From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jul 1 04:03:52 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA11456 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 1 Jul 1996 04:03:52 +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 EAA11451 for ; Mon, 1 Jul 1996 04:03:43 +1000 Received: from lhost.monmouth.com (ppp33.monmouth.com [205.164.220.65]) by shell.monmouth.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id NAA03963; Sun, 30 Jun 1996 13:58:40 -0400 Message-Id: <199606301758.NAA03963@shell.monmouth.com> Comments: Authenticated sender is From: "Stefanie Rohan" To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Sun, 30 Jun 1996 14:00:48 -400 Subject: Bidding boxes -- Insufficient Bid CC: Reha Gur Priority: normal X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v2.10) Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Hello all. This happened to my friend Reha playing in Flight A Pairs at a recent regional in Cherry Hill, NJ: Using bidding boxes-- Pard RHO Reha LHO 2H P P X P 1NT Reha wanted to accept the bid, but being a good citizen was not willing to do this without a TD at the table. But he did not call the TD immediately, because he felt that it was courteous to pause for a few seconds to let RHO notice what card he had pulled out (In case he had, in fact, pulled a wrong card out of the box.) At the end of about a 2 second pause Reha's partner said "Your bid is insufficient." Righty reached into his box to try to change his bid, and Reha said, "Wait a minute, let's get the director." The TD was called, and asked RHO why there was a 1NT bid in front of him, to which he responded that that was not the bid he had intended to make, i.e. he had pulled the wrong card. The TD told him to make the bid sufficient. Reha now asked the TD whether he didn't first have the right to accept the insufficient bid. The TD said no, that the man had pulled the wrong card, and that there was no penalty for that. Reha was baffled, and spoke to the TD during the break, saying that he thought that according to L27A he was permitted to accept the insufficient bid. The TD said, "We have a different set of guidelines for bidding boxes than for oral bidding. We have to take him at his word that he pulled the wrong card from the box." Reha asked, "Couldn't he always simply say that he pulled the wrong card?" TD replied that he could. "Then can there be such a thing as an insufficient bid?" "Not if the player says that he pulled the wrong card." Reha was still not comfortable with this, and asked the TDiC for clarification. The TDiC said that these different guidelines did indeed exist, and that as mechanical errors can happen, the player's intent had to be taken into account. Reha said, "Then the only way I can ever accept an insufficient bid is to refrain from calling attention to it, and make my call." The TDiC essentially agreed. I am very surprised by this. I have never seen the above-mentioned guidelines (would someone please send me a copy?). Are they ACBL guidelines or are they a sort of addendum to the Laws? And I have many questions about their content and their wisdom: 1. Why must a player's 'intent' be taken into account? (Isn't it assumed that it is never a player's intent to make an insufficient bid, even with oral bidding?) 2. Are there no lead penalties if the 'wrong card' is in a different denomination, or are you only allowed to change your call without penalty if it is the same denomination? 3. Is it illegal for the insufficient bidder's LHO to even accept the bid by making a call? After all, the spirit of these guidelines seems to imply that the IB was never made at all; this would seem to render L27A obsolete. 4. Can a policy which rules out the possibility of an IB as long as a TD has been called to the table (and maybe even if not!!) be considered legal? 5. If we assume that the answer to (3) is no, that a player can at least accept the IB by calling over it, then a situation exists where calling the TD works to the disadvantage of the non-offenders. This situation is extremely strange, because the insufficient bidder's partner can call the TD if he doesn't want Righty to accept the IB. Thus the offending side can prevent their penalty by calling the TD! 6. When using bidding cards, all the bids are out on the table for everyone to see; so naturally insufficient bids will be rare. But is it assumed to be _impossible_ to have an insufficient bid? Law 27 makes provisions for IB's. Are bidding boxes thus illegal? Stefanie Rohan From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jul 1 07:18:21 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA20003 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 1 Jul 1996 07:18:21 +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 HAA19998 for ; Mon, 1 Jul 1996 07:18:12 +1000 Received: from cph59.ppp.dknet.dk (cph59.ppp.dknet.dk [194.192.100.59]) by pip.dknet.dk (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id XAA23610 for ; Sun, 30 Jun 1996 23:18:05 +0200 From: jd@pip.dknet.dk (Jesper Dybdal) To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Bidding boxes -- Insufficient Bid Date: Sun, 30 Jun 1996 23:17:58 +0200 Organization: at home Message-ID: <31d6eaa0.2981527@pipmail.dknet.dk> References: <199606301758.NAA03963@shell.monmouth.com> In-Reply-To: <199606301758.NAA03963@shell.monmouth.com> X-Mailer: Forte Agent .99e/32.227 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Sun, 30 Jun 1996 14:00:48 -400, "Stefanie Rohan" wrote: [snip] >The TD was called, and asked RHO why there was a 1NT bid in front of >him, to which he responded that that was not the bid he had intended >to make, i.e. he had pulled the wrong card. The TD told him to make >the bid sufficient. > >Reha now asked the TD whether he didn't first have the right to >accept the insufficient bid. The TD said no, that the man had >pulled the wrong card, and that there was no penalty for that. If he actually did pull the wrong card and acted (by calling the TD or changing his call) immediately upon realizing that ("without pause for thought"), then it is correct that there is no penalty. This is law 25A "Immediate Correction of Inadvertency". But in order to have that right, he must convince the TD that he did pull the wrong card rather than change his mind. The TD should look at the hand to determine whether it seems plausible that he did pull the wrong card. Whether the TD should look immediately to be able to give a correct immediate ruling or whether he should look after the hand is played and adjust if necessary if an interesting question. The EBL's "Commentary on the Laws of Duplicate Contract Bridge" says (in section 25.4) that the TD should not look at the hands, but the EBL TD course that Jens attended in January had a exam question where the right answer involves looking at the hands before ruling. Personally, I believe that in this one particular situation (where the player says he pulled the wrong card) it is not really a problem to look at the hand: either the TD allows the change, in which case no-one has learnt much from the TD's looking, or he does not, in which case the offenders are penalized in a way consistent with the offender's partner knowing that the call was not unintentional anyway. >Reha was baffled, and spoke to the TD during the break, saying that >he thought that according to L27A he was permitted to accept the >insufficient bid. The TD said, "We have a different set of >guidelines for bidding boxes than for oral bidding. We have to take >him at his word that he pulled the wrong card from the box." Reha >asked, "Couldn't he always simply say that he pulled the wrong card?" >TD replied that he could. It is my impression that quite a lot of players reply honestly to the question "Did you change your mind or did you pull the wrong card?" - at least, I've often received the answer "I changed my mind" in the Danish national team championships. Sometimes with a joking exchange like this: - "What happens if I say I pulled the wrong card?" - "Then you will be allowed to change your call - but if it's a lie, then you are guilty of the worst offense in the book and will be punished _very_ severely if I find out." - "OK, I did change my mind." >"Then can there be such a thing as an >insufficient bid?" "Not if the player says that he pulled the wrong >card." _and_ can convince the TD that this is the truth. >Reha was still not comfortable with this, and asked the TDiC for >clarification. The TDiC said that these different guidelines did >indeed exist, and that as mechanical errors can happen, the player's >intent had to be taken into account. Reha said, "Then the only way I >can ever accept an insufficient bid is to refrain from calling >attention to it, and make my call." The TDiC essentially agreed. In principle, it makes no difference whether you have called after the insufficient bid or not; the TD may still rule that he pulled the wrong card and allow him to change it, and you will then also be allowed to change your call. In practice, it often does make a difference because the more time that has elapsed and the more things that have happened at the table before the insufficient bid is noticed, the more difficult it will be for the offender to convince the director that the has acted "without pause for thought". >I am very surprised by this. I have never seen the above-mentioned >guidelines (would someone please send me a copy?). Are they ACBL >guidelines or are they a sort of addendum to the Laws? I don't know of any world-wide guidelines. In Denmark we use the following guidelines, which were written (by me) in an attempt to capture the intent of law 25A: "[When using bidding boxes,] law 25A is interpreted to allow a change of call without penalty provided the following three conditions are all fulfilled: a. The change must be a result of the player pulling the wrong card - it must not be a case of his changing his mind. b. The change must be done - or the director called - as soon as possible, with no pause for thought. c. The change must be done no later than approximately simultaneously with the next hand's call; if the next hand has completely finished calling in a normal tempo, the change is ruled as a call out of turn (law 31B)." The third condition (c) is there to set a practical time limit for how late changes we really believe to be without pause for thought. > And I have >many questions about their content and their wisdom: > >1. Why must a player's 'intent' be taken into account? (Isn't > it assumed that it is never a player's intent to make an > insufficient bid, even with oral bidding?) With oral bidding or bidding boxes, if a player all along intended to bid 2NT but accidentally said/pulled 1NT, he is allowed to change the call. If he changed his mind, he is not allowed to change his call. >2. Are there no lead penalties if the 'wrong card' is in a different > denomination, or are you only allowed to change your call without > penalty if it is the same denomination? No lead penalties - he pulled the wrong card, so the denomination he accidentally got hold of is irrelevant to the game. >3. Is it illegal for the insufficient bidder's LHO to even accept the > bid by making a call? After all, the spirit of these guidelines > seems to imply that the IB was never made at all; this would seem > to render L27A obsolete. It is not a case of law 27 at all if the requirements of law 25A are fulfilled. >4. Can a policy which rules out the possibility of an IB as long as > a TD has been called to the table (and maybe even if not!!) be > considered legal? Not because the TD was called - but because the TD has been convinced that this is a case of pulling the wrong card. >5. If we assume that the answer to (3) is no, that a player can at > least accept the IB by calling over it, then a situation exists > where calling the TD works to the disadvantage of the > non-offenders. This situation is extremely strange, because the > insufficient bidder's partner can call the TD if he doesn't want > Righty to accept the IB. Thus the offending side can prevent > their penalty by calling the TD! They can also simply change the call - but still only if it is a case of pulling the wrong card. As I said, in principle this also goes when the next hand has called, but convincing the TD becomes more difficult. >6. When using bidding cards, all the bids are out on the table for > everyone to see; so naturally insufficient bids will be rare. > But is it assumed to be _impossible_ to have an > insufficient bid? Certainly not. If the reason for the IB is that the offender didn't see the previous bids or didn't notice that they were on the two level, law 27 applies. And this happens quite often. >Law 27 makes provisions for IB's. Are bidding > boxes thus illegal? No. And now a little additional question to you all: assume that I open 1H and my partner bids 4C showing 4-card heart support, a singleton club, and almost an opening hand (splinter). I think for quite a while, then determine to not go for a slam, and calls: pass - oops! - change to 4H. All very quickly, saying "oops" the instant I realize that it is not a 4H contract I am passing, but not before the pass card is lying on the table. Is this an inadvertent call that can be changed without penalty according to law 25A or not? My own opinion is that it can be changed - it is a case of pulling the wrong card in the sense that I never intended to play 4C, though not in the physical sense. But I'd like to hear what the rest of you think. -- Jesper Dybdal From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jul 1 08:17:59 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA20200 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 1 Jul 1996 08:17:59 +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 IAA20195 for ; Mon, 1 Jul 1996 08:17:53 +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 SAA26401 for ; Sun, 30 Jun 1996 18:17:49 -0400 Date: Sun, 30 Jun 1996 18:17:49 -0400 (EDT) From: Eric Landau To: Bridge Laws Discussion List Subject: Re: Bidding boxes -- Insufficient Bid In-Reply-To: <199606301758.NAA03963@shell.monmouth.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Sun, 30 Jun 1996, Stefanie Rohan wrote: > Hello all. This happened to my friend Reha playing in Flight A Pairs > at a recent regional in Cherry Hill, NJ: > > Using bidding boxes-- > > Pard RHO Reha LHO > 2H P P X > P 1NT > > Reha wanted to accept the bid, but being a good citizen was not > willing to do this without a TD at the table. But he did not call > the TD immediately, because he felt that it was courteous to pause > for a few seconds to let RHO notice what card he had pulled out (In > case he had, in fact, pulled a wrong card out of the box.) Exactly the right thing to do. Not just courteous, but protecting yourself (usually) from the sort of thing that followed. Once RHO has (presuming he's paying a normal amount of attention) a chance to notice his bid card, or the 2H bidder's, his reaction should indicate his intent. The ACBL distinguishes between a purely mechanical error with the bid box and an "intended" call, which merely means you got the bid card you were aiming for. If the placed bid card was "not your intent" you may change it without penalty, and the ACBL has said that this is specifically less stringent than the requirement for changing a played card, which must have been "incontrovertably not your intent." > At the end of about a 2 second pause Reha's partner said "Your bid is > insufficient." Righty reached into his box to try to change his bid, > and Reha said, "Wait a minute, let's get the director." Right again. If the bid is ruled insufficient, RHO cannot make it sufficient until you've exercised your option. > The TD was called, and asked RHO why there was a 1NT bid in front of > him, to which he responded that that was not the bid he had intended > to make, i.e. he had pulled the wrong card. The TD told him to make > the bid sufficient. > > Reha now asked the TD whether he didn't first have the right to > accept the insufficient bid. The TD said no, that the man had > pulled the wrong card, and that there was no penalty for that. Correct ruling. The TD presumably did his job, which was to determine the facts. "That the man had pulled the wrong card" is a finding of fact, given which there is no penalty. > Reha was baffled, and spoke to the TD during the break, saying that > he thought that according to L27A he was permitted to accept the > insufficient bid. The TD said, "We have a different set of > guidelines for bidding boxes than for oral bidding. We have to take > him at his word that he pulled the wrong card from the box." Reha > asked, "Couldn't he always simply say that he pulled the wrong card?" > TD replied that he could. "Then can there be such a thing as an > insufficient bid?" "Not if the player says that he pulled the wrong > card." The TD rules on all of the facts available, of which the player's statement that he pulled the wrong card is one. The TD has to take him at his word if that's the only substantive fact he has to go on. That can be the case, but rarely is; usually there will have been something said or done by the bidder that would substantiate or contradict a subsequent claim to have mis-pulled. > Reha was still not comfortable with this, and asked the TDiC for > clarification. The TDiC said that these different guidelines did > indeed exist, and that as mechanical errors can happen, the player's > intent had to be taken into account. Reha said, "Then the only way I > can ever accept an insufficient bid is to refrain from calling > attention to it, and make my call." The TDiC essentially agreed. Legally, it shouldn't matter. If the insufficient bid card is ruled to be an insufficient bid, you'll always get to accept. And if it's ruled to be a mechanical error you won't -- even if you've played, RHO can correct his mis-pull, and you'll get to substitute a legal call without penalty. But in practice it's a good idea, when you wish to accept the bid, to make your call and see what happens. Even if RHO has been in outer space since he put the 1NT card down, your call should wake him up and produce a reaction that's likely to aid the subsequent fact-finding. It would be awfully hard, say, to maintain after the fact that your 1NT bid card was a mechanical error over a known 2H-P-P-X-P when you didn't react dramatically and immediately (and appropriately) to a 2H overcall! > I am very surprised by this. I have never seen the above-mentioned > guidelines (would someone please send me a copy?). Are they ACBL > guidelines or are they a sort of addendum to the Laws? And I have > many questions about their content and their wisdom: > > 1. Why must a player's 'intent' be taken into account? (Isn't > it assumed that it is never a player's intent to make an > insufficient bid, even with oral bidding?) "Intent" here as opposed to mechanical error. This was originally done to overcome the reluctance of players to accept bid boxes when they were first introduced into use at other than the top levels of play in North America (well after this occurred in Europe). IMHO it's been long enough, and bid boxes are well established enough here, that we're ready to change this policy and require that mechanical errors be established "incontrovertably," as they must be with a played card. IMNSHO, many of the people who claimed to be worried about mechanical errors were simply finding a reason to oppose any change. > 2. Are there no lead penalties if the 'wrong card' is in a different > denomination, or are you only allowed to change your call without > penalty if it is the same denomination? If it's ruled an IB, the usual penalties apply. If it's ruled a mechanical error, it doesn't even matter that it wasn't sufficient. > 3. Is it illegal for the insufficient bidder's LHO to even accept the > bid by making a call? After all, the spirit of these guidelines > seems to imply that the IB was never made at all; this would seem > to render L27A obsolete. It's not illegal; it's just that it may be subsequently ruled a "non-call" which may (or must, if it's no longer legal) be substituted for without penalty. > 4. Can a policy which rules out the possibility of an IB as long as > a TD has been called to the table (and maybe even if not!!) be > considered legal? The policy doesn't do that at all. The TD can certainly rule that there has been an IB. Perhaps, in practice, he can never do so when the bidder is willing and able to lie convincingly enough about his intent in placing the bid card, but the Laws and interpretations aren't, and shouldn't try to be, that airtight. > 5. If we assume that the answer to (3) is no, that a player can at > least accept the IB by calling over it, then a situation exists > where calling the TD works to the disadvantage of the > non-offenders. This situation is extremely strange, because the > insufficient bidder's partner can call the TD if he doesn't want > Righty to accept the IB. Thus the offending side can prevent > their penalty by calling the TD! Only if (a) the bidder really made an IB (by intent), (b) he hasn't yet said or done anything to so indicate, and (c) he takes advantage of being "saved" by his partner from revealing his intent inadvertantly to subsequently cheat by concealing it. Yes, Virginia, unethical players can and do sometimes get away with not being penalized by insisting long enough and loud enough that they didn't commit an infraction that they in fact did commit, but we've sensibly chosen not to write the Draconian rules that would be needed to close such loopholes. > 6. When using bidding cards, all the bids are out on the table for > everyone to see; so naturally insufficient bids will be rare. > But is it assumed to be _impossible_ to have an > insufficient bid? Law 27 makes provisions for IB's. Are bidding > boxes thus illegal? Not at all. But a mechanical error is not a bid, and it is impossible for something that isn't a bid to be an IB. 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 Mon Jul 1 11:00:46 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id LAA21331 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 1 Jul 1996 11:00:46 +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 LAA21326 for ; Mon, 1 Jul 1996 11:00:40 +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 VAA28361 for ; Sun, 30 Jun 1996 21:00:37 -0400 Date: Sun, 30 Jun 1996 21:00:36 -0400 (EDT) From: Eric Landau To: Bridge Laws Discussion List Subject: Re: Bidding boxes -- Insufficient Bid In-Reply-To: <31d6eaa0.2981527@pipmail.dknet.dk> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Sun, 30 Jun 1996, Jesper Dybdal wrote: > And now a little additional question to you all: assume that I open 1H > and my partner bids 4C showing 4-card heart support, a singleton club, > and almost an opening hand (splinter). I think for quite a while, > then determine to not go for a slam, and calls: pass - oops! - change > to 4H. All very quickly, saying "oops" the instant I realize that it > is not a 4H contract I am passing, but not before the pass card is > lying on the table. > > Is this an inadvertent call that can be changed without penalty > according to law 25A or not? > > My own opinion is that it can be changed - it is a case of pulling the > wrong card in the sense that I never intended to play 4C, though not > in the physical sense. But I'd like to hear what the rest of you > think. It can be changed if the "oops" is deemed to have been "without pause for thought," which is an issue of fact and therefore the TD's judgment call. One can easily picture your plucking the pass card and getting it to the table in a motion followed immediately by an "oops" in less time than a reasonable "pause for thought," so the mere fact that it's lying on the table doesn't automatically mean that you weren't in time. But I wouldn't like your chances for being allowed to substitute 4H, at least under ACBL interpretation, which I think is correct. This is clearly not a "mechanical error," as you were "aiming" for the pass card. So you can only retract your pass without penalty if it was "incontrovertably not your intention" to pass. It's not good enough simply that it was "incontrovertably not your intention" to play the hand in 4C. If the bidding were verbal, and you had passed 4C because you misheard it as 4H, you would not be permitted to correct; you intended to pass, notwithstanding that you never intended to leave partner in 4C. That's a pretty close analogy; you didn't "mishear" the auction but did "misperceive" it (i.e. were at least momentarily confused as to what it had been) -- a "slip of the brain" rather than of the tongue or bidding box. But, of course, one can sometimes catch a misperception instantly but nevertheless not soon enough to suppress an instinctive reaction, so it still comes down to the TD's call on "without pause for thought." 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 Mon Jul 1 21:20:41 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id VAA24030 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 1 Jul 1996 21:20:41 +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 VAA24024 for ; Mon, 1 Jul 1996 21:20:30 +1000 Received: from innet.innet.be (pool03-17.innet.be [194.7.10.1]) by mail.be.innet.net (8.7.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id NAA17934 for ; Mon, 1 Jul 1996 13:20:23 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <31D7CF24.2A96@innet.be> Date: Mon, 01 Jul 1996 13:14:12 +0000 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.02 (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Bidding boxes -- Insufficient Bid References: <199606301758.NAA03963@shell.monmouth.com> <31d6eaa0.2981527@pipmail.dknet.dk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Jesper Dybdal wrote: > > I don't know of any world-wide guidelines. In Denmark we use the > following guidelines, which were written (by me) in an attempt to > capture the intent of law 25A: > > "[When using bidding boxes,] law 25A is interpreted to allow a change > of call without penalty provided the following three conditions are > all fulfilled: > a. The change must be a result of the player pulling the wrong card - > it must not be a case of his changing his mind. > b. The change must be done - or the director called - as soon as > possible, with no pause for thought. > c. The change must be done no later than approximately simultaneously > with the next hand's call; if the next hand has completely finished > calling in a normal tempo, the change is ruled as a call out of turn > (law 31B)." > > The third condition (c) is there to set a practical time limit for how > late changes we really believe to be without pause for thought. > I believe the Netherlands have similar guidelines, but in Belgium, we do not have them. I find (a) and (b) absolutely logical and in line with Law 25. (c) is not in Law 25 and as long as it's not there, I don't apply this. I once allowed a lead to be changed after this happened : A lady bids 7NT. (in an auction showing spade support). The lead is made. Dummy comes down (the lady in question). Declarer asks 'why did you bid 7NT ?'. The lady says 'I didn't - I bid 7Sp !' I believed her and decided 7Sp was the correct bid and final contract. Although no single Law covers this (of course not), I allowed the lead to be changed. I know you will not (certainly not all of you) agree with that ruling. I maintain that it's completely in line with the intention of Law 25A. The fact that the rules do not tell us what should happen after applying Law 25A when more things have happened since, should not deter us from applying in this case. No doubt Law 25A will be reworded so as not to allow this thing to happen. In the meantime, regulations such as this Danish one are in conflict with the Law and therefor not legal ! (BTW 7Sp went down two - 7NT would have been down three) -- 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 Jul 1 21:59:19 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id VAA24137 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 1 Jul 1996 21:59:19 +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 VAA24131 for ; Mon, 1 Jul 1996 21:58:51 +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 NAA00258 for ; Mon, 1 Jul 1996 13:56:58 +0200 Received: from CRI-Message_Server by nov.cri.dk with Novell_GroupWise; Mon, 01 Jul 1996 13:57:52 +0200 Message-Id: X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise 4.1 Date: Mon, 01 Jul 1996 13:57:37 +0200 From: Jens Brix Christiansen To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: AC Problem Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk >>> Herman De Wael 01.07.96 15:02 >>> > If the other table fails to achieve a normal result, regular AS apply. >Only in this way can you guard against a pair who made 7NTXX on a >double squeeze, seeing their good result drop away because of >something that happened at the other table, even if no-one may be >held responsible (such as a director giving away info by dropping >cards on the table). But say this is a pairs tournament with barometer movement and imp calculation, and the board where the magnificent result is obtained was fouled by the duplicator, and no one else plays the same distribution. The board is obviously cancelled, and both sides get average plus. The TD will not try to determine the highest number of imps that was likely to be scored based on that result. It seems that in a pairs event we expect an artificial adjusted score (Ave+/Ave/Ave-) to be awarded not only when no result could be obtained on the board, but also when no comparison with other results could be obtained. I would therefore argue that an adjusted score just for the purpose of comparison in a teams match is not appropriate. Put more simply, the other table should also have their fighting chance to make 7NTxx on a double squeeze. In duplicate bridge, no result is a good result until it turns out to be better than the result at (the) other table(s). If it cannot be compared, it simply is not a duplicate contract bridge result. Following this line, what needs to be done when a board is made unplayable after it has been played at the first table of a teams match, must be one of the following: 1. Reshuffle and play the board again. 2. Cancel the board. I am arguing that Law 6C leaves both options open to the TD, since I find nothing in the laws stating that if it is discovered that the result on a board cannot be used for comparison, then no reshuffling may take place. Since the laws seem to leave the option open, but on the other hand we do not really want the TDs to choose haphazardly, NCBOs like the Danish one (DBF) seem to be right to try to regulate this area. Independently, if the players are the cause of the turmoil that makes the board unplayable, procedural penalties apply (and their sizes can be duly increased when necessary). Jens Brix Christiansen, Denmark From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jul 2 07:15:26 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA07668 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 2 Jul 1996 07:15:26 +1000 Received: from hil-img-3.compuserve.com (hil-img-3.compuserve.com [149.174.177.133]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id HAA07663 for ; Tue, 2 Jul 1996 07:15:21 +1000 Received: by hil-img-3.compuserve.com (8.6.10/5.950515) id RAA11183; Mon, 1 Jul 1996 17:14:48 -0400 Date: 01 Jul 96 17:12:53 EDT From: Richard Bley <101557.1671@compuserve.com> To: Bridge Laws List Subject: Re: AC Problem Message-ID: <960701211253_101557.1671_IHK102-1@CompuServe.COM> Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Jens wrote: Hermann wrote: (own comments with +++) But say this is a pairs tournament with barometer movement and imp calculation, and the board where the magnificent result is obtained was fouled by the duplicator, and no one else plays the same distribution. The board is obviously cancelled, and both sides get average plus. The TD will not try to determine the highest number of imps that was likely to be scored based on that result. +++ Perhaps he should. +++But at least there is a great difference between your example and a teams tournament. In a teams you are playing against this team which is now your opp. In a pairs you are playing at the same time against every other pair. And there is another argument against your comparison which I think dont stand: There is a practical problem in giving average points in this case. +++ In the actual case as a TD you had to be at least suspicious about this "boxing the card" (o.k. I have now seen that the cards are boxed not the boards). So there is every reason to use this "could have known" clause. +++ I dont like the idea of giving penalties, when I'm able to manage the same result (or even better = easier to tell the players) by giving only one Adj. Score. It seems that in a pairs event we expect an artificial adjusted score (Ave+/Ave/Ave-) to be awarded not only when no result could be obtained on the board, but also when no comparison with other results could be obtained. I would therefore argue that an adjusted score just for the purpose of comparison in a teams match is not appropriate. +++ So that is really a apirs argument and not a teams one. Following this line, what needs to be done when a board is made unplayable after it has been played at the first table of a teams match, must be one of the following: 1. Reshuffle and play the board again. 2. Cancel the board. +++ I dont agree, of course Independently, if the players are the cause of the turmoil that makes the board unplayable, procedural penalties apply (and their sizes can be duly increased when necessary). +++ Even in my interpretation of the laws of course you are able to give extra penalty. (Hermann did you see?; We agreed a second time in a row!) Richard Bley, Germany (sorry for my english) From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jul 2 07:30:25 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA07722 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 2 Jul 1996 07:30:25 +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 HAA07717 for ; Tue, 2 Jul 1996 07:30:20 +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 RAA17951 for ; Mon, 1 Jul 1996 17:30:17 -0400 (EDT) Received: by cfa183.harvard.edu (5.x/SMI-SVR4) id AA13875; Mon, 1 Jul 1996 17:32:48 -0400 Date: Mon, 1 Jul 1996 17:32:48 -0400 From: willner@cfa183.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Message-Id: <9607012132.AA13875@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: AC Problem X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > >>> Herman De Wael 01.07.96 15:02 >>> > >Only in this way can you guard against a pair who made 7NTXX on a > >double squeeze, seeing their good result drop away because of > >something that happened at the other table, even if no-one may be > >held responsible (such as a director giving away info by dropping > >cards on the table). [Hope I've got the quote right.] Something along these lines happened in a US National Pairs tournament a few years ago. Maybe somebody else can remember the details. Facts: Boards were being duplicated and scores compared across many sections. In one section, a board was misduplicated by exchanging the deuce and trey in one suit. An expert pair played the board on the first round and got a super result. Then, per proper procedure, they checked the board against the hand record and discovered the misduplication. No one could see how the exchange of small cards could have any possible effect on the result. (Not always true, of course, even when the cards exchanged are small ones, but it seemed to be true in this case.) Ruling: Result of misduplicated board cancelled; both pairs get average plus. Procedural penalty to both pairs at the table that misduplicated the board. This ruling was obviously unfair to the expert pair, who lost their super result, but it seemed to be the only ruling possible under existing laws. The fact that the exchange made no possible difference was immaterial; the board was not played identically at the experts' table. From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jul 2 07:54:03 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA07776 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 2 Jul 1996 07:54:03 +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 HAA07771 for ; Tue, 2 Jul 1996 07:53:58 +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 RAA09972; Mon, 1 Jul 1996 17:53:44 -0400 (EDT) Received: by cfa183.harvard.edu (5.x/SMI-SVR4) id AA13888; Mon, 1 Jul 1996 17:56:15 -0400 Date: Mon, 1 Jul 1996 17:56:15 -0400 From: willner@cfa183.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Message-Id: <9607012156.AA13888@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au, jd@pip.dknet.dk Subject: Re: Bidding boxes -- Insufficient Bid X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: jd@pip.dknet.dk (Jesper Dybdal) > And now a little additional question to you all: assume that I open 1H > and my partner bids 4C showing 4-card heart support, a singleton club, > and almost an opening hand (splinter). I think for quite a while, > then determine to not go for a slam, and calls: pass - oops! - change > to 4H. All very quickly, saying "oops" the instant I realize that it > is not a 4H contract I am passing, but not before the pass card is > lying on the table. > > Is this an inadvertent call that can be changed without penalty > according to law 25A or not? > > My own opinion is that it can be changed - it is a case of pulling the > wrong card in the sense that I never intended to play 4C, though not > in the physical sense. But I'd like to hear what the rest of you > think. Depending on the time elapsed and the nature of the "oops!" one could either rule 25A or 25B2b2. The practical effect will be the same in either case. (I think it would nearly always be 25B2b2 with bidding boxes because the pass card is not very near the 4H card. But 25A might be more likely if the controversy were between 4H and 4S, where one might easily have grabbed the wrong card.) If there's anybody on the Laws Commission, though, I hope the next version clarifies things here. There are two possible philosophies one might adopt, and I don't think the Laws are really consistent with either of them. (I think we all agree that purely mechanical mistakes should be correctable without penalty, at least if the correction is made within a reasonable time.) Let me spell them out and their consequences. 1. People shouldn't be forced to play ridiculous contracts, and corrections in cases like the above should be routinely accepted. Then: a) Calling a TD should not impair one's right to change the call. b) There has to be some time after which no change in call can be permitted. It should not be something that gives an advantage to an opponent who acts with undue haste. c) obviously there must be provision that partner of the player who changed the call cannot take advantage, but declaring the withdrawn call to be UI mostly solves the problem. OR 2. If you act carelessly, you are stuck with the consequences. Be more careful next time! Then: a) Why 25B2b2? There should be no advantage given to a player who blurts out an illegal correction. (Perhaps the opponents should choose which call you are obliged to make, or the first call made should stand.) b) We probably need more guidance in deciding whether a change is purposeful or not. The decision will make a difference in vastly more cases. I think the current Laws are best interpreted as 1), but reasonable people may disagree. At the very least, the Laws are unclear. From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jul 2 09:37:56 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA08262 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 2 Jul 1996 09:37:56 +1000 Received: from mamos.demon.co.uk (mamos.demon.co.uk [158.152.129.79]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id JAA08257 for ; Tue, 2 Jul 1996 09:36:02 +1000 Date: Tue, 02 Jul 1996 00:27:49 GMT From: mike@mamos.demon.co.uk (michael amos) Reply-To: mike@mamos.demon.co.uk Message-Id: <602@mamos.demon.co.uk> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: a little question :) X-Mailer: PCElm 1.10 Lines: 27 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk sometimes bridge-players ask interesting but slightly awkward questions a player said to me recently that while he had been defending a hand his partner had a penalty card (no TD had been called ) - when it was clear that the penalty card ought to be played his partner began to fiddle with his cards as if he was about to select another card - the player concerned pointed to the penalty card to encourage his partner to play it - his opponents objected to this but the card was played and again the TD was not called - the player asked me if he was wrong to do this my initial conclusion seems to be that he was - the Laws do not seem to allow a player in this situation to attempt to prevent an infraction - do you all agree? - all this raises a further point - in England it is normal practice for a TD, called to the table to rule on a penalty card, to stand at the table while the card is on the table to ensure, that it is played at the moment the law requires - if i cannot point out to my partner that he should play his major penalty card i'll have to get that nice Mr Stevenson along to help him - is this practice legal?? as a relatively new subscriber to bridge-laws i would like to say hello to you all and comment how much i have enjoyed reading all your contributions -- michael amos From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jul 2 09:52:12 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA08325 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 2 Jul 1996 09:52:12 +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 JAA08319 for ; Tue, 2 Jul 1996 09:52:07 +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 QAA11160 for <@mipl7.JPL.NASA.GOV:bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au>; Mon, 1 Jul 1996 16:51:07 -0700 Received: by tintin.JPL.NASA.GOV (940816.SGI.8.6.9/930416.SGI.MIPS) for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au id QAA10187; Mon, 1 Jul 1996 16:57:29 -0700 Date: Mon, 1 Jul 1996 16:57:29 -0700 From: jeff@tintin.JPL.NASA.GOV (Jeff Goldsmith) Message-Id: <199607012357.QAA10187@tintin.JPL.NASA.GOV> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: a little question :) Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk |From: mike@mamos.demon.co.uk (michael amos) | |sometimes bridge-players ask interesting but slightly awkward questions | |a player said to me recently that while he had been defending a hand his |partner had a penalty card (no TD had been called ) - when it was clear that |the penalty card ought to be played his partner began to fiddle with his cards |as if he was about to select another card - the player concerned pointed to |the penalty card to encourage his partner to play it - his opponents objected |to this but the card was played and again the TD was not called - the player |asked me if he was wrong to do this | |my initial conclusion seems to be that he was - the Laws do not seem to allow a |player in this situation to attempt to prevent an infraction - do you all |agree? - | |all this raises a further point - in England it is normal practice for a TD, |called to the table to rule on a penalty card, to stand at the table while the |card is on the table to ensure, that it is played at the moment the law |requires - if i cannot point out to my partner that he should play his major |penalty card i'll have to get that nice Mr Stevenson along to help him - is |this practice legal?? As far as I know, the only cases in the laws in which a player may attempt to prevent an irregularity are dummy's ability to prevent declarer from leading from the wrong hand, and the ACBL's "no spades, partner," which only allows one to reduce the severity of an irregularity. Given that he is not transmitting (nonobvious) unauthorized information, I doubt that anyone would rule against him when a defender points to a penalty card---I don't see how it could realistically be prevented. Certainly, I wouldn't want to make such a ruling against a defender bigger than I am... :) Given the ACBL's version of 61B, here one might try asking, "no penalty cards, partner?" :) --Jeff # Cthulhu in '96! Why vote for the lesser evil? # --- # http://muggy.gg.caltech.edu/~jeff From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jul 2 10:30:20 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA08460 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 2 Jul 1996 10:30:20 +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 KAA08455 for ; Tue, 2 Jul 1996 10:30:00 +1000 Received: from post.demon.co.uk ([158.152.1.72]) by relay-4.mail.demon.net id aa09441; 2 Jul 96 0:29 GMT Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by relay-3.mail.demon.net id aa06818; 2 Jul 96 1:23 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 1 Jul 1996 23:45:48 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: US Team Trials (ITT) Appeal 4 In-Reply-To: <199606271750.KAA04408@tintin.JPL.NASA.GOV> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 1.12 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Jeff Goldsmith wrote: >Questions: (1) was this ruling consistent >with the laws? > >My opinions: (1) No, but perhaps it ought to be. >I don't think "percentage" rulings of this sort >are de jure legal, but I think it is reasonable >that they might be if a committee thinks that >they are the only way to restore equity. This is of course the famous L12C2 footnote which the ACBL have seen fit not to include in the American Law book. Several decisions by American ACs can only be justified in Law by this footnote. The method of splitting scores appears to be liked by European players and looked on very favourably when it occurs. Our view is that TDs should also have the right: we believe that rulings would become more generally acceptable. Jens Brix Christiansen wrote: >4. Declarer might appeal here. If so, the AC is allowed to vary the >score in order to do equity. [Yes David, you may ride your hobby >horse here: apparently the ACBL laws don't print that footnote to >L12C2]. If an AC of esteemed bridge players find that S finds the >switch only some of the time and think that it is equitable to use >percentages, who am I poor blighter to argue. Being mostly just >a law enforcer, I would be happy with ruling 9 tricks: the most >unfavorable score likely. But I would like to have the right to split the score myself when I see fit. I do think the Americans should reconsider their whole attitude to this area. I think that the new Laws will allow more TD judgement but it is all rumour so far! >7. Procedural penalty for breaking tempo? I would rather not. >This is not the army. If it misled the opponents then L73D1 applies: if not then how can anyone consider a PP for a mistake that is down by a million players every day? ----- Steve Willner wrote: >Chris Pisarra wrote: >>Jeff Goldsmith wrote: >>>Committee comments: >>> The disposition of this case very much depended >>> on the identities of both the participants >>> involved >> I think that this says it all--who was involved was much more >>important than what really happened. >I'm sure that reflects reality in a lot of cases, but is that supposed >to be a good thing? I was astonished that a committee would admit this, >though perhaps they mean something other than what the words seem to say. >Would (should) the ruling have been different if: >a) Berkowitz (the player claiming to have been deceived) had been a >lesser player (say somebody on a team seeded in the twenties)? Or a >lesser player still, say an average Flight A competitor (presumably in >some different event)? >b) Wolff (the player who made the possibly deceptive slow play) had >been a lesser player as above? This ruling is based on the AC's judgement as to what happened. The ability, knowledge, experience and so on of players is a reasonable part of the decision process, and thus a similar set of facts might (correctly) be ruled differently by an AC because of this. So long as this is what the AC meant (and the comment was ambiguous) then it is acceptable. ----- Robin Michaels wrote: >It seems to me as though the offender at the time of the hesitation, >certainly _could_ have known that this might mislead a defender. >And further, to be ethical, having thought, he was at liberty to >say,'Sorry, I didn't have anything to think about this trick'. >I would have thought that we could expect a player a Wolf's standard to >be aware of this at the table more than a lesser player would be. > This is normal in Britain but from what I have seen on RGB might not be an acceptable procedure in the USA. >Note that there is no rule forbidding you from playing a card face down >in front of you, and continuing to think about the rest of the hand, >before facing it and playing it. Steve Willner wrote: >Proper procedure, of course, is to play the card _face up_ and then >leave it face up as long as necessary. Your partner leads, dummy plays and you wish to think. What do you do? It is common practice in Britain to put the card face down on the table as an indication that you are playing it and want to think. Note that playing it face up would be no good because the next player would play a card. Since this has become an acceptable habit when second or third hand to play, by extension it is understood to mean the same thing when fourth in hand, even though you could play face up. Note that Robin is British so this is normal to him. >The point I was trying to make (and seem to have >botched), was that there's no fundamental difference between a) >removing a card from your hand without revealing it, and b) placing the >same card face down on the table. > When people have an unspoken rule that is well known that one means one thing and the other does not then it is incorrect to say that there is no difference. Jeff Goldsmith wrote: >Not so. Playing a card face down on the table cannot >ever be good. It is not the same as playing it face >up; it is not a card played. It can only be used >to deceive the opponents (regardless of intent) or to >transmit UI to partner. This is one hell of a statement. Perhaps you would like to reconsider it. A large number of very ethical players who use it as an indication for their opponents' benefit that they have no decision to make would be rather unhappy. > This is not a good practice. >To play a card face down to try to establish that one >isn't thinking about that card is ludicrous, of course; >one can simply change the face down card if one is >indeed, thinking about that card. And you might like to reconsider this one as well. -- 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 Tue Jul 2 11:08:30 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id LAA08590 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 2 Jul 1996 11:08:30 +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 LAA08585 for ; Tue, 2 Jul 1996 11:08:25 +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 SAA11738 for <@mipl7.JPL.NASA.GOV:bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au>; Mon, 1 Jul 1996 18:07:42 -0700 Received: by tintin.JPL.NASA.GOV (940816.SGI.8.6.9/930416.SGI.MIPS) for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au id SAA10338; Mon, 1 Jul 1996 18:14:01 -0700 Date: Mon, 1 Jul 1996 18:14:01 -0700 From: jeff@tintin.JPL.NASA.GOV (Jeff Goldsmith) Message-Id: <199607020114.SAA10338@tintin.JPL.NASA.GOV> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: US Team Trials (ITT) Appeal 4, but mostly face-down cards Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk From: David Stevenson |Steve Willner wrote: | |>Proper procedure, of course, is to play the card _face up_ and then |>leave it face up as long as necessary. | | Your partner leads, dummy plays and you wish to think. What do you |do? It is common practice in Britain to put the card face down on the |table as an indication that you are playing it and want to think. Note |that playing it face up would be no good because the next player would |play a card. Since this has become an acceptable habit when second or |third hand to play, by extension it is understood to mean the same thing |when fourth in hand, even though you could play face up. Note that |Robin is British so this is normal to him. | |>The point I was trying to make (and seem to have |>botched), was that there's no fundamental difference between a) |>removing a card from your hand without revealing it, and b) placing the |>same card face down on the table. |> | When people have an unspoken rule that is well known that one means |one thing and the other does not then it is incorrect to say that there |is no difference. Interesting. If someone in Britain played a card face down, thought for awhile, then returned it to his hand and played another card, what would result? Is this considered illegal? Does it prevent the perpetrator ever from playing cards face down indicating "no problem?" in the future? Is it some sort of infraction? Face-down cards out of turn or revokes can be corrected without the standard penalties, I assume, but what if it goes face-down play; thought; look at card; "whoops, this is a revoke!"; change play? Is that somehow different from playing face-down, then not saying anything and changing that card? In general, I think unspoken (or unwritten, or unenforced, or selectively enforced) rules are a bad idea for a bunch of reasons. Let's say I go to Britain and have no idea what the person is doing by playing face down. Am I not allowed to take inference that the player has a problem, probably to this trick? An innocent player is going to assume that the face-down card indicates an unsureness of what to play to this trick. Isn't that the logical interpretation, that playing face-down indicates either (1) I am pretty sure I want to play this card but not positive, which is illegal, so no one would do that regularly, or (2) I am alive, know that it's my turn, but am not sure which card to play? Those seem like obvious inferences to me; that for which it actually is used seems strange and probably would never be guessed by an unknowledgable observer. |Jeff Goldsmith wrote: | |>Not so. Playing a card face down on the table cannot |>ever be good. It is not the same as playing it face |>up; it is not a card played. It can only be used |>to deceive the opponents (regardless of intent) or to |>transmit UI to partner. | | This is one hell of a statement. Perhaps you would like to reconsider |it. A large number of very ethical players who use it as an indication |for their opponents' benefit that they have no decision to make would be |rather unhappy. I think you misread (thus I obviously miswrote) the scope of this statement. I claim that it can never help to put a card face down on the table. It can hurt. Nearly always, it won't matter, but it can. Note that "never good" is not the same as "always bad." |> This is not a good practice. |>To play a card face down to try to establish that one |>isn't thinking about that card is ludicrous, of course; |>one can simply change the face down card if one is |>indeed, thinking about that card. | | And you might like to reconsider this one as well. The laws have a nice synchronization for tricks played. No one may lead to the subsequent trick until after the previous trick's cards have been turned over. There is no good reason to play a card face down on the table instead of playing it face up and refusing to end the trick, best I can tell. It might be the case that in Britain that players all have agreed (by common practice) that a card played face down is, in fact, a played card, just not subject to normal lead-out-of-turn infractions and such, but (1) I don't see any point to it, (2) it begs to be abused, and (3) doesn't carry with it the protection that playing a card face up does. If you think about a card face down for 30 seconds, am I entitled to know that you are going to play the face down card to that trick, that you have no problem to it? If so, why not face the card? If not, then the UI and deception rules still apply. Moreover, I'm not sure this practice doesn't contravene the laws directly. One is not allowed to hesitate without a problem in order to conceal later problems. Unless the face down card is a 100% commitment with appropriate penalties for retraction, then playing a card face down is just simply not playing a card, at least in word. The alternative, to just face the card and leave the trick faced until one's problems are resolved, is not a panacea (one might still do this in order illegally to conceal a later problem or to deceive somehow, etc.) but it has to be better than using a face-down card to try to simulate the same thing. Sometimes seeing the additional card or two to the trick will resolve the problem anyway, so all in all, this practice seems to be inferior to just playing normally. This is not to say, by the way, that inadvertant possibly illegal hesitations cannot be corrected by saying, "oh, sorry, no problem to this trick," but I'm often very dubious about such statements. Typically they are followed by continued refusal to play a card. If one has no problem now, then why not play one's card unless one just was lost in thought? Once one has indicated that one is alive again, if one's statement is true, then one *can* play the card that one is "not thinking about," so why not do it? Obvious inference: the claim about "no problem" was false. It'd take a very distrusting person to conclude this about real people, but isn't the inference patently obvious? --Jeff # Cthulhu in '96! Why vote for the lesser evil? # --- # http://muggy.gg.caltech.edu/~jeff From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jul 2 11:12:11 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id LAA08625 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 2 Jul 1996 11:12:11 +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 LAA08608 for ; Tue, 2 Jul 1996 11:11:59 +1000 Received: from post.demon.co.uk ([158.152.1.72]) by relay-2.mail.demon.net id ab18098; 2 Jul 96 2:11 +0100 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by relay-3.mail.demon.net id aa11631; 2 Jul 96 2:06 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 2 Jul 1996 02:05:19 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Bidding boxes -- Insufficient Bid In-Reply-To: <9607012156.AA13888@cfa183.harvard.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 1.12 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Steve Willner wrote: >> From: jd@pip.dknet.dk (Jesper Dybdal) >> And now a little additional question to you all: assume that I open 1H >> and my partner bids 4C showing 4-card heart support, a singleton club, >> and almost an opening hand (splinter). I think for quite a while, >> then determine to not go for a slam, and calls: pass - oops! - change >> to 4H. All very quickly, saying "oops" the instant I realize that it >> is not a 4H contract I am passing, but not before the pass card is >> lying on the table. >> >> Is this an inadvertent call that can be changed without penalty >> according to law 25A or not? >> >> My own opinion is that it can be changed - it is a case of pulling the >> wrong card in the sense that I never intended to play 4C, though not >> in the physical sense. But I'd like to hear what the rest of you >> think. > >Depending on the time elapsed and the nature of the "oops!" one could >either rule 25A or 25B2b2. The practical effect will be the same in >either case. (I think it would nearly always be 25B2b2 with bidding >boxes because the pass card is not very near the 4H card. But 25A >might be more likely if the controversy were between 4H and 4S, where >one might easily have grabbed the wrong card.) > In Europe there is some doubt as to whether a call can be changed deliberately if it is out of the time for L25A. In my view such a change is at variance with L72B1. >If there's anybody on the Laws Commission, though, I hope the next >version clarifies things here. There are two possible philosophies one >might adopt, and I don't think the Laws are really consistent with >either of them. (I think we all agree that purely mechanical mistakes >should be correctable without penalty, at least if the correction is >made within a reasonable time.) Let me spell them out and their >consequences. > >1. People shouldn't be forced to play ridiculous contracts, and >corrections in cases like the above should be routinely accepted. >Then: > a) Calling a TD should not impair one's right to change the call. > b) There has to be some time after which no change in call can > be permitted. It should not be something that gives an advantage > to an opponent who acts with undue haste. > c) obviously there must be provision that partner of the player > who changed the call cannot take advantage, but declaring the > withdrawn call to be UI mostly solves the problem. > >OR > >2. If you act carelessly, you are stuck with the consequences. >Be more careful next time! >Then: > a) Why 25B2b2? There should be no advantage given to a player > who blurts out an illegal correction. (Perhaps the opponents > should choose which call you are obliged to make, or the first > call made should stand.) > b) We probably need more guidance in deciding whether a change > is purposeful or not. The decision will make a difference in > vastly more cases. > >I think the current Laws are best interpreted as 1), but reasonable >people may disagree. At the very least, the Laws are unclear. > L25B is for the good players. Can you imagine someone down at the club who has passed a cue bid calling the TD and asking if he can change it? No, but a top player will. I dislike the alternative #1 because I do not like any Law that seems to be for the benefit of the top players. The Law is a bit of a mess anyway. I believe that a majority of players would consider that doing away with L25B is fairest. There is also an argument about obtaining a "real Bridge result". Bridge is a game of mistakes. If I pass partner's cue bid because my brain went into neutral then playing in the cue bid is a "real Bridge result": being allowed to correct my stupid mistake is totally artificial. L25B for the chop!!!!! -- 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 Tue Jul 2 12:18:23 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id MAA08932 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 2 Jul 1996 12:18:23 +1000 Received: from laplace.math.ntu.edu.tw (yangboy@laplace.math.ntu.edu.tw [140.112.50.160]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id MAA08927 for ; Tue, 2 Jul 1996 12:18:12 +1000 Received: by laplace.math.ntu.edu.tw (4.1/SMI-4.1) id AA06382; Tue, 2 Jul 96 10:18:41 CST Date: Tue, 2 Jul 96 10:18:41 CST Message-Id: <9607020218.AA06382@laplace.math.ntu.edu.tw> From: "B.Y." To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Two situations Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Hi folx. Since I have rather strong views on the subject, I'd rather not say anything on my own. The setting is late in the master's teams at a National Congress in Taiwan. Written bidding is used. Responses both on this list and by private mail are welcome. Case 1. D=North S: KJTxx North East South West V=E-W H: xx 2S -a Dbl-b 3D -c 3H -d D: xx P 4H all pass C: Txxx S: xx S: xx (a) 0-5 RP (A=3, K=2, Q=1), 5-6 spades H: AQxxx H: KTxx (b) for takeout D: Qx D: AKxx (c) a suit or a lead-director of HEARTS C: xxxx C: AKx [south was being cute], duly alerted. S: AQxx (d) with undue promptness [had pen ready H: Jx to write even before south bid] and D: JTxxx without asking about the alert. C: QJ N-S called the director after the 3H bid and complained. The director instructed that the hand continue. 4H duly made. Director checked the E-W system (if there are two enemy suits, cue-bids ASKS for stopper) and adjudicated 3N/E-2. E-W appealed, and the committee reverted the result to as played. Do you agree with the rulings made by the director and the committee, and what are your reasons? Case 2 Table 1 Table 2 D=North S: JTxx V=E-W H: KQJxxx North South North South D: x P 2N 3H 4D -d C: xx 3C -a 3D 4H P S: xxx S: KQx 3S -b 4S H: H: Txxx 5H -c 6H D: AQ9xx D: JTx P C: JT8xx C: xxx (a) Stayman S: A9x (b) Showing 4S+5H (smolen), NO ALERT H: Axx (West had forgotten). D: Kxxx (c) After long and agonised thought C: AKQ (d) Invitational raise of hearts. The contract was due to go down. However the SK lead from East let it make. Neither the declarer nor the dummy said anything about the auction. E-W had called after north passed south's final bid, alleging that north's mannerisms told south that he had forgotten. South said that he was unaware of any unusual action from his partner and anyway it did not affect his actions. East said that South's 6H is exactly the kind of a call that is made to allow for himself having forgotten, South claimed that he was "bidding naturally". The director let the result stand, as did the committee. How would you have ruled, and why? From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jul 2 14:56:22 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id OAA09562 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 2 Jul 1996 14:56:22 +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 OAA09557 for ; Tue, 2 Jul 1996 14:56:08 +1000 Received: from lhost.monmouth.com (ppp10.monmouth.com [205.164.220.42]) by shell.monmouth.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id AAA24703 for ; Tue, 2 Jul 1996 00:51:19 -0400 Message-Id: <199607020451.AAA24703@shell.monmouth.com> Comments: Authenticated sender is From: "Reha Gur" To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Tue, 2 Jul 1996 00:53:15 -400 Subject: Re: a little question :) X-Confirm-Reading-To: "Reha Gur" X-pmrqc: 1 Priority: normal X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v2.10) Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Mike Amos writes: > > sometimes bridge-players ask interesting but slightly awkward questions > > a player said to me recently that while he had been defending a hand his > partner had a penalty card (no TD had been called ) - when it was clear that > the penalty card ought to be played his partner began to fiddle with his cards > as if he was about to select another card - the player concerned pointed to > the penalty card to encourage his partner to play it - his opponents objected > to this but the card was played and again the TD was not called - the player > asked me if he was wrong to do this What seems to have been done wrong is that the TD was not called when the event which created the major penalty card occurred. L9B1a states that "the director must be summoned at once when attention is drawn to an irregularity." Surely the irregularity had everyone's attention when it happened. L9B2 states that "no player shall take any action until the director has explained all matters in regard to rectification and to the assessment of a penalty", and L10 adds that the director alone may assess penalties, and that the players may not do so. L11A goes so far as to state that "the right to penalize an irregularity may be forfeited if either member of the non-offending side takes any action before summoning the Director," and 11B adds that "the right to penalize is forfeited if offender's LHO calls or plays after the irregularity, and before a legal penalty has been stated and imposed." Not knowing the exact sequence of events at the table in question from the time the major penalty card was created, I cannot say for sure, but it sounds to me as if the non-offending side may well have forfeited their rights in regard to its disposition. > > my initial conclusion seems to be that he was - the Laws do not seem to allow a > player in this situation to attempt to prevent an infraction - do you all > agree? - I agree, but I feel that it is hardly relevant as the whole situation was illegal. > > all this raises a further point - in England it is normal practice for a TD, > called to the table to rule on a penalty card, to stand at the table while the > card is on the table to ensure, that it is played at the moment the law > requires - if i cannot point out to my partner that he should play his major > penalty card i'll have to get that nice Mr Stevenson along to help him - is > this practice legal?? > This happens in the US also, and it is explicitly legal under L84B: "If a case is clearly covered by a law that specifies a penalty for the irregularity, [the Director] assesses that penalty and SEES THAT IT IS PAID" (emphasis mine). Surely that cannot be interpreted to exclude the director's literally seeing that it is paid by standing over the table. It is probably not legal for the director to say 'O.K., now play your penalty card,' but with the director standing over him the player is not likely to forget that he must play the card (though it happens!) Also, the offender's partner may be on lead before the offender has had a chance to play the major penalty card, and it is handy for the director to be there to assess the lead penalties. Yes, I know that some will say that this denies the right of the opponents to profit from further actions by the offending side which may be subject to penalty, but I think that any non-offender who insisted on this right was trying to take undue advantage of the situation. And I don't think that the director's remaining present is the same thing as the offender's partner indicating the penalty card. This last reminds me of a player at our local games who hates for her opponents to claim. She insists that you play it out, even though she is a longtime (but not currently active) director herself, and knows that this is not permitted. However, when she does this you are forced to call the director, who of course allows you to make your claim, but you end up spending more time than you would have spent had you not attempted to claim in the first place. I always wondered why she did this, and recently she told me. I had faced my hand and stated a simple line of play which involved crossing to the dummy and crossing back (there were only about five cards left.) She said, 'well, I'd rather you played it out, in case you make a mistake.' ! >as a relatively new subscriber to bridge-laws i would like to say >hello to you >all and comment how much i have enjoyed reading all your >contributions Hello yourself; welcome aboard. Stefanie Rohan From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jul 2 15:50:55 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id PAA09790 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 2 Jul 1996 15:50:55 +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 PAA09785 for ; Tue, 2 Jul 1996 15:50:30 +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 BAA26690 for ; Tue, 2 Jul 1996 01:45:22 -0400 Message-Id: <199607020545.BAA26690@shell.monmouth.com> Comments: Authenticated sender is From: "Reha Gur" To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Tue, 2 Jul 1996 01:47:19 -400 Subject: Re: US Team Trials (ITT) Appeal 4, but mostly face-down car X-Confirm-Reading-To: "Reha Gur" X-pmrqc: 1 Priority: normal X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v2.10) Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Jeff Goldsmith wrote: > Moreover, I'm not sure this practice doesn't contravene > the laws directly. One is not allowed to hesitate without > a problem in order to conceal later problems. Unless the > face down card is a 100% commitment with appropriate penalties > for retraction, then playing a card face down is just simply > not playing a card, at least in word. The alternative, to > just face the card and leave the trick faced until one's problems > are resolved, is not a panacea (one might still do this in order ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > illegally to conceal a later problem or to deceive somehow, etc.) ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > but it has to be better than using a face-down card to try to > simulate the same thing. Sometimes seeing the additional card > or two to the trick will resolve the problem anyway, so all > in all, this practice seems to be inferior to just playing normally. > I agreed with most of what Jeff was saying in this article, but I am disturbed by the indicated statement. It is illegal to think now about a problem which you expect to have a few tricks hence? It is illegal then to play in tempo to the trick whose possibilities you had previously considered? I have serious difficulties with this. It seems impossible to allow a player to consider his options only at the time of the trick in which he has those options. What if a player stops to think, and halfway through realizes that the next trick, at least, will present no problem? Now has he been deceptive? But what if it takes him several seconds to decide when exactly he will have the problem? And what if you have a problem with the next trick, and tack on a few moments to consider a subsequent problem? Now when that subsequent problem occurs, is it deceptive to play without taking time to think, since you have thought already? Sometimes players need information that became available after trick one in order to plan a line of play or defence. If Jeff's statement is correct, then it would be impossible to take any time to plan such a line, because the critical tricks may turn out to be tricks that are several tricks subsequent to the planning period. After trick one, all planning would have to be done trick by trick. I think that it might even be legal for a player to hesitate, once he has the information he needs (which may be later than trick one), IN ORDER that he might play in tempo to the critical trick. Do the opponents have the right to know _exactly when_ you have your problem? This also brings up UI issues for the defence, since partner will always know, when you stop to think, that you had important considerations on that very trick. Again, I am not convinced of this last point. I would like to read others' comments before I decide. Cheers, Stefanie Rohan From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jul 2 17:54:03 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id RAA10054 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 2 Jul 1996 17:54:03 +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 RAA10049 for ; Tue, 2 Jul 1996 17:53:56 +1000 Received: from lhost.monmouth.com (ppp4.monmouth.com [205.164.220.36]) by shell.monmouth.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id DAA19376 for ; Tue, 2 Jul 1996 03:49:03 -0400 Message-Id: <199607020749.DAA19376@shell.monmouth.com> Comments: Authenticated sender is From: "Stefanie Rohan" To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Tue, 2 Jul 1996 03:51:00 -400 Subject: Re: Two situations X-Confirm-Reading-To: "Stefanie Rohan" X-pmrqc: 1 Priority: normal X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v2.10) Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk B.Y. wrote: > > Since I have rather strong views on the subject, I'd rather > not say anything on my own. The setting is late in the master's teams > at a National Congress in Taiwan. Written bidding is used. Responses > both on this list and by private mail are welcome. > > Case 1. > > D=North S: KJTxx North East South West > V=E-W H: xx 2S -a Dbl-b 3D -c 3H -d > D: xx P 4H all pass > C: Txxx > S: xx S: xx (a) 0-5 RP (A=3, K=2, Q=1), 5-6 spades > H: AQxxx H: KTxx (b) for takeout > D: Qx D: AKxx (c) a suit or a lead-director of HEARTS > C: xxxx C: AKx [south was being cute], duly alerted. > S: AQxx (d) with undue promptness [had pen ready > H: Jx to write even before south bid] and > D: JTxxx without asking about the alert. > C: QJ > > N-S called the director after the 3H bid and complained. The > director instructed that the hand continue. 