. Partners are much better at failing to use UI if they don't have it. Why put partner in such a bind? Besides, he might be right after all! It certainly makes sense to do this in the auction decribed; the opponents are extremely unlikely to be damaged by spurious alerts during the auction. |>Had |>partner not heard your alert (and explanation?) he would have been able to |>work out that something had gone wrong because the auction cannot exist. |> However, partner is not supposed to alert just because you have. I have |>always felt this rule makes it very difficult for the players involved to |>ignore the UI of partner's failure to alert when they should have expected |>one. In effect, you switched tracks and partner followed you even though he |>is not permitted to. |> |>Had partner failed to alert 3C (proper), and now bid 3NT, you should have |>never been permitted to pass. You were now in possession of UI from the |>failure to alert 3C. An adjustment to 4H would have been made. I would now |>allow your partner to bid 4NT with most normal hands since he is allowed to |>realize from the bidding that something has gone terribly wrong. For the |>same reason I would allow you to pass 4NT. Some situations require you to |>commit suicide; this is not one of them. |> |>>pass from LHO. Pard |>>continues 3NT (showing 4 by 1 with a stiff club & 10 - 11 HCPs. I alert, |>>RHO passes & once again I stop to consider. Whatever vibrations I have |>>gotten must still not be usable, so I have no choice but to bid 4H. |>> |>>That ends the auction. Now the opponents ask & I explain what systemicaly |>>has occured. |> |>It sounds like pard did not think this agreement applied here. Therefore |>your alerts and explanation(s) constitute MI since pard was playing something |>else. After the final pass, pard is obligated to clarify that he thought 2NT |>was natural and invitational. | |This depends on the system. | |If partner, hearing the alert of 2NT, realizes that 2NT is clearly |artificial according to his system and that he has misbid, then he has |a duty to explain/alert according to the system, but bid on as if 2NT |is natural. I find this rule very reasonable, including the fact that |he will not have to give his partner UI by not alerting 3C. And he |certainly does not have a duty to tell his opponents that he has |misbid (I have read of people believing that he should do so as an |element of "active ethics", and I am very strongly opposed to that |view - if I misbid, I certainly want my slight chance of success |through the opponents' misconception of my hand, just as if I had |psyched deliberately). The problem with this is that it allows someone who has just had a misexplanation by partner to claim that he has just simply misbid. Therefore, 75D directs the director to assume misexplanation unless there is compelling evidence to the contrary. I think the rules that are in place now are a direct consequence of trying to fill this possible loophole. There's a case in which I think active ethics ought really cause a player to reveal the presence of a misbid: relay auctions. After a long relay sequence, there is just no way that the opponents are going to be able to understand all the alternatives and possible errors that could have been made, so when the wheels come off, I think they ought to get to know that before the opening lead. This is exacerbated by a social factor; hearing your opponents confidently relay into some contract, one is very prone to accept their explanations at face value. Certainly, less experienced players are going to hear the sureness of the explanation ("he has 4423 shape with 2 controls") and assume it to be certain fact. A reasonable alternative is to loosen the language, if that's appropriate, to say, "he is supposed to have 4423 shape with 2 controls, but we screw it up once in awhile." That's not any fun to say, and it'd have to be said always, so instead I suggest that relayers get saddled with the responsibility to announce massive misbids as such. This is an idiosyncratic feeling, and I know the laws do not support such a position, but I think it's a good idea anyway. I'd never want to require it by law; defining relays is too hard, but I'd like to see actively ethical players do it. --Jeff # Cthulhu in '96! Why vote for the lesser evil? # --- # http://muggy.gg.caltech.edu/~jeff From owner-bridge-laws Wed May 22 06:58:30 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA19023 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 22 May 1996 06:58:30 +1000 Received: from pip.dknet.dk (root@pip.dknet.dk [193.88.44.48]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id GAA19018 for ; Wed, 22 May 1996 06:58:22 +1000 Received: from aarh15.pip.dknet.dk (aarh15.pip.dknet.dk [194.192.0.111]) by pip.dknet.dk (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id WAA03047 for ; Tue, 21 May 1996 22:58:10 +0200 From: jd@pip.dknet.dk (Jesper Dybdal) To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Psyches Date: Tue, 21 May 1996 20:57:47 GMT Organization: at home Message-ID: <31a22938.16831412@pipmail.dknet.dk> References: <199605212031.NAA05259@tintin.JPL.NASA.GOV> In-Reply-To: <199605212031.NAA05259@tintin.JPL.NASA.GOV> X-Mailer: Forte Agent .99e/32.227 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Hi Jeff, On Tue, 21 May 1996 13:31:02 -0700, jeff@tintin.JPL.NASA.GOV (Jeff Goldsmith) wrote: >The problem with this is that it allows someone who has >just had a misexplanation by partner to claim that he >has just simply misbid. Yes, but this usually (though probably not always) only a problem when a player deliberately lies about his motives - and as I've said in another context, I don't believe we should let those few cheaters determine our rules. You have exactly the same problem with deliberate psyches, which are definitely allowed by the laws. In fact, a lie about a misexplanation will probably more often seem more convincing if you claim that it was a psyche than if you claim it was a misbid. >Therefore, 75D directs the >director to assume misexplanation unless there is >compelling evidence to the contrary. I think the >rules that are in place now are a direct consequence >of trying to fill this possible loophole. This is reasonable - not because people lie deliberately, but because of all the almost-agreements players can have ("we discussed this two years ago and I do believe we agreed ..."). >There's a case in which I think active ethics ought >really cause a player to reveal the presence of a >misbid: relay auctions. After a long relay sequence, >there is just no way that the opponents are going to >be able to understand all the alternatives and possible >errors that could have been made, so when the wheels >come off, I think they ought to get to know that before >the opening lead. This is exacerbated by a social >factor; hearing your opponents confidently relay into >some contract, one is very prone to accept their >explanations at face value. Certainly, less experienced >players are going to hear the sureness of the explanation >("he has 4423 shape with 2 controls") and assume it to be >certain fact. A reasonable alternative is to loosen the >language, if that's appropriate, to say, "he is supposed >to have 4423 shape with 2 controls, but we screw it up >once in awhile." If you do screw it up once in a while, you certainly have to say that - and tell the opponents what kind of hand partner usually has when he does screw it up. >That's not any fun to say, and it'd >have to be said always, so instead I suggest that relayers >get saddled with the responsibility to announce massive >misbids as such. I disagree. Don't forget that while a relay sequence often is difficult for opponents, it will also often get bidders much more astray than a natural sequence. If I've misbid, my partner has no idea what I have; the opponents have no right to be better placed in that respect than partner? This is under the assumption, of course, that if anything in the sequence seems suspect to partner, he will inform the opponents of that fact, including possible hand types on which you might have misbid; it is partner's duty to ensure that the opponents have as good a chance of guessing what's going on as he has himself. >This is an idiosyncratic feeling, and >I know the laws do not support such a position, but I >think it's a good idea anyway. I'd never want to require >it by law; defining relays is too hard, but I'd like to >see actively ethical players do it. I would not want to distinguish between actively ethical players and just ethical players (i.e., those that follow the rules). I admit that I do personally indulge in one form of "active ethics": when I discover that my own side has committed an irregularity, I point it out to the opponents and call the TD, even though I have no duty to do so - but that is only because I really believe that I ought to be required by law to do so (and possibly also because I do not play seriously competitive bridge). --- Jesper Dybdal From owner-bridge-laws Wed May 22 07:11:42 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA19113 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 22 May 1996 07:11:42 +1000 Received: from electra.cc.umanitoba.ca (root@electra.cc.umanitoba.ca [130.179.16.23]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id HAA19108 for ; Wed, 22 May 1996 07:11:35 +1000 Received: from ankaa.cc.umanitoba.ca (root@ankaa.cc.umanitoba.ca [130.179.16.47]) by electra.cc.umanitoba.ca (8.7.1/8.7.1) with SMTP id QAA08801 for ; Tue, 21 May 1996 16:11:28 -0500 (CDT) Received: by ankaa.cc.umanitoba.ca (4.1/25-eef) id AA08675; Tue, 21 May 96 16:11:29 CDT Message-Id: <9605212111.AA08675@ankaa.cc.umanitoba.ca> Date: Tue, 21 May 96 16:10 CDT From: Barry Wolk To: Subject: Re: UI via questions Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Stevenson wrote: >In article <319DC527.768A@innet.be>, Herman De Wael >writes > >>The giving of UI is never an offense, only the listening to it !! > > Yes, yes, yes, yes. So let us stop talking about the irregularity of >giving UI! Nice one, Herman! Previously, Barry Wolk wrote > Here is another legal twist: if your partner answers an opponent's > question incorrectly, you have to hear his answer, because you may be > required to correct it later. However, his answer is UI for you. Weird! This is a perfect example of "legally giving UI." Partner's incorrect explanation is UI for you, but the Laws require you to receive that UI, since 75D2 says that you must correct it at the appropriate time. Incidentally, when screens are used, isn't the standard procedure for handling explanations (especially misexplanations) contrary to Law 75D2? Barry Wolk Dept of Mathematics University of Manitoba Winnipeg Manitoba Canada From owner-bridge-laws Wed May 22 07:27:24 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA19192 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 22 May 1996 07:27:24 +1000 Received: from shell.monmouth.com (root@shell.monmouth.com [205.164.220.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id HAA19174 for ; Wed, 22 May 1996 07:27:13 +1000 Received: from lhost.monmouth.com (ppp1.monmouth.com [205.164.220.33]) by shell.monmouth.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id RAA29735 for ; Tue, 21 May 1996 17:23:02 -0400 Message-Id: <199605212123.RAA29735@shell.monmouth.com> Comments: Authenticated sender is From: "reha gur" To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Tue, 21 May 1996 17:15:31 +0000 Subject: (Fwd) Re: Rule of Coincidence (was: UI from partner) Priority: normal X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v2.10) Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Forwarded message: From: Self To: jeff@tintin.JPL.NASA.GOV (Jeff Goldsmith) Subject: Re: Rule of Coincidence (was: UI from partner) Date: Tue, 21 May 1996 17:06:33 > ...about the text itself...I assume you > mean 1m-x-1S-x shows four hearts, not 1H... Yes, sorry. > I'm pretty good at maledicta, even sans vulgarity, > so when someone perpetrates a psyche against very > weak opposition, they'll pay for it in my games :) > I suspect they'll know better than to try it again, > too. Unfortunately, most directors lack either the skill or the inclination or both. The first time I saw 1m-(x)-1S-x shows 4 hearts (in ANY hand) I mentioned to the opponents that this double needed to be more clearly explained -- the partner explained it as responsive (2nd doubler had a singleton in the unbid minor.) Anyway, the woman who had made the 2nd double got very upset with me. She was unaware that her methods were highly unusual, and she was damned if she was going to let someone 'wet behind the ears' (I was 29 at the time) tell her how to bid (obviously I was not telling her how to bid, only asking her to disclose her methods to the opponents.) Anyway, I had called the director since there had been some damage on the board. The rest of the auction and the supposed damage are not relevant and to tell the truth I don't even remember. But I do remember that the director told me that everyone plays the methods in question, and that no explanation besides 'responsive double' (which is itself an illegal explanation, no?) was required. Anyway, I have responded by not returning to that club, but I don't like this solution. Sometimes I want to play on the days that this club holds games, and it seems to me that if there is a game in the area with an ACBL sanction, I should be able to attend and expect that the ACBL regulations (full discosure, etc.) will be upheld. Stefanie Rohan From owner-bridge-laws Wed May 22 08:53:44 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA19760 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 22 May 1996 08:53:44 +1000 Received: (from markus@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA19754 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 22 May 1996 08:53:40 +1000 Date: Wed, 22 May 1996 08:53:40 +1000 Message-Id: <199605212253.IAA19754@octavia.anu.edu.au> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Psyches From: jeff@tintin.JPL.NASA.GOV (Jeff Goldsmith) Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk [for some reason that I can't fathom, majordomo decided I should get this rather than the list..... -Markus] Hi Jesper, Who said, |On Tue, 21 May 1996 13:31:02 -0700, jeff@tintin.JPL.NASA.GOV (Jeff |Goldsmith) wrote: |>The problem with this is that it allows someone who has |>just had a misexplanation by partner to claim that he |>has just simply misbid. |Yes, but this usually (though probably not always) only a problem when |a player deliberately lies about his motives - and as I've said in |another context, I don't believe we should let those few cheaters |determine our rules. You have exactly the same problem with |deliberate psyches, which are definitely allowed by the laws. In |fact, a lie about a misexplanation will probably more often seem more |convincing if you claim that it was a psyche than if you claim it was |a misbid. I guess you are not used to dealing with the folks we have around here. We have a few who would think nothing of lying if it would improve their score, even from a 38.00% to a 38.01%. We have many more who would think "if the rules are such that they reward lying, then I ought to lie. I might not like it, but what am I to do?" |>There's a case in which I think active ethics ought |>really cause a player to reveal the presence of a |>misbid: relay auctions. After a long relay sequence, |>there is just no way that the opponents are going to |>be able to understand all the alternatives and possible |>errors that could have been made, so when the wheels |>come off, I think they ought to get to know that before |>the opening lead. This is exacerbated by a social |>factor; hearing your opponents confidently relay into |>some contract, one is very prone to accept their |>explanations at face value. Certainly, less experienced |>players are going to hear the sureness of the explanation |>("he has 4423 shape with 2 controls") and assume it to be |>certain fact. A reasonable alternative is to loosen the |>language, if that's appropriate, to say, "he is supposed |>to have 4423 shape with 2 controls, but we screw it up |>once in awhile." | |If you do screw it up once in a while, you certainly have to say that |- and tell the opponents what kind of hand partner usually has when he |does screw it up. Everyone screws up once in awhile, but the sureness-sounding of the explanation of a relay auction will sometimes cause someone who doesn't know much about them to be less suspicious of massive screw ups. This is a rare case in which I think it's important to mention the possibility of error, although that is assumed in the rest of the game. |>That's not any fun to say, and it'd |>have to be said always, so instead I suggest that relayers |>get saddled with the responsibility to announce massive |>misbids as such. | |I disagree. Don't forget that while a relay sequence often is |difficult for opponents, it will also often get bidders much more |astray than a natural sequence. If I've misbid, my partner has no |idea what I have; the opponents have no right to be better placed in |that respect than partner? This is under the assumption, of course, |that if anything in the sequence seems suspect to partner, he will |inform the opponents of that fact, including possible hand types on |which you might have misbid; it is partner's duty to ensure that the |opponents have as good a chance of guessing what's going on as he has |himself. And there's the rub. It'd take a long time to explain all the possible errors and strangenesses of your relay system. If you play Puppet Stayman or Support Doubles and the opponents work out that something has gone wrong, they can usually guess the sort of thing that might have happened. They have no chance at all in a relay auction, but the perpetrators might. I know which sequences are a little bit harder than others; I know all the options. I don't have time to cover them at the table, so I think some other form of compensation is deserved. Don't get me wrong: I like relay auctions, but I just find that their nature is one that ought to impose further and different types of burdens on the users in order to perform full disclosure. --Jeff # Cthulhu in '96! Why vote for the lesser evil? # --- # http://muggy.gg.caltech.edu/~jeff From owner-bridge-laws Wed May 22 10:53:54 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA20606 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 22 May 1996 10:53:54 +1000 Received: from relay-2.mail.demon.net (disperse.demon.co.uk [158.152.1.77]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id KAA20598 for ; Wed, 22 May 1996 10:53:35 +1000 Received: from post.demon.co.uk ([158.152.1.72]) by relay-2.mail.demon.net id ad04060; 22 May 96 1:32 +0100 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by relay-3.mail.demon.net id aa14918; 22 May 96 0:36 +0100 Message-ID: <3XnF2GA48koxEw6x@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Wed, 22 May 1996 00:18:16 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Rule of Coincidence (was: UI from partner) In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 1.12 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article , Jens Brix Christiansen writes >I am starting a new thread here, taking off from some >of Steve's comments that if partner misbids >and you "field" it, then adjustment can be made based >on the rule of coincidence (RoC -- no connection to >Taiwan intended). > >I understand that the reasoning behind the RoC is that >the "fielding" could be based on UI or on an undisclosed >de facto partnership agreement; the TD does not know >exactly which is the case (or in fact whether a true >coincidence has taken place); but the mere coincidence >is treated as if it were an irregularity that allows (requires?) >the TD to redress any damage to the opponents by means >of an adjusted score. > >Of course, the RoC was designed to keep players who >psyche "honest" (which is not the same as preventing >psyches). > >In Denmark, we do not use the RoC. Although I did not >explicitly check, I believe that the European Bridge League >also does not use the RoC; perhaps David could check >with Max Bavin? I can find out from Max if the EBL uses it though I feel I would have heard. There is no reference to it in the EBL TD guide. EBL40.11(vi) details methods of handling psyches that effectively follow the procedures below, but without reference to colours. Our handling of CPUs (concealed partnership understandings) in England is not very well documented. Naturally we have discussed these matters at our TD courses. Generally we just record deviations: our Laws & Ethics Committee may take a look. We do sometimes treat them in a similar manner to psyches. Misbids we can also treat as psyches. Our method for dealing with psyches is very well documented and has been used many many times over the years. We record any psyche that either (a) we are asked to or (b) where there is any question whatever over partner's action. The partner of the psycher is invited to comment on the form [there is a space especially for this]. Having done so, the psyche is ruled as Red, Amber or Green. Red is fielded: the partner of the psycher has made a bid which *appears* to allow for partner's psyche. Amber is doubtful: the partner of the psycher has made a bid which might possibly *appear* to allow for partner's psyche. Green is not fielded: the partner of the psycher has *not* made a bid which *appears* to allow for partner's psyche. If a psyche is Red we cancel the board and fine the offending pair: in practice that means that we automatically adjust to 60-30 at pairs, 5 imps at K/O teams, 3 imps and 0.5 vp fine at Swiss teams: we don't adjust if the non-offenders have got a better score! If a psyche is Amber there is no adjustment unless the pair has another Amber or Red psyche soon after: then all Ambers become Reds! All Red and Amber psyches (also any Green ones of interest) are reviewed by the L&EC who may change their classification. In my view the basis for this approach is that we are using the RoC even though we do not mention it nor have English TDs been told about it. So I believe it is used for psyches and misbids, and could be used for a CPU otherwise, but all through the procedures above. I believe it is right to extend it to CPUs generally. I thus believe the RoC is acceptable for interpretation of L40A and L40B. Just to make it clear the way I would use it for CPUs let me quote an example from a recent English TD course, that might easily be quoted as the sort of sequence for which the RoC applies. South opened 1NT (12- 14), North bid 2NT with a poor 13 count, and South passed with a mediocre 11 count. We should make a record, and invite North to comment. We should then call it Green, Amber or Red. It would be unlikely to be Red, which really needs there to be no other possible explanation. Quite likely Amber, dependent on what North says. I am happy that these procedures are based on the RoC and happy with these procedures. -- David Stevenson Bridge Cats Railways Logic /\_/\ Liverpool, England, UK Nothing ventured, nothing gained |o o| david@blakjak.demon.co.uk Emails welcome =< " >= Tel: +44 (0)151 677 7412 Phone before Fax please v From owner-bridge-laws Wed May 22 11:01:32 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id LAA20679 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 22 May 1996 11:01:32 +1000 Received: from relay-4.mail.demon.net (relay-4.mail.demon.net [158.152.1.108]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id LAA20673 for ; Wed, 22 May 1996 11:01:13 +1000 Received: from post.demon.co.uk ([158.152.1.72]) by relay-4.mail.demon.net id am24602; 22 May 96 0:34 GMT Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by relay-3.mail.demon.net id aa18046; 22 May 96 1:01 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 22 May 1996 00:58:09 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: UI via questions In-Reply-To: <9605212111.AA08675@ankaa.cc.umanitoba.ca> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 1.12 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article <9605212111.AA08675@ankaa.cc.umanitoba.ca>, Barry Wolk writes [s] >Incidentally, when screens are used, isn't the standard procedure for >handling explanations (especially misexplanations) contrary to Law 75D2? Probably: but: Law 80 - Sponsoring Organization A sponsoring organization conducting an event under these Laws has the following duties and powers: E Special Conditions to establish special conditions for bidding and play (such as written bidding, bid boxes, screens - penalty provisions for actions not transmitted across a screen may be suspended). -- David Stevenson Bridge Cats Railways Logic /\_/\ Liverpool, England, UK Nothing ventured, nothing gained |o o| david@blakjak.demon.co.uk Emails welcome =< " >= Tel: +44 (0)151 677 7412 Phone before Fax please v From owner-bridge-laws Thu May 23 01:41:31 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA28396 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 23 May 1996 01:41:31 +1000 Received: from emout19.mail.aol.com (emout19.mx.aol.com [198.81.11.45]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id BAA28385 for ; Thu, 23 May 1996 01:41:25 +1000 From: AlLeBendig@aol.com Received: by emout19.mail.aol.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) id LAA05376 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Wed, 22 May 1996 11:40:51 -0400 Date: Wed, 22 May 1996 11:40:51 -0400 Message-ID: <960522114048_118759219@emout19.mail.aol.com> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Rule of Coincidence (was: UI from partner) Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In a message dated 96-05-21 13:58:47 EDT, you write: > >Yes, the ACBL's rules on psyches are too harsh. But one of the biggest >problems I see with loosening up the rules is the "obligatory" psyches >-- 2H-(x)-2S. Beginning players would rarely, if ever, work this one >out. On the other hand, it should be legal to try to pick off the >opponents' suit as often as you want. But is it "too easy" when you >know that your side has little constructive prospects? > >Stefanie Rohan I think part of the reason for our "harsh" rules pertaining to psyches is the fact that those engaging in the practice usually seem to pick their opponents to psyche against. It never seems to happen against the good players. Always weak opposition. What possible fun can it be to go into a fight with an AK47 if your opponent is armed with a slingshot? I am prepared to lift all restrictions on psyching in any NABC Open Event. If we have to deal with the fielding of a psyche that is simple. At least everyone in that event is capable of dealing with the psyche. In exchange, I would like to see even tighter restrictions on psyching in other events. I am totally against psyching in the Clubs. In my club, we allow one psyche per calendar month. After that, we adjust to zero and issue PPs. Psyching is the one thing that angers beginning and intermediate players more than anything else. Since we started this policy, our players are much more content and know that they only need to record the psyche and the system will take care of future happenings. Alan LeBendig Los Angeles From owner-bridge-laws Thu May 23 01:41:31 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA28395 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 23 May 1996 01:41:31 +1000 Received: from emout18.mail.aol.com (emout18.mx.aol.com [198.81.11.44]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id BAA28384 for ; Thu, 23 May 1996 01:41:22 +1000 From: AlLeBendig@aol.com Received: by emout18.mail.aol.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) id LAA08572 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Wed, 22 May 1996 11:40:47 -0400 Date: Wed, 22 May 1996 11:40:47 -0400 Message-ID: <960522114045_118759175@emout18.mail.aol.com> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Unauthorized Information(Americam spelling) Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In a message dated 96-05-21 15:43:36 EDT, Jesper writes: >Subj: Re: Unauthorized Information(Americam spelling) >Date: 96-05-21 15:43:36 EDT >From: jd@pip.dknet.dk (Jesper Dybdal) >Sender: owner-bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au >To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au > >On Tue, 21 May 1996 12:26:09 -0400, AlLeBendig@aol.com wrote: > >>And here we have a problem that no one else has mentioned yet. Why did >>partner alert? Partner intended 2NT as natural and now hears his partner >bid >>3C. The only reason partner alerted is a reaction to your alert. >Yes. Partner has a duty to alert according to his system, even though >he has UI that means that he must continue to _bid_ according to his >previous misunderstanding. > >>Had >>partner not heard your alert (and explanation?) he would have been able to >>work out that something had gone wrong because the auction cannot exist. >> However, partner is not supposed to alert just because you have. I have >>always felt this rule makes it very difficult for the players involved to >>ignore the UI of partner's failure to alert when they should have expected >>one. In effect, you switched tracks and partner followed you even though he >>is not permitted to. >> >>Had partner failed to alert 3C (proper), and now bid 3NT, you should have >>never been permitted to pass. You were now in possession of UI from the >>failure to alert 3C. An adjustment to 4H would have been made. I would now >>allow your partner to bid 4NT with most normal hands since he is allowed to >>realize from the bidding that something has gone terribly wrong. For the >>same reason I would allow you to pass 4NT. Some situations require you to >>commit suicide; this is not one of them. >> >>>pass from LHO. Pard >>>continues 3NT (showing 4 by 1 with a stiff club & 10 - 11 HCPs. I alert, >>>RHO passes & once again I stop to consider. Whatever vibrations I have >>>gotten must still not be usable, so I have no choice but to bid 4H. >>> >>>That ends the auction. Now the opponents ask & I explain what systemicaly >>>has occured. >> >>It sounds like pard did not think this agreement applied here. Therefore >>your alerts and explanation(s) constitute MI since pard was playing >something >>else. After the final pass, pard is obligated to clarify that he thought >2NT >>was natural and invitational. > >This depends on the system. > >If partner, hearing the alert of 2NT, realizes that 2NT is clearly >artificial according to his system and that he has misbid, then he has >a duty to explain/alert according to the system, I have this strange feeling we are having a substantial disagreement here. When partner hears the alert of 2NT he realizes that you believe that 2NT is artificial. When he bid 2NT I maintain that he didn't _forget_ but actually thought that agreement didn't apply here. Because of the alert, most players routinely say. "I forgot. Partner is correct." Everyone accepts that statement at face value because the card is marked System On after NT overcalls. It doesn't matter to me how the card is marked in these situations. I want more evidence as to what happened as it pertains to their actual agreements. When these things happen to me it is not usually because I forgot. I thought things worked differently and we hadn't discussed it fully. I could plead I forgot and our card or notes will probably support that to an extent that will let me off the hook. But I _know_ differently. As a result, I usually believe others have similar experiences. I think it is clear that my position here is supported by the footnotes to L75D. As a result of these beliefs, I am prepared to treat the alert of 2NT as MI and presume the responder is playing something different than partner. If I am correct, there should be no alert of the 3C call. >but bid on as if 2NT >is natural. I find this rule very reasonable, including the fact that >he will not have to give his partner UI by not alerting 3C. I stated earlier that I don't like this requirement. Perhaps we should say that a player should now alert by what partner is thinking but continue bidding on the same path he started. That would avoid the UI from the alerts (or failure thereof) but would probably be even more confusing. In the meantime, we are told not to be concerned with the UI and alert according to what we started doing. So I still believe that the alert is inappropriate even though I don't like it. >And he >certainly does not have a duty to tell his opponents that he has >misbid (I have read of people believing that he should do so as an >element of "active ethics", and I am very strongly opposed to that >view - if I misbid, I certainly want my slight chance of success >through the opponents' misconception of my hand, just as if I had >psyched deliberately). I totally agree about saying nothing if he has misbid. I am just not very willing to accept the misbid arguement. > >If, on the other hand, he still believes that 2NT is natural in the >system, then his partner has alerted 2NT incorrectly; he must then of >course not alert 3C (provided it is natural in the system), and he >must correct the wrong alert. It doesn't matter what he believes after the alert. The question is what he believed to be the case when he started the auction. Alan LeBendig Los Angeles From owner-bridge-laws Thu May 23 01:41:35 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA28401 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 23 May 1996 01:41:35 +1000 Received: from emout15.mail.aol.com (emout15.mx.aol.com [198.81.11.41]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id BAA28391 for ; Thu, 23 May 1996 01:41:27 +1000 From: AlLeBendig@aol.com Received: by emout15.mail.aol.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) id LAA14212 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Wed, 22 May 1996 11:40:53 -0400 Date: Wed, 22 May 1996 11:40:53 -0400 Message-ID: <960522114053_118759271@emout15.mail.aol.com> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Psyches Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In a message dated 96-05-21 16:38:02 EDT, Jeff writes: > >There's a case in which I think active ethics ought >really cause a player to reveal the presence of a >misbid: relay auctions. After a long relay sequence, >there is just no way that the opponents are going to >be able to understand all the alternatives and possible >errors that could have been made, so when the wheels >come off, I think they ought to get to know that before >the opening lead. This is exacerbated by a social >factor; hearing your opponents confidently relay into >some contract, one is very prone to accept their >explanations at face value. Certainly, less experienced >players are going to hear the sureness of the explanation >("he has 4423 shape with 2 controls") and assume it to be >certain fact. A reasonable alternative is to loosen the >language, if that's appropriate, to say, "he is supposed >to have 4423 shape with 2 controls, but we screw it up >once in awhile." That's not any fun to say, and it'd >have to be said always, so instead I suggest that relayers >get saddled with the responsibility to announce massive >misbids as such. This is an idiosyncratic feeling, and >I know the laws do not support such a position, but I >think it's a good idea anyway. I'd never want to require >it by law; defining relays is too hard, but I'd like to >see actively ethical players do it. I agree it would be a true display of Active Ethics if any pair playing a complex system would follow through with this practice. Would anyone ever suggest this could be bad? Alan LeBendig From owner-bridge-laws Thu May 23 03:01:50 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA28868 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 23 May 1996 03:01:50 +1000 Received: from suntan.tandem.com (suntan.tandem.com [192.216.221.8]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id DAA28863 for ; Thu, 23 May 1996 03:01:45 +1000 From: FARLEY_WALLY@Tandem.COM Received: from POST.TANDEM.COM by suntan.tandem.com (8.6.12/suntan5.960119) id KAA16208; Wed, 22 May 1996 10:01:06 -0700 Received: by POST.TANDEM.COM (4.13/4.5) id AA12601; 22 May 96 10:00:19 -0700 Date: 22 May 96 09:45:00 -0700 t mean anything)anC4U,S4@4W1A;F1A To: allebendig@aol.com Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Rule of Coincidence (was: UI from partner) Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Alan LeBendig wrote: [snip] > I am prepared to lift all restrictions on psyching in any NABC Open > Event. If we have to deal with the fielding of a psyche that is > simple. At least everyone in that event is capable of dealing with > the psyche. In exchange, I would like to see even tighter > restrictions on psyching in other events. I am totally against > psyching in the Clubs. I agree, philosophically. But I think any restriction is illegal. > In my club, we allow one psyche per calendar month. After that, we > adjust to zero and issue PPs. Psyching is the one thing that angers > beginning and intermediate players more than anything else. Since we > started this policy, our players are much more content and know that > they only need to record the psyche and the system will take care of > future happenings. This sounds interesting, Alan. What do you call the game you play at your club -- because, from my limited understanding of the laws, it is no longer 'Duplicate Contract Bridge'. There is a great deal of tension between two conflicting desires -- the desire to keep players happy at the club (and thus to have them continue playing duplicate bridge, preferably (though not necessarily exclusively) at this club) and the desire to have this bridge game comply with the laws. As far as psyches go, they are lawful. They are also (I'll concede without any argument) terribly disruptive to novices. I do not have the solution to this dichotomy. I wish I did. But I fear for a game I love if the _de facto_ 'solution' is the one you described. If, in fact, the laws have changed so much from the time I was an active participant that your actions are now condoned by the Laws, then the game I love has already died. Regards, WWFiv Wally Farley, Cupertino CA P.S.: I psyche *very* rarely. I mis-bid much more frequently. I possibly revoke more often than I psyche. From owner-bridge-laws Thu May 23 04:43:21 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA02340 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 23 May 1996 04:43:21 +1000 Received: from VNET.IBM.COM (vnet.ibm.com [199.171.26.4]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id EAA02308 for ; Thu, 23 May 1996 04:43:15 +1000 Message-Id: <199605221843.EAA02308@octavia.anu.edu.au> Received: from RCHVMX2 by VNET.IBM.COM (IBM VM SMTP V2R3) with BSMTP id 1404; Wed, 22 May 96 14:42:43 EDT Date: Wed, 22 May 96 13:24:22 CDT From: "Kent Burghard" To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Rule of Coincidence (was: UI from partner) Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Wally Farley wrote: >Alan LeBendig wrote: >[snip] >> I am prepared to lift all restrictions on psyching in any NABC Open >> Event. If we have to deal with the fielding of a psyche that is >> simple. At least everyone in that event is capable of dealing with >> the psyche. In exchange, I would like to see even tighter >> restrictions on psyching in other events. I am totally against >> psyching in the Clubs. > >I agree, philosophically. But I think any restriction is illegal. As does the ACBL Board of Directors. Every so often a proposal comes through requesting that ACBL-sanctioned clubs be allowed to bar psychs from their games. To their credit, so far, the Board has failed to approve this (illegal - Law 40A) restriction. I used to work at a club that decided to bar psychs from their games, mostly for the same reasons stated by Alan in the snipped portion of his note. When I read Law 40A to the cheif director and club manager and failed to convince them that this restriction was illegal, I resigned. >> In my club, we allow one psyche per calendar month. After that, we >> adjust to zero and issue PPs. Psyching is the one thing that angers >> beginning and intermediate players more than anything else. Since we >> started this policy, our players are much more content and know that >> they only need to record the psyche and the system will take care of >> future happenings. Actually, this seems like a totally reasonable compromise to me. It probably follows the letter of the law by allowing psyches, but at the same time using Law 40D to regulate partnership understandings. It also serves to "keep the sheep happy" which a club manager needs to do in order to be profitable. Kent Burghard Rochester, Minnesota, USA home: burghard@worldnet.att.net From owner-bridge-laws Thu May 23 05:02:49 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA05734 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 23 May 1996 05:02:49 +1000 Received: from andrew.cais.com (andrew.cais.com [199.0.216.215]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id FAA05722 for ; Thu, 23 May 1996 05:02:43 +1000 Received: from cais3.cais.com (cais3.cais.com [199.0.216.227]) by andrew.cais.com (8.6.9/8.6.9) with SMTP id PAA29020 for ; Wed, 22 May 1996 15:02:23 -0400 Date: Wed, 22 May 1996 15:02:23 -0400 (EDT) From: Eric Landau To: Bridge Laws Discussion List Subject: Re: Rule of Coincidence (was: UI from partner) In-Reply-To: <960522114048_118759219@emout19.mail.aol.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Wed, 22 May 1996 AlLeBendig@aol.com wrote: > I think part of the reason for our "harsh" rules pertaining to psyches is the > fact that those engaging in the practice usually seem to pick their opponents > to psyche against. It never seems to happen against the good players. > Always weak opposition. What possible fun can it be to go into a fight with > an AK47 if your opponent is armed with a slingshot? One could make the same case with respect to deceptive plays, falsecards, and decisions to play for the pseudo-squeeze instead of the legitimate 5% line. Estimating the strengths and weaknesses of one's opponents and selecting tactics to match is certainly part of the game. So are psychs. And psyching (ethically) is always a risky proposition. So reserving the tactic (psyching) for situations where it's more likely to gain (against weaker opponents) is an obvious and sensible thing to do. Against strong opposition, you'd be giving odds away if you ignored your 5% line for a pseudo-squeeze, or if you psyched. In practice, the statements "you shouldn't psych" and "you should only psych against strong opposition" boil down to effectively the same thing. > I am prepared to lift all restrictions on psyching in any NABC Open Event. > If we have to deal with the fielding of a psyche that is simple. At least > everyone in that event is capable of dealing with the psyche. In exchange, I > would like to see even tighter restrictions on psyching in other events. I > am totally against psyching in the Clubs. I'm not sure about "all restrictions," but I'd certainly favor whatever we can do to eliminate the psychers-are-cheaters view that's currently written into our regulations. We could start by getting rid of the "rule" that two psychs in a partnership is a de facto undisclosed understanding. We could re-legalize controlled, systemic psychs; they're actually less subject to abuse than "ordinary" psychs, since there's never an issue of concealed understanding (it's open and overt). And we could restore the "psychics" box to the CC. This last is more important than it looks. The effects of taking psychs off the CC seem to have been (a) to convince a lot of players that psychs have been completely outlawed, and (b) to make "concealed partnership understandings" of what were previously "revealed partnership understandings" in order to make it generally easier to "punish" psychers. I'm not sure what I would think of changing the rules only for NABC open events (or even regional open events). Encountering psychs when one first starts playing "seriously" at, say, the Flight C level and learning how to use and deal with them as one more weapon in the serious player's arsenal may be a good deal less traumatic than playing and learning the game in a psych-free environment for several years until one "graduates" to the Flight A games, and then suddenly encountering them for the first time just when you thought you had learned what you need to know to be ready to move up. The only truly satisfactory answer IMO is to treat psychs as what they really are, non-constructive tactical calls, in the same class with preempts, lead-directors, "dog-walking" underbids, and so forth. > In my club, we allow one psyche per calendar month. After that, we adjust to > zero and issue PPs. Psyching is the one thing that angers beginning and > intermediate players more than anything else. Since we started this policy, > our players are much more content and know that they only need to record the > psyche and the system will take care of future happenings. One of the most sensible things the ACBL does is to give clubs lots of latitude to run their games as their players want them to, rather than requiring them to follow ACBL tournament practices. Clubs exist to serve their customers, not to determine championships. We NEED clubs that don't permit psyches so the people who think they're being cheated when someone psychs against them can have a place to play where they feel comfortable -- just like we need touch football leagues. But would the NFL consider restricting or outlawing tackles just because so many players hate to be tackled? Eric Landau APL Solutions, Inc. elandau@cais.com 1107 Dale Drive (301) 589-4621 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 USA From owner-bridge-laws Thu May 23 06:04:56 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA07654 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 23 May 1996 06:04:56 +1000 Received: from relay-2.mail.demon.net (disperse.demon.co.uk [158.152.1.77]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id GAA07643 for ; Thu, 23 May 1996 06:03:14 +1000 Received: from post.demon.co.uk ([158.152.1.72]) by relay-2.mail.demon.net id ak01093; 22 May 96 20:50 +0100 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by relay-3.mail.demon.net id aa05384; 22 May 96 19:47 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 22 May 1996 19:45:47 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Psychinng In-Reply-To: <960522114048_118759219@emout19.mail.aol.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 1.12 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article <960522114048_118759219@emout19.mail.aol.com>, AlLeBendig@aol.com writes >In a message dated 96-05-21 13:58:47 EDT, you write: > >> >>Yes, the ACBL's rules on psyches are too harsh. But one of the biggest >>problems I see with loosening up the rules is the "obligatory" psyches >>-- 2H-(x)-2S. Beginning players would rarely, if ever, work this one >>out. On the other hand, it should be legal to try to pick off the >>opponents' suit as often as you want. But is it "too easy" when you >>know that your side has little constructive prospects? >> >>Stefanie Rohan > >I think part of the reason for our "harsh" rules pertaining to psyches is the >fact that those engaging in the practice usually seem to pick their opponents >to psyche against. It never seems to happen against the good players. > Always weak opposition. What possible fun can it be to go into a fight with >an AK47 if your opponent is armed with a slingshot? > >I am prepared to lift all restrictions on psyching in any NABC Open Event. > If we have to deal with the fielding of a psyche that is simple. At least >everyone in that event is capable of dealing with the psyche. In exchange, I >would like to see even tighter restrictions on psyching in other events. I >am totally against psyching in the Clubs. > >In my club, we allow one psyche per calendar month. After that, we adjust to >zero and issue PPs. Psyching is the one thing that angers beginning and >intermediate players more than anything else. Since we started this policy, >our players are much more content and know that they only need to record the >psyche and the system will take care of future happenings. Looking from the outside there appear to be problems with American Bridge. I hear worries about the future. What do you need for American Bridge to flourish? You need more people to play in tournaments, and one of the first requirements for this is for people who play in their first tournament (or their first sectional, or their first National: it applies all the way up the line) to come away from it thinking "I enjoyed that: it wasn't so different, after all." The more you try to keep your clubs different from your events the more difficult it will be to bridge :) the gap. If club players are protected from psyching in their club then they are more likely to be upset when they go out into the real world and someone psyches against them. My club is lucky, we have one player who psyches quite often, called Ron. If you came and played, and you psyched, it would *not* upset my players: they would just look at your hand and say "You make silly bids just like Ron!" If they go and play in an event and someone psyches against them then they take it as a matter of course and it does not stop them playing. When someone has just started the game they do need a little protection: in most cases players just don't psyche against them. However once they have been playing for some time it is far better for them if people do psyche so that they first learn about dealing with psyches (which includes not getting upset) in their own club. I understand (correct me if I am wrong) that in the USA clubs do not need to use alerting nor skip bid warnings. If this is so that is one decision that will definitely lead to tournament Bridge becoming less popular for the same reason: it makes the gulf between club and tournament Bridge bigger. Strangely enough, I believe the reverse effect applies: less tournament Bridge leads to less club Bridge (because its general popularity wanes). The total effect of all this is that American Bridge will become like a snake eating its own tail ... ______ /======>>o______\ | || |_______________|| \_______________/ -- David Stevenson Bridge Cats Railways Logic /\_/\ Liverpool, England, UK Nothing ventured, nothing gained |o o| david@blakjak.demon.co.uk Emails welcome =< " >= Tel: +44 (0)151 677 7412 Phone before Fax please v From owner-bridge-laws Thu May 23 08:38:00 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA08456 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 23 May 1996 08:38:00 +1000 Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [128.103.40.170]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id IAA08451 for ; Thu, 23 May 1996 08:37:54 +1000 Received: from cfa183.harvard.edu (cfa183.harvard.edu [131.142.12.59]) by cfa.harvard.edu (8.7.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id SAA09914 for ; Wed, 22 May 1996 18:37:50 -0400 (EDT) Received: by cfa183.harvard.edu (5.x/SMI-SVR4) id AA05106; Wed, 22 May 1996 18:40:01 -0400 Date: Wed, 22 May 1996 18:40:01 -0400 From: willner@cfa183.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Message-Id: <9605222240.AA05106@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: UI from questions not asked X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > On Mon, 20 May 1996, Steve Willner wrote: > > > I don't think it makes a difference today, but it did under the 1975 > > Laws. If UI came from a normal question and answer or other entirely > > proper actions, the restrictions were much less severe than if the > > UI came from an irregularity or denigrated conduct (e.g. partner's > > hesitation). > From: Eric Landau > Quite correct, except that the interpretation you describe was under the > 1963 (and previous) laws; the change was made in 1975. Our memories differ. As I recall, the 1975 Laws were the first to treat use of UI as a score adjustment infraction without any necessary implication of a conduct offense. The Bridge World (Kaplan) "Appeals Committee" booklets were based on the 1975 Laws, I believe. They certainly stress the distinction between proper and improper UI. I think the distinction was only lost in 1987. > Are you really suggesting that situations should exist (even > theoretically) in which, when partner maintains a perfect tempo, one is > obligated to bend over backwards to select the bid they would have made if > partner had huddled? And that such situations can and should be > adjudicated by TDs/ACs? That seems a bit far out. I agree that the interpretation seems far out, but I believe it's what the current Laws say. Kaplan, I think, would agree as to the interpretation of current law. At least I have a letter around here somewhere that I interpret as saying so in a specific instance. I'll try to dig up the letter. > They probably would, but they'd be wrong. The rule of coincidence is an > (arguable) interpretation of Law 40.B; violations of it are considered to > constitute "concealed partnership understandings." It has nothing to do > with UI, and can be violated when UI is not at issue. While the ACBL's regulation on the RoC is -- how to put this delicately? -- not something I would have written myself, I don't believe the rule refers only to concealed partnership understandings. > From: Herman De Wael > I think it is very strange when a psyche is fielded. How often do you > psyche ? Once in a thousand deals ? Fielding a psyche would mean that > partner also does something *strange*. He can do that also once in a > thousand deals. To coincidentally do this on the same deal would be a > million-to-one odd. I do not believe in this kind of coincidence. This is the best explanation of the RoC I have ever seen. If asked "Do you believe a rare coincidence, or do you believe some subtle UI?" I'll vote for the UI. Note that we adjust the score on the basis of catching the psyche, NOT on whether the opponents could have done something if given a complete explanation. And note further that the RoC is a _rule of evidence_, not creation of any new kind of infraction. > It sounds to me like he's > agreeing with my fundamental point, which is that you should not adjust > for UI UNLESS the PARTNER of the person who made the lucky guess HAS done > something funny. Yes, I agree with that. It takes at least two events to make a coincidence. > And if partner's hand was odd, but there was no clue? It's the same point > again: the debate is over whether, in cases where no particular clue can > be identified but the bidder "guessed" to take the winning action, we > should or should not presume that there must have been some clue that we > could not identify. Again, it seems as though Steve is agreeing with me > that we should not. If there is only one strange action, I agree. But if we have a strange action _after a system violation_, then there's a strong case for adjustment. (This is indistinguishable from fielding a psyche.) > Successfully fielded psyches (absent legitimate information which "allows" > you to determine that partner psyched, as Kaplan says) are the classic > "rule of coincidence" cases. They are adjudicated as "agreements were not > as stated" cases, not as "you had UI" cases. I disagree. Note that the score adjustment does not hinge on whether the opponents could have done anything had they been informed of the possibility of a psyche. The issue is how the psyche was fielded -- UI or AI. > By this reasoning, if it's legitimate for a committee to adjust a score > when there has been no irregularity, it must be legitimate to start the > adjustment process by calling the TD even though one does not allege that > there has been an irregularity. If that's legitimate, then it must be > legitimate (and is probably a winning strategy) to call the TD every time > the opponents get a good result, in the hope that the TD or AC will find > some hidden or presumptive infraction that doesn't require an identifiable > irregularity to exist. I agree with both the logic and the conclusion. If there are two strange actions, neither an irregularity, that combine to give the opponents a good score, it seems proper to call the director. Consider the auction (Standard American, opponents silent) 2C-2H-3C-P. The 2C opener had a strong 1C bid, worth a jump on the second round. The 2H bidder had a random 8-count. (A normal auction would have been 1C-1H-3C-3NT-P). What do you think really happened? Would you call the director if your opponents perpetrated this one (and got a good score when the normal 3NT failed)? Yet nothing in the above is an irregularity. From owner-bridge-laws Thu May 23 09:35:55 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA09077 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 23 May 1996 09:35:55 +1000 Received: from pip.dknet.dk (root@pip.dknet.dk [193.88.44.48]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id JAA09072 for ; Thu, 23 May 1996 09:35:47 +1000 Received: from aarh11.pip.dknet.dk (aarh11.pip.dknet.dk [194.192.0.107]) by pip.dknet.dk (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id BAA03742 for ; Thu, 23 May 1996 01:35:37 +0200 From: jd@pip.dknet.dk (Jesper Dybdal) To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Unauthorized Information(Americam spelling) Date: Thu, 23 May 1996 01:35:14 +0200 Organization: at home Message-ID: <31a3a484.19990995@pipmail.dknet.dk> References: <960522114045_118759175@emout18.mail.aol.com> In-Reply-To: <960522114045_118759175@emout18.mail.aol.com> X-Mailer: Forte Agent .99e/32.227 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk [Sorry, Alan - I just realized I sent this to you instead of the list, so you get it twice] On Wed, 22 May 1996 11:40:47 -0400, AlLeBendig@aol.com wrote: >I have this strange feeling we are having a substantial disagreement here. > When partner hears the alert of 2NT he realizes that you believe that 2NT is >artificial. When he bid 2NT I maintain that he didn't _forget_ but actually >thought that agreement didn't apply here. You could well be right; my posting was under the assumption that the TD was satisfied that he did forget. >Because of the alert, most players >routinely say. "I forgot. Partner is correct." Everyone accepts that >statement at face value because the card is marked System On after NT >overcalls. > >It doesn't matter to me how the card is marked in these situations. I want >more evidence as to what happened as it pertains to their actual agreements. It does matter to me, but it is certainly not the only thing that matters - I also want more evidence. Quite often, when asking the players one by one what their agreements really are, the TD will be able to judge whether they really have an agreement that was forgotten or whether the system is simply not clear. > When these things happen to me it is not usually because I forgot. This is undoubtedly the case for many players, but there are also many players who forget (I do, embarrassingly often). >I >thought things worked differently and we hadn't discussed it fully. I could >plead I forgot and our card or notes will probably support that to an extent >that will let me off the hook. But I _know_ differently. As a result, I >usually believe others have similar experiences. I think it is clear that my >position here is supported by the footnotes to L75D. It is - the players really have to provide "evidence" of a misbid. >As a result of these beliefs, I am prepared to treat the alert of 2NT as MI >and presume the responder is playing something different than partner. If I >am correct, there should be no alert of the 3C call. Isn't it a good practice to alert when partner makes a call that you have no clear agreement about, but which might be artificial? (and, if asked, say something like "it is not clear whether our agreement about 1NT-2NT in an undisturbed auction also covers this situation; if it does, then 3C means ..., otherwise ..."). >Perhaps we should say >that a player should now alert by what partner is thinking but continue >bidding on the same path he started. The problem with alerting by what partner is thinking is of course that you don't always know what partner is thinking - including the case where it seems that _partner_ has misbid. I still prefer the rule that says "alert according to what you believe to be your system". >>[Jesper:] If, on the other hand, he still believes that 2NT is natural in the >>system, then his partner has alerted 2NT incorrectly; he must then of >>course not alert 3C (provided it is natural in the system), and he >>must correct the wrong alert. > >It doesn't matter what he believes after the alert. The question is what he >believed to be the case when he started the auction. We disagree here. Opponents have a right to alerts according to the agreed system; if a player believes that he has now remembered what the agreed system is, he should alert and explain according to that, even though he had forgotten it a moment ago. Is the statement above your opinion even in a case where it really quite obviously is a misbid? (To take an extreme case: just before the round, the opponents heard you agree with your partner to play transfers over 1NT, but nevertheless you forgot and bid 2H with a heart suit; wouldn't you then alert partners' 2S?) Apart from the "alert or not" question, it all boils down to the question of whether it really was a misbid or not. Your position, as I understand it, is that true misbids are very rare and that in the absence of solid evidence of a misbid the TD should rule MI. I basically agree, but perhaps I require less solid evidence than you do. --- Jesper Dybdal From owner-bridge-laws Thu May 23 14:49:49 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id OAA11471 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 23 May 1996 14:49:49 +1000 Received: from emout17.mail.aol.com (emout17.mx.aol.com [198.81.11.43]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id OAA11465 for ; Thu, 23 May 1996 14:49:41 +1000 From: AlLeBendig@aol.com Received: by emout17.mail.aol.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA26119 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Thu, 23 May 1996 00:49:07 -0400 Date: Thu, 23 May 1996 00:49:07 -0400 Message-ID: <960523004907_202359182@emout17.mail.aol.com> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Rule of Coincidence (was: UI from partner) Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In a message dated 96-05-22 13:07:04 EDT, Wally Farley writes: >Subj: Re: Rule of Coincidence (was: UI from partner) >Date: 96-05-22 13:07:04 EDT >From: FARLEY_WALLY@Tandem.COM >Sender: owner-bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au >To: allebendig@aol.com >CC: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au > >Alan LeBendig wrote: >[snip] >> I am prepared to lift all restrictions on psyching in any NABC Open >> Event. If we have to deal with the fielding of a psyche that is >> simple. At least everyone in that event is capable of dealing with >> the psyche. In exchange, I would like to see even tighter >> restrictions on psyching in other events. I am totally against >> psyching in the Clubs. > >I agree, philosophically. But I think any restriction is illegal. That may be your opinion, but it has nothing to do with fact. There are currently restrictions as to frequency of psyches and controlled psyches. Both of these are totally legal. >> In my club, we allow one psyche per calendar month. After that, we >> adjust to zero and issue PPs. Psyching is the one thing that angers >> beginning and intermediate players more than anything else. Since we >> started this policy, our players are much more content and know that >> they only need to record the psyche and the system will take care of >> future happenings. > >This sounds interesting, Alan. What do you call the game you play at >your club -- because, from my limited understanding of the laws, it is >no longer 'Duplicate Contract Bridge'. 'Duplicate Contract Bridge' in a club is a totally different than the same game in a tournament setting. The successful clubs recognize that fact. Club bridge is a social event more than battleground. If you think all bridge must be played by the same rules you're not in touch with the world of club bridge. If these concepts bother you, you're probably much better off limiting your bridge to tournaments where it is played more by the book. There are an unbelievable number of 'bridge players' out there that could care less if they ever get a gold point or play in a tournament. They only come to the club because it is organized competition, it is social and they can depend on when it will end. If any of that changes, they will go elsewhere or do something else. >There is a great deal of tension between two conflicting desires -- >the desire to keep players happy at the club (and thus to have them >continue playing duplicate bridge, preferably (though not necessarily >exclusively) at this club) and the desire to have this bridge game >comply with the laws. Complying with the Laws is not nearly as important to them as the requirement that they find it a pleasant experience. We comply with all Laws as to rulings, etc. We only restrict psyching because that is one issue that always angers them and they can never understand why they need to get a bad board because someone cheated! And that is how they view it. There are players like you that are bothered by our attitude on this issue. However, we are a large and progressive club and they understand that if they want to be able to play in our club, those are the rules. I have seen more than one bridge club die because they wanted to play tournament rules and do everything by the book. That's all well and good until the intermediate players stop coming because it is not enjoyable anymore. There aren't enough "ggod players" to keep a club open. Take your choice! If the majority of my players were bothered by the Stayman Convention because they were getting bad boards, I assure you we would outlaw Stayman. And the ACBL would never suggest we couldn't do that. >As far as psyches go, they are lawful. They >are also (I'll concede without any argument) terribly disruptive to >novices. And you probably don't know how disruptive. >I do not have the solution to this dichotomy. I wish I did. But I >fear for a game I love if the _de facto_ 'solution' is the one you >described. If, in fact, the laws have changed so much from the time >I was an active participant that your actions are now condoned by >the Laws, then the game I love has already died. The game you love is very alive even if it is not well. I never said that my actions were condoned by the Laws. They aren't. However, the ACBL gives clubs a lot of latitude in how to run their games. The belief is that if club owners and managers are doing things wrong as far as the players are concerned, they won't survive long. Our biggest concern must always be to keep the players happy and make it a pleasant experience for them. Keep in mind that club rules and tournament rules must be different if a club is to survive and prosper. I'm not sure if you're aware of it, but clubs serve a hell of a lot more bridge players than tournaments do. Alan LeBendig Los Angeles From owner-bridge-laws Thu May 23 14:49:57 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id OAA11491 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 23 May 1996 14:49:57 +1000 Received: from emout15.mail.aol.com (emout15.mx.aol.com [198.81.11.41]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id OAA11470 for ; Thu, 23 May 1996 14:49:47 +1000 From: AlLeBendig@aol.com Received: by emout15.mail.aol.