4H duly made. Director > checked the E-W system (if there are two enemy suits, cue-bids ASKS > for stopper) and adjudicated 3N/E-2. E-W appealed, and the committee > reverted the result to as played. > > Do you agree with the rulings made by the director and the > committee, and what are your reasons? I agree with the committee. West had a hand which wants to make a minimum advance in Hearts, which is exactly what he did. What UI could be transmitted to partner by the undue promptness? Values? Some values seem to be implied already by coming in freely, vulnerable. A fifth heart? Well, maybe. But it seems to me that East's 4H bid is pretty clear if he expects partner to have values for his 3H bid. As for not asking about the alert, I'm not sure that that's relevant. West has a heart bid, and I don't really see how the meaning of the 3D bid could change that. Well, unless the 3D bid shows hearts. But this is entirely unexpected to West, and he has no reason to think that that might be what it means. Some would say that it is potentially deceptive for West to ask, because (given that he will have ruled out the possibility of 3D's meaning hearts), his action is extremely unlikely to be affected by the answer he gets! It would be different if East had asked about the alert before bidding 4H. Now there are problems for E-W, because East must assume that West knows N-S's system. For this reason it was probably not a good idea for N-S to call the director until the auction was over; if they had waited, East might have asked about the alert. Even so, since the bid shows a suit OR a lead-director, I'm not sure whether I would force E-W to treat it as a suit and not as a void or some other lead-directing meaning. Did N-S have a problem with the AC ruling, or were they just upset that E-W did not fall for S's little joke? > > Case 2 Table 1 Table 2 > D=North S: JTxx > V=E-W H: KQJxxx North South North South > D: x P 2N 3H 4D -d > C: xx 3C -a 3D 4H P > S: xxx S: KQx 3S -b 4S > H: H: Txxx 5H -c 6H > D: AQ9xx D: JTx P > C: JT8xx C: xxx (a) Stayman > S: A9x (b) Showing 4S+5H (smolen), NO ALERT > H: Axx (West had forgotten). > D: Kxxx (c) After long and agonised thought > C: AKQ (d) Invitational raise of hearts. > > The contract was due to go down. However the SK lead from > East let it make. Neither the declarer nor the dummy said anything > about the auction. > > E-W had called after north passed south's final bid, alleging > that north's mannerisms told south that he had forgotten. South said > that he was unaware of any unusual action from his partner and anyway > it did not affect his actions. East said that South's 6H is exactly > the kind of a call that is made to allow for himself having forgotten, > South claimed that he was "bidding naturally". The director let the > result stand, as did the committee. N-S's bidding definitely suggests that unauthorized information was used. However... Did E-W call the director before East made his opening lead? If they did, then East knows the meaning of the auction now, so at least there is no MI. Why did East choose a lead from the first suit that N-S had bid and raised? The worst damage to E-W was subsequent to the infraction -- it was East's terrible lead. It sounds as if he is going for a double-shot -- making a lead that was extremely unlikely to succeed, with the expectation that the AC will give it back to him if it doesn't work. I would be a lot more sympathetic if East had tried a heart or even a club. Now I would feel that E-W are entitled to the most favorable likely result of 6S, probably down 2 or 3. > > How would you have ruled, and why? > Well, first of all, I would give N-S the score for 6S down 2 or 3. Their auction practically doesn't make sense without allowing for transmission of UI. As for E-W, I really feel that they earned their -980, because East's error was so egregious. I would want to give it to them, but the Laws do not seem to allow me to do so, since I have ruled that the 6H contract was reached due to use of UI. So I would give E-W the opposite of whatever score I assigned to N-S, but I would not be happy about it. Cheers, Stefanie Rohan P.S. Please do not use tabs in sending e-mail to this list. From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jul 2 18:25:24 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id SAA10146 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 2 Jul 1996 18:25:24 +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 SAA10140 for ; Tue, 2 Jul 1996 18:25:04 +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 KAA14325 for ; Tue, 2 Jul 1996 10:23:07 +0200 Received: from CRI-Message_Server by nov.cri.dk with Novell_GroupWise; Tue, 02 Jul 1996 10:24:00 +0200 Message-Id: X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise 4.1 Date: Tue, 02 Jul 1996 10:04:17 +0200 From: Jens Brix Christiansen To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: a little question :) Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk >>> michael amos 02.07.96 02:27 >>> > when it was clear that the penalty card ought to be played his >partner began to fiddle with his cards as if he was about to select >another card - the player concerned pointed to the penalty card to >encourage his partner to play it - his opponents objected to this but the >card was played and again the TD was not called - the player asked >me if he was wrong to do this For starters, it was wrong for the objecting opponents not to call the TD. If a player thinks that there is an irregularity he can a. Write a letter to his democratic representative. b. Call the TD. c. Chew out his opponents. d. None of the above. (For the comments below, assume exactly one major penalty card) When a player with a penalty card is on lead and does not (immediately) lead his penalty card he is not following the correct procedure -- most likely because he does not get into this situation very often. In this case, not leading the penalty card is an irregularity, and anyone drawing attention to it is doing what he should be doing. Of course, the TD should be called if he is not already there, and if he is already there, the TD should be preventing the irregularity. Same thing goes when the player must follow suit with his penalty card. If he needs to play it because he is void in the suit led, it would seem reasonable to allow partner to draw attention to the penalty card if the void is an established fact; otherwise I guess it is a case of "having none", which we don't allow in Europe. I expect the TD to help the players perform correctly when there is a penalty card. This includes instructing a player who cannot follow suit to play his penalty card as well as instructing the partner not to lead until declarer has had the opportunity to exercise his options. Declarers who protest here should be taught that they do not have the right to bank on any penalty that might be need to be assessed if the penalty card gives rise to further irregularities; the provisions for such penalties are there to allow the TD to handle the unfortunate case when it was not prevented. If such declarers do not understand, they should be given a homework assignment to write an essay where they interpret the section on the scope of the laws. Jens Brix Christiansen, Denmark From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jul 2 18:26:15 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id SAA10162 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 2 Jul 1996 18:26:15 +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 SAA10157 for ; Tue, 2 Jul 1996 18:25:51 +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 KAA14349 for ; Tue, 2 Jul 1996 10:24:02 +0200 Received: from CRI-Message_Server by nov.cri.dk with Novell_GroupWise; Tue, 02 Jul 1996 10:24:54 +0200 Message-Id: X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise 4.1 Date: Tue, 02 Jul 1996 10:20:53 +0200 From: Jens Brix Christiansen To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: a little question :) Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk >>> Stefanie Rohan (Reha Gur) 02.07.96 00:53 >This last reminds me of a player at our local games who hates for her >opponents to claim. She insists that you play it out, even though she >is a longtime (but not currently active) director herself, and knows >that this is not permitted. However, when she does this you are >forced to call the director, who of course allows you to make >your claim, but you end up spending more time than you would >have spent had you not attempted to claim in the first place. >I always wondered why she did this, and recently she told me. I >had faced my hand and stated a simple line of play which involved >crossing to the dummy and crossing back (there were only about >five cards left.) She said, 'well, I'd rather you played it out, in case >you make a mistake.' ! I would give her the old one-two-three. So would the rest of you, I am sure, but just for the record, this is the one-two-three: When I first find out (as TD): "Sorry, this is not the way the game is played. You are deliberately making things take longer. It is not the proper thing to do." Formal reading of L74B2 would hit the spot. When she does it again: "I am formally cautioning you. Don't do this." Third time: "Leave the room. Don't come back for this session." What baffles me is how a person trained as a TD can behave this way. She is doing something that she knows is not permitted in order to gain a possible advantage from it. Jens Brix Christiansen, Denmark From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jul 2 21:28:10 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id VAA10742 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 2 Jul 1996 21:28:10 +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 VAA10737 for ; Tue, 2 Jul 1996 21:27:43 +1000 Received: from post.demon.co.uk ([158.152.1.72]) by relay-4.mail.demon.net id ak21321; 2 Jul 96 11:26 GMT Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by relay-3.mail.demon.net id aa06822; 2 Jul 96 1:23 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 1 Jul 1996 23:40:10 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Bidding boxes -- Insufficient Bid In-Reply-To: <31d6eaa0.2981527@pipmail.dknet.dk> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 1.12 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Jesper Dybdal wrote: >Stefanie Rohan wrote: > [snip] >>The TD was called, and asked RHO why there was a 1NT bid in front of >>him, to which he responded that that was not the bid he had intended >>to make, i.e. he had pulled the wrong card. The TD told him to make >>the bid sufficient. >> >>Reha now asked the TD whether he didn't first have the right to >>accept the insufficient bid. The TD said no, that the man had >>pulled the wrong card, and that there was no penalty for that. > >If he actually did pull the wrong card and acted (by calling the TD or >changing his call) immediately upon realizing that ("without pause for >thought"), then it is correct that there is no penalty. This is law >25A "Immediate Correction of Inadvertency". But in order to have that >right, he must convince the TD that he did pull the wrong card rather >than change his mind. The TD should look at the hand to determine >whether it seems plausible that he did pull the wrong card. > I think this is an extremely poor idea. British TDs are required not to look at a hand. >Whether the TD should look immediately to be able to give a correct >immediate ruling or whether he should look after the hand is played >and adjust if necessary if an interesting question. The EBL's >"Commentary on the Laws of Duplicate Contract Bridge" says (in section >25.4) that the TD should not look at the hands, but the EBL TD course >that Jens attended in January had a exam question where the right >answer involves looking at the hands before ruling. Personally, I >believe that in this one particular situation (where the player says >he pulled the wrong card) it is not really a problem to look at the >hand: either the TD allows the change, in which case no-one has learnt >much from the TD's looking, or he does not, in which case the >offenders are penalized in a way consistent with the offender's >partner knowing that the call was not unintentional anyway. > I am very surprised at this sentence. It would be very easy to decide things from the TD's attitude, speed of decision, whether he looks at the convention card, and so on. When a player makes a bid he takes a lot of different things into account (what the previous bidding was, what happened on the previous hand, what is the state of the match, what he thinks of his opponents' abilities, what of partner's, what of his own, and so many other things). For the TD to make a decision on a hand as to the correct bid he has to take all these into account: how can he do so? But you are asking him to decide what bid was intended and base it on his own (the TD's) judgement of the hand. Let me give you an example. Dealer bids 1C, and says he meant to bid 1S: you look at his hand, and he has two five card black suits: what do you do? Say to the whole table "What do you normally open with two five card black suits?"? Let me give you an example. Pard RHO Reha LHO 2H P P X P 1NT You look at RHO's hand: you would consider 2NT a reasonable bid: are you going to allow him to change it *because of that*? Let me give you an example. Dealer bids 1C, and says he meant to bid 1S: you look at his hand, and he has two five card red suits and two points: what do you do? So I have chosen difficult examples, but even if I don't it is a very serious mistake to look at a player's hand on any occasion that I can think of. By doing so you are (a) having to apply your judgement to a case without being able to consult and with no knowledge of the situation surrounding the decision [matters which are discussed at length for a normal judgement ruling] (b) trying to make such a decision without you the TD giving UI yourself to the rest of the table [I find it difficult to believe that you will give UI in less than 70% of cases] (c) leaving yourself in a completely impossible position when a look at the hand does not solve your problem. As far as the Milan hand I have not seen it but I would be interested. Max has told me that if I had taken the course there are a couple of questions which he believes I would have disagreed with the so-called correct answer given: perhaps this would be one. Still, I would like to see it, since the fact that I cannot offhand think of a case where a TD should have a look does not mean there is not one. My advice is simple: do *not* look at a hand when you are a TD. [s] >I don't know of any world-wide guidelines. In Denmark we use the >following guidelines, which were written (by me) in an attempt to >capture the intent of law 25A: > >"[When using bidding boxes,] law 25A is interpreted to allow a change >of call without penalty provided the following three conditions are >all fulfilled: >a. The change must be a result of the player pulling the wrong card - >it must not be a case of his changing his mind. >b. The change must be done - or the director called - as soon as >possible, with no pause for thought. In Britain we say that no pause for thought is from the realisation of what the bid is, and an attempt to change it is good enough. So if a player looks round the room, then looks in front of him and immediately says "Oh my God" that is good enough. >c. The change must be done no later than approximately simultaneously >with the next hand's call; if the next hand has completely finished >calling in a normal tempo, the change is ruled as a call out of turn >(law 31B)." > >The third condition (c) is there to set a practical time limit for how >late changes we really believe to be without pause for thought. > It's not in the Laws as such and it certainly cuts out some likely scenarios. LHO's bid may prompt the player into looking at his own bidding card and realising it is not what he meant. I am dubious about both the legality and the correctness of this last regulation. [s] >And now a little additional question to you all: assume that I open 1H >and my partner bids 4C showing 4-card heart support, a singleton club, >and almost an opening hand (splinter). I think for quite a while, >then determine to not go for a slam, and calls: pass - oops! - change >to 4H. All very quickly, saying "oops" the instant I realize that it >is not a 4H contract I am passing, but not before the pass card is >lying on the table. > >Is this an inadvertent call that can be changed without penalty >according to law 25A or not? > >My own opinion is that it can be changed - it is a case of pulling the >wrong card in the sense that I never intended to play 4C, though not >in the physical sense. But I'd like to hear what the rest of you >think. Whether you intended to play 4C is quite irrelevant. At the moment when you took the Pass card out of the box, what card did you intend to pull out? It is certainly in time: oops is good enough as an attempt to change: but I believe you intended to pass at the time you did so and thus L25A does not apply. ---- Herman De Wael wrote: >The fact that the rules do not tell us what should happen after applying >Law 25A when more things have happened since, should not deter us from >applying in this case. >No doubt Law 25A will be reworded so as not to allow this thing to >happen. > Oh Herman, such optimism! Surely you mean: >No doubt Law 25A *should* be reworded so as not to allow this thing to >happen. And of course I agree: it needs a time limit. ---- Stefanie Rohan wrote: > The TDiC said that these different guidelines did >indeed exist, and that as mechanical errors can happen, the player's >intent had to be taken into account. Reha said, "Then the only way I >can ever accept an insufficient bid is to refrain from calling >attention to it, and make my call." The TDiC essentially agreed. There is a lot of doubt in European minds about how far American TDs are allowed to use their judgement: I do wonder how accurate some of the European comments on this thread are to Steffie's case. No doubt Europeans would simply apply their judgement but I can imagine that American TDs are rather more tied to specific guidelines. -- 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 Jul 3 00:02:00 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA11686 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 3 Jul 1996 00:02:00 +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 AAA11681 for ; Wed, 3 Jul 1996 00:01:54 +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 KAA18406 for ; Tue, 2 Jul 1996 10:01:50 -0400 Date: Tue, 2 Jul 1996 10:01:49 -0400 (EDT) From: Eric Landau To: Bridge Laws Discussion List Subject: Re: US Team Trials (ITT) Appeal 4, but mostly face-down car In-Reply-To: <199607020545.BAA26690@shell.monmouth.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk No, no, nonono! This isn't really happening, is it? Are we really having a serious discussion about whether it's legal for a defender to plan his defense beyond the current trick? What about all those play problems in all those books and articles? You know, those "plan the play" hands with answers like "East must realize the importance of ducking declarer's first two club leads IN TEMPO so as not to reveal his holding." Are these authors all suggesting that we do something illegal? Or that you're allowed to make the right play only if you can do so without thinking about it? I have opined previously that the bridge lawyers have taken Law 73.F.2 to ludicrous extremes of interpretation, and it now seems that this very discussion proves my case. Prior to the 1987 revisions, the Law required a determination that an action was "deliberately and improperly deceptive" for redress to be available. This gave TDs/ACs a problem; to even consider redress under 73.F.2 required accusing a player of being "deliberately deceptive," i.e. outright cheating. Not surprisingly, a Law whose enforcement required an official statement that a player was cheating (and which would thereby subject that player to penalties far beyond ordinary redress for the infraction at the table, i.e. suspension or expulsion) went unenforced. So the wording was changed "slightly" in 1987: "could have known... that the deception could work to his benefit." It is key that the word "deception" was retained, not changed to "action" or the like. This was intended to create a "loophole" for TDs/ACs facing what they believed to be bona fide cases of "deception." By dropping the "deliberately and improperly," it becomes possible to make adjustments under 73.F.2 without explicitly calling anyone a cheater, requiring (ironclad) proof of intent, leaving oneself open to a lawsuit from a pro claiming impact on his future income, or taking on a positive obligation to refer the incident to a C&E committee. The idea was to allow "deception" to be penalized through the normal TD/AC mechanism without all the previously accompanying baggage that made enforcement impossible. Then the bridge lawyers got ahold of the new wording and "interpreted" it to outlaw any action whatsoever that some mad cheater, in his wildest dreams, might attempt in order to mislead an opponent, no matter how innocently the so-called "infraction" was committed or how indirect the "deception" might be. IMO we were already way over the line when we discussed, a while ago, whether 73.F.2 could/should be applied in cases like asking about an opponent's alert when not contemplating an immediate bid. And now we seem to be seriously contemplating the merits of applying it to routine "smooth duck" situations!?? What's next? How about this one: My opponent attempts to swindle an overtrick at the risk of his contract, I find the killing defense, and he goes down. He takes me to committee, pointing out that when I arrived at his table I said "Good evening. How are you folks tonight?" He argues that I could have known, at the time, that this could deceive him into thinking that I was a newcomer to duplicate and therefore probably a patsy, and that I could have known that this could work to my advantage, as, indeed, it did. How would you rule? Come on, folks, let's get serious. On Tue, 2 Jul 1996, Reha Gur wrote: > Jeff Goldsmith wrote: > > > > > Moreover, I'm not sure this practice doesn't contravene > > the laws directly. One is not allowed to hesitate without > > a problem in order to conceal later problems. Unless the > > face down card is a 100% commitment with appropriate penalties > > for retraction, then playing a card face down is just simply > > not playing a card, at least in word. The alternative, to > > just face the card and leave the trick faced until one's problems > > are resolved, is not a panacea (one might still do this in order > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > > illegally to conceal a later problem or to deceive somehow, etc.) > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > > but it has to be better than using a face-down card to try to > > simulate the same thing. Sometimes seeing the additional card > > or two to the trick will resolve the problem anyway, so all > > in all, this practice seems to be inferior to just playing normally. > > > > > I agreed with most of what Jeff was saying in this article, but I > am disturbed by the indicated statement. It is illegal to think > now about a problem which you expect to have a few tricks hence? It > is illegal then to play in tempo to the trick whose possibilities you > had previously considered? > > I have serious difficulties with this. It seems impossible to allow > a player to consider his options only at the time of the trick in > which he has those options. What if a player stops to think, and > halfway through realizes that the next trick, at least, will present > no problem? Now has he been deceptive? But what if it takes him > several seconds to decide when exactly he will have the problem? > > And what if you have a problem with the next trick, and tack on a few > moments to consider a subsequent problem? Now when that subsequent > problem occurs, is it deceptive to play without taking time to think, > since you have thought already? > > Sometimes players need information that became available after trick > one in order to plan a line of play or defence. If Jeff's statement > is correct, then it would be impossible to take any time to plan such > a line, because the critical tricks may turn out to be tricks that > are several tricks subsequent to the planning period. After trick > one, all planning would have to be done trick by trick. > > I think that it might even be legal for a player to hesitate, once > he has the information he needs (which may be later than trick one), > IN ORDER that he might play in tempo to the critical trick. Do the > opponents have the right to know _exactly when_ you have your > problem? This also brings up UI issues for the defence, since > partner will always know, when you stop to think, that you had > important considerations on that very trick. Again, I am not > convinced of this last point. I would like to read others' comments > before I decide. > > > Cheers, > > Stefanie Rohan > 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 Jul 3 04:12:59 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA17512 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 3 Jul 1996 04:12:59 +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 EAA17505 for ; Wed, 3 Jul 1996 04:12:52 +1000 Received: from cph34.ppp.dknet.dk (cph34.ppp.dknet.dk [194.192.100.34]) by pip.dknet.dk (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id TAA00745 for ; Tue, 2 Jul 1996 19:04:44 +0200 From: jd@pip.dknet.dk (Jesper Dybdal) To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Bidding boxes -- Insufficient Bid Date: Tue, 02 Jul 1996 19:04:35 +0200 Organization: at home Message-ID: <31d95626.11890808@pipmail.dknet.dk> References: In-Reply-To: X-Mailer: Forte Agent .99e/32.227 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Hi David, On Tue, 2 Jul 1996 02:05:19 +0100, David Stevenson wrote: > In Europe there is some doubt as to whether a call can be changed >deliberately if it is out of the time for L25A. In my view such a >change is at variance with L72B1. That is also my view. L25A tells us which changes of calls are allowed. Any other change of call is an infraction of law, and, if done by a player who knows L25, a violation of L72B1. The problem with L25 is that you are very often better off by violating it and taking the penalty (which consists partly of letting you change your call anyway!) than by not violating it. This is a disadvantage for people who know the laws and for people who call the TD to ask for permission before changing their calls, since they cannot take advantage of L25 without getting into conflict with L72B1. > L25B for the chop!!!!! Yes! A player changing his call in other than L25A-situations should be required to take the change back, and the attempted change should be UI for his partner. Some time ago, I sent a proposed wording of L25 to that effect along what I hope to be the correct channels to the law-makers. -- Jesper Dybdal From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jul 3 04:13:02 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA17518 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 3 Jul 1996 04:13:02 +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 EAA17509 for ; Wed, 3 Jul 1996 04:12:55 +1000 Received: from cph34.ppp.dknet.dk (cph34.ppp.dknet.dk [194.192.100.34]) by pip.dknet.dk (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id TAA00742 for ; Tue, 2 Jul 1996 19:04:40 +0200 From: jd@pip.dknet.dk (Jesper Dybdal) To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Bidding boxes -- Insufficient Bid Date: Tue, 02 Jul 1996 19:04:31 +0200 Organization: at home Message-ID: <31d948b5.8449239@pipmail.dknet.dk> References: In-Reply-To: X-Mailer: Forte Agent .99e/32.227 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Hi David, On Mon, 1 Jul 1996 23:40:10 +0100, David Stevenson wrote: >Jesper Dybdal wrote: >>The TD should look at the hand to determine >>whether it seems plausible that he did pull the wrong card. >> > I think this is an extremely poor idea. British TDs are required not >to look at a hand. But surely they may look afterwards? > So I have chosen difficult examples, but even if I don't it is a very >serious mistake to look at a player's hand on any occasion that I can >think of. By doing so you are (a) having to apply your judgement to a >case without being able to consult and with no knowledge of the >situation surrounding the decision [matters which are discussed at >length for a normal judgement ruling] (b) trying to make such a decision >without you the TD giving UI yourself to the rest of the table [I find >it difficult to believe that you will give UI in less than 70% of cases] >(c) leaving yourself in a completely impossible position when a look at >the hand does not solve your problem. Your point (c) is particularly well taken. What I'd really like to do in that situation is to allow the correction and tell him that I'll look more into the matter and perhaps adjust afterwards. Since this will certainly give lots of information to the table, I agree that the TD should never look at the hand at the table. On the other hand, there does not seem to be much of a problem in taking the single player aside to ask why he wants to change his call and to look at his hand. > As far as the Milan hand I have not seen it but I would be interested. >Max has told me that if I had taken the course there are a couple of >questions which he believes I would have disagreed with the so-called >correct answer given: perhaps this would be one. Still, I would like to >see it, since the fact that I cannot offhand think of a case where a TD >should have a look does not mean there is not one. It was part of the initial test that all participants were given at the beginning of the course. I have a copy of the test and the list of correct answers; if there was any interesting discussion of this at the course, I'm sure Jens (who was there) will tell us about it. The question was as follows: "Biddingboxes are in use. Player I has: S: A86 H: KQ85 D: K86 C: AQ5 Player I bids 1NT and wants to change his bid to 1H. Player II has: S: QJ95 H: K72 D: QJ5 C: A85 Player II bids 1NT after partners 1H opening-bid and wants to change this to 1S. Both players immediately called the TD and told him (aside from the table) that they took the wrong card from the biddingbox. The TD allows the change of call: a) in case I, but not in case II; b) not in case I, but he allows it in case II; c) in neither case." The answer was: "b. Law 25; in case II the 1H-bid can be considered to be inadvertent." > In Britain we say that no pause for thought is from the realisation of >what the bid is, and an attempt to change it is good enough. So if a >player looks round the room, then looks in front of him and immediately >says "Oh my God" that is good enough. Certainly. >>c. The change must be done no later than approximately simultaneously >>with the next hand's call; if the next hand has completely finished >>calling in a normal tempo, the change is ruled as a call out of turn >>(law 31B)." >> >>The third condition (c) is there to set a practical time limit for how >>late changes we really believe to be without pause for thought. >> > It's not in the Laws as such and it certainly cuts out some likely >scenarios. LHO's bid may prompt the player into looking at his own >bidding card and realising it is not what he meant. I am dubious about >both the legality and the correctness of this last regulation. When LHO's bid prompts the realization, it usually does so before LHO has "completely finished calling in a normal tempo". If he says "Oh my God" _while_ LHO is putting his bidding card on the table, that is early enough. (I now see that I accidentally left out "- or the director called -" after "the change must be done" when I translated it from Danish.) I am dubious about it too; one of the reasons it is there is that I wrote these rules as a great relaxation of the earlier rules which were directly and definitely in conflict with L25A (they required you to change the call before you had let go of the bidding card), and I didn't want TDs to believe that they should now routinely consider L25A several calls later. It probably ought to be rephrased as a guideline defining a point in time after which the evidence for an inadvertent bid has to be _very_ convincing in order to use L25A. >>And now a little additional question to you all: assume that I open 1H >>and my partner bids 4C showing 4-card heart support, a singleton club, >>and almost an opening hand (splinter). I think for quite a while, >>then determine to not go for a slam, and calls: pass - oops! - change >>to 4H. All very quickly, saying "oops" the instant I realize that it >>is not a 4H contract I am passing, but not before the pass card is >>lying on the table. >> >>Is this an inadvertent call that can be changed without penalty >>according to law 25A or not? > > Whether you intended to play 4C is quite irrelevant. At the moment >when you took the Pass card out of the box, what card did you intend to >pull out? It is certainly in time: oops is good enough as an attempt to >change: but I believe you intended to pass at the time you did so and >thus L25A does not apply. We are certainly talking about a situation where I reached for the pass card with the intention of passing in order to make the contract 4H. I took the pass card, put it on the table, and then immediately realized that the contract was not 4H but 4C. Until now I've allowed a change in such cases, believing it to be the normal and reasonable, though somewhat far-fetched, interpretation of the letter of the law. Of course, no player has ever complained. However, the reactions I've got here will probably make me change my practice in that respect. -- Jesper Dybdal From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jul 3 05:00:32 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA22005 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 3 Jul 1996 05:00:32 +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 FAA21966 for ; Wed, 3 Jul 1996 05:00:21 +1000 Received: from innet.innet.be (pool03-93.innet.be [194.7.10.77]) by mail.be.innet.net (8.7.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id TAA27756 for ; Tue, 2 Jul 1996 19:21:26 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <31D91924.6033@innet.be> Date: Tue, 02 Jul 1996 12:42:12 +0000 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.02 (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: AC Problem References: <9607012132.AA13875@cfa183.harvard.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Steve Willner wrote: > > > >>> Herman De Wael 01.07.96 15:02 >>> > > > >Only in this way can you guard against a pair who made 7NTXX on a > > >double squeeze, seeing their good result drop away because of > > >something that happened at the other table, even if no-one may be > > >held responsible (such as a director giving away info by dropping > > >cards on the table). > > [Hope I've got the quote right.] > > Something along these lines happened in a US National Pairs tournament > a few years ago. Maybe somebody else can remember the details. > > Facts: > Boards were being duplicated and scores compared across many sections. > In one section, a board was misduplicated by exchanging the deuce and > trey in one suit. An expert pair played the board on the first round > and got a super result. Then, per proper procedure, they checked the > board against the hand record and discovered the misduplication. No > one could see how the exchange of small cards could have any possible > effect on the result. (Not always true, of course, even when the cards > exchanged are small ones, but it seemed to be true in this case.) > > Ruling: > Result of misduplicated board cancelled; both pairs get average plus. > Procedural penalty to both pairs at the table that misduplicated the > board. > > This ruling was obviously unfair to the expert pair, who lost their > super result, but it seemed to be the only ruling possible under > existing laws. The fact that the exchange made no possible difference > was immaterial; the board was not played identically at the experts' > table. There is a better solution that I always use : Let the misduplicated board play in that single section. The rules for caluculating fouled boards are there for that ! -- 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 Jul 3 05:57:35 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA26002 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 3 Jul 1996 05:57:35 +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 FAA25997 for ; Wed, 3 Jul 1996 05:57:30 +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 PAA27674 for ; Tue, 2 Jul 1996 15:52:42 -0400 Message-Id: <199607021952.PAA27674@shell.monmouth.com> Comments: Authenticated sender is From: "Stefanie Rohan" To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Tue, 2 Jul 1996 15:54:41 -400 Subject: Re: Bidding boxes -- Insufficient Bid X-Confirm-Reading-To: "Stefanie Rohan" X-pmrqc: 1 Priority: normal X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v2.10) Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David S.: > > L25B for the chop!!!!! > Jesper D.: > Yes! Me: Absolutely! Does anyone disagree? And if so, why? Stefanie Rohan From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jul 3 06:07:45 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA26059 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 3 Jul 1996 06:07:45 +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 GAA26054 for ; Wed, 3 Jul 1996 06:07:36 +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 QAA28315 for ; Tue, 2 Jul 1996 16:02:47 -0400 Message-Id: <199607022002.QAA28315@shell.monmouth.com> Comments: Authenticated sender is From: "Stefanie Rohan" To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Tue, 2 Jul 1996 16:04:46 -400 Subject: Re: Bidding boxes -- Insufficient Bid X-Confirm-Reading-To: "Stefanie Rohan" X-pmrqc: 1 Priority: normal X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v2.10) Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Jesper Dybal wrote: > >>And now a little additional question to you all: assume that I open 1H > >>and my partner bids 4C showing 4-card heart support, a singleton club, > >>and almost an opening hand (splinter). I think for quite a while, > >>then determine to not go for a slam, and calls: pass - oops! - change > >>to 4H. All very quickly, saying "oops" the instant I realize that it > >>is not a 4H contract I am passing, but not before the pass card is > >>lying on the table. > >> > >>Is this an inadvertent call that can be changed without penalty > >>according to law 25A or not? > > > > Whether you intended to play 4C is quite irrelevant. At the moment > >when you took the Pass card out of the box, what card did you intend to > >pull out? It is certainly in time: oops is good enough as an attempt to > >change: but I believe you intended to pass at the time you did so and > >thus L25A does not apply. > > We are certainly talking about a situation where I reached for the > pass card with the intention of passing in order to make the contract > 4H. I took the pass card, put it on the table, and then immediately > realized that the contract was not 4H but 4C. > > Until now I've allowed a change in such cases, believing it to be the > normal and reasonable, though somewhat far-fetched, interpretation of > the letter of the law. Of course, no player has ever complained. > However, the reactions I've got here will probably make me change my > practice in that respect. > -- I agree that you should not be allowed to change your call without penalty according to L25A. But in this case that is no problem, because you are covered L25B, and the penalty is irrelevant. So you CAN change your call 'without penalty' after all. Stefanie Rohan From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jul 3 07:02:47 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA26378 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 3 Jul 1996 07:02:47 +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 HAA26370 for ; Wed, 3 Jul 1996 07:02:41 +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 RAA24520 for ; Tue, 2 Jul 1996 17:02:33 -0400 Date: Tue, 2 Jul 1996 17:02:32 -0400 (EDT) From: Eric Landau To: Bridge Laws Discussion List Subject: Re: Bidding boxes -- Insufficient Bid In-Reply-To: <199607021952.PAA27674@shell.monmouth.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Tue, 2 Jul 1996, Stefanie Rohan wrote: > > > L25B for the chop!!!!! > > Absolutely! > > Does anyone disagree? And if so, why? Law 25.B addresses "Delayed or Purposeful Correction." As has been establshed in the previous discussion, "purposeful correction" is illegal and sufficiently covered elsewhere in the Laws; it should be expunged from Law 25. But 25.A covers only "Immediate Correction of Inadvertency," so we may still want some language to govern rulings in the event of a "delayed correction of inadvertency." If a player commits an "oopsie" and attempts to change his call, but the director rules that the change, despite the fact that the original call was inadvertent, does not qualify as "without pause for thought," do we really want to leave this wide open to interpretation, with nothing in the Law to guide the TD? Or to require that the slightly-too-late attempt to correct it be treated the same as a blatantly illegal "purposeful correction?" Perhaps the best answer is for the Laws to adopt something like the ACBL's interpretive language, which would allow a player to change a call if the original call was "incontrovertably not his intent." That would eliminate the distinction required by the current wording of 25.A between "immediate" and "delayed" corrections of obvious inadvertencies, and with it would go any need for Law 25 to address the latter specifically. 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 Jul 3 08:15:56 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA26647 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 3 Jul 1996 08:15:56 +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 IAA26642 for ; Wed, 3 Jul 1996 08:15:51 +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 SAA10321 for ; Tue, 2 Jul 1996 18:15:42 -0400 (EDT) Received: by cfa183.harvard.edu (5.x/SMI-SVR4) id AA14419; Tue, 2 Jul 1996 18:18:15 -0400 Date: Tue, 2 Jul 1996 18:18:15 -0400 From: willner@cfa183.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Message-Id: <9607022218.AA14419@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Bidding boxes -- Insufficient Bid X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: David Stevenson > In Europe there is some doubt as to whether a call can be changed > deliberately if it is out of the time for L25A. There is doubt everywhere else too; the Laws are simply not clear on this point! > In my view such a change is at variance with L72B1. [...forbidding deliberate violations.] L72B1 doesn't apply if you view 25B as giving explicit permission to change a call. Of course if you take this view, calling the director should not impair your right to change a call (L9B1c). > L25B for the chop!!!!! OK, if you must, though it isn't my preferred solution. But let's have some guidance better than intent as to when 25A applies and when it's too late. I hope you are prepared to adjudicate all the resulting disagreements over the facts. My preferred alternative would be to allow any change of call for any reason until the next player has called in normal tempo and forbid any change after that. Of course any withdrawn call would be UI for partner. There would still be a problem adjudicating "normal tempo," but my belief is that this would be a lot easier than deciding on intent or the old "in the same breath" or other formulations that have been used or suggested for 25A. Maybe this is wrong, though, and I'm just transferring the problem somewhere else. Whatever the Laws say, they should try to avoid giving an advantage to sharp practice. That's the problem with David's interpretation of 25B; anyone willing to blurt out a change of call has an advantage. From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jul 3 08:30:58 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA26729 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 3 Jul 1996 08:30:58 +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 IAA26724 for ; Wed, 3 Jul 1996 08:30:51 +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 SAA12088 for ; Tue, 2 Jul 1996 18:30:48 -0400 (EDT) Received: by cfa183.harvard.edu (5.x/SMI-SVR4) id AA14429; Tue, 2 Jul 1996 18:33:22 -0400 Date: Tue, 2 Jul 1996 18:33:22 -0400 From: willner@cfa183.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Message-Id: <9607022233.AA14429@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Two situations X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: "Stefanie Rohan" [Re Bo Yin's Case 1] > As for not asking about the alert, I'm not sure that that's relevant. > West has a heart bid, and I don't really see how the meaning of the > 3D bid could change that. Well, unless the 3D bid shows hearts. Exactly so. The problem is that West is being allowed to play a dual-message system: bid hearts without asking = hearts; ask, then bid hearts = no heart stopper, do you have one? This doesn't seem like a good idea, especially since East seems to have been playing the same system. On the other hand, there is no explicit regulation (Is there?) requiring West to ask in this situation. I think the director's ruling (as director) was clearly right -- rule for the non-offending side, and invite the offenders to appeal. If the committee believes the testimony about undue haste of the 3H bid, then the score adjustment seems correct. The legal point is that undue haste is just as much "out of tempo" as is an undue hesitation. > Case 2 > Did E-W call the director before East made his opening lead? If they > did, then East knows the meaning of the auction now, Did East receive a correct explanation of the 3S bid before the lead? It wasn't clear from the original narrative. From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jul 3 11:16:48 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id LAA27315 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 3 Jul 1996 11:16:48 +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 LAA27310 for ; Wed, 3 Jul 1996 11:16:37 +1000 Received: from post.demon.co.uk ([158.152.1.72]) by relay-2.mail.demon.net id ab08038; 3 Jul 96 2:16 +0100 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by relay-3.mail.demon.net id ab11155; 3 Jul 96 1:22 +0100 Message-ID: <5QE09bBRtb2xEwaC@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Wed, 3 Jul 1996 01:14:09 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: AC Problem In-Reply-To: <31D91924.6033@innet.be> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 1.12 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Herman De Wael wrote: >Steve Willner wrote: >> >> > >>> Herman De Wael 01.07.96 15:02 >>> >> >> > >Only in this way can you guard against a pair who made 7NTXX on a >> > >double squeeze, seeing their good result drop away because of >> > >something that happened at the other table, even if no-one may be >> > >held responsible (such as a director giving away info by dropping >> > >cards on the table). >> >> [Hope I've got the quote right.] >> >> Something along these lines happened in a US National Pairs tournament >> a few years ago. Maybe somebody else can remember the details. >> >> Facts: >> Boards were being duplicated and scores compared across many sections. >> In one section, a board was misduplicated by exchanging the deuce and >> trey in one suit. An expert pair played the board on the first round >> and got a super result. Then, per proper procedure, they checked the >> board against the hand record and discovered the misduplication. No >> one could see how the exchange of small cards could have any possible >> effect on the result. (Not always true, of course, even when the cards >> exchanged are small ones, but it seemed to be true in this case.) >> >> Ruling: >> Result of misduplicated board cancelled; both pairs get average plus. >> Procedural penalty to both pairs at the table that misduplicated the >> board. >> >> This ruling was obviously unfair to the expert pair, who lost their >> super result, but it seemed to be the only ruling possible under >> existing laws. The fact that the exchange made no possible difference >> was immaterial; the board was not played identically at the experts' >> table. > >There is a better solution that I always use : Let the misduplicated >board play in that single section. The rules for caluculating fouled >boards are there for that ! > You can use them for that certainly. Whether their existence means that you should allow a fouled board to continue is arguable, at any rate. The EBU regulation is that the fouled board is corrected as soon as it is discovered. I do not know the logic, nor do I have any views. -- 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 Jul 3 11:50:53 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id LAA27485 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 3 Jul 1996 11:50:53 +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 LAA27476 for ; Wed, 3 Jul 1996 11:50:47 +1000 Received: from post.demon.co.uk ([158.152.1.72]) by relay-2.mail.demon.net id ab13896; 3 Jul 96 2:50 +0100 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by relay-3.mail.demon.net id aa11151; 3 Jul 96 1:22 +0100 Message-ID: <4QY09cBhtb2xEwau@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Wed, 3 Jul 1996 01:14:25 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: a little question :) In-Reply-To: <602@mamos.demon.co.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 1.12 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk michael amos wrote: >as a relatively new subscriber to bridge-laws i would like to say hello to you >all and comment how much i have enjoyed reading all your contributions Hi Mike. The shift key is the one at the end with the up-arrow on it. -- David Stevenson Beware: low flying cats >>>>>> ........... ZZZZZZZZUB ...... >>>>>>>>>> From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jul 3 12:20:29 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id MAA27584 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 3 Jul 1996 12:20:29 +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 MAA27579 for ; Wed, 3 Jul 1996 12:20:19 +1000 Received: from post.demon.co.uk ([158.152.1.72]) by relay-4.mail.demon.net id ab02125; 3 Jul 96 2:20 GMT Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by relay-3.mail.demon.net id aa21846; 3 Jul 96 3:07 +0100 Message-ID: <1WBXsOCFUd2xEwbB@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Wed, 3 Jul 1996 03:03:49 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Bidding boxes -- Insufficient Bid In-Reply-To: <9607022218.AA14419@cfa183.harvard.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 1.12 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Steve Willner wrote: >> From: David Stevenson > >> In Europe there is some doubt as to whether a call can be changed >> deliberately if it is out of the time for L25A. > >There is doubt everywhere else too; the Laws are simply not clear >on this point! > >> In my view such a change is at variance with L72B1. >[...forbidding deliberate violations.] > >L72B1 doesn't apply if you view 25B as giving explicit permission >to change a call. Of course if you take this view, calling the >director should not impair your right to change a call (L9B1c). > >> L25B for the chop!!!!! > >OK, if you must, though it isn't my preferred solution. But let's >have some guidance better than intent as to when 25A applies and >when it's too late. I hope you are prepared to adjudicate all >the resulting disagreements over the facts. > >My preferred alternative would be to allow any change of call for any >reason until the next player has called in normal tempo and forbid any >change after that. Of course any withdrawn call would be UI for >partner. There would still be a problem adjudicating "normal tempo," >but my belief is that this would be a lot easier than deciding on >intent or the old "in the same breath" or other formulations that have >been used or suggested for 25A. Maybe this is wrong, though, and >I'm just transferring the problem somewhere else. > >Whatever the Laws say, they should try to avoid giving an advantage >to sharp practice. That's the problem with David's interpretation >of 25B; anyone willing to blurt out a change of call has an >advantage. > > Right: lets chop L25A as well! That should do it. Incidentally I agree with the last paragraph about L25B but it is a terrible Law. -- 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 Jul 3 12:59:34 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id MAA27761 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 3 Jul 1996 12:59:34 +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 MAA27756 for ; Wed, 3 Jul 1996 12:59:17 +1000 Received: from post.demon.co.uk ([158.152.1.72]) by relay-4.mail.demon.net id ac06458; 3 Jul 96 2:59 GMT Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by relay-3.mail.demon.net id aa11154; 3 Jul 96 1:22 +0100 Message-ID: <7Au0ZVB4sb2xEw6z@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Wed, 3 Jul 1996 01:13:44 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Bidding boxes -- Insufficient Bid In-Reply-To: <31d948b5.8449239@pipmail.dknet.dk> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 1.12 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Jesper Dybdal wrote: >Hi David, > >On Mon, 1 Jul 1996 23:40:10 +0100, David Stevenson > wrote: > >>Jesper Dybdal wrote: >>>The TD should look at the hand to determine >>>whether it seems plausible that he did pull the wrong card. >>> >> I think this is an extremely poor idea. British TDs are required not >>to look at a hand. > >But surely they may look afterwards? Of course. But why? > > >> So I have chosen difficult examples, but even if I don't it is a very >>serious mistake to look at a player's hand on any occasion that I can >>think of. By doing so you are (a) having to apply your judgement to a >>case without being able to consult and with no knowledge of the >>situation surrounding the decision [matters which are discussed at >>length for a normal judgement ruling] (b) trying to make such a decision >>without you the TD giving UI yourself to the rest of the table [I find >>it difficult to believe that you will give UI in less than 70% of cases] >>(c) leaving yourself in a completely impossible position when a look at >>the hand does not solve your problem. > >Your point (c) is particularly well taken. What I'd really like to do >in that situation is to allow the correction and tell him that I'll >look more into the matter and perhaps adjust afterwards. Since this >will certainly give lots of information to the table, I agree that the >TD should never look at the hand at the table. On the other hand, >there does not seem to be much of a problem in taking the single >player aside to ask why he wants to change his call and to look at his >hand. Maybe. In practical terms this all irrelevant. We both know that you know what is going on in these cases. I doubt that your adjust afterwards idea is legal. When I make a book ruling I consider that ends the matter - don't you? > >> As far as the Milan hand I have not seen it but I would be interested. >>Max has told me that if I had taken the course there are a couple of >>questions which he believes I would have disagreed with the so-called >>correct answer given: perhaps this would be one. Still, I would like to >>see it, since the fact that I cannot offhand think of a case where a TD >>should have a look does not mean there is not one. > >It was part of the initial test that all participants were given at >the beginning of the course. I have a copy of the test and the list >of correct answers; if there was any interesting discussion of this at >the course, I'm sure Jens (who was there) will tell us about it. > >The question was as follows: > >"Biddingboxes are in use. > >Player I has: > S: A86 H: KQ85 D: K86 C: AQ5 >Player I bids 1NT and wants to change his bid to 1H. > >Player II has: > S: QJ95 H: K72 D: QJ5 C: A85 >Player II bids 1NT after partners 1H opening-bid and wants to change >this to 1S. > >Both players immediately called the TD and told him (aside from the >table) that they took the wrong card from the biddingbox. The TD >allows the change of call: > >a) in case I, but not in case II; >b) not in case I, but he allows it in case II; >c) in neither case." > >The answer was: >"b. Law 25; in case II the 1H-bid can be considered to be >inadvertent." > Well b is right without being there, as a paper example. I am not at all convinced that there is the least reason to look at the hand. I might accept that you talk to a player away from the table, but I still do not see why you would look at a player's hand. The moment you do you are having to make judgements on hands in a hurry and in a way that no TD should do. > >> In Britain we say that no pause for thought is from the realisation of >>what the bid is, and an attempt to change it is good enough. So if a >>player looks round the room, then looks in front of him and immediately >>says "Oh my God" that is good enough. > >Certainly. > >>>c. The change must be done no later than approximately simultaneously >>>with the next hand's call; if the next hand has completely finished >>>calling in a normal tempo, the change is ruled as a call out of turn >>>(law 31B)." >>> >>>The third condition (c) is there to set a practical time limit for how >>>late changes we really believe to be without pause for thought. >>> >> It's not in the Laws as such and it certainly cuts out some likely >>scenarios. LHO's bid may prompt the player into looking at his own >>bidding card and realising it is not what he meant. I am dubious about >>both the legality and the correctness of this last regulation. > >When LHO's bid prompts the realization, it usually does so before LHO >has "completely finished calling in a normal tempo". If he says "Oh >my God" _while_ LHO is putting his bidding card on the table, that is >early enough. (I now see that I accidentally left out "- or the >director called -" after "the change must be done" when I translated >it from Danish.) > >I am dubious about it too; one of the reasons it is there is that I >wrote these rules as a great relaxation of the earlier rules which >were directly and definitely in conflict with L25A (they required you >to change the call before you had let go of the bidding card), and I >didn't want TDs to believe that they should now routinely consider >L25A several calls later. It probably ought to be rephrased as a >guideline defining a point in time after which the evidence for an >inadvertent bid has to be _very_ convincing in order to use L25A. > > Funnily enough this was brought up by our CTD Max Bavin today at our L&EC meeting today. In my view there is no legal time limit, but a fair and practical one is when the partner of the player bids. Alternatively if the partner does something that could get the player to change it apply L74C4 and no change may be made. >>>And now a little additional question to you all: assume that I open 1H >>>and my partner bids 4C showing 4-card heart support, a singleton club, >>>and almost an opening hand (splinter). I think for quite a while, >>>then determine to not go for a slam, and calls: pass - oops! - change >>>to 4H. All very quickly, saying "oops" the instant I realize that it >>>is not a 4H contract I am passing, but not before the pass card is >>>lying on the table. >>> >>>Is this an inadvertent call that can be changed without penalty >>>according to law 25A or not? >> >> Whether you intended to play 4C is quite irrelevant. At the moment >>when you took the Pass card out of the box, what card did you intend to >>pull out? It is certainly in time: oops is good enough as an attempt to >>change: but I believe you intended to pass at the time you did so and >>thus L25A does not apply. > >We are certainly talking about a situation where I reached for the >pass card with the intention of passing in order to make the contract >4H. I took the pass card, put it on the table, and then immediately >realized that the contract was not 4H but 4C. > >Until now I've allowed a change in such cases, believing it to be the >normal and reasonable, though somewhat far-fetched, interpretation of >the letter of the law. Of course, no player has ever complained. >However, the reactions I've got here will probably make me change my >practice in that respect. It is so easy to say that you did not mean to pass, but all that means is that no player ever intends to revoke: of course they don't! There are many analogous situations. Bridge is a game of mistakes. It is poor practice by the Lawmakers to allow players to correct mistakes in any circumstances (unless the mistakes are caused by others) but at least let us minimise these corrections. -- 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 Jul 3 13:30:30 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id NAA27876 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 3 Jul 1996 13:30:30 +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 NAA27871 for ; Wed, 3 Jul 1996 13:29:51 +1000 Received: from post.demon.co.uk ([158.152.1.72]) by relay-2.mail.demon.net id ac00466; 3 Jul 96 4:29 +0100 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by relay-3.mail.demon.net id aa11147; 3 Jul 96 1:22 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 3 Jul 1996 01:17:53 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: US Team Trials (ITT) Appeal 4, but mostly face-down cards In-Reply-To: <199607020114.SAA10338@tintin.JPL.NASA.GOV> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 1.12 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Jeff Goldsmith wrote: >From: David Stevenson > >|Steve Willner wrote: >| >|>Proper procedure, of course, is to play the card _face up_ and then >|>leave it face up as long as necessary. >| >| Your partner leads, dummy plays and you wish to think. What do you >|do? It is common practice in Britain to put the card face down on the >|table as an indication that you are playing it and want to think. Note >|that playing it face up would be no good because the next player would >|play a card. Since this has become an acceptable habit when second or >|third hand to play, by extension it is understood to mean the same thing >|when fourth in hand, even though you could play face up. Note that >|Robin is British so this is normal to him. >| >|>The point I was trying to make (and seem to have >|>botched), was that there's no fundamental difference between a) >|>removing a card from your hand without revealing it, and b) placing the >|>same card face down on the table. >|> >| When people have an unspoken rule that is well known that one means >|one thing and the other does not then it is incorrect to say that there >|is no difference. > >Interesting. If someone in Britain played a card face down, >thought for awhile, then returned it to his hand and played >another card, what would result? Is this considered illegal? >Does it prevent the perpetrator ever from playing cards >face down indicating "no problem?" in the future? Is it >some sort of infraction? Face-down cards out of turn or >revokes can be corrected without the standard penalties, >I assume, but what if it goes face-down play; thought; >look at card; "whoops, this is a revoke!"; change play? >Is that somehow different from playing face-down, then >not saying anything and changing that card? > >In general, I think unspoken (or unwritten, or unenforced, >or selectively enforced) rules are a bad idea for a bunch >of reasons. Let's say I go to Britain and have no idea what >the person is doing by playing face down. Am I not allowed >to take inference that the player has a problem, probably to >this trick? An innocent player is going to assume that the >face-down card indicates an unsureness of what to play to >this trick. Isn't that the logical interpretation, that >playing face-down indicates either (1) I am pretty sure I >want to play this card but not positive, which is illegal, >so no one would do that regularly, or (2) I am alive, know >that it's my turn, but am not sure which card to play? >Those seem like obvious inferences to me; that for which >it actually is used seems strange and probably would never >be guessed by an unknowledgable observer. I am certainly getting a little testy about some of the distinctions between geographical areas. Maybe it is reasonable, maybe not. For everyone's information, I have recently posted to RGB a comment on alerting doubles in ACBL events, and have received an email telling me that I have lied, in effect. Being an email, netiquette forbids me from quoting it exactly. But there does seem to be a very very strong approach from some American commentators to European practices, and so it may not be too surprising if I sometimes get defensive. Poor Robin Michaels made a nice little suggestion on BLML that would have been normal practice in England (where Robin posts from), and now the pressure seems to be transferred to me. Why the pressure? Are you always suspicious whenever a player does something solely for his opponent's benefit? Surely that happens in the USA? What about active ethics? I shall try to answer your questions as best I can, and let us see if we get any nearer. >Interesting. If someone in Britain played a card face down, >thought for awhile, then returned it to his hand and played >another card, what would result? I don't know: we are talking about ethical players deliberately being ethical, so this does not happen. > Is this considered illegal? I shall tell you if it happens. >Does it prevent the perpetrator ever from playing cards >face down indicating "no problem?" in the future? I don't generally refer to ethical players being ethical solely for their opponents' benefit as perpetrators. > Is it >some sort of infraction? Face-down cards out of turn or >revokes can be corrected without the standard penalties, >I assume, but what if it goes face-down play; thought; >look at card; "whoops, this is a revoke!"; change play? >Is that somehow different from playing face-down, then >not saying anything and changing that card? No doubt someone will eventually get this sort of problem where they are forced to change the card. To decry the whole procedure because of this is surely a mistake. You also suggest the whole procedure is wrong because a stranger to it might initially be misled. Do you not think there are several things that you do in the USA that would confuse me when I played there? It is clear, just from odd comments here and on RGB, that there are. I do not believe you should change your whole structure of regulation and unwritten practices just because you might confuse Europeans. > >|Jeff Goldsmith wrote: >| >|>Not so. Playing a card face down on the table cannot >|>ever be good. It is not the same as playing it face >|>up; it is not a card played. It can only be used >|>to deceive the opponents (regardless of intent) or to >|>transmit UI to partner. >| >| This is one hell of a statement. Perhaps you would like to reconsider >|it. A large number of very ethical players who use it as an indication >|for their opponents' benefit that they have no decision to make would be >|rather unhappy. > >I think you misread (thus I obviously miswrote) the scope >of this statement. I claim that it can never help to put >a card face down on the table. It can hurt. Nearly always, >it won't matter, but it can. Note that "never good" is not >the same as "always bad." I strongly disagree that it can never help. Active ethics is a boon to the game and it is used as active ethics here. And I still think that when you say "It can only be used..." for a procedure that several of us use as active ethics it is unfortunate. Of course, you may believe we are misguided, but that is not the same thing. > >|> This is not a good practice. >|>To play a card face down to try to establish that one >|>isn't thinking about that card is ludicrous, of course; >|>one can simply change the face down card if one is >|>indeed, thinking about that card. >| >| And you might like to reconsider this one as well. > >The laws have a nice synchronization for tricks played. >No one may lead to the subsequent trick until after the >previous trick's cards have been turned over. There is >no good reason to play a card face down on the table >instead of playing it face up and refusing to end the >trick, best I can tell. > How do you stop the next player playing if it is face up? >It might be the case that in Britain that players all >have agreed (by common practice) that a card played face >down is, in fact, a played card, just not subject to >normal lead-out-of-turn infractions and such, but (1) >I don't see any point to it, (2) it begs to be abused, >and (3) doesn't carry with it the protection that playing >a card face up does. If you think about a card face down >for 30 seconds, am I entitled to know that you are going >to play the face down card to that trick, that you have >no problem to it? If so, why not face the card? If not, >then the UI and deception rules still apply. > If I face the card then the next person plays. >Moreover, I'm not sure this practice doesn't contravene >the laws directly. One is not allowed to hesitate without >a problem in order to conceal later problems. Exactly: that's why we do it. To show that the problems being considered are later ones not current. > Unless the >face down card is a 100% commitment with appropriate penalties >for retraction, then playing a card face down is just simply >not playing a card, at least in word. The alternative, to >just face the card and leave the trick faced until one's problems >are resolved, is not a panacea (one might still do this in order >illegally to conceal a later problem or to deceive somehow, etc.) >but it has to be better than using a face-down card to try to >simulate the same thing. Sometimes seeing the additional card >or two to the trick will resolve the problem anyway, so all >in all, this practice seems to be inferior to just playing normally. No-one is asking you to do it, but you are now saying in effect: If you want to apply active ethics then this is the way you have to do it. Well, I am not going to tell you not to do your method, and I would prefer you do not tell us not to do ours. >This is not to say, by the way, that inadvertant possibly >illegal hesitations cannot be corrected by saying, "oh, sorry, >no problem to this trick," but I'm often very dubious about >such statements. Typically they are followed by continued >refusal to play a card. If one has no problem now, then why not >play one's card unless one just was lost in thought? Once >one has indicated that one is alive again, if one's statement >is true, then one *can* play the card that one is "not thinking >about," so why not do it? Obvious inference: the claim about >"no problem" was false. It'd take a very distrusting person >to conclude this about real people, but isn't the inference >patently obvious? This again is not concerned with ethical players. There is an unwritten rule that English players do for the benefit of their opponents, and I do not see that suspicion is apposite or deserved. ---- I have not written this or my previous posts in the best of moods. I really think that people should consider what they want to do. We have very ethical players here, as I am sure you do. I really do not see why I need to defend their actions because you do it differently. When you add up this attack on English active ethics, the person who called me a liar for my post on alerting, DDJ and his description of an English regulation that has never been discussed fully ("But the fact that the UK has some bad regulations shouldn't affect the ACBL's policy decisions."), the pressure I was under recently to defend a different English regulation, the fight I had when I innocently explained some English guidance, an earlier email (again which I cannot quote) that was simply designed to upset and quite a few other articles, then I begin to wonder whether it is all worth it. We can forget there is a big world out there. The Americans can discuss their problems, and assume that all Europeans (especially the English) are idiotic unethical people who do not understand the Laws. The Europeans can go back to the sort of unflattering view of Americans that our cheap newspapers have, and can discuss matters within the European Union, ignoring those people over the Atlantic. I do not want to. I have made three firm American friends through this medium, and I should like to make more. I am encouraged by a group of about seven or eight (some American, more European) to express my views on a wide range of subjects, not because they think I am always right, but because they think my views are interesting. I should like to continue. But this **attack mode** that other correspondents sometimes put on is wearing me down. About a week or two ago, Jerry Sund asked a question about an English regulation. I did not answer him at that time because of the pressure (not from him) but promised to answer later. Tell me, if I explain it, will I immediately be attacked? If I explain the regulation that DDJ described as "bad" but which has never been explained, will I get abusive emails? England has many regulations: some say more than the rest of Europe put together. A lot of them work well. We have a lot of general practices: many of those work well. We have many good players: some of those are extremely ethical and would bend over backwards not to disadvantage their opponents. Some of the things that have been described as wrong in other countries we seem to have avoided. We have a dedicated set of committees who do a lot of work and much of it is good. And if I tell anyone about any of this on BLML why do I always seem to get attacked? The choice is yours. I am seriously upset by the approach over the last two or three weeks. I would not say that I prefer going back to discussing matters in a small group (which does include a few Americans) but I am prepared to. What I am not prepared to do is to defend good English methods with my life. Could we not discuss transatlantic matters *with sympathy*? ---- A final thought. When I want my opponents to be sure that I am not thinking about the current trick then sometimes I say "I am not thinking about this trick", and sometimes I detach a card and put it face downwards on the table, never changing it later. How many of you are convinced by this that I am unethical? -- David Stevenson david@blakjak.demon.co.uk Tel: +44 (0)151 677 7412 Phone before Fax please From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jul 3 14:32:16 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id OAA28076 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 3 Jul 1996 14:32:16 +1000 Received: from laplace.math.ntu.edu.tw (yangboy@laplace.math.ntu.edu.tw [140.112.50.160]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id OAA28071 for ; Wed, 3 Jul 1996 14:32:08 +1000 Received: by laplace.math.ntu.edu.tw (4.1/SMI-4.1) id AA10222; Wed, 3 Jul 96 12:32:26 CST Date: Wed, 3 Jul 96 12:32:26 CST Message-Id: <9607030432.AA10222@laplace.math.ntu.edu.tw> From: "B.Y." To: willner@cfa183.harvard.edu Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au In-Reply-To: <9607022233.AA14429@cfa183.harvard.edu> (willner@cfa183.harvard.edu) Subject: Re: Two situations Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Minor clarification here (also re-formatted without tabs). > Case 1. > D=North S: KJTxx North East South West > V=E-W H: xx 2S -a Dbl-b 3D -c 3H -d > D: xx P 4H all pass > C: Txxx > S: xx S: xx (a) 0-5 RP (A=3, K=2, Q=1), 5-6 spades > H: AQxxx H: KTxx (b) for takeout > D: Qx D: AKxx (c) a suit or a lead-director of HEARTS > C: xxxx C: AKx [south was being cute], duly alerted. > S: AQxx (d) with undue promptness [had pen ready > H: Jx to write even before south bid] and > D: JTxxx without asking about the alert. > C: QJ > > N-S called the director after the 3H bid [...]. Director checked > the E-W system (if there are two enemy suits, cue-bids ASKS for > stopper) and adjudicated 3N/E-2. E-W appealed, and the committee > reverted the result to as played. Do you agree with the rulings > made by the director and the committee, and what are your reasons? I have received a few responses and I thank those who replied for their time and trouble. However these mostly concentrated on the committee ruling and not the Director's. I would be gratified if you would also comment on that. Thank you. > Case 2 Table 1 Table 2 > D=North S:JTxx > V=E-W H:KQJxxx North South North South > D:x P 2N (20-22) 3H 4D -d > C:xx 3C -a 3D 4H P > S:xxx S:KQx 3S -b 4S > H: H:Txxx 5H -c 6H > D:AQ9xx D:JTx P > C:JT8xx C:xxx (a) Stayman (regular kind). > S:A9x (b) Showing 4S+5H (smolen), NO ALERT > H:Axx (West had forgotten). > D:Kxxx (c) After long and agonised thought > C:AKQ (d) Invitational raise of hearts. > > The contract was due to go down. However the SK lead from > East let it make. Neither the declarer nor the dummy said anything > about the auction. [...] How would you have ruled, and why? Note: East knew about Smolen in the N-S system, having studied it beforehand. You have also doubtlessly noted that club and heart leads both let 6H through. East claimed that her lead was to cater for hands in which declarer held S:Axx H:Axx D:AKx C:KQJT or the like. My apologies for not making this clear earlier. From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jul 3 14:53:24 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id OAA28181 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 3 Jul 1996 14:53:24 +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 OAA28175 for ; Wed, 3 Jul 1996 14:53:12 +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 AAA05026 for ; Wed, 3 Jul 1996 00:48:02 -0400 Message-Id: <199607030448.AAA05026@shell.monmouth.com> Comments: Authenticated sender is From: "Stefanie Rohan" To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Wed, 3 Jul 1996 00:50:02 -400 Subject: Re: Two situations X-Confirm-Reading-To: "Stefanie Rohan" X-pmrqc: 1 Priority: normal X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v2.10) Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Steve Willner wrote: > > From: "Stefanie Rohan" > > [Re Bo Yin's Case 1] > > As for not asking about the alert, I'm not sure that that's relevant. > > West has a heart bid, and I don't really see how the meaning of the > > 3D bid could change that. Well, unless the 3D bid shows hearts. > > Exactly so. The problem is that West is being allowed to play > a dual-message system: bid hearts without asking = hearts; ask, > then bid hearts = no heart stopper, do you have one? This doesn't > seem like a good idea, especially since East seems to have been > playing the same system. I don't think that this is the case at all. Why should West suspect that the 3D bid showed hearts? Partner has made a takeout double of 2S , and he is looking at five hearts. Why should he have any reason to think that the explanation of the bid will affect his action? When partner doubled, he was planning to bid hearts, bid or no bid, alert or no alert. Similarly, why should East have any suspicions? > > On the other hand, there is no explicit regulation (Is there?) > requiring West to ask in this situation. Well, if West does not ask and East does, we are back to the "UI from questions not asked" thread. But that did not seem to happen here. > > I think the director's ruling (as director) was clearly right -- rule > for the non-offending side, and invite the offenders to appeal. If the > committee believes the testimony about undue haste of the 3H bid, then > the score adjustment seems correct. The legal point is that undue > haste is just as much "out of tempo" as is an undue hesitation. Yes, undue haste is out of tempo, and the offenders should be ruled against and invited to appeal. But it is up to the committee to determine what information about West's hand the tempo could have carried. If there is no particular message or messages, then there is no UI. And if there is UI, the committee still needs to determine whether passing 3H is a logical alternative for an East who has heard his partner bid freely, vulnerable, at the three level. > > > Case 2 > > Did E-W call the director before East made his opening lead? If they > > did, then East knows the meaning of the auction now, > > Did East receive a correct explanation of the 3S bid before the > lead? It wasn't clear from the original narrative. Perhaps he did not; I am not sure either. But the story says that E-W called the director at the end of the auction. However, whether or not he has received a correct explanation, East has no reason to think that spades were not bid and raised naturally, as in fact they were. With no alerts he should certainly assume (correctly) that the spade bids were natural. That is why I feel that the spade lead was an egregious error. Stefanie Rohan From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jul 3 15:41:20 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id PAA28456 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 3 Jul 1996 15:41:20 +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 PAA28451 for ; Wed, 3 Jul 1996 15:41:13 +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 BAA07174; Wed, 3 Jul 1996 01:36:12 -0400 Message-Id: <199607030536.BAA07174@shell.monmouth.com> Comments: Authenticated sender is From: "Stefanie Rohan" To: "B.Y." Date: Wed, 3 Jul 1996 01:38:12 -400 Subject: Re: Two situations CC: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au X-Confirm-Reading-To: "Stefanie Rohan" X-pmrqc: 1 Priority: normal X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v2.10) Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Hello > I have received a few responses and I thank those who replied > for their time and trouble. However these mostly concentrated on the > committee ruling and not the Director's. I would be gratified if you > would also comment on that. Thank you. Since the committee's ruling was the opposite of the director's, wouldn't our opinions about the director's ruling be the converse of our opinions about the committee's? Stefanie Rohan From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jul 3 16:52:01 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id QAA28551 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 3 Jul 1996 16:52:01 +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 QAA28546 for ; Wed, 3 Jul 1996 16:51:52 +1000 From: AlLeBendig@aol.com Received: by emout15.mail.aol.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA02820 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Wed, 3 Jul 1996 02:52:12 -0400 Date: Wed, 3 Jul 1996 02:52:12 -0400 Message-ID: <960703025211_426696067@emout15.mail.aol.com> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: AC Problem Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In a message dated 96-07-02 15:01:55 EDT, Steve writes: >> Facts: >> Boards were being duplicated and scores compared across many sections. >> In one section, a board was misduplicated by exchanging the deuce and >> trey in one suit. An expert pair played the board on the first round >> and got a super result. Then, per proper procedure, they checked the >> board against the hand record and discovered the misduplication. No >> one could see how the exchange of small cards could have any possible >> effect on the result. (Not always true, of course, even when the cards >> exchanged are small ones, but it seemed to be true in this case.) If I remember correctly, this occurred at the WBF OPen Pairs Championship in Albuquerque. The exact situation was an exchange of a deuce and a trey. The procedural penalty was one full board. I thought that it was all handled well even though things seemed harsh at the time. I suspect Max will remember the incident. Alan LeBendig, Los Angeles (310)312-8899 Phone (310)312-8779 Fax From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jul 3 17:59:46 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id RAA28737 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 3 Jul 1996 17:59:46 +1000 Received: from laplace.math.ntu.edu.tw (yangboy@laplace.math.ntu.edu.tw [140.112.50.160]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id RAA28732 for ; Wed, 3 Jul 1996 17:59:34 +1000 Received: by laplace.math.ntu.edu.tw (4.1/SMI-4.1) id AA10727; Wed, 3 Jul 96 15:59:43 CST Date: Wed, 3 Jul 96 15:59:43 CST Message-Id: <9607030759.AA10727@laplace.math.ntu.edu.tw> From: "B.Y." To: rgur@monmouth.com Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au In-Reply-To: <199607030536.BAA07174@shell.monmouth.com> (rgur@monmouth.com) Subject: Re: Two situations Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk S- From: "Stefanie Rohan" S- Date: Wed, 3 Jul 1996 01:38:12 -400 S- S- Since the committee's ruling was the opposite of the director's, S- wouldn't our opinions about the director's ruling be the converse of S- our opinions about the committee's? Not really. It is often correct for the director to rule one way and for the committee to rule another way, right? From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jul 4 00:16:46 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA01930 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 4 Jul 1996 00:16:46 +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 AAA01925 for ; Thu, 4 Jul 1996 00:16:36 +1000 Received: from innet.innet.be (pool03-66.innet.be [194.7.10.50]) by mail.be.innet.net (8.7.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id QAA13088 for ; Wed, 3 Jul 1996 16:16:13 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <31DA9B32.7182@innet.be> Date: Wed, 03 Jul 1996 16:09:22 +0000 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.02 (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: [calc]Problem 1 - byes Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk [complete text at] http://www.club.innet.be/~pub02163/bridge/calcula.htm Problem 1 : Byes Description of the problem Sometimes a tournament is conducted thus, that one or more pairs play some boards more or less than their competitors. This is not an ideal tournament, but as was stated in the introduction, this manual deals solely with results. The person responsible for the movement may be cursed, but results have to be provided nevertheless, and as equitable to all players as possible. There are two distinct aspects to this problem. 1- When the possible results are all positive, as in the MP-systems, playing more boards provides a possibility of scoring a greater number of points. But even when the average result is zero (as in the IMP-systems), scoring a certain number of points above this average, is easier when playing more boards. 2- When playing fewer boards, the statistical chances of error are bigger. It is a well-known phenomenon that in a one-day tournament, more players reach a given total, say 60%, than in a tournament over several sessions. The chances of the 'luck' element evening out are bigger, the more boards are played. The same is true within one session. I shall only deal with the first problem. The second problem is indeed too 'statistical', and too small within the scale of, for instance 24 boards as opposed to 28. The second problem should however be remembered, and it is a bad thing to class pairs in one ranking, when a different number of sessions have been played (1,2,3 sessions). Solutions 1) Mitchell In the Mitchell system, it is very common practice to 'Average'. This is usually done by giving the final results in percentages. Each pairs' score is divided by the maximum number of points they could have got. This maximum is equal to the 'Top' on each board, multiplied by the number of hands played. Thus every total score is divided by the number of boards played by the pair. Another way is to multiply the total results of pairs having played a 'minority' number of boards, by a correction factor. Consider for example a tournament of 23 pairs, where every pair plays 28 boards, except 7 pairs that are 'bye' and play only 24. The total of these pairs could well be multiplied by 28/24 (or 7/6). 