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA11384 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Thu, 23 May 1996 00:49:13 -0400 Date: Thu, 23 May 1996 00:49:13 -0400 Message-ID: <960523004913_202359239@emout15.mail.aol.com> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Psychinng Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In a message dated 96-05-22 16:26:02 EDT, David Stevenson writes: > Looking from the outside there appear to be problems with American >Bridge. I hear worries about the future. What do you need for American >Bridge to flourish? You need more people to play in tournaments, and >one of the first requirements for this is for people who play in their >first tournament (or their first sectional, or their first National: it >applies all the way up the line) to come away from it thinking "I >enjoyed that: it wasn't so different, after all." Most club players will not play in tournaments and have no desire to do so. If there was an NABC held in Beverly Hills, our club would not lose more than 6 tables. And Beverly Hills is 4 miles away. Try to understand we average thirty tables per session (weekday afternoons only). We definitely have a group of players that want to improve and want to go to tournaments. I take steps to make sure they are educated as to what happens in the real world. Some have already played in tournaments and thoroughly enjoy it. Don't forget, at tournaments they are entering B or C events and will not run into psyches there either. > The more you try to keep your clubs different from your events the >more difficult it will be to bridge :) the gap. If club players are >protected from psyching in their club then they are more likely to be >upset when they go out into the real world and someone psyches against >them. If the clubs are servicing more players than the tournaments are, our job is to make those players happy with no concern for the future of tournament bridge. I'm not being callous. I strongly believe that if the clubs grow and prosper, there will be more players available to filter into tournament bridge. The clubs are where new players come from. So regardless of the cost, their entry into the bridge world must be a sheltered one. Things have changed since many of us started. Let me give you all something to ponder. If a promoter came to your district and promised a 20% increase in attendance for your next Tournament PROVIDED you outlawed psyches and guaranteed there would be no TD calls if a player with under 50 masterpoints hesitated, would you be so quick to turn it down? Would you insist that these conditions were out of the question? IMO, we need to find a way to get many of these players to want to come to our tournaments. The conditions I discuss above will go a long way. We can deal with rudeness in the clubs by immediately barring the perpetrator. Tournaments need to be able to and willing to take these same steps. Slapping someone on the hand and telling them not to do it again doesn't cut it. All these things are related, David. We can discuss Laws and rights all we want. Psyching is only a small part of the problem but an area that can creativily be dealt with. > My club is lucky, we have one player who psyches quite often, called >Ron. If you came and played, and you psyched, it would *not* upset my >players: they would just look at your hand and say "You make silly bids >just like Ron!" If they go and play in an event and someone psyches >against them then they take it as a matter of course and it does not >stop them playing. Believe me, I am delighted to hear about such a progressive club. I would only question how many players you might have lost because they couldn't understand it and didn't want to deal with it. > When someone has just started the game they do need a little >protection: in most cases players just don't psyche against them. >However once they have been playing for some time it is far better for >them if people do psyche so that they first learn about dealing with >psyches (which includes not getting upset) in their own club. > > I understand (correct me if I am wrong) that in the USA clubs do not >need to use alerting nor skip bid warnings. As I said in another posting, Clubs can do basically anything they want. Most clubs I know of definitely follow the alert procedures and skip bid warnings. I have given 9 lectures in the past three weeks on the changes in alerts and it has been well received. We are very firm on enforcing these regulations and I have no problem explaining MI problems to even the newest players. The same applies to UI from the alerting process. >If this is so that is one >decision that will definitely lead to tournament Bridge becoming less >popular for the same reason: it makes the gulf between club and >tournament Bridge bigger. Strangely enough, I believe the reverse >effect applies: less tournament Bridge leads to less club Bridge >(because its general popularity wanes). The total effect of all this is >that American Bridge will become like a snake eating its own tail ... There are many successful clubs which are growing and prospering despite the downturn in membership in the ACBL and lower tournament attendance. Perhaps these clubs have faced some facts that our organizations are going to have to face shortly. Alan LeBendig Los Angeles From owner-bridge-laws Thu May 23 14:49:58 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id OAA11492 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 23 May 1996 14:49:58 +1000 Received: from emout07.mail.aol.com (emout07.mx.aol.com [198.81.11.22]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id OAA11472 for ; Thu, 23 May 1996 14:49:51 +1000 From: AlLeBendig@aol.com Received: by emout07.mail.aol.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA01224 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Thu, 23 May 1996 00:49:17 -0400 Date: Thu, 23 May 1996 00:49:17 -0400 Message-ID: <960523004916_202359276@emout07.mail.aol.com> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Unauthorized Information(Americam spelling) Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In a message dated 96-05-22 15:20:44 EDT, Jesper writes: [s] Allebendig writes >>: >>As a result of these beliefs, I am prepared to treat the alert of 2NT as MI >>and presume the responder is playing something different than partner. If >I >>am correct, there should be no alert of the 3C call. > >Isn't it a good practice to alert when partner makes a call that you >have no clear agreement about, but which might be artificial? (and, >if asked, say something like "it is not clear whether our agreement >about 1NT-2NT in an undisturbed auction also covers this situation; if >it does, then 3C means ..., otherwise ..."). How do you know you have no agreement about the bid? In this case the bridge tells you. In many cases the alert tells you. In those cases, alerting is improper according to what we are told. Believe me, Jesper, I am very unhappy about alerting or not alerting a bid when I KNOW we are on different tracks. But until I'm told differently, I know what the regulations are and I will continue to practice them >>Perhaps we should say >>that a player should now alert by what partner is thinking but continue >>bidding on the same path he started. > >The problem with alerting by what partner is thinking is of course >that you don't always know what partner is thinking - including the >case where it seems that _partner_ has misbid. I still prefer the >rule that says "alert according to what you believe to be your >system". Fine! In this case that means we don't alert 3C if we are sure that we knew 2NT was a natural invitation. >>>[Jesper:] If, on the other hand, he still believes that 2NT is natural in >the >>>system, then his partner has alerted 2NT incorrectly; he must then of >>>course not alert 3C (provided it is natural in the system), and he >>>must correct the wrong alert. >> >>It doesn't matter what he believes after the alert. The question is what he >>believed to be the case when he started the auction. > >We disagree here. Opponents have a right to alerts according to the >agreed system; if a player believes that he has now remembered what >the agreed system is, he should alert and explain according to that, >even though he had forgotten it a moment ago. Is the statement above >your opinion even in a case where it really quite obviously is a >misbid? My apologies. You are obviously correct. I was still operating on the premise that it wasn't a forget. I just feel it is usually a misunderstanding as opposed to a forget. >(To take an extreme case: just before the round, the >opponents heard you agree with your partner to play transfers over >1NT, but nevertheless you forgot and bid 2H with a heart suit; >wouldn't you then alert partners' 2S?) In that situation, I would consider this a forget. Therefore I should alert as if I knew what was happening. Curiosity only, why is this an alert? >Apart from the "alert or not" question, it all boils down to the >question of whether it really was a misbid or not. Your position, as >I understand it, is that true misbids are very rare and that in the >absence of solid evidence of a misbid the TD should rule MI. I >basically agree, but perhaps I require less solid evidence than you >do. I'm glad we're not as far apart as I thought we might be. Alan LeBendig Los Angeles From owner-bridge-laws Thu May 23 16:57:02 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id QAA12037 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 23 May 1996 16:57:02 +1000 Received: from ccnet3.ccnet.com (pisarra@ccnet3.ccnet.com [192.215.96.11]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id QAA12032 for ; Thu, 23 May 1996 16:56:56 +1000 Received: (from pisarra@localhost) by ccnet3.ccnet.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA18227; Wed, 22 May 1996 23:53:59 -0700 Date: Wed, 22 May 1996 23:53:59 -0700 (PDT) From: Chris Pisarra X-Sender: pisarra@ccnet3 To: bridge laws list Subject: Re: Rule of Coincidence (was: UI from partner) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Wed, 22 May 1996, Eric Landau wrote: > Estimating the strengths and weaknesses of one's opponents and selecting > tactics to match is certainly part of the game. So are psychs. And > psyching (ethically) is always a risky proposition. So reserving the > tactic (psyching) for situations where it's more likely to gain (against > weaker opponents) is an obvious and sensible thing to do. Against > strong opposition, you'd be giving odds away if you ignored your 5% line > for a pseudo-squeeze, or if you psyched. Am I the only person who thinks that this is backwards thinking? Why would I bother to psych against Gladys and Myrtle? I'm getting 65% boards against them anyway. When I'm playing Meckwell, the odds are in their favor, so I need to do something to shake up the auction, take away their space, throw some pixie dust around--what do I have to lose, anyway? In the 3rd session of the first National Open Pairs in Philadelphia, I picked up a 3-3-3-4, 1 count. White against red, and there were 2 passes to me. With Gladys on my left, I could have just passed and taken my average plus. Unfortunately, my LHO was Kit Woolsey. Having little to lose, I opened 1S. Kit eventually landed in an impossible slam, never able to convince Mansfield that the spades belonged to them (Kit had a 23 count with 6 spades). If I let them bid undisturbed, they would never have gotten to the wrong spot--so I took a chance. We got a cold top across 6 sections. But why would I bother against weak players? Chris Chris Pisarra pisarra@ccnet.com From owner-bridge-laws Thu May 23 20:26:52 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id UAA15356 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 23 May 1996 20:26:52 +1000 Received: from mail.be.innet.net (mail.be.innet.net [194.7.1.8]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id UAA15351 for ; Thu, 23 May 1996 20:26:29 +1000 Received: from innet.innet.be (pool03-70.innet.be [194.7.10.54]) by mail.be.innet.net (8.7.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id MAA22209 for ; Thu, 23 May 1996 12:26:16 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <31A311BB.565A@innet.be> Date: Wed, 22 May 1996 13:08:11 +0000 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.0 (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Rule of Coincidence References: <199605211620.CAA09698@octavia.anu.edu.au> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Kent Burghard explained the RoC : > > Here, for the record, is the ACBL regulation describing the Rule > of Coincidence used in ACBL sanctioned events. It comes from the > ACBL home page at address: > [s] > The following combination of overbid and underbid is an example of the > Rule of Coincidence. East, whose card is marked 15-17, opens one > notrump with a balanced 14, West with 10 points decides to bid > only 2NT and eight tricks are the maximum available. This > "lucky coincidence" is the result of two improbably actions which, > in combination, "work". It is a violation of regulation and is > subject to a score adjustment on its face. > I now retract my original support for this rule (in a previous message). Guidelines to directors can never modify the Laws themselves. All score adjustments should be based on a Law, never on the RoC. The 'infraction' which is described above can only be judged a misinformation. Partners play (14)15-17 but explain a 15-17. The passing with 10 pts adds weight to the suggestion that the system is indeed (14)-17. So misinformation has now been proven. If the opponents can claim that their defense was based upon an absolute certainty of 15 pts, an adjusted score can be possible. In so far, I suscribe completely to the RoC, although I do not particularly need it, I can direct suffuciently firm even without it. But the RoC seems to include an automatic adjustment from 2NT= to 3NT-1 in this case. Clearly that cannot be correct. The only reason for a correction of this kind would be to imply that the 1NT opener in some way twitched so as to indicate a sub-minimum opening. Are so many American players so dishonest as to imagine that a coincidence can only be explained through obvious cheating ? I simply fail to see the reason behind the need for the regulation as stated above. -- Herman DE WAEL E-Mail HermanDW@innet.be Michel Willemslaan 40 tel ++32.3.827.64.45 B-2610 WILRIJK (Antwerpen) fax ++32.3.825.29.19 Belgium http://www.club.innet.be/~pub02163/index.htm From owner-bridge-laws Thu May 23 20:59:17 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id UAA15460 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 23 May 1996 20:59:17 +1000 Received: from mail.be.innet.net (mail.be.innet.net [194.7.1.8]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id UAA15455 for ; Thu, 23 May 1996 20:59:06 +1000 Received: from innet.innet.be (pool03-70.innet.be [194.7.10.54]) by mail.be.innet.net (8.7.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id MAA22221 for ; Thu, 23 May 1996 12:26:21 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <31A455A7.7C0C@innet.be> Date: Thu, 23 May 1996 12:10:15 +0000 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.0 (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: UI from questions not asked References: <9605222240.AA05106@cfa183.harvard.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I write my responses off-line and so my second reaction in this thread has not appeared yet but : Steve Willner wrote: > > > > From: Herman De Wael > > I think it is very strange when a psyche is fielded. How often do you > > psyche ? Once in a thousand deals ? Fielding a psyche would mean that > > partner also does something *strange*. He can do that also once in a > > thousand deals. To coincidentally do this on the same deal would be a > > million-to-one odd. I do not believe in this kind of coincidence. > > This is the best explanation of the RoC I have ever seen. If asked "Do I thank you for this compliment. > you believe a rare coincidence, or do you believe some subtle UI?" I'll > vote for the UI. Note that we adjust the score on the basis of > catching the psyche, NOT on whether the opponents could have done > something if given a complete explanation. And note further that the > RoC is a _rule of evidence_, not creation of any new kind of > infraction. > Yes, the RoC is a rule of evidence, I agree completely. Yet, you write, 'we adjust the score on the basis of watching the psyche'. What Law do you apply that the pair has broken ? -- Herman DE WAEL E-Mail HermanDW@innet.be Michel Willemslaan 40 tel ++32.3.827.64.45 B-2610 WILRIJK (Antwerpen) fax ++32.3.825.29.19 Belgium http://www.club.innet.be/~pub02163/index.htm From owner-bridge-laws Thu May 23 22:00:17 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id WAA15753 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 23 May 1996 22:00:17 +1000 Received: from cabra.cri.dk (cabra.cri.dk [130.227.48.5]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id VAA15732 for ; Thu, 23 May 1996 21:59:34 +1000 X-Organization: Computer Resources International A/S, Bregneroedvej 144, DK-3460 Birkeroed, Denmark Received: from nov.cri.dk (nov.cri.dk [130.227.50.162]) by cabra.cri.dk (8.6.12/8.6.10) with SMTP id NAA24202 for ; Thu, 23 May 1996 13:57:51 +0200 Received: from CRI-Message_Server by nov.cri.dk with Novell_GroupWise; Thu, 23 May 1996 13:57:46 +0200 Message-Id: X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise 4.1 Date: Thu, 23 May 1996 13:57:37 +0200 From: Jens Brix Christiansen To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Rule of Coincidence Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk >>> Herman De Wael 22.05.96 15:08 >>> >Partners play (14)15-17 but explain a 15-17. The passing with 10 >pts adds weight to the suggestion that the system is indeed (14)-17. >So misinformation has now been proven. Herman makes the point that playing (14)15-17, but writing 15-17 on the convention card (and explaining 15-17 when asked) is a simple case of misinformation, which may cause damage in some rare cases. (In a way it happened to me recently while I was partnering Jesper: I wrongly placed declarer with the heart Ace, but he turned up with a point less than his range, and Jesper had that crucial ace, just like he had been signaling). RoC-like rulings should not be used for simple misinformation with no hint of malignant intent. All of this I agree with. The point in the example provided by Kent and addressed by Herman above seems to be more than simple misinformation, however, because passing with 10 points is strange even with a (14)15-17 agreement. Passing with 9 could indicate misinformation, but passing with 10 indicates (not incontrovertibly, of course) that you really do not expect partner to have more than 15 points. Now if a player really does not expect to partner to have more than 15 points, partner turns out to have 14, and the card still says 15-17, there is considerable circumstantial evidence of a concealed partnership agreement, not just (sloppy) misinformation. Therefore, I believe that Herman is a bit hasty in withdrawing his support for the RoC the way I understand it after the excellent debate all of you have provided. My understanding is summarized below: The RoC is a guideline that describes certain situations where a TD is recommended to rule that circumstantial evidence points to a concealed partnership understanding, to adjust the score to redress any damage resulting from that infraction, and to give appropriate procedural penalties. I do not see the RoC requiring an adjustment in a case where a partnership with two balanced hands and a total of 24 points play in 1NT with 8 and only 8 tricks -- there is no damage to the opponents. In that case, RoC-like reasoning can only be used to support one-sided (procedural) penalties for the (probable) offenders. The advantage of the RoC is that it allows the TD to rule in this way without giving the appearance of accusing the (probable) offenders of intentionally violating the laws (i.e. cheating), although that is of course exactly what he is doing anyway. He says "Sorry, people, gotta rule against you according to the RoC," justice is probably done, the word "cheating" has not been mentioned, and general shouting is (hopefully) prevented. He is really saying "I am convicting you of concealed agreements," of course. The caution against using the RoC to rule against inexperienced (reasonable, of course) supports my idea that the follwoing procedure is understood: 1. Is there a remarkable coincidence? 2. If so, are you as the TD convinced that this really is a concealedagreement? 3. The rule "this is an instance of the RoC". Handled this way, the RoC does not really express the "psyching is illegal" dogma, only the "concealed partnership understandings are illegal" dogma. This is appealing to me, given the contents of Laws 40. The added advantage of the RoC is that it may help the TD to be aware of the possibility of such violations; most TDs will see this type of infraction so seldom that they may forget that it is possible. Changing pace, another point I would like covered some day is this: When is 1NT on 14 balanced (playing 15-17) a treatment, and when is it not [so that we would require (14)15-17]? To focus the issue, let us assume that the sponsoring organization would be happy to accept 14-17, and (14)15-17 as legal agreements. [End of idea for another thread] Jens Brix Christiansen, Denmark From owner-bridge-laws Thu May 23 23:38:24 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA16481 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 23 May 1996 23:38:24 +1000 Received: from andrew.cais.com (andrew.cais.com [199.0.216.215]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id XAA16476 for ; Thu, 23 May 1996 23:38:19 +1000 Received: from cais3.cais.com (cais3.cais.com [199.0.216.227]) by andrew.cais.com (8.6.9/8.6.9) with SMTP id JAA29443 for ; Thu, 23 May 1996 09:38:14 -0400 Date: Thu, 23 May 1996 09:38:13 -0400 (EDT) From: Eric Landau To: Bridge Laws Discussion List Subject: Re: UI from questions not asked In-Reply-To: <9605222240.AA05106@cfa183.harvard.edu> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Wed, 22 May 1996, Steve Willner wrote: > This is the best explanation of the RoC I have ever seen. If asked "Do > you believe a rare coincidence, or do you believe some subtle UI?" I'll > vote for the UI. Note that we adjust the score on the basis of > catching the psyche, NOT on whether the opponents could have done > something if given a complete explanation. And note further that the > RoC is a _rule of evidence_, not creation of any new kind of > infraction. [...] > I disagree. Note that the score adjustment does not hinge on whether > the opponents could have done anything had they been informed of the > possibility of a psyche. The issue is how the psyche was fielded -- > UI or AI. If Steve were asked the right question, "Do you believe a rare coincidence or do you believe some subtle infraction?", he'd vote for the latter. It's a legalistic quibble, but the presumed infraction evidenced by the RoC isn't UI (Law 16.A violation). Nor, as Steve makes clear, is it misinformation (75.C violation). It is an illegal partnership agreement (Law 40.D and ACBL regs pursuant to it), perforce concealed (and thus also in violation of 40.B). The presumption is that they were able to "catch the psych" because they knew (illegally) that it was likely to be a psych, not because they exchanged UI on the particular hand in question. Let's see how this fits in with Steve's example: > Consider the auction (Standard American, opponents silent) 2C-2H-3C-P. > The 2C opener had a strong 1C bid, worth a jump on the second round. > The 2H bidder had a random 8-count. (A normal auction would have been > 1C-1H-3C-3NT-P). What do you think really happened? Would you call > the director if your opponents perpetrated this one (and got a good > score when the normal 3NT failed)? Yet nothing in the above is an > irregularity. If 3NT was a normal contract reached by the field on normal auctions, it was probably a reasonable contract that was unlucky to fail. If my opponents' odd auction got them to a poor contract that lucked out for a good score, which seems to be the case here, I might call the director because of the coincidence of responder's odd pass and the fact that the contract happened to fail, which has nothing to do with opener. It sounds like responder may be guilty of a Law 16.B violation -- he might have had a wire. (Yes, that's technically UI also, but we're using the term here to mean UI from partner, Law 16.A.) If 3NT was a hopeless contract on the two hands, and the field reached it because it's just one of those hands that standard bidding doesn't work well on, I might well call the director. I'd suspect a Law 40 violation as evidenced by the RoC -- responder knew from experience that opener was likely to lack the values for his 2C opening; this is an illegal (implicit) agreement. The last thing I'd suspect is a 16.A violation; that would mean that opener was somehow able to communicate to responder that he lacked the values for 2C on this hand, without benefit of prior (implicit or explicit) agreement, and was able to do it in such a way that I could detect nothing irregular happening at the table. In the worst case, if it appeared that he did indeed somehow manage to do that, I'd be far more concerned with a possible violation of 73.B.2 (secret signals) than with 16.A (innocent and inadvertant transmission of UI that responder was able to detect and interpret -- even though I noticed nothing -- and subsequently took advantage of). Eric Landau APL Solutions, Inc. elandau@cais.com 1107 Dale Drive (301) 589-4621 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 USA From owner-bridge-laws Fri May 24 00:55:47 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA19921 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 24 May 1996 00:55:47 +1000 Received: from andrew.cais.com (andrew.cais.com [199.0.216.215]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id AAA19916 for ; Fri, 24 May 1996 00:55:39 +1000 Received: from cais3.cais.com (cais3.cais.com [199.0.216.227]) by andrew.cais.com (8.6.9/8.6.9) with SMTP id KAA04262 for ; Thu, 23 May 1996 10:55:35 -0400 Date: Thu, 23 May 1996 10:55:35 -0400 (EDT) From: Eric Landau To: Bridge Laws Discussion List Subject: Re: Rule of Coincidence (was: UI from partner) In-Reply-To: <960523004907_202359182@emout17.mail.aol.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Thu, 23 May 1996 AlLeBendig@aol.com wrote: > In a message dated 96-05-22 13:07:04 EDT, Wally Farley writes: > >I agree, philosophically. But I think any restriction is illegal. > That may be your opinion, but it has nothing to do with fact. There are > currently restrictions as to frequency of psyches and controlled psyches. > Both of these are totally legal. Come on, Alan. That's obviously circular. The ACBL's position is that: (a) We are entitled to decide what's legal. (b) We declare that these restrictions are legal ("because we say so"). (c) Therefore, they're legal. Intelligent and reasonable people, of whom Wally is presumably one, as well as other NCBOs, disagree with the ACBL's premise (a). They argue that: (a) Their entitlement to decide what's legal is constrained by Law 80.F, which forbids regulations "in conflict with these Laws." (b) They have made regulations that are in prima facie conflict with Law 40.A. (c) Such regulations are not legal. Nobody denies the ACBL the right to ban or regulate controlled psychs, since (b) above doesn't apply; Law 40.A concerns only "call[s]... not based on a partnership understanding." The dispute is about regulating the frequency of non-systemic, uncontrolled psychs. The ACBL's counter is a regulation (legal because they say so) that makes frequent psychs automatically presumed to be based on a partnership understanding and therefore exempt from any application of Law 40.A. Their position is supported neither directly by the Laws (they would not have a case absent the interpretation embodied in the additional regulation that makes frequent psyching an "implicit partnership agreement," the legality of which is equally circular and arguable) nor by a consensus of NCBOs' regulatory bodies (indeed, the ACBL's position seems to be the minority one). Eric Landau APL Solutions, Inc. elandau@cais.com 1107 Dale Drive (301) 589-4621 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 USA From owner-bridge-laws Fri May 24 01:22:25 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA20085 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 24 May 1996 01:22:25 +1000 Received: from cabra.cri.dk (cabra.cri.dk [130.227.48.5]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id BAA20080 for ; Fri, 24 May 1996 01:22:11 +1000 X-Organization: Computer Resources International A/S, Bregneroedvej 144, DK-3460 Birkeroed, Denmark Received: from nov.cri.dk (nov.cri.dk [130.227.50.162]) by cabra.cri.dk (8.6.12/8.6.10) with SMTP id RAA27395 for ; Thu, 23 May 1996 17:20:16 +0200 Received: from CRI-Message_Server by nov.cri.dk with Novell_GroupWise; Thu, 23 May 1996 17:20:12 +0200 Message-Id: X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise 4.1 Date: Thu, 23 May 1996 17:19:54 +0200 From: Jens Brix Christiansen To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Rule of Coincidence (was: UI from partner) Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk >>> Eric Landau 23.05.96 16:55 >>> >The ACBL's position is that: >(a) We are entitled to decide what's legal. >(b) We declare that these restrictions are legal ("because we say so"). >(c) Therefore, they're legal. >Intelligent and reasonable people, of whom Wally is presumably one, > as well as other NCBOs, disagree with the ACBL's premise (a). Well, IMHO the view that an NCBO has the ultimate right to decide how the Laws are to be interpreted, to the effect that there is nowhere to appeal to above the NCBO, seems to be both letter and spirit of the Laws. I guess I recognize the a-b-c steps above as completely valid. Of course, decisions made on interpretation of the Laws can be debatable, seem unreasonable, and so on; but the NCBO (or its regulatory body) seems to have exactly that power. Warning: I sit on the appropriate Danish committee, so my view may be biased. >The dispute is about regulating the frequency of non-systemic, >uncontrolled psychs. Well, we don't do that in Denmark. We also allow controlled psych(e)s. And we require frequency of psych(e)s to be declared on the convention card. If a club was to publish house rules that "revokes with the ace of trumps are allowed at our club", we would tell them to drop the rule or leave our NCBO. But if they were to forbid psych(e)s, I would not be surprised if a vote was needed on the legality of the restriction. Summary of opinion: I am in no position to chastise the ACBL for their tolerance of regulations on frequency of psych(e)s. I personally believe that such regulations should not be in place at the higher levels of play. Jens Brix Christiansen, Denmark From owner-bridge-laws Fri May 24 01:59:13 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA20259 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 24 May 1996 01:59:13 +1000 Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [128.103.40.170]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id BAA20254 for ; Fri, 24 May 1996 01:59:08 +1000 Received: from cfa183.harvard.edu (cfa183.harvard.edu [131.142.12.59]) by cfa.harvard.edu (8.7.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id LAA16050 for ; Thu, 23 May 1996 11:59:03 -0400 (EDT) Received: by cfa183.harvard.edu (5.x/SMI-SVR4) id AA05427; Thu, 23 May 1996 12:01:17 -0400 Date: Thu, 23 May 1996 12:01:17 -0400 From: willner@cfa183.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Message-Id: <9605231601.AA05427@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: UI from questions not asked X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: Herman De Wael > Yes, the RoC is a rule of evidence, I agree completely. Yet, you write, > 'we adjust the score on the basis of watching the psyche'. What Law do > you apply that the pair has broken ? Sorry to have been so unclear. The Laws broken might include 16A, 16B, or 40B, or perhaps others. The question is "Do you believe Law xx was broken, or do you believe a rare coincidence?" If the coincidence is really one in a million, I'm going to believe almost anything else first. If it's one in ten, the "coincidence" is, by itself, almost meaningless, though it might be one piece of evidence in a larger picture. > If Steve were asked the right question, "Do you believe a rare coincidence > or do you believe some subtle infraction?", he'd vote for the latter. > It's a legalistic quibble, but the presumed infraction evidenced by the > RoC isn't UI (Law 16.A violation). Obviously I wrote badly. Law 16A is certainly one that might be infringed, and I would so rule if the preponderance of the evidence indicated. > Let's see how this fits in with Steve's example: > > > Consider the auction (Standard American, opponents silent) 2C-2H-3C-P. > > The 2C opener had a strong 1C bid, worth a jump on the second round. > > The 2H bidder had a random 8-count. (A normal auction would have been > > 1C-1H-3C-3NT-P). What do you think really happened? Would you call > > the director if your opponents perpetrated this one (and got a good > > score when the normal 3NT failed)? Yet nothing in the above is an > > irregularity. > > If 3NT was a normal contract reached by the field on normal auctions, it > was probably a reasonable contract that was unlucky to fail. Yes, 3NT was a normal contract; not cold, but most pairs will play there. Today it happens not to make; unlucky, but not a big surprise. Further information: the bidders were inexperienced but not so raw that they didn't know what a 2C bid is supposed to mean. When questioned by the director, their explanations amounted to "I was confused." (Both agree that the auction should have been forcing.) > If my > opponents' odd auction got them to a poor contract that lucked out for a > good score, which seems to be the case here, I might call the director > because of the coincidence of responder's odd pass and the fact that the > contract happened to fail, which has nothing to do with opener. It sounds > like responder may be guilty of a Law 16.B violation -- he might have had > a wire. (Yes, that's technically UI also, but we're using the term here > to mean UI from partner, Law 16.A.) Responder's having a wire does not explain the odd opening bid. Note that both players have done something odd, yet nothing in the above story is an irregularity. Nevertheless, I think we agree that calling the director was proper. What do you think happened, or what further questions would you wish to ask to investigate? Or do you think the case is not worth investigation? From owner-bridge-laws Fri May 24 04:18:47 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA20947 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 24 May 1996 04:18:47 +1000 Received: from andrew.cais.com (andrew.cais.com [199.0.216.215]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id EAA20941 for ; Fri, 24 May 1996 04:18:41 +1000 Received: from cais3.cais.com (cais3.cais.com [199.0.216.227]) by andrew.cais.com (8.6.9/8.6.9) with SMTP id OAA14574 for ; Thu, 23 May 1996 14:18:36 -0400 Date: Thu, 23 May 1996 14:18:35 -0400 (EDT) From: Eric Landau To: Bridge Laws Discussion List Subject: Re: UI from questions not asked In-Reply-To: <9605231601.AA05427@cfa183.harvard.edu> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Thu, 23 May 1996, Steve Willner wrote: > > > Consider the auction (Standard American, opponents silent) 2C-2H-3C-P. > > > The 2C opener had a strong 1C bid, worth a jump on the second round. > > > The 2H bidder had a random 8-count. (A normal auction would have been > > > 1C-1H-3C-3NT-P). What do you think really happened? Would you call > > > the director if your opponents perpetrated this one (and got a good > > > score when the normal 3NT failed)? Yet nothing in the above is an > > > irregularity. > > > > If 3NT was a normal contract reached by the field on normal auctions, it > > was probably a reasonable contract that was unlucky to fail. > > Yes, 3NT was a normal contract; not cold, but most pairs will play > there. Today it happens not to make; unlucky, but not a big surprise. > Further information: the bidders were inexperienced but not so raw that > they didn't know what a 2C bid is supposed to mean. When questioned by > the director, their explanations amounted to "I was confused." (Both > agree that the auction should have been forcing.) > What do you think happened, or what further questions would you wish > to ask to investigate? Or do you think the case is not worth > investigation? I start by asking the 2C bidder what he was thinking about. If he admits to an infraction (e.g. "We sometimes make strong 2C bids even when we don't have the stregth for it" -- illegal agreement -- or "I psyched" -- illegal to psych a strong artificial opening) I adjust, after delivering a suitable lecture on why what he did was illegal. If he claims innocence ("I don't know, I just screwed up"), I ask responder what he was thinking about when he passed. Maybe he will admit to an infraction: "He said he might do something like that tonight" -- concealed explicit agreement. "He's done it before and I thought he might be doing it again" -- concealed implicit agreement. "I heard the guy at the next table say 3NT had no play" -- wire. "I could tell from the expression on his face that he screwed up, and I figured I should probably pass" -- UI, but VERY unlikely to be news at this point. If he claims innocence ("I don't know, I just screwed up; I had no idea he didn't have a real 2C bid, and was horrified when I realized I had passed") too, we have an RoC case: two presumptively innocent screw-ups that have coincidentally combined to produce the result that would have occurred had there been a concealed agreement. I would adjust and explain the RoC: "I understand that you didn't know that partner didn't have his 2C bid, and you just passed by accident, but the rules don't take that into account. Had you known that he didn't have his bid, you'd have known that it was probably a good idea to pass. In cases like that, the rules say that, since he doesn't have his bid, you're not allowed to get a good score by passing, regardless of whether you knew it or not." Mind you, I wouldn't be terribly happy with my explanation, since I'm not personally convinced that the RoC is a valid interpretation of the Laws, but if I were directing in the ACBL I would apply it and explain it as above, which I believe to be the way it was intended to be applied. Note that neither my internal rationale for doing so nor my explanation of my actions to the affected parties have anything whatsoever to do with Law 16.A or with the use of UI from partner. I'd never suspect a Law 16.A problem. This guy's opponents called me to the table, right? So if his partner had made a face or something that he might have picked up on during the auction, I'd figure they'd have noticed it too, and I'd have heard about it the instant I got there. Eric Landau APL Solutions, Inc. elandau@cais.com 1107 Dale Drive (301) 589-4621 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 USA From owner-bridge-laws Fri May 24 06:36:03 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA29132 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 24 May 1996 06:36:03 +1000 Received: from electra.cc.umanitoba.ca (root@electra.cc.umanitoba.ca [130.179.16.23]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id GAA29127 for ; Fri, 24 May 1996 06:35:57 +1000 Received: from ankaa.cc.umanitoba.ca (root@ankaa.cc.umanitoba.ca [130.179.16.47]) by electra.cc.umanitoba.ca (8.7.1/8.7.1) with SMTP id PAA17514 for ; Thu, 23 May 1996 15:35:53 -0500 (CDT) Received: by ankaa.cc.umanitoba.ca (4.1/25-eef) id AA24489; Thu, 23 May 96 15:35:52 CDT Message-Id: <9605232035.AA24489@ankaa.cc.umanitoba.ca> Date: Thu, 23 May 96 15:34 CDT From: Barry Wolk To: Subject: Re: Rule of Coincidence Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Jens Brix Christiansen wrote: >The advantage of the RoC is that it allows the TD to rule in this >way without giving the appearance of accusing the (probable) >offenders of intentionally violating the laws (i.e. cheating), although >that is of course exactly what he is doing anyway. He says >"Sorry, people, gotta rule against you according to the RoC," >justice is probably done, the word "cheating" has not been >mentioned, and general shouting is (hopefully) prevented. My only encounter with the RoC was of this form. A husband-wife pair were playing optional doubles. The wife held an obvious penalty double, and the husband held an obvious pull of that double. The ruling went against them when she doubled (a reasonable action) and he passed. The DIC read the RoC to the appeals committee, and the word "cheating" was never used. The next day, I asked one of their opponents in private: "His pass is so ridiculous that there must have been some table action between them." His reply: "Of course there was." This use of the RoC allows justice to be done without the complications that would be involved if the committee tried to address the true nature of the infraction. It gives the committee a choice as to how to handle such cases. Barry Wolk Dept of Mathematics University of Manitoba Winnipeg Manitoba Canada From owner-bridge-laws Fri May 24 11:59:16 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id LAA00937 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 24 May 1996 11:59:16 +1000 Received: from relay-4.mail.demon.net (relay-4.mail.demon.net [158.152.1.108]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id LAA00932 for ; Fri, 24 May 1996 11:58:39 +1000 Received: from post.demon.co.uk ([158.152.1.72]) by relay-4.mail.demon.net id ag23032; 24 May 96 1:54 GMT Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by relay-3.mail.demon.net id aa08615; 24 May 96 1:16 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 24 May 1996 01:09:44 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Laws: the authority In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 1.12 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article , Jens Brix Christiansen writes >>>> Eric Landau 23.05.96 16:55 >>> >>The ACBL's position is that: >>(a) We are entitled to decide what's legal. >>(b) We declare that these restrictions are legal ("because we say so"). >>(c) Therefore, they're legal. > >>Intelligent and reasonable people, of whom Wally is presumably one, >> as well as other NCBOs, disagree with the ACBL's premise (a). > >Well, IMHO the view that an NCBO has the ultimate >right to decide how the Laws are to be interpreted, to the effect >that there is nowhere to appeal to above the NCBO, seems to >be both letter and spirit of the Laws. I guess I recognize the >a-b-c steps above as completely valid. Of course, decisions >made on interpretation of the Laws can be debatable, seem >unreasonable, and so on; but the NCBO (or its regulatory body) >seems to have exactly that power. An NCBO does not have the right to make decisions that are contrary to the Laws of the game. It is not the ultimate authority on the Laws: that is the Laws Commission of the World Bridge Federation. Your a-b-c rules could be challenged by applying to a higher authority. In fact there is also the Laws Commission of the European Bridge League, as far as you are concerned. The ACBL does appear to think itself as the highest authority on the Laws. This may be partly because it has been decided for practical purposes that it is sensible for the drafting committee for new Laws to be all-American. It took some time and argument (primarily with Steve Willner) to sort out the position over the Law books. The European/English Law book has been approved by the World Bridge Federation, while the American Law book has a significant omission and an extra item. These are both in footnotes. The English version contains the following footnote to L12C2: "An Appeal Committee may vary an assigned adjusted score in order to do equity." [I am told the phrase "to do equity" is neither British English nor American English: I understand it is Australian English.] This footnote has been approved by the WBF and accordingly should appear in all Law books. However the ACBL decided [illegally] not to include it. You probably appreciate that my view is that American ACs are using it even though it isn't there, otherwise IMO many of their decisions are illegal. The American version contains the following footnote to L25B1: "When the original bid was insufficient, apply Law 27B." This footnote has not been approved by the WBF and accordingly should not appear in Law books. However the ACBL decided [illegally] to include it. In Europe there is a difference of opinion as to whether it is correct. In Britain we apply L25B1 first and not L27B when the original bid was insufficient. There are three copies of the Law book on the Net. There is an American version attached to the ACBL Web page. There is an English version (so-called) being prepared by Niels Wendell Pedersen. And there is a mixed version, part American, part English, updated by Niels Wendell Pedersen. > >Warning: I sit on the appropriate Danish committee, so my >view may be biased. > >>The dispute is about regulating the frequency of non-systemic, >>uncontrolled psychs. > >Well, we don't do that in Denmark. We also allow controlled >psych(e)s. And we require frequency of psych(e)s to be >declared on the convention card. > >If a club was to publish house rules that "revokes with the >ace of trumps are allowed at our club", we would tell them to >drop the rule or leave our NCBO. But if they were to forbid >psych(e)s, I would not be surprised if a vote was needed >on the legality of the restriction. Suppose the DBF was to publish house rules that "revokes with the ace of trumps are allowed in our country" what then? According to your a-b- c above this is legal: I am afraid that it is not. The DBF and the ACBL have no right to go against the Laws of the game. What, of course, NCBOs can do is to give opinions which do not conflict with the Law book. The reason that I am prepared to use the RoC approach for psyches is that I can be convinced that it is a useful tool that does not conflict with the Laws. > >Summary of opinion: I am in no position to chastise the >ACBL for their tolerance of regulations on frequency of >psych(e)s. I personally believe that such regulations >should not be in place at the higher levels of play. > >Jens Brix Christiansen, Denmark > -- David Stevenson Bridge Cats Railways Logic /\_/\ Liverpool, England, UK Nothing ventured, nothing gained |o o| david@blakjak.demon.co.uk Emails welcome =< " >= Tel: +44 (0)151 677 7412 Phone before Fax please v From owner-bridge-laws Fri May 24 12:48:30 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id MAA01146 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 24 May 1996 12:48:30 +1000 Received: from emout17.mail.aol.com (emout17.mx.aol.com [198.81.11.43]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id MAA01141 for ; Fri, 24 May 1996 12:48:25 +1000 From: AlLeBendig@aol.com Received: by emout17.mail.aol.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) id WAA17885 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Thu, 23 May 1996 22:47:44 -0400 Date: Thu, 23 May 1996 22:47:44 -0400 Message-ID: <960523224738_497532935@emout17.mail.aol.com> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Rule of Coincidence (was: UI from partner) Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In a message dated 96-05-22 15:07:53 EDT, Eric writes: >Subj: Re: Rule of Coincidence (was: UI from partner) >Date: 96-05-22 15:07:53 EDT >From: elandau@cais.com (Eric Landau) >Sender: owner-bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au >To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au (Bridge Laws Discussion List) > >On Wed, 22 May 1996 AlLeBendig@aol.com wrote: > >> I think part of the reason for our "harsh" rules pertaining to psyches is >the >> fact that those engaging in the practice usually seem to pick their >opponents >> to psyche against. It never seems to happen against the good players. >> Always weak opposition. What possible fun can it be to go into a fight >with >> an AK47 if your opponent is armed with a slingshot? > >One could make the same case with respect to deceptive plays, >falsecards, and decisions to play for the pseudo-squeeze instead of the >legitimate 5% >line. Not with a straight face. >Estimating the strengths and weaknesses of one's opponents and selecting >tactics to match is certainly part of the game. So are psychs. And >psyching (ethically) is always a risky proposition. So reserving the >tactic (psyching) for situations where it's more likely to gain (against >weaker opponents) is an obvious and sensible thing to do. Against >strong opposition, you'd be giving odds away if you ignored your 5% line >for a pseudo-squeeze, or if you psyched. >In practice, the statements "you shouldn't psych" and "you should only >psych against strong opposition" boil down to effectively the same thing. I never made those statements. I tried to express the sentiment that psyching in clubs by good players against weak players should be considered off limits. I would never suggest that in a Flight A event one shouldn't psyche. I am willing to accept it in a Stratified Event, just unwilling to do it myself. >> I am prepared to lift all restrictions on psyching in any NABC Open Event. >> If we have to deal with the fielding of a psyche that is simple. At least >> everyone in that event is capable of dealing with the psyche. In exchange, >I >> would like to see even tighter restrictions on psyching in other events. I >> am totally against psyching in the Clubs. > >I'm not sure about "all restrictions," but I'd certainly favor whatever we >can do to eliminate the psychers-are-cheaters view that's currently >written into our regulations. We could start by getting rid of the "rule" >that two psychs in a partnership is a de facto undisclosed understanding. >We could re-legalize controlled, systemic psychs; they're actually less >subject to abuse than "ordinary" psychs, since there's never an issue of >concealed understanding (it's open and overt). And we could restore the >"psychics" box to the CC. This last is more important than it looks. The >effects of taking psychs off the CC seem to have been (a) to convince a >lot of players that psychs have been completely outlawed, and (b) to make >"concealed partnership understandings" of what were previously "revealed >partnership understandings" in order to make it generally easier to >"punish" psychers. > >I'm not sure what I would think of changing the rules only for NABC open >events (or even regional open events). Encountering psychs when one first >starts playing "seriously" at, say, the Flight C level and learning how to >use and deal with them as one more weapon in the serious player's arsenal >may be a good deal less traumatic than playing and learning the game in a >psych-free environment for several years until one "graduates" to the >Flight A games, and then suddenly encountering them for the first time >just when you thought you had learned what you need to know to be ready to >move up. You're suggesting that Flight C players must get prepared for graduation, Eric. What about those that want to stay in kindergarten? Should you have the right to dictate that they must expand their 'bridge' knowledge? >The only truly satisfactory answer IMO is to treat psychs as what they >really are, non-constructive tactical calls, in the same class with >preempts, lead-directors, "dog-walking" underbids, and so forth. As I stated, I have no objection provided we give lower level games the right to prohibit the psyches. >> In my club, we allow one psyche per calendar month. After that, we adjust >to >> zero and issue PPs. Psyching is the one thing that angers beginning and >> intermediate players more than anything else. Since we started this >policy, >> our players are much more content and know that they only need to record >the >> psyche and the system will take care of future happenings. > >One of the most sensible things the ACBL does is to give clubs lots of >latitude to run their games as their players want them to, rather than >requiring them to follow ACBL tournament practices. Clubs exist to serve >their customers, not to determine championships. We NEED clubs that don't >permit psyches so the people who think they're being cheated when someone >psychs against them can have a place to play where they feel comfortable >-- just like we need touch football leagues. But would the NFL consider >restricting or outlawing tackles just because so many players hate to be >tackled? As usual, Eric, we end up being in total agreement. Alan LeBendig Los Angeles From owner-bridge-laws Fri May 24 18:53:04 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id SAA01256 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 24 May 1996 18:53:04 +1000 Received: from cabra.cri.dk (cabra.cri.dk [130.227.48.5]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id SAA01251 for ; Fri, 24 May 1996 18:52:48 +1000 X-Organization: Computer Resources International A/S, Bregneroedvej 144, DK-3460 Birkeroed, Denmark Received: from nov.cri.dk (nov.cri.dk [130.227.50.162]) by cabra.cri.dk (8.6.12/8.6.10) with SMTP id KAA13262 for ; Fri, 24 May 1996 10:51:27 +0200 Received: from CRI-Message_Server by nov.cri.dk with Novell_GroupWise; Fri, 24 May 1996 10:51:23 +0200 Message-Id: X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise 4.1 Date: Fri, 24 May 1996 10:51:11 +0200 From: Jens Brix Christiansen To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Laws: the authority Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk >>> David Stevenson 24.05.96 02:09 >>> > An NCBO does not have the right to make decisions that are contrary > to the Laws of the game. It is not the ultimate authority on the Laws: > that is the Laws Commission of the World Bridge Federation. Your > a-b-c rules could be challenged by applying to a higher authority. > In fact there is also the Laws Commission of the European Bridge > League, as far as you are concerned. > The ACBL does appear to think itself as the highest authority on the > Laws. In principle, David, we agree here. In practice, however, all we (as supposedly knowledgeable laymen) and these commissions can do is to talk. Neither we nor they have any leverage. If I were to challenge, say, the English color coding of psyches in front of the European Laws Commission and they were to rule it illegal, the EBU might just shrug. Legality is not an objective thing, and borderline cases are decided by those that have the real power. We can gripe, get appointed to the committees, and try to influence people, with our eloquence, but that is all we can do. It seems that David and I do just that, by the way, and that we generally try to move things in the same direction. > This may be partly because it has been decided for practical > purposes that it is sensible for the drafting committee for new Laws > to be all-American. Where did we go wrong as Europeans? We must have been too passive at some point in the process. A year ago it looked as if European NCBOs would have real influence on the process. > The European/English Law book has been approved by the World > Bridge Federation, while the American Law book has a significant > omission and an extra item. These are both in footnotes. We agree that this discrepancy is foolish. In Denmark we also use the European version of the footnotes. These discrepancies should be a warning to the WBF Laws people that revisions should not take place piecemeal, and that amendments should be used sparingly, if at all. It is deplorable that at least one of the versions is technically illegal, but it is significant only in interzonal events. For practical bridge the differences do not really matter. It is much like the traffic rules in European countries (or the individual states of the U.S.): They change when you cross a border, but you have very few practical problems getting along in traffic all over Europe and/or the U.S. in spite of that. > Suppose the DBF was to publish house rules that "revokes with > the ace of trumps are allowed in our country" what then? >According to your a-b- c above this is legal: I am afraid that it is not. >The DBF and the ACBL have no right to go against the Laws >of the game. Right. It is not legal. We would have no right to do so. If we do so anyway, all anyone can do is to point fingers at us. [Of course we would never do so. But l'hombre is also an interesting card game] > What, of course, NCBOs can do is to give opinions which do not >conflict with the Law book. No, they don't just give opinions. The committee I am on is charged with interpreting the laws. We create precedents. We are supposed to act in consistency with the law book, of course, and we work hard to do just that. But in practice there is no higher authority to overrule us if we get out of line. Referring to the U.S. Constitution for an analogy, if the Supreme Court rules that legislation is constitutional, then it is constitutional, regardless what people say on the Usenet. Like David, I want NCBOs to be consistent with the law books, and I have opinions on regulations that do not seem to be consistent. Where David and I disagree is on the fine point of whether one opinion or a mass of such opinions make any real difference. >The reason that I am prepared to use the >RoC approach for psyches is that I can be convinced that it is a >useful tool that does not conflict with the Laws. Yes. The present debate seems convincing to me too. Jens Brix Christiansen, Denmark From owner-bridge-laws Fri May 24 21:31:24 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id VAA01814 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 24 May 1996 21:31:24 +1000 Received: from mail.be.innet.net (mail.be.innet.net [194.7.1.8]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id VAA01808 for ; Fri, 24 May 1996 21:31:09 +1000 Received: from innet.innet.be (pool03-41.innet.be [194.7.10.25]) by mail.be.innet.net (8.7.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id NAA03419 for ; Fri, 24 May 1996 13:31:01 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <31A5B875.6C7D@innet.be> Date: Fri, 24 May 1996 13:24:05 +0000 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.0 (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: psyches and semi-psyches Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In many of the recent threads (and in current language), the word psyche=20 is being used for two quite different kinds of auction. I would like to=20 draw you attention to the distinction and invite you all to name the=20 second sort, as I have not yet been able to come up with a good name. I proposed semi-psyche above, but as they are not psyches at all, they=20 may better be named grey system bids or something. The first sort is the regular psyche. The Laws define a 'Psychic Call'=20 as 'a deliberate and gross mis-statement of honour strength or suit=20 length'. I do not think we have any problem with this type of bidding. The second sort I could also call the 'grey system areas'. Examples are=20 common :=20 - a 1NT opening with a major 5-card suit although the system does not=20 include this; - a 1NT opening on a 14 count when playing 15-17; - a 1S opening on a 4-card when playing 5-card majors; maybe even things like : - 1D-(X)-1S on a 3-card suit; (far too common an auction to be happening=20 'just once'); and so on. These are not 'gross mis-statements', so they are not 'psychic calls'. This type of auction gives rise to problems in two different guises : a- misinformation : opponents claim damage because 1NT was explained as 15-17 yet opener=20 holds only 14 points. Law 40A is frequently used to allow this kind of=20 action. I think this is wrong. In other cases, the director shall rule=20 misinformation if the hand seems not to fit the explanation, unless=20 proof can be given to the contrary. =20 I do not accept the convention card as normal proof in cases like this.=20 In fact, the convention card adds to the misexplanation. If a hand is=20 opened on 14 count, this shows IMO that the 1NT was not 15-17 but rather=20 (14)15-17 or even (14)15-16(17). I always consider these cases as misinformation, but I rarely give=20 rulings based on that. Usually (but not always), the correct=20 explanation would have resulted in the same opponent action. b- forbidden systems. Sometimes, a pair plays a system which is just on the border of being=20 acceptable. The rule of 18 has now disappeared from WBF-regulations,=20 but it provided a good example of this kind. There are however other=20 good examples and I shall give them later. The rule of 18 stated that if a system allowed a pair to open a hand=20 containing less than 18 (HCP + length of 2 longest suits) units, at the=20 1-level, this system was to be considered HUM. Now consider a player opening 1S on AKxxx Qxx xxx xx (9+5+3=3D17). If he announces beforehand that he will open this hand, he will be=20 deemed to be playing a HUM. So he does not reveal this. Yet when he=20 has the hand, he decides to open anyway, and then uses Law 40A to tell=20 us he has this right. I (but I am almost alone) do not allow this. just as in the case of a=20 mistaken call / misexplanation, I consider this call to be part of the=20 system, unless proof is given to the contrary. Since the convention=20 card would clearly not contain this proof, I do not accept that as=20 proof. I rule that this call is within the system, call this a HUM and=20 punish accordingly. A different example provided some discussion recently. A player opens 1H on somthing like xx AKJ Jxx KQxxx. No problem you say ? Not unless you know that the pair is playing=20 Strong club with canap=E9 style. 1C would be 17+, 1H and then clubs show= s=20 longer clubs than hearts. Originally this hand would normally be opened=20 1H, but since a couple of years, the WBF has called canap=E9 allowing=20 major 3-card a HUM. So in the present system, this hand would be opened=20 1D. The player opened 1H because of the solid hearts. I do not allow this. The convention card, or the explanation do not=20 include the possibility of a 3-card, since that would not be allowed. =20 So the pair is probably making a double infraction : playing an=20 unallowed system AND covering this up by misinformation. I would like to see all directors come to the conclusion that these=20 'grey areas' in systems not be called 'psychs'. That these calls be=20 considered part of the played system, and that therefor misinformation=20 and even forbidden system regulations be dealt with in full. Now do you understand my original request to provide a better name for=20 'semi-psyches' ? --=20 Herman DE WAEL E-Mail HermanDW@innet.be Michel Willemslaan 40 tel ++32.3.827.64.45 B-2610 WILRIJK (Antwerpen) fax ++32.3.825.29.19 Belgium http://www.club.innet.be/~pub02163/index.htm From owner-bridge-laws Fri May 24 23:19:41 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA02194 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 24 May 1996 23:19:41 +1000 Received: from andrew.cais.com (andrew.cais.com [199.0.216.215]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id XAA02189 for ; Fri, 24 May 1996 23:19:35 +1000 Received: from cais3.cais.com (cais3.cais.com [199.0.216.227]) by andrew.cais.com (8.6.9/8.6.9) with SMTP id JAA15110 for ; Fri, 24 May 1996 09:19:31 -0400 Date: Fri, 24 May 1996 09:19:30 -0400 (EDT) From: Eric Landau To: Bridge Laws Discussion List Subject: Re: Rule of Coincidence In-Reply-To: <9605232035.AA24489@ankaa.cc.umanitoba.ca> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Thu, 23 May 1996, Barry Wolk wrote: > Jens Brix Christiansen wrote: > > >The advantage of the RoC is that it allows the TD to rule in this > >way without giving the appearance of accusing the (probable) > >offenders of intentionally violating the laws (i.e. cheating), although > >that is of course exactly what he is doing anyway. He says > >"Sorry, people, gotta rule against you according to the RoC," > >justice is probably done, the word "cheating" has not been > >mentioned, and general shouting is (hopefully) prevented. > > My only encounter with the RoC was of this form. A husband-wife pair were > playing optional doubles. The wife held an obvious penalty double, and > the husband held an obvious pull of that double. The ruling went against > them when she doubled (a reasonable action) and he passed. The DIC read > the RoC to the appeals committee, and the word "cheating" was never used. > > The next day, I asked one of their opponents in private: "His pass is > so ridiculous that there must have been some table action between them." > His reply: "Of course there was." > > This use of the RoC allows justice to be done without the complications > that would be involved if the committee tried to address the true nature > of the infraction. It gives the committee a choice as to how to handle > such cases. In this case, the RoC was convenient and useful, but was misused. Indeed, it is its convenience and utility in cases like this that have resulted in its being misused more often than not, with the result that very few people really know what it is or understand it. >From the conversation the day after, it appears that there was plenty of noticeable table action. The husband presumably would not have made his odd pass without that table action. The wife did nothing unusual; she had an obvious double, and she doubled. The RoC applies when both players make unusual calls -- that's the "coincidence" in the "rule." Here there was no "coincidence;" the RoC was entirely inapplicable. This was apparently a clear UI case; the husband's pass was the presumptive result of the table action, and not a "coincidence" at all. Luckily, justice prevailed, as the committee's incorrect ruling under the RoC turned out to be what would have been the correct ruling had they adjudicated the case under Law 16.A, as they should have. This was the only "coincidence" in the case. I'm confident that a competent TD and AC could have managed to handle this case as a Law 16.A UI case without having to use the word "cheating." Citing the RoC to "soften" the rationale for their decision was simply an unneccesary cop-out. I'm troubled by reports like this. I fear that the ongoing debate over the validity, appropriateness and utility of the RoC is being skewed by reports of how well it worked in adjudications which had nothing whatsoever to do with it, where it was completely misapplied to "allow justice to be done without the complications that would would be involved if the committee tried to address the true nature of the infraction." I read "address the true nature of the infraction" in that sentence as the equivalent of "make the right ruling for the right reason." Don't we WANT our committees to "address the true nature of the infraction?" Eric Landau APL Solutions, Inc. elandau@cais.com 1107 Dale Drive (301) 589-4621 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 USA From owner-bridge-laws Sat May 25 00:13:15 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA03632 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 25 May 1996 00:13:15 +1000 Received: from andrew.cais.com (andrew.cais.com [199.0.216.215]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id AAA03590 for ; Sat, 25 May 1996 00:13:07 +1000 Received: from cais3.cais.com (cais3.cais.com [199.0.216.227]) by andrew.cais.com (8.6.9/8.6.9) with SMTP id KAA17582 for ; Fri, 24 May 1996 10:13:04 -0400 Date: Fri, 24 May 1996 10:13:03 -0400 (EDT) From: Eric Landau To: Bridge Laws Discussion List Subject: Re: Rule of Coincidence (was: UI from partner) In-Reply-To: <960523224738_497532935@emout17.mail.aol.