2) Mitchell-Neuberg, Ascherman The same principles apply in the Neuberg and Ascherman systems. 3) Cross-IMPs, Butler, Bastille The same principle should also be applied to the different IMP-based systems. This is not always being done, primarily because Tournament Directors have not been aware of the problem. Since the average score is zero, it is quite normal for pairs having played fewer boards, still to be ahead of others. But these pairs have actually gained about two IMPs per board. If they had been able to play the other boards, they could have gained two IMPs on those too. In these systems, a similar rectification should take place at the end of the tournament. I propose as a standard, comparable to the 'percentage' in Pairs scoring, that all total IMPs be factored toward 32 boards. Another possibility might be to convert IMPs into Victory Points (VP), using the official WBF-table. This would solve the second above mentioned problem as well : Example : when scoring +20 over 8 boards, this would give 21 VP, but if you score +40 over 16 boards, this shows a greater consistency and yields 24 VP. However there is the disadvantage that the table does not change for every number of boards played, and the VPs are the same for a number of adjacent IMPs. -- 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 Jul 4 00:16:32 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA01923 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 4 Jul 1996 00:16:32 +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 AAA01918 for ; Thu, 4 Jul 1996 00:16:17 +1000 Received: from innet.innet.be (pool03-66.innet.be [194.7.10.50]) by mail.be.innet.net (8.7.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id QAA13073 for ; Wed, 3 Jul 1996 16:16:07 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <31DA9AAB.3CAC@innet.be> Date: Wed, 03 Jul 1996 16:07:07 +0000 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.02 (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: [calc]Gen Princ - Butler Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk [complete text at] http://www.club.innet.be/~pub02163/bridge/calcula.htm Calculating Bridge Tournaments General Principles - Butler Another way of calculating Pairs Tournaments using IMPs is to compare=20 every score with the average of all scores. Usually the highest and=20 lowest scores are dropped from the calculation of this average. The=20 difference between every score and the average is converted into IMPs. [see table :] http://www.club.innet.be/~pub02163/bridge/calcul14.htm General Principles - Bastille Several problems arise in the Butler system, some having to do with=20 problems of rounding. One solution to these problems is to do away with=20 rounding altogether. When using a computer, no rounding is needed. A=20 continuous version of the official WBF IMP-scale has been developed, and=20 has been in use in a special version of the Butler system, called=20 Bastille because it was first used at a tournament of the Royal Squeeze=20 Bridge Club of Antwerp on 14 July 1989 (the 200th anniversary of the=20 storming of the Bastille). [see table :] http://www.club.innet.be/~pub02163/bridge/calcul14.htm The continuous version of the IMP-scale co=EFncides with the normal scale= =20 at the half-way points. In the discrete table, 0-10 score 0 IMP, 20-40=20 get 1 IMP, 50-80 equals 2 IMP. In the continuous version, 15 points gives 0.5 IMP, 45 equals 1.5 IMP. =20 The scale is linear through these points. This means that if one applies the Bastille scoring, and then rounds the=20 IMPs to the nearest integer, this automatically equals the Butler score. The formulas are : from 0 to 45 : IMP =3D score / 30 from 45 to 165 : IMP =3D (score + 15) / 40 from 165 to 365 : IMP =3D (score + 60) / 50 from 365 to 425 : IMP =3D (score + 145) / 60 from 425 to 495 : IMP =3D (score + 240) / 70 from 495 to 595 : IMP =3D (score + 555) / 100 from 595 to 895 : IMP =3D (score + 1130) / 150 from 895 to 1495 : IMP =3D (score + 1805) / 200 from 1495 to 2495 : IMP =3D (score + 2630) / 250 over 2495 : IMP =3D (score + 7755) / 500 The use of the Bastille system would have prevented the strange results=20 that occurred in Scheveningen in early 1994. At that tournament, the=20 correction of a result in favour of Hamman-Wolff cost them a place and=20 several hundreds of guilders. In the last round of that tournament, a board had been scored 2NT+1 :=20 +180. The opponents on the board, Mrss Hamman-Wolff, sought and got a=20 rectification. They expected to gain one IMP and consequently one=20 place, but instead lost one place and 2000 dutch guilders. What had happened ? Together with a change of score, this rectification induced a change of=20 datum-score, the average with which all scores are compared. This average fell from +240 to +230. Hamman-Wolff originally got 240-180 =3D 60 =3D 2 IMP After the rectification, this became 230-150 =3D 80 =3D 2 IMP On the other hand, the dutch pair of Leufkens-Westra (playing=20 North-South) originally scored 400-240 =3D 160 =3D 4 IMP. This became=20 400-230 =3D 170 =3D 5 IMP, gaining them one IMP and a lone sixth place=20 (originally they had been classed equal sixths). What would the Bastille scoring have made of this ? We can only guess at the original average, before rounding. Let us=20 suppose this was +237. (any other average between 235 and 240 will give the same outcome) The original score for Hamman-Wolff was : 237-180 =3D 57 =3D 1.8 IMP The original score for Leufkens-Westra was : 400-237 =3D 163 =3D 4.45 IMP After recalculation, the average would go down 5 points (the average is=20 calculated without using the two outermost scores; there were 8 tables,=20 so the average is a total divided by 6) and would, in our presumtion,=20 now be +232. As you can see, this co=EFncides beautifully with the Butle= r=20 change from 240 to 230. Now Hamman-Wollf would score : 232-150 =3D 82 =3D 2.425 IMP (gain +.625) And Leufkens-Westra : 400-232 =3D 168 =3D 4.56 IMP (gain +.11) As we can see, the rounded IMPs for Hamman-Wolff remain at +2, those for=20 Leufkens-Westra jump over the 4.5 mark and give an extra IMP. This is=20 exactly the result of the Butler version. The very nature of the Duplicate Bridge Game makes that every good thing=20 you do, also helps your 'friends', meaning those that play at other=20 tables in the opposite direction. Yet a system that permits these=20 'helpings' to be greater than your own benefit can surely do with some=20 improvements. --=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 Thu Jul 4 01:10:50 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA03285 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 4 Jul 1996 01:10:50 +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 BAA03279 for ; Thu, 4 Jul 1996 01:10:43 +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 LAA02931; Wed, 3 Jul 1996 11:10:33 -0400 (EDT) Received: by cfa183.harvard.edu (5.x/SMI-SVR4) id AA14785; Wed, 3 Jul 1996 11:13:08 -0400 Date: Wed, 3 Jul 1996 11:13:08 -0400 From: willner@cfa183.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Message-Id: <9607031513.AA14785@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au, newsr@blakjak.demon.co.uk Subject: Re: US Team Trials (ITT) Appeal 4, but mostly face-down cards X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: David Stevenson > How do you stop the next player playing if it is face up? This is really the crux of the matter. Why would you wish to stop the next player playing? Maybe the card will solve your problem, more likely it won't. But how can seeing it hurt you? > Exactly: that's why we do it. To show that the problems being > considered are later ones not current. No doubt it is done in that spirit. Sometimes a practice will get started and catch on even if it isn't entirely logical. Or am I missing the logic? The underlying idea that one should avoid misleading opponents (other than by legal calls and plays) is a sound one. The question at issue is how best to accomplish that goal. The above questions are meant seriously, and I hope they are taken that way and not as an attack. I think the international aspects of this forum give it enormous value. Practices that seem odd may have sound reasons behind them -- or they may simply not have been thought out. It seems reasonable to discuss which is the case in a particular instance. I don't think it's reasonable to take an attack on a particular regulation of any NCBO as a personal attack. (And we should all try hard, in phrasing our comments, to avoid anything that might be read that way.) You can say anything you want about ACBL stupidity, and I won't object. There's even a fair chance I'll agree. Or I may try to defend the regulation in question if it happens to be one with which I agree. Either way, I hope to learn something from the discussion. From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jul 4 01:28:46 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA03384 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 4 Jul 1996 01:28:46 +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 BAA03379 for ; Thu, 4 Jul 1996 01:28:41 +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 LAA20566 for ; Wed, 3 Jul 1996 11:28:38 -0400 (EDT) Received: by cfa183.harvard.edu (5.x/SMI-SVR4) id AA14807; Wed, 3 Jul 1996 11:31:14 -0400 Date: Wed, 3 Jul 1996 11:31:14 -0400 From: willner@cfa183.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Message-Id: <9607031531.AA14807@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Two situations X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: "Stefanie Rohan" > Why should West suspect > that the 3D bid showed hearts? Partner has made a takeout double of > 2S , and he is looking at five hearts. Why should he have any reason > to think that the explanation of the bid will affect his action? I didn't say that it was East or West's _intent_ to create a dual- message system; I said it was the _effect_ of the ruling. > And if there is UI, the committee still needs to determine > whether passing 3H is a logical alternative for an East who has heard > his partner bid freely, vulnerable, at the three level. I don't think anybody would claim that pass is a logical alternative. It surely isn't if the 3H bid doesn't show hearts! The point is that if 3H asks for a heart stopper, 3NT _is_ a logical alternative -- very likely the _only_ logical alternative. > Since the committee's ruling was the opposite of the director's, > wouldn't our opinions about the director's ruling be the converse of > our opinions about the committee's? Not necessarily. In the US at least -- Does Taiwan follow US practice or European? -- if the ruling depends on a difficult question of bridge judgement, the director is supposed to rule for the non-offenders and advise the offenders of their right to appeal. A committee may well overturn such a ruling without any hint that the director has done something wrong. Bo-Yin's case 1 seems to me a good example, based on the facts presented. A player acted with undue haste and without asking questions in an auction that would normally call for a moderate tempo and probably for questions. That action is unauthorized information for partner, who would also normally be expected to ask questions but in this case didn't have to because of the table action. The director's ruling thus seems automatic (under US procedures), though I can imagine reasons a committee might overturn it. From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jul 4 02:27:04 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA03861 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 4 Jul 1996 02:27:04 +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 CAA03856 for ; Thu, 4 Jul 1996 02:26:55 +1000 Received: from innet.innet.be (pool03-76.innet.be [194.7.10.60]) by mail.be.innet.net (8.7.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id SAA26229 for ; Wed, 3 Jul 1996 18:26:24 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <31DAB734.26D5@innet.be> Date: Wed, 03 Jul 1996 18:08:52 +0000 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.02 (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: [calc]Problem 2 - Semi-byes Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk [complete text at] http://www.club.innet.be/~pub02163/bridge/calcula.htm Problem 2 : Semi-Byes Description of the problem Sometimes a pair enters late, or leaves early, for whatever reason. Examples : an extra pair enters the tournament, perhaps even during the second or third round, and fills out a previous "bye". Or a doctor has to leave because he has been called on an emergency. Or a player becomes ill. Or worse : a pair decides not to play on after a severe argument. And worse still : a pair is suspended by the Tournament Director and thrown out of the tournament. Solutions It is not within the responsibility of the calculation department to criticise the directors for allowing late arrivals or early dropouts, these things happen and should be solved. There are three categories of problems when this occurs : - How to score the results for the pair(s) that have played only part of the tournament; - How to score the boards that they have missed for their opponents; - How to score those boards for all the other participants. The third problem is equal to that of the fouled boards, or that of the artificial adjusted scores, which are mentioned later. It is my general opinion that results should not depend on what happens on any table that does not produce a comparable score. There will be fewer scores to compare with, but the reason why this has happened should not influence the results. The first problem has two sides : what score do they get, and do they, yes or no, feature in the final rankings. The second question has to be resolved by the tournament director, and the reason for the late arrival or early departure, as well as the number of boards missed, shall determine his decision. The first part is comparable to the problem for their opponents, with some extra problems : if you award too many 60%-scores to the same pair, the result will be heavily influenced by this. The second problem is worth a closer look. There are indeed two ways of scoring : The pair can get an artificial score (usually 60%), or they can get no score at all, their total being compared to that of the other pairs by ways discussed in the previous chapter (fewer boards played). Consider the problem of a late arrival. The opponents in a round that has finished were bye. They knew they would not get a score, yet now they can claim that they have, through no fault of their own, failed to meet the newcomers, failed to play the boards, and should get a 60%-score according to Law 12C1. It is my opinion however that this should not be so, although no guidelines have been put forward. The same goes for the early departure, in any case for reasons of health, not bad play. I propose the following guideline : "Whenever a pair misses any prolonged series of boards, the result on these boards shall be considered 'unplayed', with no result being awarded and the final total of the pairs corrected according to the actual number of boards played." The guideline should state how many boards constitute a 'prolonged series'. I think this should start at 3 consecutive boards, so no more than two consecutive 60%-scores should be given. -- 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 Jul 4 03:13:10 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA04146 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 4 Jul 1996 03:13:10 +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 DAA04141 for ; Thu, 4 Jul 1996 03:13:00 +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 KAA23760 for <@mipl7.JPL.NASA.GOV:bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au>; Wed, 3 Jul 1996 10:12:07 -0700 Received: by tintin.JPL.NASA.GOV (940816.SGI.8.6.9/930416.SGI.MIPS) for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au id KAA12392; Wed, 3 Jul 1996 10:18:30 -0700 Date: Wed, 3 Jul 1996 10:18:30 -0700 From: jeff@tintin.JPL.NASA.GOV (Jeff Goldsmith) Message-Id: <199607031718.KAA12392@tintin.JPL.NASA.GOV> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au |From: David Stevenson | |Jeff Goldsmith wrote: | |>From: David Stevenson | I am certainly getting a little testy about some of the distinctions |between geographical areas. Maybe it is reasonable, maybe not. For To argue about an idea does not, in my opinion, state anything negative about the idea's believers. In fact, I don't see why you are associating this particular argument with transatlatic differences. There are those in America who do the same thing. I think the practice is odd and illogical. There might be a good reason to do it, as compared to following the standard duplicate synchronization. I don't know that reason, perhaps you do. Even if this practice were idiosyncratically English, and if I were to openly denouce it as inane, how does it follow that I think English regulations, players, or anything else are silly? I will quickly admit to sounding a bit on the aggressive side when arguing a point in which I believe, but I do assume that readers do not jump to conclusions of this sort. | But there does seem to be a very very strong approach from some |American commentators to European practices, and so it may not be too There's "a very strong approach" from some American commentators about American practices, too. That there is a national difference just doesn't seem at all relevant to me other than that we get more than one point of view and body of experience in the discussion. | Why the pressure? Are you always suspicious whenever a player does |something solely for his opponent's benefit? Surely that happens in the |USA? What about active ethics? I'm suspicious when someone does something ostensibly for his opponents' benefit when he could do something far simpler that would provide the same benefit without any possible suspicion. I have opponents about whom I'm automatically suspicious regardless of their apparent intent. So? | I shall try to answer your questions as best I can, and let us see if |we get any nearer. | |>Interesting. If someone in Britain played a card face down, |>thought for awhile, then returned it to his hand and played |>another card, what would result? | | I don't know: we are talking about ethical players deliberately being |ethical, so this does not happen. We are not talking about players at all, but about a procedure that can be used by anyone. I'm simply pointing out the logical strangeness of the procedure--- if it really is assumed to be ethical action, what happens when someone, intentionally or inadvertantly, does something clearly possible that would stand the whole thing on its end? I don't know the answer to that. My guess is that there is no recourse. I know many American players who wouldn't hesitate to use such underhanded tactics. When dealing with rules, therefore, I always try to give them at least one look from the point of view of the scalawag. If a first glance from that perspective worries me, then I want to examine the rule (procedure/whatever) more carefully to see if loopholes cannot be removed. That's what I was doing here. I am sorry that this was not obvious. |> Is this considered illegal? | | I shall tell you if it happens. I've seen it happen. The director ruled "no problem." The opponents were understandably upset. | You also suggest the whole procedure is wrong because a stranger to it |might initially be misled. Do you not think there are several things |that you do in the USA that would confuse me when I played there? It is |clear, just from odd comments here and on RGB, that there are. I do not |believe you should change your whole structure of regulation and |unwritten practices just because you might confuse Europeans. No, I didn't say that. I said that it is apparently illogical from the standpoint of an uninformed observer. That's a point against it, but, as you say, not a major one, since there are far more illogical practices that bridge players take for granted everywhere. |>I think you misread (thus I obviously miswrote) the scope |>of this statement. I claim that it can never help to put |>a card face down on the table. It can hurt. Nearly always, |>it won't matter, but it can. Note that "never good" is not |>the same as "always bad." | | I strongly disagree that it can never help. Active ethics is a boon |to the game and it is used as active ethics here. And I still think |that when you say "It can only be used..." for a procedure that several |of us use as active ethics it is unfortunate. Of course, you may |believe we are misguided, but that is not the same thing. I think you've missed the point entirely. Let's restrict the question to choosing between the following two procedures: I need to think about the whole hand (after the third card, etc.) and want to stop play so that I can think about it. It is my turn to play. I can either (1) play my card face down and leave it thus until I am ready, or (2) play my card face up and leave it thus until I am ready. I do not see the benefits of (1) over (2), and (2) is expressly stated as proper procedure in the laws. If you (or anyone else) can demonstrate to me how and when (1) gains OVER (2), I'll happily segue into wondering about details of the procedure, or even just shut up (OK, I know me better that that :)) This is not a discussion of active ethics at all. I think that (1) gives the appearance of active ethics falsely, that it really does nothing that the normal rules do not. Worse still, it can be abused by unscrupulous characters. This is not to decry active ethics, any players in particular, England, English bridge, English regulations, David Stevenson, the pope, or Margaret Thatcher, just the procedure about which we have been talking, and then only in comparison to a procedure that seems obviously better to me. |>The laws have a nice synchronization for tricks played. |>No one may lead to the subsequent trick until after the |>previous trick's cards have been turned over. There is |>no good reason to play a card face down on the table |>instead of playing it face up and refusing to end the |>trick, best I can tell. |> | How do you stop the next player playing if it is face up? Why would you want to? You stop anyone from playing to the next trick simply by leaving your card faced. Is there a reason to do more than that? |>Moreover, I'm not sure this practice doesn't contravene |>the laws directly. One is not allowed to hesitate without |>a problem in order to conceal later problems. | | Exactly: that's why we do it. To show that the problems being |considered are later ones not current. How does playing face down do a better job of this than playing face up? | ---- | | I have not written this or my previous posts in the best of moods. I |really think that people should consider what they want to do. We have |very ethical players here, as I am sure you do. I really do not see why |I need to defend their actions because you do it differently. When you Interestingly, although in my opinion totally irrelevant, it turns out that Americans do exactly the same thing, and that there is no transatlantic difference whatsoever in this regard. Indeed, I have long thought that the practice is strange and nonsensical; I figured that folks did this everywhere. The whole topic was brought forth by a well-known American's doing something quite similar. His action was dissimilar enough that another player felt he was deceived. Let's say Wolff had played his card face down on the table. Would that have changed the ruling? Ought it have? |good. And if I tell anyone about any of this on BLML why do I always |seem to get attacked? Probably because you are not carefully considering the distinction between attacks ad hominem and upon ideas. The main point of a discussion group is to present ideas, watch them get attacked, see if they can be defended, and learn from the process. Or am I confused? Sometimes, one will put forth an idea without being sure about its value or correctness, but is just musing. Let's call that "grow mode." Other times, one will put forth an idea, feeling confident that it is right, expecting to be able to (or wondering if it can) withstand attacks. Let's call that "acid mode." Most of the time, posters make it very clear that they are in grow mode or in acid mode. Confusing the two, or using one when only the other is appropriate, generates responses and feelings like those that you are experiencing. I'm prone to using acid inappropriately; for such trangressions past and future, I apologize. I don't think, however, that this is such a case. | A final thought. When I want my opponents to be sure that I am |not thinking about the current trick then sometimes I say "I am not |thinking about this trick", and sometimes I detach a card and put it |face downwards on the table, never changing it later. How many of you |are convinced by this that I am unethical? If a known-to-be-unethical player were to do this (we have a few, I'm afraid), what would you think? Would you trust the claim? Does it have legal force? What if this guy were to do that then change his mind? Unfortunately, bridge is not played only by the actively ethical. I grant that just about anything an actively ethical player does is at least intended as ethical. The contrapositive cannot be assumed, but it's a good idea for lawmakers to consider it. --Jeff # Cthulhu in '96! Why vote for the lesser evil? # --- # http://muggy.gg.caltech.edu/~jeff From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jul 4 04:14:38 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA04670 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 4 Jul 1996 04:14:38 +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 EAA04665 for ; Thu, 4 Jul 1996 04:14:29 +1000 From: FARLEY_WALLY@Tandem.COM Received: from POST.TANDEM.COM by suntan.tandem.com (8.6.12/suntan5.960119) id LAA14868; Wed, 3 Jul 1996 11:13:12 -0700 Received: by POST.TANDEM.COM (4.13/4.5) id AA28473; 3 Jul 96 11:12:18 -0700 Date: 3 Jul 96 10:26:00 -0700 Message-Id: <199607031112.AA28473@POST.TANDEM.COM> To: rgur@monmouth.com, yangboy@math.ntu.edu.tw Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Two situations Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Hi, Stefanie: You suggest that our opinions about the director's ruling must be the converse of our feelings about the committee's actions. Not at all! They could both be correct (this is often the case where a committee overrules a director -- his job is to keep the game running; theirs is to adjudicate in delicate matters of bridge judgment. You do not *have* to be a bridge expert to be an expert, excellent director). As to B.Y.'s two cases, I find little bridge rationale for the 5H call in the second case. Obviously, there are possibilities: North may know through prior experience or explicit agreement that his partner is loath to play game-level Moysian fits; the partnership may have had little experience bidding Smolen on 6-4 shapes; South may have forgotten Smolen before. If any of these possibilities pertain, the opponents should have been informed (and by stating that I *do not* imply that they were not so informed, I only point out that B.Y. has not yet told us of that). As the director I would have ruled for the non-offending side (then, on committee, I would have over-ruled the director). I agree that the lead of the KS is frankly bizarre on this auction. Not only has this pair managed to wrong-side the contract (the AD lead may stand out to *you* but I assure you that S would have made 6H against *me* most if not all of the time), but they have announced very clearly that a minor suit lead will work better than a S honor. So I also support your suggestion that the actual result is seriously removed from the supposed proximate cause -- the real cause here is the S honor lead. I spent some time thinking about whether I would give redress if the lead had been xC -- I suspect so. The fact that *I* wouldn't have the sense to lead AD certainly doesn't mean that an *expert* wouldn't have cashed it before the mice could get at it (although it is certainly possible to construct deals where this is the only nullo defense ). As to the first case, I would have had no problem with an auction that had continued: 3D -- psychic H lead director 3H -- asks stopper P -- no longer in the game 3N -- Yes, I stop hearts P (presumably enough joking has been done) 4H I smell a psyche But, as (Steve?) Willner points out, the abnormal haste lead to a presumption of the possibility of a dual-meaning system. With obvious, biddable hearts to respond in to partner's TO double, bid them; with only notional hearts, ask the meaning of the alerted call. My mechanism -- which is not a panacea, but which I regard as ethical (Adverse comments and suggestions welcomed -- well, not *welcomed*, because I think what I do is ethical, but if you disagree then I'd like to fix it) -- is to assume that partner *knows exactly what the alerted bid shows* if he does not ask -- thus, the 3H bid *was asking for a H stop*, if that is what is played over lead-directors as well as 'real' suits. Obviously, this is not what happened (E has no defense for his failure to bid 3N). We can no longer tell whether W would have corrected 3N to 4H. 3N down *one* seems reasonable to me -- how did they expect N/S to win a sixth trick? I did not understand B.Y.'s comment 'West had forgotten' as an annotation for the 3S bid in hand 2 -- I assume he meant 'South forgot'; maybe he was using it as a justification for the lead -- but it was East's lead. If I'm completely out-to-lunch, it won't be the first time. Regards, WWFiv Wally Farley Cupertino, CA (farley_wally@tandem.com) ------------ ORIGINAL ATTACHMENT -------- SENT 07-02-96 FROM SMTPGATE (rgur@monmouth.com) Hello > I have received a few responses and I thank those who replied > for their time and trouble. However these mostly concentrated on the > committee ruling and not the Director's. I would be gratified if you > would also comment on that. Thank you. Since the committee's ruling was the opposite of the director's, wouldn't our opinions about the director's ruling be the converse of our opinions about the committee's? Stefanie Rohan From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jul 4 04:53:31 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA08212 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 4 Jul 1996 04:53:31 +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 EAA08161 for ; Thu, 4 Jul 1996 04:53:16 +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 OAA02278; Wed, 3 Jul 1996 14:47:42 -0400 Message-Id: <199607031847.OAA02278@shell.monmouth.com> Comments: Authenticated sender is From: "Stefanie Rohan" To: FARLEY_WALLY@Tandem.COM, bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Wed, 3 Jul 1996 14:49:35 -400 Subject: Re: Two situations X-Confirm-Reading-To: "Stefanie Rohan" X-pmrqc: 1 Priority: normal X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v2.10) Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Wally Farley wrote: > You suggest that our opinions about the director's ruling must be the > converse of our feelings about the committee's actions. Not at all! They > could both be correct (this is often the case where a committee overrules a > director -- his job is to keep the game running; theirs is to adjudicate in > delicate matters of bridge judgment. You do not *have* to be a bridge expert > to be an expert, excellent director). Please! I meant to send that message to B.Y. alone. Of course I know that the director's and the committee's rulings can be different and both right; I misunderstood B.Y.'s question, and thought that he was mostly interested in opinions on the final outcome of the case. I was mortified when responses of this sort started coming in! > As to B.Y.'s two cases, I find little bridge rationale for the 5H call > in the second case. Obviously, there are possibilities: North may know > through prior experience or explicit agreement that his partner is loath to > play game-level Moysian fits; the partnership may have had little experience > bidding Smolen on 6-4 shapes; South may have forgotten Smolen before. If > any of these possibilities pertain, the opponents should have been informed > (and by stating that I *do not* imply that they were not so informed, I only > point out that B.Y. has not yet told us of that). As the director I would > have ruled for the non-offending side (then, on committee, I would have > over-ruled the director). > > I agree that the lead of the KS is frankly bizarre on this auction. Not > only has this pair managed to wrong-side the contract (the AD lead may stand > out to *you* but I assure you that S would have made 6H against *me* most if > not all of the time), but they have announced very clearly that a minor suit > lead will work better than a S honor. So I also support your suggestion that > the actual result is seriously removed from the supposed proximate cause -- > the real cause here is the S honor lead. I spent some time thinking > about whether I would give redress if the lead had been xC -- I suspect so. Yes, I suspect that I would have, also. But after the actual lead, is it permitted to give E-W the score they earned (and deserve) once you have ruled that the 6H contract was reached due to UI (assuming that you would have ruled that it was.) Also, I assume that even if you could award -980 to E-W, you would not support awarding +980 to N-S, but would give a split ruling. > > As to the first case, I would have had no problem with an auction that > had continued: 3D -- psychic H lead director > 3H -- asks stopper > P -- no longer in the game > 3N -- Yes, I stop hearts > P (presumably enough joking has been done) > 4H I smell a psyche This auction had occurred to me also. > > But, as (Steve?) Willner points out, the abnormal haste lead to a presumption > of the possibility of a dual-meaning system. With obvious, biddable hearts > to respond in to partner's TO double, bid them; with only notional hearts, > ask the meaning of the alerted call. This is persuasive. I have been assuming, however, that at this vulnerability and form of scoring, West will not be kidding when he bids hearts. Why bother? Partner can balance! Are we saying that the undue haste was deliberate, and not inadvertent (i.e. he did not expect South to come in)? This seems to me to be the only reason to rule based on the tempo, and it is a different kettle of fish altogether. I am willing to change my mind if someone can convince me that West would have entered the auction with no good reason (values and 4+ hearts) to do so. > My mechanism -- which is not a panacea, > but which I regard as ethical (Adverse comments and suggestions welcomed -- > well, not *welcomed*, because I think what I do is ethical, but if you > disagree then I'd like to fix it) -- is to assume that partner *knows exactly > what the alerted bid shows* if he does not ask -- thus, the 3H bid *was asking > for a H stop*, if that is what is played over lead-directors as well as 'real' > suits. Obviously, this is not what happened (E has no defense for his > failure to bid 3N). We can no longer tell whether W would have corrected > 3N to 4H. 3N down *one* seems reasonable to me -- how did they expect N/S > to win a sixth trick? But we have no evidence that East asked about or knew the meaning of the 3D call. If he did not, then he has no reason to bid 3NT. It seemed to me that East had no particular reason to ask about the alert either; if anything, he may have assumed that it was some sort of lead director in diamonds (in which case it was more likely a psyche than a void.) If in this case he showed he had a reason to wonder, he might have uncovered South's psyche for North! Why should he have bothered to ask? Stefanie Rohan From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jul 4 08:39:59 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA13578 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 4 Jul 1996 08:39:59 +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 IAA13573 for ; Thu, 4 Jul 1996 08:39:52 +1000 Received: from cph46.ppp.dknet.dk (cph46.ppp.dknet.dk [194.192.100.46]) by pip.dknet.dk (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id AAA01462 for ; Thu, 4 Jul 1996 00:39:43 +0200 From: jd@pip.dknet.dk (Jesper Dybdal) To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Bidding boxes -- Insufficient Bid Date: Thu, 04 Jul 1996 00:39:33 +0200 Organization: at home Message-ID: <31daf4d7.814811@pipmail.dknet.dk> References: <199607022002.QAA28315@shell.monmouth.com> In-Reply-To: <199607022002.QAA28315@shell.monmouth.com> X-Mailer: Forte Agent .99e/32.227 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Tue, 2 Jul 1996 16:04:46 -400, "Stefanie Rohan" wrote: >I agree that you should not be allowed to change your call without >penalty according to L25A. But in this case that is no problem, >because you are covered L25B, and the penalty is irrelevant. So you >CAN change your call 'without penalty' after all. Some people argue that L25B allows you to change your call, probably because that is the only interpretation that will reduce L25B's problem: that it allows you to get away with changing a call that you are not really allowed to change. As I read L25B, any change of call not allowed by L25A is an infraction of law: L25B uses words such as "offender", "infraction", and "penalty", which can hardly refer to a legal action. This must mean that you are not allowed to change your call except in the L25A situation; if I do it anyway, knowing that it is not allowed, I am violating L72B1, which is practically cheating. L25B therefore puts me at a disadvantage compared to people who don't know the laws; this is one of the problems with L25B. -- Jesper Dybdal From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jul 4 10:04:41 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA13907 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 4 Jul 1996 10:04:41 +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 KAA13902 for ; Thu, 4 Jul 1996 10:04:32 +1000 Received: from post.demon.co.uk ([158.152.1.72]) by relay-4.mail.demon.net id ae06637; 4 Jul 96 0:03 GMT Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by relay-3.mail.demon.net id aa00725; 4 Jul 96 1:01 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 4 Jul 1996 00:59:15 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: US Team Trials (ITT) Appeal 4, but mostly face-down cards In-Reply-To: <9607031513.AA14785@cfa183.harvard.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 1.12 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Steve Willner wrote: >> From: David Stevenson >> How do you stop the next player playing if it is face up? > >This is really the crux of the matter. Why would you wish to >stop the next player playing? Maybe the card will solve your >problem, more likely it won't. But how can seeing it hurt you? I want to stop the play to have a think. If I just do not play a card then opponents will infer that I am thinking about which card to play. I do not want to mislead them but I do want my think: now. How can seeing the next card hurt me? I do not get my think when I want. The play will continue and the only time I can stop it is when it is my turn to play to the next trick, and it may be most unsuitable to think then. > >> Exactly: that's why we do it. To show that the problems being >> considered are later ones not current. > >No doubt it is done in that spirit. Sometimes a practice will get >started and catch on even if it isn't entirely logical. Or am I >missing the logic? I don't know. It's like driving on the left hand side of the road. I do it: everyone does it: no-one thinks about it: but it would not be a very good practice in the USA! > >The underlying idea that one should avoid misleading opponents >(other than by legal calls and plays) is a sound one. The question >at issue is how best to accomplish that goal. > No, the question at issue is whether it is an acceptable practice in a country where it is normal. I have (as usual) been so busy defending the occurrence of the practice here that I have not had the chance to argue whether it is a better method, and until the pressure dies down I am not going to. It is hard enough trying to argue the acceptability of a normal practice without considering whether it is best practice. I would like to consider whether our practices are better than other countries' but until I feel able to do so without the attacks I am not going to: a pity because I like this practice, and the practice that DDJ treats so contemptuously I believe to be clearly better than equivalent ACBL practice. I really feel that if you want to argue the merits of EBU practices then you are going to have accept that (a) they occur (b) they are normal here (c) that they are not designed to be deliberately unethical. [By you I mean the readership of BLML, not Steve.] >The above questions are meant seriously, and I hope they are taken that >way and not as an attack. I think the international aspects of this >forum give it enormous value. Practices that seem odd may have sound >reasons behind them -- or they may simply not have been thought out. >It seems reasonable to discuss which is the case in a particular >instance. Surely: but look at the way a this discussion has gone. Someone mentions a particular practice (not me) and immediately we are told that there is no ethical reason to follow this practice. Now I would much prefer an approach along the lines of: `That practice at first sight would be frowned on and considered unethical in the USA. Perhaps you could explain?' or some such rather than a statement that it must be unethical. > I don't think it's reasonable to take an attack on a >particular regulation of any NCBO as a personal attack. We are not talking about a regulation. We are talking about a practice which some of the readers of BLML do (tonight I noticed that I did it twice, both opponents and partner also did it at least once) and we were told the only reason we could be doing it was an unethical one. > (And we should >all try hard, in phrasing our comments, to avoid anything that might >be read that way.) I wish! > You can say anything you want about ACBL stupidity, >and I won't object. There's even a fair chance I'll agree. Or I may >try to defend the regulation in question if it happens to be one >with which I agree. Either way, I hope to learn something from >the discussion. And if I tell you that the practices that you personally, Steve, used tonight were unethical? -- 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 Jul 4 16:50:12 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id QAA15134 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 4 Jul 1996 16:50:12 +1000 Received: from bos1h.delphi.com (SYSTEM@bos1h.delphi.com [192.80.63.8]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id QAA15129 for ; Thu, 4 Jul 1996 16:50:05 +1000 From: DBLIZZARD@delphi.com Received: from delphi.com by delphi.com (PMDF V5.0-7 #10880) id <01I6NQYWH4A88YEQ7Q@delphi.com> for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 04 Jul 1996 02:49:54 -0500 (EST) Date: Thu, 04 Jul 1996 02:49:54 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: US Team Trials (ITT) Appeal 4, but To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Message-id: <01I6NQYWHDXE8YEQ7Q@delphi.com> X-VMS-To: INTERNET"bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au" MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Stevenson : > Steve Willner wrote: > > >> From: David Stevenson > >> How do you stop the next player playing if it is face up? > > > >This is really the crux of the matter. Why would you wish to > >stop the next player playing? Maybe the card will solve your > >problem, more likely it won't. But how can seeing it hurt you? > > I want to stop the play to have a think. If I just do not play a card > then opponents will infer that I am thinking about which card to play. > I do not want to mislead them but I do want my think: now. How can > seeing the next card hurt me? I do not get my think when I want. The > play will continue and the only time I can stop it is when it is my turn > to play to the next trick, and it may be most unsuitable to think then. I think I see where the main problem here is. Apparently many bridge players here are under the same impression I am. When a trick is completed, the winner of the trick may not continue to the trick until the trick is turned over. Until I turn my card over I have time to think. Apparently in Mr. Stevenson's experience this is not the case, once he plays to a trick his control to the trick is over. If the opponent takes the trick and plays to the next trick he must turn his card over & not have time to think until it is his turn to play to the next trick. The only problem I personally have with playing the card face down is that it takes away time *I*, as the next player to the trick, to think about the deal & how his card relates to it. However, I don't see why you can't play your card face up, and leave it up until you are done thinking, allowing the trick to continue, but not turning your card over, thus not allowing the next trick to begin). David A Blizzard "If I believe entirely in books, better not read books. If I rely entirely on teachers, better not have teachers." - T.T. Liang From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jul 4 16:52:34 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id QAA15158 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 4 Jul 1996 16:52:34 +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 QAA15151 for ; Thu, 4 Jul 1996 16:52:27 +1000 Received: from post.demon.co.uk ([158.152.1.72]) by relay-2.mail.demon.net id aa23514; 4 Jul 96 7:52 +0100 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by relay-3.mail.demon.net id aa04771; 4 Jul 96 7:50 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 4 Jul 1996 01:29:01 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Bidding boxes -- Insufficient Bid In-Reply-To: <31daf4d7.814811@pipmail.dknet.dk> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 1.12 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Jesper Dybdal wrote: >On Tue, 2 Jul 1996 16:04:46 -400, "Stefanie Rohan" >wrote: >>I agree that you should not be allowed to change your call without >>penalty according to L25A. But in this case that is no problem, >>because you are covered L25B, and the penalty is irrelevant. So you >>CAN change your call 'without penalty' after all. > >Some people argue that L25B allows you to change your call, probably >because that is the only interpretation that will reduce L25B's >problem: that it allows you to get away with changing a call that you >are not really allowed to change. > >As I read L25B, any change of call not allowed by L25A is an >infraction of law: L25B uses words such as "offender", "infraction", >and "penalty", which can hardly refer to a legal action. ... and notice the absence of the permission clearly given in L25A ["A player may substitute ...]: no such permission is given in L25B. > This must >mean that you are not allowed to change your call except in the L25A >situation; if I do it anyway, knowing that it is not allowed, I am >violating L72B1, which is practically cheating. L25B therefore puts >me at a disadvantage compared to people who don't know the laws; this >is one of the ... many ... >problems with L25B. -- 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 Jul 4 16:53:57 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id QAA15177 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 4 Jul 1996 16:53:57 +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 QAA15172 for ; Thu, 4 Jul 1996 16:53:51 +1000 Received: from post.demon.co.uk ([158.152.1.72]) by relay-2.mail.demon.net id aa23550; 4 Jul 96 7:52 +0100 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by relay-3.mail.demon.net id aa04775; 4 Jul 96 7:50 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 4 Jul 1996 01:28:35 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: US Team Trials (ITT) Appeal 4, but mostly face-down cards In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 1.12 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk This is copied from rec.pets.cats In article <4qvkru$9rm@celebrian.otago.ac.nz> michelle.campbell@stonebow .otago.ac.nz (Miche) writes: >In article >Sandy Witham writes: > >> In article <4qnrjn$84n@news.htp.net>, mrg1995@htp.net writes >> >I rather have an marginalllllly happy (thats really bull shit) cat then a >> >DEAD one !!! When did you last see a cat that was a match for a 6,000 >> >pound car going 60 in a 30? Wise up !!!! >> > >> >> While you're flaming me, don't forget that people in the US and the UK >> have different approaches to the indoor/outdoor debate. In the UK, it is >> more natural for us to let our cats out, whereas in the US, indoor cats >> seem to be more prevalent. Maybe UK cats are safer than US cats >> outdoors. We also don't declaw our cats as it is illegal (except when >> medically necessary), but cats are routinely declawed in the US. Please >> don't get mad because our cultures are different. I think keeping six >> cats safe indoors and outdoors for a total of 59 years between them (so >> far) is a good ad for letting cats go out and "do their own thing". > Absolutely! When I was looking for a cat I contacted the Blue Cross, the Cats Protection League and the RSPCA. Both the Blue Cross and the CPL did a home visit, and both said that one of the main purposes of this was to check that the cats would have access to a garden. Apart from one friend with a cat with severe allergy problems, everyone else I know keeps their cat as indoor/outdoor. You will be amazed how little we are troubled by racoons, bears, skunks, wolves, eagles etc. on the south coast of England. And although you get nutters all over the world, some of the cruelty to cats (poisoning, shooting, setting on fire etc.) that seems almost common in the US would definately make local news and cause a huge outcry if it occured here... How about - I assume you don't live in England and you don't assume we all live in the US? Kathy From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jul 5 00:39:33 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA22002 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 5 Jul 1996 00:39:33 +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 AAA21997 for ; Fri, 5 Jul 1996 00:39:19 +1000 Received: from mail.isys.net[193.96.224.33] by mail.hamburg.netsurf.de with smtp (/\==/\ Smail3.1.28.1 #28.1); id m0ubpYD-000PD5C; Thu, 4 Jul 96 16:38 GMT+0200 Received: from meckwell.local.net by mail.isys.net with smtp (/\oo/\ Smail3.1.29.1 #29.6); id ; Tue, 2 Jul 96 22:46 MESZ Date: Tue, 2 Jul 1996 22:51:09 +0100 (GMT+0100) From: Henk Uijterwaal X-Sender: henk@meckwell.local.net Reply-To: henk.uijterwaal@hamburg.netsurf.de To: "B.Y." cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Two situations In-Reply-To: <9607020218.AA06382@laplace.math.ntu.edu.tw> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Tue, 2 Jul 1996, B.Y. wrote: > D=North S: KJTxx North East South West > V=E-W H: xx 2S -a Dbl-b 3D -c 3H -d > D: xx P 4H all pass > C: Txxx > S: xx S: xx (a) 0-5 RP (A=3, K=2, Q=1), 5-6 spades > H: AQxxx H: KTxx (b) for takeout > D: Qx D: AKxx (c) a suit or a lead-director of HEARTS > C: xxxx C: AKx [south was being cute], duly alerted. > S: AQxx (d) with undue promptness [had pen ready > H: Jx to write even before south bid] and > D: JTxxx without asking about the alert. > C: QJ > > N-S called the director after the 3H bid and complained. The > director instructed that the hand continue. 4H duly made. Director > checked the E-W system (if there are two enemy suits, cue-bids ASKS > for stopper) and adjudicated 3N/E-2. E-W appealed, and the committee > reverted the result to as played. I agree with the committee. First of all, I don't think that picking up a pencil is a sign of undue promptness. The few times that I've seen written bidding, players often picked up their pencils when RHO was still contemplating his bid. It is, IMHO, more a "let's get ready to bid" action than a suggestion that west has a clear-cut action. I'm not sure what to think about the failure to ask about the alert. West could have known the system that NS were playing, looked at the convention card before play started or something like that, that removed the need for him to ask. Over to east. I'm not at all sure that EW agreement about 2 suits applies here. In first order, I'd think that 3H is natural as a defence against a semi-psychic lead director or even a lead director on xxxx/AQ/xxx/xxxx or so (you prefer a H lead and a S switch against west's 3NT). Finally, suppose the bidding starts 2S-X-3D-3H, P-3NT as you suggest, I don't think that pass is an alternative for west. His partner has shown a 1-4-4-4 like hand. I don't see how you can pass this. In short, I don't think that there is UI, so the score stands. > Case 2 Table 1 Table 2 > D=North S: JTxx > V=E-W H: KQJxxx North South North South > D: x P 2N 3H 4D -d > C: xx 3C -a 3D 4H P > S: xxx S: KQx 3S -b 4S > H: H: Txxx 5H -c 6H > D: AQ9xx D: JTx P > C: JT8xx C: xxx (a) Stayman > S: A9x (b) Showing 4S+5H (smolen), NO ALERT > H: Axx (West had forgotten). > D: Kxxx (c) After long and agonised thought > C: AKQ (d) Invitational raise of hearts. > > The contract was due to go down. However the SK lead from > East let it make. Neither the declarer nor the dummy said anything > about the auction. > > E-W had called after north passed south's final bid, alleging > that north's mannerisms told south that he had forgotten. South said > that he was unaware of any unusual action from his partner and anyway > it did not affect his actions. East said that South's 6H is exactly > the kind of a call that is made to allow for himself having forgotten, > South claimed that he was "bidding naturally". The director let the > result stand, as did the committee. I don't believe south. If his partner has the 5S-4H that south think he promised, then how can he bid on over 4S? Partner is a passed hand and south never showed anything extra. And now partner thinks for a couple of minutes and then bids. Clearly partner has something usual. 6H seems to cover everything, including south having forgotten a convention. I also don't like north's bidding. North already has UI (the failure to alert) and his hesitation makes absolutely sure that south knows that north does not have the hand that south expected. Behind screens, south could hold: AKx/Ax/xxx/AKQxx or so and made the intelligent decision to play in a 4-3 spade fit. So, I'd set the contract to 6S, down 2 or so. 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 Sat Jul 6 03:30:44 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA11046 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 6 Jul 1996 03:30:44 +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 DAA11041 for ; Sat, 6 Jul 1996 03:30:31 +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 NAA06129 for ; Fri, 5 Jul 1996 13:30:21 -0400 Date: Fri, 5 Jul 1996 13:30:21 -0400 (EDT) From: Eric Landau To: Bridge Laws Discussion List Subject: Re: Two situations In-Reply-To: <199607031112.AA28473@POST.TANDEM.COM> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On 3 Jul 1996 FARLEY_WALLY@Tandem.COM wrote: > But, as (Steve?) Willner points out, the abnormal haste lead to a presumption > of the possibility of a dual-meaning system. With obvious, biddable hearts > to respond in to partner's TO double, bid them; with only notional hearts, > ask the meaning of the alerted call. My mechanism -- which is not a panacea, > but which I regard as ethical (Adverse comments and suggestions welcomed -- > well, not *welcomed*, because I think what I do is ethical, but if you > disagree then I'd like to fix it) -- is to assume that partner *knows exactly > what the alerted bid shows* if he does not ask -- thus, the 3H bid *was asking > for a H stop*, if that is what is played over lead-directors as well as 'real' > suits. Obviously, this is not what happened (E has no defense for his > failure to bid 3N). Wally's solution to the ethical dilemma sounds attractive at first reading; it's straightforward, consistent, and easy to apply. Its problem, though, is that if we say that you are under an ethical obligation to "assume that partner *knows exactly what the alerted bid shows*" then we are saying that you are under an ethical obligation to *know exactly what the alerted bid shows*. In other words, accepting this doctrine would create a whole new area of ethical obligations (and potential violations) that does not now exist; you would be ethically required to understand your opponents methods. That sends us down the rabbit-hole. I don't know that 3D showed H, so I bid 3H intending it as natural. My partner, who must assume for his response to my bid that I am fully informed, must then ask what the opponents' bidding means in order to select his ethically appropriate response. Then on the next round I, under the same ethical obligation, must assume that partner knows their methods, so for me to make what is now the ethically required bid, I must use the information that has been brought to light since I made my previous bid. This is the exact opposite of the current ethical doctrine, which requires me to ignore the information gained by partner's question and the opponents' answer (which we consider UI) and to bid in a manner consistent with my original misapprehension. So that means that my original naive assumption that 3D showed D put me in an ethically untenable position, and thus effectively constituted a de facto ethical infraction in itself. All this seems a bit beyond the pale at a time when Bobby Wolff is trying to establish his doctrine of "convention disruption" and meeting broad resistance to his ideas. With the bridge community resisting (appropriately, IMO) the notion that there's an ethical requirement to fully understand your OWN methods, I hardly think we're ready for an ethical requirement to understand your opponents' methods. 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 Jul 6 04:47:31 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA11440 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 6 Jul 1996 04:47:31 +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 EAA11435 for ; Sat, 6 Jul 1996 04:47:25 +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 OAA07775 for ; Fri, 5 Jul 1996 14:47:22 -0400 Date: Fri, 5 Jul 1996 14:47:22 -0400 (EDT) From: Eric Landau To: Bridge Laws Discussion List Subject: Re: Bidding boxes -- Insufficient Bid In-Reply-To: <31daf4d7.814811@pipmail.dknet.dk> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Thu, 4 Jul 1996, Jesper Dybdal wrote: > Some people argue that L25B allows you to change your call, probably > because that is the only interpretation that will reduce L25B's > problem: that it allows you to get away with changing a call that you > are not really allowed to change. But it only allows you to change your call without (a relatively severe) penalty if your LHO condones the change. And, unusually, it even allows LHO to refuse to condone after he's already called. Most of the time he won't condone it, and you'll pay the penalty. And if he does condone it, he will presumably do so because he believes it to be to his advantage to do so. So the chance that you'll "get away" with doing something illegal is no greater than in the case of any other infraction. > As I read L25B, any change of call not allowed by L25A is an > infraction of law: L25B uses words such as "offender", "infraction", > and "penalty", which can hardly refer to a legal action. This must > mean that you are not allowed to change your call except in the L25A > situation; if I do it anyway, knowing that it is not allowed, I am > violating L72B1, which is practically cheating. L25B therefore puts > me at a disadvantage compared to people who don't know the laws; this > is one of the problems with L25B. I think this is a bit harsh. 25.A requires that, for the change to be legal, it must be made "without pause for thought." This is subjective, and left to the determination of the TD/AC. Let's stipulate that you know the Laws by heart. Then, if you attempt to make a "purposeful" correction under 25.B you would clearly be violating 72.B.1. But if you are merely making a "delayed" correction of an "inadvertent" call -- you thought, or at least hoped, that it was in time, but the TD/AC disagrees -- you have violated 25.B, but there's no implication that you did so "intentionally" and no potential 72.B.1 issue. I see an analogy between correcting an inadvertency and making a bid in a UI situation that you believe to be 100% clear. We don't consider it unethical if you just go ahead and make the bid with the understanding that if the TD/AC doesn't agree that it was a 100% action you may be penalized under Law 16, without any implication that you've committed an intentional infraction. The problem with 25.B as I see it is that it attempts, in one law, to cover "Delayed or Purposeful Correction[s]," which are two very different kettles of fish, with very different ethical implications. They should probably be addressed separately, one law for "Delayed Correction of Inadvertency," another for "Purposeful Correction of Intended Action." 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 Jul 6 06:45:38 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA12090 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 6 Jul 1996 06:45:38 +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 GAA12085 for ; Sat, 6 Jul 1996 06:45:33 +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 QAA09956; Fri, 5 Jul 1996 16:44:55 -0400 Date: Fri, 5 Jul 1996 16:44:55 -0400 (EDT) From: Eric Landau To: David Stevenson cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au, Barbara Doran Subject: Re: US Team Trials (ITT) Appeal 4, but mostly face-down cards In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Thu, 4 Jul 1996, you wrote: > This is copied from rec.pets.cats [...snip...] When my wife and I adopted our beloved Gloriana from the pound a few years ago, we were required to promise that we would not let her outdoors. I remarked at the time that this policy was diametrically opposed to what would have been expected of us in the UK, and that the British practice makes a lot more sense to me. (My wife, BTW, disagrees.) Now this is no mere arbitrary matter, like, say, driving on the left or the right, or leaving that card face up or face down. This is a fundamental trans-Atlantic difference in world-view that directly affects the quality of life of millions of cats. It kind of makes one wonder whether the folks who run our ASPCA are in cahoots with the folks who run our ACBL. (My wife, BTW, is on the ACBL Board of Governors.) 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 Jul 6 08:07:30 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA12444 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 6 Jul 1996 08:07:30 +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 IAA12439 for ; Sat, 6 Jul 1996 08:07:20 +1000 Received: from post.demon.co.uk ([158.152.1.72]) by relay-4.mail.demon.net id ah13777; 5 Jul 96 22:07 GMT Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by relay-3.mail.demon.net id aa15417; 5 Jul 96 22:48 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 5 Jul 1996 22:46:10 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Playing card face down MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 1.12 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In England, when an ethical player wishes to indicate that although he is thinking, it is not concerned with the current trick, he normally does one of two things. Either he says that he is not thinking about the current trick, or he puts his card face down on the table. This latter action is generally understood to mean the same thing. As with most odd procedures, a clever unethical player could possibly take advantage of this procedure. However this is not much of a consideration since most players in England are actively ethical or passively unethical. The former would never take advantage of this procedure and the latter would never use it in the first place. The first reaction to this procedure was that the only point to it was to pass UI to partner. I hope and trust that this has been talked out. No actively ethical player would use a procedure whose only effect was unethical. Other suggestions have been that (a) this procedure is illegal and (b) it is not best. I shall attempt to address these points. I am quoting parts of various articles on the subject. I ask your tolerance for the editing job. Jeff Goldsmith wrote: >I'm suspicious when someone does something ostensibly >for his opponents' benefit when he could do something far >simpler that would provide the same benefit without any >possible suspicion. I have opponents about whom I'm >automatically suspicious regardless of their apparent >intent. So? Would such opponents use a procedure like this at all? I very much doubt it. Still taking advantage will be illegal under the new Law book, and probably is under the current one. However your assertion that there is a `far simpler' procedure is not correct. Suspicion is not an issue: why should anyone be suspicious? |[DS]:I strongly disagree that it can never help. Active ethics is a >|boon to the game and it is used as active ethics here. And I still >|think that when you say "It can only be used..." for a procedure that >|several of us use as active ethics it is unfortunate. Of course, you >|may believe we are misguided, but that is not the same thing. >I think you've missed the point entirely. Let's restrict >the question to choosing between the following two procedures: >I need to think about the whole hand (after the third card, etc.) >and want to stop play so that I can think about it. It is my >turn to play. I can either >(1) play my card face down and leave it thus until I am ready, or >(2) play my card face up and leave it thus until I am ready. > >I do not see the benefits of (1) over (2), and (2) is expressly >stated as proper procedure in the laws. If you (or anyone else) >can demonstrate to me how and when (1) gains OVER (2), I'll happily >segue into wondering about details of the procedure, or even just >shut up (OK, I know me better that that :)) > I have not found where it says in the Laws that (2) is the proper procedure. Perfection is gained certainly by never pausing for thought at all but I cannot believe that we can eliminate pauses. Given that, I find nothing in the Laws that says you should follow (2). Reading L73 and L74 do not suggest anything wrong with the procedure. The advantage of (1) is completely beyond me and I cannot envisage it. When I stop to think I stop to think. I do not want play to continue while I am thinking. Obviously you prefer (1) and I prefer (2). So be it. You follow (1) and I shall follow (2). What's the problem? >This is not a discussion of active ethics at all. I think that >(1) gives the appearance of active ethics falsely, that it really >does nothing that the normal rules do not. Worse still, it can >be abused by unscrupulous characters. This is not to decry active >ethics, any players in particular, England, English bridge, English >regulations, David Stevenson, the pope, or Margaret Thatcher, just >the procedure about which we have been talking, and then only in >comparison to a procedure that seems obviously better to me. The procedure in (2) is obviously better and it is used for active ethics. >|>Moreover, I'm not sure this practice doesn't contravene >|>the laws directly. One is not allowed to hesitate without >|>a problem in order to conceal later problems. Find that in the Law book if you can! Of course you are so long as it does not mislead. >The whole topic was brought forth by a well-known American's doing >something quite similar. His action was dissimilar enough that >another player felt he was deceived. Let's say Wolff had played >his card face down on the table. Would that have changed the ruling? >Ought it have? > It depends what was understood by him playing it that way. In England it would be understood he had no decision on this trick, so there would obviously be no reason to rule against Wolff. However if the procedure is unusual then the ruling becomes a judgement one again. L73F2 only allows you to adjust for a deceptive action: an action by Wolff that tells opponents he has a probable singleton would not lead to an adjustment. >If a known-to-be-unethical player were to do this (we have a few, >I'm afraid), what would you think? Would you trust the claim? >Does it have legal force? What if this guy were to do that then >change his mind? Unfortunately, bridge is not played only by the >actively ethical. I grant that just about anything an actively >ethical player does is at least intended as ethical. The contrapositive >cannot be assumed, but it's a good idea for lawmakers to consider it. Rare occasions of bad ethics do not of themselves nullify the advantages of a procedure developed by the actively ethical. David A Blizzard wrote: > I think I see where the main problem here is. Apparently >many bridge players here are under the same impression I am. When >a trick is completed, the winner of the trick may not continue to >the trick until the trick is turned over. Until I turn my card over >I have time to think. Apparently in Mr. Stevenson's experience this >is not the case, once he plays to a trick his control to the trick >is over. If the opponent takes the trick and plays to the next trick >he must turn his card over & not have time to think until it is his >turn to play to the next trick. > > The only problem I personally have with playing the card face >down is that it takes away time *I*, as the next player to the trick, >to think about the deal & how his card relates to it. However, I >don't see why you can't play your card face up, and leave it up until >you are done thinking, allowing the trick to continue, but not turning >your card over, thus not allowing the next trick to begin). We are not asking how to rule on a particular hand which involves this procedure: it is its overall use that is in question. In practice it is difficult to control a trick once you have played. Even though people should not play to the next trick before you have turned your card, they often do. Even partner has been known to! The best method of control is not to play your card which does stop the next player. Furthermore there is the question of timing. I like to think when it is my turn to play: I find that far better than when someone else is impatiently waiting to play to the next trick. The main advantage of the procedure is that people prefer it. Apart from the initial comments which I hope are now dispensed with there seem to be two arguments against this procedure. One is that it is not best, and that seems to be personal taste. The second is that this procedure is illegal but if anyone believes that I think the time has come to quote a few Law numbers. There is a third argument against it, which might apply to Wolff, and that is that there are disadvantages in this procedure if used where people do not understand it. However even this is doubtful so long as there is no other understanding. Stefanie Rohan wrote: >> Jeff Goldsmith wrote: >> >The alternative, to >> > just face the card and leave the trick faced until one's problems >> > are resolved, is not a panacea (one might still do this in order >> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >> > illegally to conceal a later problem or to deceive somehow, etc.) >> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >> > but it has to be better than using a face-down card to try to >> > simulate the same thing. >> >> I agreed with most of what Jeff was saying in this article, but I >> am disturbed by the indicated statement. It is illegal to think >> now about a problem which you expect to have a few tricks hence? It >> is illegal then to play in tempo to the trick whose possibilities you >> had previously considered? >> >> I think that it might even be legal for a player to hesitate, once >> he has the information he needs (which may be later than trick one), >> IN ORDER that he might play in tempo to the critical trick. Do the >> opponents have the right to know _exactly when_ you have your >> problem? This also brings up UI issues for the defence, since >> partner will always know, when you stop to think, that you had >> important considerations on that very trick. Again, I am not >> convinced of this last point. I would like to read others' comments >> before I decide. It is perfectly in order to think at an earlier time than when the problem occurs so long as you do not mislead your opponents into thinking that you had a problem at the time (L73D1 leading to L73F2) so the whole point of the procedure we use is to avoid opponents being misled. There may be UI but in practice it seems very rare. Eric Landau wrote: >No, no, nonono! This isn't really happening, is it? > >Are we really having a serious discussion about whether it's legal for a >defender to plan his defense beyond the current trick? > >What about all those play problems in all those books and articles? You >know, those "plan the play" hands with answers like "East must realize the >importance of ducking declarer's first two club leads IN TEMPO so as not >to reveal his holding." Are these authors all suggesting that we do >something illegal? Or that you're allowed to make the right play only if >you can do so without thinking about it? > Exactly. To sum up, we use a procedure which is (a) generally understood here (b) legal (c) intended to be actively ethical (d) very rarely misused (e) considered better than alternatives by its users (f) preferred by its users. Why shouldn't we? But let me be clear: this is not like one of those cases where I consider others have made a wrong interpretation of the Law and I feel I ought to set them right. I am *not* suggesting that everyone else should use this procedure: it is a matter of taste. -- 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 Sat Jul 6 09:28:11 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA12676 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 6 Jul 1996 09:28:11 +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 JAA12671 for ; Sat, 6 Jul 1996 09:28:00 +1000 Received: from post.demon.co.uk ([158.152.1.72]) by relay-4.mail.demon.net id ad05921; 5 Jul 96 23:27 GMT Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by relay-3.mail.demon.net id aa01563; 6 Jul 96 0:17 +0100 Message-ID: <7dtatxCxtZ3xEwzM@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Fri, 5 Jul 1996 23:47:13 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Bidding boxes -- Insufficient Bid In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 1.12 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Eric Landau wrote: [s] >The problem with 25.B as I see it is that it attempts, in one law, to >cover "Delayed or Purposeful Correction[s]," which are two very different >kettles of fish, with very different ethical implications. They should >probably be addressed separately, one law for "Delayed Correction of >Inadvertency," another for "Purposeful Correction of Intended Action." An excellent distinction that had never occurred to me. Then we definitely ban Purposeful Correction and L25B has taken one step along the road towards commonsense. I still believe that a majority of players would go with scrapping L25B altogether, if not L25A as well, but if we are not going to then let us at least split Delayed Correction from Purposeful Correction. -- 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 Sat Jul 6 10:38:49 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA12822 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 6 Jul 1996 10:38:49 +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 KAA12817 for ; Sat, 6 Jul 1996 10:38:41 +1000 Received: from post.demon.co.uk ([158.152.1.72]) by relay-4.mail.demon.net id af27738; 6 Jul 96 0:38 GMT Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by relay-3.mail.demon.net id aa08362; 6 Jul 96 1:06 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Sat, 6 Jul 1996 00:38:49 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Playing card face down In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 1.12 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Stevenson wrote: >Jeff Goldsmith wrote: >>I think you've missed the point entirely. Let's restrict >>the question to choosing between the following two procedures: >>I need to think about the whole hand (after the third card, etc.) >>and want to stop play so that I can think about it. It is my >>turn to play. I can either >>(1) play my card face down and leave it thus until I am ready, or >>(2) play my card face up and leave it thus until I am ready. >> >>I do not see the benefits of (1) over (2), and (2) is expressly >>stated as proper procedure in the laws. If you (or anyone else) >>can demonstrate to me how and when (1) gains OVER (2), I'll happily >>segue into wondering about details of the procedure, or even just >>shut up (OK, I know me better that that :)) >> > I have not found where it says in the Laws that (2) is the proper >procedure. Perfection is gained certainly by never pausing for thought >at all but I cannot believe that we can eliminate pauses. Given that, I >find nothing in the Laws that says you should follow (2). Reading L73 >and L74 do not suggest anything wrong with the procedure. > OK, fellas, the brain stopped working here! In the next two paragraphs when I said (1) I meant (2) and vice versa. This is the corrected version: The advantage of (2) is completely beyond me and I cannot envisage it. When I stop to think I stop to think. I do not want play to continue while I am thinking. Obviously you prefer (2) and I prefer (1). So be it. You follow (2) and I shall follow (1). What's the problem? >>This is not a discussion of active ethics at all. I think that >>(1) gives the appearance of active ethics falsely, that it really >>does nothing that the normal rules do not. Worse still, it can >>be abused by unscrupulous characters. This is not to decry active >>ethics, any players in particular, England, English bridge, English >>regulations, David Stevenson, the pope, or Margaret Thatcher, just >>the procedure about which we have been talking, and then only in >>comparison to a procedure that seems obviously better to me. > And again the corrected version: The procedure in (1) is obviously better and it is used for active ethics. Sorry. D&R4C. :) -- 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 Sat Jul 6 22:10:34 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id WAA14953 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 6 Jul 1996 22:10:34 +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 WAA14948 for ; Sat, 6 Jul 1996 22:10:24 +1000 Received: from cph46.ppp.dknet.dk (cph46.ppp.dknet.dk [194.192.100.46]) by pip.dknet.dk (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id OAA11056 for ; Sat, 6 Jul 1996 14:10:16 +0200 From: jd@pip.dknet.dk (Jesper Dybdal) To: Bridge Laws Discussion List Subject: Re: Bidding boxes -- Insufficient Bid Date: Sat, 06 Jul 1996 14:10:06 +0200 Organization: at home Message-ID: <31de5710.2847704@pipmail.dknet.dk> References: In-Reply-To: X-Mailer: Forte Agent .99e/32.227 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk [Sorry, Eric - I sent this to you instead of the list by mistake, so you'll get it twice] On Fri, 5 Jul 1996 14:47:22 -0400 (EDT), Eric Landau wrote: >On Thu, 4 Jul 1996, Jesper Dybdal wrote: >> Some people argue that L25B allows you to change your call, probably >> because that is the only interpretation that will reduce L25B's >> problem: that it allows you to get away with changing a call that you >> are not really allowed to change. > >But it only allows you to change your call without (a relatively severe) >penalty if your LHO condones the change. And, unusually, it even allows >LHO to refuse to condone after he's already called. Most of the time he >won't condone it, and you'll pay the penalty. And if he does condone it, >he will presumably do so because he believes it to be to his advantage to >do so. So the chance that you'll "get away" with doing something illegal >is no greater than in the case of any other infraction. The problem is that in the many situations where the changed call is a signoff in the final contract, the penalty of partner being forced to pass is not much of a penalty; that is what I mean by "getting away" with it. I've seen an example in real life where a player bid 3NT in a sequence where it was obviously going to be the final contract, then changed his mind and replaced it by 4H, also obviously the final contract. Penalty: he may change his bid to anything he likes and partner must pass; he chose 4H, of course, taking 620, where 3NT would have been one off for -100. The problem now is that if he had known that he was not allowed to change his bid (or if he had asked the TD instead of just acting), there would have been no legal way for him to get 620 once he had bid 3NT. And if the other table in the match happened to have a player who changed his mind in exactly the same situation, but who knew that he was not allowed to change the call and therefore didn't try, then that player would be 12 IMPs down - simply because he knew and obeyed L25 and L72B1. >> As I read L25B, any change of call not allowed by L25A is an >> infraction of law: L25B uses words such as "offender", "infraction", >> and "penalty", which can hardly refer to a legal action. This must >> mean that you are not allowed to change your call except in the L25A >> situation; if I do it anyway, knowing that it is not allowed, I am >> violating L72B1, which is practically cheating. L25B therefore puts >> me at a disadvantage compared to people who don't know the laws; this >> is one of the problems with L25B. > >I think this is a bit harsh. 