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Thu, 23 May 1996 AlLeBendig@aol.com wrote: > You're suggesting that Flight C players must get prepared for graduation, > Eric. What about those that want to stay in kindergarten? Should you have > the right to dictate that they must expand their 'bridge' knowledge? I'm suggesting more than that; I'm suggesting that Flight C players already "graduated" when they bought their first entry into a "real tournament." The obvious counter is that Flight C events aren't "real tournament events." But that's wrong, and contrary to the long-term interests of the game. Flight C events ARE tournament events, merely ones in which the players' ratings are limited. Do we really think that we should have, or want, Flight C events that are run at the same level as "kindergarten" club games? In our current structure, our clubs are our kindergarten. Those who want to stay in kindergarten and never graduate can and should be free to confine their competitive play to the clubs. When they enter tournaments, they should be prepared to play tournament, rather than club, bridge. We have every right to expect that they will come to our tournaments with their bridge knowledge "expanded" to encompass how bridge is played at the tournament level. Throughout the ACBL, tournaments offer Novice events. These should be the places where club players have the opportunity to expand their bridge knowledge to tournament-play levels easily and painlessly. When they're ready, and if they're so inclined, they can move into "real tournaments" at the Flight C level. But this purpose has been lost. The ACBL and its Districts don't treat their novice games as intended to appeal to players who want to make the transition from club to tournament play. Instead, they treat them as revenue-producing events designed to compete with the clubs in attracting the same constituency. To appeal to 100% of the clubs' constituency, they offer the same level of protection and comfort that the "kindergarten" clubs do, so as to appeal to the lowest common denominator. They don't try to expand players' bridge knowledge; that would keep some folks away. So they run the elementary grade program as though it were kindergarten. Then when the players graduate from the novice games into the "real" Flight C tournament events, they have not yet learned the difference between club/novice-game and "real" tournament play. The ones who really, albeit perhaps unknowingly, want to "stay in kindergarten" continue to expect the protection and comfort they've grown accustomed to in their favorite clubs and in the novice games. And they get it, because now the ACBL can say that if they don't, they will drop out of the ranks of tournament players, and we can't have that. So we run our junior high school program as though it were kindergarten. And then they move on to the Flight B events, to the stratified events, and eventually to the open events, still expecting, and still getting, that "kindergarten" level of protection and comfort without which they would return to their clubs and stop giving us those tournament entry fees. And the players who really want to move up, and want the opportunity to play at something above the kindergarten level, get a few top-level NABC+ championships to play in each year. They wind up getting to go directly from kindergarten to graduate school. Eric Landau APL Solutions, Inc. elandau@cais.com 1107 Dale Drive (301) 589-4621 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 USA From owner-bridge-laws Sat May 25 00:37:31 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA05306 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 25 May 1996 00:37:31 +1000 Received: from andrew.cais.com (andrew.cais.com [199.0.216.215]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id AAA05301 for ; Sat, 25 May 1996 00:37:24 +1000 Received: from cais3.cais.com (cais3.cais.com [199.0.216.227]) by andrew.cais.com (8.6.9/8.6.9) with SMTP id KAA18354 for ; Fri, 24 May 1996 10:37:21 -0400 Date: Fri, 24 May 1996 10:37:21 -0400 (EDT) From: Eric Landau To: Bridge Laws Discussion List Subject: Re: psyches and semi-psyches In-Reply-To: <31A5B875.6C7D@innet.be> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Fri, 24 May 1996, Herman De Wael wrote: > In many of the recent threads (and in current language), the word psyche > is being used for two quite different kinds of auction. I would like to > draw you attention to the distinction and invite you all to name the > second sort, as I have not yet been able to come up with a good name. > I proposed semi-psyche above, but as they are not psyches at all, they > may better be named grey system bids or something. > > The first sort is the regular psyche. The Laws define a 'Psychic Call' > as 'a deliberate and gross mis-statement of honour strength or suit > length'. > I do not think we have any problem with this type of bidding. Well, we in North America surely do, but that's another issue. > The second sort I could also call the 'grey system areas'. Examples are > common : > - a 1NT opening with a major 5-card suit although the system does not > include this; > - a 1NT opening on a 14 count when playing 15-17; > - a 1S opening on a 4-card when playing 5-card majors; > maybe even things like : > - 1D-(X)-1S on a 3-card suit; (far too common an auction to be happening > 'just once'); > and so on. > > These are not 'gross mis-statements', so they are not 'psychic calls'. I suggest the following nomenclature: (a) When partner's bidding appears to be consistent with what the call systemically showed rather than with the hand actually held, we should call them "legitimate exercises of bidding judgment." (b) When partner's bidding appears to be consistent with the hand actually held rather than with what the call systemically showed, we should call them "violations of the rule of coincidence," a.k.a. "concealed partnership agreements." Eric Landau APL Solutions, Inc. elandau@cais.com 1107 Dale Drive (301) 589-4621 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 USA From owner-bridge-laws Sat May 25 00:58:11 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA05406 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 25 May 1996 00:58:11 +1000 Received: from shell.monmouth.com (root@shell.monmouth.com [205.164.220.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id AAA05396 for ; Sat, 25 May 1996 00:57:09 +1000 Received: from lhost.monmouth.com (ppp11.monmouth.com [205.164.220.43]) by shell.monmouth.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id KAA13369 for ; Fri, 24 May 1996 10:52:53 -0400 Message-Id: <199605241452.KAA13369@shell.monmouth.com> Comments: Authenticated sender is From: "reha gur" To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Fri, 24 May 1996 10:48:46 +0000 Subject: Re: Rule of Coincidence (was: UI from partner) Priority: normal X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v2.10) Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Fri, 24 May 1996 Eric Landau wrote: > And the players who really want to move up, and want the > opportunity to play at something above the kindergarten level, get a few > top-level NABC+ championships to play in each year. They wind up getting > to go directly from kindergarten to graduate school. > Let us not forget that playing in the NABC+ events is limited to those players who can afford the time and expense of attending 3 Nationals per year. So the frustration of those who want to move out of kindergarten is even worse than you suggest. Stefanie Rohan (New Jersey, USA) From owner-bridge-laws Sat May 25 01:26:18 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA05577 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 25 May 1996 01:26:18 +1000 Received: from cabra.cri.dk (cabra.cri.dk [130.227.48.5]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id BAA05572 for ; Sat, 25 May 1996 01:26:07 +1000 X-Organization: Computer Resources International A/S, Bregneroedvej 144, DK-3460 Birkeroed, Denmark Received: from nov.cri.dk (nov.cri.dk [130.227.50.162]) by cabra.cri.dk (8.6.12/8.6.10) with SMTP id QAA17180 for ; Fri, 24 May 1996 16:56:11 +0200 Received: from CRI-Message_Server by nov.cri.dk with Novell_GroupWise; Fri, 24 May 1996 16:56:07 +0200 Message-Id: X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise 4.1 Date: Fri, 24 May 1996 16:55:52 +0200 From: Jens Brix Christiansen To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Fuzzy bids and undisclosed fuzziness Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Herman has produced an excellent description of an area that needs good clear terminology. My off-hand proposal is fuzzy bid And explaining a bid without including an assessment of the agreed fuzziness is an irregularity that I propose to call undisclosed fuzziness (UF) These terms probably will not prevail, but for the remainder of this message, let me use it. >>> Herman De Wael 24.05.96 15:24 >>> >I proposed semi-psyche above, but as they are not psyches at all, >they may better be named grey system bids or something. Herman makes the point that fuzzy bids are definitely not a case of Law 40A, but rather a case of partnership understanding. Undisclosed agreements on fuzziness (UF) constitutes an irregularity. I fully agree that damage may, somewhat infrequently, result from UF. But players at a reasonable level probably cannot expect protection from UF in cases where "everybody" plays the bid as fuzzy. I perceived the possibility of damage occurring from UF more or less as follows: 1. Lower limit of HCP range for opening 1H: Not at all probable 2. 20-21 range for NT: Damage based on UF: Highly unlikely 3. 15-17 range for 1NT: Rare. 4. Lousy 5-card major treated as 4-card suit: Highly unlikely. 5. Pre-empt on 6-card suit (7 card suit on the card): Quite possible. 6. Weak two on 3 HCP (6-10 on the card): Possible. It seems obvious that in general fuzzy bids are allowed; only UF can be an irregularity. However, as Herman covers neatly, the sponsoring organizations have all kinds of interesting regulations and licensing schemes that form the basis for rulings on whether a convention is legal or not. On r.g.b. a few months ago, a discussion went on (and on) about the ACBL rule that an agreement to open 1NT on less then 8 HCP is not allowed. Obviously, a player with an agreement to play the 8-10 range of 1NT may be tempted to open 1NT with KJT9,QJT9,T9,T98, justifying that this is a reasonable fuzzy treatment of a formal 7 count. It is; we must all agree. The issue is, of course, whether (1) the ACBL bans fuzzy treatments here, and (2) whether such a ban is authorized under law 40. I will not discuss (2). Herman seems to assume that in regulations like these, fuzziness is always understood not to be allowed. If that is the case, such a fuzzy bid certainly constitutes not just UF but also a prohibited partnership agreement. But since fuzziness is otherwise an aspect of bridge systems in general, it would seem more reasonable to require the restriction to declare explicitly whenever a restriction is to be understood to disallow fuzziness in some direction. Regulating bodies will tend to say "no fuzziness" in order to make the assessment of specific agreements more mechanical, thus ensuring more homogeneous rulings on borderline cases. But would we recommend that as practical bridge? Summary: Undisclosed fuzziness is a special case of misinformation; it has nothing to do with Law 40A on psychic bids. (I find this so clear that I am going to be surprised when someone's opinion differs.) It is debatable whether regulations about conventions tacitly prohibit fuzziness. Jens Brix Christiansen, Denmark From owner-bridge-laws Sat May 25 08:10:53 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA07372 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 25 May 1996 08:10:53 +1000 Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [128.103.40.170]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id IAA07367 for ; Sat, 25 May 1996 08:10:46 +1000 Received: from cfa183.harvard.edu (cfa183.harvard.edu [131.142.12.59]) by cfa.harvard.edu (8.7.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id SAA24911 for ; Fri, 24 May 1996 18:10:43 -0400 (EDT) Received: by cfa183.harvard.edu (5.x/SMI-SVR4) id AA06273; Fri, 24 May 1996 18:12:59 -0400 Date: Fri, 24 May 1996 18:12:59 -0400 From: willner@cfa183.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Message-Id: <9605242212.AA06273@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: UI from questions not asked X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk My example: > > Consider the auction (Standard American, opponents silent) 2C-2H-3C-P. > > The 2C opener had a strong 1C bid, worth a jump on the second round. > > The 2H bidder had a random 8-count. (A normal auction would have been > > 1C-1H-3C-3NT-P). What do you think really happened? Would you call > > the director if your opponents perpetrated this one (and got a good > > score when the normal 3NT failed)? Yet nothing in the above is an > > irregularity. > > 3NT was a normal contract; not cold, but most pairs will play > > there. Today it happens not to make; unlucky, but not a big surprise. > > Further information: the bidders were inexperienced but not so raw that > > they didn't know what a 2C bid is supposed to mean. When questioned by > > the director, their explanations amounted to "I was confused." (Both > > agree that the auction should have been forcing.) From: Eric Landau > I start by asking the 2C bidder what he was thinking about. ... > If he claims innocence > ("I don't know, I just screwed up"), I ask responder what he was thinking > about when he passed. > If he claims innocence ("I don't know, I just screwed up; I had no idea > he didn't have a real 2C bid, and was horrified when I realized I had > passed") too, Nothing about being horrified, but "just screwed up" is about the size of it. > we have an RoC case: two presumptively innocent screw-ups > that have coincidentally combined to produce the result that would have > occurred had there been a concealed agreement. I would adjust and explain > the RoC... > I'd never suspect a Law 16.A problem. This guy's opponents called me to > the table, right? So if his partner had made a face or something that he > might have picked up on during the auction, I'd figure they'd have noticed > it too, and I'd have heard about it the instant I got there. I think you would be wrong, though. I'm embarrassed to admit that I didn't figure out what had happened until afterwards, though I had suspicions at the time. In fact, opener's whole demeanor suddenly changed when responder bid 2H. Presumably that was when he first began to consider his rebid. There was no one action I can identify, but in retrospect, I'm sure his facial expression changed. Beginners are always shifting in their seats, hesitating, making faces, and so forth, and usually it doesn't mean a thing, but this time it did mean something and it was caught. Of course it's entirely possible that the catch was facilitated by this sort of thing having happened before, but I have no evidence of that. I am, however, fairly sure that there would have been no catch if we had (for some bizarre reason) been using screens. In fact, I didn't mention UI when I called the director. Had I been asked, I might or might not have been able to say anything; as I say, there was no specific act, yet there was a definite change. I'm no expert, but I'm also not the worst card reader in most events, and if I can't identify anything specific, there are lots of players who would have noticed nothing at all, even in retrospect. The point of all this is that I think Law 16A is one that, in general, might have been violated in a "coincidence" situation, and at the very least the director should think about investigating. It would, I think, have been perfectly reasonable to adjust the score on the facts I've described, basing the adjustment entirely on Law 16A. The director might say "I don't know what exactly you did, but the coincidence is just too unlikely for me to believe you did nothing. No doubt whatever it was was unintentional, but you must have been concerned when you realized you didn't have your bid. And no doubt responder was not consciously aware of what happened, but nevertheless we adjust when we have such a strange coincidence." Is that so unreasonable? In fact, wouldn't it be automatic if the players were beyond the beginner stage? And if you really believe a concealed understanding, why would you adjust? The opponents could have no effect on the result, no matter what kind of explanation they had been given. From owner-bridge-laws Sat May 25 09:16:35 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA07577 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 25 May 1996 09:16:35 +1000 Received: from pip.dknet.dk (root@pip.dknet.dk [193.88.44.48]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id JAA07565 for ; Sat, 25 May 1996 09:16:26 +1000 Received: from cph29.pip.dknet.dk (cph29.pip.dknet.dk [194.192.0.61]) by pip.dknet.dk (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id BAA09283 for ; Sat, 25 May 1996 01:16:14 +0200 From: jd@pip.dknet.dk (Jesper Dybdal) To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Unauthorized Information(Americam spelling) Date: Sat, 25 May 1996 01:15:51 +0200 Organization: at home Message-ID: <31a617de.632509@pipmail.dknet.dk> References: <960523004916_202359276@emout07.mail.aol.com> In-Reply-To: <960523004916_202359276@emout07.mail.aol.com> X-Mailer: Forte Agent .99e/32.227 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Thu, 23 May 1996 00:49:17 -0400, AlLeBendig@aol.com wrote: >In a message dated 96-05-22 15:20:44 EDT, Jesper writes: >>(To take an extreme case: just before the round, the >>opponents heard you agree with your partner to play transfers over >>1NT, but nevertheless you forgot and bid 2H with a heart suit; >>wouldn't you then alert partners' 2S?) > >In that situation, I would consider this a forget. Therefore I should alert >as if I knew what was happening. Curiosity only, why is this an alert? The Danish alert rules are simple: any call below the 4 level that is artificial or which has a meaning that may be expected to surprise the opponents must be alerted - ordinary take-out doubles on the first round of bidding excepted. 2S is therefore alertable because it is artificial (does not show a spade suit or preference to spades). Much can be said against these rules. In particular, it is a problem that you are expected to know what may surprise your opponents: in a beginner's game, you should alert a weak NT, in an experienced field you should not. It is also amusing to note that a 2C reply to a 1NT opening must be alerted regardless of its meaning, since it is either artificial or unexpected. Nevertheless, I clearly prefer these rules to rules like the ACBL ones that require long lists of which sequences are alertable or not; the principle behind our alert rules is that you should alert when partner's bid is artificial _and_ when you feel that an alert might help your opponents to understand what is going on. --- Jesper Dybdal From owner-bridge-laws Sat May 25 09:16:36 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA07578 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 25 May 1996 09:16:36 +1000 Received: from pip.dknet.dk (root@pip.dknet.dk [193.88.44.48]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id JAA07567 for ; Sat, 25 May 1996 09:16:29 +1000 Received: from cph29.pip.dknet.dk (cph29.pip.dknet.dk [194.192.0.61]) by pip.dknet.dk (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id BAA09292 for ; Sat, 25 May 1996 01:16:23 +0200 From: jd@pip.dknet.dk (Jesper Dybdal) To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Laws: the authority Date: Sat, 25 May 1996 01:16:00 +0200 Organization: at home Message-ID: <31a6410c.11174427@pipmail.dknet.dk> References: In-Reply-To: X-Mailer: Forte Agent .99e/32.227 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Fri, 24 May 1996 01:09:44 +0100, David Stevenson wrote: > It took some time and argument (primarily with Steve Willner) to sort >out the position over the Law books. The European/English Law book has >been approved by the World Bridge Federation, while the American Law >book has a significant omission and an extra item. These are both in >footnotes. > > The English version contains the following footnote to L12C2: >"An Appeal Committee may vary an assigned adjusted score in order to do >equity." [I am told the phrase "to do equity" is neither British >English nor American English: I understand it is Australian English.] > > This footnote has been approved by the WBF and accordingly should >appear in all Law books. However the ACBL decided [illegally] not to >include it. You probably appreciate that my view is that American ACs >are using it even though it isn't there, otherwise IMO many of their >decisions are illegal. It is not in the Danish law book either. This is not because the DBF _decided_ to not include it; it is simply because: (a) the footnote did not exist when the 1987 laws were originally translated, (b) it took a long time before anybody in Denmark realized that such a footnote existed, and (c) nobody has invested the effort and money to reprint the laws with the footnote. It seems quite possible that the ACBL, just like the DBF, has this problem through administrative failures rather than through a conscious decision. In Denmark, we have now - somewhat late - realized that the footnote exists and informed the national TDs; but we still haven't reprinted the laws. (I have in front of me a copy of the laws, in English, that the DBF gave me at a time when I was going to direct an international event; I am going to use this copy as my "working copy" law book when I direct the Nordic championships in June; it is printed in Great Britain and it calls itself "English Edition, published by the EBU"; it does not have the footnote. Of course, I also have the EBL "Commentary on the Laws of Duplicate Contract Bridge" by Endicott and Hansen, which contains an up-to-date copy of the laws in English, so I will be able to read the footnote whenever I need it.) > The American version contains the following footnote to L25B1: >"When the original bid was insufficient, apply Law 27B." > > This footnote has not been approved by the WBF and accordingly should >not appear in Law books. However the ACBL decided [illegally] to >include it. In Europe there is a difference of opinion as to whether it >is correct. In Britain we apply L25B1 first and not L27B when the >original bid was insufficient. This is interesting; I'd never heard of that footnote before. --- Jesper Dybdal From owner-bridge-laws Sat May 25 09:16:42 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA07601 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 25 May 1996 09:16:42 +1000 Received: from pip.dknet.dk (root@pip.dknet.dk [193.88.44.48]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id JAA07575 for ; Sat, 25 May 1996 09:16:33 +1000 Received: from cph29.pip.dknet.dk (cph29.pip.dknet.dk [194.192.0.61]) by pip.dknet.dk (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id BAA09289 for ; Sat, 25 May 1996 01:16:19 +0200 From: jd@pip.dknet.dk (Jesper Dybdal) To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Rule of Coincidence (was: UI from partner) Date: Sat, 25 May 1996 01:15:57 +0200 Organization: at home Message-ID: <31a64096.11056668@pipmail.dknet.dk> References: In-Reply-To: X-Mailer: Forte Agent .99e/32.227 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Thu, 23 May 1996 17:19:54 +0200, Jens Brix Christiansen wrote: >>>> Eric Landau 23.05.96 16:55 >>> >>The ACBL's position is that: >>(a) We are entitled to decide what's legal. >>(b) We declare that these restrictions are legal ("because we say so"). >>(c) Therefore, they're legal. > >>Intelligent and reasonable people, of whom Wally is presumably one, >> as well as other NCBOs, disagree with the ACBL's premise (a). > >Well, IMHO the view that an NCBO has the ultimate >right to decide how the Laws are to be interpreted, to the effect >that there is nowhere to appeal to above the NCBO, seems to >be both letter and spirit of the Laws. I guess I recognize the >a-b-c steps above as completely valid. Of course, decisions >made on interpretation of the Laws can be debatable, seem >unreasonable, and so on; but the NCBO (or its regulatory body) >seems to have exactly that power. In practice, you are quite right, of course - but only in practice. Some of us, including me and probably Eric, feel free to conclude that what the ACBL is doing is not interpretation; there is no way that the words of Law 40A can be interpreted in a way compatible with the ACBL rules (if I've understood the "two psyches constitute an agreement" rule correctly). This means (to me) that the game played in ACBL events is not "Duplicate Contract Bridge" as defined by the law book that we all use; it is a slightly different game. I do not agree that they _have_ that power; they _take_ that power and the WBF (for very obvious and understandable reasons) happens to do nothing to prevent it. About psyches: my opinion is that every beginner should be taught the difference between the rules of bridge and the agreements of a bidding system. This difference is not difficult to understand, and it is essential to an understanding of the game. When you understand the difference, you will also be able to understand the concept of psyches, and you won't feel cheated when somebody psyches against you. On the other hand, you should simply not psyche against the type of player that might not understand the concept of a psyche; but this should be a matter of ordinary courtesy, not of laws. There is no need to psyche against weak opposition anyway: against weak opposition you want to benefit from your superior skill, against strong opposition you may want to introduce the randomness of a psyche in order to prevent them benefiting from their superior skill. --- Jesper Dybdal From owner-bridge-laws Sat May 25 20:09:08 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id UAA09025 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 25 May 1996 20:09:08 +1000 Received: from mail.be.innet.net (mail.be.innet.net [194.7.1.8]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id UAA09020 for ; Sat, 25 May 1996 20:08:59 +1000 Received: from innet.innet.be (pool03-38.innet.be [194.7.10.22]) by mail.be.innet.net (8.7.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id MAA23545 for ; Sat, 25 May 1996 12:08:52 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <31A6F813.2C71@innet.be> Date: Sat, 25 May 1996 12:07:47 +0000 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.0 (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Fuzzy bids and undisclosed fuzziness References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Jens Brix Christiansen wrote: > > Herman has produced an excellent description of an area that > needs good clear terminology. My off-hand proposal is > > fuzzy bid > > And explaining a bid without including an assessment of the > agreed fuzziness is an irregularity that I propose to call > > undisclosed fuzziness (UF) > > These terms probably will not prevail, but for the remainder of > this message, let me use it. > I think these terms describe exactly what I intended to say and I second the motion for these names. A new infraction : Undisclosed fuzziness (UF) -- Herman DE WAEL E-Mail HermanDW@innet.be Michel Willemslaan 40 tel ++32.3.827.64.45 B-2610 WILRIJK (Antwerpen) fax ++32.3.825.29.19 Belgium http://www.club.innet.be/~pub02163/index.htm From owner-bridge-laws Sat May 25 23:24:45 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA09447 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 25 May 1996 23:24:45 +1000 Received: from sunset.ma.huji.ac.il (sunset.ma.huji.ac.il [132.64.32.12]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id XAA09442 for ; Sat, 25 May 1996 23:24:35 +1000 Received: (from grabiner@localhost) by sunset.ma.huji.ac.il (8.6.11/8.6.10) id QAA23559; Sat, 25 May 1996 16:23:11 +0300 Date: Sat, 25 May 1996 16:23:11 +0300 Message-Id: <199605251323.QAA23559@sunset.ma.huji.ac.il> From: David Joseph Grabiner To: JBC@nov.cri.dk CC: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au In-reply-to: (message from Jens Brix Christiansen on Fri, 24 May 1996 16:55:52 +0200) Subject: Re: Fuzzy bids and undisclosed fuzziness Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Jens Brix Christiansen writes: > On r.g.b. a few months ago, a discussion went on (and on) > about the ACBL rule that an agreement to open 1NT on less > then 8 HCP is not allowed. The actual rule is that the minimum is 10 points. An opening 1NT with less than 10 points is allowed, but no conventions may be used over it. The ACBL's intepretation seems to be that *any* attempt to open a 9-count when playing 10-12 creates evidence of an agreement; if you have done it twice with the same partner, you may not play any ccconventions. This doesn't apply to any other convention, apparently. The ACBL also bars conventions over weak 2-bids with a range of more than 7 HCP, but if you play a range of 5-11 and then choose to open 2S on KJT9xx x xxx xxx, that's an allowed use of partnership judgement. (The ACBL used to have a rule that you could not open a weak 2-bid with less than 5 HCP, no judgment allowed,) > The issue > is, of course, whether (1) the ACBL bans fuzzy treatments here, > and (2) whether such a ban is authorized under law 40. > I will not discuss (2). Herman seems to assume that in regulations > like these, fuzziness is always understood not to be allowed. If > that is the case, such a fuzzy bid certainly constitutes not just > UF but also a prohibited partnership agreement. But since fuzziness > is otherwise an aspect of bridge systems in general, it would > seem more reasonable to require the restriction to declare > explicitly whenever a restriction is to be understood to disallow > fuzziness in some direction. What I prefer is Eric Landau's suggestions: > (a) When partner's bidding appears to be consistent with what the call > systemically showed rather than with the hand actually held, we should > call them "legitimate exercises of bidding judgment." > (b) When partner's bidding appears to be consistent with the hand actually > held rather than with what the call systemically showed, we should call > them "violations of the rule of coincidence," a.k.a. "concealed > partnership agreements." Thus, with respect to the 10-12 NT, if you open on a good 9-count on which you expect partner to go to game with 15, this should be allowed. -- David Grabiner, grabiner@math.huji.ac.il, http://www.ma.huji.ac.il/~grabiner I speak at the Hebrew University, but not for it. Shop at the Mobius Strip Mall: Always on the same side of the street! Klein Glassworks, Torus Coffee and Donuts, Projective Airlines, etc. From owner-bridge-laws Sun May 26 08:08:07 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA13644 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 26 May 1996 08:08:07 +1000 Received: from andrew.cais.com (andrew.cais.com [199.0.216.215]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id IAA13638 for ; Sun, 26 May 1996 08:08:01 +1000 Received: from cais3.cais.com (cais3.cais.com [199.0.216.227]) by andrew.cais.com (8.6.9/8.6.9) with SMTP id SAA17909 for ; Sat, 25 May 1996 18:07:57 -0400 Date: Sat, 25 May 1996 18:07:57 -0400 (EDT) From: Eric Landau To: Bridge Laws Discussion List Subject: Re: UI from questions not asked In-Reply-To: <9605242212.AA06273@cfa183.harvard.edu> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Fri, 24 May 1996, Steve Willner wrote: > I think you would be wrong, though. I'm embarrassed to admit that I > didn't figure out what had happened until afterwards, though I had > suspicions at the time. In fact, opener's whole demeanor suddenly > changed when responder bid 2H. Presumably that was when he first began > to consider his rebid. There was no one action I can identify, but in > retrospect, I'm sure his facial expression changed. Beginners are > always shifting in their seats, hesitating, making faces, and so forth, > and usually it doesn't mean a thing, but this time it did mean > something and it was caught. Of course it's entirely possible that the > catch was facilitated by this sort of thing having happened before, but > I have no evidence of that. I am, however, fairly sure that there > would have been no catch if we had (for some bizarre reason) been using > screens. I think the difference in interpretation (and that's all it is, nitpicking the legal justification for actions we largely agree on) here goes to the earlier discussion of useful and useless UI. Opener's demeanor changed, but, as Steve says, usually, with beginners, that sort of thing doesn't mean a thing, or, more precisely, doesn't mean anything in particular. Typically, a novice responder would know from this kind of action that opener is unsure or uncomfortable, perhaps has made an outright blunder, but wouldn't have any idea how to diagnose it or what to do about it. It doesn't sound in this case like passing 3C was just a random wild action, chosen solely because responder knew that the situation called for doing something bizarre. We don't have evidence of something having happened before, but responder did just happen to pick pass when that was the action that suited opener's hand -- without the presumptively useless UI there wouldn't have been a ball to catch, but the fact that the catch was made successfully was either the result of something additional or blind luck. So we apply the RoC. The coincidence here is that opener held the right hand for responder to pass and responder happened to pass, not that opener twitched and grimaced and responder happened to pass. Would it be appropriate to apply the RoC if we knew that this was board 1 of an event and that this beginning partnership met for the first time at the partnership desk at five minutes to game time? If we treat it as a case of pure table UI under 16.A I suppose we would. But as the director in that case I'd certainly ask Steve and his partner to tell me what opener did that, in their opinion, suggested passing 3C, and I'm not sure I'd make this adjustment without a convincing answer. Eric Landau APL Solutions, Inc. elandau@cais.com 1107 Dale Drive (301) 589-4621 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 USA From owner-bridge-laws Tue May 28 07:24:00 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA14451 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 28 May 1996 07:24:00 +1000 Received: from mail.hamburg.netsurf.de (root@trance.isys.net [194.64.236.33]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id HAA14444 for ; Tue, 28 May 1996 07:23:48 +1000 Received: from mail.isys.net[193.96.224.33] by mail.hamburg.netsurf.de with smtp (/\==/\ Smail3.1.28.1 #28.1); id m0uO9lH-000P14C; Mon, 27 May 96 23:23 GMT+0200 Received: from meckwell.local.net by mail.isys.net with smtp (/\oo/\ Smail3.1.29.1 #29.6); id ; Mon, 27 May 96 23:22 MESZ Date: Mon, 27 May 1996 23:28:46 +0100 (GMT+0100) From: Henk Uijterwaal X-Sender: henk@meckwell.local.net Reply-To: henk.uijterwaal@hamburg.netsurf.de To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Rule of Coincidence In-Reply-To: <199605211620.CAA09698@octavia.anu.edu.au> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk My $0.02 on why we don't need a RoC... > RULE OF COINCIDENCE > The convention card is expected to reflect conventional agreements > and should also display partnership style wherever possible. > For example, a partnership that lists a 15 to 17 point notrump > range and tends to open most 14 point hands in third seat with > one notrump has mismarked the convention card. You should indicate > (14)15-17 on the card. This has little to do with the RoC but I think that marking the card as (14)15-17 is about as bad as 15-17. (1) This pair only opens 14 counts in 3rd seat and the opponents have a right to know that. (2) What does (14) mean anyway? A "good" 14 count? Any 14 count? No, IMNSHO, the card should be marked as: 15-17 1st/2nd/4th seat 14-17 3rd seat or good 14-17 3rd seat, not something that leaves the opponent guessing anyway. > The following combination of overbid and underbid is an example of the > Rule of Coincidence. East, whose card is marked 15-17, opens one > notrump with a balanced 14, West with 10 points decides to bid > only 2NT and eight tricks are the maximum available. This > "lucky coincidence" is the result of two improbably actions which, > in combination, "work". It is a violation of regulation and is > subject to a score adjustment on its face. Well, this example is at least a little bit less silly than the previous ones where somebody passed a strong NT with a 10 count but I'm still not convinced that we need an adjustment here. But let's assume that you want to adjust the score, then: 1. Obviously NS will only call the director if EW have a good result on the board. If EW miss a making game, they will not call a director. Now how do know with any degree of certainty that west is not a habitual underbidder? And, how can west EVER convince you that he believes that a bad 10 opposite a 15-17 NT is not a good game. 2. Most players that I know constantly upgrade and downgrade their hands based on distribution, location of honnors, etc. Even if they do this on 10% of the hands, it still means that there is a 10%*10% probability that the partnership will overbid or underbid on the same hand. For a regular partnership, this is about once a month. Do we really want a rule where any regular partnership has to explain its auctions to a committee once a month? > The Rule of Coincidence allows "automatic" score adjustments when > these infractions occur. Do we really want automatic score adjustments. I guess that there are 2 kinds of players: 1. Pairs who fully disclose their agreements and partnership habits. 