25.A requires that, for the change to be >legal, it must be made "without pause for thought." This is subjective, >and left to the determination of the TD/AC. Let's stipulate that you know >the Laws by heart. Then, if you attempt to make a "purposeful" correction >under 25.B you would clearly be violating 72.B.1. But if you are merely >making a "delayed" correction of an "inadvertent" call -- you thought, or >at least hoped, that it was in time, but the TD/AC disagrees -- you have >violated 25.B, but there's no implication that you did so "intentionally" >and no potential 72.B.1 issue. Correct. I was only thinking about changes of deliberate calls, such as the change from 3NT to 4H mentioned above. >I see an analogy between correcting an inadvertency and making a bid in a >UI situation that you believe to be 100% clear. We don't consider it >unethical if you just go ahead and make the bid with the understanding >that if the TD/AC doesn't agree that it was a 100% action you may be >penalized under Law 16, without any implication that you've committed an >intentional infraction. > >The problem with 25.B as I see it is that it attempts, in one law, to >cover "Delayed or Purposeful Correction[s]," which are two very different >kettles of fish, with very different ethical implications. They should >probably be addressed separately, one law for "Delayed Correction of >Inadvertency," another for "Purposeful Correction of Intended Action." I agree very much with that. One of the reasons that L25B is a problem in practice is of course that players do not understand the distinction between these two situations. There is every reason to believe that the player changing his call from 3NT to 4H was in good faith because he never realized the difference. Unless the player happens to be known as an expert in L25, the TD can certainly never in practice rule that he has violated L72B1. -- Jesper Dybdal From owner-bridge-laws Sun Jul 7 00:51:48 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA20221 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 7 Jul 1996 00:51:48 +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 AAA20216 for ; Sun, 7 Jul 1996 00:51:43 +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 KAA29265; Sat, 6 Jul 1996 10:51:01 -0400 (EDT) Received: by cfa183.harvard.edu (5.x/SMI-SVR4) id AA16255; Sat, 6 Jul 1996 10:53:48 -0400 Date: Sat, 6 Jul 1996 10:53:48 -0400 From: willner@cfa183.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Message-Id: <9607061453.AA16255@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au, newsr@blakjak.demon.co.uk Subject: Re: Bidding boxes -- Insufficient Bid Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: David Stevenson > I still believe that a majority of players would go with scrapping > L25B altogether, if not L25A as well, but if we are not going to then > let us at least split Delayed Correction from Purposeful Correction. And what will you do differently in the two cases? More important, how do you propose to tell whether a delayed correction is purposeful or not? The big problem with the current law is that it may require us to determine intent. Let's not make the problem worse. From owner-bridge-laws Sun Jul 7 06:31:37 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA21134 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 7 Jul 1996 06:31:37 +1000 Received: from taurus.cus.cam.ac.uk (cusexim@taurus.cus.cam.ac.uk [131.111.8.48]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id GAA21129 for ; Sun, 7 Jul 1996 06:31:30 +1000 Received: from rm10006 by taurus.cus.cam.ac.uk with local (Exim 0.53 #6) id E0uce0i-00041x-00; Sat, 6 Jul 1996 21:31:24 +0100 Date: Sat, 6 Jul 1996 21:31:24 +0100 (BST) From: "R. Michaels" To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Playing a card face down, and then thinking Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I have just returned from a weeks vacation, and hence missed the exciting rumpus over my comment that if you have nothing to think about this trick, but want to think about the hand in general, it is acceptable to play it face down in front of you, think, then turn it over. I apologise to David for not having been here to defend myself against claims of 'unethical' practice. I think that three salient points (at least) have been missed here. 1) I thought, when long ago I read the Laws, that detaching a card from your hand, and placing it near the table _was_ playing it, whether it was face up or not. Hence a card detached and played face down, may _not_ be changed, since it has already been played. 2) By playing this way, the next player does have the thinking time afforded to me before the next trick. By concealing my card until I have thought about what I want to, I have prevented my opponent(s) from using the knowledge of the card I have played to think at the same time. 3) I'd like to be able to read an opponents mannerisms _after_ I've worked out what is going on in the hand. If after some thought, I decide that my best bet is to read opponents hand from how long he takes to play to this trick, then when I face my card, I'll be paying attention to him. If I didn't do this then I'd have missed the chance. Of course, all you 'reading opponents is a bad part of the game anyway' brigade out there, won't like this, but tough; it is the way the game is played. Cheers, Robin From owner-bridge-laws Sun Jul 7 06:36:14 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA21159 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 7 Jul 1996 06:36:14 +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 GAA21154 for ; Sun, 7 Jul 1996 06:36:08 +1000 Received: from lhost.monmouth.com (ppp32.monmouth.com [205.164.220.64]) by shell.monmouth.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id QAA14742 for ; Sat, 6 Jul 1996 16:31:11 -0400 Message-Id: <199607062031.QAA14742@shell.monmouth.com> Comments: Authenticated sender is From: "Stefanie Rohan" To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Sat, 6 Jul 1996 16:33:14 -400 Subject: Re: Playing card face down X-Confirm-Reading-To: "Stefanie Rohan" X-pmrqc: 1 Priority: normal X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v2.10) Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > David Stevenson wrote: > > >Jeff Goldsmith wrote: > > >>I think you've missed the point entirely. Let's restrict > >>the question to choosing between the following two procedures: > >>I need to think about the whole hand (after the third card, etc.) > >>and want to stop play so that I can think about it. It is my > >>turn to play. I can either > >>(1) play my card face down and leave it thus until I am ready, or > >>(2) play my card face up and leave it thus until I am ready. > >> > >>I do not see the benefits of (1) over (2), and (2) is expressly > >>stated as proper procedure in the laws. If you (or anyone else) > >>can demonstrate to me how and when (1) gains OVER (2), I'll happily > >>segue into wondering about details of the procedure, or even just > >>shut up (OK, I know me better that that :)) > >> > > I have not found where it says in the Laws that (2) is the proper > >procedure. Perfection is gained certainly by never pausing for thought > >at all but I cannot believe that we can eliminate pauses. Given that, I > >find nothing in the Laws that says you should follow (2). Reading L73 > >and L74 do not suggest anything wrong with the procedure. > > > OK, fellas, the brain stopped working here! In the next two ^^^^^^^^ !?!?!?!? > paragraphs when I said (1) I meant (2) and vice versa. This is the > corrected version: > > The advantage of (2) is completely beyond me and I cannot envisage it. > When I stop to think I stop to think. I do not want play to continue > while I am thinking. > > Obviously you prefer (2) and I prefer (1). So be it. You follow (2) > and I shall follow (1). What's the problem? > > >>This is not a discussion of active ethics at all. I think that > >>(1) gives the appearance of active ethics falsely, that it really > >>does nothing that the normal rules do not. Worse still, it can > >>be abused by unscrupulous characters. This is not to decry active > >>ethics, any players in particular, England, English bridge, English > >>regulations, David Stevenson, the pope, or Margaret Thatcher, just > >>the procedure about which we have been talking, and then only in > >>comparison to a procedure that seems obviously better to me. > > > And again the corrected version: > > The procedure in (1) is obviously better and it is used for active > ethics. > The proper sequence of events appears to be spelled out in the Laws. L41 covers the opening lead. Then: L44A&B: The player who leads to a trick may play any card in his hand...[then] each other player in turn plays a card, and the four cards so played constitute a trick. What does it mean to play a card? L45A: Each player except dummy plays a card by detaching it from his hand and facing it on the table immediately before him. Finally, Laws 65A and 66A add that: When four card have been played to a trick, each player turns his own card face down near him on the table; so long as his side has not led or played to the next trick, declarer or either defender may, until he has turned his own card face down on the table, require that all cards just played to the trick be faced for his inspection. There is no mention of playing a card face down. The only possible advantage in the name of 'active ethics' appears to me to be the fact that, by not allowing the next player to play to the current trick, you dispel any impression that your pause has to do with the appearance of that card. But it seems to me that, in a situation where the current trick presents no problem (which is the situation we are discussing), it would usually be obvious that the appearance of the third or fourth card is not a surprise. Now, perhaps you do not need to see that next card in order to have your think, but maybe the player of that card or his partner needs to see YOUR card. So now you will think, face your card, and they will think...time has been wasted needlessly. Coupled with the possibility for abuse, this seems to render the practice undesirable. Cheers, Stefanie Rohan From owner-bridge-laws Sun Jul 7 07:11:17 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA21284 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 7 Jul 1996 07:11:17 +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 HAA21279 for ; Sun, 7 Jul 1996 07:11:11 +1000 Received: from lhost.monmouth.com (ppp32.monmouth.com [205.164.220.64]) by shell.monmouth.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id RAA16233 for ; Sat, 6 Jul 1996 17:06:14 -0400 Message-Id: <199607062106.RAA16233@shell.monmouth.com> Date: Sat, 06 Jul 96 17:08:20 -0700 From: Stefanie Rohan X-Mailer: Mozilla 1.2 (Windows; U; 16bit) MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Full Disclosure Revisited (was Re: A Radical Proposition-Quick Opinions Requested) References: <4r7rp2$gfg@newsbf02.news.aol.com> <4r8i6c$8kl@mtinsc01-mgt.ops.worldnet.att.net> <4r97as$q0r@tribune.concentric.net> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk monsourc@ford.uchicago.edu (Christopher Monsour) wrote: >Of course, what the laws confer is a right to ask the meaning of the >_auction_. And that is certainly the correct course when a more specific >question might be construed to carry unauthorized information. > >Unfortunately, some opponents refuse to give an explanation of the auction, >and will demand that one ask a specific question. I always thought there >ought to be a law entitled "Unauthorized Information, Condoned" to deal >with that any U.I. that the enquiring side then obtains. > This is an excellent idea. In my previous post I quoted an example of having to ask increasingly specific questions in order to be told about a pair's agreements (and never finding out anyway.) Earlier, we had a whole thread on this subject, and some posters said that it was unethical to ask 'leading' questions about the opponents' auction. But when they don't offer full disclosure after your initial general question, it is unfair to have the only options available being: a) possibly transmitting UI or b) remaining uninformed. Stefanie Rohan P.S. I have started a new thread so as not to interfere with Alan LeBendig's survey of opinions). From owner-bridge-laws Sun Jul 7 07:24:08 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA21355 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 7 Jul 1996 07:24:08 +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 HAA21350 for ; Sun, 7 Jul 1996 07:24:03 +1000 Received: from lhost.monmouth.com (ppp32.monmouth.com [205.164.220.64]) by shell.monmouth.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id RAA17883 for ; Sat, 6 Jul 1996 17:19:11 -0400 Message-Id: <199607062119.RAA17883@shell.monmouth.com> Comments: Authenticated sender is From: "Stefanie Rohan" To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Sat, 6 Jul 1996 17:21:15 -400 Subject: Re: Playing a card face down, and then thinking X-Confirm-Reading-To: "Stefanie Rohan" X-pmrqc: 1 Priority: normal X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v2.10) Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Robin Michaels wrote: > I have just returned from a weeks vacation, and hence missed the exciting > rumpus over my comment that if you have nothing to think about this > trick, but want to think about the hand in general, it is acceptable to > play it face down in front of you, think, then turn it over. > > I apologise to David for not having been here to defend myself against > claims of 'unethical' practice. Yes, David really has taken the heat! > > I think that three salient points (at least) have been missed here. > > 1) I thought, when long ago I read the Laws, that detaching a card from > your hand, and placing it near the table _was_ playing it, whether it was > face up or not. Hence a card detached and played face down, may _not_ be > changed, since it has already been played. Read the Laws again. Pay particular attention to L45. > > 2) By playing this way, the next player does have the thinking time > afforded to me before the next trick. By concealing my card until I have > thought about what I want to, I have prevented my opponent(s) from using > the knowledge of the card I have played to think at the same time. Why should you prefer that the players all take turns thinking? > > 3) I'd like to be able to read an opponents mannerisms _after_ I've > worked out what is going on in the hand. If after some thought, I decide > that my best bet is to read opponents hand from how long he takes to play > to this trick, then when I face my card, I'll be paying attention to him. > If I didn't do this then I'd have missed the chance. Of course, all you > 'reading opponents is a bad part of the game anyway' brigade out there, > won't like this, but tough; it is the way the game is played. If you will be making inferences about the opponent's manner when he sees your card, it sounds as if you are planning to think again after you and he have both faced your cards! Surely you can note his manner, and THEN think. In any case, once you have tanked, LHO will have prepared himself for any card you might play. NOW you'll have missed the chance to see how he reacted to your card. Cheers, Stefanie From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jul 8 21:28:59 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id VAA07719 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 8 Jul 1996 21:28:59 +1000 Received: from waffle.cise.npl.co.uk (waffle.cise.npl.co.uk [139.143.18.92]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id VAA07714 for ; Mon, 8 Jul 1996 21:28:47 +1000 Received: from tempest.cise.npl.co.uk by waffle.cise.npl.co.uk; Mon, 8 Jul 1996 12:28:11 +0100 Date: Mon, 8 Jul 96 12:28:10 BST Message-Id: <14709.9607081128@tempest.cise.npl.co.uk> From: Robin Barker To: rgur@monmouth.com Subject: Re: Playing card face down Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Stefanie Rohan wrote > > David Stevenson wrote: > > > > OK, fellas, the brain stopped working here! In the next two > ^^^^^^^^ > !?!?!?!? > > Cheers, > > Stefanie Rohan > More regretable cultural differences, I'm afraid. In informal UK English usage, fella (=fellow) is gender-neutral despite its historical male meaning. Robin Robin Barker, | Email: rmb@cise.npl.co.uk Techniques for High Integrity, ISE, | Tel: +44 (0) 181 943 7090 B93, National Physical Laboratory, | Fax: +44 (0) 181 977 7091 Teddington, Middlesex, UK. TW11 0LW | WWW: http://www.npl.co.uk From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jul 9 00:08:16 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA09716 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 9 Jul 1996 00:08:16 +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 AAA09711 for ; Tue, 9 Jul 1996 00:08:09 +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 KAA24233 for ; Mon, 8 Jul 1996 10:08:05 -0400 Date: Mon, 8 Jul 1996 10:08:04 -0400 (EDT) From: Eric Landau To: Bridge Laws Discussion List Subject: Re: Bidding boxes -- Insufficient Bid In-Reply-To: <31de4e1b.554917@pipmail.dknet.dk> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Sat, 6 Jul 1996, Jesper Dybdal wrote: > The problem is that in the many situations where the changed call is a > signoff in the final contract, the penalty of partner being forced to > pass is not much of a penalty; that is what I mean by "getting away" > with it. I've seen an example in real life where a player bid 3NT in > a sequence where it was obviously going to be the final contract, then > changed his mind and replaced it by 4H, also obviously the final > contract. Penalty: he may change his bid to anything he likes and > partner must pass; he chose 4H, of course, taking 620, where 3NT would > have been one off for -100. > > The problem now is that if he had known that he was not allowed to > change his bid (or if he had asked the TD instead of just acting), > there would have been no legal way for him to get 620 once he had bid > 3NT. And if the other table in the match happened to have a player > who changed his mind in exactly the same situation, but who knew that > he was not allowed to change the call and therefore didn't try, then > that player would be 12 IMPs down - simply because he knew and obeyed > L25 and L72B1. Jesper is quite right, of course, and my earlier comment on this was totally misguided. I think I must have been suffering from what the psychologists call "mental set"; this flaw in Law 25 is so obvious and silly that my subconscious found it unbelievable and caused my conscious mind to misread the relevant passage as making sense. It just seems so obvious that the ONLY circumstance (if any) in which a purposeful change of call should be permitted is when it is explicitly condoned by an opponent that I misread the Law as saying that. > >The problem with 25.B as I see it is that it attempts, in one law, to > >cover "Delayed or Purposeful Correction[s]," which are two very different > >kettles of fish, with very different ethical implications. They should > >probably be addressed separately, one law for "Delayed Correction of > >Inadvertency," another for "Purposeful Correction of Intended Action." > > I agree very much with that. One of the reasons that L25B is a > problem in practice is of course that players do not understand the > distinction between these two situations. There is every reason to > believe that the player changing his call from 3NT to 4H was in good > faith because he never realized the difference. Unless the player > happens to be known as an expert in L25, the TD can certainly never in > practice rule that he has violated L72B1. The confusion, I think, is caused by mixing the two distinctions into one set of sentences. The distinction between "inadvertent" and "purposeful" seems to me straightforward and easy enough to make, while the distinction between "immediate" and "delayed" is far more subjective and difficult to rule on ("He took at least two seconds." "So what, are you going to penalize me for being a slow thinker?"). I like the language of the ACBL's guideline, which glosses over the timing issue and allows a penalty-free (L25A) correction if the first call was "incontrovertably not his intent." This strengthens the first distinction and eliminates the second. It applies L25A to those situations for which it was intended, i.e. genuine "slips of the tongue" or mechanical bidding- box errors. Without the distinction between "immediate" and "delayed" we can, if we want, do away with L25B altogether, which would result in an attempt at a purposeful correction being treated as ordinary, if extraordinarily blatant, UI -- no difference between the Law-25-ignornant 3NT bidder who blurts "No, on second thought make that 4H" and the Law-25-knowledgable one who blurts "Oh, s--t, I should have bid 4H." Or we can write a much simplified L25B which "enhances" the UI rules for purposeful changes by giving LHO the additional option of accepting the attempted change. I'd urge the latter on the grounds that in practice LHO can always overlook the irregularity and bid over the changed call; we don't want to create any possibility of a situation in which it might be to a non-offender's disadvantage to call the TD. 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 Jul 9 00:33:21 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA12108 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 9 Jul 1996 00:33:21 +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 AAA12101 for ; Tue, 9 Jul 1996 00:33:13 +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 KAA25328 for ; Mon, 8 Jul 1996 10:33:09 -0400 Date: Mon, 8 Jul 1996 10:33:09 -0400 (EDT) From: Eric Landau To: Bridge Laws Discussion List Subject: Re: Bidding boxes -- Insufficient Bid In-Reply-To: <9607061453.AA16255@cfa183.harvard.edu> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Sat, 6 Jul 1996, Steve Willner wrote: > > From: David Stevenson > > I still believe that a majority of players would go with scrapping > > L25B altogether, if not L25A as well, but if we are not going to then > > let us at least split Delayed Correction from Purposeful Correction. > > And what will you do differently in the two cases? I'd allow the first and not allow the second (more precisely, not allow the second unless LHO explicitly condones it). > More important, how > do you propose to tell whether a delayed correction is purposeful or > not? I'd be willing to call it a question of fact rather than law, and leave it to the TD's judgment, with the usual caveat about benefit of the doubt to the presumptive non-offenders. > The big problem with the current law is that it may require us to > determine intent. But in this case intent is the whole point. The alternative would be to not allow genuine slips of the tongue or mechanical errors to be corrected under any circumstances. Trying to "objectify" intent is what's causing the problem here by making the letter of the law run contrary to its intent, as in the 1H-P-4C-P-Poops4H situation we discussed earlier. > Let's not make the problem worse. I'm much more comfortable with letting the TD judge whether the first bid was truly inadvertent than whether the bidder did or didn't have "time for thought." They're both judgment calls, and my own experience as a TD tells me that the former is the easier call to make. 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 Jul 9 01:43:04 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA13908 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 9 Jul 1996 01:43:04 +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 BAA13903 for ; Tue, 9 Jul 1996 01:42:58 +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 LAA26873; Mon, 8 Jul 1996 11:42:52 -0400 (EDT) Received: by cfa183.harvard.edu (5.x/SMI-SVR4) id AA00326; Mon, 8 Jul 1996 11:45:46 -0400 Date: Mon, 8 Jul 1996 11:45:46 -0400 From: willner@cfa183.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Message-Id: <9607081545.AA00326@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au, newsr@blakjak.demon.co.uk Subject: Re: Bidding boxes -- Insufficient Bid X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > Right: lets chop L25A as well! That should do it. I'm not sure just what you are suggesting here. There are going to be cases where someone fumbles with a bidding box or mumbles two (or more!) calls in the same breath, and there has to be a law dealing with what happens. Or do you want to leave the whole issue to regulation by the sponsoring organization? From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jul 9 05:07:31 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA20012 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 9 Jul 1996 05:07:31 +1000 Received: from dfw-ix8.ix.netcom.com (dfw-ix8.ix.netcom.com [206.214.98.8]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id FAA20006 for ; Tue, 9 Jul 1996 05:07:25 +1000 Received: from (jonbriss@sbo-ca2-03.ix.netcom.com [205.184.185.67]) by dfw-ix8.ix.netcom.com (8.6.13/8.6.12) with SMTP id MAA01382 for ; Mon, 8 Jul 1996 12:06:51 -0700 Date: Mon, 8 Jul 1996 12:06:51 -0700 Message-Id: <199607081906.MAA01382@dfw-ix8.ix.netcom.com> From: jonbriss@ix.netcom.com (Jon C Brissman) Subject: Re: Bidding boxes - Insufficient Bids To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk It seems to me that the distinction between inadvertent calls and purposeful ones is exactly akin to the legal distinction between negligent vs intentional acts. The bridge laws allow for negligence when corrected without pause for thought but don't condone changes of intentional, if misguided, acts. Thus, the ACBL's guideline of allowing a change when it was incontrovertably not the bidder's intent is clearly erroneous, since it allows the change of a misguided intentional call. The example which started this thread, 1H - P - 4C - P - (P oops 4H), was an intentional but misguided call; the bidder selected the pass card to convey his unwillingness to go beyond game, and then attempted correction only when he realized that the final contract was not (yet) 4H. The director's decision tree for ruling in these situations should be: 1. Was the action inadvertent? a. No - do not allow the correction. b. Yes - go to question two. 2. Was the change attempted without pause for thought? a. No - do not allow the correction. b. Yes - correction is allowable. What the TD's or AC's opinion as to what was the incontrovertable intent of the bidder at the time of the call is irrelevant and immaterial. From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jul 9 12:26:30 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id MAA24820 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 9 Jul 1996 12:26:30 +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 MAA24815 for ; Tue, 9 Jul 1996 12:26:24 +1000 Received: from post.demon.co.uk ([158.152.1.72]) by relay-4.mail.demon.net id ac19661; 9 Jul 96 2:26 GMT Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by relay-3.mail.demon.net id aa20203; 9 Jul 96 2:50 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 9 Jul 1996 02:36:30 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Bidding boxes -- Insufficient Bid In-Reply-To: <9607081545.AA00326@cfa183.harvard.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 1.12 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Steve Willner wrote: >> Right: lets chop L25A as well! That should do it. > >I'm not sure just what you are suggesting here. There are going to >be cases where someone fumbles with a bidding box or mumbles two >(or more!) calls in the same breath, and there has to be a law >dealing with what happens. Or do you want to leave the whole issue >to regulation by the sponsoring organization? No, what I meant was that if you bid 3S then you have bid 3S. I believe a lot of players are surprised that you can ever change a call, and I have never been convinced that people really wish it. It seems so strange. Just imagine the quarterback throwing an interception: so he runs up to the referee and says "I didn't mean that": "OK," says the referee, "we'll replay the down". -- 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 Tue Jul 9 23:58:59 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA29982 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 9 Jul 1996 23:58:59 +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 XAA29977 for ; Tue, 9 Jul 1996 23:58:49 +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 JAA17740 for ; Tue, 9 Jul 1996 09:58:45 -0400 Date: Tue, 9 Jul 1996 09:58:44 -0400 (EDT) From: Eric Landau To: Bridge Laws Discussion List Subject: Re: Bidding boxes - Insufficient Bids In-Reply-To: <199607081906.MAA01382@dfw-ix8.ix.netcom.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I'm unable to understand this line of argument; perhaps the confusion is purely semantic. On Mon, 8 Jul 1996, Jon C Brissman wrote: > It seems to me that the distinction between inadvertent calls and > purposeful ones is exactly akin to the legal distinction between > negligent vs intentional acts. The bridge laws allow for negligence > when corrected without pause for thought but don't condone changes of > intentional, if misguided, acts. Thus, the ACBL's guideline of > allowing a change when it was incontrovertably not the bidder's intent > is clearly erroneous, since it allows the change of a misguided > intentional call. It seems to me that a call must be either "not the bidder's intent" or "intentional"; it can't be neither and it can't be both. So how can a rule that allows you to change a call that's incontrovertably the former allow you to change the latter? > The example which started this thread, 1H - P - 4C - P - (P oops 4H), > was an intentional but misguided call; the bidder selected the pass > card to convey his unwillingness to go beyond game, and then attempted > correction only when he realized that the final contract was not (yet) > 4H. Exactly right. The pass was intentional, and therefore not subject to Law 25.A. He intended to pass, he reached for the pass card, and he showed the pass card, so he bid what he intended to bid. For the pass to have been "inadvertent" he would have had to be trying to show some card other than pass, and have made a purely mechanical error. The fact that it was incontrovertably not his intent for his side to play in 4C is irrelevant. > The director's decision tree for ruling in these situations should be: > 1. Was the action inadvertent? > a. No - do not allow the correction. > b. Yes - go to question two. > 2. Was the change attempted without pause for thought? > a. No - do not allow the correction. > b. Yes - correction is allowable. That's what it IS under the current Laws. The question on the table is whether that's what it "should be", or whether it ought to be changed. > What the TD's or AC's opinion as to what was the incontrovertable > intent of the bidder at the time of the call is irrelevant and > immaterial. But question 1, "Was the action inadvertent?", directly addresses the intent of the bidder, and so it's intent that the TD/AC MUST judge. My dictionary defines "inadvertent" as "accidental; unintentional". How can intent be "irrelevant and immaterial" to deciding whether something was "unintentional"? The rewrite I would favor would eliminate question 2 from the decision tree. If the TD/AC determined that the first call was (incontrovertably) inadvertent, they would no longer be required to then determine whether a 1.2-second delay did or didn't constitute "pause for thought", nor would they have to resolve arguments over the exact length of the delay. 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 Jul 10 00:25:48 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA02451 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 10 Jul 1996 00:25:48 +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 AAA02446 for ; Wed, 10 Jul 1996 00:25:39 +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 KAA30608 for ; Tue, 9 Jul 1996 10:25:36 -0400 (EDT) Received: by cfa183.harvard.edu (5.x/SMI-SVR4) id AA01424; Tue, 9 Jul 1996 10:28:33 -0400 Date: Tue, 9 Jul 1996 10:28:33 -0400 From: willner@cfa183.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Message-Id: <9607091428.AA01424@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Bidding boxes -- Insufficient Bid X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk From: David Stevenson > No, what I meant was that if you bid 3S then you have bid 3S. Sorry, I wasn't clear before. _When_ have you bid 3S? There has to be a definition of when a call is made, just as there is a definition of when a card has been played. (Not that the latter couldn't use some firming up....) People will mumble. People will fumble. People will knock over the bidding box! Is the call that happens to land on top mandatory? I don't think that's what you are proposing, but I don't quite see how to implement what I think you are proposing. The last change in Law 25, by the way, was in the opposite direction. The rule on changing calls became more permissive than it used to be. I'll repeat my own proposal: a call is "made" when LHO calls in normal tempo. This at least is unambiguous in the overwhelming majority of cases. I'd like to do away with "in normal tempo" to make it completely unambiguous, but that opens the door to the abuse of a very hasty action by LHO. > From: Eric Landau > The confusion, I think, is caused by mixing the two distinctions into one > set of sentences. The distinction between "inadvertent" and "purposeful" > seems to me straightforward and easy enough to make, while the distinction > between "immediate" and "delayed" is far more subjective and difficult to > rule on Funny... I would have said exactly the opposite. In principle, at least, one can quantify a delay, while determining intent seems impossible in most cases. > Without the distinction between "immediate" and "delayed" we can, if we > want, do away with L25B altogether, I agree that this is possible, but you have to specify the time when a call is "made" and thereafter not subject to change. > purposeful correction (or any correction that isn't permitted) > being treated as ordinary, if extraordinarily blatant, UI OK. > Or we can write a much > simplified L25B which "enhances" the UI rules for purposeful changes by > giving LHO the additional option of accepting the attempted change This seems better for the reasons you give. So... when is a call "made?" If we can specify that, it seems to me that the discussion of what to do afterwards will be much simpler. No doubt it depends on what bidding method is being used. With written bidding, one could demand that only one pencil be used and say a call is made when one hands the pencil to LHO. At least this is unambiguous, though I don't think it accomplishes what David is trying to achieve. (Maybe it isn't even unambiguous; one can imagine a tug-of-war if someone changes his mind in the process of handing over the pencil!) Should sponsoring organizations define by regulation when a bid is made? I think that just dodges the question. For discussion, at least, we should try to come up with a rule that works. From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jul 10 03:53:33 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA03917 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 10 Jul 1996 03:53:33 +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 DAA03910 for ; Wed, 10 Jul 1996 03:53:26 +1000 Received: from post.demon.co.uk ([158.152.1.72]) by relay-4.mail.demon.net id ad24297; 9 Jul 96 17:43 GMT Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by relay-3.mail.demon.net id aa10769; 9 Jul 96 17:13 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 9 Jul 1996 16:40:25 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: More on bidding boxes and Law 25 (perhaps) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 1.12 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk West puts a 1NT card on the table, simultaneously saying out loud "one spade". Neither North nor East hear her, and both pass. South did hear her so calls the TD. Since bidding boxes is a matter of regulation, which differs geographically, my questions are: What should the TD do in the USA? What should the TD do in Europe? -- 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 Jul 10 04:59:38 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA08287 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 10 Jul 1996 04:59:38 +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 EAA08232 for ; Wed, 10 Jul 1996 04:59:23 +1000 Received: from post.demon.co.uk ([158.152.1.72]) by relay-4.mail.demon.net id ae02534; 9 Jul 96 18:25 GMT Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by relay-3.mail.demon.net id aa00119; 9 Jul 96 19:19 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 9 Jul 1996 19:18:21 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Bidding boxes -- Insufficient Bid In-Reply-To: <9607091428.AA01424@cfa183.harvard.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 1.12 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Steve Willner wrote: >From: David Stevenson >> No, what I meant was that if you bid 3S then you have bid 3S. > >Sorry, I wasn't clear before. _When_ have you bid 3S? There has to >be a definition of when a call is made, just as there is a definition >of when a card has been played. (Not that the latter couldn't use >some firming up....) > >People will mumble. People will fumble. People will knock over the >bidding box! Is the call that happens to land on top mandatory? I >don't think that's what you are proposing, but I don't quite see how to >implement what I think you are proposing. > I am not saying that it is a universal panacea which gets rid of all problems. When a person finishes saying a call, or puts a bidding card on the table, or completes writing a call, then the call is made. One method is that when the call is made then it becomes unchangeable. It is my view that this would have a reasonable amount of popular support. >The last change in Law 25, by the way, was in the opposite direction. >The rule on changing calls became more permissive than it used to be. > Sure: where I came from we hated L25B and thought it silly. It is, of course, designed in favour of the better players, which is against the normal approach. >I'll repeat my own proposal: a call is "made" when LHO calls in normal >tempo. This at least is unambiguous in the overwhelming majority of >cases. I'd like to do away with "in normal tempo" to make it >completely unambiguous, but that opens the door to the abuse of a very >hasty action by LHO. I presume you mean that it can be changed until that time. There may be some abuse the other way: a player realises that LHO seems not to be going to pass (so presumably double): you are giving him time to retract his bid and try something lower and safer! >> From: Eric Landau >> The confusion, I think, is caused by mixing the two distinctions into one >> set of sentences. The distinction between "inadvertent" and "purposeful" >> seems to me straightforward and easy enough to make, while the distinction >> between "immediate" and "delayed" is far more subjective and difficult to >> rule on > >Funny... I would have said exactly the opposite. In principle, at >least, one can quantify a delay, while determining intent seems >impossible in most cases. > I don't have problems in applying this Law nor do I hear of problems from my colleagues. Our objection to L25B is that it is against the principles of Bridge, it is not fair, it is unjustifiable by natural justice, it is designed for better players and it spoils the main beauty of the game of Bridge (people making a total ass of themselves). >> Without the distinction between "immediate" and "delayed" we can, if we >> want, do away with L25B altogether, > >I agree that this is possible, but you have to specify the time when >a call is "made" and thereafter not subject to change. > >> purposeful correction > >(or any correction that isn't permitted) > >> being treated as ordinary, if extraordinarily blatant, UI > >OK. > >> Or we can write a much >> simplified L25B which "enhances" the UI rules for purposeful changes by >> giving LHO the additional option of accepting the attempted change > >This seems better for the reasons you give. > >So... when is a call "made?" If we can specify that, it seems to me >that the discussion of what to do afterwards will be much simpler. >No doubt it depends on what bidding method is being used. With >written bidding, one could demand that only one pencil be used and >say a call is made when one hands the pencil to LHO. At least this >is unambiguous, though I don't think it accomplishes what David is >trying to achieve. (Maybe it isn't even unambiguous; one can imagine >a tug-of-war if someone changes his mind in the process of handing >over the pencil!) > >Should sponsoring organizations define by regulation when a bid >is made? I think that just dodges the question. For discussion, >at least, we should try to come up with a rule that works. > The EBU defines a bid as made with bidding boxes primarily to delineate the difference between the time when a change of mind is permitted and when it is not. - - - - - I think part of the problem looking back over the posts is to find what the difficulty is that you are addressing. The following are possible: (a) Should we allow any change at all? (b) Should we allow a slip-of-the-tongue without pause for thought? (c) Should we allow a slip-of-the-tongue with pause for thought? (d) Should we allow a change of mind without pause for thought? (e) Should we allow a change of mind with pause for thought? (f) Whichever we decide can a change be made after LHO calls in tempo? (g) Whichever we decide can a change be made after LHO calls? (h) Whichever we decide can a change be made after partner calls? (i) How do we define when a call is made? While I suggested that saying no to (a) was possible, I am not really in favour of that. I believe that we should allow (b) but not (c), (d) or (e). I think the limit should be (h), or possibly (f), but not (g). the current definition of (i) is adequate IMO. I believe that a vote amongst players would lead to a majority in favour of my views, but that a vote amongst fair or better might not. When ruling under the current Laws the only real difficulties that I have (apart from thinking L25B unfair) is the lack of stated time limits in both L25A and L25B which is why I use (h) as a yardstick. -- 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 Jul 10 05:46:11 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA12321 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 10 Jul 1996 05:46:11 +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 FAA12315 for ; Wed, 10 Jul 1996 05:46:04 +1000 Received: from post.demon.co.uk ([158.152.1.72]) by relay-4.mail.demon.net id au03153; 9 Jul 96 18:30 GMT Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by relay-3.mail.demon.net id aa10770; 9 Jul 96 17:13 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 9 Jul 1996 16:40:08 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: A claim or concession MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 1.12 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Contract 3NT by South: West is on lead. -- -- 4 -- 32 -- 4 -- T8 92 -- -- Q K 3 T West puts his hand face up on the table and says "I'll play the ten of diamonds then the eight of diamonds and give you the last trick." East immediately objects, saying "No, I'll win the second diamond, and my club queen will win the last trick." (a) Assuming that East keeps his hand hidden while objecting, How do you rule? (b) Assuming that East exposes his hand hidden while objecting, How do you rule? Another easy one for you all. -- 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 Jul 10 06:19:55 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA12586 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 10 Jul 1996 06:19:55 +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 GAA12578 for ; Wed, 10 Jul 1996 06:19:49 +1000 Message-Id: <199607092019.GAA12578@octavia.anu.edu.au> Received: from RCHVMX2 by VNET.IBM.COM (IBM VM SMTP V2R3) with BSMTP id 4472; Tue, 09 Jul 96 16:19:52 EDT Date: Tue, 9 Jul 96 15:19:13 CDT From: "Kent Burghard" To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: More on bidding boxes and Law 25 (perhaps) Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk From: David Stevenson > West puts a 1NT card on the table, simultaneously saying out loud "one >spade". Neither North nor East hear her, and both pass. South did hear >her so calls the TD. > > Since bidding boxes is a matter of regulation, which differs >geographically, my questions are: > > What should the TD do in the USA? The ACBL regulations on Bidding Boxes state: Choosing a Call Using Bidding Boxes A player is obligated to choose a call before touching any card in the box. Deliberation while touching the bidding box cards may subject the offending side to the adjustment provisions of Law 16. A call is considered made when a bidding box card has been taken out of the box with apparent intent. A call may be changed without penalty, under the provisions of Law 25, only if a player has inadvertently taken out the wrong bidding box card, and the player corrects, or attempts to correct, without pause for thought, and LHO has not called. If the Director is reasonably certain that the original call was a mechanical problem, they should be very liberal in judging pause for thought. In a later section, it gives an example similar to David's case: Even with practice and familiarity, accidents will happen and the "OOPS" rule applies to inadvertent calls or mechanical errors. For example: You mean to bid 1 Spade but accidentally play the 1 Heart card on the table. The director is authorized to permit you to change your call if it was inadvertent. In such a case, some immediate indication is necessary before LHO has called. The director should be very liberal in judging whether there was pause for thought. If LHO has already taken some action you now have an obligation, just as with verbal bidding, to continue bidding as though no irregularity had occurred. The last paragraph in the above ACBL example makes it clear (to me at least) that the correct ruling in ACBL-land is that West opened 1 notrump. If South's director call awakens the others at the table to the fact that West intended to open one spade, then there would be UI caused by West's (usually) improper verbal bid. The usually in this sentence allows for the exceptions in games where only some tables are using bidding boxes (for hearing problems, or other reasons) and if simultaneous verbal bidding is permitted. This usually only happens at clubs since bidding boxes are used at most ACBL tournaments. Kent Burghard Rochester, Minnesota, USA From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jul 10 07:49:11 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA12896 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 10 Jul 1996 07:49:11 +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 HAA12891 for ; Wed, 10 Jul 1996 07:49:06 +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 RAA19525 for ; Tue, 9 Jul 1996 17:49:03 -0400 (EDT) Received: by cfa183.harvard.edu (5.x/SMI-SVR4) id AA01738; Tue, 9 Jul 1996 17:52:01 -0400 Date: Tue, 9 Jul 1996 17:52:01 -0400 From: willner@cfa183.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Message-Id: <9607092152.AA01738@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Bidding boxes -- Insufficient Bid X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk From: David Stevenson > I presume you mean that it can be changed until that time. There may > be some abuse the other way: a player realises that LHO seems not to be > going to pass (so presumably double): you are giving him time to retract > his bid and try something lower and safer! Good point. Could you clarify how 25B favors good players? I can see how it favors players who know the Law and are willing to take advantage. > (a) Should we allow any change at all? > (b) Should we allow a slip-of-the-tongue without pause for thought? > (c) Should we allow a slip-of-the-tongue with pause for thought? > (d) Should we allow a change of mind without pause for thought? > (e) Should we allow a change of mind with pause for thought? > (f) Whichever we decide can a change be made after LHO calls in tempo? > (g) Whichever we decide can a change be made after LHO calls? > (h) Whichever we decide can a change be made after partner calls? > (i) How do we define when a call is made? These are exactly the right questions, though I might put (i) first. > While I suggested that saying no to (a) was possible, I am not really > in favour of that. I believe that we should allow (b) but not (c), (d) > or (e). I think the limit should be (h), or possibly (f), but not (g). > the current definition of (i) is adequate IMO. I don't think there is any difference between (b) and (d) and would claim that the answer should be the same for them. (At least if you think d exists.) One could argue that (c) and (e) are the same, but I think there is more of a case for separating them if one wants to. (I don't.) The current 25A seems to allow a, b, and d. There is no explicit time limit, but it would be very hard to argue against f and even harder to argue against h. So, some trial proposals: 1. Add an explicit time limit, say f, to L25A. Retain the current language "without pause for thought." 2. In 25B, if there is a change of call not permitted by 25A, LHO can accept the change. If not accepted, the original call stands, and subsequent calls are UI for offender's partner. 3. Define "call made" for common bidding methods (oral, bidding boxes, perhaps written); otherwise leave to regulation. Perhaps should be only an outline definition with an invitation to sponsoring organizations to fill in details. This avoids complexity in the Laws and leaves flexibility for changes as problems arise, but it means the rules will differ in different locations. This proposal will create a few additional UI adjudications, but are there any other problems? Alternate 1: 1. Add time limit, say f, to 25A. Any change before the time limit is allowed. (Dropping all current language.) 2. Modify 25B as above. 3. As above. Seems workable, but not favored by most on this group. Subject to abuse as above. Possible ruling difficulties if facts are disputed. Alternate 2: 1. Drop 25A -- no changes permitted once a call is "made." 2. Modify 25B as above. 3. As above. This will probably seem to harsh to many players, but maybe I'm wrong. There will be a lot of rulings hinging on disputed facts as to whether or not a call was "made," but maybe these are more objective than "without pause for thought." I haven't heard any sentiment NOT to modify 25B. That's probably a useful conclusion for the drafting committee. Comments? From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jul 10 08:39:36 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA13106 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 10 Jul 1996 08:39:36 +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 IAA13101 for ; Wed, 10 Jul 1996 08:39:31 +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 SAA20571 for ; Tue, 9 Jul 1996 18:39:28 -0400 (EDT) Received: by cfa183.harvard.edu (5.x/SMI-SVR4) id AA01808; Tue, 9 Jul 1996 18:42:26 -0400 Date: Tue, 9 Jul 1996 18:42:26 -0400 From: willner@cfa183.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Message-Id: <9607092242.AA01808@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Cultural Differences X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk It occurs to me that some of the cultural differences I see in a professional context (science) may be affecting this mailing list. I thought it might be useful to mention the subject so people are aware of it and can try to figure out how to deal with it. The issue is style of discourse. Americans typically state a thought or position -- even one poorly considered -- in strong or even absolute terms. They fully expect a reply couched in such terms -- even if the reply is in complete disagreement. Europeans think this is shockingly rude and tend to put forward their ideas with a lot more diffidence. They expect any reply or disagreement to be made with equal diffidence unless it comes from a recognized expert on the particular subject. Japanese tend to avoid any disagreement altogether; often it's hard to get them to express any opinion at all. I haven't known enough Australians or Chinese to know about their style of discourse, though the Australians I've known fit somewhere between American and European. Of course all the above is written by an American. You can see I've couched it in fairly absolute terms with little attempt at qualification. The point is that any of the above styles of discourse will work. Each has advantages and disadvantages, but there is a problem if writers and readers are not used to the _same_ style, whatever it is. I'm not sure what to do about all this. I don't want to see either r.g.b or blml turned into a strictly American forum, but I'm told some Europeans have already been offended and given up posting. Nothing can be enforced, but at least all of us should be conscious that the differences exist. Probably we Americans need to tone down our rhetoric, and we need to recognize that a European message that we read as tentative or doubtful may well be expressing a strong opinion reached after thorough consideration. I think the Europeans may have to develop thicker skins. We Yanks are all rude, crude, and arrogant :-) , and you aren't likely to change us. On the other hand, we won't be offended if you tell us so. Any further ideas? I hope we can reach some level of both courtesy and tolerance. From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jul 10 10:08:50 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA13570 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 10 Jul 1996 10:08:50 +1000 Received: from mamos.demon.co.uk (mamos.demon.co.uk [158.152.129.79]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id KAA13565 for ; Wed, 10 Jul 1996 10:08:27 +1000 Date: Wed, 10 Jul 1996 01:00:06 GMT From: mike@mamos.demon.co.uk (michael amos) Reply-To: mike@mamos.demon.co.uk Message-Id: <43@mamos.demon.co.uk> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: A claim or concession X-Mailer: PCElm 1.10 Lines: 45 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In message David Stevenson writes: > > Contract 3NT by South: West is on lead. > > -- > -- > 4 > -- 32 -- > 4 -- > T8 92 > -- -- Q > K > 3 > T > > West puts his hand face up on the table and says "I'll play the ten of > diamonds then the eight of diamonds and give you the last trick." East > immediately objects, saying "No, I'll win the second diamond, and my > club queen will win the last trick." > > > > (a) Assuming that East keeps his hand hidden while objecting, > How do you rule? > > > > (b) Assuming that East exposes his hand hidden while objecting, > How do you rule? > > > > ok - always willing to make a fool of myself I think 1. a claim has occurred - play ceases 2. a concession has occurred 3. - but has been cancelled by other defender 4. TD needed to adjudicate on disputed claim 5. TD awards defenders 3 tricks The laws and bridge justice coincide :) michael amos From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jul 10 18:37:35 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id SAA15146 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 10 Jul 1996 18:37:35 +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 SAA15141 for ; Wed, 10 Jul 1996 18:37:14 +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 KAA02648 for ; Wed, 10 Jul 1996 10:34:57 +0200 Received: from CRI-Message_Server by nov.cri.dk with Novell_GroupWise; Wed, 10 Jul 1996 10:35:46 +0200 Message-Id: X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise 4.1 Date: Wed, 10 Jul 1996 10:35:39 +0200 From: Jens Brix Christiansen To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Cultural Differences Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Disposition: inline Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk >>> Steve Willner 10.07.96 00:42 >>> >The issue is style of discourse. Americans typically state a thought >or position -- even one poorly considered -- in strong or even >absolute terms. They fully expect a reply couched in such terms -- >even if the reply is in complete disagreement. Europeans think this is >shockingly rude and tend to put forward their ideas with a lot more >diffidence. Steve's point is well taken. We certainly have to display a high level of tolerance for each others' difference in approach. From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jul 10 18:52:38 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id SAA15202 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 10 Jul 1996 18:52:38 +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 SAA15197 for ; Wed, 10 Jul 1996 18:52:29 +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 KAA02902 for ; Wed, 10 Jul 1996 10:50:42 +0200 Received: from CRI-Message_Server by nov.cri.dk with Novell_GroupWise; Wed, 10 Jul 1996 10:51:27 +0200 Message-Id: X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise 4.1 Date: Wed, 10 Jul 1996 10:51:17 +0200 From: Jens Brix Christiansen To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Cultural Differences Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Disposition: inline Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Sorry about the mess I am making of my replies today. I seem to have misused my less-than-perfect mail tool this morning. >>> Steve Willner 10.07.96 00:42 >>> >The issue is style of discourse. Americans typically state a thought >or position -- even one poorly considered -- in strong or even >absolute terms. They fully expect a reply couched in such terms -- >even if the reply is in complete disagreement. Europeans think this is >shockingly rude and tend to put forward their ideas with a lot more >diffidence. Not only do we have to be exceptionally tolerant of each others' cultural backgrounds among the continents. Even among ourselves, we Europeans display a great variation in how outspoken we are. This is reflected in the prejudices that people from small countries (languages and cultures) like myself have about the large populations throughout Europe. We Danish think of ourselves as people who are almost as matter-of-fact as Americans, for instance. I have learned that it can be difficult for Americans to grasp that Europe is as culturally varied as it is -- after all they speak three languages in Belgium (although few speak German), and if you think of a person from Gernamy as just a German, you are only scratching the surface. In addition, most Europeans have to contribute to a forum like this in a language that is not their native language; this tends to make it even more difficult to be understood. In short, it is very difficult for us to know when we express ourselves in a way that offends the reader. That is probably a contributing factor to the apparent reluctance from Europeans to contribute. That said, Steve's point is well taken: If a pair shows up without convention cards, I will instruct them to produce some immediately. My phrasing would be along the lines: "It would be a good idea if you write up your convention card now." I would then expect this to be understood as an unconditional order to be obeyed without further questioning, and I would be getitng out L91 if the players did not jump to it. I suspect that an American TD would phrase this more bluntly? Jens Brix Christiansen, Denmark. From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jul 10 18:55:12 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id SAA15218 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 10 Jul 1996 18:55:12 +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 SAA15213 for ; Wed, 10 Jul 1996 18:55:01 +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 KAA02973 for ; Wed, 10 Jul 1996 10:53:16 +0200 Received: from CRI-Message_Server by nov.cri.dk with Novell_GroupWise; Wed, 10 Jul 1996 10:54:01 +0200 Message-Id: X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise 4.1 Date: Wed, 10 Jul 1996 10:53:40 +0200 From: Jens Brix Christiansen To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: A claim or concession Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Disposition: inline Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk (Sorry about the duplicate to David; having a bad day. /Jens) >>> David Stevenson 09.07.96 17:40 >>> >Contract 3NT by South: West is on lead. > > -- > -- > 4 > -- 32 -- > 4 -- > T8 92 > -- -- Q > K > 3 > T > > West puts his hand face up on the table and says "I'll play the ten of >diamonds then the eight of diamonds and give you the last trick." East >immediately objects, saying "No, I'll win the second diamond, and my >club queen will win the last trick." > > > >(a) Assuming that East keeps his hand hidden while objecting, > How do you rule? East is making a statement about later tricks that he expects to win. Thus he is claiming, and play ends. Had East just said, "No, I want play to continue", this would have been different. The TD now has to decide the case equitably. Although I cannot be certain without knowing what went before, I am assuming that East knows that the diamonds are good and that the CQ is good. I then rule that UI from Wests line of play does not make any difference: East would not have unblocked the D9 irrationally when his hand would be good for the remaining tricks, and West can be assumed to continue with the D8. If, on the other hand, East does not know how the diamonds are placed, it is even more likely that he does not unblock he diamond. Now finally, if East does not claim, but only asks that play be continued, there is the possiblity that West would play the H4. I think not. Bottom line: East has claimed the rest of the tricks; no reason not to give him these tricks. It is slightly worrying that West seems to have lost control completely of the D9, but even with that in mind, I do not see any of the scenarios that would yield a trick or more to declarer as remotely likely. >(b) Assuming that East exposes his hand hidden while objecting, > How do you rule? If East exposes his hand he is just claimng all the more. Jens Brix Christiansen, Denmark From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jul 10 18:57:46 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id SAA15246 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 10 Jul 1996 18:57:46 +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 SAA15239 for ; Wed, 10 Jul 1996 18:57:34 +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 KAA03021 for ; Wed, 10 Jul 1996 10:55:39 +0200 Received: from CRI-Message_Server by nov.cri.dk with Novell_GroupWise; Wed, 10 Jul 1996 10:56:27 +0200 Message-Id: X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise 4.1 Date: Wed, 10 Jul 1996 10:56:27 +0200 From: Jens Brix Christiansen To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: More on bidding boxes and Law 25 (perhaps) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Disposition: inline Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk (Sorry again, David. Will not post any more today. Promise! /Jens). >>> David Stevenson 09.07.96 17:40 >>> > West puts a 1NT card on the table, simultaneously saying out loud >"one spade". Neither North nor East hear her, and both pass. South did >hear her so calls the TD. Here is a Danish ruling (assuming the game is not a beginner's game). Everybody (and I mean everybody) has played with bidding boxes at any reasonable level in Denmark at least since 1980. That might help readers abroad in understanding the uncompromising attitude that my ruling displays. 1. PP for saying "one spade" out loud. No caution; 10-15% on the spot. (Our conditions of contest usually pinpoint a standard fine that corresponds to 10-15%; in teams (40 boards) that would be half a VP.) 2. If the 1NT is inadvertent, it is too late to change. Period. Our regulations are clear on this, even though BLML has made the point that the regulation is questionable. 3. The statement "one spade" must be treated as UI by East. The PP does not in any way imply that the UI becomes authorized. 4. "one spade" is not an attempt to change a call; L25 does not apply. --- Now, if this was not Denmark, but the European Championships, I would still fine the West for saying one spade, unless there is a very good excuse for this failure to follow correct procedure. However, I might be convinced that 1NT was a mechanical error and one spade was intended, in which case the player probably would have "oops"ed when the TD was called, and L25A would apply. The bidding starts over with 1S. Hopefully at the European Championships we would be playing with screens, and the scenario would be unthinkable. --- I may be biased, but I like the Danish way better. Jens Brix Christiansen, Authorized TD both Denmark and Europe. From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jul 10 22:22:42 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id WAA15977 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 10 Jul 1996 22:22:42 +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 WAA15972 for ; Wed, 10 Jul 1996 22:22:34 +1000 Received: from post.demon.co.uk ([158.152.1.72]) by relay-4.mail.demon.net id ab00706; 10 Jul 96 12:22 GMT Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by relay-3.mail.demon.net id aa18206; 10 Jul 96 10:15 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 10 Jul 1996 03:18:18 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Bidding boxes -- Insufficient Bid In-Reply-To: <9607092152.AA01738@cfa183.harvard.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 1.12 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Steve Willner wrote: >From: David Stevenson >> I presume you mean that it can be changed until that time. There may >> be some abuse the other way: a player realises that LHO seems not to be >> going to pass (so presumably double): you are giving him time to retract >> his bid and try something lower and safer! > >Good point. > >Could you clarify how 25B favors good players? I can see how it >favors players who know the Law and are willing to take advantage. Suppose the bidding goes (partnership) 1S-4S-4NT-5H-NB, which is the basic sequence always assumed to show the point of L25B. After it has happened, a club player will be very annoyed with himself: he may shout at partner: he may be rude to opponents: the one thing he will not think of doing is to call the TD and try to change his call. Only experienced and/or knowledgeable players will even consider calling the TD. It will never occur to a poor/inexperienced player that he can change his call: therefore this Law gives the better player an advantage. > >> (a) Should we allow any change at all? >> (b) Should we allow a slip-of-the-tongue without pause for thought? >> (c) Should we allow a slip-of-the-tongue with pause for thought? >> (d) Should we allow a change of mind without pause for thought? >> (e) Should we allow a change of mind with pause for thought? >> (f) Whichever we decide can a change be made after LHO calls in tempo? >> (g) Whichever we decide can a change be made after LHO calls? >> (h) Whichever we decide can a change be made after partner calls? >> (i) How do we define when a call is made? > >These are exactly the right questions, though I might put (i) first. > >> While I suggested that saying no to (a) was possible, I am not really >> in favour of that. I believe that we should allow (b) but not (c), (d) >> or (e). I think the limit should be (h), or possibly (f), but not (g). >> the current definition of (i) is adequate IMO. > >I don't think there is any difference between (b) and (d) and would >claim that the answer should be the same for them. (At least if you >think d exists.) One could argue that (c) and (e) are the same, but I >think there is more of a case for separating them if one wants to. (I >don't.) > We don't expect to confuse (b) and (d). Our TDs expect to know in most cases whether it is a slip-of-the-tongue or a change of mind. >The current 25A seems to allow a, b, and d. There is no explicit >time limit, but it would be very hard to argue against f and even >harder to argue against h. > We do not allow (d). >So, some trial proposals: >1. Add an explicit time limit, say f, to L25A. Retain the current >language "without pause for thought." >2. In 25B, if there is a change of call not permitted by 25A, LHO >can accept the change. If not accepted, the original call stands, >and subsequent calls are UI for offender's partner. >3. Define "call made" for common bidding methods (oral, bidding boxes, >perhaps written); otherwise leave to regulation. Perhaps should be >only an outline definition with an invitation to sponsoring >organizations to fill in details. This avoids complexity in the >Laws and leaves flexibility for changes as problems arise, but it >means the rules will differ in different locations. > >This proposal will create a few additional UI adjudications, but are >there any other problems? I like it. >Alternate 1: >1. Add time limit, say f, to 25A. Any change before the time limit is >allowed. (Dropping all current language.) >2. Modify 25B as above. >3. As above. > >Seems workable, but not favored by most on this group. Subject to >abuse as above. Possible ruling difficulties if facts are disputed. > Hmmm. >Alternate 2: >1. Drop 25A -- no changes permitted once a call is "made." >2. Modify 25B as above. >3. As above. > >This will probably seem to harsh to many players, but maybe I'm wrong. >There will be a lot of rulings hinging on disputed facts as to whether >or not a call was "made," but maybe these are more objective than >"without pause for thought." > No: don't drop L25A. >I haven't heard any sentiment NOT to modify 25B. That's probably a >useful conclusion for the drafting committee. > Exactly! >Comments? How would we really like Bridge to be played? As though four friends played a competitive but fair and ethical game, wouldn't you say? So, if we can approach the way four friends behave, then perhaps that is best? What happens with the four friends when someone wants to change his bid? If he meant to bid something else, then he will say "Dash it, I meant one spade" and his friends will accept one spade as a matter of course. If he meant to bid one spade but now he has changed his mind then he will not embarrass his friends by telling them because he knows that a sportsman will not change his bid: they might allow him to! And if he meant to bid one spade, but someone else has bid, then he won't say anything, unless that person rushed him. So the four friends rule suggests (a) (b) and (f). Let's scrap L25B, and allow L25A only when a very ethical player might imagine himself to be in time. -- 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 Jul 10 23:18:07 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA16330 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 10 Jul 1996 23:18:07 +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 XAA16325 for ; Wed, 10 Jul 1996 23:18:02 +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 JAA03707 for ; Wed, 10 Jul 1996 09:17:53 -0400 Date: Wed, 10 Jul 1996 09:17:53 -0400 (EDT) From: Eric Landau To: Bridge Laws Discussion List Subject: Re: Bidding boxes -- Insufficient Bid In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Tue, 9 Jul 1996, David Stevenson wrote: > (a) Should we allow any change at all? No. > (b) Should we allow a slip-of-the-tongue without pause for thought? Yes. > (c) Should we allow a slip-of-the-tongue with pause for thought? No, but we should be careful to understand that "with pause for thought" is meant to be taken literally, i.e. we do not allow the change if the bidder did in fact pause for thought. This is not current practice, which interprets "with pause for thought" to mean "after a delay long enough to have allowed for a pause for thought." Of course, if there's any doubt whether or not there was pause for thought, we should not allow the change. But if it's clear (to the TD's/AC's satisfaction) that there was no pause for thought, the change should be allowed even after a several- second delay, up to some reasonable limit. > (d) Should we allow a change of mind without pause for thought? No. > (e) Should we allow a change of mind with pause for thought? No. > (f) Whichever we decide can a change be made after LHO calls in tempo? Yes. > (g) Whichever we decide can a change be made after LHO calls? Yes. It might be better in theory to say no to (f) and yes to (g), but I wouldn't want to put TDs/ACs in the position of having to split the hair that constitutes the distinction between them. > (h) Whichever we decide can a change be made after partner calls? No. Because: (a) We have to draw the line somewhere. (b) It's not unreasonable to "presume" that partner's call at least "helped" the bidder to wake up to the initial presumptive "inadvertency," and the intention is to allow the change when he realizes his error and attempts to make the change "on his own." (c) It's perfectly reasonable to allow LHO to substitute another call without penalty, but would be inappropriate to allow partner to do so, so if we allowed this we would need a new set of rules to cover what happens to partner. A yes to this would raise new complications. > (i) How do we define when a call is made? I, like David, see no need to change current practice. 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 Jul 10 23:39:36 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA16552 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 10 Jul 1996 23:39:36 +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 XAA16547 for ; Wed, 10 Jul 1996 23:39:31 +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 JAA06701 for ; Wed, 10 Jul 1996 09:39:28 -0400 Date: Wed, 10 Jul 1996 09:39:27 -0400 (EDT) From: Eric Landau To: Bridge Laws Discussion List Subject: Re: A claim or concession In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Tue, 9 Jul 1996, David Stevenson wrote: > Contract 3NT by South: West is on lead. > > -- > -- > 4 > -- 32 -- > 4 -- > T8 92 > -- -- Q > K > 3 > T > > West puts his hand face up on the table and says "I'll play the ten of > diamonds then the eight of diamonds and give you the last trick." East > immediately objects, saying "No, I'll win the second diamond, and my > club queen will win the last trick." > > (a) Assuming that East keeps his hand hidden while objecting, > How do you rule? I don't. I require that all of the remaining cards be faced before I make any ruling. When West spoke up, play ceased. When East spoke up, it became established that no concession had occurred. At that point, the result becomes a matter for adjudication, and I must see all the remaining cards. East's immmediate verbal objection cancelled any concession. What he did with the cards in his hand between the time he cancelled the concession and the time I arrived at the table has no bearing whatsoever on the ruling. > (b) Assuming that East exposes his hand hidden while objecting, > How do you rule? E-W take all three tricks. West will play the D10 then the D8. If East plays the D2 under the D10 he can't avoid taking the rest. I would consider the D2 a "normal" play even under the stringent test of L71B. > Another easy one for you all. OK, David, we know you better than that. What's the catch? 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 Jul 11 00:02:20 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA16708 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 11 Jul 1996 00:02:20 +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 AAA16703 for ; Thu, 11 Jul 1996 00:02:15 +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 KAA07692 for ; Wed, 10 Jul 1996 10:02:12 -0400 Date: Wed, 10 Jul 1996 10:02:12 -0400 (EDT) From: Eric Landau To: Bridge Laws Discussion List Subject: Re: More on bidding boxes and Law 25 (perhaps) In-Reply-To: <199607092019.GAA12578@octavia.anu.edu.au> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Tue, 9 Jul 1996, Kent Burghard wrote: > From: David Stevenson > > > West puts a 1NT card on the table, simultaneously saying out loud "one > >spade". Neither North nor East hear her, and both pass. South did hear > >her so calls the TD. > > The last paragraph in the above ACBL example makes it clear > (to me at least) that the correct ruling in ACBL-land is that West > opened 1 notrump. If South's director call awakens the others at > the table to the fact that West intended to open one spade, then > there would be UI [...] I agree with this ruling. Now let's change the situation just a little bit: West puts a 1NT card on the table, simultaneously saying out loud "one spade". Neither North nor East notices the 1NT card, and both pass. South did notice it so calls the TD. Does this affect the ruling? 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 Jul 11 00:13:41 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA17980 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 11 Jul 1996 00:13:41 +1000 Received: from styx.ios.com (lighton@styx.ios.com [198.4.75.44]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id AAA17938 for ; Thu, 11 Jul 1996 00:13:31 +1000 Received: (from lighton@localhost) by styx.ios.com (8.6.12/8.6.9) id KAA22637 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Wed, 10 Jul 1996 10:13:24 -0400 Date: Wed, 10 Jul 1996 10:13:24 -0400 From: Richard Lighton Message-Id: <199607101413.KAA22637@styx.ios.com> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Bidding boxes -- Insufficient Bid Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I think we are going too far in the attack on Law 25. When the laws were last revised, bidding boxes were not normal in most parts of the world. Errors were rare and were almost always of the form of correction of an insufficient bid. You got the very rare form of 1H-pass-4C-pass followed by long thought and "pass, ooops I meant 4H." Bidding boxes introduced two new problems. The first was that errors caused by fumble-fingers are far more common than those caused by fumble-tongues, so people now quite often bid 4D when they mean 4H. Spoken errors of that sort are very rare, but more on that anon. The second, which is really what has led to all this debate, is that people often did not notice their own klutzishness for several seconds. Now other things might take place before the klutz realises what he or she has done. ACBL directors tend to be quite lenient with what might well be klutzishness, and I think they should be. If I (well- known klutz, with the broken bones to prove it) put down a 4H bid, is it my fault if it transmogrifies itself to 3H or 5H or 4D or 4S (one of the adjacent cards) in mid-air? Within some reasonable length of time, I should be allowed to correct that. Here it is moderately obvious that I have probably missed the right bid, rather than changed my mind. I should be allowed some reasonable time inteval to notice my error - I might not look down at my bid for a second or so. A probable reasonable time limit is before LHO has bid in tempo; this seems to be the ACBL policy (though I have seen changes allowed before partner bids), and it encourages me to look at my call before I dump it on the table. The "when you have pulled it out of the box" rule strikes me as over-harsh. I would say I get one too many or one too few cards out of well-used boxes at least once a session. (Which is why I always try to remember to look at my bid before I hold it where someone else can see it.) If I make the pass-instead-of-correct-a-splinter error, I should have to correct it immediately for there to be no penalty. This is a case where the error has to be spotted at once "without pause for thought" just as if I made the same error with spoken bidding. There is no reasonable way I can change this 5 seconds later. If I make the 3NT-instead-of-4H error, that should always be ruled a change of mind. These corrections should be governed by something other than Law 25A, which covers legal changes of call. Hence we need a 25B to cover illegal changes of call. Bidding boxes allow a marginally unethical player to claim klutzhood when he or she should not. Case in point (reported by me mainly as an amusing story on rgb sometime last year). Partner put his hand down to put opponents' pair number on the score card. He then put a 1S bid on the table. He meant to bid 1S, but unfortunately only because he had forgotten that his major suit was hearts. His LHO passed, and before I had bid, he had discovered the awful truth. Now, he probably could have lied and got away with it, and he knew that. But he did not, because he knew it was a change of mind, not a klutzhood. (The bidding developed in an interesting fashion, as he tried to manouver me into making some bid he could reasonably pass. He failed, and had at some point to jump to 6NT to stop me bidding 7 something. 6NT was a horrible contract that made because of a fortuitous distribution.) Anyway, Law 25B matters. Because of the ACBL policy to show leniency to klutzes, people have been getting away with changes of mind that they would never have got away with if spoken bidding were used. Further example: Using spoken bidding I opened 2H (weak) when I meant 2S. LHO asked partner about our agreements on length and strength of the suit. I now realised what I had done (say 20 seconds after I had made the bid). If I had called the director, would he have allowed me to change my call? (Director was my LHO, if that helps!) I don't think he should. (I kept quiet, and they eventually played in a cue-bid instead of their heart game. Another inadvertent successful psych!) At some time in the past, what is now 25A was law 24, and law 25B was law 25. I don't have my collection of law books handy, but I don't think what is now 25B has really changed that radically. Something has to cover illegal changes of call. I think that the widespread use of bidding boxes has clouded the issue. Directors should be more careful in determining what bids might be inadvertent, including investigating how long the pause was before the pass-of-a- splinter was corrected. My answers to David's questions: (a) Should we allow any change at all? No (b) Should we allow a slip-of-the-tongue without pause for thought? Yes (c) Should we allow a slip-of-the-tongue with pause for thought? No, but a pause with no thought can be quite long :-) (d) Should we allow a change of mind without pause for thought? I don't think this is possible. You can't change your mind without thinking. The pause might be very short. (e) Should we allow a change of mind with pause for thought? No (f) Whichever we decide can a change be made after LHO calls in tempo? The old rules said no. I think we should stick with them. But I would go along with a change to "not after partner calls." (g) Whichever we decide can a change be made after LHO calls? See f. It's very hard to get a call out of a bidding box faster than I can say "oops." (h) Whichever we decide can a change be made after partner calls? No (i) How do we define when a call is made? Same as for a played card if we are using bidding boxes. Richard Lighton (lighton@ios.com) Wood-Ridge NJ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jul 11 01:27:40 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA19875 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 11 Jul 1996 01:27:40 +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 BAA19870 for ; Thu, 11 Jul 1996 01:27:32 +1000 From: AlLeBendig@aol.com Received: by emout12.mail.aol.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) id LAA02582 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Wed, 10 Jul 1996 11:28:19 -0400 Date: Wed, 10 Jul 1996 11:28:19 -0400 Message-ID: <960710112813_152806240@emout12.mail.aol.com> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: A claim or concession Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In a message dated 96-07-09 15:48:32 EDT, David writes: << Subj: A claim or concession Date: 96-07-09 15:48:32 EDT From: david@blakjak.demon.co.uk (David Stevenson) Sender: owner-bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Reply-to: newsr@blakjak.demon.co.uk (David Stevenson) To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Contract 3NT by South: West is on lead. -- -- 4 -- 32 -- 4 -- T8 92 -- -- Q K 3 T West puts his hand face up on the table and says "I'll play the ten of diamonds then the eight of diamonds and give you the last trick." East immediately objects, saying "No, I'll win the second diamond, and my club queen will win the last trick." (a) Assuming that East keeps his hand hidden while objecting, How do you rule? (b) Assuming that East exposes his hand hidden while objecting, How do you rule? Given either scenario, I think L65B applies. Nothing improper has occurred as a result of E exposing his hand subsequent to the claim by W. I see no reason to apply L57A. Another easy one for you all. Alan LeBendig, Los Angeles (310)312-8899 Phone (310)312-8779 Fax Make it idiot proof and someone will make a better idiot... From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jul 11 02:33:45 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA20347 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 11 Jul 1996 02:33:45 +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 CAA20342 for ; Thu, 11 Jul 1996 02:33:37 +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 SAA07306 for ; Wed, 10 Jul 1996 18:32:00 +0200 Received: from CRI-Message_Server by nov.cri.dk with Novell_GroupWise; Wed, 10 Jul 1996 18:32:55 +0200 Message-Id: X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise 4.1 Date: Wed, 10 Jul 1996 17:11:48 +0200 From: Jens Brix Christiansen To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: A claim or concession Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Disposition: inline Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk >>> Eric Landau 10.07.96 15:39 >>> >On Tue, 9 Jul 1996, David Stevenson wrote: [snip, you now what he wrote by now] >> (a) Assuming that East keeps his hand hidden while objecting, >> How do you rule? >I don't. I require that all of the remaining cards be faced before I make >any ruling. When West spoke up, play ceased. No; when East objected, there was no concession (L68B). Play continues, but ... [more snippage] >> Another easy one for you all. >OK, David, we know you better than that. What's the catch? I think the catch is "unless the Director designates otherwise" in L50A. If I don't exercise this clause, West's cards become penalty cards, and South would have the chance to require the H4 as the lead to trick 11. I still think East is claiming, even if he does not show his hand (L68A), and therefore I don't need to use the "catch" on East's hand. And I still rule all tricks to EW if anyone contests East's claim. So Eric and I have the same bottom line: No more tricks to declarer. (And I have broken my promise not to post any more today.) Jens Brix Christiansen, Denmark From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jul 11 03:20:07 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA20599 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 11 Jul 1996 03:20:07 +1000 Received: from waffle.cise.npl.co.uk (waffle.cise.npl.co.uk [139.143.18.92]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id DAA20588 for ; Thu, 11 Jul 1996 03:19:49 +1000 Received: from tempest.cise.npl.co.uk by waffle.cise.npl.co.uk; Wed, 10 Jul 1996 18:19:04 +0100 Date: Wed, 10 Jul 96 18:19:03 BST Message-Id: <16318.9607101719@tempest.cise.npl.co.uk> From: Robin Barker To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au, david@blakjak.demon.co.uk Subject: Re: A claim or concession Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > Contract 3NT by South: West is on lead. > > -- > -- > 4 > -- 32 -- > 4 -- > T8 92 > -- -- Q > K > 3 > T > > West puts his hand face up on the table and says "I'll play the ten of > diamonds then the eight of diamonds and give you the last trick." East > immediately objects, saying "No, I'll win the second diamond, and my > club queen will win the last trick." I'll have a go at this. 1) West has claimed and conceded the last trick. 2) East has objected to the concession, so no concession has occured (68B). Q. Has West's claim also 'not occured': I don't think so. 3) Laws 57A does not apply as West is on lead. Whether East has exposed his hand or not, this was not a `Premature Play'. 4) Law 16 may apply, East knows West's hand. 5) East has claimed the last (two) tricks: his verbal statement is enough, whether he has exposed his hand or not. Play ceases. 6) Whether or not North-South contest the claim, the result in the absence of UI is that East-West win the last three tricks. 7) UI: East knows West hand and knows that West thinks H4 will lose. This UI suggests not unblocking D9 (either in play or as a claim). Is unblocking D9 a logical alternative? Yes, if East thinks CQ may lose OR West has a third winner. [ In the latter case unblocking or not is a no-lose option.] 8) The TD (or an AC) may be convinced by the players or by earlier play that unblocking D9 is not a logical alternative and rule 3 tricks to East-West. But I can imagine that for some players and/or earlier play, unblocking is a logical alternative and rule 2 tricks to East-West. Phew! Not sure if I really believe this. Robin -- Robin Barker, | Email: rmb@cise.npl.co.uk Techniques for High Integrity, ISE, | Tel: +44 (0) 181 943 7090 B93, National Physical Laboratory, | Fax: +44 (0) 181 977 7091 Teddington, Middlesex, UK. TW11 0LW | WWW: http://www.npl.co.uk From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jul 11 03:33:43 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA20672 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 11 Jul 1996 03:33:43 +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 DAA20667 for ; Thu, 11 Jul 1996 03:33:35 +1000 Received: from lhost.monmouth.com (ppp41.monmouth.com [205.164.220.73]) by shell.monmouth.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id NAA19552 for ; Wed, 10 Jul 1996 13:28:34 -0400 Message-Id: <199607101728.NAA19552@shell.monmouth.com> Comments: Authenticated sender is From: "Stefanie Rohan" To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Wed, 10 Jul 1996 13:30:16 -400 Subject: Re: Cultural Differences X-Confirm-Reading-To: "Stefanie Rohan" X-pmrqc: 1 Priority: normal X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v2.10) Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Jens Brix Christiansen wrote: > > That said, Steve's point is well taken: If a pair shows up > without convention cards, I will instruct them to produce some > immediately. My phrasing would be along the lines: "It would > be a good idea if you write up your convention card now." > I would then expect this to be understood as an unconditional > order to be obeyed without further questioning, and I would > be getting out L91 if the players did not jump to it. I suspect > that an American TD would phrase this more bluntly? > I suspect that it would not even occur to an American TD to use your phrasing and expect to be obeyed. The wording I have heard more than once is, "You must have two identically filled-out convention cards on the table at all times." Sometimes a procedural penalty is threatened. Cheers, Stefanie Rohan From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jul 11 04:25:01 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA21007 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 11 Jul 1996 04:25:01 +1000 Received: from mailhub.axion.bt.co.uk (mailhub.axion.bt.co.uk [132.146.5.4]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id EAA21002 for ; Thu, 11 Jul 1996 04:24:52 +1000 Received: from catullus.agw.bt.co.uk by mailhub.axion.bt.co.uk with SMTP (PP); Wed, 10 Jul 1996 19:24:12 +0100 Received: from isdgate.agw.bt.co.uk (isdgate.agw.bt.co.uk [147.150.219.16]) by catullus.agw.bt.co.uk (8.6.12/8.6.11) with SMTP id TAA21753 for ; Wed, 10 Jul 1996 19:15:53 +0100 Received: by isdgate.agw.bt.co.uk with Microsoft Mail id <31E40193@isdgate.agw.bt.co.uk>; Wed, 10 Jul 96 19:16:35 GMT From: "Burn, David" To: "'Bridge Laws'" Subject: RE: A claim or concession Date: Wed, 10 Jul 96 19:08:00 GMT Message-ID: <31E40193@isdgate.agw.bt.co.uk> Encoding: 97 TEXT X-Mailer: Microsoft Mail V3.0 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk >From David Burn David Stevenson wrote: >Contract 3NT by South: West is on lead. > > -- > -- > 4 > -- 32 -- > 4 -- > T8 92 > -- -- Q > K > 3 > T >West puts his hand face up on the table and says "I'll play the ten of >diamonds then the eight of diamonds and give you the last trick." East >immediately objects, saying "No, I'll win the second diamond, and my >club queen will win the last trick." >(a) Assuming that East keeps his hand hidden while objecting, > How do you rule? >(b) Assuming that East exposes his hand while objecting, > How do you rule? >Another easy one for you all. This problem as stated is indeed trivial. Since neither North nor South has objected to West's claim and East's amendment, L69A applies and the defenders get three tricks in each case. However, we will suppose for the purposes of what follows that North or South has asked for a ruling. What should the Director do? The statement of the problem makes it clear that there has been a claim but no concession (L68 - West has attempted to claim two tricks and concede one; East has immediately objected to the concession of a trick). Further, West has tabled his cards so that East can see them. In case (a) East has not exposed his cards to West, while in case (b) he has - but in both cases he has said that he holds the CQ. (He has also implied that he has a diamond lower than the ten and another diamond higher than the eight, but this will not matter). Finally, East has made a statement that is in effect a second claim, and the status of this needs to be determined. First, what is the position regarding West's exposed cards? L49 says that "whenever a defender...holds a card so that it is possible for his partner to see its face...before he is entitled to do so in the normal course of play or by application of law...each such card becomes a penalty card." But L68 says that "a contestant...claims when he...shows his cards", so it appears that West has the right to show his cards without penalty in the course of making a claim, since a claim is an application of law. This is common sense, of course. This isn't. What is the status of East's cards? L49 says that "whenever a defender...names a card as being in his hand...before he is entitled to do so in the normal course of play or by application of law...each such card becomes a penalty card." In case (a) East has named the CQ before being entitled to do so, and this card is now a penalty card. The point here is that L68B does not give a defender the right to say _why_ he objects to his partner's concession, merely that he does object. If in the course of so doing he names or faces cards, those cards are penalty cards under L49. (If the mere fact that East objects conveys UI to West, L16 may apply.) In case (b) East has tabled his entire hand before being entitled to do so, and under L49 all three of his cards are now penalty cards. What is the status of East's second claim? L68D indicates that it has no status - it must be voided by the Director since it was "play subsequent to a claim or concession" by West. What remains to be done? Well, in case (a) East has the CQ as a penalty card and West has claimed. He has not conceded, so the Director deals only with his statement of claim under L70. West has said that he will play the D10 and the D8; he is at liberty to do so (since he cannot be required by South to play a club, the suit of East's penalty card). East is at liberty to win the D8 with the D9 and cash the CQ; three tricks to the defenders. Note: before giving this ruling the Director must be satisfied that East knew _before_ West's claim that the CQ was a winner. Suppose that South in fact had the CK and the H3; now West's claim would induce East to unblock the D9 on the first round, something that he might have omitted to do if play had proceeded normally. In case (b), all three of East's cards are penalty cards, and South will require that the D9 be played under the D10. Two tricks to the defence. Is this equitable? Not very. Do we need a change to the Laws? Not really - just don't claim as a defender unless you've got the AKQ of trumps, and sometimes not even then. dburn@lnhdent.agw.bt.co.uk From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jul 11 04:53:06 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA24306 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 11 Jul 1996 04:53:06 +1000 Received: from mamos.demon.co.uk (mamos.demon.co.uk [158.152.129.79]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id EAA24296 for ; Thu, 11 Jul 1996 04:52:54 +1000 Date: Wed, 10 Jul 1996 19:40:36 GMT From: mike@mamos.demon.co.uk (michael amos) Reply-To: mike@mamos.demon.co.uk Message-Id: <67@mamos.demon.co.uk> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: A claim or concession X-Mailer: PCElm 1.10 Lines: 50 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In message Jens Brix Christiansen writes: > > > >>> Eric Landau 10.07.96 15:39 >>> > >On Tue, 9 Jul 1996, David Stevenson wrote: > > [snip, you now what he wrote by now] > > >> (a) Assuming that East keeps his hand hidden while objecting, > >> How do you rule? > > >I don't. I require that all of the remaining cards be faced before I make > >any ruling. When West spoke up, play ceased. > > No; when East objected, there was no concession (L68B). Play > continues, but ... I accept that there is no concession but there is IMO a claim and so play does not continue a defender can stop his partner from conceding but i don't see anything which says he can stop him claiming East has stopped West from conceding the last trick - let the TD decide :) > > [more snippage] > > >> Another easy one for you all. > > >OK, David, we know you better than that. What's the catch? > > I think the catch is > > "unless the Director designates otherwise" in L50A. > > If I don't exercise this clause, West's cards become penalty > cards, and South would have the chance to require the H4 as > the lead to trick 11. > > I still think East is claiming, even if he does not show his hand (L68A), > and therefore I don't need to use the "catch" on East's hand. > And I still rule all tricks to EW if anyone contests East's claim. > So Eric and I have the same bottom line: No more tricks to declarer. > > (And I have broken my promise not to post any more today.) > > Jens Brix Christiansen, Denmark > > -- michael amos From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jul 11 05:22:10 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA27946 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 11 Jul 1996 05:22:10 +1000 Received: from mamos.demon.co.uk (mamos.demon.co.uk [158.152.129.79]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id FAA27936 for ; Thu, 11 Jul 1996 05:21:56 +1000 Date: Wed, 10 Jul 1996 19:58:48 GMT From: mike@mamos.demon.co.uk (michael amos) Reply-To: mike@mamos.demon.co.uk Message-Id: <72@mamos.demon.co.uk> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: RE: A claim or concession X-Mailer: PCElm 1.10 Lines: 17 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk you have all got what the two Davids have asked and replied i just cannot recognise that there is a problem here West claims (L68A - any statement to the effect that a contestant will win a specific number of tricks ...) West concedes, but his partner immediately objects, no concession has occurred L68B After any CLAIM or concession play ceases ..... Nowhere in the laws does it seem to say that a claim can be revoked L70A seems to apply As a TD, I have absolutely no problem with this hand EW get their three tricks in both situations Moreover i am personally convinced that it is very unlikely that NS will appeal this ruling - (i'll have to make sure David Burn is not Chairman of Appeals) -- michael amos From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jul 11 07:59:06 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA29595 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 11 Jul 1996 07:59:06 +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 HAA29589 for ; Thu, 11 Jul 1996 07:59:00 +1000 Received: from cph45.ppp.dknet.dk (cph45.ppp.dknet.dk [194.192.100.45]) by pip.dknet.dk (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id XAA28680 for ; Wed, 10 Jul 1996 23:58:50 +0200 From: jd@pip.dknet.dk (Jesper Dybdal) To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: A claim or concession Date: Wed, 10 Jul 1996 23:58:39 +0200 Organization: at home Message-ID: <31e422f8.3387170@pipmail.dknet.dk> References: In-Reply-To: X-Mailer: Forte Agent .99e/32.227 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Wed, 10 Jul 1996 17:11:48 +0200, Jens Brix Christiansen wrote: >I think the catch is > > "unless the Director designates otherwise" in L50A. > >If I don't exercise this clause, West's cards become penalty >cards, and South would have the chance to require the H4 as >the lead to trick 11. > >I still think East is claiming, even if he does not show his hand (L68A), >and therefore I don't need to use the "catch" on East's hand. >And I still rule all tricks to EW if anyone contests East's claim. >So Eric and I have the same bottom line: No more tricks to declarer. There are some interesting technical points here: (a) What if East had not claimed, but just said "No, play on"? (b) What is the order of things happening here? Is it (b1) East cancels West's concession, then East claims; or (b2) East claims, which happens to cancel East's concession. In case (a), we have the interesting situation where West's cards are all penalty cards "unless the Director designates otherwise". In case (b1) we also have that situation, since East has claimed at a time when West had three penalty cards (unless the Director ...). In case (b2) we have to determine whether West's cards were penalty cards at the time of East's claim. They were certainly exposed, and East could see them at the time of his claim. One way to solve the problem would be to always "designate otherwise" in situations where a defender's cards have been exposed because of a concession or claim; i.e., consider the cards shown to be UI but not penalty cards. This also means that we do not have to distinguish between (b1) and (b2), and that it will make no difference whether East claims or just says "play on". In case (a) we can obviously also choose to rule that the cards are penalty cards. West should have made his concession by saying "I take two diamond tricks and concede the third trick" without showing his hand, and now pays the price of one trick for showing his hand (or even two tricks, if we rule that East plays the CQ on the heart). Since it seems clear to me that it is desirable to get the same end result whether East claims or just says "play on", we can only get consistent rulings in the different situations by considering any claim made by East to be made while West has three penalty cards; no line of play by EW can then stop South from demanding the heart from West. So we have two possible attitudes: one that is accordance with the general "find an equitable result" attitude of the claim/concession laws, and another in accordance with the "defenders are to be penalized automatically with penalty cards if they expose their cards" attitude of L49. Personally, I think I prefer the gentle one: find an equitable result (all tricks to EW), no penalty cards. But it would be nice if the laws told us what to do. Quite an interesting "easy one", David! ----------- I just now noticed that though L50A says that an exposed card becomes a penalty card unless the Director designates otherwise, L49 says "... each such card becomes a penalty card (Law 50)" with no "designates otherwise" clause. Since they both deal with the same situation, I'll assume that the lack of such a clause in L49 is an error and that I really am allowed to "designate otherwise". -- Jesper Dybdal From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jul 11 08:52:35 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA29763 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 11 Jul 1996 08:52:35 +1000 Received: from relay-5.mail.demon.net (relay-5.mail.demon.net [158.152.1.48]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id IAA29758 for ; Thu, 11 Jul 1996 08:52:28 +1000 Received: from post.demon.co.uk by relay-5.mail.demon.net id am00590; 10 Jul 96 21:59 +0100 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by relay-3.mail.demon.net id aa08394; 10 Jul 96 21:12 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 10 Jul 1996 20:48:11 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: A claim or concession In-Reply-To: <960710112813_152806240@emout12.mail.aol.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 1.12 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Alan wrote: >David writes: > > Contract 3NT by South: West is on lead. > > -- > -- > 4 > -- 32 -- > 4 -- > T8 92 > -- -- Q > K > 3 > T > > West puts his hand face up on the table and says "I'll play the ten of > diamonds then the eight of diamonds and give you the last trick." East > immediately objects, saying "No, I'll win the second diamond, and my > club queen will win the last trick." > > (a) Assuming that East keeps his hand hidden while objecting, > How do you rule? > > (b) Assuming that East exposes his hand hidden while objecting, > How do you rule? > > Given either scenario, I think L65B applies. Nothing improper has occurred >as a result of E exposing his hand subsequent to the claim by W. I see no >reason to apply L57A. > LAW 65 ARRANGEMENT OF TRICKS B. Keeping Track of the Ownership of Tricks 1. Tricks Won If the player's side has won the trick, the card is pointed lengthwise toward his partner. 2. Tricks Lost If the opponents have won the trick, the card is pointed lengthwise toward the opponents. > Another easy one for you all. I am absolutely speechless. >Make it idiot proof and someone will make a better idiot... Need I say more ... :) :) :) -- 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 Jul 11 08:56:44 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA29783 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 11 Jul 1996 08:56:44 +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 IAA29778 for ; Thu, 11 Jul 1996 08:56:39 +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 SAA21452 for ; Wed, 10 Jul 1996 18:56:36 -0400 (EDT) Received: by cfa183.harvard.edu (5.x/SMI-SVR4) id AA02511; Wed, 10 Jul 1996 18:59:39 -0400 Date: Wed, 10 Jul 1996 18:59:39 -0400 From: willner@cfa183.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Message-Id: <9607102259.AA02511@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: A claim or concession X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > One way to solve the problem would be to always "designate otherwise" > in situations where a defender's cards have been exposed because of a > concession or claim; Surely seems right, at least most of the time. If a defender claims and states a line of play, surely he gets to take advantage of the stated line. Making the defender's cards penalty cards produces the odd result that declarer could make the claimer take a different line. Incidentally, an older version of the Laws made _partner's_ cards penalty cards in the event of a defender's claim. Declarer could force the play of any of those cards. The current law has been softened so that irrational plays are not required, but careless or inferior ones still are. From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jul 11 09:49:27 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA00151 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 11 Jul 1996 09:49:27 +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 JAA00144 for ; Thu, 11 Jul 1996 09:49:22 +1000 Received: from lhost.monmouth.com (ppp14.monmouth.com [205.164.220.46]) by shell.monmouth.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id TAA17153 for ; Wed, 10 Jul 1996 19:44:26 -0400 Message-Id: <199607102344.TAA17153@shell.monmouth.com> Comments: Authenticated sender is From: "Stefanie Rohan" To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Wed, 10 Jul 1996 19:46:08 -400 Subject: Correcting a Revoke X-Confirm-Reading-To: "Stefanie Rohan" X-pmrqc: 1 Priority: normal X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v2.10) Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk O.K., fellas, here's a silly one that randomly occurred to me... According to L63A1, a revoke becomes established when the offending side leads or plays to the next trick. So. Let us suppose that you could have followed suit on the previous trick but did not (and are not in ACBL-land, so you have not been quizzed by partner and ordered to re-inspect your hand!). LHO is declarer, and leads to the next trick; now you have realized your error. Are you allowed to yell 'wait' or otherwise prevent your partner from playing? Or are you in a race to correct your revoke before partner plays? Stefanie Rohan From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jul 11 12:42:38 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id MAA00586 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 11 Jul 1996 12:42:38 +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 MAA00581 for ; Thu, 11 Jul 1996 12:42:32 +1000 From: SuzanneTrl@aol.com Received: by emout16.mail.aol.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) id WAA01439 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Wed, 10 Jul 1996 22:43:36 -0400 Date: Wed, 10 Jul 1996 22:43:36 -0400 Message-ID: <960710224326_235163490@emout16.mail.aol.com> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: RE: A CLAIM OR CONCESSION Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk THIS MESSAGE IS FROM ALAN LEBENDIG'S COMPUTER... ALAN POSTED A RESPONSE THIS MORNING CONCERNING CLAIMS AND HE SPECIFICALLY INSTRUCTED ME TO REFERENCE LAW 68B IN THE POSTING. FOR SOME INEXPLICABLE REASON I QUOTED LAW 65B. I BEG FORGIVENESS FROM ALL SUBSCRIBERS TO BLML. ALAN HAS AGREED TO FORGIVE ME AFTER I SPEND 2 NIGHTS LOCKED UP WITH THE CAT... From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jul 11 16:30:18 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id QAA01281 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 11 Jul 1996 16:30:18 +1000 Received: from relay-5.mail.demon.net (relay-5.mail.demon.net [158.152.1.48]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id QAA01275 for ; Thu, 11 Jul 1996 16:30:11 +1000 Received: from post.demon.co.uk by relay-5.mail.demon.net id ab18690; 11 Jul 96 7:29 +0100 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by relay-3.mail.demon.net id aa24933; 11 Jul 96 0:29 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 11 Jul 1996 00:27:59 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: More on bidding boxes and Law 25 (perhaps) In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 1.12 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Eric Landau wrote: >On Tue, 9 Jul 1996, Kent Burghard wrote: > >> From: David Stevenson >> >> > West puts a 1NT card on the table, simultaneously saying out loud "one >> >spade". Neither North nor East hear her, and both pass. South did hear >> >her so calls the TD. >> >> The last paragraph in the above ACBL example makes it clear >> (to me at least) that the correct ruling in ACBL-land is that West >> opened 1 notrump. If South's director call awakens the others at >> the table to the fact that West intended to open one spade, then >> there would be UI [...] > >I agree with this ruling. Now let's change the situation just a little >bit: > >West puts a 1NT card on the table, simultaneously saying out loud "one >spade". Neither North nor East notices the 1NT card, and both pass. >South did notice it so calls the TD. > >Does this affect the ruling? No. He bid 1NT. I never actually believed this was a L25 problem. -- 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 Jul 11 16:47:15 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id QAA01344 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 11 Jul 1996 16:47:15 +1000 Received: from bos1e.delphi.com (SYSTEM@bos1e.delphi.com [192.80.63.5]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id QAA01339 for ; Thu, 11 Jul 1996 16:47:10 +1000 From: DBLIZZARD@delphi.com Received: from delphi.com by delphi.com (PMDF V5.0-7 #10880) id <01I6XIWU97UE90WSM9@delphi.com> for Bridge-Laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 11 Jul 1996 02:47:06 -0500 (EST) Date: Thu, 11 Jul 1996 02:47:06 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: A claim or concession To: Bridge-Laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Message-id: <01I6XIWU97UG90WSM9@delphi.com> X-VMS-To: INTERNET"Bridge-Laws@rgb.anu.edu.au" MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > you have all got what the two Davids have asked and replied > i just cannot recognise that there is a problem here > West claims (L68A - any statement to the effect that a contestant will win a > specific number of tricks ...) > West concedes, but his partner immediately objects, no concession has occurred > L68B > After any CLAIM or concession play ceases ..... > Nowhere in the laws does it seem to say that a claim can be revoked > L70A seems to apply > As a TD, I have absolutely no problem with this hand > EW get their three tricks in both situations > Moreover i am personally convinced that it is very unlikely that NS will appeal > this ruling - (i'll have to make sure David Burn is not Chairman of Appeals) And anyone appealing this ruling should get a more than a slap on the hand for rules-lawyering of the worst sort (even if correct). My reading of the Laws. LAW 68 defines a claim as 'any statement that a contestant will win a specific number of tricks'. Therefore there is a claim and Law 70 applies. A concession is when a player states he will lost a specific number of tricks. Again there has been a concession so Law 71 also applies. Law 70 states that the Director shall adjudicate the result of the board (Law 68 states that plays cease after any claim or concession, so penalty cards can't apply here, play has ceased). Since the claimer was obviously wrong about his claim (since under normal play HE won't win the 2nd diamond trick, and won't be on lead), TD must determine what will happen in normal play. I would have to be strongly convinced by N-S that East didn't know that his club Queen was good to allow him to unblock the diamonds (basically, N-S would have to have shown their cards before East disputed the claim/concession - and still convice me that he then noticed that his Q was high). David A Blizzard "If I believe entirely in books, better not read books. If I rely entirely on teachers, better not have teachers." - T.T. Liang From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jul 11 16:47:23 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id QAA01361 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 11 Jul 1996 16:47:23 +1000 Received: from bos1d.delphi.com (SYSTEM@bos1d.delphi.com [192.80.63.4]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id QAA01352 for ; Thu, 11 Jul 1996 16:47:17 +1000 From: DBLIZZARD@delphi.com Received: from delphi.com by delphi.com (PMDF V5.0-7 #10880) id <01I6XIWZ0OOS90WSM9@delphi.com> for Bridge-Laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 11 Jul 1996 02:47:12 -0500 (EST) Date: Thu, 11 Jul 1996 02:47:12 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: A claim or concession To: Bridge-Laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Message-id: <01I6XIWZ0OOU90WSM9@delphi.com> X-VMS-To: INTERNET"Bridge-Laws@rgb.anu.edu.au" MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > On Wed, 10 Jul 1996 17:11:48 +0200, Jens Brix Christiansen > wrote: > >I think the catch is > > > > "unless the Director designates otherwise" in L50A. > > > >If I don't exercise this clause, West's cards become penalty > >cards, and South would have the chance to require the H4 as > >the lead to trick 11. > > > >I still think East is claiming, even if he does not show his hand (L68A), > >and therefore I don't need to use the "catch" on East's hand. > >And I still rule all tricks to EW if anyone contests East's claim. > >So Eric and I have the same bottom line: No more tricks to declarer. > > There are some interesting technical points here: > (a) What if East had not claimed, but just said "No, play on"? > (b) What is the order of things happening here? Is it > (b1) East cancels West's concession, then East claims; or > (b2) East claims, which happens to cancel East's concession. > (a) Can't happen (legally anyway). Once a claim or concession is made 'play ceases'. A director must cancel any play made after a claim or concession (Law 68D). I can't see how a card can be 'prematurely' exposed AFTER PLAY CEASES, so Law 50A should be applied. Technically, East has bent Law 68D by stating what will happen or by showing his cards, since NO action may be taken after a claim or concession is disputed until the director arrives. But this is a minor quibble at best. David A Blizzard "If I believe entirely in books, better not read books. If I rely entirely on teachers, better not have teachers." - T.T. Liang From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jul 11 16:51:10 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id QAA01395 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 11 Jul 1996 16:51:10 +1000 Received: from relay-5.mail.demon.net (relay-5.mail.demon.net [158.152.1.48]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id QAA01390 for ; Thu, 11 Jul 1996 16:51:04 +1000 Received: from post.demon.co.uk by relay-5.mail.demon.net id aa19778; 11 Jul 96 7:50 +0100 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by relay-3.mail.demon.net id aa24935; 11 Jul 96 0:29 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 11 Jul 1996 00:27:46 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: More on bidding boxes and Law 25 (perhaps) In-Reply-To: <199607092019.GAA12578@octavia.anu.edu.au> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 1.12 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Kent Burghard wrote: >From: David Stevenson > >> West puts a 1NT card on the table, simultaneously saying out loud "one >>spade". Neither North nor East hear her, and both pass. South did hear >>her so calls the TD. >> >> Since bidding boxes is a matter of regulation, which differs >>geographically, my questions are: >> >> What should the TD do in the USA? > >The ACBL regulations on Bidding Boxes state: > > Choosing a Call Using Bidding Boxes > > A player is obligated to choose a call before touching any card in > the box. Deliberation while touching the bidding box cards may > subject the offending side to the adjustment provisions of Law 16. > A call is considered made when a bidding box card has been taken ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > out of the box with apparent intent. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > > A call may be changed without penalty, under the provisions of > Law 25, only if a player has inadvertently taken out the wrong > bidding box card, and the player corrects, or attempts to correct, > without pause for thought, and LHO has not called. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > > If the Director is reasonably certain that the original call > was a mechanical problem, they should be very > liberal in judging pause for thought. > >In a later section, it gives an example similar to David's case: > > Even with practice and familiarity, accidents will happen > and the "OOPS" rule applies to inadvertent calls or mechanical errors. > > For example: You mean to bid 1 Spade but accidentally play the > 1 Heart card on the table. The director is authorized to permit > you to change your call if it was inadvertent. > > In such a case, some immediate indication is necessary before > LHO has called. The director should be very liberal in judging > whether there was pause for thought. > > If LHO has already taken some action you now have an obligation, > just as with verbal bidding, to continue bidding as though no > irregularity had occurred. > >The last paragraph in the above ACBL example makes it clear >(to me at least) that the correct ruling in ACBL-land is that West >opened 1 notrump. If South's director call awakens the others at >the table to the fact that West intended to open one spade, then >there would be UI caused by West's (usually) improper verbal bid. >The usually in this sentence allows for the exceptions in games >where only some tables are using bidding boxes (for hearing problems, >or other reasons) and if simultaneous verbal bidding is permitted. >This usually only happens at clubs since bidding boxes are used at >most ACBL tournaments. I'm very happy with all this. As in Europe (see Jens's article) the call is 1NT. I find it difficult to imagine anyone considering L25 at all. In another thread it was generally agreed that the status quo was not unreasonable over L25B, with a couple of changes. What I did not realise until I read this was that the American status quo and ours are not in accord. When is a call made in the USA (copied from above)? > A call is considered made when a bidding box card has been taken > out of the box with apparent intent. When is a call made in GB? A call is considered made when it is placed on the table. When is the latest that a call can be changed under L25 in the USA (copied from above)? > and LHO has not called. When is the latest that a call can be changed under L25 in GB? Latest advice (see discussions) seems to be before partner calls. Perhaps we need more consideration? Mind you, I am happy that this is an area where national authorities should differ. -- 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 Jul 11 17:20:11 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id RAA01575 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 11 Jul 1996 17:20:11 +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 RAA01570 for ; Thu, 11 Jul 1996 17:19:48 +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 JAA18265 for ; Thu, 11 Jul 1996 09:17:13 +0200 Received: from CRI-Message_Server by nov.cri.dk with Novell_GroupWise; Thu, 11 Jul 1996 09:18:05 +0200 Message-Id: X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise 4.1 Date: Thu, 11 Jul 1996 09:17:35 +0200 From: Jens Brix Christiansen To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Correcting a Revoke Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Disposition: inline Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk >>> "Stefanie Rohan" 10.07.96 19:46 >>> >O.K., fellas, here's a silly one that randomly occurred to >me... >According to L63A1, a revoke becomes established when the >offending side leads or plays to the next trick. So. Let >us suppose that you could have followed suit on the >previous trick but did not (and are not in ACBL-land, so >you have not been quizzed by partner and ordered to >re-inspect your hand!). LHO is declarer, and leads to the >next trick; now you have realized your error. Are you >allowed to yell 'wait' or otherwise prevent your partner >from playing? Or are you in a race to correct your revoke >before partner plays? Correct procedure is the following, I do believe: 1. "Wait, I have revoked", which is drawing attention to an irregularity. 2. Summon the TD. Thou shalt not correct your own revoke; the TD will instruct you to correct your revoke. Once you have drawn attention to the irregularity, nothing else should happen at the table until the TD arrives, even if you partner is on play holding a singleton in the suit led :-) Jens Brix Christiansen, TD who likes to be called, Denmark From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jul 11 18:47:46 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id SAA01866 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 11 Jul 1996 18:47:46 +1000 Received: from ursa.cus.cam.ac.uk (cusexim@ursa.cus.cam.ac.uk [131.111.8.6]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id SAA01861 for ; Thu, 11 Jul 1996 18:47:38 +1000 Received: from rm10006 by ursa.cus.cam.ac.uk with local (Exim 0.53 #6) id E0ueHPG-0004bT-00; Thu, 11 Jul 1996 09:47:30 +0100 Date: Thu, 11 Jul 1996 09:47:30 +0100 (BST) From: "R. Michaels" To: "R. Michaels" cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Another claim problem In-Reply-To: <9607102259.AA02511@cfa183.harvard.edu> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk The following occurred to a couple of friends of mine a few years ago. Playing in a pretty serious event, an experience player (A) was playing in partnership with a relative novice (B) (certainly a novice at serious duplicate bridge, anyway). On a hand where A was dummy, and B declarer, B claimed with about 6 tricks to go, without stating a line of play. It was later agreed that if this hand been the end of it, the director called, he would have deemed the contract to have made, since it would have been irrational for declarer to play to lose any more tricks at this point (I think it was a 'cash your winners in the correct order to avoid a communications problem' position of a pretty simple type). However, the more experience opponents, who should certainly have known the illegality of what they were doing, insisted that he played on. A sitting as dummy was uncomfortable about this, knowing it to be illegal, but thought that as dummy he was unable to mention this till play was over. Player B was sufficiently flustered and confused by opponents, that he did indeed succeed in losing a trick in this simple situation. At the end of the hand (after going 1 off, I think), A called the director. The director ruled the contract 1 off, since declarer had demonstrated by his play that it was not irrational for _him_ to lose a trick here. In the ensuing argument/discussion, B was told, that he should have called for the director at the moment of the infraction, since he knew the 'continue play' request was illegal. Of course, if play _had_ ceased when it legally should have done, the contract would have made. How do you rule ? Why ? Who do you blame ? I have carefully refrained from mentioning the players or the event, to protect the players and the director involved. It might even have been taken to appeal, I can't recall. Cheers, Robin From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jul 11 20:01:59 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id UAA02234 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 11 Jul 1996 20:01:59 +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 UAA02229 for ; Thu, 11 Jul 1996 20:01:44 +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 MAA20797 for ; Thu, 11 Jul 1996 12:00:07 +0200 Received: from CRI-Message_Server by nov.cri.dk with Novell_GroupWise; Thu, 11 Jul 1996 12:00:54 +0200 Message-Id: X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise 4.1 Date: Thu, 11 Jul 1996 12:00:48 +0200 From: Jens Brix Christiansen To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Another claim problem Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Disposition: inline Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk >>> "R. Michaels" 11.07.96 10:47 >>> [snip] >However, the more experience >opponents, who should certainly have known the illegality of what they >were doing, insisted that he played on. A sitting as dummy was >uncomfortable about this, knowing it to be illegal, but thought that as >dummy he was unable to mention this till play was over. Play *is* over, so A may now call the TD. Moreover, even if play were not over, A is still entitled as dummy to prevent the other players from committing an irregularity, such as playing on after a claim has been made. >Player B was >sufficiently flustered and confused by opponents, that he did indeed >succeed in losing a trick in this simple situation. [snip] > How do you rule ? Why ? Who do you blame ? The play after the claim is immaterial (L68D). The outcome of the contested claim is determined according to L70; I have to take your word for it that for declarer to lose one or more tricks he would have to play in a manner which I would rule "irrational" or "in conflict with his statement". I do not blame anyone. All the players have contributed to an irregularity by not calling the TD at the appropriate time. Of course, I could blame the TD for not looking up L68D when he eventually was called, but I have made too many errors as a TD (and I am one the best) to shout at any TD who is out there trying to do his best. If A is as experienced as you think, you could ask him why he did not appeal a ruling that he thought was wrong? BLML is hardly the place for justice to be done; it certainly has no influence on the result. I would instruct these players about the correct procedure, but I probably would not find any evidence that they were deliberately failing to follow the correct procedure, so I would be happy just to be able to rectify the situation according to the laws. On a general note: Once you make a correct claim, you have protected yourself against any foolish mishaps that might occur on the remaining hand, including revoking, playing the wrong card by mistake, forgetting your intended line of play, and getting distracted by anything. That is part of the game. Thus if the players mistakenly play on after a claim has been contested, and the claiming player makes a stupid mistake which is irrational or in direct conflict with his stated line of play, such a mistake or conflicting action does not affect the TD's assessment of the claim in accordance with L70. The verb in L68D is "voided" -- that is a fairly strong word. Jens Brix Christiansen, Denmark. From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jul 11 20:16:00 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id UAA02295 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 11 Jul 1996 20:16:00 +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 UAA02290 for ; Thu, 11 Jul 1996 20:15:49 +1000 Received: from innet.innet.be (pool03-96.innet.be [194.7.10.80]) by mail.be.innet.net (8.7.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id MAA01791 for ; Thu, 11 Jul 1996 12:15:43 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <31E3AE59.4DC3@innet.be> Date: Wed, 10 Jul 1996 13:21:29 +0000 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.02 (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Bidding boxes -- Insufficient Bid References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I have waited some time with comments, as sooner or later David would come up with a brilliant analysis : David Stevenson wrote: > > > I think part of the problem looking back over the posts is to find > what the difficulty is that you are addressing. The following are > possible: > > (a) Should we allow any change at all? in some cases, yes. > (b) Should we allow a slip-of-the-tongue without pause for thought? obviously yes. > (c) Should we allow a slip-of-the-tongue with pause for thought? I don't like this formulation : if it's SOTT, there can be no pause FOR THOUGHT. If your question is : Should we allow a slip-of-the-tongue with pause ? (delayed awareness of the slip) my answer is yes. > (d) Should we allow a change of mind without pause for thought? How can you change your mind without thinking ? > (e) Should we allow a change of mind with pause for thought? No. > (f) Whichever we decide can a change be made after LHO calls in tempo? I don't see why not, but the laws must provide an answer to the question, what happens next to LHO's call ? > (g) Whichever we decide can a change be made after LHO calls? Same answer. > (h) Whichever we decide can a change be made after partner calls? Same answer, but with even more problems, not now adressed in the rulebook. > (i) How do we define when a call is made? This depends on the manner in which the calls are presented : orally, written, bidding-boxes, BB with screens. Let's wait for the new Laws. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.club.innet.be/~pub02163/index.htm From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jul 11 21:54:54 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id VAA02669 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 11 Jul 1996 21:54:54 +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 VAA02648 for ; Thu, 11 Jul 1996 21:46:50 +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 NAA21281 for ; Thu, 11 Jul 1996 13:08:46 +0200 Received: from CRI-Message_Server by nov.cri.dk with Novell_GroupWise; Thu, 11 Jul 1996 13:09:37 +0200 Message-Id: X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise 4.1 Date: Thu, 11 Jul 1996 13:09:24 +0200 From: Jens Brix Christiansen To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Cc: pk@csd.cri.dk Subject: Question on L42B2 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Disposition: inline Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk This is from real life, Tuesday evening in a Copenhagen club. I am dummy. Defenders lead a diamond, which partner ruffs in his hand with the H5. LHO thinks he won the trick, which I can see by the way he has orients his card from the trick. Both partner and LHO think for a while. Then LHO detaches a card from his hand with the obvious intent to play it. Alert as I am (for once), I stop him with the remark, "Wait, your are not on lead." No one sees his card, and after a brief moment of confusion the three players agree that declarer is on lead, and so everything proceeds according to normal procedure. Am I out of order? It seems that L42B2 only allows me to prevent an irregularity by declarer, not by a defender. Jens Brix Christiansen, Denmark From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jul 11 22:51:44 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id WAA02803 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 11 Jul 1996 22:51:44 +1000 Received: from taurus.cus.cam.ac.uk (cusexim@taurus.cus.cam.ac.uk [131.111.8.48]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id WAA02798 for ; Thu, 11 Jul 1996 22:51:35 +1000 Received: from rm10006 by taurus.cus.cam.ac.uk with local (Exim 0.53 #6) id E0ueLCy-00068l-00; Thu, 11 Jul 1996 13:51:04 +0100 Date: Thu, 11 Jul 1996 13:51:04 +0100 (BST) From: "R. Michaels" To: "R. Michaels" cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Another claim problem In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Thu, 11 Jul 1996, Jens Brix Christiansen wrote: > > > >>> "R. Michaels" 11.07.96 10:47 >>> > [snip] > >However, the more experience > >opponents, who should certainly have known the illegality of what they > >were doing, insisted that he played on. A sitting as dummy was > >uncomfortable about this, knowing it to be illegal, but thought that as > >dummy he was unable to mention this till play was over. > > Play *is* over, so A may now call the TD. Moreover, even if play > were not over, A is still entitled as dummy to prevent the other > players from committing an irregularity, such as playing on after > a claim has been made. Player A was incorrect in his silence, caused by lack of knowledge of the laws, but surely a player cannot be expected to know this. Indeed, a less experienced player, not aware of dummy's restrictions, might have spoken up. > who is out there trying to do his best. If A is as experienced > as you think, you could ask him why he did not appeal a > ruling that he thought was wrong? BLML is hardly the > place for justice to be done; it certainly has no influence > on the result. This occurred over a year ago, and I am not especially interested in 'justice being done'. I had hoped I had carefully phrased my posting to make that clear. The recent claim thread merely recalled this incident to mind, and I thought it might be interesting and entertaining to have it discussed here. I was not directly involved, and have no personal interest in the hand. Cheers, Robin From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jul 11 23:06:30 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA02918 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 11 Jul 1996 23:06:30 +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 XAA02912 for ; Thu, 11 Jul 1996 23:06:25 +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 JAA21730 for ; Thu, 11 Jul 1996 09:06:21 -0400 Date: Thu, 11 Jul 1996 09:06:20 -0400 (EDT) From: Eric Landau To: Bridge Laws Discussion List Subject: Re: A claim or concession In-Reply-To: <01I6XIWZ0OOU90WSM9@delphi.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I think we're overcomplicating this situation. We seem to agree that three tricks to E-W is the equitable result, and I think that the ruling that achieves that result is really rather straightforward. When W made the original "claim or concession," play ceased. L68D makes it clear that play ceases even if the claim/concession is disputed; subsequent application of L70/L71 is entirely in the director's hands. What the players do with their cards after play has ceased doesn't matter. L49 is a red herring. It is applied when a player exposes a card "before he is entitled to do so in the normal course of play or application of law." L68A makes it clear that you are entitled to show your cards when making a claim, so any further adjudication is subject to Chapter 4 Part V and not to L50. W, in his original statement, has specified the exact order in which he will play his remaining three cards. There is no possible justification for subsequently requiring him to play those cards in any other order. After play ceased, E pointed out that if W plays his cards in the order he has specified, the trick he attempted to concede "could not have been lost by any normal play of the play of the remaining cards," so that E-W are entitled to all three remaining tricks by L71B. He is right, and we should so rule. 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 Jul 12 03:09:09 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA06651 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 12 Jul 1996 03:09:09 +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 DAA06642 for ; Fri, 12 Jul 1996 03:09:03 +1000 Received: from cph19.ppp.dknet.dk (cph19.ppp.dknet.dk [194.192.100.19]) by pip.dknet.dk (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id TAA29577 for ; Thu, 11 Jul 1996 19:08:50 +0200 From: jd@pip.dknet.dk (Jesper Dybdal) To: Bridge-Laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: A claim or concession Date: Thu, 11 Jul 1996 19:08:38 +0200 Organization: at home Message-ID: <31e53073.592742@pipmail.dknet.dk> References: <01I6XIWZ0OOU90WSM9@delphi.com> In-Reply-To: <01I6XIWZ0OOU90WSM9@delphi.com> X-Mailer: Forte Agent .99e/32.227 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Thu, 11 Jul 1996 02:47:12 -0500 (EST), DBLIZZARD@delphi.com wrote: >(a) Can't happen (legally anyway). Once a claim or concession is made >'play ceases'. A director must cancel any play made after a claim >or concession (Law 68D). L68B: "... Regardless of the foregoing, if a defender attempts to concede one or more tricks and his partner immediately objects, no concession has occurred; ..." -- Jesper Dybdal From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jul 12 03:09:07 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA06650 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 12 Jul 1996 03:09:07 +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 DAA06640 for ; Fri, 12 Jul 1996 03:08:59 +1000 Received: from cph19.ppp.dknet.dk (cph19.ppp.dknet.dk [194.192.100.19]) by pip.dknet.dk (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id TAA29581 for ; Thu, 11 Jul 1996 19:08:53 +0200 From: jd@pip.dknet.dk (Jesper Dybdal) To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: More on bidding boxes and Law 25 (perhaps) Date: Thu, 11 Jul 1996 19:08:41 +0200 Organization: at home Message-ID: <31e531c8.933382@pipmail.dknet.dk> References: In-Reply-To: X-Mailer: Forte Agent .99e/32.227 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Thu, 11 Jul 1996 00:27:46 +0100, David Stevenson wrote: >When is a call made in the USA (copied from above)? >> A call is considered made when a bidding box card has been taken >> out of the box with apparent intent. >When is a call made in GB? > A call is considered made when it is placed on the table. I would translate our Danish rule as "... taken out of the box clearly for the purpose of being used" - this probably means exactly the same as the American rule above. -- Jesper Dybdal From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jul 12 05:28:37 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA14887 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 12 Jul 1996 05:28:37 +1000 Received: from relay-5.mail.demon.net (relay-5.mail.demon.net [158.152.1.48]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id FAA14876 for ; Fri, 12 Jul 1996 05:28:25 +1000 Received: from post.demon.co.uk by relay-5.mail.demon.net id ay27126; 11 Jul 96 12:22 +0100 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by relay-3.mail.demon.net id aa01505; 11 Jul 96 10:32 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 11 Jul 1996 10:31:01 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: A claim or concession In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 1.12 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Stevenson wrote: Contract 3NT by South: West is on lead. > -- > -- > 4 > -- 32 -- > 4 -- > T8 92 > -- -- Q > K > 3 > T > > West puts his hand face up on the table and says "I'll play the ten of >diamonds then the eight of diamonds and give you the last trick." East >immediately objects, saying "No, I'll win the second diamond, and my >club queen will win the last trick." > >(a) Assuming that East keeps his hand hidden while objecting, > How do you rule? > >(b) Assuming that East exposes his hand hidden while objecting, > How do you rule? > > Another easy one for you all. > Law 68 - Claim or Concession of Tricks A. Claim Defined Any statement to the effect that a contestant will win a specific number of tricks is a claim of those tricks. A contestant also claims when he suggests that play be curtailed, or when he shows his cards (unless he demonstrably did not intend to claim). B. Concession Defined Any statement to the effect that a contestant will lose a specific number of tricks is a concession of those tricks; a claim of some number of tricks is a concession of the remainder, if any. A player concedes all the remaining tricks when he abandons his hand. Regardless of the foregoing, if a defender attempts to concede one or more tricks and his partner immediately objects, no concession has occurred; Law 16, Unauthorized Information, and Law 57A, Premature Play, may apply, so the Director should be summoned forthwith. So according to L68A, West claimed, because he said he would win `a specific number of tricks' (two). According to L68B a claim of two tricks is a concession of one trick. Note that L68B makes it quite clear that if a claim is not for all the remaining tricks then it `is' a concession: in other words they are the same. So a concession of one trick (out of three) and a claim of two tricks (out of three) are the same thing. Now when East objected to the concession (as he clearly did) then, as L68B puts it, `no concession has occurred': this means that the claim is void as well, because a claim `is' the same as a concession in this case. What does this mean in effect? Play continues! michael amos wrote: >1. a claim has occurred - play ceases >2. a concession has occurred >3. - but has been cancelled by other defender >4. TD needed to adjudicate on disputed claim No: play continues: there is no claim. Jens Brix Christiansen wrote: >East is making a statement about later tricks that he expects to win. >Thus he is claiming, and play ends. Had East just said, "No, I >want play to continue", this would have been different. It is quite clear that East is objecting to West's concession: that is the situation that is covered by L68B [`and his partner immediately objects'] so even if he did not use the perfect wording this makes it clear that `no concession has occurred': since `a claim of some number of tricks is a concession of the remainder' there has been no claim or concession. Eric Landau wrote: > When West spoke up, play ceased. When East spoke up, it became >established that no concession had occurred. At that point, the >result becomes a matter for adjudication, and I must see all the >remaining cards. East's immmediate verbal objection cancelled any >concession. Not true. After East spoke up, because no concession had occurred, there should be no adjudication, since play continues. Alan LeBendig wrote: > Given either scenario, I think L65B applies. Nothing improper has >occurred as a result of E exposing his hand subsequent to the claim by >W. I see no reason to apply L57A. Assuming he meant L68B he seems not to have addressed the point that there was no concession. Robin Barker wrote: >1) West has claimed and conceded the last trick. >2) East has objected to the concession, so no concession has occured (68B). >Q. Has West's claim also 'not occured': I don't think so. He asked the right question: pity about the wrong answer. David Burn wrote: >The statement of the problem makes it clear that there has been a claim >but no concession (L68 - West has attempted to claim two tricks and >concede one; East has immediately objected to the concession of a trick). The wording of L68B makes this impossible: `a claim of some number of tricks is a concession of the remainder, if any': note the word `is'. they are the same: you cannot have one without the other. michael amos wrote: > I accept that there is no concession but there is IMO a claim and so >play does not continue a defender can stop his partner from conceding >but i don't see anything which says he can stop him claiming. >East has stopped West from conceding the last trick - let the TD decide Again, contrary to the wording of L68B. David A Blizzard wrote: > My reading of the Laws. LAW 68 defines a claim as 'any statement that >a contestant will win a specific number of tricks'. >Therefore there is a claim and Law 70 applies. A concession is when >a player states he will lost a specific number of tricks. Again >there has been a concession so Law 71 also applies. > Law 70 states that the Director shall adjudicate the result of the >board (Law 68 states that plays cease after any claim or concession, >so penalty cards can't apply here, play has ceased). This completely ignores the question of a concession being cancelled so is wrong. David A Blizzard wrote: > (a) Can't happen (legally anyway). Once a claim or concession is made >'play ceases'. A director must cancel any play made after a claim >or concession (Law 68D). > I can't see how a card can be 'prematurely' exposed AFTER >PLAY CEASES, so Law 50A should be applied. It can be inferred from this part of the Law that play continues, which is really clear anyway. michael amos wrote: > West claims (L68A - any statement to the effect that a contestant will >win a specific number of tricks ...) > West concedes, but his partner immediately objects, no concession has >occurred (L68B) > After any CLAIM or concession play ceases ..... > Nowhere in the laws does it seem to say that a claim can be revoked > L70A seems to apply There is no concession: a claim is a concession (unless for all or none of the remaining tricks): therefore there is no claim: therefore no L70A. Steve Willner wrote: > If a defender claims and states a line of play, surely he gets to >take advantage of the stated line. Making the defender's cards penalty >cards produces the odd result that declarer could make the claimer take >a different line. Again, the equivalence between claim and concession seems to be missed. Jens Brix Christiansen wrote: >No; when East objected, there was no concession (L68B). Play >continues, but ... > I think the catch is "unless the Director designates otherwise" in >L50A. If I don't exercise this clause, West's cards become penalty >cards, and South would have the chance to require the H4 as the lead to >trick 11. I still think East is claiming, even if he does not show his >hand (L68A), and therefore I don't need to use the "catch" on East's >hand. And I still rule all tricks to EW if anyone contests East's >claim. So Eric and I have the same bottom line: No more tricks to >declarer. At least Jens realises that play continues. However he is not really ruling according to the Laws even so. What happened? West made a claim and concession. Then what? East objected. You cannot say he didn't. Now the Law actually refers to this procedure [`and his partner immediately objects'] so that Law covers it. It is not a claim: it is an objection, a procedure covered by the Laws. Maybe East did not object in the correct way but to say he claimed is ludicrous. He objected. So play continues: there is no claim. Jesper Dybdal wrote: >So we have two possible attitudes: one that is accordance with the >general "find an equitable result" attitude of the claim/concession >laws, and another in accordance with the "defenders are to be >penalized automatically with penalty cards if they expose their cards" >attitude of L49. >Personally, I think I prefer the gentle one: find an equitable result >(all tricks to EW), no penalty cards. But it would be nice if the >laws told us what to do. Very nice and gentle, Jesper. However the Laws clearly tell us what to do, so I think we should follow them. There is no basis in Law for giving all the tricks to EW. In effect you are giving him an adjustment out of the kindness of your heart: please re-read L12B. 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. ------------------ Let us take the path of Law. West claimed and made a concession, since they are equivalent. East objected. Accordingly no concession occurred, and it follows that no claim occurred. Thus play continues. Law 49 - Exposure of a Defender's Cards Whenever a defender faces a card on the table, holds a card so that it is possible for his partner to see its face, or names a card as being in his hand, before he is entitled to do so in the normal course of play or application of law, (penalty) each such card becomes a penalty card (Law 50); but see the footnote to Law 68, when a defender has made a statement concerning an uncompleted trick currently in progress. > West puts his hand face up on the table and ... All West's cards become major penalty cards. > says "I'll play the ten of diamonds then the eight of diamonds and >give you the last trick." East immediately objects, saying "No, I'll >win the second diamond, and my club queen will win the last trick." >(a) Assuming that East keeps his hand hidden while objecting, > How do you rule? East has named a card [the club queen] which becomes a major penalty card. South may choose West's lead [L51A] and will presumably choose the H4, East being forced to discard his CQ. South will then make two tricks presumably. Note that this is an assumption because the TD is not assigning anything. Play continues, and if South decides to ask for the DT instead of the H4, so be it. > >(b) Assuming that East exposes his hand hidden while objecting, > How do you rule? All East's cards become major penalty cards, though this still leads (presumably) to two tricks. ------------------ Jesper Dybdal wrote: >I just now noticed that though L50A says that an exposed card becomes >a penalty card unless the Director designates otherwise, L49 says "... >each such card becomes a penalty card (Law 50)" with no "designates >otherwise" clause. Since they both deal with the same situation, I'll >assume that the lack of such a clause in L49 is an error and that I >really am allowed to "designate otherwise". The EBL guide says, and I agree, that this `designates otherwise' is for the sole purpose of stopping players taking advantage of each other. The only time you `designate otherwise' is when the players decided it was a penalty card without calling the TD. Then they call you to enforce the lead penalties. Since the defenders did not know the Law, they may be suffering, so if the know-alls can't be bothered to call the TD [or maybe perceived an advantage in not calling the TD] then the TD should designate the card not to be a penalty card. I am not sure why there is so much apparent sympathy for East-West. When I was a young player, I was taught that, when making a claim in defence, I should *never* let partner see my cards until the claim was accepted. Furthermore, if I as a defender, disagreed with a claim of partner's, I was taught not to let anyone see my hand, just to say I don't agree. As far as I am concerned, East and West have behaved like two very silly people, and have got what they fully deserved. > Another easy one for you all. Eric Landau wrote: >OK, David, we know you better than that. What's the catch? Jens Brix Christiansen wrote: >I think the catch is > "unless the Director designates otherwise" in L50A. Jesper Dybdal wrote: >Quite an interesting "easy one", David! I don't think there was a catch really: seemed quite easy to me! --------------- I received the above hand from a colleague a year or so ago for use in one of the many TD training courses for which I provide the hands. It did not seem too difficult to me, so without much thought I included it this year in the Overnight Quiz for our County Directors [in between Club Directors and Panel Directors: there are 50 of the latter at four different grades that look after all National competitions, big and small, between them]. When I gave out the answers to the County Directors I thought about this for the first time, and found myself in a 30 minute argument with them, which I finally had to chop off so we could get on. I told them that they would get a definitive answer by he end of the course. At the end I gave the above answer, which was greeted with everything between sullen disbelief and one of my colleagues saying "That doesn't sound right!". She has since asked Max Bavin, the EBU's CTD, who said something along the lines of "David seems to be correct as usual, but I don't like it!". I have also received disagreement from Bob King, another TD, whose wife, Rachael, scored the best marks on the course (and she doesn't agree with me, either). So the score to date is as follows: Agreeing with David: Max Bavin EBU CTD Disagreeing with David: Steve Willner USA Alan LeBendig USA Eric Landau USA David A Blizzard USA Jesper Dybal DBF TD Jens Brix Christiansen DBF TD David Burn EBU L&EC Chairman Michael Amos EBU TD Robin Barker EBU TD Bob King EBU TD Gill Pain EBU TD Rachael King New EBU County TD 17 other members of the County course See if I care! -- 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 Jul 12 06:50:26 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA15530 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 12 Jul 1996 06:50:26 +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 GAA15520 for ; Fri, 12 Jul 1996 06:50:19 +1000 Received: from lhost.monmouth.com (ppp42.monmouth.com [205.164.220.74]) by shell.monmouth.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id QAA21493 for ; Thu, 11 Jul 1996 16:45:22 -0400 Message-Id: <199607112045.QAA21493@shell.monmouth.com> Comments: Authenticated sender is From: "Stefanie Rohan" To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Thu, 11 Jul 1996 16:47:06 -400 Subject: Re: More on bidding boxes and Law 25 (perhaps) X-Confirm-Reading-To: "Stefanie Rohan" X-pmrqc: 1 Priority: normal X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v2.10) Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Jesper Dybal wrote: > On Thu, 11 Jul 1996 00:27:46 +0100, David Stevenson > wrote: > >When is a call made in the USA (copied from above)? > >> A call is considered made when a bidding box card has been taken > >> out of the box with apparent intent. > >When is a call made in GB? > > A call is considered made when it is placed on the table. > > I would translate our Danish rule as "... taken out of the box clearly > for the purpose of being used" - this probably means exactly the same > as the American rule above. I don't think that the Danish and American rules are the same; I believe that David stated the American rule correctly, but remember that the lack of intent can be established well after the card is placed on the table (as when it turns out you have made an insufficient bid!) Stefanie From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jul 12 06:50:27 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA15531 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 12 Jul 1996 06:50:27 +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 GAA15521 for ; Fri, 12 Jul 1996 06:50:21 +1000 Received: from lhost.monmouth.com (ppp42.monmouth.com [205.164.220.74]) by shell.monmouth.