2. Pairs who do not disclose their agreements and partnership habits. I would NEVER want to adjust a score for pairs in category 1, regardless how it was obtained. Yet, this can simply happen under the RoC. On the other hand, I don't think that the pairs under #2 belong in the event. Again, the RoC doesn't solve anything here though. The score is adjusted but if that's the end of it, we've stopped too soon. What should happen is that the potential RoC hands are recorded somewhere. IF the offenders frequently bid according to undisclosed agreements, then soon a pattern will emerge. If not, then there are no undisclosed agreements and there is no reason to do anything. And if there is a pattern, then we can deal with that in a much more appropriate way. > The acting side must convince the director > or committee that their actions were actually normal See above, how do I convince a committee that I'm an habitual over- or underbidder? Get all my opponents of the session as a witness :-) > If the director or opposing side feels it is appropriate, a player > memo (recorder form) may be submitted to the appropriate body. This should be automatic, if only to get rid of players who frequently try to misuse the RoC. Henk. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Henk Uijterwaal Email: henk.uijterwaal@hamburg.netsurf.de (home) henk@desy.de (work) WWW: http://zow00.desy.de:8000/~uijter/TOP.html ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ %DCL-E-NOCFFE, unable to locate coffee - keyboard input suspended. From owner-bridge-laws Wed May 29 01:30:01 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA24171 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 29 May 1996 01:30:01 +1000 Received: from emout09.mail.aol.com (emout09.mx.aol.com [198.81.11.24]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id BAA24161 for ; Wed, 29 May 1996 01:29:54 +1000 From: AlLeBendig@aol.com Received: by emout09.mail.aol.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) id LAA14782 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Tue, 28 May 1996 11:29:21 -0400 Date: Tue, 28 May 1996 11:29:21 -0400 Message-ID: <960528112920_311933604@emout09.mail.aol.com> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Appeals Decision Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I presented this case a while ago and never gave the rest of the story. A player (200-500 masterpoints) held: QTxxx x AKJ9xxx none. Vul vs NV: Pard RHO You LHO P 1NT 2S* P 3H P 4D P 4H X ? The NT was strong, 2S was Hamilton (spades and a minor). Partner alerted and explained as majors. Is a pass of 4H a logical alternative? I felt strongly that players at this level would not consider passing 4HX and would allow the 5D bid. Partner's hand is A xxx xxx ATxxxx. I think the auction makes it clear how these players are thinking (not). 5D got doubled and made 6. The AC adjusted to a+/a- and cautioned offenders that if they were more experienced this would have been judged a frivolous appeal. I thought the AC had been wrong on the score adjustment and really wrong on the caution as to frivolous. I am now not so sure about my first belief. My main intent here was to complete a picture for all of you that I had started. I certainly wouldn't mind any input as long as you think I am right. Alan LeBendig, Los Angeles (310)312-8899 Phone (310)312-8779 Fax From owner-bridge-laws Wed May 29 01:29:57 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA24164 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 29 May 1996 01:29:57 +1000 Received: from emout10.mail.aol.com (emout10.mx.aol.com [198.81.11.25]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id BAA24157 for ; Wed, 29 May 1996 01:29:50 +1000 From: AlLeBendig@aol.com Received: by emout10.mail.aol.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) id LAA02458 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Tue, 28 May 1996 11:29:13 -0400 Date: Tue, 28 May 1996 11:29:13 -0400 Message-ID: <960528112912_311933520@emout10.mail.aol.com> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: UI from questions not asked Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In a message dated 96-05-25 18:09:58 EDT, Eric writes: [s] >So we apply the RoC. The coincidence here is that opener held the right >hand for responder to pass and responder happened to pass, not that opener >twitched and grimaced and responder happened to pass. The RoC was not intended to be applied to inexperienced players! Adjust any way you want under 16A but do not use RoC. >Would it be appropriate to apply the RoC if we knew that this was board 1 >of an event and that this beginning partnership met for the first time at >the partnership desk at five minutes to game time? If we treat it as a >case of pure table UI under 16.A I suppose we would. I would not be comfortable with RoC here. Why not "pure table UI' as you suggest? The application of RoC will be very rare. >But as the director >in that case I'd certainly ask Steve and his partner to tell me what >opener did that, in their opinion, suggested passing 3C, and I'm not sure >I'd make this adjustment without a convincing answer. I totally agree. Alan LeBendig, Los Angeles (310)312-8899 Phone (310)312-8779 Fax From owner-bridge-laws Wed May 29 01:30:13 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA24206 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 29 May 1996 01:30:13 +1000 Received: from emout16.mail.aol.com (emout16.mx.aol.com [198.81.11.42]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id BAA24198 for ; Wed, 29 May 1996 01:30:08 +1000 From: AlLeBendig@aol.com Received: by emout16.mail.aol.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) id LAA24808 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Tue, 28 May 1996 11:29:17 -0400 Date: Tue, 28 May 1996 11:29:17 -0400 Message-ID: <960528112916_311933547@emout16.mail.aol.com> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Laws: the authority Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In a message dated 96-05-24 04:57:40 EDT, Jens writes: [some excellent remarks snipped] >No, they [the NCBOs] don't just give opinions. The committee I am on is charged >with interpreting the laws. We create precedents. We are supposed >to act in consistency with the law book, of course, and we work hard >to do just that. But in practice there is no higher authority to overrule >us if we get out of line. Referring to the U.S. Constitution for an analogy, >if the Supreme Court rules that legislation is constitutional, then it >is constitutional, regardless what people say on the Usenet. Jens has gotten to the meat of this matter, David. You might feel the ACBL is wrong and has no right to do as they have. But in reality, as long as our Laws Commission is willing to accept this stand, it is obviously "legal" for the ACBL to take these actions. Even if public opinion polls were to make it clear that 65% of the people disagree with a new law, once the supreme court has ruled it proper, it is the Law. Case closed. >Like David, I want NCBOs to be consistent with the law books, and >I have opinions on regulations that do not seem to be consistent. >Where David and I disagree is on the fine point of whether one >opinion or a mass of such opinions make any real difference. Jens continues to hit the nail on the head. Unless there are major wording changes in the Laws, I believe that individual NCBOs have the right to make decisions that they believe are best for their organizations. In our case, if our Laws Commission felt any such decision was directly against the spirit of the Laws, they would challenge such a decision. They have done so more than once in the past. In this case, they feel such a reading is acceptable. I can understand why many disagree. However, it has been determined that these are the 'Laws' and we might as well go on. For the time being, there will obviously be no changes and no other NCBO is going to challenge the ACBL on their right to control bridge in this fashion provided we don't impose this viewpoint on interzonal competition. >>The reason that I am prepared to use the >>RoC approach for psyches is that I can be convinced that it is a >>useful tool that does not conflict with the Laws. > >Yes. The present debate seems convincing to me too. I wish there was as much acceptance within our own bridge community. Alan LeBendig, Los Angeles (310)312-8899 Phone (310)312-8779 Fax From owner-bridge-laws Wed May 29 01:31:36 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA24227 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 29 May 1996 01:31:36 +1000 Received: from emout19.mail.aol.com (emout19.mx.aol.com [198.81.11.45]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id BAA24222 for ; Wed, 29 May 1996 01:31:22 +1000 From: AlLeBendig@aol.com Received: by emout19.mail.aol.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) id LAA11660 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Tue, 28 May 1996 11:29:12 -0400 Date: Tue, 28 May 1996 11:29:12 -0400 Message-ID: <960528112910_311933492@emout19.mail.aol.com> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Rule of Coincidence Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In a message dated 96-05-23 08:05:17 EDT, Jens writes: >Subj: Re: Rule of Coincidence >Date: 96-05-23 08:05:17 EDT >From: JBC@nov.cri.dk (Jens Brix Christiansen) >Sender: owner-bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au >To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au [s] >RoC-like rulings should not be used for simple misinformation >with no hint of malignant intent. All of this I agree with. > >The point in the example provided by Kent and addressed by >Herman above seems to >be more than simple misinformation, however, because passing >with 10 points is strange even with a (14)15-17 agreement. >Passing with 9 could indicate misinformation, but passing with >10 indicates (not incontrovertibly, of course) that you really do >not expect partner to have more than 15 points. >Now if a player really does >not expect to partner to have more than 15 points, partner >turns out to have 14, and the card still says 15-17, there is >considerable circumstantial evidence of a concealed partnership >agreement, not just (sloppy) misinformation. > >Therefore, I believe that Herman is a bit hasty in withdrawing his >support for the RoC the way I understand it after the excellent >debate all of you have provided. My understanding is summarized >below: > >The RoC is a guideline that describes certain situations where a >TD is recommended to rule that circumstantial evidence points to >a concealed partnership understanding, to adjust the score >to redress any damage resulting from that infraction, and to give >appropriate procedural penalties. > > I do not >see the RoC requiring an adjustment in a case where a partnership >with two balanced hands and a total of 24 points play in 1NT with >8 and only 8 tricks -- there is no damage to the opponents. >In that case, RoC-like reasoning can only be used to support >one-sided (procedural) penalties for the (probable) offenders. I feel Jens has expressed here the very narrow type of situation that the RoC was intended to be applied to. IMO, if a player with 10 passes 1NT or only invites and the card has 15-17 we have a problem regardless of the result. Even if good, I will call the TD. The very least that we are dealing with is a knowledge that 14s are frequent. The RoC should only be applied if partner in fact has the 'light' hand. The first time I remember seeing it applied was in a Mixed Pairs NABC Finals. 2NT (20-21) was opened and the responding hand held 5-4 in the majors and an 11 count. They raised to 3NT. Opener had 19 and 2-3 in the majors. This was a partnership. The fact that there was no move whatsoever left me very comfortable with the application of the RoC. >The advantage of the RoC is that it allows the TD to rule in this >way without giving the appearance of accusing the (probable) >offenders of intentionally violating the laws (i.e. cheating), although >that is of course exactly what he is doing anyway. He says >"Sorry, people, gotta rule against you according to the RoC," >justice is probably done, the word "cheating" has not been >mentioned, and general shouting is (hopefully) prevented. >He is really saying "I am convicting you of concealed >agreements," of course. > >The caution against using the RoC to rule against inexperienced >(reasonable, of course) supports my idea that the follwoing procedure >is understood: > >1. Is there a remarkable coincidence? >2. If so, are you as the TD convinced that this really is a >concealedagreement? >3. The rule "this is an instance of the RoC". > >Handled this way, the RoC does not really express the >"psyching is illegal" dogma, only the "concealed partnership >understandings are illegal" dogma. This is appealing to me, given >the contents of Laws 40. > >The added advantage of the RoC is that it may help the TD to be >aware of the possibility of such violations; most TDs will see this >type of infraction so seldom that they may forget that it is possible. As usual, very well expressed. I have seen many this 'rule' applied much to frequently and caution against it often. When the situation arises and the pair is not inexperienced, the RoC does deal with a definite problem in as clean a fashion as possible. >Changing pace, another point I would like covered some day is this: > > When is 1NT on 14 balanced (playing 15-17) a treatment, and > when is it not [so that we would require (14)15-17]? To focus > the issue, let us assume that the sponsoring organization would > be happy to accept 14-17, and (14)15-17 as legal agreements. It comes down to the practices of the pair involved. If most 14s get opened 1NT than the card should clearly be marked 14-17. If they apply judgement as to the quality of the hand but are aware that some 14s will be opened 1NT, than (14)15-17 is the correct marking. I am always going to look to the responding hand to reflect what their agreements truly are. If game is only invited with 10s and the card is marked the latter, I don't think they are disclosing fully. I would campaign for a change on their card. In any good game, these situations will always come to light eventually. Alan LeBendig, Los Angeles (310)312-8899 Phone (310)312-8779 Fax From owner-bridge-laws Wed May 29 03:11:32 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA24906 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 29 May 1996 03:11:32 +1000 Received: from andrew.cais.com (andrew.cais.com [199.0.216.215]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id DAA24900 for ; Wed, 29 May 1996 03:11:22 +1000 Received: from cais3.cais.com (cais3.cais.com [199.0.216.227]) by andrew.cais.com (8.6.9/8.6.9) with SMTP id NAA17566 for ; Tue, 28 May 1996 13:11:14 -0400 Date: Tue, 28 May 1996 13:11:14 -0400 (EDT) From: Eric Landau To: Bridge Laws Discussion List Subject: Re: Appeals Decision In-Reply-To: <960528112920_311933604@emout09.mail.aol.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Tue, 28 May 1996 AlLeBendig@aol.com wrote: > I presented this case a while ago and never gave the rest of the story. A > player (200-500 masterpoints) held: QTxxx x AKJ9xxx none. Vul vs NV: > Pard RHO You LHO > P 1NT 2S* P > 3H P 4D P > 4H X ? > > The NT was strong, 2S was Hamilton (spades and a minor). Partner alerted and > explained as majors. Is a pass of 4H a logical alternative? I felt strongly > that players at this level would not consider passing 4HX and would allow the > 5D bid. Partner's hand is A xxx xxx ATxxxx. I think the auction makes it > clear how these players are thinking (not). 5D got doubled and made 6. The > AC adjusted to a+/a- and cautioned offenders that if they were more > experienced this would have been judged a frivolous appeal. I thought the AC > had been wrong on the score adjustment and really wrong on the caution as to > frivolous. I am now not so sure about my first belief. > > My main intent here was to complete a picture for all of you that I had > started. I certainly wouldn't mind any input as long as you think I am > right. I think you're right, Alan. Under the old "25%" definition of LA I'd have voted to allow a 5D bid. Under the new "someone might consider it" definition, though, P is a LA and I'd feel obligated to vote to adjust. Why A+/A-, though, rather than the adjudicated result in 4HX? Sounds like the AC was just lazy. Their issuing a frivolous appeal warning is ludicrous. I know the ACBL wants us to crack down on frivolous appeals, but I don't think those include appeals of rulings that may hinge on recent reinterpretations of the Laws, or that are problematic enough to merit discussion here. Sound's like this AC was not only lazy enough to skip the hard parts of their rulings, but lazy enough not to want to hear any appeals at all. Did they warn everyone before them about frivolous appeals? Eric Landau APL Solutions, Inc. elandau@cais.com 1107 Dale Drive (301) 589-4621 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 USA From owner-bridge-laws Wed May 29 03:44:31 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA25027 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 29 May 1996 03:44:31 +1000 Received: from andrew.cais.com (andrew.cais.com [199.0.216.215]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id DAA25022 for ; Wed, 29 May 1996 03:44:23 +1000 Received: from cais3.cais.com (cais3.cais.com [199.0.216.227]) by andrew.cais.com (8.6.9/8.6.9) with SMTP id NAA18014 for ; Tue, 28 May 1996 13:44:19 -0400 Date: Tue, 28 May 1996 13:44:19 -0400 (EDT) From: Eric Landau To: Bridge Laws Discussion List Subject: Re: UI from questions not asked In-Reply-To: <960528112912_311933520@emout10.mail.aol.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Tue, 28 May 1996 AlLeBendig@aol.com wrote: > The RoC was not intended to be applied to inexperienced players! Adjust any > way you want under 16A but do not use RoC. I'd have said the the RoC was not intended to be applied to inexperienced PARTNERSHIPS. It's not how good or how old the players are, it's how familiar they are with one another. Bobby Wolff's recent pronouncements (on RoC and convention disruption) notwithstanding, I do not like making or interpreting the Laws in such a way as to result in players of different (perceived) ability levels being subject to different rules. I can see the RoC being applied far more readily to a husband-wife pair of "raw newcomers" who've been playing kitchen bridge together for 30 years than to a first-time partnership of world champions who have agreed to play a system not particularly familiar to them. > I would not be comfortable with RoC here. Why not "pure table UI' as you > suggest? The application of RoC will be very rare. "Pure table UI" doesn't need the RoC. Steve's example needed it not to establish that UI was transmitted (which it can't do), but that the UI was useful. > >But as the director > >in that case I'd certainly ask Steve and his partner to tell me what > >opener did that, in their opinion, suggested passing 3C, and I'm not sure > >I'd make this adjustment without a convincing answer. > > I totally agree. The "convincing answer" we require would establish that the UI was useful without the need for recourse to the RoC. I think most of the confusion about, opposition to, and outright detestation of the RoC we've seen lately is the result of the wording of the ACBL's written "guideline" on how it should be applied. That talks of the RoC as though it were a rule of law; as we have said repeatedly, it's not, it's a rule of evidence. It makes RoC-type coincidences illegal on their face, rather than giving rise to a presumption of an illegality. Hence the passion of its opponents -- a pair accused of a concealed partnership understanding (or of using UI, or of any other transgression under the Laws) has an implicit right to attempt to refute the charge, even though the RoC gives them the burden of proof. But a pair accused, under the ACBL wording, of having had an illegal "lucky coincidence" has no opportunity to try to refute anything -- they were undeniably lucky, and the ACBL says THAT's illegal prima facie. Eric Landau APL Solutions, Inc. elandau@cais.com 1107 Dale Drive (301) 589-4621 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 USA From owner-bridge-laws Wed May 29 05:01:00 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA01020 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 29 May 1996 05:01:00 +1000 Received: from emout17.mail.aol.com (emout17.mx.aol.com [198.81.11.43]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id FAA00969 for ; Wed, 29 May 1996 05:00:49 +1000 From: Jcbrissman@aol.com Received: by emout17.mail.aol.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) id PAA14714 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Tue, 28 May 1996 15:00:14 -0400 Date: Tue, 28 May 1996 15:00:14 -0400 Message-ID: <960528150014_402320281@emout17.mail.aol.com> To: AlLeBendig@aol.com, bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Appeals Decision Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Players at the 200-500 point level seldom trust their partners, so it's not unreasonable to allow the pull to 5D. The appeals form has a caveat about frivolous appeals and their consequences. Any TD who additionally verbalizes the warning is, IMHO, attempting to threaten, cajole or intimidate a player. If I was king, I'd instruct TDs never to mention the consequences of a frivolous appeal to potential appellants; I'd simply instruct TDs to make certain that the appellants have signed below the disclosure statement on the appeals form. From owner-bridge-laws Wed May 29 07:38:56 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA03682 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 29 May 1996 07:38:56 +1000 Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [128.103.40.170]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id HAA03677 for ; Wed, 29 May 1996 07:38:50 +1000 Received: from cfa183.harvard.edu (cfa183.harvard.edu [131.142.12.59]) by cfa.harvard.edu (8.7.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id RAA05877 for ; Tue, 28 May 1996 17:38:47 -0400 (EDT) Received: by cfa183.harvard.edu (5.x/SMI-SVR4) id AA07869; Tue, 28 May 1996 17:41:00 -0400 Date: Tue, 28 May 1996 17:41:00 -0400 From: willner@cfa183.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Message-Id: <9605282141.AA07869@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: UI from questions not asked X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: Eric Landau > "Pure table UI" doesn't need the RoC. Steve's example needed it not to > establish that UI was transmitted (which it can't do), but that the UI was > useful. This is the point I don't agree with. The coincidence -- unless you believe it really is just a coincidence -- proves that something strange has happened. There can be any number of possible explanations, of which a Law 16A violation is one. The coincidence is evidence _both_ that UI was transmitted _and_ that it was useful. If either had failed to take place, there would have been no coincidence. It makes a difference, I think. If you believe concealed partnership understanding in my example, you will adjust only the offenders' score (or perhaps give a procedural penalty). There was nothing we could have done, so misinformation didn't affect us at all. But if you believe UI, you will adjust for both sides. I don't think the RoC by itself tells you much about these possibilities, although we can be fairly sure one of them (or some other infraction) was involved. > > >But as the director > > >in that case I'd certainly ask Steve and his partner to tell me what > > >opener did that, in their opinion, suggested passing 3C, and I'm not sure > > >I'd make this adjustment without a convincing answer. The effect of this is that you will adjust if the opponents are expert at reading (or at least noticing) table mannerisms but not otherwise. Is that really what you want? > I think most of the confusion about, opposition to, and outright > detestation of the RoC we've seen lately is the result of the wording of > the ACBL's written "guideline" on how it should be applied. I certainly agree, both that the guideline is badly written and that it causes confusion. > Hence the passion of its opponents -- a pair accused of a concealed > partnership understanding (or of using UI, or of any other transgression > under the Laws) has an implicit right to attempt to refute the charge, > even though the RoC gives them the burden of proof. But a pair accused, > under the ACBL wording, of having had an illegal "lucky coincidence" has > no opportunity to try to refute anything -- they were undeniably lucky, > and the ACBL says THAT's illegal prima facie. Excellent analysis, well worth repeating. I claim the reasoning applies equally well no matter the particular charge alleged. From owner-bridge-laws Wed May 29 13:09:55 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id NAA05497 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 29 May 1996 13:09:55 +1000 Received: from relay-4.mail.demon.net (relay-4.mail.demon.net [158.152.1.108]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id NAA05492 for ; Wed, 29 May 1996 13:09:45 +1000 Received: from post.demon.co.uk ([158.152.1.72]) by relay-4.mail.demon.net id aa00721; 29 May 96 3:08 GMT Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by relay-3.mail.demon.net id aa12134; 29 May 96 4:06 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 29 May 1996 03:49:58 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Appeals Decision In-Reply-To: <960528112920_311933604@emout09.mail.aol.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 1.12 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article <960528112920_311933604@emout09.mail.aol.com>, AlLeBendig@aol.com writes >I presented this case a while ago and never gave the rest of the story. A >player (200-500 masterpoints) held: QTxxx x AKJ9xxx none. Vul vs NV: > Pard RHO You LHO > P 1NT 2S* P > 3H P 4D P > 4H X ? > >The NT was strong, 2S was Hamilton (spades and a minor). Partner alerted and >explained as majors. Is a pass of 4H a logical alternative? I felt strongly >that players at this level would not consider passing 4HX and would allow the >5D bid. Partner's hand is A xxx xxx ATxxxx. I think the auction makes it >clear how these players are thinking (not). 5D got doubled and made 6. The >AC adjusted to a+/a- and cautioned offenders that if they were more >experienced this would have been judged a frivolous appeal. I thought the AC >had been wrong on the score adjustment and really wrong on the caution as to >frivolous. I am now not so sure about my first belief. About 45% of players consider a pass of 4H doubled normal. Thus the only possible ruling is 4Hx-n, n being somewhere around seven. A+A- is clearly wrong. The AC adjusted the score and told the offenders the appeal was frivolous? What do they do if an appeal is not frivolous: sentence them to death by hanging? The strange thing about this hand is it just looks so obvious to me that I might include it in one of my TD courses, but not the most senior ones: too easy. I presume I must be missing something: please could someone tell me what it is? -- David Stevenson Bridge Cats Railways Logic /\_/\ Liverpool, England, UK Nothing ventured, nothing gained |@ @| david@blakjak.demon.co.uk Emails welcome =< + >= Tel: +44 (0)151 677 7412 Phone before Fax please ^ From owner-bridge-laws Wed May 29 13:14:25 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id NAA05523 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 29 May 1996 13:14:25 +1000 Received: from relay-4.mail.demon.net (relay-4.mail.demon.net [158.152.1.108]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id NAA05518 for ; Wed, 29 May 1996 13:14:13 +1000 Received: from post.demon.co.uk ([158.152.1.72]) by relay-4.mail.demon.net id aa01405; 29 May 96 3:09 GMT Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by relay-3.mail.demon.net id aa12155; 29 May 96 4:06 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 29 May 1996 02:56:35 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Laws: the authority In-Reply-To: <31a6410c.11174427@pipmail.dknet.dk> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 1.12 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article <31a6410c.11174427@pipmail.dknet.dk>, Jesper Dybdal writes >On Fri, 24 May 1996 01:09:44 +0100, David Stevenson > wrote: [s] >> The English version contains the following footnote to L12C2: >>"An Appeal Committee may vary an assigned adjusted score in order to do >>equity." [I am told the phrase "to do equity" is neither British >>English nor American English: I understand it is Australian English.] >> >> This footnote has been approved by the WBF and accordingly should >>appear in all Law books. However the ACBL decided [illegally] not to >>include it. You probably appreciate that my view is that American ACs >>are using it even though it isn't there, otherwise IMO many of their >>decisions are illegal. > >It is not in the Danish law book either. This is not because the DBF >_decided_ to not include it; it is simply because: >(a) the footnote did not exist when the 1987 laws were originally >translated, >(b) it took a long time before anybody in Denmark realized that such >a footnote existed, and >(c) nobody has invested the effort and money to reprint the laws with >the footnote. > >It seems quite possible that the ACBL, just like the DBF, has this >problem through administrative failures rather than through a >conscious decision. In Denmark, we have now - somewhat late - >realized that the footnote exists and informed the national TDs; but >we still haven't reprinted the laws. Sorry: I have been (slightly) imprecise. We have not reprinted our Law book. When I say it contains the footnote I do not mean physically. Any Law book sold by the EBU in the last eight years has an addendum sheet showing this footnote. Furthermore the EBU's Orange Book (book of Directives) which is published every couple of years or so contains a section on alterations to the Laws. [s] -- David Stevenson Bridge Cats Railways Logic /\_/\ Liverpool, England, UK Nothing ventured, nothing gained |@ @| david@blakjak.demon.co.uk Emails welcome =< + >= Tel: +44 (0)151 677 7412 Phone before Fax please ^ From owner-bridge-laws Wed May 29 13:15:58 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id NAA05541 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 29 May 1996 13:15:58 +1000 Received: from relay-2.mail.demon.net (disperse.demon.co.uk [158.152.1.77]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id NAA05536 for ; Wed, 29 May 1996 13:15:41 +1000 Received: from post.demon.co.uk ([158.152.1.72]) by relay-2.mail.demon.net id aa08202; 29 May 96 4:15 +0100 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by relay-3.mail.demon.net id aa12150; 29 May 96 4:06 +0100 Message-ID: <57N4dUBbe7qxEwYG@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Wed, 29 May 1996 03:34:03 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: psyches and semi-psyches In-Reply-To: <31A5B875.6C7D@innet.be> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 1.12 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article <31A5B875.6C7D@innet.be>, Herman De Wael =20 writes >In many of the recent threads (and in current language), the word psyche=20 >is being used for two quite different kinds of auction. I would like to=20 >draw you attention to the distinction and invite you all to name the=20 >second sort, as I have not yet been able to come up with a good name. >I proposed semi-psyche above, but as they are not psyches at all, they=20 >may better be named grey system bids or something. > >The first sort is the regular psyche. The Laws define a 'Psychic Call'=20 >as 'a deliberate and gross mis-statement of honour strength or suit=20 >length'. >I do not think we have any problem with this type of bidding. > >The second sort I could also call the 'grey system areas'. Examples are=20 >common :=20 >- a 1NT opening with a major 5-card suit although the system does not=20 >include this; >- a 1NT opening on a 14 count when playing 15-17; >- a 1S opening on a 4-card when playing 5-card majors; We would call these deviations. They may or provide evidence of a CPU=20 (concealed partnership understanding). They may just be players'=20 judgement in action. >maybe even things like : >- 1D-(X)-1S on a 3-card suit; (far too common an auction to be happening=20 >'just once'); We consider this a psyche. We interpret this sort of 3-card suit bid=20 as a gross distortion of suit length. However I can see the argument to=20 treat it as a deviation. >and so on. > >These are not 'gross mis-statements', so they are not 'psychic calls'. > >This type of auction gives rise to problems in two different guises : > >a- misinformation : >opponents claim damage because 1NT was explained as 15-17 yet opener=20 >holds only 14 points. Law 40A is frequently used to allow this kind of=20 >action. I think this is wrong. In other cases, the director shall rule=20 >misinformation if the hand seems not to fit the explanation, unless=20 >proof can be given to the contrary. =20 >I do not accept the convention card as normal proof in cases like this.