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id QAA21499 for ; Thu, 11 Jul 1996 16:45:24 -0400 Message-Id: <199607112045.QAA21499@shell.monmouth.com> Comments: Authenticated sender is From: "Stefanie Rohan" To: Bridge-Laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Thu, 11 Jul 1996 16:47:06 -400 Subject: Re: A claim or concession X-Confirm-Reading-To: "Stefanie Rohan" X-pmrqc: 1 Priority: normal X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v2.10) Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Jesper Dybal wrote: > On Thu, 11 Jul 1996 02:47:12 -0500 (EST), DBLIZZARD@delphi.com wrote: > >(a) Can't happen (legally anyway). Once a claim or concession is made > >'play ceases'. A director must cancel any play made after a claim > >or concession (Law 68D). > > L68B: "... Regardless of the foregoing, if a defender attempts to > concede one or more tricks and his partner immediately objects, no > concession has occurred; ..." Yes, and it goes on to specify that UI (L16) or Premature Play (L57A) may apply. So it seems as if the situation is clearly spelled out in the Laws. Declarer can force East to unblock the diamonds (57A1/2), and will thus win the last trick. I think that perhaps there is a general feeling that this is a bit unfair; that West is being unduly punished for a small mistake, and N-S are getting something they don't deserve. Well, at least West will be more careful next time. The other night, I claimed down one, cursing the distribution -- the second round of hearts had gotten ruffed. As RHO (ruffer) turned over the rest of her cards, I happened to spot several small hearts in her hand! I escaped this time, but I learned a lesson and will be more careful in the future -- at least for one or two weeks! Stefanie > > -- > Jesper Dybdal > > From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jul 12 16:59:20 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id QAA17695 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 12 Jul 1996 16:59:20 +1000 Received: from bos1e.delphi.com (SYSTEM@bos1e.delphi.com [192.80.63.5]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id QAA17690 for ; Fri, 12 Jul 1996 16:59:14 +1000 From: DBLIZZARD@delphi.com Received: from delphi.com by delphi.com (PMDF V5.0-7 #10880) id <01I6YXLL59RA91ZFJM@delphi.com> for Bridge-Laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 12 Jul 1996 02:58:42 -0500 (EST) Date: Fri, 12 Jul 1996 02:58:42 -0500 (EST) Subject: Claim or concession To: Bridge-Laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Message-id: <01I6YXLL59RC91ZFJM@delphi.com> X-VMS-To: INTERNET"Bridge-Laws@rgb.anu.edu.au" MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Jesper Dybdal wrote: >On Thu, 11 Jul 1996 02:47:12 -0500 (EST), DBLIZZARD@delphi.com wrote: >>(a) Can't happen (legally anyway). Once a claim or concession is made >>'play ceases'. A director must cancel any play made after a claim >>or concession (Law 68D). > >L68B: "... Regardless of the foregoing, if a defender attempts to >concede one or more tricks and his partner immediately objects, no >concession has occurred; ..." True. The concession is cancelled. However, the claim isn't, in my reading of the Laws. Law 68A & 68B have overlap when you intend to win certain tricks & lose others then you are both claiming & conceding. A concession can be cancelled (specifically in the instance you have quoted), but a claim can't be (unless it is when the concession is canceled...but this certainly is not spelled out in the Laws). Even if the 'claim' is cancelled, UI certainly cannot be inferred from the actual hand, the claimer has already spelled out how he is going to play the cards, and little information has been given to his partner & none that will really effect how he plays his cards. David A Blizzard "If I believe entirely in books, better not read books. If I rely entirely on teachers, better not have teachers." - T.T. Liang From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jul 12 20:38:07 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id UAA18637 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 12 Jul 1996 20:38:07 +1000 Received: from mailhub.axion.bt.co.uk (mailhub.axion.bt.co.uk [132.146.5.4]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id UAA18632 for ; Fri, 12 Jul 1996 20:37:59 +1000 Received: from catullus.agw.bt.co.uk by mailhub.axion.bt.co.uk with SMTP (PP); Fri, 12 Jul 1996 11:36:50 +0100 Received: from isdgate.agw.bt.co.uk (isdgate.agw.bt.co.uk [147.150.219.16]) by catullus.agw.bt.co.uk (8.6.12/8.6.11) with SMTP id LAA10657; Fri, 12 Jul 1996 11:20:46 +0100 Received: by isdgate.agw.bt.co.uk with Microsoft Mail id <31E6353A@isdgate.agw.bt.co.uk>; Fri, 12 Jul 96 11:21:30 GMT From: "Burn, David" To: "'Bridge Laws'" , mike Subject: RE: A claim or concession Date: Fri, 12 Jul 96 11:19:00 GMT Message-ID: <31E6353A@isdgate.agw.bt.co.uk> Encoding: 58 TEXT X-Mailer: Microsoft Mail V3.0 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Mike [much familiar stuff deleted] >> First, what is the position regarding West's exposed cards? L49 says that >> "whenever a defender...holds a card so that it is possible for his >> partner to see its face...before he is entitled to do so in the normal >> course of play >surely this is the point - (with humble respect grovel grovel oh great L&E >chairperson) that you have missed :) play is not normal indeed has ceased >once partner claimed West's cards are exposed because West made the first claim. This happened in the normal course of play, so West's cards are not penalty cards. I might accept your remarks in the context of _East's_ cards... >> This isn't. What is the status of East's cards? L49 says that "whenever a >> defender...names a card as being in his hand...before he is entitled to >> do so in the normal course of play or by application of law...each such >> card becomes a penalty card." In case (a) East has named the CQ before >> being entitled to do so, and this card is now a penalty card. The point >> here is that L68B does not give a defender the right to say _why_ he >> objects to his partner's concession, merely that he does object. If in >> the course of so doing he names or faces cards, those cards are penalty >> cards under L49. ...but I don't, because my view is that when partner claims you are not entitled to show your own cards and voice your specific objections to the claim. You are entitled only to say "I object", or "Play on", or words of like import. The phrase "in the normal course of play" is confusing and unfortunate. Suppose in the middle of the hand a fire alarm goes off (a not uncommon occurrence). Are you allowed to take your cards to the car park with you and show them to partner, secure in the knowledge that play is no longer following its normal course? I don't think so. Regards David From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jul 13 03:20:35 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA23165 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 13 Jul 1996 03:20:35 +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 DAA23155 for ; Sat, 13 Jul 1996 03:20:21 +1000 Received: from cph4.ppp.dknet.dk (cph4.ppp.dknet.dk [194.192.100.4]) by pip.dknet.dk (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id TAA10620 for ; Fri, 12 Jul 1996 19:20:13 +0200 From: jd@pip.dknet.dk (Jesper Dybdal) To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: More on bidding boxes and Law 25 (perhaps) Date: Fri, 12 Jul 1996 19:20:02 +0200 Organization: at home Message-ID: <31e687bf.4930960@pipmail.dknet.dk> References: <199607112045.QAA21493@shell.monmouth.com> In-Reply-To: <199607112045.QAA21493@shell.monmouth.com> X-Mailer: Forte Agent .99e/32.227 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Thu, 11 Jul 1996 16:47:06 -400, "Stefanie Rohan" wrote: >Jesper Dybal wrote: >> On Thu, 11 Jul 1996 00:27:46 +0100, David Stevenson >> wrote: >> >When is a call made in the USA (copied from above)? >> >> A call is considered made when a bidding box card has been taken >> >> out of the box with apparent intent. >> >When is a call made in GB? >> > A call is considered made when it is placed on the table. >> >> I would translate our Danish rule as "... taken out of the box clearly >> for the purpose of being used" - this probably means exactly the same >> as the American rule above. > >I don't think that the Danish and American rules are the same; >I believe that David stated the American rule correctly, but >remember that the lack of intent can be established well after >the card is placed on the table (as when it turns out you have >made an insufficient bid!) There are several phases to making a call. In Denmark these are: (a) Before the card has been taken out of the box. In this phase, no call has been made, and if you change your mind you just grap another card - though perhaps partner has now got UI. (b) After the card has been taken out of the box there is a period where the call has been made but where you are allowed to change it if it was inadvertent. This period is over when the player has realized what he has actually bid and then "pauses for thought". By the Danish regulations, this period is also over when LHO has completely finished calling in a normal tempo - though the legality of this rule is doubtful. (c) After the (b) phase, the call is made and cannot be changed. I would guess that the Danish and American rules are the same: "intent" in the American rules should probably be read as "intent to call", not necessarily as "intent to make the particular call that the player happened to get hold of by mistake" - this is confirmed by the word "apparent". Otherwise, you would have no need for L25A at all, since there is no need to _change_ a call when it hasn't been made. -- Jesper Dybdal From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jul 13 20:41:21 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id UAA25774 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 13 Jul 1996 20:41:21 +1000 Received: from mailhub.axion.bt.co.uk (mailhub.axion.bt.co.uk [132.146.5.4]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id UAA25769 for ; Sat, 13 Jul 1996 20:41:13 +1000 Received: from catullus.agw.bt.co.uk by mailhub.axion.bt.co.uk with SMTP (PP); Sat, 13 Jul 1996 11:40:26 +0100 Received: from isdgate.agw.bt.co.uk (isdgate.agw.bt.co.uk [147.150.219.16]) by catullus.agw.bt.co.uk (8.6.12/8.6.11) with SMTP id LAA16301 for ; Sat, 13 Jul 1996 11:37:46 +0100 Received: by isdgate.agw.bt.co.uk with Microsoft Mail id <31E78AB5@isdgate.agw.bt.co.uk>; Sat, 13 Jul 96 11:38:29 GMT From: "Burn, David" To: "'Bridge Laws'" Subject: RE: A claim or concession Date: Sat, 13 Jul 96 11:38:00 GMT Message-ID: <31E78AB5@isdgate.agw.bt.co.uk> Encoding: 449 TEXT X-Mailer: Microsoft Mail V3.0 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk >From David Burn David Stevenson wrote: Contract 3NT by South: West is on lead. > -- > -- > 4 > -- 32 -- > 4 -- > T8 92 > -- -- Q > K > 3 > T > > West puts his hand face up on the table and says "I'll play the ten of >diamonds then the eight of diamonds and give you the last trick." East >immediately objects, saying "No, I'll win the second diamond, and my >club queen will win the last trick." > >(a) Assuming that East keeps his hand hidden while objecting, > How do you rule? > >(b) Assuming that East exposes his hand hidden while objecting, > How do you rule? > > Another easy one for you all. > Law 68 - Claim or Concession of Tricks A. Claim Defined Any statement to the effect that a contestant will win a specific number of tricks is a claim of those tricks. A contestant also claims when he suggests that play be curtailed, or when he shows his cards (unless he demonstrably did not intend to claim). B. Concession Defined Any statement to the effect that a contestant will lose a specific number of tricks is a concession of those tricks; a claim of some number of tricks is a concession of the remainder, if any. A player concedes all the remaining tricks when he abandons his hand. Regardless of the foregoing, if a defender attempts to concede one or more tricks and his partner immediately objects, no concession has occurred; Law 16, Unauthorized Information, and Law 57A, Premature Play, may apply, so the Director should be summoned forthwith. So according to L68A, West claimed, because he said he would win `a specific number of tricks' (two). According to L68B a claim of two tricks is a concession of one trick. Note that L68B makes it quite clear that if a claim is not for all the remaining tricks then it `is' a concession: in other words they are the same. So a concession of one trick (out of three) and a claim of two tricks (out of three) are the same thing. Now when East objected to the concession (as he clearly did) then, as L68B puts it, `no concession has occurred': this means that the claim is void as well, because a claim `is' the same as a concession in this case. What does this mean in effect? Play continues! This won't wash, David. West has in effect made two statements: (1) I will win tricks with the D10 and the D8 (2) I will concede the last trick (1) is a claim and (2) is a concession. You assert that (1) is also a concession because a claim and a concession are equivalent according to L68B. I do not believe that this is entirely correct, since L68A implies that claims do not have to be accompanied by a statement about the number of tricks that the contestant will win; claims not so accompanied cannot be concessions. But this is not relevant. East has objected to statement (2) - that West will concede the last trick. This statement is therefore deemed not to have occurred. Statement (1) remains, and play cannot continue until it has been addressed (since it is a claim). East has also objected to statement (1) in that he disputes the fact that West will win a trick with the D8. But this does not constitute an objection to a concession under L68B; West's assertion that he will win a trick with the D8 is not a concession. You may say that by objecting to part of West's statement East has objected to the totality of it, and since the totality of it constitutes a concession, L68B should be applied. But I see no reason for this: suppose a player says: "I will give you the last trick and Law 25B is a wonderful piece of legislation". East's objection to the second part of this statement is in no way an objection to the concession. michael amos wrote: >1. a claim has occurred - play ceases >2. a concession has occurred >3. - but has been cancelled by other defender >4. TD needed to adjudicate on disputed claim No: play continues: there is no claim. Yes, there is. Jens Brix Christiansen wrote: >East is making a statement about later tricks that he expects to win. >Thus he is claiming, and play ends. Had East just said, "No, I >want play to continue", this would have been different. It is quite clear that East is objecting to West's concession: that is the situation that is covered by L68B [`and his partner immediately objects'] so even if he did not use the perfect wording this makes it clear that `no concession has occurred': since `a claim of some number of tricks is a concession of the remainder' there has been no claim or concession. Yes, there has. Eric Landau wrote: > When West spoke up, play ceased. When East spoke up, it became >established that no concession had occurred. At that point, the >result becomes a matter for adjudication, and I must see all the >remaining cards. East's immmediate verbal objection cancelled any >concession. Not true. After East spoke up, because no concession had occurred, there should be no adjudication, since play continues. Even if there had not been a claim, this would be nonsense; East and West have told each other what their hands are, and somebody needs to adjudicate on that! Alan LeBendig wrote: > Given either scenario, I think L65B applies. Nothing improper has >occurred as a result of E exposing his hand subsequent to the claim by >W. I see no reason to apply L57A. Assuming he meant L68B he seems not to have addressed the point that there was no concession. He did mean 68B, of course. And although there was no concession, there is still a claim to be dealt with. Robin Barker wrote: >1) West has claimed and conceded the last trick. >2) East has objected to the concession, so no concession has occured (68B). >Q. Has West's claim also 'not occured': I don't think so. He asked the right question: pity about the wrong answer. It wasn't the wrong answer. David Burn wrote: >The statement of the problem makes it clear that there has been a claim >but no concession (L68 - West has attempted to claim two tricks and >concede one; East has immediately objected to the concession of a trick). The wording of L68B makes this impossible: `a claim of some number of tricks is a concession of the remainder, if any': note the word `is'. they are the same: you cannot have one without the other. True (up to a point). But you can have both, as in this case, and you can object to one without objecting to both. michael amos wrote: > I accept that there is no concession but there is IMO a claim and so >play does not continue a defender can stop his partner from conceding >but i don't see anything which says he can stop him claiming. >East has stopped West from conceding the last trick - let the TD decide Again, contrary to the wording of L68B. East has also stopped West from winning the penultimate trick. This has to be dealt with; play cannot continue. David A Blizzard wrote: > My reading of the Laws. LAW 68 defines a claim as 'any statement that >a contestant will win a specific number of tricks'. >Therefore there is a claim and Law 70 applies. A concession is when >a player states he will lost a specific number of tricks. Again >there has been a concession so Law 71 also applies. > Law 70 states that the Director shall adjudicate the result of the >board (Law 68 states that plays cease after any claim or concession, >so penalty cards can't apply here, play has ceased). This completely ignores the question of a concession being cancelled so is wrong. It isn't wrong. It's right as far as it goes, which isn't far enough. David A Blizzard wrote: > (a) Can't happen (legally anyway). Once a claim or concession is made >'play ceases'. A director must cancel any play made after a claim >or concession (Law 68D). > I can't see how a card can be 'prematurely' exposed AFTER >PLAY CEASES, so Law 50A should be applied. It can be inferred from this part of the Law that play continues, which is really clear anyway. True. But this Law is not the one that should be applied. michael amos wrote: > West claims (L68A - any statement to the effect that a contestant will >win a specific number of tricks ...) > West concedes, but his partner immediately objects, no concession has >occurred (L68B) > After any CLAIM or concession play ceases ..... > Nowhere in the laws does it seem to say that a claim can be revoked > L70A seems to apply There is no concession: a claim is a concession (unless for all or none of the remaining tricks): therefore there is no claim: therefore no L70A. There is still a claim. The fact that it is being contested by East rather than by North or South does not prevent L70 from applying. Steve Willner wrote: > If a defender claims and states a line of play, surely he gets to >take advantage of the stated line. Making the defender's cards penalty >cards produces the odd result that declarer could make the claimer take >a different line. Again, the equivalence between claim and concession seems to be missed. It isn't a complete equivalence. If a player says "I'll win these two tricks and give you the last one", he is not speaking tautologically. Jens Brix Christiansen wrote: >No; when East objected, there was no concession (L68B). Play >continues, but ... > I think the catch is "unless the Director designates otherwise" in >L50A. If I don't exercise this clause, West's cards become penalty >cards, and South would have the chance to require the H4 as the lead to >trick 11. I still think East is claiming, even if he does not show his >hand (L68A), and therefore I don't need to use the "catch" on East's >hand. And I still rule all tricks to EW if anyone contests East's >claim. So Eric and I have the same bottom line: No more tricks to >declarer. At least Jens realises that play continues. However he is not really ruling according to the Laws even so. What happened? West made a claim and concession. Then what? East objected. You cannot say he didn't. No one is saying that he didn't. What I and others are saying is that if a player makes two statements, one of which is a claim and the other a concession, you can object to one without objecting to the other, and the cancellation of one does not involve the cancellation of the other. Now the Law actually refers to this procedure [`and his partner immediately objects'] so that Law covers it. It is not a claim: it is an objection, a procedure covered by the Laws. Maybe East did not object in the correct way but to say he claimed is ludicrous. East made a statement to the effect that he would win tricks. If that's not a claim under L68, then I don't know what is. To say that East's statement ("I will win tricks with the D9 and the CQ") was _not_ a claim is truly ludicrous. It was not a _valid_ claim, of course, because it was made after play ceased as a result of West's claim, but a claim it most certainly was. He objected. So play continues: there is no claim. Yes, there is. Jesper Dybdal wrote: >So we have two possible attitudes: one that is accordance with the >general "find an equitable result" attitude of the claim/concession >laws, and another in accordance with the "defenders are to be >penalized automatically with penalty cards if they expose their cards" >attitude of L49. >Personally, I think I prefer the gentle one: find an equitable result >(all tricks to EW), no penalty cards. But it would be nice if the >laws told us what to do. Very nice and gentle, Jesper. However the Laws clearly tell us what to do, so I think we should follow them. No, they don't. The Laws are not at all clear on this point, as this discussion has served to point out. There is no basis in Law for giving all the tricks to EW. Yes, there is. [L12B snipped] ------------------ Let us take the path of Law. West claimed and made a concession, since they are equivalent. West claimed _and_ made a concession. There are two statements by West that must be addressed. East objected. Accordingly no concession occurred, and it follows that no claim occurred. Thus play continues. No, it doesn't. East objected to the concession, not the claim. Play ceases. Law 49 - Exposure of a Defender's Cards Whenever a defender faces a card on the table, holds a card so that it is possible for his partner to see its face, or names a card as being in his hand, before he is entitled to do so in the normal course of play or application of law, (penalty) each such card becomes a penalty card (Law 50); but see the footnote to Law 68, when a defender has made a statement concerning an uncompleted trick currently in progress. > West puts his hand face up on the table and ... All West's cards become major penalty cards. No, they don't. And they wouldn't even if your argument was correct. West is entitled to table his cards in the course of making a claim - L68 makes this quite clear. No card exposed by a defender who claims can become a penalty card under L49. > says "I'll play the ten of diamonds then the eight of diamonds and >give you the last trick." East immediately objects, saying "No, I'll >win the second diamond, and my club queen will win the last trick." >(a) Assuming that East keeps his hand hidden while objecting, > How do you rule? East has named a card [the club queen] which becomes a major penalty card. True, as I stated in my earlier reply. South may choose West's lead [L51A] and will presumably choose the H4, East being forced to discard his CQ. South will then make two tricks presumably. Note that this is an assumption because the TD is not assigning anything. Play continues, and if South decides to ask for the DT instead of the H4, so be it. > >(b) Assuming that East exposes his hand hidden while objecting, > How do you rule? All East's cards become major penalty cards, though this still leads (presumably) to two tricks. I missed this in my earlier analysis. East's cards are indeed penalty cards (but West's are not), so instead of requiring East to unblock the D9 under the 10, South will forbid West from leading a diamond and compel East to discard the CQ on the HK, leading to two tricks for NS rather than one. ------------------ Jesper Dybdal wrote: >I just now noticed that though L50A says that an exposed card becomes >a penalty card unless the Director designates otherwise, L49 says "... >each such card becomes a penalty card (Law 50)" with no "designates >otherwise" clause. Since they both deal with the same situation, I'll >assume that the lack of such a clause in L49 is an error and that I >really am allowed to "designate otherwise". The EBL guide says, and I agree, that this `designates otherwise' is for the sole purpose of stopping players taking advantage of each other. The only time you `designate otherwise' is when the players decided it was a penalty card without calling the TD. Then they call you to enforce the lead penalties. Since the defenders did not know the Law, they may be suffering, so if the know-alls can't be bothered to call the TD [or maybe perceived an advantage in not calling the TD] then the TD should designate the card not to be a penalty card. I agree with this, though the Law as worded appears to give the Director greater powers. I am not sure why there is so much apparent sympathy for East-West. When I was a young player, I was taught that, when making a claim in defence, I should *never* let partner see my cards until the claim was accepted. Sensible, and necessary under an earlier version of the Laws, but not in the current situation. I repeat: a defender is entitled to show his cards in order to claim; they do not become penalty cards; they must be dealt with under L70 not L49. Furthermore, if I as a defender, disagreed with a claim of partner's, I was taught not to let anyone see my hand, just to say I don't agree. This is certainly correct. As far as I am concerned, East and West have behaved like two very silly people, and have got what they fully deserved. They speak well of you! > Another easy one for you all. Eric Landau wrote: >OK, David, we know you better than that. What's the catch? Jens Brix Christiansen wrote: >I think the catch is > "unless the Director designates otherwise" in L50A. Jesper Dybdal wrote: >Quite an interesting "easy one", David! I don't think there was a catch really: seemed quite easy to me! And to me. But... dburn@lnhdent.agw.bt.co.uk --------------- I received the above hand from a colleague a year or so ago for use in one of the many TD training courses for which I provide the hands. It did not seem too difficult to me, so without much thought I included it this year in the Overnight Quiz for our County Directors [in between Club Directors and Panel Directors: there are 50 of the latter at four different grades that look after all National competitions, big and small, between them]. When I gave out the answers to the County Directors I thought about this for the first time, and found myself in a 30 minute argument with them, which I finally had to chop off so we could get on. I told them that they would get a definitive answer by he end of the course. At the end I gave the above answer, which was greeted with everything between sullen disbelief and one of my colleagues saying "That doesn't sound right!". She has since asked Max Bavin, the EBU's CTD, who said something along the lines of "David seems to be correct as usual, but I don't like it!". I have also received disagreement from Bob King, another TD, whose wife, Rachael, scored the best marks on the course (and she doesn't agree with me, either). So the score to date is as follows: Agreeing with David: Max Bavin EBU CTD Disagreeing with David: Steve Willner USA Alan LeBendig USA Eric Landau USA David A Blizzard USA Jesper Dybal DBF TD Jens Brix Christiansen DBF TD David Burn EBU L&EC Chairman Michael Amos EBU TD Robin Barker EBU TD Bob King EBU TD Gill Pain EBU TD Rachael King New EBU County TD 17 other members of the County course See if I care! -- 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 Mon Jul 15 05:59:25 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA15608 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 15 Jul 1996 05:59:25 +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 FAA15603 for ; Mon, 15 Jul 1996 05:59:18 +1000 Received: from cph25.ppp.dknet.dk (cph25.ppp.dknet.dk [194.192.100.25]) by pip.dknet.dk (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id VAA10119 for ; Sun, 14 Jul 1996 21:59:07 +0200 From: jd@pip.dknet.dk (Jesper Dybdal) To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Question on L42B2 Date: Sun, 14 Jul 1996 21:58:55 +0200 Organization: at home Message-ID: <31e950dc.553055@pipmail.dknet.dk> References: In-Reply-To: X-Mailer: Forte Agent .99e/32.227 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Thu, 11 Jul 1996 13:09:24 +0200, Jens Brix Christiansen wrote: >Am I out of order? It seems that L42B2 only allows me to >prevent an irregularity by declarer, not by a defender. Yes. But I guess you will be forgiven by the TD as well as by your opponents. I can't really see any good reason why dummy should not be allowed to prevent an irregularity by a defender; can anyone else? -- Jesper Dybdal From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jul 16 02:05:44 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA26458 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 16 Jul 1996 02:05:44 +1000 Received: from dfw-ix3.ix.netcom.com (dfw-ix3.ix.netcom.com [206.214.98.3]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id CAA26451 for ; Tue, 16 Jul 1996 02:05:38 +1000 Received: from (jonbriss@sbo-ca2-13.ix.netcom.com [205.184.185.77]) by dfw-ix3.ix.netcom.com (8.6.13/8.6.12) with SMTP id JAA05850 for ; Mon, 15 Jul 1996 09:05:03 -0700 Date: Mon, 15 Jul 1996 09:05:03 -0700 Message-Id: <199607151605.JAA05850@dfw-ix3.ix.netcom.com> From: jonbriss@ix.netcom.com (Jon C Brissman) Subject: Re: Question on L42B2 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Hi, all. Jens questioned why a dummy should not be precluded from attempting to prevent a defender's irregularity. Look at the issue from the declarer's perspective: If a defender begins to lead when it is his partner's lead, for example, the last thing declarer wants is for dummy to intervene and prevent the occurrence. Bridge is a game of mistakes, and the laws do a good job on the whole of redressing irregularities. In this situation, declarer will wish to consider his options regarding the lead out of turn. Declarer will be very unhappy with dummy for not allowing him to select from amongst those options. I think the legislative intent driving the law is that, except for certain specified exemptions, dummies are expected to emulate the silent wooden figures after which they were named. I, for one, do not wish to see laws empowering a dummy with a voice box. Jon Brissman Ontario, California (909) 381-4888 From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jul 16 03:49:46 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA26998 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 16 Jul 1996 03:49:46 +1000 Received: from mailhub.axion.bt.co.uk (mailhub.axion.bt.co.uk [132.146.5.4]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id DAA26993 for ; Tue, 16 Jul 1996 03:49:35 +1000 Received: from catullus.agw.bt.co.uk by mailhub.axion.bt.co.uk with SMTP (PP); Mon, 15 Jul 1996 18:47:18 +0100 Received: from isdgate.agw.bt.co.uk (isdgate.agw.bt.co.uk [147.150.219.16]) by catullus.agw.bt.co.uk (8.6.12/8.6.11) with SMTP id SAA03926; Mon, 15 Jul 1996 18:33:30 +0100 Received: by isdgate.agw.bt.co.uk with Microsoft Mail id <31EA8F25@isdgate.agw.bt.co.uk>; Mon, 15 Jul 96 18:34:13 GMT From: "Burn, David" To: "'Bridge Laws'" , willner Subject: Re: A claim or concession (repost) Date: Mon, 15 Jul 96 18:31:00 GMT Message-ID: <31EA8F25@isdgate.agw.bt.co.uk> Encoding: 525 TEXT X-Mailer: Microsoft Mail V3.0 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk >From David Burn A number of people have asked me to post this again, since it wasn't clear which were my comments and which were David Stevenson's. Apologies for this - I have a mail reader which indents text from incoming messages, and I dismally failed to realise that other readers are not always going to be able to do this. I have put beside each non-original line of text the initials of the author this time. I have also spoken to Max Bavin, whose agreement with the Stevenson line appeared to have been diluted since reading my arguments. This is as it should be, of course - I would be wholly unfit for any official post without the ability to convince people that black may or may not, as the case may be and with full consideration given to opposing views, be white. -------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------- David Stevenson wrote: DWS: Contract 3NT by South: West is on lead. DWS: -- DWS: -- DWS: 4 DWS: -- 32 -- DWS: 4 -- DWS: T8 92 DWS: -- -- Q DWS: K DWS: 3 DWS: T DWS: DWS: West puts his hand face up on the table and says "I'll play the ten of DWS: diamonds then the eight of diamonds and give you the last trick." East DWS: immediately objects, saying "No, I'll win the second diamond, and my DWS: club queen will win the last trick." DWS: DWS: (a) Assuming that East keeps his hand hidden while objecting, DWS: How do you rule? DWS: DWS: (b) Assuming that East exposes his hand hidden while objecting, DWS: How do you rule? DWS: DWS: Another easy one for you all. DWS: DWS: Law 68 - Claim or Concession of Tricks DWS: DWS: A. Claim Defined DWS: Any statement to the effect that a contestant will win a specific DWS: number of tricks is a claim of those tricks. A contestant also DWS: claims when he suggests that play be curtailed, or when he shows DWS: his cards (unless he demonstrably did not intend to claim). DWS: DWS: B. Concession Defined DWS: Any statement to the effect that a contestant will lose a specific DWS: number of tricks is a concession of those tricks; a claim of DWS: some number of tricks is a concession of the remainder, if any. DWS: A player concedes all the remaining tricks when he abandons his DWS: hand. Regardless of the foregoing, if a defender attempts to DWS: concede one or more tricks and his partner immediately objects, DWS: no concession has occurred; Law 16, Unauthorized Information, DWS: and Law 57A, Premature Play, may apply, so the Director should DWS: be summoned forthwith. DWS: DWS: So according to L68A, West claimed, because he said he would win `a DWS: specific number of tricks' (two). According to L68B a claim of two DWS: tricks is a concession of one trick. Note that L68B makes it quite DWS: clear that if a claim is not for all the remaining tricks then it `is' a DWS: concession: in other words they are the same. So a concession of one DWS: trick (out of three) and a claim of two tricks (out of three) are the DWS: same thing. DWS: DWS: Now when East objected to the concession (as he clearly did) then, as DWS: L68B puts it, `no concession has occurred': this means that the claim DWS: is void as well, because a claim `is' the same as a concession in this DWS: case. What does this mean in effect? Play continues! This won't wash, David. West has in effect made two statements: (1) I will win tricks with the D10 and the D8 (2) I will concede the last trick (1) is a claim and (2) is a concession. You assert that (1) is also a concession because a claim and a concession are equivalent according to L68B. I do not believe that this is entirely correct, since L68A implies that claims do not have to be accompanied by a statement about the number of tricks that the contestant will win; claims not so accompanied cannot be concessions. But this is not relevant. East has objected to statement (2) - that West will concede the last trick. This statement is therefore deemed not to have occurred. Statement (1) remains, and play cannot continue until it has been addressed (since it is a claim). East has also objected to statement (1) in that he disputes the fact that West will win a trick with the D8. But this does not constitute an objection to a concession under L68B; West's assertion that he will win a trick with the D8 is not a concession. You may say that by objecting to part of West's statement East has objected to the totality of it, and since the totality of it constitutes a concession, L68B should be applied. But I see no reason for this: suppose a player says: "I will give you the last trick and Law 25B is a wonderful piece of legislation". East's objection to the second part of this statement is in no way an objection to the concession. DWS: michael amos wrote: MA: 1. a claim has occurred - play ceases MA: 2. a concession has occurred MA: 3. - but has been cancelled by other defender MA: 4. TD needed to adjudicate on disputed claim DWS: No: play continues: there is no claim. Yes, there is. DWS: Jens Brix Christiansen wrote: JBC: East is making a statement about later tricks that he expects to win. JBC: Thus he is claiming, and play ends. Had East just said, "No, I JBC: want play to continue", this would have been different. DWS: It is quite clear that East is objecting to West's concession: that is DWS: the situation that is covered by L68B [`and his partner immediately DWS: objects'] so even if he did not use the perfect wording this makes it DWS: clear that `no concession has occurred': since `a claim of some number DWS: of tricks is a concession of the remainder' there has been no claim or DWS: concession. Yes, there has. DWS: Eric Landau wrote: EL: When West spoke up, play ceased. When East spoke up, it became EL: established that no concession had occurred. At that point, the EL: result becomes a matter for adjudication, and I must see all the EL: remaining cards. East's immmediate verbal objection cancelled any EL: concession. DWS: Not true. After East spoke up, because no concession had occurred, DWS: there should be no adjudication, since play continues. Even if there had not been a claim, this would be nonsense; East and West have told each other what their hands are, and somebody needs to adjudicate on that! DWS: Alan LeBendig wrote: ALB: Given either scenario, I think L65B applies. Nothing improper has ALB: occurred as a result of E exposing his hand subsequent to the claim by ALB: W. I see no reason to apply L57A. DWS: Assuming he meant L68B he seems not to have addressed the point that DWS: there was no concession. He did mean 68B, of course. And although there was no concession, there is still a claim to be dealt with. DWS: Robin Barker wrote: RB: 1) West has claimed and conceded the last trick. RB: 2) East has objected to the concession, so no concession has occured RB: (68B). RB: Q. Has West's claim also 'not occured': I don't think so. DWS: He asked the right question: pity about the wrong answer. It wasn't the wrong answer. DWS: David Burn wrote: DB: The statement of the problem makes it clear that there has been a claim DB: but no concession (L68 - West has attempted to claim two tricks and DB: concede one; East has immediately objected to the concession of a DB: trick). DWS: The wording of L68B makes this impossible: `a claim of some number of DWS: tricks is a concession of the remainder, if any': note the word `is'. DWS: they are the same: you cannot have one without the other. True (up to a point). But you can have both, as in this case, and you can object to one without objecting to both. DWS: michael amos wrote: MA: I accept that there is no concession but there is IMO a claim and so MA: play does not continue a defender can stop his partner from conceding MA: but i don't see anything which says he can stop him claiming. MA: East has stopped West from conceding the last trick - let the TD decide DWS: Again, contrary to the wording of L68B. East has also stopped West from winning the penultimate trick. This has to be dealt with; play cannot continue. DWS: David A Blizzard wrote: DAB: My reading of the Laws. LAW 68 defines a claim as 'any statement that DAB: a contestant will win a specific number of tricks'. DAB: Therefore there is a claim and Law 70 applies. A concession is when DAB: a player states he will lost a specific number of tricks. Again DAB: there has been a concession so Law 71 also applies. DAB: Law 70 states that the Director shall adjudicate the result of the DAB: board (Law 68 states that plays cease after any claim or concession, DAB: so penalty cards can't apply here, play has ceased). DWS: This completely ignores the question of a concession being cancelled so DWS: is wrong. It isn't wrong. It's right as far as it goes, which isn't far enough. DWS: David A Blizzard wrote: DAB: (a) Can't happen (legally anyway). Once a claim or concession is made DAB: 'play ceases'. A director must cancel any play made after a claim DAB: or concession (Law 68D). DAB: I can't see how a card can be 'prematurely' exposed AFTER DAB: PLAY CEASES, so Law 50A should be applied. DWS: It can be inferred from this part of the Law that play continues, which DWS: is really clear anyway. True. But this Law is not the one that should be applied. DWS: michael amos wrote: MA: West claims (L68A - any statement to the effect that a contestant will MA: win a specific number of tricks ...) MA: West concedes, but his partner immediately objects, no concession has MA: occurred (L68B) MA: After any CLAIM or concession play ceases ..... MA: Nowhere in the laws does it seem to say that a claim can be revoked MA: L70A seems to apply DWS: There is no concession: a claim is a concession (unless for all or none DWS: of the remaining tricks): therefore there is no claim: therefore no DWS: L70A. There is still a claim. The fact that it is being contested in the first instance by East rather than by North or South does not prevent L70 from applying. DWS: Steve Willner wrote: SW: If a defender claims and states a line of play, surely he gets to SW: take advantage of the stated line. Making the defender's cards penalty SW: cards produces the odd result that declarer could make the claimer take SW: a different line. DWS: Again, the equivalence between claim and concession seems to be missed. It isn't a complete equivalence. If a player says "I'll win these two tricks and give you the last one", he is not speaking tautologically. DWS: Jens Brix Christiansen wrote: JBC: No; when East objected, there was no concession (L68B). Play JBC: continues, but ... JBC: I think the catch is "unless the Director designates otherwise" in JBC: L50A. If I don't exercise this clause, West's cards become penalty JBC: cards, and South would have the chance to require the H4 as the lead to JBC: trick 11. I still think East is claiming, even if he does not show his JBC: hand (L68A), and therefore I don't need to use the "catch" on East's JBC: hand. And I still rule all tricks to EW if anyone contests East's JBC: claim. So Eric and I have the same bottom line: No more tricks to JBC: declarer. DWS: At least Jens realises that play continues. However he is not really DWS: ruling according to the Laws even so. What happened? West made a claim DWS: and concession. Then what? East objected. You cannot say he didn't. No one is saying that he didn't. What I and others are saying is that if a player makes two statements, one of which is a claim and the other a concession, you can object to one without objecting to the other, and the cancellation of one does not involve the cancellation of the other. DWS: Now the Law actually refers to this procedure [`and his partner DWS: immediately objects'] so that Law covers it. It is not a claim: it is DWS: an objection, a procedure covered by the Laws. Maybe East did not DWS: object in the correct way but to say he claimed is ludicrous. East made a statement to the effect that he would win tricks. If that's not a claim under L68, then I don't know what is. To say that East's statement ("I will win tricks with the D9 and the CQ") was _not_ a claim is truly ludicrous. It was not a _valid_ claim, of course, because it was made after play ceased as a result of West's claim, but a claim it most certainly was. DWS: He objected. So play continues: there is no claim. Yes, there is. DWS: Jesper Dybdal wrote: JD: So we have two possible attitudes: one that is accordance with the JD: general "find an equitable result" attitude of the claim/concession JD: laws, and another in accordance with the "defenders are to be JD: penalized automatically with penalty cards if they expose their cards" JD: attitude of L49. JD: Personally, I think I prefer the gentle one: find an equitable result JD: (all tricks to EW), no penalty cards. But it would be nice if the JD: laws told us what to do. DWS: Very nice and gentle, Jesper. However the Laws clearly tell us what to DWS: do, so I think we should follow them. No, they don't. The Laws are not at all clear on this point, as this discussion has served to point out. DWS: There is no basis in Law for giving all the tricks to EW. Yes, there is. [L12B snipped] DWS: Let us take the path of Law. West claimed and made a concession, DWS: since they are equivalent. West claimed _and_ made a concession. There are two statements by West that must be addressed. DWS: East objected. Accordingly no concession DWS: occurred, and it follows that no claim occurred. Thus play continues. No, it doesn't. East objected to the concession, not the claim. Play ceases. DWS: Law 49 - Exposure of a Defender's Cards DWS: Whenever a defender faces a card on the table, holds a card so DWS: that it is possible for his partner to see its face, or names a DWS: card as being in his hand, before he is entitled to do so in the DWS: normal course of play or application of law, (penalty) each such DWS: card becomes a penalty card (Law 50); but see the footnote to DWS: Law 68, when a defender has made a statement concerning an DWS: uncompleted trick currently in progress. DWS: West puts his hand face up on the table and ... DWS: All West's cards become major penalty cards. No, they don't. And they wouldn't even if your argument was correct. West is entitled to table his cards in the course of making a claim - L68 makes this quite clear. No card exposed by a defender who claims can become a penalty card under L49. DWS: West says "I'll play the ten of diamonds then the eight of diamonds and DWS: give you the last trick." East immediately objects, saying "No, I'll DWS: win the second diamond, and my club queen will win the last trick." DWS: (a) Assuming that East keeps his hand hidden while objecting, DWS: How do you rule? DWS: East has named a card [the club queen] which becomes a major penalty DWS: card. True, as I stated in my earlier reply. DWS: South may choose West's lead [L51A] and will presumably choose the H4, DWS: East being forced to discard his CQ. South will then make two tricks DWS: presumably. Note that this is an assumption because the TD is not DWS: assigning anything. Play continues, and if South decides to ask for the DWS: DT instead of the H4, so be it. DWS: DWS: (b) Assuming that East exposes his hand hidden while objecting, DWS: How do you rule? DWS: All East's cards become major penalty cards, though this still leads DWS: (presumably) to two tricks. I missed this in my earlier analysis. East's cards are indeed penalty cards (but West's are not), so instead of requiring East to unblock the D9 under the 10, South will forbid West from leading a diamond and compel East to discard the CQ on the HK, leading to two tricks for NS rather than one. DWS: Jesper Dybdal wrote: JD: I just now noticed that though L50A says that an exposed card becomes JD: a penalty card unless the Director designates otherwise, L49 says "... JD: each such card becomes a penalty card (Law 50)" with no "designates JD: otherwise" clause. Since they both deal with the same situation, I'll JD: assume that the lack of such a clause in L49 is an error and that I JD: really am allowed to "designate otherwise". DWS: The EBL guide says, and I agree, that this `designates otherwise' is for DWS: the sole purpose of stopping players taking advantage of each other. DWS: The only time you `designate otherwise' is when the players decided it DWS: was a penalty card without calling the TD. Then they call you to DWS: enforce the lead penalties. Since the defenders did not know the Law, DWS: they may be suffering, so if the know-alls can't be bothered to call the DWS: TD [or maybe perceived an advantage in not calling the TD] then the TD DWS: should designate the card not to be a penalty card. I agree with this, though the Law as worded appears to give the Director greater powers. DWS: I am not sure why there is so much apparent sympathy for East-West. DWS: When I was a young player, I was taught that, when making a claim in DWS: defence, I should *never* let partner see my cards until the claim was DWS: accepted. Sensible, and necessary under an earlier version of the Laws, but not in the current situation. I repeat: a defender is entitled to show his cards in order to claim; they do not become penalty cards; they must be dealt with under L70 not L49. DWS: Furthermore, if I as a defender, disagreed with a claim of DWS: partner's, I was taught not to let anyone see my hand, just to say I DWS: don't agree. This is certainly correct. DWS: As far as I am concerned, East and West have behaved like DWS: two very silly people, and have got what they fully deserved. They speak well of you! DWS: Another easy one for you all. DWS: Eric Landau wrote: EL: OK, David, we know you better than that. What's the catch? DWS: Jens Brix Christiansen wrote: JBC: I think the catch is JBC: "unless the Director designates otherwise" in L50A. DWS: Jesper Dybdal wrote: JD: Quite an interesting "easy one", David! DWS: I don't think there was a catch really: seemed quite easy to me! And to me. But... From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jul 16 04:03:48 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA27037 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 16 Jul 1996 04:03:48 +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 EAA27032 for ; Tue, 16 Jul 1996 04:03:42 +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 OAA21860 for ; Mon, 15 Jul 1996 14:03:32 -0400 Date: Mon, 15 Jul 1996 14:03:32 -0400 (EDT) From: Eric Landau To: Bridge Laws Discussion List Subject: RE: A claim or concession In-Reply-To: <31E78AB5@isdgate.agw.bt.co.uk> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Edgar Kaplan has argued for resolving tough adjudications by first deciding what the most equitable result is, then finding the Law that supports one's conclusion. Since I am convinced that equity in our example case requires E-W to take all three of the remaining tricks, I will rationalize this decision as follows: When W showed his cards, he was fully entitled to do so under Law 68. Law 49, which applies when a defender shows his cards "before he is entitled to do so in the normal course of play or application of Law," is therefore irrelevant. When E showed his cards, he accepted W's statement of play (or claim, or concession, or claim/concession, or whatever you want to call it). Play ceases. Further adjudication is in the hands of the TD. When E pointed out that he will win the second trick with the D9 and cash the CQ to take all three tricks, he was asking the DIRECTOR to cancel the concession of the 13th trick in accordance with Law 71.B, contending that that trick "could not have been lost by any normal play of the remaining cards." His equity position is not affected by his having revealed his intention to ask for such a ruling to the others at the table before the TD arrived. His equity position is no different from what it would have been had he folded his cards, scored the hand up with N-S winning the last trick, and then subsequently called the TD "within the correction period" to ask for an adjustment under Law 71.B. By Law 71.B, he is entitled to win the last trick. 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 Jul 16 11:22:51 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id LAA07011 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 16 Jul 1996 11:22:51 +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 LAA07006 for ; Tue, 16 Jul 1996 11:22:42 +1000 Received: from post.demon.co.uk ([158.152.1.72]) by relay-2.mail.demon.net id cq24490; 16 Jul 96 2:19 +0100 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by relay-3.mail.demon.net id aa24944; 11 Jul 96 0:29 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 11 Jul 1996 00:27:02 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: More on bidding boxes and Law 25 (perhaps) In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 1.12 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Jens Brix Christiansen wrote: >> West puts a 1NT card on the table, simultaneously saying out loud >>"one spade". Neither North nor East hear her, and both pass. South did >>hear her so calls the TD. > >Here is a Danish ruling (assuming the game is not a beginner's game). >Everybody (and I mean everybody) has played with bidding >boxes at any reasonable level in Denmark at least since 1980. >That might help readers abroad in understanding the >uncompromising attitude that my ruling displays. > >1. PP for saying "one spade" out loud. No caution; 10-15% on the spot. >(Our conditions of contest usually pinpoint a standard fine that >corresponds to 10-15%; in teams (40 boards) that would be half a VP.) In Britain we do not like fines generally so we would only warn. > >2. If the 1NT is inadvertent, it is too late to change. Period. Our >regulations are clear on this, even though BLML has made the >point that the regulation is questionable. I am in total agreement. I think that because there is no time limit in the Laws then L80F allows you to give a time limit. > >3. The statement "one spade" must be treated as UI by East. >The PP does not in any way imply that the UI becomes authorized. > OK. >4. "one spade" is not an attempt to change a call; L25 does not apply. > I am surprised how many people have assumed this is a change of call. >--- > >Now, if this was not Denmark, but the European Championships, >I would still fine the West for saying one spade, unless there is >a very good excuse for this failure to follow correct procedure. > OK. >However, I might be convinced that 1NT was a mechanical error >and one spade was intended, in which case the player probably >would have "oops"ed when the TD was called, and L25A would >apply. The bidding starts over with 1S. > Yuk. >Hopefully at the European Championships we would be playing >with screens, and the scenario would be unthinkable. > I just think that your European approach is wrong and your Danish approach is right. This is not a L25 problem anyway: he just bid 1NT. >--- > >I may be biased, but I like the Danish way better. > >Jens Brix Christiansen, Authorized TD both Denmark and Europe. > Grrrrrrooooooooowwwwwwwwwwwwwwlllllllllll !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! -- 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 Tue Jul 16 20:10:13 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id UAA10199 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 16 Jul 1996 20:10:13 +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 UAA10193 for ; Tue, 16 Jul 1996 20:09:59 +1000 Received: from innet.innet.be (pool03-33.innet.be [194.7.10.17]) by mail.be.innet.net (8.7.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id MAA18068 for ; Tue, 16 Jul 1996 12:09:46 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <31EB85C7.6EF6@innet.be> Date: Tue, 16 Jul 1996 12:06:31 +0000 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.02 (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: A claim or concession References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I have only just read this complete thread - fascinating ! David Stevenson wrote: > > David Stevenson wrote: > [ok - we know the problem] > michael amos wrote: > >1. a claim has occurred - play ceases > >2. a concession has occurred > >3. - but has been cancelled by other defender > >4. TD needed to adjudicate on disputed claim > No: play continues: there is no claim. I agree in part > David Burn wrote: > >The statement of the problem makes it clear that there has been a claim > >but no concession (L68 - West has attempted to claim two tricks and > >concede one; East has immediately objected to the concession of a trick). > The wording of L68B makes this impossible: `a claim of some number of > tricks is a concession of the remainder, if any': note the word `is'. > they are the same: you cannot have one without the other. > I agree > Steve Willner wrote: > > If a defender claims and states a line of play, surely he gets to > >take advantage of the stated line. Making the defender's cards penalty > >cards produces the odd result that declarer could make the claimer take > >a different line. > Again, the equivalence between claim and concession seems to be missed. Yes, but when play must continue, surely west should play according to his stated line ?? > > Jens Brix Christiansen wrote: > >No; when East objected, there was no concession (L68B). Play > >continues, but ...[] > >I still think East is claiming, even if he does not show his > >hand (L68A), and therefore I don't need to use the "catch" on East's > >hand. And I still rule all tricks to EW if anyone contests East's > >claim. So Eric and I have the same bottom line: No more tricks to > >declarer. > At least Jens realises that play continues. However he is not really > ruling according to the Laws even so. What happened? West made a claim > and concession. Then what? East objected. You cannot say he didn't. > Now the Law actually refers to this procedure [`and his partner > immediately objects'] so that Law covers it. It is not a claim: it is > an objection, a procedure covered by the Laws. Maybe East did not > object in the correct way but to say he claimed is ludicrous. He > objected. So play continues: there is no claim. I quote : East immediately objects, saying "No, I'll win the second diamond, and my club queen will win the last trick." This is a statement about subsequent tricks - that is : a claim. > > Let us take the path of Law. West claimed and made a concession, > since they are equivalent. East objected. Accordingly no concession > occurred, and it follows that no claim occurred. Thus play continues. > Yes, and west will play according to his stated line, and now east has claimed the last two tricks. > All West's cards become major penalty cards. NO, they are cards exposed in the normal way of play, they don't become penalty cards. > East has named a card [the club queen] which becomes a major penalty > card. No, since he has now claimed ! > > I don't think there was a catch really: seemed quite easy to me! > My opinion : a) West has claimed (and conceded) b) East has objected - there has been no concession (nor a claim) - play continues c) East has claimed three tricks d) Play now ceases - the TD will attribute the result, if NS ask for a ruling e) In ruling, the TD will impose on West the line he originally intended (DT and D4) f) Under DT, East might unblock - a good point raised. The TD will need to consider whether this line is possible if West has not shown his hand (UI to East) e) If East is not required to unblock, he makes the three tricks. IMMMMHO, there are no penalty cards whatsoever ! > So the score to date is as follows: > > Agreeing with David: > Max Bavin EBU CTD > > Disagreeing with David: > Steve Willner USA > Alan LeBendig USA > Eric Landau USA > David A Blizzard USA > Jesper Dybal DBF TD > Jens Brix Christiansen DBF TD Herman De Wael VBL, BBF, EBL TD > David Burn EBU L&EC Chairman > Michael Amos EBU TD > Robin Barker EBU TD > Bob King EBU TD > Gill Pain EBU TD > Rachael King New EBU County TD > 17 other members of the County course > > See if I care! I know you do ! > /\_/\ > =( ^*^ )= > ( | | ) > (_~^ ^~ Hatchiee !! -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.club.innet.be/~pub02163/index.htm From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jul 16 21:44:46 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id VAA11328 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 16 Jul 1996 21:44:46 +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 VAA11323 for ; Tue, 16 Jul 1996 21:44:39 +1000 Received: by relay-4.mail.demon.net id aa04904; 16 Jul 96 11:44 GMT Received: from post.demon.co.uk ([158.152.1.72]) by relay-4.mail.demon.net id aa28551; 16 Jul 96 11:10 GMT Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by relay-3.mail.demon.net id aa00445; 16 Jul 96 12:06 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 16 Jul 1996 12:04:39 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: More on bidding boxes and Law 25 (perhaps) In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 1.12 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk This is a duplicate posting: I sent the original out four days ago but have returned to find a warning message "attempts to deliver have so far been unsuccessful". So apologies if you get two postings if the original now succeeds. I have also referred to this article in a related article which presumably added to the confusion when this did not appear. Jens Brix Christiansen wrote: >> West puts a 1NT card on the table, simultaneously saying out loud >>"one spade". Neither North nor East hear her, and both pass. South did >>hear her so calls the TD. > >Here is a Danish ruling (assuming the game is not a beginner's game). >Everybody (and I mean everybody) has played with bidding >boxes at any reasonable level in Denmark at least since 1980. >That might help readers abroad in understanding the >uncompromising attitude that my ruling displays. > >1. PP for saying "one spade" out loud. No caution; 10-15% on the spot. >(Our conditions of contest usually pinpoint a standard fine that >corresponds to 10-15%; in teams (40 boards) that would be half a VP.) In Britain we do not like fines generally so we would only warn. > >2. If the 1NT is inadvertent, it is too late to change. Period. Our >regulations are clear on this, even though BLML has made the >point that the regulation is questionable. I am in total agreement. I think that because there is no time limit in the Laws then L80F allows you to give a time limit. > >3. The statement "one spade" must be treated as UI by East. >The PP does not in any way imply that the UI becomes authorized. > OK. >4. "one spade" is not an attempt to change a call; L25 does not apply. > I am surprised how many people have assumed this is a change of call. >--- > >Now, if this was not Denmark, but the European Championships, >I would still fine the West for saying one spade, unless there is >a very good excuse for this failure to follow correct procedure. > OK. >However, I might be convinced that 1NT was a mechanical error >and one spade was intended, in which case the player probably >would have "oops"ed when the TD was called, and L25A would >apply. The bidding starts over with 1S. > Yuk. >Hopefully at the European Championships we would be playing >with screens, and the scenario would be unthinkable. > I just think that your European approach is wrong and your Danish approach is right. This is not a L25 problem anyway: he just bid 1NT. >--- > >I may be biased, but I like the Danish way better. > >Jens Brix Christiansen, Authorized TD both Denmark and Europe. > Grrrrrrooooooooowwwwwwwwwwwwwwlllllllllll !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! -- 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 Jul 17 09:30:26 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA26254 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 17 Jul 1996 09:30:26 +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 JAA26248 for ; Wed, 17 Jul 1996 09:30:17 +1000 Received: by relay-4.mail.demon.net id ac08147; 16 Jul 96 23:28 GMT Received: from post.demon.co.uk ([158.152.1.72]) by relay-4.mail.demon.net id aa25627; 16 Jul 96 22:05 GMT Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by relay-3.mail.demon.net id aa07501; 16 Jul 96 22:50 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 16 Jul 1996 22:47:43 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Cc: Rachael King <100757.3514@compuserve.com> From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: A claim or concession In-Reply-To: <31E78AB5@isdgate.agw.bt.co.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 1.12 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Burn wrote: > >From David Burn > >David Stevenson wrote: > >Contract 3NT by South: West is on lead. > >> -- >> -- >> 4 >> -- 32 -- >> 4 -- >> T8 92 >> -- -- Q >> K >> 3 >> T >> >> West puts his hand face up on the table and says "I'll play the ten of >>diamonds then the eight of diamonds and give you the last trick." East >>immediately objects, saying "No, I'll win the second diamond, and my >>club queen will win the last trick." >> >>(a) Assuming that East keeps his hand hidden while objecting, >> How do you rule? >> >>(b) Assuming that East exposes his hand hidden while objecting, >> How do you rule? >> >> Another easy one for you all. >> >Law 68 - Claim or Concession of Tricks > >A. Claim Defined > Any statement to the effect that a contestant will win a specific > number of tricks is a claim of those tricks. A contestant also > claims when he suggests that play be curtailed, or when he shows > his cards (unless he demonstrably did not intend to claim). > >B. Concession Defined > Any statement to the effect that a contestant will lose a specific > number of tricks is a concession of those tricks; a claim of > some number of tricks is a concession of the remainder, if any. > A player concedes all the remaining tricks when he abandons his > hand. Regardless of the foregoing, if a defender attempts to > concede one or more tricks and his partner immediately objects, > no concession has occurred; Law 16, Unauthorized Information, > and Law 57A, Premature Play, may apply, so the Director should > be summoned forthwith. > David Stevenson wrote: > So according to L68A, West claimed, because he said he would win `a >specific number of tricks' (two). According to L68B a claim of two >tricks is a concession of one trick. Note that L68B makes it quite >clear that if a claim is not for all the remaining tricks then it `is' >>a concession: in other words they are the same. So a concession of >>one trick (out of three) and a claim of two tricks (out of three) are >>the same thing. > > Now when East objected to the concession (as he clearly did) then, >>as L68B puts it, `no concession has occurred': this means that the >>claim is void as well, because a claim `is' the same as a concession >>in this case. What does this mean in effect? Play continues! >This won't wash, David. West has in effect made two statements: > >(1) I will win tricks with the D10 and the D8 >(2) I will concede the last trick > >(1) is a claim and (2) is a concession. You assert that (1) is also a >concession because a claim and a concession are equivalent according to >L68B. I do not believe that this is entirely correct, since L68A implies >that claims do not have to be accompanied by a statement about the number >of tricks that the contestant will win; claims not so accompanied cannot >be concessions. But this is not relevant. East has objected to statement >(2) - that West will concede the last trick. This statement is therefore >deemed not to have occurred. Statement (1) remains, and play cannot >continue until it has been addressed (since it is a claim). > This seems a little confused. Certainly there are claims that are not concessions: "They're all mine" is not a concession, and putting one's hand on the table which is clearly all winners is not a concession. But L68B makes it clear that any claim that names a number of tricks that is not all the remaining tricks is a concession. Now if a claim of two tricks is a concession of one trick per L68B and if a concession has not occurred also per L68B how can you say that the claim is to be addressed? The claim is for two tricks: that is a concession of one, and the concession has not occurred. It is totally inconsistent with the actual wording of L68B that you can address a claim of two tricks out of three once partner has objected. To say statement (1) remains is not consistent with the actual wording of the Law. Perhaps we should consider the norm rather than this specific case for a moment. When a defender concedes all the tricks then declarer will make the remainder unless (a) His partner immediately objects: play continues (b) L71 is applied. When a defender claims all the tricks then the defence will make the remainder unless (a) Declarer contests the claim and is given a trick or tricks under L70. Now suppose a defender says "I shall make all the tricks except one" and his partner says "I object", neither showing their cards. Does play continue? I cannot really answer that because you all know that I believe the answer is yes, since no concession has occurred. I am asking you to read L68B and then answer the question to yourself. >East has also objected to statement (1) in that he disputes the fact that >West will win a trick with the D8. But this does not constitute an >objection to a concession under L68B; West's assertion that he will win a >trick with the D8 is not a concession. You may say that by objecting to >part of West's statement East has objected to the totality of it, and >since the totality of it constitutes a concession, L68B should be >applied. But I see no reason for this: suppose a player says: "I will >give you the last trick and Law 25B is a wonderful piece of legislation". >East's objection to the second part of this statement is in no way an >objection to the concession. > It is not so much the wording of the soi-disant objection that matters: the first question is whether the original claim and concession can be considered separately. If not, then surely East has objected to the concession. The logic of David's paragraph above may be correct: but I dispute the premises. It is in human nature to explain things even when not required to and even when it is injudicious. When the trappings are taken away West has conceded one trick and East has objected. To take it further and to say that East has made a claim because he objected in an injudicious fashion seems like the sort of Law the Secretary Bird was famous for. At this moment I feel that to address the question of penalty cards would not be helpful. What we need is some agreement over two main items: (a) Can a claim be considered when there has been an objection to the concession that goes with it? (b) Can an objection to a concession be considered a claim because of its nature in words or action? ----- I understand that I have been reduced to a minority of one in a bigger field. [David Burn has been convincing Max Bavin to his side: I have not actually spoken to him. Eric Landau, Herman de Wael and Stefanie Rohan have joined the dissenting voices: interestingly both Herman and Stefanie agree with me over (a) above: Herman disagrees over (b) and Stefanie, having agreed with me till then diverges over the consequences.] Of course I may be wrong but if I am I wish someone would explain to me in what way I have misread L68B because (a) above is still completely clear to me. I think that (b) is a little less clear and I would probably take less convincing but (a) and the actual wording of L68B is the main stumbling block. I hope that we can agree over (a) and (b) and then dispose of whatever effect that has later. -- 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 Jul 18 06:17:07 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA14582 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 18 Jul 1996 06:17:07 +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 GAA14574 for ; Thu, 18 Jul 1996 06:16:59 +1000 Received: from innet.innet.be (pool03-96.innet.be [194.7.10.80]) by mail.be.innet.net (8.7.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id MAA29851 for ; Mon, 15 Jul 1996 12:33:44 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <31E968CA.20A3@innet.be> Date: Sun, 14 Jul 1996 21:38:18 +0000 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.02 (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Question on L42B2 References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Jens Brix Christiansen wrote: > > Am I out of order? It seems that L42B2 only allows me to > prevent an irregularity by declarer, not by a defender. > Yes. Are you at fault - no way. You have prevented an opponent from getting a penalty card. You are a nice dummy. But your partner may not agree. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.club.innet.be/~pub02163/index.htm From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jul 18 23:37:12 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA20591 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 18 Jul 1996 23:37:12 +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 XAA20575 for ; Thu, 18 Jul 1996 23:36:53 +1000 Received: (from grabiner@localhost) by sunset.ma.huji.ac.il (8.6.11/8.6.10) id QAA04835; Thu, 18 Jul 1996 16:36:02 +0300 Message-Id: <199607181336.QAA04835@sunset.ma.huji.ac.il> From: David Joseph Grabiner Date: Thu, 18 Jul 1996 16:35:29 +0300 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: What is the source of this misconception? Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At a club game last week, my partner discarded on my lead as a defender. Declarer ruffed, and we turned the trick. When declarer led to the next trick, my partner realized that she had revoked, and we called the director. The director ruled that the revoke had been established when the revoke trick was turned. I didn't think that was right, and asked the director to check it in the book; he said that he checked with the other director, who confirmed the ruling. There is no such rule in Law 63; the revoke would have been established when a member of the offending side played to the trick, which hadn't happened. This isn't the first time I have seen this claim about established revokes. What is the origin of this misconception? -- 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 Jul 19 01:18:31 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA24296 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 19 Jul 1996 01:18:31 +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 BAA24290 for ; Fri, 19 Jul 1996 01:18:21 +1000 From: AlLeBendig@aol.com Received: by emout19.mail.aol.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) id LAA10996 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Thu, 18 Jul 1996 11:19:45 -0400 Date: Thu, 18 Jul 1996 11:19:45 -0400 Message-ID: <960718111943_436887019@emout19.mail.aol.com> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: What is the source of this misconception? Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In a message dated 96-07-18 09:40:38 EDT, you write: << At a club game last week, my partner discarded on my lead as a defender. Declarer ruffed, and we turned the trick. When declarer led to the next trick, my partner realized that she had revoked, and we called the director. The director ruled that the revoke had been established when the revoke trick was turned. I didn't think that was right, and asked the director to check it in the book; he said that he checked with the other director, who confirmed the ruling. >> I wasn't aware that this was a common misconception. I guess the answer is to ask your director to read the Law to you. I would probably wait until after the game to avoid embarrasing the director. Yesterday my partner ruffed a diamond at trick 11 with the A of trumps and declarer said "that's it" and showed his hand. LHO (the dummy) now said my partner had revoked as her other two cards were diamonds. Even the director was confused when I explained that this was not an established revoke. I will preempt David S. and say: HAVE THE DIRECTOR READ THE LAW BOOK. Alan LeBendig From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jul 19 02:07:00 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA24690 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 19 Jul 1996 02:07:00 +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 CAA24685 for ; Fri, 19 Jul 1996 02:06:55 +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 JAA08833 for <@mipl7.JPL.NASA.GOV:bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au>; Thu, 18 Jul 1996 09:06:03 -0700 Received: by tintin.JPL.NASA.GOV (940816.SGI.8.6.9/930416.SGI.MIPS) for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au id JAA10854; Thu, 18 Jul 1996 09:12:38 -0700 Date: Thu, 18 Jul 1996 09:12:38 -0700 From: jeff@tintin.JPL.NASA.GOV (Jeff Goldsmith) Message-Id: <199607181612.JAA10854@tintin.JPL.NASA.GOV> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: What is the source of this misconception? Alan LeBendig sayeth: |<< At a club game last week, my partner discarded on my lead as a defender. | Declarer ruffed, and we turned the trick. When declarer led to the next | trick, my partner realized that she had revoked, and we called the | director. | | The director ruled that the revoke had been established when the revoke | trick was turned. I didn't think that was right, and asked the director | to check it in the book; he said that he checked with the other | director, who confirmed the ruling. >> | |I wasn't aware that this was a common misconception. I guess the answer is |to ask your director to read the Law to you. I would probably wait until |after the game to avoid embarrasing the director. | |Yesterday my partner ruffed a diamond at trick 11 with the A of trumps and |declarer said "that's it" and showed his hand. LHO (the dummy) now said my |partner had revoked as her other two cards were diamonds. Even the director |was confused when I explained that this was not an established revoke. | |I will preempt David S. and say: HAVE THE DIRECTOR READ THE LAW BOOK. A similar thing happened at Bridge Week. East led out of turn. North (the actual dummy) put his hand down. Everyone suddenly realized that the whole table was lost in space and summoned the director. AT THE TABLE, the director admitted that he had no idea how to rule. Instead of looking it up (the answer is in the lawbook) he made an ad hoc (and incorrect) ruling. Is there some ego thing about directors and law books? A few years ago, a director did the same thing to me; his ruling not only was made without consulting the laws, but was patently ridiculous. Since then, I have taken to bringing a copy of the laws with me to tournaments. I happened to have one when the player who had been dummy during the incident above asked me about this ruling. My response was, "I have no idea," so I got out the book and looked it up. What's the problem? I propose a new acronym: RTFLB. --Jeff # Cthulhu in '96! Why vote for the lesser evil? # --- # http://muggy.gg.caltech.edu/~jeff From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jul 19 03:37:17 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA25047 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 19 Jul 1996 03:37:17 +1000 Received: from styx.ios.com (lighton@styx.ios.com [198.4.75.44]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id DAA25042 for ; Fri, 19 Jul 1996 03:37:10 +1000 Received: (from lighton@localhost) by styx.ios.com (8.6.12/8.6.9) id NAA08719 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Thu, 18 Jul 1996 13:36:59 -0400 Date: Thu, 18 Jul 1996 13:36:59 -0400 From: Richard Lighton Message-Id: <199607181736.NAA08719@styx.ios.com> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: What is the source of this misconception? Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Jeff Goldsmith wrote: > I will preempt David S. and say: HAVE THE DIRECTOR READ THE LAW BOOK. [snip] A long time ago, in a galaxy far, far, away (well, in England in the late '60s) there was a director familiar to both David S. and myself who officiated over many area events. He is the ONLY director I have known who ALWAYS ruled from the book. He would arrive at the table, listen to the problem, haul out his thumb- indexed rule book, and read the appropriate law. From the spead he arrived at the appropriate section of the laws, it was obvious George had no reason to read from the book most of the time, but it made him a much-respected director. David S. has posted a couple of George Curtis (bridge-playing) stories to rgb in the past. He was one of those people who make bridge worth playing. > I propose a new acronym: RTFLB. I assume the F stands for "fine," as in "Read the Fine Manual?" Richard Lighton (lighton@ios.com) Wood-Ridge NJ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jul 19 03:43:10 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA25094 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 19 Jul 1996 03:43:10 +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 DAA25089 for ; Fri, 19 Jul 1996 03:43:05 +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 KAA09663 for <@mipl7.JPL.NASA.GOV:bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au>; Thu, 18 Jul 1996 10:42:32 -0700 Received: by tintin.JPL.NASA.GOV (940816.SGI.8.6.9/930416.SGI.MIPS) for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au id KAA11026; Thu, 18 Jul 1996 10:49:03 -0700 Date: Thu, 18 Jul 1996 10:49:03 -0700 From: jeff@tintin.JPL.NASA.GOV (Jeff Goldsmith) Message-Id: <199607181749.KAA11026@tintin.JPL.NASA.GOV> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Richard Lighton wrote: |> I propose a new acronym: RTFLB. | |I assume the F stands for "fine," as in "Read the Fine Manual?" Perhaps. RTFM stands for "Read The Manual." The "F" is silent. --Jeff # Cthulhu in '96! Why vote for the lesser evil? # --- # http://muggy.gg.caltech.edu/~jeff From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jul 19 06:16:36 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA03718 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 19 Jul 1996 06:16:36 +1000 Received: from relay-5.mail.demon.net (relay-5.mail.demon.net [158.152.1.48]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id GAA03713 for ; Fri, 19 Jul 1996 06:16:29 +1000 Received: from post.demon.co.uk by relay-5.mail.demon.net id ai08763; 18 Jul 96 21:01 +0100 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by relay-3.mail.demon.net id aa05639; 18 Jul 96 20:20 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 18 Jul 1996 19:34:03 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: What is the source of this misconception? In-Reply-To: <960718111943_436887019@emout19.mail.aol.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 1.12 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Alan wrote: >I will preempt David S. and say: HAVE THE DIRECTOR READ THE LAW BOOK. damn: guess what i was about to say! -- 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 Sat Jul 20 02:19:16 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA14166 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 20 Jul 1996 02:19:16 +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 CAA14161 for ; Sat, 20 Jul 1996 02:19:10 +1000 From: AlLeBendig@aol.com Received: by emout07.mail.aol.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) id MAA02114 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Fri, 19 Jul 1996 12:18:22 -0400 Date: Fri, 19 Jul 1996 12:18:22 -0400 Message-ID: <960719121818_159796626@emout07.mail.aol.com> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Disclosure Requirements Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I've been asked my opinion on a situation that came up and I was quite distressed to realize I didn't have one. So please give me your thoughts. S holds: S T9x H x D AQJx C KTxxx. The auction proceeds: E S W N 1NT P P 2D P 3H D P P 4S D AP The NT is 12-14. After S bid 3H, W inquired about 2D. S obviously was splintering in support of diamonds. When the question was asked he realized that 2D showed majors. There is no suggestion of any UI. He properly informed opponents of agreement. At end of auction, is he under any obligation to disclose that he was off base when he made 3H call? My gut instinct tells me no but I'm not sure. Could opponents ever claim damage here? For some reason they were confused defensively. They were rather competent and the auction itself might have tipped them off that there was a problem. Thanks. Alan LeBendig From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jul 20 03:08:53 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA14372 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 20 Jul 1996 03:08:53 +1000 Received: from dfw-ix10.ix.netcom.com (dfw-ix10.ix.netcom.com [206.214.98.10]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id DAA14367 for ; Sat, 20 Jul 1996 03:08:47 +1000 Received: from (jonbriss@sbo-ca1-14.ix.netcom.com [205.184.185.46]) by dfw-ix10.ix.netcom.com (8.6.13/8.6.12) with SMTP id KAA04354 for ; Fri, 19 Jul 1996 10:08:13 -0700 Date: Fri, 19 Jul 1996 10:08:13 -0700 Message-Id: <199607191708.KAA04354@dfw-ix10.ix.netcom.com> From: jonbriss@ix.netcom.com (Jon C Brissman) Subject: Re: Disclosure requirements To: Bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Alan LeBendig posted an inquiry about the disclosure requirements of a player who misinterpreted his partner's call, acted accordingly, and then "woke up" later in the auction. The opponents were informed correctly about the partnership agreements; thus, the question is whether a player must disclose that he took aberrant action based on a temporary mental lapse which he later rectified. I see no rationale for disclosure. Had the actor bid the same with full knowledge of partnership methods and with the expectation that his opponents would double to give him another chance, no one would argue that he should disclose his ploy. Assuming that his opponents do double, he has succeeded in planting an incorrect portrait of his hand in the minds of the defenders, which may well redound in his favor. One can hardly argue that a tactic must be disclosed if accomplished inadvertently but is not subject to disclosure if done intentionally. Jon C. Brissman Ontario, CA (909) 381-4888 weekdays From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jul 20 03:53:23 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA14646 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 20 Jul 1996 03:53:23 +1000 Received: from styx.ios.com (lighton@styx.ios.com [198.4.75.44]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id DAA14641 for ; Sat, 20 Jul 1996 03:53:14 +1000 Received: (from lighton@localhost) by styx.ios.com (8.6.12/8.6.9) id NAA04841 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Fri, 19 Jul 1996 13:53:01 -0400 Date: Fri, 19 Jul 1996 13:53:01 -0400 From: Richard Lighton Message-Id: <199607191753.NAA04841@styx.ios.com> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Disclosure Requirements Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Alan LeBendig wrote: > I've been asked my opinion on a situation that came up and I was quite > distressed to realize I didn't have one. So please give me your thoughts. > S holds: S T9x H x D AQJx C KTxxx. The auction proceeds: > E S W N > 1NT P P 2D > P 3H D P > P 4S D AP > The NT is 12-14. After S bid 3H, W inquired about 2D. S obviously was > splintering in support of diamonds. When the question was asked he realized > that 2D showed majors. There is no suggestion of any UI. He properly > informed opponents of agreement. At end of auction, is he under any > obligation to disclose that he was off base when he made 3H call? My gut > instinct tells me no but I'm not sure. Could opponents ever claim damage > here? For some reason they were confused defensively. They were rather > competent and the auction itself might have tipped them off that there was a > problem. Where's my law book when I need it! There's a lawlate in the book that illustrates with a couple of footnotes that this is not misinformation. South has fulfilled his requirements to explain partnership agreements. At (I think) the Albuquerque WBF tournament, Jeff Polisner (sp) put forth a stirring arguement that there was a requirement for south to explain the misunderstanding when partner has explained a convention correctly after south has misused the convention. Wolff has held forth at length on the subject of Convention Disruption (CD - the original overworked misused acronym) in such cases. For the life of me, I can't see why. Opponents are entitled to know what the partnership agreement is, not what the bidder thought it might have meant at the time he or she made the lunatic bid. As long as partner does not know that you have "psyched," what's the difference? At a New York Regional a few months ago, I misinterpreted one of the rarer sequences in our system when playing in a Swiss match against the Sanborns. I bid on as though this bid showed spades (it showed clubs) and partner kept on bidding as though I knew what I was talking about. Somewhere round the 5-level, it dawned on me what I had done, so when Kerry asked, I explained the real meaning of partner's bid. Partner bid some revolting slam, and made it through a combination of good luck and good play. I explained what had really happened in the auction. Not a word from the Sanborns. The correct reaction, I believe, but I was impressed by their restraint at the time. Richard Lighton | All of us are born equal, (lighton@ios.com) | and some of us considerably worse. Wood-Ridge NJ | | From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jul 20 05:06:22 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA15075 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 20 Jul 1996 05:06:22 +1000 Received: from netshop.net (root@stargazer.netshop.net [204.174.70.