=20 >In fact, the convention card adds to the misexplanation. If a hand is=20 >opened on 14 count, this shows IMO that the 1NT was not 15-17 but rather=20 >(14)15-17 or even (14)15-16(17). > >I always consider these cases as misinformation, but I rarely give=20 >rulings based on that. Usually (but not always), the correct=20 >explanation would have resulted in the same opponent action. I am sorry that I find the words "I always consider" ambiguous. Do=20 you mean that if asked to rule you would adjudge them misinformation=20 (whether there is damage or not), or do you mean that you always=20 consider whether it is misinformation or not? If you mean the former then your approach is very harsh because you=20 are never allowing a player to use his judgement and no player should=20 be placed in a total straitjacket by his system. If I look at a hand=20 and consider it worth 15 points even though it has only 14 HCP (perhaps=20 because of 10s, or a long suit, or because the opponents have just gone=20 for 1400 and are still arguing about it) so I treat it as 15 points and=20 open 1NT then it is not misinformation that the opponents are told it=20 is 15-17 because that is what we play. It is not unreasonable to ask a few questions and of course there are=20 some people who play (14)15-17 and call it 15-17 but to automatically=20 treat it as misinformation when it often is not seems wrong. > >b- forbidden systems. > >Sometimes, a pair plays a system which is just on the border of being=20 >acceptable. The rule of 18 has now disappeared from WBF-regulations,=20 >but it provided a good example of this kind. There are however other=20 >good examples and I shall give them later. >The rule of 18 stated that if a system allowed a pair to open a hand=20 >containing less than 18 (HCP + length of 2 longest suits) units, at the=20 >1-level, this system was to be considered HUM. >Now consider a player opening 1S on AKxxx Qxx xxx xx (9+5+3=3D17). >If he announces beforehand that he will open this hand, he will be=20 >deemed to be playing a HUM. So he does not reveal this. Yet when he=20 >has the hand, he decides to open anyway, and then uses Law 40A to tell=20 >us he has this right. >I (but I am almost alone) do not allow this. just as in the case of a=20 >mistaken call / misexplanation, I consider this call to be part of the=20 >system, unless proof is given to the contrary. Since the convention=20 >card would clearly not contain this proof, I do not accept that as=20 >proof. I rule that this call is within the system, call this a HUM and=20 >punish accordingly. In the example you gave there is some case for believing that the=20 player might be doing something illegal but an isolated case must as=20 always be treated on its merits. Yesterday my partner opened 1S and I=20 was a little surprised to find she had Kxxxxx Kxxxx -- xx Now in England the Rule of 19 applies so would you have ruled that we=20 were playing an illegal system? Well, we weren't: we had no agreement=20 that Rule of 17 hands could be opened, and I am quite sure that I could=20 have convinced a TD of that. > >A different example provided some discussion recently. >A player opens 1H on somthing like xx AKJ Jxx KQxxx. >No problem you say ? Not unless you know that the pair is playing=20 >Strong club with canap=E9 style. 1C would be 17+, 1H and then clubs shows= =20 >longer clubs than hearts. Originally this hand would normally be opened=20 >1H, but since a couple of years, the WBF has called canap=E9 allowing=20 >major 3-card a HUM. So in the present system, this hand would be opened=20 >1D. The player opened 1H because of the solid hearts. > >I do not allow this. The convention card, or the explanation do not=20 >include the possibility of a 3-card, since that would not be allowed. =20 >So the pair is probably making a double infraction : playing an=20 >unallowed system AND covering this up by misinformation. Or maybe not. Perhaps they never open a 3card major: but just this=20 once the player thought how suitable the hand is, and did so: it might=20 have come as a great shock to partner. >I would like to see all directors come to the conclusion that these=20 >'grey areas' in systems not be called 'psychs'. That these calls be=20 >considered part of the played system, and that therefor misinformation=20 >and even forbidden system regulations be dealt with in full. Surely: why should anyone treat them as psyches when they clearly=20 aren't? >Now do you understand my original request to provide a better name for=20 >'semi-psyches' ? Deviations. They provide some evidence of a CPU, not convincing of=20 themselves, but enough to be worth investigating. --=20 David Stevenson Bridge Cats Railways Logic /\_/\ Liverpool, England, UK Nothing ventured, nothing gained |@ @| david@blakjak.demon.co.uk Emails welcome =3D< + >=3D Tel: +44 (0)151 677 7412 Phone before Fax please ^=20 From owner-bridge-laws Wed May 29 13:17:19 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id NAA05559 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 29 May 1996 13:17:19 +1000 Received: from relay-2.mail.demon.net (disperse.demon.co.uk [158.152.1.77]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id NAA05554 for ; Wed, 29 May 1996 13:17:12 +1000 Received: from post.demon.co.uk ([158.152.1.72]) by relay-2.mail.demon.net id ac08202; 29 May 96 4:15 +0100 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by relay-3.mail.demon.net id aa12153; 29 May 96 4:06 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 29 May 1996 03:39:41 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Appeals Decision In-Reply-To: <960528112920_311933604@emout09.mail.aol.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 1.12 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article <960528112920_311933604@emout09.mail.aol.com>, AlLeBendig@aol.com writes [s: irrelevant hand] > I certainly wouldn't mind any input as long as you think I am >right. You're right, Alan. :) :) -- David Stevenson Bridge Cats Railways Logic /\_/\ Liverpool, England, UK Nothing ventured, nothing gained |@ @| david@blakjak.demon.co.uk Emails welcome =< + >= Tel: +44 (0)151 677 7412 Phone before Fax please ^ From owner-bridge-laws Wed May 29 18:01:21 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id SAA07008 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 29 May 1996 18:01:21 +1000 Received: from cabra.cri.dk (cabra.cri.dk [130.227.48.5]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id SAA07003 for ; Wed, 29 May 1996 18:01:07 +1000 X-Organization: Computer Resources International A/S, Bregneroedvej 144, DK-3460 Birkeroed, Denmark Received: from nov.cri.dk (nov.cri.dk [130.227.50.162]) by cabra.cri.dk (8.6.12/8.6.10) with SMTP id JAA04329 for ; Wed, 29 May 1996 09:59:27 +0200 Received: from CRI-Message_Server by nov.cri.dk with Novell_GroupWise; Wed, 29 May 1996 09:59:26 +0200 Message-Id: X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise 4.1 Date: Wed, 29 May 1996 09:59:15 +0200 From: Jens Brix Christiansen To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Appeals Decision Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk >>> David Stevenson 29.05.96 04:49 >>> >In article <960528112920_311933604@emout09.mail.aol.com>, >AlLeBendig@aol.com writes [Let's not see the hand again] >About 45% of players consider a pass of 4H doubled normal. >Thus the only possible ruling is 4Hx-n, n being somewhere >around seven. A+A- is clearly wrong. If this is a vote, put me down for David's ruling. Maybe not around 45%, but plenty. Having shown their hand and holding a singleton is in hearts, not clubs, many players would feel that their hand was more suited for 4H than partner could expect. And of course the A+/A- ruling is the kind of mistake that inexperienced directors make. When they do, we tell them to read Law 12 out aloud before they go to sleep every night for week. >The AC adjusted the score and told the offenders the appeal was >frivolous? What do they do if an appeal is not frivolous: sentence them >to death by hanging? I believe that the TD ruled that there should be an adjusted score, that the offenders appealed on the grounds that leaving 4H in is not a logical alternative, and that the AC upheld the ruling, adjusting the score in an unfortunate way. If the world agrees that adjusting is an open and shut case, the AC could find the appeal frivolous, even if they got the actual adjustment wrong. I would not support the finding of "frivolous", since it seems reasonable to debate whether leaving 4H in is a logical alternative. Jens Brix Christiansen, Denmark From owner-bridge-laws Thu May 30 00:11:46 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA11546 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 30 May 1996 00:11:46 +1000 Received: from andrew.cais.com (andrew.cais.com [199.0.216.215]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id AAA11507 for ; Thu, 30 May 1996 00:11:39 +1000 Received: from cais3.cais.com (cais3.cais.com [199.0.216.227]) by andrew.cais.com (8.6.9/8.6.9) with SMTP id KAA09925 for ; Wed, 29 May 1996 10:11:35 -0400 Date: Wed, 29 May 1996 10:11:35 -0400 (EDT) From: Eric Landau To: Bridge Laws Discussion List Subject: Re: UI from questions not asked In-Reply-To: <9605282141.AA07869@cfa183.harvard.edu> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Tue, 28 May 1996, Steve Willner wrote: > This is the point I don't agree with. The coincidence -- unless you > believe it really is just a coincidence -- proves that something > strange has happened. There can be any number of possible > explanations, of which a Law 16A violation is one. The coincidence is > evidence _both_ that UI was transmitted _and_ that it was useful. If > either had failed to take place, there would have been no coincidence. In your example, we caught them dead to rights transmitting UI. It was manifest, not "coincidental" at all, and we didn't need the RoC to create a "presumption" for us. But there was no manifest evidence that the UI was useful. So, on the specific point of usefulness, we apply the RoC; then, as you say, the coincidence itself provides the evidence we need to establish that "useful UI was transmitted." Where we disagree is that I do not believe that the RoC can be used to create a presumption that "gratuitous information" (in the sense of Laws 73.B.1 and 16.A) was transmitted in the first place when there is no reason to believe that it was transmitted in any of the "usual" ways. A pair that can "sneak" UI to one another without any manifest or visible sign of having done so is unlikely to be violating 73.B.1; it's far more likely that they're either just lucky, or were violating 73.B.2, which is a far more serious offense. > It makes a difference, I think. If you believe concealed partnership > understanding in my example, you will adjust only the offenders' score > (or perhaps give a procedural penalty). There was nothing we could > have done, so misinformation didn't affect us at all. But if you > believe UI, you will adjust for both sides. I don't think the RoC > by itself tells you much about these possibilities, although we can > be fairly sure one of them (or some other infraction) was involved. It makes no difference in this case. I do "believe UI" here; it was stipulated in the example. They twitched and grimaced, but, as was also stated in the original post, beginners twitch and grimace all the time and it usually doesn't mean anything; this time, apparently, it did. So I would indeed rule UI here: UI was transmitted (manifestly), it was useful (due to the presumption of concealed understanding dictated by the RoC), and it was apparently taken advantage of (the infraction). The RoC didn't establish the infraction; it established one of the preconditions for the infraction (this is where I quarrel with the ACBL's official guideline). In this case, the RoC was necessary, but not sufficient, to establish that a UI infraction had been committed. > The effect of this is that you will adjust if the opponents are expert > at reading (or at least noticing) table mannerisms but not otherwise. > Is that really what you want? Not true; I will continue to judge each case on its merits and adjust as needed to achieve equity as defined by the rules. The effect of my position, however, is that when an experienced pair that I believe to be more capable of reading, or at least noticing, table mannerisms than their relatively inexperienced opponents (as was the case in the example) claims that those opponents somehow managed to "sneak one over on them" -- and a "useful" one at that -- without their noticing anything, I will not be very sympathetic to their claim. Because what they're probably really doing is elliptically accusing their opponents of "prearranged communication" (it's awfully tough to be "inadvertently sneaky"), and hiding behind the RoC to avoid the implications of making an overt accusation of cheating. Well, OK, what they're probably really doing is just hoping that an AC that believes that the RoC flatly disallows such lucky coincidences prima facie will give them something for nothing -- under the ACBL guidelines they have caught the opponents red-handed having an illegal, irrefutable lucky coincidence -- but you get the point. Eric Landau APL Solutions, Inc. elandau@cais.com 1107 Dale Drive (301) 589-4621 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 USA From owner-bridge-laws Thu May 30 01:05:45 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA13944 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 30 May 1996 01:05:45 +1000 Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [128.103.40.170]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id BAA13939 for ; Thu, 30 May 1996 01:05:18 +1000 Received: from cfa183.harvard.edu (cfa183.harvard.edu [131.142.12.59]) by cfa.harvard.edu (8.7.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id LAA14178 for ; Wed, 29 May 1996 11:05:10 -0400 (EDT) Received: by cfa183.harvard.edu (5.x/SMI-SVR4) id AA08171; Wed, 29 May 1996 11:07:25 -0400 Date: Wed, 29 May 1996 11:07:25 -0400 From: willner@cfa183.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Message-Id: <9605291507.AA08171@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Appeals Decision X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > >>> David Stevenson 29.05.96 04:49 >>> > >About 45% of players consider a pass of 4H doubled normal. > >Thus the only possible ruling is 4Hx-n, n being somewhere > >around seven. A+A- is clearly wrong. > From: Jens Brix Christiansen > If this is a vote, put me down for David's ruling. > Maybe not around 45%, but plenty. I don't think it's so simple. Remember, partner passed as dealer. Does this pair ever pass with a heart suit that will play opposite a singleton? Some pairs do, others don't. You have to find out which category this pair is in. (Not necessarily an easy task...) If the opening pass has utterly denied such a good heart suit, it's hard to see how passing 4H can be a logical alternative. So what am I missing? Or what hand do you expect dealer might have where passing would be a good idea? From owner-bridge-laws Thu May 30 01:34:32 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA14145 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 30 May 1996 01:34:32 +1000 Received: from emout07.mail.aol.com (emout07.mx.aol.com [198.81.11.22]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id BAA14139 for ; Thu, 30 May 1996 01:34:23 +1000 From: AlLeBendig@aol.com Received: by emout07.mail.aol.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) id LAA13254 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Wed, 29 May 1996 11:33:48 -0400 Date: Wed, 29 May 1996 11:33:48 -0400 Message-ID: <960529113348_123135942@emout07.mail.aol.com> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Appeals Decision Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In a message dated 96-05-28 23:11:59 EDT, David Stevenson writes: >Subj: Re: Appeals Decision >Date: 96-05-28 23:11:59 EDT >From: david@blakjak.demon.co.uk (David Stevenson) >Sender: owner-bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au >Reply-to: ngrp1@blakjak.demon.co.uk (David Stevenson) >To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au > >In article <960528112920_311933604@emout09.mail.aol.com>, >AlLeBendig@aol.com writes >>I presented this case a while ago and never gave the rest of the story. A >>player (200-500 masterpoints) held: QTxxx x AKJ9xxx none. Vul vs NV: >> Pard RHO You LHO >> P 1NT 2S* P >> 3H P 4D P >> 4H X ? >> >>The NT was strong, 2S was Hamilton (spades and a minor). Partner alerted >and >>explained as majors. Is a pass of 4H a logical alternative? I felt >strongly >>that players at this level would not consider passing 4HX and would allow >the >>5D bid. Partner's hand is A xxx xxx ATxxxx. I think the auction makes >it >>clear how these players are thinking (not). 5D got doubled and made 6. The >>AC adjusted to a+/a- and cautioned offenders that if they were more >>experienced this would have been judged a frivolous appeal. I thought the >AC >>had been wrong on the score adjustment and really wrong on the caution as to >>frivolous. I am now not so sure about my first belief. > > About 45% of players consider a pass of 4H doubled normal. Thus the >only possible ruling is 4Hx-n, n being somewhere around seven. A+A- is >clearly wrong. I concur that the adjustment was poor, if indeed an adjustment was appropriate. The AC actually made the same ruling as the TD. My guess is that they didn't want to assign this rather novice pair a score of -2000 (2300?) so they softened it somewhat. As to your "about 45% of players consider a pass of 4H doubled normal" statement, that is absurd! We must always attempt to judge any problem within the peer group of the players involved. I would think that at a higher level a pass might well be over a 60% action. At the given level my guess is under 25% would pass. The two levels would never be close as to their bidding judgement. I think players at this level rarely trust their partner when looking at a distributional hand. > The AC adjusted the score and told the offenders the appeal was >frivolous? What do they do if an appeal is not frivolous: sentence them >to death by hanging? They told them that had they been more experienced it would have been considered frivolous. Given the level of play, I felt this warning was totally inappropriate. It showed a lack of awareness of how this level thinks. I can understand ruling against them-I can't understand suggesting they should have known that bidding was silly. > The strange thing about this hand is it just looks so obvious to me >that I might include it in one of my TD courses, but not the most senior >ones: too easy. > I presume I must be missing something: please could someone tell me >what it is? As I stated, David. It is a very easy problem if viewed in a vacuum. When you factor in the level of play it becomes somewhat more complex. Our writeups from Philly (where this occurred) will contain some discussion of this case only because of the level involved. Had it been in an NABC+ event, I'm sure the only commentary would have been that A+/A- was a poor adjustment by the AC. Alan LeBendig, Los Angeles (310)312-8899 Phone (310)312-8779 Fax From owner-bridge-laws Thu May 30 03:52:09 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA15249 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 30 May 1996 03:52:09 +1000 Received: from relay-4.mail.demon.net (relay-4.mail.demon.net [158.152.1.108]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id DAA15225 for ; Thu, 30 May 1996 03:51:29 +1000 Received: from post.demon.co.uk ([158.152.1.72]) by relay-4.mail.demon.net id ai26502; 29 May 96 17:50 GMT Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by relay-3.mail.demon.net id aa22079; 29 May 96 18:05 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 29 May 1996 17:59:08 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Appeals Decision In-Reply-To: <9605291507.AA08171@cfa183.harvard.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 1.12 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article <9605291507.AA08171@cfa183.harvard.edu>, Steve Willner writes >> >>> David Stevenson 29.05.96 04:49 >>> >> >About 45% of players consider a pass of 4H doubled normal. >> >Thus the only possible ruling is 4Hx-n, n being somewhere >> >around seven. A+A- is clearly wrong. > >> From: Jens Brix Christiansen >> If this is a vote, put me down for David's ruling. >> Maybe not around 45%, but plenty. > >I don't think it's so simple. Remember, partner passed as dealer. >Does this pair ever pass with a heart suit that will play opposite a >singleton? Some pairs do, others don't. You have to find out which >category this pair is in. (Not necessarily an easy task...) If the >opening pass has utterly denied such a good heart suit, it's hard to >see how passing 4H can be a logical alternative. > >So what am I missing? Or what hand do you expect dealer might have >where passing would be a good idea? What you seem to be missing is a thread that has been ambling along for a few days. When I said about 45% of players this was based not just on my opinions but on answers to the thread. I really do not feel up to trying to get every article back to go through them. So we have had a thread where people's opinions were canvassed as to the correct call without UI. Several of them passed. This means that they are all allowing for the possibility that despite dealing partner can have the solid heart suit. Very few people deny any particular weak hand by passing. They retain the right not to preempt because of a variety of reasons, eg: (1) No preempts with a void (2) No preempts with an outside 5card suit (3) No preempts with a good outside 4card suit It is very rare for an opening pass to deny a good suit, and several examples were given. A pair would have to be very convincing, probably including some sort of documentary evidence, for this to be the reason for this hand. And do you believe it? No. So let's adjust this one, and not listen to this sort of penc argument. -- David Stevenson Bridge Cats Railways Logic /\_/\ Liverpool, England, UK Nothing ventured, nothing gained |@ @| david@blakjak.demon.co.uk Emails welcome =< + >= Tel: +44 (0)151 677 7412 Phone before Fax please ^ From owner-bridge-laws Thu May 30 06:37:52 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA23823 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 30 May 1996 06:37:52 +1000 Received: from relay-2.mail.demon.net (disperse.demon.co.uk [158.152.1.77]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id GAA23818 for ; Thu, 30 May 1996 06:37:42 +1000 Received: from post.demon.co.uk ([158.152.1.72]) by relay-2.mail.demon.net id ad22871; 29 May 96 21:25 +0100 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by relay-3.mail.demon.net id aa26557; 29 May 96 21:24 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 29 May 1996 21:19:41 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Appeals Decision In-Reply-To: <960529113348_123135942@emout07.mail.aol.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 1.12 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article <960529113348_123135942@emout07.mail.aol.com>, AlLeBendig@aol.com writes >In a message dated 96-05-28 23:11:59 EDT, David Stevenson writes: > >>Subj: Re: Appeals Decision >>Date: 96-05-28 23:11:59 EDT >>From: david@blakjak.demon.co.uk (David Stevenson) >>Sender: owner-bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au >>Reply-to: ngrp1@blakjak.demon.co.uk (David Stevenson) >>To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au >> >>In article <960528112920_311933604@emout09.mail.aol.com>, >>AlLeBendig@aol.com writes >>>I presented this case a while ago and never gave the rest of the story. A >>>player (200-500 masterpoints) held: QTxxx x AKJ9xxx none. Vul vs NV: >>> Pard RHO You LHO >>> P 1NT 2S* P >>> 3H P 4D P >>> 4H X ? >>> >>>The NT was strong, 2S was Hamilton (spades and a minor). Partner alerted >>and >>>explained as majors. Is a pass of 4H a logical alternative? I felt >>strongly >>>that players at this level would not consider passing 4HX and would allow >>the >>>5D bid. Partner's hand is A xxx xxx ATxxxx. I think the auction makes >>it >>>clear how these players are thinking (not). 5D got doubled and made 6. > The >>>AC adjusted to a+/a- and cautioned offenders that if they were more >>>experienced this would have been judged a frivolous appeal. I thought the >>AC >>>had been wrong on the score adjustment and really wrong on the caution as >to >>>frivolous. I am now not so sure about my first belief. >> >> About 45% of players consider a pass of 4H doubled normal. Thus the >>only possible ruling is 4Hx-n, n being somewhere around seven. A+A- is >>clearly wrong. > >I concur that the adjustment was poor, if indeed an adjustment was >appropriate. The AC actually made the same ruling as the TD. My guess is >that they didn't want to assign this rather novice pair a score of -2000 >(2300?) so they softened it somewhat. > >As to your "about 45% of players consider a pass of 4H doubled normal" >statement, that is absurd! We must always attempt to judge any problem >within the peer group of the players involved. I would think that at a >higher level a pass might well be over a 60% action. At the given level my >guess is under 25% would pass. The two levels would never be close as to >their bidding judgement. I think players at this level rarely trust their >partner when looking at a distributional hand. Sorry: I wrote that wrong. What I meant to say was that about 45% of people who posted to RGB considered a pass of 4H doubled normal. > >> The AC adjusted the score and told the offenders the appeal was >>frivolous? What do they do if an appeal is not frivolous: sentence them >>to death by hanging? > >They told them that had they been more experienced it would have been >considered frivolous. Given the level of play, I felt this warning was >totally inappropriate. It showed a lack of awareness of how this level >thinks. I can understand ruling against them-I can't understand suggesting >they should have known that bidding was silly. > >> The strange thing about this hand is it just looks so obvious to me >>that I might include it in one of my TD courses, but not the most senior >>ones: too easy. > >> I presume I must be missing something: please could someone tell me >>what it is? > >As I stated, David. It is a very easy problem if viewed in a vacuum. When >you factor in the level of play it becomes somewhat more complex. Our >writeups from Philly (where this occurred) will contain some discussion of >this case only because of the level involved. Had it been in an NABC+ event, >I'm sure the only commentary would have been that A+/A- was a poor adjustment >by the AC. > Yes, if the players were very poor the ruling might easily be affected. True of a lot of cases on RGB and BLML. We do tend to look only at the facts presented, not unreasonably. -- David Stevenson Bridge Cats Railways Logic /\_/\ Liverpool, England, UK Nothing ventured, nothing gained |@ @| david@blakjak.demon.co.uk Emails welcome =< + >= Tel: +44 (0)151 677 7412 Phone before Fax please ^ From owner-bridge-laws Thu May 30 08:30:33 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA24301 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 30 May 1996 08:30:33 +1000 Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [128.103.40.170]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id IAA24296 for ; Thu, 30 May 1996 08:30:27 +1000 Received: from cfa183.harvard.edu (cfa183.harvard.edu [131.142.12.59]) by cfa.harvard.edu (8.7.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id SAA24745 for ; Wed, 29 May 1996 18:30:24 -0400 (EDT) Received: by cfa183.harvard.edu (5.x/SMI-SVR4) id AA08468; Wed, 29 May 1996 18:32:41 -0400 Date: Wed, 29 May 1996 18:32:41 -0400 From: willner@cfa183.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Message-Id: <9605292232.AA08468@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: UI from questions not asked X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: Eric Landau > In your example, we caught them dead to rights transmitting UI. Well, not exactly. I am sure -- after the fact -- that it happened. > Where we disagree is that I do not believe that the RoC can be used to > create a presumption that "gratuitous information" (in the sense of Laws > 73.B.1 and 16.A) was transmitted in the first place Why not? > They twitched and grimaced, but, as was also > stated in the original post, beginners twitch and grimace all the time and > it usually doesn't mean anything; this time, apparently, it did. If you believe beginners twitch and grimace all the time (Yes, they do.), you hardly need testimony to say UI was transmitted. In fact, the logic of your position is that if the RoC proves the information was useful and used, you can simply assume it was present. In practice, I didn't mention anything about facial expressions to the director. I wasn't asked to do so, and anyway it was only later that the significance became clear to me. As I say, I'm not the world's best reader of opponents' expressions, but I'm also not the worst. My partner -- a rapidly improving beginner -- seemed to notice nothing amiss, but I never questioned him about this incident. > > The effect of this is that you will adjust if the opponents are expert > > at reading (or at least noticing) table mannerisms but not otherwise. > > Is that really what you want? > > Not true; I will continue to judge each case on its merits and adjust as > needed to achieve equity as defined by the rules. The point is that only an opponent who notices the facial expressions and appreciates their significance will mention them. Others, under your scheme, will receive no adjustment. I guess the point I'm still trying to make is that in each case, the object should be to find the most likely explanation of the known facts. In some cases, that may well be UI (in the Law 16A sense), even if no explicit mention of UI is made. If not, why not? From owner-bridge-laws Thu May 30 08:45:55 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA24479 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 30 May 1996 08:45:55 +1000 Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [128.103.40.170]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id IAA24474 for ; Thu, 30 May 1996 08:45:50 +1000 Received: from cfa183.harvard.edu (cfa183.harvard.edu [131.142.12.59]) by cfa.harvard.edu (8.7.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id SAA26313 for ; Wed, 29 May 1996 18:45:47 -0400 (EDT) Received: by cfa183.harvard.edu (5.x/SMI-SVR4) id AA08483; Wed, 29 May 1996 18:48:05 -0400 Date: Wed, 29 May 1996 18:48:05 -0400 From: willner@cfa183.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Message-Id: <9605292248.AA08483@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Appeals Decision X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Oh, goody! Back to disagreeing with David. :-) > From: David Stevenson > What you seem to be missing is a thread that has been ambling along > for a few days. When I said about 45% of players this was based not > just on my opinions but on answers to the thread. I have seen quite a few of the articles and don't dispute your figure of 45%. What I dispute is what that figure implies. > So we have had a thread where people's opinions were canvassed as to > the correct call without UI. Several of them passed. This means that > they are all allowing for the possibility that despite dealing partner > can have the solid heart suit. Yes, clearly the passers believe that. I saw no example presented that I personally wouldn't have opened and wouldn't have expected a large majority of players to open. > Very few people deny any particular weak hand by passing. They retain > the right not to preempt because of a variety of reasons, eg: > (1) No preempts with a void > (2) No preempts with an outside 5card suit > (3) No preempts with a good outside 4card suit > > It is very rare for an opening pass to deny a good suit I agree with the principle but not with the rarity. Around here, with an unfamiliar partner, I would expect the pass to deny a good suit. If you ever play with me, you can count on it, at least for any suit other than spades. (And if I am lurking with spades, I will be quite prepared to correct your five-level bid in another suit.) On the other hand, if playing with Charlie Coon, my expectation would be very different! (Charlie is a well-known expert who loves to lurk.) > A pair would have to be very convincing, probably > including some sort of documentary evidence, for this to be the reason > for this hand. > > And do you believe it? No. So let's adjust this one, and not listen > to this sort of penc argument. So this boils down to different experience. You don't know anyone who will _always_ find a way to open a hand with a good suit. You won't even believe people play that way if given evidence. On the other hand, I know relatively few who do otherwise. Different experience, different expectations. The posts suggest that about half the world is in each category. Or do you believe that the pair should be judged on the habits of "typical" pairs and not on _their own_ opening style? From owner-bridge-laws Thu May 30 12:58:01 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id MAA26087 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 30 May 1996 12:58:01 +1000 Received: from relay-2.mail.demon.net (disperse.demon.co.uk [158.152.1.77]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id MAA26081 for ; Thu, 30 May 1996 12:57:30 +1000 Received: from post.demon.co.uk ([158.152.1.72]) by relay-2.mail.demon.net id ae07359; 30 May 96 3:57 +0100 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by relay-3.mail.demon.net id aa03953; 30 May 96 3:08 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 30 May 1996 03:05:25 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Appeals Decision In-Reply-To: <9605292248.AA08483@cfa183.harvard.