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id FAA15069 for ; Sat, 20 Jul 1996 05:06:16 +1000 Received: from .NETSHOP.NET (100mile-11.netshop.net [204.174.70.106]) by netshop.net (8.6.12/8.6.9) with SMTP id MAA25871; Fri, 19 Jul 1996 12:03:24 -0700 Message-ID: <31EFDC85.37EC@netshop.bc.ca> Date: Fri, 19 Jul 1996 12:05:41 -0700 From: jerry sund X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.0 (Win95; I; 16bit) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au CC: sund@netshop.bc.ca Subject: Re: Disclosure Requirements References: <960719121818_159796626@emout07.mail.aol.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk AlLeBendig@aol.com wrote: > > I've been asked my opinion on a situation that came up and I was quite > distressed to realize I didn't have one. So please give me your thoughts. > > S holds: S T9x H x D AQJx C KTxxx. The auction proceeds: > > E S W N > 1NT P P 2D > P 3H D P > P 4S D AP > > The NT is 12-14. After S bid 3H, W inquired about 2D. S obviously was > splintering in support of diamonds. When the question was asked he realized > that 2D showed majors. There is no suggestion of any UI. He properly > informed opponents of agreement. At end of auction, is he under any > obligation to disclose that he was off base when he made 3H call? My gut > instinct tells me no but I'm not sure. Could opponents ever claim damage > here? For some reason they were confused defensively. They were rather > competent and the auction itself might have tipped them off that there was a > problem. > > Thanks. > > Alan LeBendig South did not alert the 2Di call? That would be misinformation at the time of the non-alert. He then gave the correct explaination when asked after his 3 Ht call. For South to inform the opponents at the end of the hand (or during) of anything other than his partnership agreements would seem like a new form of the game. Noncontact Polisnerbridge? So even tho there is no need for any further clarification from S about what he was up to in the auction, the opponents _must_ be aware that there is something odd going on. Surely there is no hand that can be dealt that wants to play both 3Hts _and_ 4S opposite partners major-showing 2Dia. That is a bonus piece of information. West was fully informed of the meaning of 2Di when he had to decide whether to double 3H or not. The failure to alert 2Di is not relevant at this point, unless West can read South as giving a 'I'm awake now' tone to his explaination. That also would simply be bonus info to West ( and UI to North). Net result - West had his mind on autopilot and crashed and burned. South is a menagerie rabbit ( if _I_ bid 3H west would smile and pass after asking). OK, what am I missing, Alan. Jerry Sund sund@netshop.bc.ca From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jul 20 05:47:01 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA15268 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 20 Jul 1996 05:47:01 +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 FAA15263 for ; Sat, 20 Jul 1996 05:46:54 +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 PAA29860 for ; Fri, 19 Jul 1996 15:46:46 -0400 Date: Fri, 19 Jul 1996 15:46:46 -0400 (EDT) From: Eric Landau To: Bridge Laws Discussion List Subject: Re: Disclosure Requirements In-Reply-To: <960719121818_159796626@emout07.mail.aol.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Fri, 19 Jul 1996 AlLeBendig@aol.com wrote: > I've been asked my opinion on a situation that came up and I was quite > distressed to realize I didn't have one. So please give me your thoughts. > > S holds: S T9x H x D AQJx C KTxxx. The auction proceeds: > > E S W N > 1NT P P 2D > P 3H D P > P 4S D AP > > The NT is 12-14. After S bid 3H, W inquired about 2D. S obviously was > splintering in support of diamonds. When the question was asked he realized > that 2D showed majors. There is no suggestion of any UI. He properly > informed opponents of agreement. At end of auction, is he under any > obligation to disclose that he was off base when he made 3H call? My gut > instinct tells me no but I'm not sure. Could opponents ever claim damage > here? For some reason they were confused defensively. They were rather > competent and the auction itself might have tipped them off that there was a > problem. I think your instinct is correct, Alan. One's obligation to "full disclosure" pertains only to disclosing partnership agreements and understandings. There's no existing obligation to disclose deviations from those agreements, whether they're intentional or accidental (and to say that such an obligation might exist under certain circumstances can only lead to yet another "slippery slope"). The opponents have no right to be told that someone has made a mistake or suffered a temporary mind- loss in mid-auction, so, although they may have been "damaged" by it, they have no claim for redress. Had the auction proceeded uninterrupted, North would be obligated to supply the omitted alert to 2D they were "owed" -- that comes under the obligation of fully disclosing your agreements. But since they were in fact correctly informed at the point where it mattered, there's no need for North to repeat the correct explanation they've already been given. Whether or not it was the opponent's inquiry that woke South up to the fact that he had forgotten his agreement has no bearing, since the "information" he obtained as a result of the inquiry is "authorized." 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 Jul 20 21:58:58 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id VAA17846 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 20 Jul 1996 21:58:58 +1000 Received: from freenet.carleton.ca (root@freenet.carleton.ca [134.117.1.25]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id VAA17841 for ; Sat, 20 Jul 1996 21:58:52 +1000 Received: from freenet3.carleton.ca (ac342@freenet3.carleton.ca [134.117.1.22]) by freenet.carleton.ca (8.6.12/8.6.4) with ESMTP id HAA13774 for ; Sat, 20 Jul 1996 07:58:31 -0400 Received: (ac342@localhost) by freenet3.carleton.ca (8.6.12/NCF-Sun-Client) id HAA25140; Sat, 20 Jul 1996 07:58:31 -0400 Date: Sat, 20 Jul 1996 07:58:31 -0400 Message-Id: <199607201158.HAA25140@freenet3.carleton.ca> From: ac342@freenet.carleton.ca (A. L. Edwards) To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Misinformation/Insufficient Information Problem Reply-To: ac342@freenet.carleton.ca Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > >Brd #4 >Both vul >Dlr: West S Q76 W N E S > H Q7632 P P 1C(1) P > D QJ 1H(2) P 2D P > C J96 2S P 3NT P > S KJ942 S 85 P P > H KT H A54 > D 72 D AKT84 opening lead: HJ > C 7542 C AKQ result: 3NT making, +600 EW > S AT3 > H J98 > D 9653 1) alerted, no inquiry > C T83 2) alerted, explained as > more than A,Q or K,Q,Q > effectively 2 controls > > South made a face down opening lead, and North asked if West was promising >4 Spades and 5 Hearts. East said no, 1H said nothing about the heart suit. >North called for the director. >When I arrived, the situation was explained to me. N/S thought that, because >they had not been informed (and were therefore unaware) that 1H was artificial, >that South should be able to change the still face down opening lead, in light >of the new information. > E/W agreed that they had not stated that 1H was artificial. However, they >argued that it was implied in their explanation, and that therefore the face >down opening lead should not be changed. They also argued that North's inquiery >would certainly result in the unnatural lead of a heart. > I ruled that the lead could be picked up and changed, since, IMO, the >explanation had been incomplete. > East said that he would like to appeal the ruling. I asked that the hand >be played; at the end ot the hand, he still wanted to appeal the ruling. >If it matters, the board was played 8 times, and N/S received 4 >matchpoints, E/W 3 matchpoints. >At the committee, E/W again agreed that they had not explicitely stated >that 1H was artificial, but argued that it was certainly implied by their >explanation. They also used the analogy that in the standard auction 2C-2D, >2D would be explained as negative, or waiting, but would be never explained as >artificial as well; this precedent should therefore apply over 1C-1H. > After hearing both sides, the committee upheld the ruling. They agreed that >the explanation of 1H had been incomplete, result stood. > East was unhappy with both my and the committee's ruling. >1) As director, how would you rule? Does the level of the players matter? >2) Should North's inquiry about the Heart suit be UI for South? (The original > lead, as it happened, was a spade.) >3) Do you agree with E/W analogy of 2C-2D and 1C-1H? >4) How would you rule on a committee? > > Not that this happened, but, >5) Would the ruling have been different had the lead been face up? >6) Suppose N/S had not called the director at the lead. The hand is > played out, and then the director is called. N/S complain that > the incomplete information caused them to make a bad lead. > How would you rule then? > Thanks. > > Tony (aka ac342) > >ps. E/W wanted to know if, in the ACBL, there was any other level of > appeal after the club appeal. I told him no, I didn't think so, and, > after talking with our local regional director, I am now > pretty sure there isn't, but...is there? What is the procedure in > other countries? > > From owner-bridge-laws Sun Jul 21 04:34:46 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA21827 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 21 Jul 1996 04:34:46 +1000 Received: from dfw-ix7.ix.netcom.com (dfw-ix7.ix.netcom.com [206.214.98.7]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id EAA21822 for ; Sun, 21 Jul 1996 04:34:40 +1000 Received: from (jonbriss@sbo-ca2-05.ix.netcom.com [205.184.185.69]) by dfw-ix7.ix.netcom.com (8.6.13/8.6.12) with SMTP id LAA06517; Sat, 20 Jul 1996 11:33:23 -0700 Date: Sat, 20 Jul 1996 11:33:23 -0700 Message-Id: <199607201833.LAA06517@dfw-ix7.ix.netcom.com> From: jonbriss@ix.netcom.com (Jon C Brissman) Subject: Re: Misinformation/Insufficient Information Problem To: ac342@freenet.carleton.ca Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk You wrote: > >> >>Brd #4 >>Both vul >>Dlr: West S Q76 W N E S >> H Q7632 P P 1C(1) P >> D QJ 1H(2) P 2D P >> C J96 2S P 3NT P >> S KJ942 S 85 P P >> H KT H A54 >> D 72 D AKT84 opening lead: HJ >> C 7542 C AKQ result: 3NT making, +600 EW >> S AT3 >> H J98 >> D 9653 1) alerted, no inquiry >> C T83 2) alerted, explained as >> more than A,Q or K,Q,Q >> effectively 2 controls >> >> South made a face down opening lead, and North asked if West was promising >>4 Spades and 5 Hearts. East said no, 1H said nothing about the heart suit. >>North called for the director. >>When I arrived, the situation was explained to me. N/S thought that, because >>they had not been informed (and were therefore unaware) that 1H was artificial, >>that South should be able to change the still face down opening lead, in light >>of the new information. >> E/W agreed that they had not stated that 1H was artificial. However, they >>argued that it was implied in their explanation, and that therefore the face >>down opening lead should not be changed. They also argued that North's inquiery >>would certainly result in the unnatural lead of a heart. >> I ruled that the lead could be picked up and changed, since, IMO, the >>explanation had been incomplete. >> East said that he would like to appeal the ruling. I asked that the hand >>be played; at the end ot the hand, he still wanted to appeal the ruling. >>If it matters, the board was played 8 times, and N/S received 4 >>matchpoints, E/W 3 matchpoints. >>At the committee, E/W again agreed that they had not explicitely stated >>that 1H was artificial, but argued that it was certainly implied by their >>explanation. They also used the analogy that in the standard auction 2C-2D, >>2D would be explained as negative, or waiting, but would be never explained as >>artificial as well; this precedent should therefore apply over 1C-1H. >> After hearing both sides, the committee upheld the ruling. They agreed that >>the explanation of 1H had been incomplete, result stood. >> East was unhappy with both my and the committee's ruling. >>1) As director, how would you rule? Does the level of the players matter? >>2) Should North's inquiry about the Heart suit be UI for South? (The original >> lead, as it happened, was a spade.) >>3) Do you agree with E/W analogy of 2C-2D and 1C-1H? >>4) How would you rule on a committee? >> >> Not that this happened, but, >>5) Would the ruling have been different had the lead been face up? >>6) Suppose N/S had not called the director at the lead. The hand is >> played out, and then the director is called. N/S complain that >> the incomplete information caused them to make a bad lead. >> How would you rule then? >> Thanks. >> >> Tony (aka ac342) >> >>ps. E/W wanted to know if, in the ACBL, there was any other level of >> appeal after the club appeal. I told him no, I didn't think so, and, >> after talking with our local regional director, I am now >> pretty sure there isn't, but...is there? What is the procedure in >> other countries? >> >> > Maybe I'm just too suspicious. However, I found it curious that North asked for the opportunity to allow South to change his opening lead. I aslo suspect that North knew what was going on and staged the questioning to direct South's attention to the heart suit; after all, why else wouldn't North simply have allowed South to fact the lead, after which North's question would have been answered by an inspection of the exposed dummy. IMO, N-S would have had a much stronger claim for redress has the lead been faced and dummy exposed before the questioning started. If South then made a claim before play continued that he would have made a different lead, the director should find it persuasive. The director should ascertain at that time from South (away from earshot of the others) what lead South would have made, then allow play to continue with the card actually lead and adjust the score later if E-W would have improved theri result with the alternative lead. In the actual situation, I favor the E-W position. Once N-S were alerted to the information that the 1H bid carried a message unrelated to the heart suit, they were not on firm ground in _assuming_ that the bid was natural. N-S had an opportunity to protect themselves by asking appropriate questions. North could have inquired "Is it natural?" when given the explanation about 1H, and the question likely would not have disclosed his interest in the heart suit. I deem the 2D negative response an appropriate analogy, and can think of many others similarly analogous (1NT - 2D "transfer"; 1H - 4C "splinter"; ace-asking responses; in none of these situations is the bid explained as artificial). I'd have ruled the spade lead stood. There is another avenue a player can take in the ACBL if he is aggrieved by a committee decision - he may present the case to the National Laws Commission. The NLC has never in my knowledge substituted their judgment for that of an AC, so the referral is cathartic and palliative. Nonetheless, Edgar Kaplan has been known to write a letter of sympathy to an aggrieved litigant when the AC has misapplied the law. He wrote me once to tell me that the AC did not understand plain English, and that a literate committee would have ruled in my favor. I felt better, having received moral vindication, but my opponents kept the master points. The real reason for referring a case to the NLC is to illustrate when laws are ambiguous, produce an unfair result, or do not adequately redress a situation. The idea is that the input provided by many such cases can lead to new laws or laws verbage revised for clarity. Jon C. Brissman From owner-bridge-laws Sun Jul 21 09:17:39 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA22434 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 21 Jul 1996 09:17:39 +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 JAA22429 for ; Sun, 21 Jul 1996 09:17:33 +1000 From: AlLeBendig@aol.com Received: by emout07.mail.aol.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) id TAA24306; Sat, 20 Jul 1996 19:16:57 -0400 Date: Sat, 20 Jul 1996 19:16:57 -0400 Message-ID: <960720191655_581151933@emout07.mail.aol.com> To: mike@mamos.demon.co.uk cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Disclosure Requirements Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In a message dated 96-07-20 04:36:22 EDT, you write: << Subj: Re: Disclosure Requirements Date: 96-07-20 04:36:22 EDT From: mike@mamos.demon.co.uk (michael amos) Reply-to: mike@mamos.demon.co.uk To: AlLeBendig@aol.com In message <960719121818_159796626@emout07.mail.aol.com> AlLeBendig@aol.com writes: > I've been asked my opinion on a situation that came up and I was quite > distressed to realize I didn't have one. So please give me your thoughts. > > S holds: S T9x H x D AQJx C KTxxx. The auction proceeds: > > E S W N > 1NT P P 2D > P 3H D P > P 4S D AP > > The NT is 12-14. After S bid 3H, W inquired about 2D. S obviously was > splintering in support of diamonds. When the question was asked he realized > that 2D showed majors. There is no suggestion of any UI. He properly > informed opponents of agreement. At end of auction, is he under any > obligation to disclose that he was off base when he made 3H call? My gut > instinct tells me no but I'm not sure. Could opponents ever claim damage > here? For some reason they were confused defensively. They were rather > competent and the auction itself might have tipped them off that there was a > problem. You don't tell us about any alert of 3H As S, making my splinter, certainly here in UK, I would expect partner to be alerting, but a *natural* jump to 3H would not be alerted. This would then be a UI problem, arising frm my partner's failure to alert. As I don't want to make a complete ass of myself and don't know (want to know?) ACBL alerting regs, (I have enough trouble with EBU regulations :) ), I'm emailing you, but feel free to bounce to bridge-laws if you think it is relevant, best wishes mike michael amos Well done, Mike. You bring up a point none of us noticed to date. I was willing to accept that S realized what there agreements were right after he 'splintered'. However, the failure to hear an alert (yes it is alertable here also) is clearly UI. Behind screens he would have continued on to 4D which would have been corrected to 4H at which point I would assume that he might have woken up and corrected to 4S. I believe I could have been persuaded to allow a 4S final contract. Are we still in agreement that S owes no explanation after the auction ends? Alan LeBendig From owner-bridge-laws Sun Jul 21 12:26:36 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id MAA23442 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 21 Jul 1996 12:26:36 +1000 Received: from relay-5.mail.demon.net (relay-5.mail.demon.net [158.152.1.48]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id MAA23437 for ; Sun, 21 Jul 1996 12:26:30 +1000 Received: from post.demon.co.uk by relay-5.mail.demon.net id aj27409; 21 Jul 96 3:20 +0100 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by relay-3.mail.demon.net id aa10112; 21 Jul 96 3:01 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Sun, 21 Jul 1996 03:00:25 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Disclosure Requirements In-Reply-To: <960720191655_581151933@emout07.mail.aol.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 1.12 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Alan LeBendig wrote: michael amos wrote: >>AlLeBendig@aol.com writes: >> I've been asked my opinion on a situation that came up and I was >>>quite distressed to realize I didn't have one. So please give me >>>your thoughts. >> >> S holds: S T9x H x D AQJx C KTxxx. The auction proceeds: >> >> E S W N >> 1NT P P 2D >> P 3H D P >> P 4S D AP >> >> The NT is 12-14. After S bid 3H, W inquired about 2D. S obviously >>>was splintering in support of diamonds. When the question was asked >>>he realized that 2D showed majors. There is no suggestion of any UI. >>>He properly informed opponents of agreement. At end of auction, is >>>he under any obligation to disclose that he was off base when he made >>>3H call? My gut instinct tells me no but I'm not sure. Could >>>opponents ever claim damage here? For some reason they were confused >>>defensively. They were rather competent and the auction itself might >>>have tipped them off that there was a problem. > You don't tell us about any alert of 3H > As S, making my splinter, certainly here in UK, I would expect >>partner to be alerting, but a *natural* jump to 3H would not be >>alerted. This would then be a UI problem, arising frm my partner's >>failure to alert. > > As I don't want to make a complete ass of myself and don't know (want >>to know?) ACBL alerting regs, (I have enough trouble with EBU >>regulations :) ), I'm emailing you, but feel free to bounce to bridge- >>laws if you think it is relevant, You're right, Mike, you don't want to know. :)) [And nobody believe a word he says about EBU regs: he's OK.] Well done, Mike. You bring up a point none of us noticed to date. I >was willing to accept that S realized what there agreements were right >after he 'splintered'. However, the failure to hear an alert (yes it >is alertable here also) is clearly UI. Behind screens he would have >continued on to 4D which would have been corrected to 4H at which point >I would assume that he might have woken up and corrected to 4S. I >believe I could have been persuaded to allow a 4S final contract. Are >we still in agreement that S owes no explanation after the auction >ends? Of course mamos is correct in one way, but saying none of us realised is not quite accurate. When you ask a question and say `There is no suggestion of any UI' then I don't worry about whether there is UI: the answer to the question as originally set is, as pointed out in other posts, that you don't tell your opponents anything. It is basic: it is simple: there is no question about it: I was a little surprised the question was asked and tended to assume there were ramifications that I had missed. Very early in learning to be an ethical player and/or a TD we learn that a player's opponents have a right to know his agreements, but nothing else. And, of course, also very early in learning to be a TD we learn that if opponents call you to the table and complain about MI then you ***always*** consider UI as well. Of course, in the given hand, the first reaction was to find out whether 3H was alerted, and so on ... Naively [it seems] I took the `There is no suggestion of any UI' on trust, and, to be honest, rather lost interest in the thread. Obviously mamos is less naive than me! So now, let us reconsider: it appears that there may have been UI. Did North alert South's 3H bid? No? Now I need to know exactly what `When the question was asked he realized that 2D showed majors' means? Is that what he said to a TD? Is he experienced? If you are telling me that 3H was not alerted, that South knew that (ie it was not behind screens), that he told his opponents that 2D showed the majors, that he bid 4S and he said that he had been reminded by the question then he is going to need a pretty convincing argument to stop me returning the board to 3Hx, fining him at least a top for luck, and making a written report to his NCBO. His best chance is that he is an inexperienced player: then he merely gets 3Hx, half a board fine, and a ten minute ethical lecture. Of course, there is still no reason why he should have told the opponents anything different: there was no MI on the board. -- David Stevenson Bridge Cats Railways Logic /\_/\ Liverpool, England, UK Nothing ventured, nothing gained =( ^*^ )= david@blakjak.demon.co.uk Emails welcome RTFLB ( | | ) Tel: +44 (0)151 677 7412 Phone before Fax please (_~^ ^~ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jul 22 11:01:28 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id LAA07368 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 22 Jul 1996 11:01:28 +1000 Received: from relay-5.mail.demon.net (relay-5.mail.demon.net [158.152.1.48]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id LAA07363 for ; Mon, 22 Jul 1996 11:01:21 +1000 Received: from post.demon.co.uk by relay-5.mail.demon.net id ao15201; 22 Jul 96 1:51 +0100 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by relay-3.mail.demon.net id aa14888; 22 Jul 96 1:41 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 22 Jul 1996 01:38:38 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Misinformation/Insufficient Information Problem In-Reply-To: <199607201158.HAA25140@freenet3.carleton.ca> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 1.12 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk A. L. Edwards wrote: >> >>Brd #4 >>Both vul >>Dlr: West S Q76 W N E S >> H Q7632 P P 1C(1) P >> D QJ 1H(2) P 2D P >> C J96 2S P 3NT P >> S KJ942 S 85 P P >> H KT H A54 >> D 72 D AKT84 opening lead: HJ >> C 7542 C AKQ result: 3NT making, +600 EW >> S AT3 >> H J98 >> D 9653 1) alerted, no inquiry >> C T83 2) alerted, explained as >> more than A,Q or K,Q,Q >> effectively 2 controls >> >> South made a face down opening lead, and North asked if West was promising >>4 Spades and 5 Hearts. East said no, 1H said nothing about the heart suit. >>North called for the director. >>When I arrived, the situation was explained to me. N/S thought that, because >>they had not been informed (and were therefore unaware) that 1H was artificial, >>that South should be able to change the still face down opening lead, in light >>of the new information. Now this is the nub of the situation. Why was North unaware that 1H was artificial? If North was very very inexperienced, or his experience was specialised [eg he had played for many years, but only in local clubs where there were no strong Club players whatever] it is possible he believed this. But the chances he really did not know that 1H was artificial I would put at about one in seventy. Does this scenario sound credible? Suppose he is so inexperienced that he really does think that 1H is natural: then he would not have the experience to realise that his partner's lead could be changed. No, make those odds one in a hundred and twenty. >> E/W agreed that they had not stated that 1H was artificial. However, they >>argued that it was implied in their explanation, and that therefore the face >>down opening lead should not be changed. Certainly correct. > They also argued that North's inquiery >>would certainly result in the unnatural lead of a heart. Sounds fair! >> I ruled that the lead could be picked up and changed, since, IMO, the >>explanation had been incomplete. The explanation is incomplete is not actually a reason for allowing the lead to be changed. Misinformation is the reason, and the two are not the same, even though they often may be equivalent. Consider this: you are called to the table: South says he has been misinformed so can North change his lead: what's the misinformation you ask: South said they had asked the meaning of a 1NT opening and been told it showed 16- 18 HCP: South said that they had been misinformed because they had not been told that it showed a balanced hand: are you going to allow North to change his lead? IMO the explanation may not have been complete, like 80% of all explanations, but it was complete enough that the opposition were not misinformed. >> East said that he would like to appeal the ruling. I asked that the hand >>be played; at the end ot the hand, he still wanted to appeal the ruling. Very reasonably! >>If it matters, the board was played 8 times, and N/S received 4 >>matchpoints, E/W 3 matchpoints. No, it has absolutely nothing to do with either the ruling or the appeal. >>At the committee, E/W again agreed that they had not explicitely stated >>that 1H was artificial, but argued that it was certainly implied by their >>explanation. They also used the analogy that in the standard auction 2C-2D, >>2D would be explained as negative, or waiting, but would be never explained as >>artificial as well; this precedent should therefore apply over 1C-1H. >> After hearing both sides, the committee upheld the ruling. They agreed that >>the explanation of 1H had been incomplete, result stood. Crazy. >> East was unhappy with both my and the committee's ruling. >>1) As director, how would you rule? Does the level of the players matter? If North was a total beginner then I might reconsider, but in any other case I would rule no MI. >>2) Should North's inquiry about the Heart suit be UI for South? (The original >> lead, as it happened, was a spade.) Certainly: if I had allowed South to change his lead then I would have adjusted the final score back anyway because a heart lead was based on UI. >>3) Do you agree with E/W analogy of 2C-2D and 1C-1H? Certainly. >>4) How would you rule on a committee? >> I would rule in E/W's favour, suggest politely to the TD to be a trifle less naive next time, and give North a lecture on active ethics. I would have some thoughts about PPs for North and South. >> Not that this happened, but, >>5) Would the ruling have been different had the lead been face up? No. >>6) Suppose N/S had not called the director at the lead. The hand is >> played out, and then the director is called. N/S complain that >> the incomplete information caused them to make a bad lead. >> How would you rule then? No MI. >>ps. E/W wanted to know if, in the ACBL, there was any other level of >> appeal after the club appeal. I told him no, I didn't think so, and, >> after talking with our local regional director, I am now >> pretty sure there isn't, but...is there? What is the procedure in >> other countries? Oh, Tony! RTFLB (thanks Jeff). Read L93C. Law 93 - Procedures of Appeal C. Appeal to National Authority After the preceding remedies have been exhausted, further appeal may be taken to the national authority. So, unless the ACBL has ignored the Law book [we know the ACBL would never do that, would they fellas?], there must be a way of appealing to the National Authority. ---- Just one little consideration: forget the Law book, the rules, and everything else: forget appeals, director calls, ethics, good and bad bridge players. Put it all out of your mind. Look again at the facts of the case: the description of 1H: North's questions. Now tell me: do you honestly believe that North was telling the truth when he said that he was unaware that 1H was artificial? I don't, and I doubt there are many people who do. [He did say it, didn't he: you did not assume it without asking?] Without being at the table and hearing everything I cannot be absolutely sure what was going on, but relying on what you have said absolutely, and the nuances that you have expressed then it is time North's ethics were examined. ---- Jon C Brissman wrote: >Maybe I'm just too suspicious. However, I found it curious that North >asked for the opportunity to allow South to change his opening lead. I >aslo suspect that North knew what was going on and staged the >questioning to direct South's attention to the heart suit; after all, >why else wouldn't North simply have allowed South to fact the lead, >after which North's question would have been answered by an inspection >of the exposed dummy. > I am very rarely suspicious: IMO less often than most people who post to BLML: but this case seems so blatant. [s] >There is another avenue a player can take in the ACBL if he is >aggrieved by a committee decision - he may present the case to the >National Laws Commission. The NLC has never in my knowledge >substituted their judgment for that of an AC, so the referral is >cathartic and palliative. Nonetheless, Edgar Kaplan has been known to >write a letter of sympathy to an aggrieved litigant when the AC has >misapplied the law. He wrote me once to tell me that the AC did not >understand plain English, and that a literate committee would have >ruled in my favor. I felt better, having received moral vindication, >but my opponents kept the master points. > >The real reason for referring a case to the NLC is to illustrate when >laws are ambiguous, produce an unfair result, or do not adequately >redress a situation. The idea is that the input provided by many such >cases can lead to new laws or laws verbage revised for clarity. > Is this the only method of applying L93C? -- David Stevenson Bridge Cats Railways Logic /\_/\ Liverpool, England, UK Nothing ventured, nothing gained =( ^*^ )= david@blakjak.demon.co.uk Emails welcome RTFLB ( | | ) Tel: +44 (0)151 677 7412 Phone before Fax please (_~^ ^~ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jul 22 15:01:27 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id PAA08487 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 22 Jul 1996 15:01:27 +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 PAA08482 for ; Mon, 22 Jul 1996 15:01:19 +1000 From: AlLeBendig@aol.com Received: by emout15.mail.aol.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA20809 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Mon, 22 Jul 1996 01:02:21 -0400 Date: Mon, 22 Jul 1996 01:02:21 -0400 Message-ID: <960722010220_581838303@emout15.mail.aol.com> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Disclosure Requirements Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In a message dated 96-07-20 22:29:10 EDT, David Stevenson writes: << Subj: Re: Disclosure Requirements Date: 96-07-20 22:29:10 EDT From: david@blakjak.demon.co.uk (David Stevenson) Sender: owner-bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Reply-to: newsr@blakjak.demon.co.uk (David Stevenson) To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Alan LeBendig wrote: michael amos wrote: >>AlLeBendig@aol.com writes: >> I've been asked my opinion on a situation that came up and I was >>>quite distressed to realize I didn't have one. So please give me >>>your thoughts. >> >> S holds: S T9x H x D AQJx C KTxxx. The auction proceeds: >> >> E S W N >> 1NT P P 2D >> P 3H D P >> P 4S D AP >> >> The NT is 12-14. After S bid 3H, W inquired about 2D. S obviously >>>was splintering in support of diamonds. When the question was asked >>>he realized that 2D showed majors. There is no suggestion of any UI. >>>He properly informed opponents of agreement. At end of auction, is >>>he under any obligation to disclose that he was off base when he made >>>3H call? My gut instinct tells me no but I'm not sure. Could >>>opponents ever claim damage here? For some reason they were confused >>>defensively. They were rather competent and the auction itself might >>>have tipped them off that there was a problem. > You don't tell us about any alert of 3H > As S, making my splinter, certainly here in UK, I would expect >>partner to be alerting, but a *natural* jump to 3H would not be >>alerted. This would then be a UI problem, arising frm my partner's >>failure to alert. > > As I don't want to make a complete ass of myself and don't know (want >>to know?) ACBL alerting regs, (I have enough trouble with EBU >>regulations :) ), I'm emailing you, but feel free to bounce to bridge- >>laws if you think it is relevant, You're right, Mike, you don't want to know. :)) [And nobody believe a word he says about EBU regs: he's OK.] Well done, Mike. You bring up a point none of us noticed to date. I >was willing to accept that S realized what there agreements were right >after he 'splintered'. However, the failure to hear an alert (yes it >is alertable here also) is clearly UI. Behind screens he would have >continued on to 4D which would have been corrected to 4H at which point >I would assume that he might have woken up and corrected to 4S. I >believe I could have been persuaded to allow a 4S final contract. Are >we still in agreement that S owes no explanation after the auction >ends? Of course mamos is correct in one way, but saying none of us realised is not quite accurate. When you ask a question and say `There is no suggestion of any UI' then I don't worry about whether there is UI: David is 100% correct; when the problem was posed to me I felt I had thought it through and asked all the appropriate questions. When I presented it to all of you it honestly never occurred to me that there might be some UI. Unlike many of you, I sort these problems out in committee situations and even if one of us misses something as obvious as this, others are bound to notice it. I clearly missed the target and I thanked mike for pointing it out to me. HOWEVER, the answer to the question as originally set is, as pointed out in other posts, that you don't tell your opponents anything. It is basic: it is simple: there is no question about it: I was a little surprised the question was asked and tended to assume there were ramifications that I had missed. Very early in learning to be an ethical player and/or a TD we learn that a player's opponents have a right to know his agreements, but nothing else. And, of course, also very early in learning to be a TD we learn that if opponents call you to the table and complain about MI then you ***always*** consider UI as well. Of course, in the given hand, the first reaction was to find out whether 3H was alerted, and so on ... Naively [it seems] I took the `There is no suggestion of any UI' on trust, and, to be honest, rather lost interest in the thread. Obviously mamos is less naive than me! So now, let us reconsider: it appears that there may have been UI. Did North alert South's 3H bid? No? Now I need to know exactly what `When the question was asked he realized that 2D showed majors' means? Is that what he said to a TD? Is he experienced? Yes to both. If you are telling me that 3H was not alerted, that South knew that (ie it was not behind screens), that he told his opponents that 2D showed the majors, that he bid 4S and he said that he had been reminded by the question then he is going to need a pretty convincing argument to stop me returning the board to 3Hx, fining him at least a top for luck, and making a written report to his NCBO. His best chance is that he is an inexperienced player: then he merely gets 3Hx, half a board fine, and a ten minute ethical lecture. Of course, there is still no reason why he should have told the opponents anything different: there was no MI on the board. David, it is my turn to point out what I believe to be an error in your judgement. I don't believe we could ever suggest that 3Hx would be the final contract. That is not possible! If we apply a screen to this discussion, S would never pass 3Hx after his splinter. He knows he doesn't want to play in 3Hx. We would never stop him from bidding his hand as he started. That would result in him retreating to 4D. This would lead his partner to a 4H bid and I would now allow him to wake up because of the sheer impossibility of the auction. I still believe the final contract should be 4S (possibly doubled ). If we allow W the knowledge of what each player is doing (could we?), he may choose not to double 3H. That would obviously allow the auction to end. But we could never force S to pass 3Hx. Alan LeBendig From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jul 22 15:05:17 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id PAA08513 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 22 Jul 1996 15:05:17 +1000 Received: from shell.monmouth.com (root@shell.monmouth.com [205.164.220.9]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id PAA08508 for ; Mon, 22 Jul 1996 15:05:01 +1000 Received: from lhost.monmouth.com (ppp12.monmouth.com [205.164.220.44]) by shell.monmouth.com (8.7.4/8.7.3) with SMTP id BAA03413 for ; Mon, 22 Jul 1996 01:01:51 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <199607220501.BAA03413@shell.monmouth.com> Comments: Authenticated sender is From: "Stefanie Rohan" To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Mon, 22 Jul 1996 01:00:43 -400 Subject: Re: Misinformation/Insufficient Information Problem X-Confirm-Reading-To: "Stefanie Rohan" X-pmrqc: 1 Priority: normal X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v2.10) Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Stevenson wrote: >> >> > >>Brd #4 > >>Both vul > >>Dlr: West S Q76 W N E S > >> H Q7632 P P 1C(1) P > >> D QJ 1H(2) P 2D P > >> C J96 2S P 3NT P > >> S KJ942 S 85 P P > >> H KT H A54 > >> D 72 D AKT84 opening lead: HJ > >> C 7542 C AKQ result: 3NT making, +600 EW > >> S AT3 > >> H J98 > >> D 9653 1) alerted, no inquiry > >> C T83 2) alerted, explained as > >> more than A,Q or K,Q,Q > >> effectively 2 controls > >> [North does not know that 1H is artificial] > Does this scenario sound credible? Suppose he is so inexperienced > that he really does think that 1H is natural: then he would not have the > experience to realise that his partner's lead could be changed. No, > make those odds one in a hundred and twenty. Edgar Kaplan feels that it is (or should be) ethical to ask for an explanation when you believe that your partner does not know what is going on. Perhaps North was pretty sure that 1H was artificial, but didn't know whether South knew. Should he allow his partner to act with faulty information? > > >> E/W agreed that they had not stated that 1H was artificial. However, they > >>argued that it was implied in their explanation, and that therefore the face > >>down opening lead should not be changed. > > Certainly correct. Couldn't E/W be using controls instead of HCP as their requirements for a positive response? It is always a good idea to mention that a bid is artificial, or 'says nothing about the heart suit.' Control responses to a strong 1C are not very common; depending on the exact explanation, I'm not sure I could blame N/S for assuming that 1H was a natural positive response, no matter how experienced they were. Especially if the 1H bid was explained, as noted above, as showing 'more than' 2 controls, I would think that it would be much more likely that N/S would assume that this was the criterion for a natural positive response. How many people have never heard a strong clubber describe partner's natural positive response as 'shows eight or more points'? > > > They also argued that North's inquiry > >>would certainly result in the unnatural lead of a heart. > > Sounds fair! > > >> I ruled that the lead could be picked up and changed, since, IMO, the > >>explanation had been incomplete. > > The explanation is incomplete is not actually a reason for allowing > the lead to be changed. Misinformation is the reason, and the two are > not the same, even though they often may be equivalent. Consider this: > you are called to the table: South says he has been misinformed so can > North change his lead: what's the misinformation you ask: South said > they had asked the meaning of a 1NT opening and been told it showed 16- > 18 HCP: South said that they had been misinformed because they had not > been told that it showed a balanced hand: are you going to allow North > to change his lead? This is a poor analogy, because a 1NT opening promises a balanced hand virtually 100% of the time, and this is completely expected by the opponents. In fact, in the ACBL a 1NT opening is alertable if it does not promise a balanced hand. > > IMO the explanation may not have been complete, like 80% of all > explanations, but it was complete enough that the opposition were not > misinformed. It was E/W's responsibility to make sure that N/S knew what their unusual agreement showed. I believe that North had the right to make sure that partner knew what was going on, whether he himself knew or not. The obvious problem with this reasoning is that North's actions make the heart lead pretty clear. But wouldn't asking more questions after the explanation of the 1H bid achieve the same thing? Then North has no ethical way to clear up, for his partnership, the natural/conventional meaning of the bid. But it should not be his responsibility. In my opinion the onus is on E/W to make sure that their methods are described reasonably completely to the opponents. > >>At the committee, E/W again agreed that they had not explicitely stated > >>that 1H was artificial, but argued that it was certainly implied by their > >>explanation. They also used the analogy that in the standard auction 2C-2D, > >>2D would be explained as negative, or waiting, but would be never explained as > >>artificial as well; this precedent should therefore apply over 1C-1H. Another bad analogy, because this is a much more common situation. If we are going to use 2C-2D as an example, let us again use alertability as a criterion. If 2D is negative or waiting, it does not require an alert; if it shows 0-1 controls, it does. So apparently the ACBL expects the former method to be familiar to the opponents, and the latter method less so. And control responses are far more common over a strong 2C than over a strong 1C opening. > >> After hearing both sides, the committee upheld the ruling. They agreed that > >>the explanation of 1H had been incomplete, result stood. > > Crazy. I'm not so sure. > > >> East was unhappy with both my and the committee's ruling. > >>1) As director, how would you rule? Does the level of the players matter? > > If North was a total beginner then I might reconsider, but in any > other case I would rule no MI. Again, I disagree. > > >>2) Should North's inquiry about the Heart suit be UI for South? (The original > >> lead, as it happened, was a spade.) > > Certainly: if I had allowed South to change his lead then I would have > adjusted the final score back anyway because a heart lead was based on > UI. This is the most compelling argument, but I maintain that North probably had no way to clarify the situation without passing UI. So I would rule in his favor, and expect E/W to learn a lesson about full disclosure. > > >>3) Do you agree with E/W analogy of 2C-2D and 1C-1H? > > Certainly. No. > > Just one little consideration: forget the Law book, the rules, and > everything else: forget appeals, director calls, ethics, good and bad > bridge players. Put it all out of your mind. Look again at the facts > of the case: the description of 1H: North's questions. Now tell me: do > you honestly believe that North was telling the truth when he said that > he was unaware that 1H was artificial? Even if North was aware that it was artificial, was SOUTH? If I am asked to forget the Law book, then I am firm in maintaining that it is within North's rights to make sure South got the full explanation of the conventional bid. > I don't, and I doubt there are > many people who do. [He did say it, didn't he: you did not assume it > without asking?] > > Without being at the table and hearing everything I cannot be > absolutely sure what was going on, but relying on what you have said > absolutely, and the nuances that you have expressed then it is time > North's ethics were examined. > Perhaps North was being unethical; but aren't we being unfair to him if we give him no way to find out the nature of the 1H bid without being unethical? Yes, he could have waited until his turn, but this is unfair to South, who may have had no reason to suspect that the bid was artificial. > ---- > > Jon C Brissman wrote: > > >Maybe I'm just too suspicious. However, I found it curious that North > >asked for the opportunity to allow South to change his opening lead. I > >aslo suspect that North knew what was going on and staged the > >questioning to direct South's attention to the heart suit; after all, > >why else wouldn't North simply have allowed South to fact the lead, > >after which North's question would have been answered by an inspection > >of the exposed dummy. > > > I am very rarely suspicious: IMO less often than most people who post > to BLML: but this case seems so blatant. > I am not comfortable with North's actions either, but I do not think that I want him to take the blame in this situation. Cheers, Stefanie Rohan From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jul 22 16:32:26 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id QAA08876 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 22 Jul 1996 16:32:26 +1000 Received: from shell.monmouth.com (root@shell.monmouth.com [205.164.220.9]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id QAA08870 for ; Mon, 22 Jul 1996 16:32:10 +1000 Received: from lhost.monmouth.com (ppp2.monmouth.com [205.164.220.34]) by shell.monmouth.com (8.7.4/8.7.3) with SMTP id CAA16703 for ; Mon, 22 Jul 1996 02:29:07 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <199607220629.CAA16703@shell.monmouth.com> Comments: Authenticated sender is From: "Stefanie Rohan" To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Mon, 22 Jul 1996 02:27:59 -400 Subject: Re: Disclosure Requirements X-Confirm-Reading-To: "Stefanie Rohan" X-pmrqc: 1 Priority: normal X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v2.10) Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Alan LeBendig wrote: > > David, it is my turn to point out what I believe to be an error in your > judgement. I don't believe we could ever suggest that 3Hx would be the final > contract. That is not possible! If we apply a screen to this discussion, S > would never pass 3Hx after his splinter. He knows he doesn't want to play in > 3Hx. We would never stop him from bidding his hand as he started. That > would result in him retreating to 4D. This would lead his partner to a 4H > bid and I would now allow him to wake up because of the sheer impossibility > of the auction. Why will the player wake up? It sounds as if North got excited after partner's splinter and is cuebidding the Ace of hearts. Obviously this is highly unlikely opposite a partner who didn't double 1NT, but South's failure to make such a double or take a bid does not preclude the possibility of his holding approximately a strong NT. He could, from North's point of view, have a hand unsuitable either for doubling or trying a suit bid, such as a good 4-1-4-4 -- or a good hand with a poor suit which he'd rather try to set up on defense than offense (but is not sure enough of success to double.) Perhaps South, playing behind screens, will, during the auction, suddenly remember his methods. Actually this is quite likely, but there is no guarantee. It is giving far too much of a benefit of the doubt to pretend that there were screens, and then make assumptions (favorable to the player) about what might have happened behind them. >I still believe the final contract should be 4S (possibly > doubled ). If we allow W the knowledge of what each player is doing (could > we?), he may choose not to double 3H. That would obviously allow the auction > to end. But we could never force S to pass 3Hx. Here is the auction again: > >> S holds: S T9x H x D AQJx C KTxxx. The auction proceeds: > >> > >> E S W N > >> 1NT P P 2D > >> P 3H D P > >> P 4S D AP I agree that we cannot force South to pass 3Hx. But I'm not sure if, without screens, he is EVER allowed to 'wake up' to his methods after the 'splinter' bid was not alerted. So I don't know what the final contract should be; I am therefore tempted to give A+/A-. I don't think I want to come down quite so hard as David, because I really do think that, without 'hearing' the failure to alert, South would probably have remembered what methods he was playing well before the auction was over. Is he to be forced not to remember his agreements for the rest of the auction? But I don't want to go so easy as Alan, because South DID 'hear' it, and there's always a chance that a disaster would have occurred behind screens. And I probably do want to give N/S a procedural penalty, because the 4S bid is not only suggested by the UI, but seems to be the most likely call to avoid a disaster. I have some sympathy for South, because I believe that he would have remembered his methods sooner or later, and it was bad luck that the alert situation turned his own agreements into UI. Cheers, Stefanie Rohan From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jul 22 19:58:24 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id TAA12820 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 22 Jul 1996 19:58:24 +1000 Received: from tom.compulink.co.uk (tom.compulink.co.uk [194.153.0.51]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id TAA12784 for ; Mon, 22 Jul 1996 19:58:14 +1000 Received: (from root@localhost) by tom.compulink.co.uk (8.6.9/8.6.9) id KAA26633 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 22 Jul 1996 10:57:35 +0100 Date: Mon, 22 Jul 96 10:56 BST-1 From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: Disclosure Requirements To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Cc: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Reply-To: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Message-Id: Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk michael amos wrote: >>AlLeBendig@aol.com writes: >> I've been asked my opinion on a situation that came up and I was >>>quite distressed to realize I didn't have one. So please give me >>>your thoughts. >> >> S holds: S T9x H x D AQJx C KTxxx. The auction proceeds: >> >> E S W N >> 1NT P P 2D >> P 3H D P >> P 4S D AP >> >> The NT is 12-14. After S bid 3H, W inquired about 2D. S obviously >>>was splintering in support of diamonds. When the question was asked >>>he realized that 2D showed majors. There is no suggestion of any UI. >>>He properly informed opponents of agreement. At end of auction, is >>>he under any obligation to disclose that he was off base when he made >>>3H call? My gut instinct tells me no but I'm not sure. Could >>>opponents ever claim damage here? For some reason they were confused >>>defensively. They were rather competent and the auction itself might >>>have tipped them off that there was a problem. > You don't tell us about any alert of 3H > As S, making my splinter, certainly here in UK, I would expect >>partner to be alerting, but a *natural* jump to 3H would not be >>alerted. This would then be a UI problem, arising frm my partner's >>failure to alert. > It seems to me that this makes the situation potentially much more serious. The original post contained the statement "When the question was asked he realized that 2D showed majors." I assume this is what the player actually said (or how would we know). This leaves two very different positions. a) It was the truth, the player was "woken up" by the question and not by any UI received from partner's alert/lack of alert. (Legitimate as far as I can work out, but lucky!) b) The player recieved UI from partner's action, knowingly acted on it, and then lied to the TD to keep the fact hidden. I might just accept c) that the player's subconcious was triggered by UI and thus made him think harder about the question in which case a normal UI ruling should apply. I would feel very uncomfortable ruling against the player in situation a) [though maybe I should still do so by law] and am still trying to find the right penalty for situation b). (I don't think either the EBU or ACBL permit flogging.) Please note: From the tone of the original post I think situation b)to be highly unlikely. Apologies for being so contentious in my first post to this list but I can never resist temptation. Tim West-Meads. From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jul 22 23:20:17 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA15635 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 22 Jul 1996 23:20:17 +1000 Received: from relay-5.mail.demon.net (relay-5.mail.demon.net [158.152.1.48]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id XAA15630 for ; Mon, 22 Jul 1996 23:20:10 +1000 Received: from post.demon.co.uk by relay-5.mail.demon.net id az05749; 22 Jul 96 14:16 +0100 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by relay-3.mail.demon.net id aa29437; 22 Jul 96 13:07 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 22 Jul 1996 13:04:58 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Disclosure Requirements In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 1.12 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Alan LeBendig wrote: > I've been asked my opinion on a situation that came up and I was >quite distressed to realize I didn't have one. So please give me >your thoughts. > > S holds: S T9x H x D AQJx C KTxxx. The auction proceeds: > > E S W N > 1NT P P 2D > P 3H D P > P 4S D AP > > The NT is 12-14. After S bid 3H, W inquired about 2D. S obviously >was splintering in support of diamonds. When the question was asked >he realized that 2D showed majors. There is no suggestion of any UI. >He properly informed opponents of agreement. At end of auction, is >he under any obligation to disclose that he was off base when he made >3H call? My gut instinct tells me no but I'm not sure. Could >opponents ever claim damage here? For some reason they were confused >defensively. They were rather competent and the auction itself might >have tipped them off that there was a problem. >David Stevenson wrote: >> So now, let us reconsider: it appears that there may have been UI. >>Did North alert South's 3H bid? No? Now I need to know exactly what >>`When the question was asked he realized that 2D showed majors' means? >>Is that what he said to a TD? Is he experienced? >> >> If you are telling me that 3H was not alerted, that South knew that >>(ie it was not behind screens), that he told his opponents that 2D >>showed the majors, that he bid 4S and he said that he had been >>reminded by the question then he is going to need a pretty convincing >>argument to stop me returning the board to 3Hx, fining him at least a >>top for luck, and making a written report to his NCBO. His best >>chance is that he is an inexperienced player: then he merely gets 3Hx, >>half a board fine, and a ten minute ethical lecture. Of course, there >>is still no reason why he should have told the opponents anything >>different: there was no MI on the board. >David, it is my turn to point out what I believe to be an error in your >judgement. I don't believe we could ever suggest that 3Hx would be the final >contract. That is not possible! If we apply a screen to this discussion, S >would never pass 3Hx after his splinter. He knows he doesn't want to play in >3Hx. We would never stop him from bidding his hand as he started. That >would result in him retreating to 4D. This would lead his partner to a 4H >bid and I would now allow him to wake up because of the sheer impossibility >of the auction. I still believe the final contract should be 4S (possibly >doubled ). If we allow W the knowledge of what each player is doing (could >we?), he may choose not to double 3H. That would obviously allow the auction >to end. But we could never force S to pass 3Hx. I find it amazing the completely stupid decisions I actually give sometimes when using this medium. The reason, of course, why I typed that last paragraph is I was thinking of the ethical considerations and did not have the hand in front of me. What I need is two computers so I can have the problem in front of me on one screen while I am typing the solution on the other screen. No, of course, 3Hx is stupid. I don't think much of the 3H passed out option. Opponents have a right to know your methods and can make deductions at their own risk about whether a bidding sequence has gone off the rails. West asked the question and was given the correct answer before he doubled so there is no reason to change that double, in fact we have no legal right to, because no infraction had occurred at that time. I am interested in your use of the terminology "retreated to 4D": that is not the correct thought process. When 3H doubled came around to South, what might he have bid if 3H had been alerted and he had not remembered anything? Well, opponents doubling splinters presumably to show length doesn't frighten anyone, so how about 5D? North bids 5H, obviously a generalised try [North is always allowed to "retreat" to hearts because of South's 3H bid], South bids a regretful 6D. Now it probably goes Dbl 6H Dbl and North can wake up. How about 6Sx minus a few? [See I was right in my first lunatic posting: it's probably 800 for either 6Sx or 3Hx !!!] I don't think you should be too kind in allowing people to wake up too early. TDs and ACs usually do, but they tend to forget that freak hands occur. If there had been **no UI at all**, and you were South on the bidding sequence I have just given, when partner bids 5H what is your first reaction? Is it "Good gracious, he must be 0580" or is it "Good gracious, is he a nutter or have I forgotten something?". However, this is all without talking to the pairs involved. If overcalls are usually weak, and 3H is not game forcing in comparable sequences, then the effects of a 4D bid might be considered: alternatively waking up over 5H. So I would rely on my judgement as to whether I rule 6Sx, 5Sx or 4Sx, in doubt taking the higher contracts: with a European AC I would expect them to split the score between these. Stefanie Rohan wrote: >Why will the player wake up? It sounds as if North got excited >after partner's splinter and is cuebidding the Ace of hearts. >Obviously this is highly unlikely opposite a partner who >didn't double 1NT, but South's failure to make such a double or >take a bid does not preclude the possibility of his holding >approximately a strong NT. He could, from North's point of view, >have a hand unsuitable either for doubling or trying a suit bid, >such as a good 4-1-4-4 -- or a good hand with a poor suit which >he'd rather try to set up on defense than offense (but is not >sure enough of success to double.) 0-5-8-0? > >Perhaps South, playing behind screens, will, during the auction, >suddenly remember his methods. Actually this is quite likely, >but there is no guarantee. It is giving far too much of a >benefit of the doubt to pretend that there were screens, and >then make assumptions (favorable to the player) about what might >have happened behind them. > And this shows the advantage of being allowed to split scores. Consider all the bidding sequences, the chances of South remembering given screens, giving East/West all benefit of doubt, and then give each final contract a percentage: there is your ruling: it's fair, and you will find that once players get used to the idea, it's very acceptable to the players. >I agree that we cannot force South to pass 3Hx. But I'm not >sure if, without screens, he is EVER allowed to 'wake up' to his >methods after the 'splinter' bid was not alerted. So I don't >know what the final contract should be; I am therefore tempted >to give A+/A-. I don't think I want to come down quite so hard >as David, because I really do think that, without 'hearing' the >failure to alert, South would probably have remembered what >methods he was playing well before the auction was over. Is he >to be forced not to remember his agreements for the rest of the >auction? But I don't want to go so easy as Alan, because South >DID 'hear' it, and there's always a chance that a disaster would >have occurred behind screens. And I probably do want to give >N/S a procedural penalty, because the 4S bid is not only >suggested by the UI, but seems to be the most likely call to >avoid a disaster. No Stefanie, your assumptions of what I want to do are way off base. I want to split the score to allow for what in reality would have happened. The reason that my rulings are harder than that is because the Law book requires it. As for your A+A- ruling, it is clearly illegal [we've been down that route before, but L12C2 leaves no doubt] but it is more than that: if you think that South should get one out of 4Sx, 5Sx or 6Sx, and let us say that would get him a matchpoint score [based on a 100 top] of 30, 10 or 0, then I might go for 0: as explained in the body of this article and based on their methods, I might go for 10 or 30: I would prefer to split the score [eg 30% 4Sx, 50% 5Sx, 20% 6Sx, resulting in 12 matchpoints]: I cannot see why you would "adjust" the score to A+A-: why should the non-offending side get a worse score than they did at the table? I believe that the ACBL should really consider the ramifications of split scores: effectively the current approach is to either follow L12C2 or to give a split which *always* comes out at 40% for the offending side, and that's neither fair nor just. When A+A- comes out to somewhere near what justice and logic would suggest then it is a convenient and acceptable shortcut, but it is incredibly unfair in the large number of hands where a TD or an AC decides that L12C2 is too difficult to apply, or too harsh: neither of these should ever be considerations. > >I have some sympathy for South, because I believe that he would >have remembered his methods sooner or later, and it was bad luck >that the alert situation turned his own agreements into UI. > And then no sympathy that he then used it. -- David Stevenson Bridge Cats Railways Logic /\_/\ Liverpool, England, UK Nothing ventured, nothing gained =( ^*^ )= david@blakjak.demon.co.uk Emails welcome RTFLB ( | | ) Tel: +44 (0)151 677 7412 Phone before Fax please (_~^ ^~ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jul 22 23:53:24 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA15855 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 22 Jul 1996 23:53:24 +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 XAA15850 for ; Mon, 22 Jul 1996 23:53:18 +1000 From: AlLeBendig@aol.com Received: by emout12.mail.aol.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA03549 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Mon, 22 Jul 1996 09:54:39 -0400 Date: Mon, 22 Jul 1996 09:54:39 -0400 Message-ID: <960722095438_242831647@emout12.mail.aol.com> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Misinformation/Insufficient Information Problem Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In a message dated 96-07-21 21:03:31 EDT, David S. writes: [s] << Jon C Brissman wrote: >Maybe I'm just too suspicious. However, I found it curious that North >asked for the opportunity to allow South to change his opening lead. I >aslo suspect that North knew what was going on and staged the >questioning to direct South's attention to the heart suit; after all, >why else wouldn't North simply have allowed South to fact the lead, >after which North's question would have been answered by an inspection >of the exposed dummy. > I am very rarely suspicious: IMO less often than most people who post to BLML: but this case seems so blatant. Let me start by saying I am in total agreement with David as to the disposition of this case. I can understand why Tony might feel this pair is entitled to protection, but to do so here can't be right. I am disappointed that the committee agreed. [s] >There is another avenue a player can take in the ACBL if he is >aggrieved by a committee decision - he may present the case to the >National Laws Commission. The NLC has never in my knowledge >substituted their judgment for that of an AC, so the referral is >cathartic and palliative. Nonetheless, Edgar Kaplan has been known to >write a letter of sympathy to an aggrieved litigant when the AC has >misapplied the law. He wrote me once to tell me that the AC did not >understand plain English, and that a literate committee would have >ruled in my favor. I felt better, having received moral vindication, >but my opponents kept the master points. > >The real reason for referring a case to the NLC is to illustrate when >laws are ambiguous, produce an unfair result, or do not adequately >redress a situation. The idea is that the input provided by many such >cases can lead to new laws or laws verbage revised for clarity. > Is this the only method of applying L93C? I believe our Handbook (ACBL) allows three reasons for appeal to the NLC. 1: Missapplication of the Laws 2: Incompetence on the part of the Committee 3: Prejudice on the part of the Committee It has always been my understanding that one of these three conditions must be established before the NLC would hear an appeal. I was told that it was intentionally meant to be difficult. Don't ask where I heard that because I honestly can't remember. Alan LeBendig From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jul 23 00:17:46 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA17790 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 23 Jul 1996 00:17:46 +1000 Received: from relay-5.mail.demon.net (relay-5.mail.demon.net [158.152.1.48]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id AAA17727 for ; Tue, 23 Jul 1996 00:17:33 +1000 Received: from post.demon.co.uk by relay-5.mail.demon.net id ad05529; 22 Jul 96 14:04 +0100 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by relay-3.mail.demon.net id aa29439; 22 Jul 96 13:07 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 22 Jul 1996 12:08:09 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Misinformation/Insufficient Information Problem In-Reply-To: <199607220501.BAA03413@shell.monmouth.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 1.12 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Stefanie Rohan wrote: >David Stevenson wrote: >>> >>> >> >>Brd #4 >> >>Both vul >> >>Dlr: West S Q76 W N E S >> >> H Q7632 P P 1C(1) P >> >> D QJ 1H(2) P 2D P >> >> C J96 2S P 3NT P >> >> S KJ942 S 85 P P >> >> H KT H A54 >> >> D 72 D AKT84 opening lead: HJ >> >> C 7542 C AKQ result: 3NT making, +600 EW >> >> S AT3 >> >> H J98 >> >> D 9653 1) alerted, no inquiry >> >> C T83 2) alerted, explained as >> >> more than A,Q or K,Q,Q >> >> effectively 2 controls >> >> > > > > [North does not know that 1H is artificial] > >> Does this scenario sound credible? Suppose he is so inexperienced >> that he really does think that 1H is natural: then he would not have the >> experience to realise that his partner's lead could be changed. No, >> make those odds one in a hundred and twenty. > >Edgar Kaplan feels that it is (or should be) ethical to ask for >an explanation when you believe that your partner does not know >what is going on. Perhaps North was pretty sure that 1H was >artificial, but didn't know whether South knew. Should he allow >his partner to act with faulty information? Law 73 - Communication between Partners 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. B. Inappropriate Communication Between Partners 1. Gratuitous Information It is inappropriate for communication between partners to be effected through the manner in which calls or plays are made, through extraneous remarks or gestures, or through questions asked or not asked of the opponents, through alerts and explanations given or not given to them. Law 74 - Conduct and Etiquette C. Breaches of Propriety The following are considered breaches of propriety: 4. commenting or acting during the auction or play so as to call attention to a significant occurrence, or to the number of tricks still required for success. We have considered this before. Kaplan may have a good knowledge of the Laws, but he has also been known to be faulty before. He may have meant a Law to mean something, but where a Law is clear, no interpretation that is in conflict with the letter of the Law is permitted. Where Kaplan has gone wrong in the past is telling people [and on one famous occasion a TD and his Chief TD: I am pleased to say that they did not change their ruling] that something was the case: no doubt he intended it to be so but the Law said otherwise. Never forget that he is not the only Lawmaker. Individual pronouncements from him or other Lawmakers do not have the force of Law nor should they. Only the WBF laws commission [not even the ACBL one!] can override the Law book. If a player does not `allow his partner to act with faulty information' then he is trying to pass information to him to correct the so-called faulty information in breach of L73A1 [he is not trying to do it by a call or play]: furthermore it is inappropriate to use a question to pass information: see L73B1. Clearest of all is that in this case [and many similar] he wants partner to realise that an explanation may be flawed and he is clearly trying to draw partner's attention to it: and it certainly is a significant occurrence [see L74C]. If we follow Kaplan's idea then we are opening a channel of communication between partners and encouraging them to use it. It becomes legal to say "Are you sure 1H shows hearts" and claim you asked for partner's benefit. Of course you did: naive players will switch straight to hearts, fortunately running into UI problems: players who are not so naive will reflect that partner never seems to have hearts when he says this, and will avoid a heart switch with success. I know we very rarely deal with cheating, but any interpretation of the Laws which opens a channel between partners will be misused: fortunately this interpretation does not stand up to the clear light of day. >> >> >> E/W agreed that they had not stated that 1H was artificial. However, they >> >>argued that it was implied in their explanation, and that therefore the face >> >>down opening lead should not be changed. >> >> Certainly correct. > >Couldn't E/W be using controls instead of HCP as their >requirements for a positive response? It is always a good idea >to mention that a bid is artificial, or 'says nothing about the >heart suit.' Control responses to a strong 1C are not very >common; depending on the exact explanation, I'm not sure I could >blame N/S for assuming that 1H was a natural positive response, >no matter how experienced they were. Especially if the 1H bid >was explained, as noted above, as showing 'more than' 2 >controls, I would think that it would be much more likely that >N/S would assume that this was the criterion for a natural >positive response. How many people have never heard a strong >clubber describe partner's natural positive response as 'shows >eight or more points'? > You cannot really carry expectations from one type of bidding to another. 1C-1S in Precision means 8+HCP, 5+S's: I agree that people often say "8+" even though they shouldn't: that does not mean that someone who says "3+controls" is giving the same inference of 5+S's. >> >> > They also argued that North's inquiry >> >>would certainly result in the unnatural lead of a heart. >> >> Sounds fair! >> >> >> I ruled that the lead could be picked up and changed, since, IMO, the >> >>explanation had been incomplete. >> >> The explanation is incomplete is not actually a reason for allowing >> the lead to be changed. Misinformation is the reason, and the two are >> not the same, even though they often may be equivalent. Consider this: >> you are called to the table: South says he has been misinformed so can >> North change his lead: what's the misinformation you ask: South said >> they had asked the meaning of a 1NT opening and been told it showed 16- >> 18 HCP: South said that they had been misinformed because they had not >> been told that it showed a balanced hand: are you going to allow North >> to change his lead? > >This is a poor analogy, because a 1NT opening promises a >balanced hand virtually 100% of the time, and this is completely >expected by the opponents. In fact, in the ACBL a 1NT opening >is alertable if it does not promise a balanced hand. Are you suggesting that people play control showing responses and length? the reason I chose it as an analogy is because it was 100%: when someone plays control-showing responses to a strong 1C they play them as showing controls and not a suit 100% of the time. It is a good analogy because of the 100%. >> >> IMO the explanation may not have been complete, like 80% of all >> explanations, but it was complete enough that the opposition were not >> misinformed. > >It was E/W's responsibility to make sure that N/S knew what >their unusual agreement showed. I believe that North had the >right to make sure that partner knew what was going on, whether >he himself knew or not. > >The obvious problem with this reasoning is that North's actions >make the heart lead pretty clear. But wouldn't asking more >questions after the explanation of the 1H bid achieve the same >thing? Then North has no ethical way to clear up, for his >partnership, the natural/conventional meaning of the bid. But it >should not be his responsibility. In my opinion the onus is on >E/W to make sure that their methods are described reasonably >completely to the opponents. > If you believe North [and I don't] then he did not realise that 1H was artificial. So why did he ask questions before seeing the dummy? Suppose your RHO bids 1H [not alerted], 2C from LHO, 2S from RHO, 3NT from LHO: partner leads, you look lovingly at your hearts: how to get a heart lead? "Has he now shown longer hearts?" you ask all dewy-eyed and girlish-like. If it is your lucky day it will turn out there is something alertable, partner gets his lead back and tries again: most times nothing happens until partner gets in again and [very luckily indeed] finds the heart switch ... Before you say this is a bad analogy that is exactly what North did: he did not know it was artificial [read the original story] and his question was whether hearts then spades showed longer hearts. And of course we all believe every word he says, and if anyone has any prime land in Montana for sale ... > > >> >>At the committee, E/W again agreed that they had not explicitely stated >> >>that 1H was artificial, but argued that it was certainly implied by their >> >>explanation. They also used the analogy that in the standard auction 2C-2D, >> >>2D would be explained as negative, or waiting, but would be never explained >as >> >>artificial as well; this precedent should therefore apply over 1C-1H. > >Another bad analogy, because this is a much more common >situation. If we are going to use 2C-2D as an example, let us >again use alertability as a criterion. If 2D is negative or >waiting, it does not require an alert; if it shows 0-1 controls, >it does. So apparently the ACBL expects the former method to be >familiar to the opponents, and the latter method less so. And >control responses are far more common over a strong 2C than over >a strong 1C opening. > Frequency is not relevant. Relative frequency is relevant. Of people who do play control showing responses how many play them to show a suit as well? >> >> After hearing both sides, the committee upheld the ruling. They agreed >that >> >>the explanation of 1H had been incomplete, result stood. >> >> Crazy. > >I'm not so sure. >> >> >> East was unhappy with both my and the committee's ruling. >> >>1) As director, how would you rule? Does the level of the players matter? >> >> If North was a total beginner then I might reconsider, but in any >> other case I would rule no MI. > >Again, I disagree. >> >> >>2) Should North's inquiry about the Heart suit be UI for South? (The >original >> >> lead, as it happened, was a spade.) >> >> Certainly: if I had allowed South to change his lead then I would have >> adjusted the final score back anyway because a heart lead was based on >> UI. > >This is the most compelling argument, but I maintain that North >probably had no way to clarify the situation without passing UI. >So I would rule in his favor, and expect E/W to learn a lesson >about full disclosure. North had no right to clarify the situation for partner and was about to see dummy. To rule in their favour when they have used UI would be absolutely terrible whatever the situation: you have to uphold the Law. >> >> >>3) Do you agree with E/W analogy of 2C-2D and 1C-1H? >> >> Certainly. >No. >> > > >> Just one little consideration: forget the Law book, the rules, and >> everything else: forget appeals, director calls, ethics, good and bad >> bridge players. Put it all out of your mind. Look again at the facts >> of the case: the description of 1H: North's questions. Now tell me: do >> you honestly believe that North was telling the truth when he said that >> he was unaware that 1H was artificial? > >Even if North was aware that it was artificial, was SOUTH? If I >am asked to forget the Law book, then I am firm in maintaining >that it is within North's rights to make sure South got the full >explanation of the conventional bid. And that is totally illegal and detrimental to the overall ethics of the game because if it were legal it would encourage cheating. > >> I don't, and I doubt there are >> many people who do. [He did say it, didn't he: you did not assume it >> without asking?] >> >> Without being at the table and hearing everything I cannot be >> absolutely sure what was going on, but relying on what you have said >> absolutely, and the nuances that you have expressed then it is time >> North's ethics were examined. >> >Perhaps North was being unethical; but aren't we being unfair to >him if we give him no way to find out the nature of the 1H bid >without being unethical? Yes, he could have waited until his >turn, but this is unfair to South, who may have had no reason to >suspect that the bid was artificial. Same comment. -- David Stevenson Bridge Cats Railways Logic /\_/\ Liverpool, England, UK Nothing ventured, nothing gained =( ^*^ )= david@blakjak.demon.co.uk Emails welcome RTFLB ( | | ) Tel: +44 (0)151 677 7412 Phone before Fax please (_~^ ^~ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jul 23 01:12:33 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA19121 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 23 Jul 1996 01:12:33 +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 BAA19116 for ; Tue, 23 Jul 1996 01:12:25 +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 LAA07134 for ; Mon, 22 Jul 1996 11:12:21 -0400 Date: Mon, 22 Jul 1996 11:12:20 -0400 (EDT) From: Eric Landau Reply-To: Eric Landau To: Bridge Laws Discussion List Subject: Re: Misinformation/Insufficient Information Problem In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Permit me to make an obvious point about this case, lest it be lost in the discussion. The facts of the case suggest that one of two possible scenarios has taken place: (1) E-W gave a reasonable explanation, assuming that the artificiality of a control-showing response would be obvious. N knew what was going on, or was at least reasonably certain of what was going on, but saw a chance to take advantage of a technical infraction (resulting from the "incomplete explanation") to get something for nothing by, in effect, telling his partner what to lead. (2) E-W gave a minimal and potentially unclear explanation in an attempt to meet the requirements of legality rather than in a genuine attempt to help N-S understand the auction. They were not entirely forthcoming about their methods, and N-S were left genuinely confused for lack of full information. Now it's perfectly reasonable to appeal to this group as to what the "correct" ruling should be given exactly who said precisely what when. We will be happy to analyze the Laws to the last word and punctuation mark and offer theoretical opinions -- that's what this group does. It's fascinating stuff. But a director at a club game isn't the Supreme Court adjudicating fine points of the Laws; that's not what he's there for. The "right" ruling in this case, as opposed to the "technically correct" one, should be much easier to make. The director shouldn't be worrying about the exact interpretation of the precise letter of the law; he should be worrying about which of the above two scenarios is the one that was actually taking place. Were E-W, in explaining their methods, trying to be friendly and helpful, or were they trying to be as unforthcoming as possible while remaining technically within the law? Were N-S genuinely confused about the auction, or where they trying to "nail" E-W for their reasonable but technically incorrect explanation? Do the right thing for your players, and base your ruling on that, not on what we law-obsessed Bridge Laws List folks have to say about rarefied theoretical points of law. Remember that you're making a ruling at the table in a bridge club, not setting a legal precedent in some rigid and constrained court of law. This is probably obvious to most of the folks who will read it, but it needs to be restated from time to time lest we lose the forest for the trees. 