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 1.12 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article <9605292248.AA08483@cfa183.harvard.edu>, Steve Willner writes >Oh, goody! Back to disagreeing with David. :-) Is this all you needed to make your life complete? :)) > >> From: David Stevenson >> What you seem to be missing is a thread that has been ambling along >> for a few days. When I said about 45% of players this was based not >> just on my opinions but on answers to the thread. > >I have seen quite a few of the articles and don't dispute your figure >of 45%. What I dispute is what that figure implies. > >> So we have had a thread where people's opinions were canvassed as to >> the correct call without UI. Several of them passed. This means that >> they are all allowing for the possibility that despite dealing partner >> can have the solid heart suit. > >Yes, clearly the passers believe that. I saw no example presented >that I personally wouldn't have opened and wouldn't have expected a >large majority of players to open. > >> Very few people deny any particular weak hand by passing. They retain >> the right not to preempt because of a variety of reasons, eg: >> (1) No preempts with a void >> (2) No preempts with an outside 5card suit >> (3) No preempts with a good outside 4card suit >> >> It is very rare for an opening pass to deny a good suit > >I agree with the principle but not with the rarity. Around here, with >an unfamiliar partner, I would expect the pass to deny a good suit. If >you ever play with me, you can count on it, at least for any suit >other than spades. (And if I am lurking with spades, I will be quite >prepared to correct your five-level bid in another suit.) On the other >hand, if playing with Charlie Coon, my expectation would be very >different! (Charlie is a well-known expert who loves to lurk.) > >> A pair would have to be very convincing, probably >> including some sort of documentary evidence, for this to be the reason >> for this hand. >> >> And do you believe it? No. So let's adjust this one, and not listen >> to this sort of penc argument. > >So this boils down to different experience. You don't know anyone who >will _always_ find a way to open a hand with a good suit. Probably I do. But not everyone IMO. Furthermore I am not sure that some people realise they would do it until the hand came along. > You won't >even believe people play that way if given evidence. Oi, oi, oi! If given evidence, that is different. I said a pair would have to be very convincing. I did not say that I am not prepared to be convinced: certainly I am. > On the other >hand, I know relatively few who do otherwise. I bet you that some players that think they never would pass would really when they get that strange hand! > Different experience, >different expectations. The posts suggest that about half the world >is in each category. > >Or do you believe that the pair should be judged on the habits of >"typical" pairs and not on _their own_ opening style? Only if we have nothing better to go on. -- David Stevenson Bridge Cats Railways Logic /\_/\ Liverpool, England, UK Nothing ventured, nothing gained |@ @| david@blakjak.demon.co.uk Emails welcome =< + >= Tel: +44 (0)151 677 7412 Phone before Fax please ^ From owner-bridge-laws Thu May 30 16:21:41 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id QAA27606 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 30 May 1996 16:21:41 +1000 Received: from shell.monmouth.com (root@shell.monmouth.com [205.164.220.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id QAA27601 for ; Thu, 30 May 1996 16:21:32 +1000 Received: from lhost.monmouth.com (ppp12.monmouth.com [205.164.220.44]) by shell.monmouth.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id CAA23941 for ; Thu, 30 May 1996 02:17:16 -0400 Message-Id: <199605300617.CAA23941@shell.monmouth.com> Comments: Authenticated sender is From: "Stefanie Rohan" To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Thu, 30 May 1996 02:12:09 +0000 Subject: Declarer's lead out of turn Priority: normal X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v2.10) Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Hello all. I am a little nervous about starting out a new thread, but here goes... Last night at the local duplicate I held Kx of trumps (spades) and was staring forlornly at QJx in dummy (to my right) after partner's opening lead was won on the board. Suddenly declarer played SA from his hand. Partner played to the lead without saying anything, but in this case it was pretty obvious to him that the lead of the SA could not be bad for us. Yet while I was waiting for him to play, questions began to form in my mind along the following lines: Naturally I was desperate not to force declarer to lead from the right hand, but what if partner had said "you're on the board"? Does this statement constitute rejection of the lead out of turn, and mean that our partnership has waived the right to accept the lead? Yet if I immediately holler "I accept the lead" aren't I passing unauthorized information by letting partner know that I REALLY want that lead to stand? Or, perhaps, is this information authorized since it is declarer who has committed an irregularity? The answers to the above questions are, I imagine, fairly cut-and-dried, but it has occurred to me that the fun and games really start when it is dummy and a defender, rather than the two defenders, who are vying to accept/reject the lead. If declarer has played a card, and dummy says "you're on the board", a defender may say "I accept the lead". Likewise, if declarer has called a card from dummy, and dummy says "you're in your hand". But according to L.45.C.2, Declarer must play a card from his hand held face up, touching or nearly touching the table, or maintained in such a position as to indicate that it has been played. According to the Laws, then, a defender may verbally accept the lead when it is only, perhaps, 3/4 of the way down to the table. Yet under L.42.B.2, dummy may, for example, warn declarer against leading from the wrong hand. Dummy can scarcely warn declarer until he has observed the lead coming from the wrong hand; by then a defender may have accepted the lead. Who gets first calling rights, dummy or the defenders? And what if the statements are simultaneous? The analagous situation is when declarer has not finished calling a card from dummy. Is a defender allowed to accept the lead before the last consonant sound has escaped declarer's lips? Once the designation is complete I am sure everyone will agree that the defenders have the right to accept the lead, even if dummy issues a warning at the same time. Stefanie Rohan P.S. I'm sure nobody intends for this mailing list to siphon off threads that might be interesting to rgb readers. I think that this thread is interesting and may yield useful guidelines, but I am prepared to accept that most people would find it incredibly boring and pointless. If a second person (besides me) thinks that this thread might be of more general interest, I think that that would be adequate justification for starting a discussion on rgb. If you are that second person, please post this or a similar article or let me know and I will post it. Thanks. From owner-bridge-laws Thu May 30 23:29:24 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA29538 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 30 May 1996 23:29:24 +1000 Received: from andrew.cais.com (andrew.cais.com [199.0.216.215]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id XAA29533 for ; Thu, 30 May 1996 23:29:18 +1000 Received: from cais3.cais.com (cais3.cais.com [199.0.216.227]) by andrew.cais.com (8.6.9/8.6.9) with SMTP id JAA28844 for ; Thu, 30 May 1996 09:29:15 -0400 Date: Thu, 30 May 1996 09:29:15 -0400 (EDT) From: Eric Landau To: Bridge Laws Discussion List Subject: Re: UI from questions not asked In-Reply-To: <9605292232.AA08468@cfa183.harvard.edu> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Wed, 29 May 1996, Steve Willner wrote: > I guess the point I'm still trying to make is that in each case, the > object should be to find the most likely explanation of the known > facts. In some cases, that may well be UI (in the Law 16A sense), even > if no explicit mention of UI is made. If not, why not? Because it's in the nature of a "coincidence" that pure luck is never the "most likely" explanation, but, if it's truly a coincidence, it's the correct one nevertheless, and I believe it's inappropriate to rule out such an explanation prima facie. So we must require a rule of evidence to create a specific presumption that leaves open the possibility of pure luck. If we allow the RoC to create a presumption of "the most likely explanation," whatever that is, we're saying that if the coincidence occurs, we will presume that some violation of law occurred even if we don't know what violation we're presuming. That's the same as the ACBL's unfortunate position that the illegality is inherent in the coincidence itself, a position I cannot accept. It probably takes a good lawyer to explain the precise difference between "a coincidence which creates a specific presumption of illegality" and "an illegal coincidence," but the fundamental distinction is intuitively obvious to our players: the presumption can (at least theoretically) be refuted, whereas the coincidence cannot. If we presume such an illegality we declare the accused "guilty until proven innocent" (itself objectionable enough to make the wisdom of such a policy at least arguable), whereas if we believe the illegality is inherent in "the facts" we declare the accused guilty, period. I simply cannot convince myself that the concept of "an illegal coincidence" makes any sense either logically or legally. Eric Landau APL Solutions, Inc. elandau@cais.com 1107 Dale Drive (301) 589-4621 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 USA From owner-bridge-laws Fri May 31 00:18:55 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA02306 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 31 May 1996 00:18:55 +1000 Received: from relay-4.mail.demon.net (relay-4.mail.demon.net [158.152.1.108]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id AAA02301 for ; Fri, 31 May 1996 00:18:45 +1000 Received: from post.demon.co.uk ([158.152.1.72]) by relay-4.mail.demon.net id ab09159; 30 May 96 14:17 GMT Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by relay-3.mail.demon.net id aa07686; 30 May 96 12:30 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 30 May 1996 12:05:34 +0100 To: Bridge Laws Cc: David Stevenson From: David Stevenson Subject: Questionable Director's Ruling [Long] MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 1.12 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk This is from a thread in RGB: In article <4ohoj4$e0p@ma70.rz.uni-karlsruhe.de>, Dehn writes >In article <833378908snz@mamos.demon.co.uk>, >michael amos wrote: >>Pairs / multiple teams / Swiss would be easy: >> >> NS score +140 for 3 Spades making >> EW score +50 for 3 Spades one off > >No, don't do this. This is complete unfair to every >other pair (who do not receive gifts from the TD). > >You should not award more than A+/A+. IMHO A+/A- >is better in this case, since E/W did commit an >infraction. I am sorry Thomas but you cannot go against the Laws of the game because you don't like them! The Laws of the game are quite clear: Mike Amos has given the adjustment correctly above (assuming N/S are not vulnerable). Let's check the Laws: ===*=== Law 81 - Duties and Powers C. Director's Duties and Powers The Director's duties and powers normally include the following: 5. Law to administer and interpret these Laws, and to advise the players of their rights and responsibilities thereunder. ***o*** So the TD is required to advise the players of their rights when giving a ruling. Thus the TD's failure to do so was an error on his part. ===*=== Law 81 - Duties and Powers C. Director's Duties and Powers The Director's duties and powers normally include the following: 6. Errors to rectify any error or irregularity of which he becomes aware in any manner, within the correction period established in accordance with Law 79C. ***o*** So the TD is required to deal with it when he becomes aware something has gone wrong, in this case through his own fault. ===*=== Law 82 - Rectification of Errors of Procedure C. Director's Error If the Director has given a ruling that he or the Chief Director subsequently determines to be incorrect, and if no rectification will allow the board to be scored normally, he shall award an adjusted score, considering both sides as non-offending for that purpose. ***o*** Having made an error the TD now adjusts the board while assuming both sides are non-offending. That is ***a matter of Law***. Note that the clause "no rectification ... normally" refers to a case, for example, where the realisation is in time to return to the table and change things before the completion of play: it is very rarely relevant. ===*=== Law 12 - Director's Discretionary Powers C. Awarding an Adjusted Score 1. Artificial Score When, owing to an irregularity, no result can be obtained, the Director awards an artificial adjusted score according to responsibility for the irregularity: ***o*** This is not relevant because a result was obtained. It is the difference between the adjustment for fouling a board, which has to be artificial because no score was obtained with the correct fifty-two cards, and the current case where a score was obtained, so a new score is assigned. ===*=== Law 12 - Director's Discretionary Powers C. Awarding an Adjusted Score 2. Assigned Score When the Director awards an assigned adjusted score in place of a result actually obtained after an irregularity, the score is, for a non-offending side, the most favourable result that was likely had the irregularity not occurred, or, for an offending side, the most unfavourable result that was at all probable. The scores awarded to the two sides need not balance, and may be assigned either in matchpoints or by altering the total-point score prior to matchpointing.(*) (*)An Appeal Committee may vary an assigned adjusted score in order to do equity. ***o*** Note the footnote which proves I am using an English edition of the Laws! This is the Law that is actually use to assign the scores. Note especially the clause "The scores awarded to the two sides need not balance" so there is no doubt the Lawmakers imagined a case like the current one. The "most favourable result that was likely had the irregularity not occurred" is 3S= for N/S, 3S-1 for E/W. Remember L82C said "considering both sides as non-offending". At pairs or Swiss Teams or the like it is adequate to give each side a different score. However there is one more step at knockout teams: ===*=== Law 86 - In Team Play B. Non-balancing Adjustments, Knockout Play When the Director assigns non-balancing adjusted scores (see Law 12C) in knockout play, each contestant's score on the board is calculated separately. The average of the two scores is then assigned to both contestants. ***o*** So if the score in the other room was N/S +100, then the N/S in this room gets +140-100 = +40 = +1 imp: [assuming not vulnerable] the E/W in this room gets +50+100 = +150 = +4 imp: these are then averaged to give N/S -1.5 imp, E/W +1.5 imp. If you consider as Thomas does that this is unfair on the rest of the field (assume Pairs again) then there are various arguments, such as players have found the effect of revokes at another table unfair, also the effect of averages (how can his top score more than mine?). But the simple answers are twofold: one, it is a part of a game that has a fair amount of luck in anyway and two, it is a matter of Law. In RGB and here in BLML there has been much discussion over the flexibility and judgement applied by TDs and ACs. However we must never forget that the flexibility *must* be within the Laws: see: ===*=== Law 82 - Rectification of Errors of Procedure A. Director's Duty It is the duty of the Director to rectify errors of procedure and to maintain the progress of the game in a manner that is not contrary to these Laws. ***o*** So he is only allowed to rectify errors of procedure in a manner not contrary to the Laws. ===*=== Law 12 - Director's Discretionary Powers B. No Adjustment for Undue Severity of Penalty The Director may not award an adjusted score on the ground that the penalty provided in these Laws is either unduly severe or advantageous to either side. ***o*** This specifically forbids the TD from adjusting on the basis that the Laws are too advantageous to one side. Despite the very clumsy wording, the intent of this Law is clear. --------------- In none of this have I expressed my own feelings on the desirability of ruling as Thomas suggests, ie would it be fairer to rule A+A-. Definitely not. For a TD to give a pair average minus because he (the TD) has made a mistake is the sort of high-handed decision that very correctly leads to the sort of upset that drives people from the game or to appeals to the National Authority. There is no doubt that the adjustment quoted by Mike Amos (well done Mikey) is not only correct in Law but also IMO is much fairer than A+A- (or even A+A+). I see no reason to go against the Law in this case. What about the rest of the field (assuming Pairs)? So their scores have been slightly affected by an unlucky event. So what? That is normal for Bridge. -- David Stevenson Bridge Cats Railways Logic /\_/\ Liverpool, England, UK Nothing ventured, nothing gained |@ @| david@blakjak.demon.co.uk Emails welcome =< + >= Tel: +44 (0)151 677 7412 Phone before Fax please ^ From owner-bridge-laws Fri May 31 00:35:47 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA02608 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 31 May 1996 00:35:47 +1000 Received: from andrew.cais.com (andrew.cais.com [199.0.216.215]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id AAA02577 for ; Fri, 31 May 1996 00:35:41 +1000 Received: from cais3.cais.com (cais3.cais.com [199.0.216.227]) by andrew.cais.com (8.6.9/8.6.9) with SMTP id KAA03453 for ; Thu, 30 May 1996 10:35:37 -0400 Date: Thu, 30 May 1996 10:35:37 -0400 (EDT) From: Eric Landau To: Bridge Laws Discussion List Subject: Re: Declarer's lead out of turn In-Reply-To: <199605300617.CAA23941@shell.monmouth.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Thu, 30 May 1996, Stefanie Rohan wrote: > Hello all. I am a little nervous about starting out a new thread, > but here goes... Don't be nervous, Stefanie; offering interpretations of the rules is what we're about. If nobody started new threads, things would get dull quickly. > Last night at the local duplicate I held Kx of trumps (spades) and > was staring forlornly at QJx in dummy (to my right) after partner's > opening lead was won on the board. Suddenly declarer played SA from > his hand. Partner played to the lead without saying anything, but in > this case it was pretty obvious to him that the lead of the SA could > not be bad for us. Yet while I was waiting for him to play, > questions began to form in my mind along the following lines: > > Naturally I was desperate not to force declarer to lead from the > right hand, but what if partner had said "you're on the board"? Does > this statement constitute rejection of the lead out of turn, and mean > that our partnership has waived the right to accept the lead? No; partner has merely pointed out the irregularity, but has not yet exercised his option. The natural, and correct, thing for him to say is "You're on the board... Director!" > Yet if > I immediately holler "I accept the lead" aren't I passing > unauthorized information by letting partner know that I REALLY want > that lead to stand? Or, perhaps, is this information authorized > since it is declarer who has committed an irregularity? Well, you can't exchange information willy-nilly just because declarer committed an irregularity, but this particular information is indeed authorized by Law 55.A ("either defender may accept the lead as provided in Law 53"; Law 53.A says "if... either defender... accepts it (by making a statement to that effect)"). > The answers to the above questions are, I imagine, fairly > cut-and-dried, but it has occurred to me that the fun and games > really start when it is dummy and a defender, rather than the two > defenders, who are vying to accept/reject the lead. There's no conflict. Dummy has rights before the lead is made; defenders have rights after the lead is made. > If declarer has played a card, and dummy says "you're on the board", > a defender may say "I accept the lead". Likewise, if declarer has > called a card from dummy, and dummy says "you're in your hand". But > according to L.45.C.2, > > Declarer must play a card from his hand held face up, touching or > nearly touching the table, or maintained in such a position as to > indicate that it has been played. > > According to the Laws, then, a defender may verbally accept the lead > when it is only, perhaps, 3/4 of the way down to the table. Yet > under L.42.B.2, dummy > > may, for example, warn declarer against leading from the wrong > hand. Dummy may only warn declarer against leading from the wrong hand. He has no power to alter that lead after the fact. Once the card is played dummy has no further rights; anything he says at that point is too late and has no effect. In this case, all the TD needs to do is to determine whether or not the card was "played" as defined by Law 45. > Dummy can scarcely warn declarer until he has observed the lead > coming from the wrong hand; by then a defender may have accepted the > lead. I don't agree here. Dummy can warn declarer when it appears that declarer might be about to lead from the wrong hand. That's what he's entitled to do under the Laws, and it happens all the time. Once the lead "has come" dummy has no further right to do anything about it. > Who gets first calling rights, dummy or the defenders? And > what if the statements are simultaneous? "First calling rights" is meaningless here, since these "rights" are available only under disjoint circumstances. If the statements are simultaneous, the only question is which applies given the facts; only one of them can. > The analagous situation is when declarer has not finished calling > a card from dummy. Is a defender allowed to accept the lead before > the last consonant sound has escaped declarer's lips? Probably, but it's up to the TD, who must decide whether almost naming the card, pending only the last consonant sound, constitutes "nam[ing] or otherwise designat[ing] it" (Law 45.C.4(a)). > Once the > designation is complete I am sure everyone will agree that the > defenders have the right to accept the lead, even if dummy issues a > warning at the same time. Once the designation is complete, the defenders have the right to accept the lead regardless of what dummy does. Even if dummy has issued a timely and proper warning before the card was played the defenders may accept the lead; declarer has ignored dummy's warning and played from the wrong hand anyhow, so the fact that dummy warned him not to no longer matters. Eric Landau APL Solutions, Inc. elandau@cais.com 1107 Dale Drive (301) 589-4621 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 USA From owner-bridge-laws Fri May 31 04:15:51 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA04072 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 31 May 1996 04:15:51 +1000 Received: from relay-4.mail.demon.net (relay-4.mail.demon.net [158.152.1.108]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id EAA04067 for ; Fri, 31 May 1996 04:15:36 +1000 Received: from post.demon.co.uk ([158.152.1.72]) by relay-4.mail.demon.net id ae26601; 30 May 96 18:15 GMT Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by relay-3.mail.demon.net id aa01581; 30 May 96 19:14 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 30 May 1996 13:55:14 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Declarer's lead out of turn In-Reply-To: <199605300617.CAA23941@shell.monmouth.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 1.12 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article <199605300617.CAA23941@shell.monmouth.com>, Stefanie Rohan writes >Hello all. I am a little nervous about starting out a new thread, >but here goes... OK Stefanie (or may I call you Steffie?) > >Last night at the local duplicate I held Kx of trumps (spades) and >was staring forlornly at QJx in dummy (to my right) after partner's >opening lead was won on the board. Suddenly declarer played SA from >his hand. Partner played to the lead without saying anything, but in >this case it was pretty obvious to him that the lead of the SA could >not be bad for us. Yet while I was waiting for him to play, >questions began to form in my mind along the following lines: > >Naturally I was desperate not to force declarer to lead from the >right hand, but what if partner had said "you're on the board"? Does >this statement constitute rejection of the lead out of turn, and mean >that our partnership has waived the right to accept the lead? No: it means that attention has been called to an irregularity under L9A1 so the next step is for someone to call the TD (L9B1A). > Yet if >I immediately holler "I accept the lead" aren't I passing >unauthorized information by letting partner know that I REALLY want >that lead to stand? Or, perhaps, is this information authorized >since it is declarer who has committed an irregularity? > Whatever it is, you shouldn't do it. Irregularities are a matter for the TD not the player. >The answers to the above questions are, I imagine, fairly >cut-and-dried, but it has occurred to me that the fun and games >really start when it is dummy and a defender, rather than the two >defenders, who are vying to accept/reject the lead. > >If declarer has played a card, and dummy says "you're on the board", >a defender may say "I accept the lead". Ehhh? Don't they call the TD much? > Likewise, if declarer has >called a card from dummy, and dummy says "you're in your hand". But >according to L.45.C.2, > > Declarer must play a card from his hand held face up, touching or > nearly touching the table, or maintained in such a position as to > indicate that it has been played. > >According to the Laws, then, a defender may verbally accept the lead >when it is only, perhaps, 3/4 of the way down to the table. Yet >under L.42.B.2, dummy > > may, for example, warn declarer against leading from the wrong > hand. > >Dummy can scarcely warn declarer until he has observed the lead >coming from the wrong hand; by then a defender may have accepted the >lead. Who gets first calling rights, dummy or the defenders? And >what if the statements are simultaneous? Look, you have gone totally wrong on this. If I understand you correctly, declarer takes a card from his hand and brings it near the table. Then everyone starts shouting! "He has to play that card." "No he doesn't." "Yes he does." "No he doesn't." "Yes he does." :) What should happen is this. The TD is called. First he rules whether it must be played under L45C2 which is a matter for his judgement, best done by getting the player to repeat the action. If it is not required to be played that ends the matter. If it is required to be played then it is a Lead out of turn dealt with under L55. L55A requires that he now offer the defenders the chance to accept it. Of course if one accepts it that is authorised information to partner that he wanted to accept it. > >The analagous situation is when declarer has not finished calling >a card from dummy. Is a defender allowed to accept the lead before >the last consonant sound has escaped declarer's lips? Once the >designation is complete I am sure everyone will agree that the >defenders have the right to accept the lead, even if dummy issues a >warning at the same time. No card is played (nor is a call made) until it is finished. If a player says "Play the three of oh damn I'm not in dummy" then nothing has been played nor is required to be. [The similar case in spoken bidding usually leads to UI but "seven sp oh damn" is not a call.] > >P.S. I'm sure nobody intends for this mailing list to siphon off >threads that might be interesting to rgb readers. I think that this >thread is interesting and may yield useful guidelines, but I am >prepared to accept that most people would find it incredibly boring >and pointless. If a second person (besides me) thinks that this >thread might be of more general interest, I think that that would be >adequate justification for starting a discussion on rgb. If you are >that second person, please post this or a similar article or let me >know and I will post it. Thanks. It is actually difficult to know with a reasonably simple case like this one whether it is suitable for RGB since one of the reasons we started this list was the length of articles on RGB led to complaints. Thus it always seems reasonable to put long articles on BLML rather than RGB. I think this one is borderline but IMO it would have been better on RGB. -- David Stevenson Bridge Cats Railways Logic /\_/\ Liverpool, England, UK Nothing ventured, nothing gained |@ @| david@blakjak.demon.co.uk Emails welcome =< + >= Tel: +44 (0)151 677 7412 Phone before Fax please ^ From owner-bridge-laws Fri May 31 06:28:25 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA12164 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 31 May 1996 06:28:25 +1000 Received: from electra.cc.umanitoba.ca (root@electra.cc.umanitoba.ca [130.179.16.23]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id GAA12159 for ; Fri, 31 May 1996 06:28:20 +1000 Received: from ankaa.cc.umanitoba.ca (root@ankaa.cc.umanitoba.ca [130.179.16.47]) by electra.cc.umanitoba.ca (8.7.1/8.7.1) with SMTP id PAA08097 for ; Thu, 30 May 1996 15:28:17 -0500 (CDT) Received: by ankaa.cc.umanitoba.ca (4.1/25-eef) id AA08741; Thu, 30 May 96 15:28:13 CDT Message-Id: <9605302028.AA08741@ankaa.cc.umanitoba.ca> Date: Thu, 30 May 96 15:26 CDT From: Barry Wolk To: Subject: Re: Declarer's lead out of turn Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In article , David Stevenson wrote: >In article <199605300617.CAA23941@shell.monmouth.com>, Stefanie Rohan > writes [snip] >>opening lead was won on the board. Suddenly declarer played SA from >>his hand. Partner played to the lead without saying anything, [snip] >> but what if partner had said "you're on the board"? Does >>this statement constitute rejection of the lead out of turn, and mean >>that our partnership has waived the right to accept the lead? > > No: it means that attention has been called to an irregularity under >L9A1 so the next step is for someone to call the TD (L9B1A). Similarly, Eric Landau wrote: |No; partner has merely pointed out the irregularity, but has not yet |exercised his option. The natural, and correct, thing for him to say is |"You're on the board... Director!" It was several years ago when a senior director first told me this official interpretation of the common phrase "you're on the board". Does this appear anywhere in print? I haven't found it in any ACBL material that I've seen. Barry Wolk Dept of Mathematics University of Manitoba Winnipeg Manitoba Canada From owner-bridge-laws Fri May 31 07:44:49 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA12659 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 31 May 1996 07:44:49 +1000 Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [128.103.40.170]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id HAA12654 for ; Fri, 31 May 1996 07:44:43 +1000 Received: from cfa183.harvard.edu (cfa183.harvard.edu [131.142.12.59]) by cfa.harvard.edu (8.7.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id RAA02818 for ; Thu, 30 May 1996 17:44:40 -0400 (EDT) Received: by cfa183.harvard.edu (5.x/SMI-SVR4) id AA09029; Thu, 30 May 1996 17:47:00 -0400 Date: Thu, 30 May 1996 17:47:00 -0400 From: willner@cfa183.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Message-Id: <9605302147.AA09029@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: UI from questions not asked X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk From: Eric Landau > It probably takes a good lawyer to explain the precise difference between > "a coincidence which creates a specific presumption of illegality" and "an > illegal coincidence," but the fundamental distinction is intuitively > obvious to our players: the presumption can (at least theoretically) be > refuted, whereas the coincidence cannot. I don't think anybody argues with this; certainly I don't. All I've been trying to say is that the type of illegality indicated by the RoC need not be restricted to a 40B violation. An odd coincidence tells us _something_ has (very likely) happened, and it takes further investigation to determine what. It's even conceivable that a coincidence might result from something _legal_. For example, an opponent might have made a revealing remark, which both putatively guilty players acted on. From owner-bridge-laws Fri May 31 08:01:32 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA12741 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 31 May 1996 08:01:32 +1000 Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [128.103.40.170]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id IAA12735 for ; Fri, 31 May 1996 08:01:27 +1000 Received: from cfa183.harvard.edu (cfa183.harvard.edu [131.142.12.59]) by cfa.harvard.edu (8.7.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id SAA13442 for ; Thu, 30 May 1996 18:01:24 -0400 (EDT) Received: by cfa183.harvard.edu (5.x/SMI-SVR4) id AA09064; Thu, 30 May 1996 18:03:44 -0400 Date: Thu, 30 May 1996 18:03:44 -0400 From: willner@cfa183.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Message-Id: <9605302203.AA09064@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Appeals Decision X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: David Stevenson > >Oh, goody! Back to disagreeing with David. :-) > > Is this all you needed to make your life complete? :)) Well, not _all_, but it always makes me feel good. :-) > Probably I do. But not everyone IMO. Furthermore I am not sure that > some people realise they would do it until the hand came along. A fair point. I've been trying to construct a hand I might pass and then try to play hearts, but the closest I've come is x QT9xxxxx x xxx. I might pass at unfavorable but expect I would bid 3H even then. (With hearts much worse, I'd be letting partner play his silly pointed suit.) > >Or do you believe that the pair should be judged on the habits of > >"typical" pairs and not on _their own_ opening style? > > Only if we have nothing better to go on. So we agree after all. Too bad for me. :-) I think one can find reasonable evidence of opening style by asking questions and looking at the convention card. IMHO, partnership style is much more meaningful than the skill level of the pair, but maybe I'm just not good enough to see the point.