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 Jul 23 01:18:36 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA19150 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 23 Jul 1996 01:18:36 +1000 Received: from freenet.carleton.ca (root@freenet.carleton.ca [134.117.1.25]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id BAA19145 for ; Tue, 23 Jul 1996 01:18:29 +1000 Received: from freenet3.carleton.ca (ac342@freenet3.carleton.ca [134.117.1.22]) by freenet.carleton.ca (8.6.12/8.6.4) with ESMTP id LAA27661 for ; Mon, 22 Jul 1996 11:18:18 -0400 Received: (ac342@localhost) by freenet3.carleton.ca (8.6.12/NCF-Sun-Client) id LAA07408; Mon, 22 Jul 1996 11:18:16 -0400 Date: Mon, 22 Jul 1996 11:18:16 -0400 Message-Id: <199607221518.LAA07408@freenet3.carleton.ca> From: ac342@freenet.carleton.ca (A. L. Edwards) To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: re: Misinformation/Incomplete Information Reply-To: ac342@freenet.carleton.ca Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk A. L. Edwards wrote: >> >>Brd #4 >>Both vul >>Dlr: West S Q76 W N E S >> H Q7632 P P 1C(1) P >> D QJ 1H(2) P 2D P >> C J96 2S P 3NT P >> S KJ942 S 85 P P >> H KT H A54 >> D 72 D AKT84 opening lead: HJ >> C 7542 C AKQ result: 3NT making, +600 EW >> S AT3 >> H J98 >> D 9653 1) alerted, no inquiry >> C T83 2) alerted, explained as >> more than A,Q or K,Q,Q >> effectively 2 controls >> South made a face down opening lead, and North asked if West was promising 4 Spades and 5 Hearts. East said no, 1H said nothing about the heart suit. North called for the director. When I arrived, the situation was explained to me. N/S thought that, because they had not been informed (and were therefore unaware) that 1H was artificial, that South should be able to change the still face down opening lead, in light of the new information. David: Now this is the nub of the situation. Why was North unaware that 1H was artificial? If North was very very inexperienced, or his experience was specialised [eg he had played for many years, but only in local clubs where there were no strong Club players whatever] it is possible he believed this. But the chances he really did not know that 1H was artificial I would put at about one in seventy. Does this scenario sound credible? Suppose he is so inexperienced that he really does think that 1H is natural: then he would not have the experience to realise that his partner's lead could be changed. No, make those odds one in a hundred and twenty. Tony: David makes a good point. North was an experienced player; South was fairly to very inexperienced (an advanced novice). While I'm morally sure that North had asked the question for South's benefit, I was unable, or not clever enough, to pin North down. [Aside: another possible topic for discussion--is a player permitted by the Laws to ask questions for his inexperienced partner's benefit? Be warned--this has been argued on rgb before. :-) Me, I don't think so, but...] [snip] >> I ruled that the lead could be picked up and changed, since, >>IMO, the explanation had been incomplete. David: The explanation is incomplete is not actually a reason for allowing the lead to be changed. Misinformation is the reason, and the two are not the same, even though they often may be equivalent. Consider this: you are called to the table: South says he has been misinformed so can North change his lead: what's the misinformation you ask: South said they had asked the meaning of a 1NT opening and been told it showed 16- 18 HCP: South said that they had been misinformed because they had not been told that it showed a balanced hand: are you going to allow North to change his lead? Tony: I have the same problem with this analogy as I did with 2C-2D. Both of these are very common situations; I would expect even a very basic novice to know this stuff. In contrast, control responces to Big Club are rare, at least in this neck of the woods. I believed South, who claimed to have been confused by the explanation (or lack thereof). Another point: I have been trained (perhaps badly?) that in the event of an infraction, I should rule in favour of the injured pair, and to leave it to a committee to decide any appeal. I happen to dislike this, but, there it is... >>ps. E/W wanted to know if, in the ACBL, there was any other level of >> appeal after the club appeal. I told him no, I didn't think so, and, >> after talking with our local regional director, I am now >> pretty sure there isn't, but...is there? What is the procedure in >> other countries? David: Oh, Tony! RTFLB (thanks Jeff). Read L93C. Law 93 - Procedures of Appeal C. Appeal to National Authority After the preceding remedies have been exhausted, further appeal may be taken to the national authority. So, unless the ACBL has ignored the Law book [we know the ACBL would never do that, would they fellas?], there must be a way of appealing to the National Authority. Tony: Well, actually, I did RTF(lipping?)LB, and came across this section. However, I have never heard of the National body to apply to (other than the ACBL directly?), and knew of no way to actually further this case. Nor have I ever heard this done. That's one reason I asked. :-) Thanks, Jon C. Brissman, for the info. ---- David: Just one little consideration: forget the Law book, the rules, and everything else: forget appeals, director calls, ethics, good and bad bridge players. Put it all out of your mind. Look again at the facts of the case: the description of 1H: North's questions. Now tell me: do you honestly believe that North was telling the truth when he said that he was unaware that 1H was artificial? I don't, and I doubt there are many people who do. [He did say it, didn't he: you did not assume it without asking?] Tony: In my heart of hearts, I think North was trying to protect South. And yes, North did claim being unaware that 1H was totally artificial. North thought 1H showed hearts with A-Q, or K-Q and a side Q, for example (these examples I'm making up, by the way), S 9872 H AQ742 D 8 C 652 ; OR S Q872 H KQ742 D 8 C 652 , or better. But, is this the correct question? I truly believe that *South*, a novice, was mislead by the explanation. How is South, who might very well have never played against precision (also reasonably rare here) let alone control responces to Big Club, supposed to have any chance when given a clearly incomplete explanation? ---- Jon C Brissman wrote: >Maybe I'm just too suspicious. However, I found it curious that North >asked for the opportunity to allow South to change his opening lead. I >aslo suspect that North knew what was going on and staged the >questioning to direct South's attention to the heart suit; after all, >why else wouldn't North simply have allowed South to fact the lead, >after which North's question would have been answered by an inspection >of the exposed dummy. Tony: I would be suspicious of someone who wasn't suspicious. :-) I can only really add this: I have no reason to doubt North's ethics. I don't think it even crossed North's mind to angle for a heart lead; firstly, H Q7632 is pretty bad; secondly, North has an unblemished reputation. I do suspect, however, that North was trying to protect South, which, itself, might or might not be an infraction (again, I think it is, but...) David and Jon both seem to think the lead should not be allowed to be changed, so the next obvious question is: Under what circumstances should a face down lead be changed? Examples would be nice. :-) Thanks, Tony (aka ac342) From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jul 23 01:51:49 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA19346 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 23 Jul 1996 01:51:49 +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 BAA19340 for ; Tue, 23 Jul 1996 01:51:43 +1000 From: AlLeBendig@aol.com Received: by emout07.mail.aol.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) id LAA08522 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Mon, 22 Jul 1996 11:51:06 -0400 Date: Mon, 22 Jul 1996 11:51:06 -0400 Message-ID: <960722115104_161505659@emout07.mail.aol.com> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Disclosure Requirements Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In a message dated 96-07-22 06:03:35 EDT, you write: << Subj: Re: Disclosure Requirements Date: 96-07-22 06:03:35 EDT From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Sender: owner-bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Reply-to: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au CC: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk michael amos wrote: >>AlLeBendig@aol.com writes: >> I've been asked my opinion on a situation that came up and I was >>>quite distressed to realize I didn't have one. So please give me >>>your thoughts. >> >> S holds: S T9x H x D AQJx C KTxxx. The auction proceeds: >> >> E S W N >> 1NT P P 2D >> P 3H D P >> P 4S D AP >> >> The NT is 12-14. After S bid 3H, W inquired about 2D. S obviously >>>was splintering in support of diamonds. When the question was asked >>>he realized that 2D showed majors. There is no suggestion of any UI. >>>He properly informed opponents of agreement. At end of auction, is >>>he under any obligation to disclose that he was off base when he made >>>3H call? My gut instinct tells me no but I'm not sure. Could >>>opponents ever claim damage here? For some reason they were confused >>>defensively. They were rather competent and the auction itself might >>>have tipped them off that there was a problem. > You don't tell us about any alert of 3H > As S, making my splinter, certainly here in UK, I would expect >>partner to be alerting, but a *natural* jump to 3H would not be >>alerted. This would then be a UI problem, arising frm my partner's >>failure to alert. > It seems to me that this makes the situation potentially much more serious. The original post contained the statement "When the question was asked he realized that 2D showed majors." I assume this is what the player actually said (or how would we know). This leaves two very different positions. a) It was the truth, the player was "woken up" by the question and not by any UI received from partner's alert/lack of alert. (Legitimate as far as I can work out, but lucky!) How can we ever know? With the UI present, we must assume that was how he woke up. b) The player recieved UI from partner's action, knowingly acted on it, and then lied to the TD to keep the fact hidden. Once again, unless the player acknowledges this, we would never know and could never rule based on what we might believe to be the case. I might just accept c) that the player's subconcious was triggered by UI and thus made him think harder about the question in which case a normal UI ruling should apply. Whatever actually happened, a "normal" UI ruling should be made. I would feel very uncomfortable ruling against the player in situation a) [though maybe I should still do so by law] and am still trying to find the right penalty for situation b). (I don't think either the EBU or ACBL permit flogging.) For some situations, maybe. Not here. Please note: From the tone of the original post I think situation b)to be highly unlikely. Alan LeBendig From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jul 23 01:51:55 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA19351 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 23 Jul 1996 01:51:55 +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 BAA19345 for ; Tue, 23 Jul 1996 01:51:48 +1000 From: AlLeBendig@aol.com Received: by emout15.mail.aol.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) id LAA03332 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Mon, 22 Jul 1996 11:52:51 -0400 Date: Mon, 22 Jul 1996 11:52:51 -0400 Message-ID: <960722115250_161505743@emout15.mail.aol.com> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Disclosure Requirements Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In a message dated 96-07-22 09:29:36 EDT, David S. writes: [s] << I find it amazing the completely stupid decisions I actually give sometimes when using this medium. The reason, of course, why I typed that last paragraph is I was thinking of the ethical considerations and did not have the hand in front of me. What I need is two computers so I can have the problem in front of me on one screen while I am typing the solution on the other screen. No, of course, 3Hx is stupid. I knew if I waited long enough David would make a mistake:-) I don't think much of the 3H passed out option. Opponents have a right to know your methods and can make deductions at their own risk about whether a bidding sequence has gone off the rails. West asked the question and was given the correct answer before he doubled so there is no reason to change that double, in fact we have no legal right to, because no infraction had occurred at that time. I recognize that we can't, at this point in time. I keep visualizing an electronic medium for this game whereby opponents will know from alert procedure when train is off track. They may selectively ask questions and get a better feel for where auction might go if they don't interfere. This would be a great example whereby they might defend 3H undoubled or watch it get raised to 4 at which point things might get really exciting. I understand the Israelis have developed a device which will accomplish such things. It is like having a screen which either side can swing to include either opponent at will. I believe the cost is still prohibitive. I am interested in your use of the terminology "retreated to 4D": that is not the correct thought process. When 3H doubled came around to South, what might he have bid if 3H had been alerted and he had not remembered anything? Well, opponents doubling splinters presumably to show length doesn't frighten anyone, so how about 5D? If my partner could take no positive action over the double of 3H, I feel it is unreasonable to expect this hand to now singlehandedly leap to game (5D). I used retreat because that is the only bid I would ever consider sensible. North bids 5H, obviously a generalised try [North is always allowed to "retreat" to hearts because of South's 3H bid], South bids a regretful 6D. Now it probably goes Dbl 6H Dbl and North can wake up. How about 6Sx minus a few? [See I was right in my first lunatic posting: it's probably 800 for either 6Sx or 3Hx !!!] If I am correct about the 4D bid and 4H continuation, I think that at that point the 4H bid makes the auction impossible. My partner could not logically have a late cuebid of 4H when he couldn't act over the double. That is why I am willing to accept S waking up because of the "impossible" nature of the auction. I fully recognize why some of you are not willing to accept that. Since I am not considered to be a liberal in this area, I find it amusing that at this point I appear to be the only one willing to accept 4S (x?) as a final contract. I don't think you should be too kind in allowing people to wake up too early. TDs and ACs usually do, but they tend to forget that freak hands occur. If there had been **no UI at all**, and you were South on the bidding sequence I have just given, when partner bids 5H what is your first reaction? Is it "Good gracious, he must be 0580" or is it "Good gracious, is he a nutter or have I forgotten something?". All valid arguments, David, except for the fact that partner took no action over the double of 3H. However, this is all without talking to the pairs involved. If overcalls are usually weak, and 3H is not game forcing in comparable sequences, Most would consider it a game try pending further action. then the effects of a 4D bid might be considered: alternatively waking up over 5H. So I would rely on my judgement as to whether I rule 6Sx, 5Sx or 4Sx, in doubt taking the higher contracts: with a European AC I would expect them to split the score between these. At this point in time, we obviously wouldn't consider that but I would argue against it for my stated reasons even if it were possible.. Alan LeBendig From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jul 23 01:54:29 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA19377 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 23 Jul 1996 01:54:29 +1000 Received: from styx.ios.com (lighton@styx.ios.com [198.4.75.44]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id BAA19372 for ; Tue, 23 Jul 1996 01:54:22 +1000 Received: (from lighton@localhost) by styx.ios.com (8.6.12/8.6.9) id LAA06072 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Mon, 22 Jul 1996 11:54:05 -0400 Date: Mon, 22 Jul 1996 11:54:05 -0400 From: Richard Lighton Message-Id: <199607221554.LAA06072@styx.ios.com> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Asking for partner (was Mis/insufficient Information) Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Stevenson (or maybe a cat :-} ) wrote: > Stefanie Rohan wrote: > >Edgar Kaplan feels that it is (or should be) ethical to ask for > >an explanation when you believe that your partner does not know > >what is going on. > We have considered this before. Kaplan may have a good knowledge of > the Laws, but he has also been known to be faulty before. He may have > meant a Law to mean something, but where a Law is clear, no > interpretation that is in conflict with the letter of the Law is > permitted. Please note Stefanie's parenthetical statement David! But what I really wanted to bring up: (Long reasonable screed by David S. giving rational explanation as to why laws 73 and 74 say you can not ask for partner's benefit) But the laws also say: LAW 20 REVIEW AND EXPLANATION OF CALLS F. Explanation of Calls 1. During the Auction During the auction and before the final pass, any player, at his own turn to call, may request (see footnote 2) a full explanation of the opponents' auction; replies should normally be given by the partner of a player who made a call in question (see Law 75C). There are no caveats to this law, so if you ask for a full explanation of the auction at the appropriate time, you seem to be within your rights. Most of us just ask about the bid in question to save time. This seems appropriate. The Australian Alerting Regulations neatly emphasise this by explicitely saying you can ask about an alerted bid at your first opportunity, but only about the whole auction later (but that's in Oz) Personally, I still feel entitled to ask "What does X mean?" for any reason, including: - I need to know - partner may never have heard of the convention they are using - It's about time I asked, because if I don't ask now and then when disinterested, partner will know I'm interested when I ask. Yes, David, I remember EBU rules say I'm not allowed to ask for this reason in England. Both the EBU and the ACBL say that you can't ask about a bid for partner's benefit. David adequately explained (I think) the reasoning behind this. Law 20F1, in my view, says I can always ask about the whole auction, and pedantically I can ONLY ask about the whole auction. The Laws David quotes seem to me to be about communication between partners by other means (the usual Unauthorized Information stuff). Doesn't 20F1 give me the right to ask "What does all this mean?" regardless of whether I want to know, I want partner to know, or maybe I have just stumbled on an interesting piece of bidding theory? Yes, I will agree that I am not allowed to ask leading subsidiary questions, but I think Kaplan's original example (Kay probably did not know that an explanation of an obscure part of Roman was incomplete) was a reasonable thing to do. Sorry to open this can of worms again, but what sayeth this group? (that has not already been said) Richard Lighton | All of us are born equal, (lighton@ios.com) | and some of us considerably worse. Wood-Ridge NJ | - Tom Jones (Fielding) | (or possibly just the movie version) From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jul 23 02:00:33 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA19514 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 23 Jul 1996 02:00:33 +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 CAA19509 for ; Tue, 23 Jul 1996 02:00:28 +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 MAA03211 for ; Mon, 22 Jul 1996 12:00:17 -0400 (EDT) Received: by cfa183.harvard.edu (5.x/SMI-SVR4) id AA06392; Mon, 22 Jul 1996 12:02:58 -0400 Date: Mon, 22 Jul 1996 12:02:58 -0400 From: willner@cfa183.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Message-Id: <9607221602.AA06392@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Disclosure Requirements X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > a) It was the truth, the player was "woken up" by the question and not by any > UI received from partner's alert/lack of alert. (Legitimate as far as I can > work out, but lucky!) > > b) The player recieved UI from partner's action, knowingly acted on it, and > then lied to the TD to keep the fact hidden. > > I might just accept c) that the player's subconcious was triggered by UI and > thus made him think harder about the question in which case a normal UI ruling > should apply. We cannot usually know which of these applies. For score adjustment purposes, it's normal to rule under c). We only ask whether UI was available and what it showed, not what the player's actual mental process was. Of course if there is strong evidence of b), we need a C&E hearing. If there is suspicion or weak evidence, a recorder report is appropriate. From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jul 23 02:24:26 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA19657 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 23 Jul 1996 02:24:26 +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 CAA19651 for ; Tue, 23 Jul 1996 02:24:20 +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 MAA01354 for ; Mon, 22 Jul 1996 12:24:16 -0400 (EDT) Received: by cfa183.harvard.edu (5.x/SMI-SVR4) id AA06420; Mon, 22 Jul 1996 12:26:58 -0400 Date: Mon, 22 Jul 1996 12:26:58 -0400 From: willner@cfa183.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Message-Id: <9607221626.AA06420@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Misinformation/Insufficient Information Problem X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: "Stefanie Rohan" > Couldn't E/W be using controls instead of HCP as their > requirements for a positive response? It is always a good idea > to mention that a bid is artificial, I'd like to see an educational campaign to encourage players _always_ to begin their explanations of partner's bids with "[artificial/ natural] and [forcing/non-forcing]". These two bits of information will always be needed, and some of the time, they may be all that is needed. Here in the US, I'd virtually always rule that the failure to mention that 1H is artificial is misinformation. Control-showing responses to 1C are extremely rare here, and it's the club system users' responsibility to make their methods clear. On the other hand, North's question is certainly UI for South. It would have been much better to ask for a general explanation of the auction than to ask a question specifically directed at the heart suit. And I'd feel a lot more comfortable if it had been South who complained upon seeing dummy, but maybe that's expecting too much for a novice. Some months ago, we had a general discussion of Kaplan's suggestion of asking questions for partner's benefit. The consensus, I think, was that it ought to be legal _as a remedy for the opponents' misinformation_. That is, if the opponents have committed an infraction (and you know it but partner doesn't), one option is to have the case adjudicated later. It seems reasonable to ask a question instead if that will clear up the problem. This was, in fact, the example Kaplan originally used. The consensus was that asking questions merely because partner doesn't know enough to ask should not be permissible (though there are sound claims that it is in fact legal). Asking a question to convey information about your own hand is flagrantly illegal. If asking the question creates a new infraction, it doesn't seem such a good idea. From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jul 23 05:40:16 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA28398 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 23 Jul 1996 05:40:16 +1000 Received: from arl-img-5.compuserve.com (arl-img-5.compuserve.com [149.174.217.135]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id FAA28391 for ; Tue, 23 Jul 1996 05:40:09 +1000 Received: by arl-img-5.compuserve.com (8.6.10/5.950515) id PAA02524; Mon, 22 Jul 1996 15:39:35 -0400 Date: 22 Jul 96 15:36:55 EDT From: Richard Bley <101557.1671@compuserve.com> To: Bridge Laws List Subject: Re: Disclosure Requirements Message-ID: <960722193655_101557.1671_IHK111-2@CompuServe.COM> Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Hello to everyone. This is a very intersting case; here are my statments about it (I know my english is not as well as it should be, so be kind to me, if my wording sounds harsh; I'm just not able to tell it like in my own language) 1) The player doesn't have to say sth about his first misunderstanding when he is able to prove that he described the system well to his opp. That seems clear from all this emails 2) His partner had an UI, because his partner didn't alert 2D in the first time and it is possible that it is clear from his partner's explanation that he just rememebered the system. The statement " there was no UI" is against this point. 3) There occured another point in the discussion here: About the non-alert and using or not this UI: # There was an UI by not alerting the 3H bid. # That is a case for Law 16 A 1st sentence. The non-alert may suggest bidding further on. Just imagine both player would have forgotten the system (it happens sometimes). Then 3H would have been alerted, would S now made a different bid? (probably he would) # So we have to see what will happen with this. 4) The use of UI by S (?; that's the player who misbid the 1st time) when his partner didn't alert 3H. You made some statements about this. Under the line nearly everyone agrees to give the offending pair a S-contract in some height. The exception is Stefanie who said (and that was my first impression as well when I thought about this point) that the TD shpuld give A+/A- but of course Steven is correct by reading LAW 12 C2 and stating that there should be a "natural" score or two :-) There is a case for giving A+/A- by using Law 12 A2 but this is only an escape not a solution I think... The point is, I'm not sure about allowing to remember the system for S. The first possibility is, that he will redouble the 3H; in this case we not only have 3HX but 3HXX. I know many players make bids like this, just because they think they make a clever bid. He is instead of this nice little contract able to bid 5D instead of 4D or even 6D. That depends on the meaning of a pass of the double to a splinter bid. In most partnerships pass shows some interest in more. Of course it is possible that he will remember, but he is the offending side isn't it? To discuss this point to an end, I think we have to see the whole hand See you later written Richard From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jul 23 09:54:07 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA29269 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 23 Jul 1996 09:54:07 +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 JAA29258 for ; Tue, 23 Jul 1996 09:54:01 +1000 Received: from cph2.ppp.dknet.dk (cph2.ppp.dknet.dk [194.192.100.2]) by pip.dknet.dk (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id BAA00643 for ; Tue, 23 Jul 1996 01:53:54 +0200 From: jd@pip.dknet.dk (Jesper Dybdal) To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Asking for partner (was Mis/insufficient Information) Date: Tue, 23 Jul 1996 01:53:41 +0200 Organization: at home Message-ID: <31f402fe.9198236@pipmail.dknet.dk> References: <199607221554.LAA06072@styx.ios.com> In-Reply-To: <199607221554.LAA06072@styx.ios.com> X-Mailer: Forte Agent .99e/32.227 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Mon, 22 Jul 1996 11:54:05 -0400, Richard Lighton wrote: >Both the EBU and the ACBL say that you can't ask about a bid >for partner's benefit. David adequately explained (I think) >the reasoning behind this. Law 20F1, in my view, says I can >always ask about the whole auction, and pedantically I can >ONLY ask about the whole auction. The Laws David quotes seem to >me to be about communication between partners by other means >(the usual Unauthorized Information stuff). Doesn't 20F1 give >me the right to ask "What does all this mean?" regardless of >whether I want to know, I want partner to know, or maybe I have >just stumbled on an interesting piece of bidding theory? I agree with David that you are not allowed to ask about a call for partner's benefit; and it is my opinion that this is also the case when you ask about the whole auction. Besides, it wouldn't help in this situation: if North asked to have the whole auction explained, he'd just get a repeat of "number of controls" answer, and he'd still have to ask leading questions such as "and a heart suit, I suppose?". Therefore, it won't solve the problem that the opponents did not (and probably never will until they discover that there are players who are not familiar with control-showing bids) explain their control-showing bids adequately. North should not turn that problem into his own by asking leading questions. -- Jesper Dybdal From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jul 23 09:54:05 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA29268 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 23 Jul 1996 09:54:05 +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 JAA29256 for ; Tue, 23 Jul 1996 09:53:59 +1000 Received: from cph2.ppp.dknet.dk (cph2.ppp.dknet.dk [194.192.100.2]) by pip.dknet.dk (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id BAA00640 for ; Tue, 23 Jul 1996 01:53:52 +0200 From: jd@pip.dknet.dk (Jesper Dybdal) To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Misinformation/Incomplete Information Date: Tue, 23 Jul 1996 01:53:38 +0200 Organization: at home Message-ID: <31f3fcf7.7655427@pipmail.dknet.dk> References: <199607221518.LAA07408@freenet3.carleton.ca> In-Reply-To: <199607221518.LAA07408@freenet3.carleton.ca> X-Mailer: Forte Agent .99e/32.227 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Mon, 22 Jul 1996 11:18:16 -0400, ac342@freenet.carleton.ca (A. L. Edwards) wrote: >Tony: > But, is this the correct question? I truly believe that *South*, a >novice, was mislead by the explanation. How is South, who might >very well have never played against precision (also reasonably rare >here) let alone control responces to Big Club, supposed to have >any chance when given a clearly incomplete explanation? His best chance is to call the TD himself when he realizes that things are not what be believed his opponents had explained them to be. Even if North realizes that South may be a victim of MI, he is not allowed to ask questions for the benefit of his partner; North should keep quiet and hope that South himself will call the TD when he sees the table. In that situation, the TD is much more likely to allow a change of lead (and South will undoubtedly find it easier to choose a lead when he has seen the table). If South does not call the TD, North should play out the hand and, if he and South afterwards believes that South might have led a heart with the correct explanation, call the TD and ask for an adjusted score. It is not particularly probable that he will get an adjusted score - the TD will probably just teach South that the next time this happens he should call the TD immediately when he sees that the explanation does not fit the hand. If the TD does this well, such an experience will help this South a lot the next time he is in such a situation. >Tony: >David and Jon both seem to think the lead should not be allowed to be >changed, so the next obvious question is: >Under what circumstances should a face down lead be changed? >Examples would be nice. :-) When South calls the TD upon seeing the table, telling the TD that he has just selected a lead under the impression that he would find a heart suit on the table; in that situation, a claim that he would have led a heart is much more convincing than when it is prompted by partner or made after the hand has been played. For the lead to be changed, of course, the TD will have to be of the opinion that there actually was MI, which depends a lot on the experience of the actual South and on the precise words used by EW to describe their agreement - but with a novice South, I would allow the lead to be changed. -- Jesper Dybdal From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jul 23 09:54:11 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA29274 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 23 Jul 1996 09:54:11 +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 JAA29264 for ; Tue, 23 Jul 1996 09:54:03 +1000 Received: from cph2.ppp.dknet.dk (cph2.ppp.dknet.dk [194.192.100.2]) by pip.dknet.dk (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id BAA00646 for ; Tue, 23 Jul 1996 01:53:57 +0200 From: jd@pip.dknet.dk (Jesper Dybdal) To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Disclosure Requirements Date: Tue, 23 Jul 1996 01:53:44 +0200 Organization: at home Message-ID: <31f41474.13668694@pipmail.dknet.dk> References: <960722010220_581838303@emout15.mail.aol.com> In-Reply-To: <960722010220_581838303@emout15.mail.aol.com> X-Mailer: Forte Agent .99e/32.227 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Mon, 22 Jul 1996 01:02:21 -0400, AlLeBendig@aol.com wrote: >HOWEVER, the > answer to the question as originally set is, as pointed out in other > posts, that you don't tell your opponents anything. It is basic: it is > simple: there is no question about it: I was a little surprised the > question was asked and tended to assume there were ramifications that I > had missed. Very early in learning to be an ethical player and/or a TD > we learn that a player's opponents have a right to know his agreements, > but nothing else. Fortunately, it seems that we all find this obvious. When I am in for a really bad score because I've misbid, I certainly want the slim chance of a good score that might be the result of opponents not knowing what is going on. That must be just as legal as deliberate psyches. On Fri, 19 Jul 1996 13:53:01 -0400, Richard Lighton wrote: >At (I think) the Albuquerque WBF tournament, Jeff Polisner (sp) put forth >a stirring arguement that there was a requirement for south to explain >the misunderstanding when partner has explained a convention correctly >after south has misused the convention. It turns out that I happen to still have a copy of the Albuquerque (World Championships 1994) bulletins, and I looked up these articles. Jeff Polisner, who was a member of the appeals committee, wrote an article called "Player's Responsibilities" in bulletin #7. I quote it all here for the entertainment of BLML: >A common situation which causes serious concern to players, directors, >and appeals committees occurs when a player has accidentally misbid a >convention and partner has explained what the bid systemically showed. >When it is determined that the hand in question does not conform to >the explanation, problems become severe >Although the Law does not require the misbidder to reveal the misbid >before the opening lead -- and in fact defenders may not do so -- it >should be done from a desire to observe active ethics and to avoid an >adverse ruling from a tournament director who may not believe it was a >misbid -- or an appeals committe, which may also rule that way. > >Thus, before the opening lead is made, the declarer or dummy who may >not have the hand pattern described should announce, "My partner's >explanation was correct, but I don't have the hand which was >described." Of course, misexplanations by declarer or dummy must be >corrected before the opening lead. > >This does not apply to a situation where a player has intentionally >violated a convention by a psych or tactical bid. When I first read that, I did begin to wonder whether World Championships had anything to do with the game described in the law book. Fortunately, two days later, in bulletin #9, Grattan Endicott had an article named "Misbids - The Law as it is" in which he made it clear that the law does not require such a disclosure and that there is no hint of a requirement to do so. Here is a short quote: >The Law says "No player has the obligation to disclose to the >opponents that he has violated an announced agreement and if the >opponents are subsequently damaged, as through drawing a false >inference from such violation, they are not entitled to redress" >(75B). The discussion continued for a few days, ending with a short contribution by Endicott; I am unable to find it right now (those bulletins are large and have no tables of contents), but I remember it as something very much like "It cannot be unethical to play a game according to its published rules". When an appeals committee member at the World Championships writes things like that in the official bulletin, it is no wonder that a lot of people believe it; if Endicott had not protested, it might even have been assumed to be the position of the committee. It is therefore no great wonder that the question can be raised in appeals committees elsewhere. -- Jesper Dybdal From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jul 23 16:15:24 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id QAA00414 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 23 Jul 1996 16:15:24 +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 QAA00409 for ; Tue, 23 Jul 1996 16:15:18 +1000 From: AlLeBendig@aol.com Received: by emout08.mail.aol.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA08126 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Tue, 23 Jul 1996 02:16:13 -0400 Date: Tue, 23 Jul 1996 02:16:13 -0400 Message-ID: <960723021612_243590417@emout08.mail.aol.com> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Disclosure Requirements Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In a message dated 96-07-22 19:57:56 EDT, Jesper writes: [s] << On Mon, 22 Jul 1996 01:02:21 -0400, AlLeBendig@aol.com wrote: >HOWEVER, the > answer to the question as originally set is, as pointed out in other > posts, that you don't tell your opponents anything. It is basic: it is > simple: there is no question about it: I was a little surprised the > question was asked and tended to assume there were ramifications that I > had missed. Very early in learning to be an ethical player and/or a TD > we learn that a player's opponents have a right to know his agreements, > but nothing else. >> Actually, David S. wrote everything after the HOWEVER. I did offer some discussion later in the posting but this particular paragraph was much to well written to have been mine. [s] I apologize for the fact that AOL no longer puts a > in front of every line I copy. They do indent it one space but it is still difficult to determine my responses from a posting I copied. I have complained about this and they thanked me for the suggestion. We'll see if they change... Alan LeBendig From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jul 23 18:44:38 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id SAA00715 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 23 Jul 1996 18:44:38 +1000 Received: from tom.compulink.co.uk (tom.compulink.co.uk [194.153.0.51]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id SAA00710 for ; Tue, 23 Jul 1996 18:44:32 +1000 Received: (from root@localhost) by tom.compulink.co.uk (8.6.9/8.6.9) id JAA15034 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 23 Jul 1996 09:43:58 +0100 Date: Tue, 23 Jul 96 09:43 BST-1 From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: Misinformation/Insufficient Information Problem To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Cc: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Reply-To: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Message-Id: Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk After reading several contributions to this debate it seems to me that two separate offences have been committed here. If South had been fully aware of the meaning of 1H then a heart lead (from J98 in the unbid major) looks most natural on the given hand. If South expects hearts in dummy then a spade (dummy's second suit) or club (unbid suit) look more appealing. I believe that South was damaged by the lack of full disclosure and ruling against EW seems fair. After all it is possible to play to a pretty high standard and not encounter control showing responses to a big club for years. The second offence was North's, and I agree with David here that his behaviour was designed to protect South from MI/II. North may have been unaware that this was illegal and had insufficient faith in the Director to wait for a ruling (In fact don't we encourage players to call the Director as soon as a problem arises). I think friendly advice would be in order (Next time just call director when dummy goes down and have a word out of partner's earshot). Only if North is a laws expert should any penalty be necessary. Let's face it the volume of debate in this list is a pretty good indication that the law is complex/open to interpretation in this area. Tim West-Meads From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jul 24 02:50:50 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA05569 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 24 Jul 1996 02:50:50 +1000 Received: from relay-5.mail.demon.net (relay-5.mail.demon.net [158.152.1.48]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id CAA05563 for ; Wed, 24 Jul 1996 02:50:41 +1000 Received: from post.demon.co.uk by relay-5.mail.demon.net id aw17965; 23 Jul 96 17:44 +0100 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by relay-3.mail.demon.net id aa04253; 23 Jul 96 17:42 +0100 Message-ID: <6mw2s2Ao9P9xEwAp@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Tue, 23 Jul 1996 17:35:52 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Asking for partner (was Mis/insufficient Information) In-Reply-To: <199607221554.LAA06072@styx.ios.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 1.12 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Richard Lighton wrote: >(Long reasonable screed by David S. giving rational explanation >as to why laws 73 and 74 say you can not ask for partner's benefit) > >But the laws also say: > > LAW 20 REVIEW AND EXPLANATION OF CALLS > F. Explanation of Calls > > 1. During the Auction > During the auction and before the final pass, any player, > at his own turn to call, may request (see footnote 2) a > full explanation of the opponents' auction; replies > should normally be given by the partner of a player who > made a call in question (see Law 75C). > >There are no caveats to this law, so if you ask for a full >explanation of the auction at the appropriate time, you seem >to be within your rights. Most of us just ask about the bid >in question to save time. This seems appropriate. The Australian >Alerting Regulations neatly emphasise this by explicitely saying >you can ask about an alerted bid at your first opportunity, but >only about the whole auction later (but that's in Oz) > >Personally, I still feel entitled to ask "What does X mean?" >for any reason, including: > >- I need to know >- partner may never have heard of the convention they are using >- It's about time I asked, because if I don't ask now and then > when disinterested, partner will know I'm interested when I > ask. Yes, David, I remember EBU rules say I'm not allowed to > ask for this reason in England. > Do they? I didn't know that. >Both the EBU and the ACBL say that you can't ask about a bid >for partner's benefit. David adequately explained (I think) >the reasoning behind this. Law 20F1, in my view, says I can >always ask about the whole auction, and pedantically I can >ONLY ask about the whole auction. The Laws David quotes seem to >me to be about communication between partners by other means >(the usual Unauthorized Information stuff). Doesn't 20F1 give >me the right to ask "What does all this mean?" regardless of >whether I want to know, I want partner to know, or maybe I have >just stumbled on an interesting piece of bidding theory? >Yes, I will agree that I am not allowed to ask leading >subsidiary questions, but I think Kaplan's original example >(Kay probably did not know that an explanation of an obscure >part of Roman was incomplete) was a reasonable thing to do. > >Sorry to open this can of worms again, but what sayeth this >group? (that has not already been said) > It is fair to say that you have two Laws that at first sight do not agree with each other. Most of what is said above is correct with one significant exception. When Richard says "by other means" that is *not* what the Laws say. Law 73 - Communication between Partners B. Inappropriate Communication Between Partners 1. Gratuitous Information It is inappropriate for communication between partners to be effected through the manner in which calls or plays are made, through extraneous remarks or gestures, or through questions asked or not asked of the opponents, through alerts and explanations given or not given to them. This is absolutely clear: they may not communicate "through questions asked or not asked of the opponents". I am in agreement that you could read L20F1 as giving you a blanket right to ask at any time for any reason. I believe that the intention of the Laws through L20F1 is to explain the method, rather than to give you blanket licence. Suppose you ask [having no interest in the hand] for the sole purpose of discommoding the opponents? Or for the sole purpose of delaying the hand? These conflict with L74A2 and also possibly with L74B4 and L74C4. Of course it would be better if there was no conflict in the Laws but when there is we have to come to a sensible conclusion. If we take L20F1 literally we have to allow all sorts of practices that are generally held to be undesirable and unethical, and clearly are because of L72-L74. On the other hand, taking L72-L74 to water down the blanket-type provisions of L20F1 seems a more acceptable method, and accords with most people's views in some areas [eg deliberately delaying play] even though some areas such as the one discussed lead to less general agreement. -- Quango /\_/\ /\_/\ quango@blakjak.demon.co.uk |@ @| =( ^*^ )= Nanki Poo =< + >= ( | | ) nankipoo@blakjak.demon.co.uk ^ (_~^ ^~ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jul 24 05:07:39 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA06507 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 24 Jul 1996 05:07:39 +1000 Received: from styx.ios.com (lighton@styx.ios.com [198.4.75.44]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id FAA06502 for ; Wed, 24 Jul 1996 05:07:29 +1000 Received: (from lighton@localhost) by styx.ios.com (8.6.12/8.6.9) id PAA23102 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Tue, 23 Jul 1996 15:07:11 -0400 Date: Tue, 23 Jul 1996 15:07:11 -0400 From: Richard Lighton Message-Id: <199607231907.PAA23102@styx.ios.com> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Asking for partner (was Mis/insufficient Information) Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David/Quango/Nanki Poo Wrote: (All these different sig files confuse me :-) DS>Richard Lighton wrote: DS> [snip] RL> Personally, I still feel entitled to ask "What does X mean?" RL> for any reason, including: RL> RL> - I need to know RL> - partner may never have heard of the convention they are using RL> - It's about time I asked, because if I don't ask now and then RL> when disinterested, partner will know I'm interested when I RL> ask. Yes, David, I remember EBU rules say I'm not allowed to RL> ask for this reason in England. RL> DS> Do they? I didn't know that. DS> Somewhere in the last month or so, I could have sworn that you said that the EBU only allowed you to ask if you had interest. Am I wrong _again?_ RL> Both the EBU and the ACBL say that you can't ask about a bid RL> for partner's benefit. David adequately explained (I think) RL> the reasoning behind this. Law 20F1, in my view, says I can RL> always ask about the whole auction, and pedantically I can RL> ONLY ask about the whole auction. The Laws David quotes seem to RL> me to be about communication between partners by other means RL> (the usual Unauthorized Information stuff). Doesn't 20F1 give RL> me the right to ask "What does all this mean?" regardless of RL> whether I want to know, I want partner to know, or maybe I have RL> just stumbled on an interesting piece of bidding theory? RL> Yes, I will agree that I am not allowed to ask leading RL> subsidiary questions, but I think Kaplan's original example RL> (Kay probably did not know that an explanation of an obscure RL> part of Roman was incomplete) was a reasonable thing to do. RL> And in the Kaplan case, he wanted Kay to know rather than have a Misinformation ruling. DS> It is fair to say that you have two Laws that at first sight do not DS>agree with each other. Most of what is said above is correct with one DS>significant exception. When Richard says "by other means" that is *not* DS>what the Laws say. DS> DS>Law 73 - Communication between Partners DS> DS>B. Inappropriate Communication Between Partners DS> 1. Gratuitous Information DS> It is inappropriate for communication between partners to be DS> effected through the manner in which calls or plays are made, DS> through extraneous remarks or gestures, or through questions DS> asked or not asked of the opponents, through alerts and DS> explanations given or not given to them. DS> DS> This is absolutely clear: they may not communicate "through questions DS>asked or not asked of the opponents". DS> Aha! This is the point of dissent. 73B1 says "communication between partners." David's assertion is that if I ask a question to make sure partner knows about opponent's agreements, I am communicating with partner. My assertion is that I am asking opponents to communicate with partner. Taking an example I used a couple of months ago: I am playing with an inexperienced player in an event where ACBL "announce" procedures are not in effect. I know opponents well enough to know they play both 2C and 2D as Stayman. The bidding goes 1NT-pass-2D(Alert) to me. I have no interest in the auction, but I feel it is appropriate for partner to know that responder does not necessarily have 5 hearts. I want opponents to tell partner that. As I read 73B1, I can make them do that (and not tell partner anything that might be called "information"). As David (and lots of other people) read it, I can not. If anyone agrees with me in the above case, what are your views in the following: We have different agreements about defenses to Stayman and to Transfers. On the auction 1NT-pass-2D(Alert) in the situation above, may I ask? In the case where I don't know opponents' agreements, I can clearly ask, although this may generate unauthorised information if I take no action. DS> I am in agreement that you could read L20F1 as giving you a blanket DS>right to ask at any time for any reason. I believe that the intention DS>of the Laws through L20F1 is to explain the method, rather than to give DS>you blanket licence. Suppose you ask [having no interest in the hand] DS>for the sole purpose of discommoding the opponents? Or for the sole DS>purpose of delaying the hand? These conflict with L74A2 and also DS>possibly with L74B4 and L74C4. DS> DS> Of course it would be better if there was no conflict in the Laws but DS>when there is we have to come to a sensible conclusion. If we take DS>L20F1 literally we have to allow all sorts of practices that are DS>generally held to be undesirable and unethical, and clearly are because DS>of L72-L74. On the other hand, taking L72-L74 to water down the DS>blanket-type provisions of L20F1 seems a more acceptable method, and DS>accords with most people's views in some areas [eg deliberately delaying DS>play] even though some areas such as the one discussed lead to less DS>general agreement. DS> Good points. I don't know how to answer them any more than I know how to differentiate between the player who doesn't claim when it's obvious to do so, but has forgotten about some card or other; and the player who doesn't claim because he wants to annoy me. Or between the player who asks questions for (literally) 5 minutes about the auction 1C(alert) pass-pass and the opponent who asks about every bid in a multi-alerted auction because he is an inexperienced player and is genuinely interested in a general way about this weird system we are playing. There are a whole bunch of ways one can "legally" annoy opponents. It's called Gamesmanship. The Laws don't approve of it, but it is very hard to "prove," unfortunately. DS> DS>-- DS>Quango /\_/\ /\_/\ DS> quango@blakjak.demon.co.uk |@ @| =( ^*^ )= DS>Nanki Poo =< + >= ( | | ) DS> nankipoo@blakjak.demon.co.uk ^ (_~^ ^~ DS> OK, now we have portraits of Quango and Nanki Poo (I assume Nanki Poo is the smug one, but I can't think why since Quango was the one who deleted all that text). How about a 4-line portrait of David? Richard Lighton | (lighton@ios.com) | Cogito, ergo sunk Wood-Ridge NJ | I think, therefore I am doomed | (What Descartes _really_ said) From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jul 24 05:14:22 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA06536 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 24 Jul 1996 05:14:22 +1000 Received: from mailhub.axion.bt.co.uk (mailhub.axion.bt.co.uk [132.146.5.4]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id FAA06531 for ; Wed, 24 Jul 1996 05:14:16 +1000 Received: from catullus.agw.bt.co.uk by mailhub.axion.bt.co.uk with SMTP (PP); Tue, 23 Jul 1996 20:13:24 +0100 Received: from isdgate.agw.bt.co.uk (isdgate.agw.bt.co.uk [147.150.219.16]) by catullus.agw.bt.co.uk (8.6.12/8.6.11) with SMTP id UAA21698 for ; Tue, 23 Jul 1996 20:08:38 +0100 Received: by isdgate.agw.bt.co.uk with Microsoft Mail id <31F53173@isdgate.agw.bt.co.uk>; Tue, 23 Jul 96 20:09:23 GMT From: "Burn, David" To: "'Bridge Laws'" Subject: RE: A claim or concession Date: Tue, 23 Jul 96 18:34:00 GMT Message-ID: <31F53173@isdgate.agw.bt.co.uk> Encoding: 66 TEXT X-Mailer: Microsoft Mail V3.0 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk >From David Burn [much familiar stuff deleted] DAVID STEVENSON (a) Can a claim be considered when there has been an objection to the concession that goes with it? (b) Can an objection to a concession be considered a claim because of its nature in words or action? DAVID BURN (a) Yes. If a player concedes a trick on the basis that he will be on lead to that trick, but the part of his statement that claims the preceding trick is disputed, then one should consider the claim and the concession separately. I really don't see any problem with this; what is being objected to is not primarily the concession of the last trick but the claim of the penultimate trick. Since that occurred first, and the claim and concession occurred disjointly, they should be treated disjointly. (b) Yes. There is a legal definition of what a claim is: it is a statement to the effect that a player expects to win certain tricks. There is no separate legal definition of what an objection to a concession is (there should be, of course). So, if a player says "I will win trick X with card Y", that is a claim, and I can imagine circumstances in which it would be a valid claim and have to be dealt with under the relevant Laws. ERIC LANDAU Edgar Kaplan has argued for resolving tough adjudications by first deciding what the most equitable result is, then finding the Law that supports one's conclusion. DAVID BURN I have heard Edgar say this, and I confess that I find it difficult to understand. The Laws say what they say; if it is possible to find a Law that supports whatever view you want to arrive at, then the Laws are specious. I am reminded of an occasion when there was an appeal against a certain British pair in a European championship, and the question turned on whether a correct explanation of a bid had been given. The relevant page in the system file was located, and the explanation given was as written, so Britain won the appeal. It subsequently came to light that in another part of the system file, there was a completely different description of the same sequence. A system file that supports whatever explanation you want to give is no doubt a useful document, as is a Law book that supports whatever ruling you personally consider just. The Laws specifically state that you must pay whatever penalties are prescribed for infractions; neither a Director nor a Committee may adjust a score if the penalties are considered too harsh. It is up to us to work out what the Law means and to apply it _consistently in all cases_ not to take advantage of sundry ambiguities to give varying and subjective rulings. That's why people hate Committees, you see. It's not the stupidity they mind, it's the inconsistency. From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jul 24 05:38:06 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA06665 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 24 Jul 1996 05:38:06 +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 FAA06660 for ; Wed, 24 Jul 1996 05:38:01 +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 MAA23308 for <@mipl7.JPL.NASA.GOV:bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au>; Tue, 23 Jul 1996 12:36:59 -0700 Received: by tintin.JPL.NASA.GOV (940816.SGI.8.6.9/930416.SGI.MIPS) for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au id MAA17534; Tue, 23 Jul 1996 12:43:36 -0700 Date: Tue, 23 Jul 1996 12:43:36 -0700 From: jeff@tintin.JPL.NASA.GOV (Jeff Goldsmith) Message-Id: <199607231943.MAA17534@tintin.JPL.NASA.GOV> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk To: "'Bridge Laws'" Subject: RE: A claim or concession What do you know...a real-life example of this came up the other day. How do you rule? Dummy Immaterial Partner Sleepy Me --- Q Ax x --- --- J2 Q7 Declarer J KQ A --- The contract was 4Dx in a decent pair game. One of us had been trying to do too much all week (guess whom). At this point, I was on lead and said "down 1?" which was suggesting that declarer take two more tricks. Roughly simultaneously and very fast, declarer said, "OK," and folded up his cards, and partner said, "NO!" I said, "OK, then we have to play on, right?" and proceeded to face the CQ. Declarer said, "I think this is ridiculous," and faced his hand, claiming two tricks. While he was doing this, partner had the CJ obviously detached. I suggested that we call the director, but declarer refused, insisting, "you choose what you think is fair." Over to you. Please, no suggestions on how I ought to get more sleep during bridge tournaments :) In reality, I offered declarer the choice between down two and calling the director. He chose the former, but not without clear expression of anger and insinuations of impropriety. I know better; next time I shall call the director regardless of his choice, but I was pretty unconscious that day (partner can attest to that) and wasn't thinking clearly. Interestingly, after a round of bidding on the next hand, declarer again said something to the effect that he thought we were being unfair, so I offered to put the hand away, pretend that we hadn't started it, and return to the diagrammed position, then call the director. He declined. As it turned out, the decision was between 100 and 300, which was worth all of 1/2 matchpoint on a 38 top, so the adjudication was moot, but it is a real example of claim/concession/rejection, etc. --Jeff # Cthulhu in '96! Why vote for the lesser evil? # --- # http://muggy.gg.caltech.edu/~jeff From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jul 24 07:31:35 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA07146 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 24 Jul 1996 07:31:35 +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 HAA07141 for ; Wed, 24 Jul 1996 07:31:22 +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 RAA18355 for ; Tue, 23 Jul 1996 17:31:14 -0400 (EDT) Received: by cfa183.harvard.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id RAA01480; Tue, 23 Jul 1996 17:33:54 -0400 Date: Tue, 23 Jul 1996 17:33:54 -0400 From: willner@cfa183.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Message-Id: <199607232133.RAA01480@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: A claim or concession X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: David Stevenson > Now suppose a defender says "I shall make all the tricks except one" > and his partner says "I object", neither showing their cards. Does play > continue? I cannot really answer that because you all know that I > believe the answer is yes, since no concession has occurred. I am > asking you to read L68B and then answer the question to yourself. As usual, David S. has put the key question to us. I think there are two possible answers, and Law 68B alone does not distinguish between them. Certainly the concession is cancelled, but then either: 1) play continues, with Laws 16 and 57A being applied, or 2) the claim is considered to be a claim of all the tricks; play is over, and the director adjudicates if necessary. I confess that 2 makes more sense to me, though reading 68B alone does indeed suggest that 1 is meant. On the other hand, 68C instructs that claimer should state a line of play. Do we penalize a player (under 57A) for following proper procedure? And if so, couldn't a knowledgeable claimer, after partner's objection, remove all penalty (and force play to cease) by saying "Very well, in that case I claim them all?" Even if the claim of _all_ tricks is patently ridiculous, play is over, and the director will adjudicate the actual number of tricks each side wins. Why should the same be unavailable to a less knowledgeable defender if it's to his advantage? > (a) Can a claim be considered when there has been an objection to the > concession that goes with it? I think so. At any rate, there seems to be nothing preventing a new claim of all the tricks, and the new claim must be adjudicated (68D). This also seems to have the right effect. I don't think we wish to discourage claiming, though we also don't want players to benefit from improper claims. > (b) Can an objection to a concession be considered a claim because of > its nature in words or action? Possibly, but I'd say it matters only if the concession was of all the tricks. For example, West says "I give up." East says, "No, wait; I get a trick with my ace." The second part of the statement would seem to be a claim. However, we only reach this point if there was no claim by West. If there was a claim by West (and play has ceased), East's ace will be dealt with during the adjudication of West's claim. Comments? From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jul 24 07:37:15 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA07176 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 24 Jul 1996 07:37:15 +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 HAA07171 for ; Wed, 24 Jul 1996 07:37:10 +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 RAA14425 for ; Tue, 23 Jul 1996 17:37:07 -0400 (EDT) Received: by cfa183.harvard.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id RAA01489; Tue, 23 Jul 1996 17:39:46 -0400 Date: Tue, 23 Jul 1996 17:39:46 -0400 From: willner@cfa183.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Message-Id: <199607232139.RAA01489@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: RTFLB X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: jeff@tintin.JPL.NASA.GOV (Jeff Goldsmith) > Is there some ego thing about directors and law books? Yes, I think there is, at least around here (Boston area). Directors seem to take pride in NOT looking up the laws. I think one of the best things the proposed ACBL director training course could do is to combat this tendency. From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jul 24 15:54:35 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id PAA10141 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 24 Jul 1996 15:54:35 +1000 Received: from shell.monmouth.com (root@shell.monmouth.com [205.164.220.9]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id PAA10135 for ; Wed, 24 Jul 1996 15:54:24 +1000 Received: from lhost.monmouth.com (ppp3.monmouth.com [205.164.220.35]) by shell.monmouth.com (8.7.4/8.7.3) with SMTP id BAA01650 for ; Wed, 24 Jul 1996 01:51:11 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <199607240551.BAA01650@shell.monmouth.com> Comments: Authenticated sender is From: "Stefanie Rohan" To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Wed, 24 Jul 1996 01:49:57 -400 Subject: Re: Asking for partner (was Mis/insufficient Information) X-Confirm-Reading-To: "Stefanie Rohan" X-pmrqc: 1 Priority: normal X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v2.10) Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk >=Richard Lighton; DS=David Stevenson > DS>Law 73 - Communication between Partners > DS> > DS>B. Inappropriate Communication Between Partners > DS> 1. Gratuitous Information > DS> It is inappropriate for communication between partners to be > DS> effected through the manner in which calls or plays are made, > DS> through extraneous remarks or gestures, or through questions > DS> asked or not asked of the opponents, through alerts and > DS> explanations given or not given to them. > DS> > DS> This is absolutely clear: they may not communicate "through questions > DS>asked or not asked of the opponents". > DS> > > Aha! This is the point of dissent. 73B1 says "communication between > partners." David's assertion is that if I ask a question to make sure > partner knows about opponent's agreements, I am communicating with > partner. My assertion is that I am asking opponents to communicate > with partner. This is very close to what I would have written if Richard hadn't said it so well already. L73B1 seems to refer to purposeful behavior such as asking questions when you don't want to be told about the methods in question, but simply want to reveal something about your hand. > Taking an example I used a couple of months ago: > > I am playing with an inexperienced player in an event where ACBL > "announce" procedures are not in effect. I know opponents well > enough to know they play both 2C and 2D as Stayman. The bidding > goes 1NT-pass-2D(Alert) to me. I have no interest in the auction, > but I feel it is appropriate for partner to know that responder > does not necessarily have 5 hearts. I want opponents to tell > partner that. As I read 73B1, I can make them do that (and not > tell partner anything that might be called "information"). As David > (and lots of other people) read it, I can not. > > If anyone agrees with me in the above case, what are your views > in the following: > > We have different agreements about defenses to Stayman and to > Transfers. On the auction 1NT-pass-2D(Alert) in the situation > above, may I ask? In the case where I don't know opponents' > agreements, I can clearly ask, although this may generate > unauthorised information if I take no action. Of course you may ask, and of course there are UI problems. Let's not get into that again! (At least this case is helped by the new announcements -- there is no danger of partner's being lulled into thinking that the alert signifies a transfer.) Recently at the local duplicate, my partner and I defended a hand in 2S, and scored it as making. We were E/W, and got up to smoke. As we discussed the hand, we realized that we had taken six tricks. I went back inside, and the next round had not yet started. I first asked the opponents whether we hadn't scored two hearts, two clubs, a spade and a diamond. They had no idea, but agreed to go over the hand. We re-enacted the play, and even the dummy agreed with all thirteen tricks in the order in which we had originally played them (she was saying things like 'I took it with the ace' and 'then I led' even though she had just been pulling cards.) After we replayed the hand, the opponents noticed that we did score six tricks. So I called over the director, and when she got there the opponents immediately said that they hadn't agreed that they were down one, and that they couldn't remember how the play had gone. (Actually one opponent was wavering at first, but her partner [the dummy] was adamant, and soon swayed her. I asked the director if she would remain while we reviewed the play again, but she said that if they didn't remember, there was no way she could force them to. (By the way, the four hands could not be inspected to determine the result, because there were some silly things we could have done on defense which would cause us to lose one of our tricks.) So, did the opponents, who had just reviewed the play, suddenly forget how it had gone as soon as the director arrived? Probably not. Can the Laws be used against them? No. A few weeks ago I saw a pair of opponents lie to a committee about the manner in which one of them had played a card while on defense (they had appealed the director's ruling that it was a played card.) My partner and I were stunned, but there was nothing we could do about it except lose the appeal gracefully. The Laws can't prevent lying, just as the laws of the land can't prevent lying on your income tax return. People will do things like the above, and sometimes get away with it. Naturally it is against the Laws, as is harassing your opponents, but often there is no proof of an infraction. However, if we hold faith in people's honest intentions, I believe that we will not USUALLY be disappointed. As for the others, we can at least hope that their bad ethics will eventually catch up with them. Cheers, Stefanie Rohan who has no cat :-( From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jul 24 20:22:58 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id UAA11010 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 24 Jul 1996 20:22:58 +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 UAA11005 for ; Wed, 24 Jul 1996 20:22:49 +1000 Received: from post.demon.co.uk ([158.152.1.72]) by relay-2.mail.demon.net id ac25122; 24 Jul 96 11:22 +0100 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by relay-3.mail.demon.net id aa06592; 24 Jul 96 10:09 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 24 Jul 1996 03:41:17 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Claim or concession? In-Reply-To: <199607231943.MAA17534@tintin.JPL.NASA.GOV> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 1.12 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Jeff Goldsmith wrote: >To: "'Bridge Laws'" >Subject: RE: A claim or concession > >What do you know...a real-life example of this came up >the other day. How do you rule? > Dummy > Immaterial > > Partner Sleepy Me > --- Q > Ax x > --- --- > J2 Q7 > > > Declarer > J > KQ > A > --- > >The contract was 4Dx in a decent pair game. One of us had >been trying to do too much all week (guess whom). At >this point, I was on lead and said "down 1?" which >was suggesting that declarer take two more tricks. >Roughly simultaneously and very fast, declarer said, >"OK," and folded up his cards, and partner said, "NO!" >I said, "OK, then we have to play on, right?" and >proceeded to face the CQ. Declarer said, "I think >this is ridiculous," and faced his hand, claiming >two tricks. While he was doing this, partner had the CJ >obviously detached. I suggested that we call the >director, but declarer refused, insisting, "you choose >what you think is fair." > >Over to you. Please, no suggestions on how I ought >to get more sleep during bridge tournaments :) > Of course, you should have just called the TD. So should declarer. Still, I would rule that you play on but I consider L16 as L68B instructs me too. So, if you had not conceded and claimed, would you have played a heart? Was it an LA? Was a black card suggested? >In reality, I offered declarer the choice between >down two and calling the director. He chose the >former, but not without clear expression of anger >and insinuations of impropriety. I know better; >next time I shall call the director regardless of >his choice, but I was pretty unconscious that day >(partner can attest to that) and wasn't thinking >clearly. Interestingly, after a round of bidding >on the next hand, declarer again said something to >the effect that he thought we were being unfair, >so I offered to put the hand away, pretend that >we hadn't started it, and return to the diagrammed >position, then call the director. He declined. > One of my pet theories has always been that the biggest arguments over rulings-type matters occur when something happens and the TD is not called. This seems to support that. >As it turned out, the decision was between 100 >and 300, which was worth all of 1/2 matchpoint on >a 38 top, so the adjudication was moot, but it is >a real example of claim/concession/rejection, etc. While it is interesting in one way, the actual method, either treat as a concession and play on but consider L16, or treat as a claim and sort it out now would presumably come to the same thing. Still, how many of you consider that playing on was right? If you do, then in the other situation we have been discussing it presumably becomes right to play on. The difference between the two appears to be face-up cards, but the interpretation of L68B that has been bugging us surely does not depend on whether the cards are face up. -- David Stevenson Bridge Cats Railways Logic /\_/\ Liverpool, England, UK Nothing ventured, nothing gained =( ^*^ )= david@blakjak.demon.co.uk Emails welcome RTFLB ( | | ) Tel: +44 (0)151 677 7412 Phone before Fax please (_~^ ^~ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jul 24 20:52:25 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id UAA11105 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 24 Jul 1996 20:52:25 +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 UAA11100 for ; Wed, 24 Jul 1996 20:52:16 +1000 Received: from post.demon.co.uk ([158.152.1.72]) by relay-2.mail.demon.net id ac29254; 24 Jul 96 11:52 +0100 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by relay-3.mail.demon.net id aa06595; 24 Jul 96 10:09 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 24 Jul 1996 03:42:59 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Asking for partner (was Mis/insufficient Information) In-Reply-To: <199607231907.PAA23102@styx.ios.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 1.12 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Richard Lighton wrote: [s] > RL> Personally, I still feel entitled to ask "What does X mean?" > RL> for any reason, including: > RL> > RL> - I need to know > RL> - partner may never have heard of the convention they are using > RL> - It's about time I asked, because if I don't ask now and then > RL> when disinterested, partner will know I'm interested when I > RL> ask. Yes, David, I remember EBU rules say I'm not allowed to > RL> ask for this reason in England. > RL> >DS> Do they? I didn't know that. > >Somewhere in the last month or so, I could have sworn that >you said that the EBU only allowed you to ask if you had interest. >Am I wrong _again?_ > I have been misquoted several times on this matter but since it is one of the matters that I felt severely under attack about, I finally said that I shall argue the case for the EBU's approach at a future date, when I am confident that we can have a rational discussion without the additional problems. The time may be approaching but I really want to get the Claim or Concession sorted out. Suffice it to say that it is considerably more complicated than the above statement. [s] >DS> This is absolutely clear: they may not communicate "through questions >DS>asked or not asked of the opponents". > >Aha! This is the point of dissent. 73B1 says "communication between >partners." David's assertion is that if I ask a question to make sure >partner knows about opponent's agreements, I am communicating with >partner. My assertion is that I am asking opponents to communicate >with partner. If you ring someone up, and they are not there, but you leave a message saying that you will be doing such-and-such then you have communicated your intentions to that person. I think asking opponents to communicate with partner is communicating with partner. [s] >We have different agreements about defenses to Stayman and to >Transfers. On the auction 1NT-pass-2D(Alert) in the situation >above, may I ask? In the case where I don't know opponents' >agreements, I can clearly ask, although this may generate >unauthorised information if I take no action. My position is clear: you may ask for your own benefit, not your partner's: so why do you want to ask in this situation? [s] >Good points. I don't know how to answer them any more than I know how >to differentiate between the player who doesn't claim when it's obvious >to do so, but has forgotten about some card or other; and the player >who doesn't claim because he wants to annoy me. Or between the player >who asks questions for (literally) 5 minutes about the auction 1C(alert) >pass-pass and the opponent who asks about every bid in a multi-alerted >auction because he is an inexperienced player and is genuinely interested >in a general way about this weird system we are playing. There are a whole >bunch of ways one can "legally" annoy opponents. It's called Gamesmanship. >The Laws don't approve of it, but it is very hard to "prove," unfortunately. Proof is not usually required in TD decisions, fortunately. However, there is another thing: many players play a game that they intend to be ethical. It is important that we get the boundaries right for the people who will make every effort to follow them. It is easy in BLML to forget the ethical players, but they are there. So let us make it clear what is expected: some players will follow it. >DS>Quango /\_/\ /\_/\ >DS> quango@blakjak.demon.co.uk |@ @| =( ^*^ )= >DS>Nanki Poo =< + >= ( | | ) >DS> nankipoo@blakjak.demon.co.uk ^ (_~^ ^~ >DS> >OK, now we have portraits of Quango and Nanki Poo (I assume Nanki Poo >is the smug one, but I can't think why since Quango was the one who >deleted all that text). How about a 4-line portrait of David? > Quango is definitely smug. I'll leave portraits of me to others. There are two sorts of TDs: real TDs and thin TDs. -- Quango /\_/\ /\_/\ quango@blakjak.demon.co.uk =( ^*^ )= |@ @| Nanki Poo ( | | ) =< + >= nankipoo@blakjak.demon.co.uk (_~^ ^~ ^ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jul 25 00:41:31 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA15132 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 25 Jul 1996 00:41:31 +1000 Received: from relay-5.mail.demon.net (relay-5.mail.demon.net [158.152.1.48]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id AAA15127 for ; Thu, 25 Jul 1996 00:41:23 +1000 Received: from post.demon.co.uk by relay-5.mail.demon.net id bb20546; 24 Jul 96 11:42 +0100 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by relay-3.mail.demon.net id aa06593; 24 Jul 96 10:09 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 24 Jul 1996 03:40:16 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: RTFLB In-Reply-To: <199607232139.RAA01489@cfa183.harvard.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 1.12 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Steve Willner wrote: >> From: jeff@tintin.JPL.NASA.GOV (Jeff Goldsmith) >> Is there some ego thing about directors and law books? > >Yes, I think there is, at least around here (Boston area). Directors >seem to take pride in NOT looking up the laws. I think one of the best >things the proposed ACBL director training course could do is to combat >this tendency. As you may have gathered I am involved in training TDs at various levels in England, Scotland and Wales. At all levels except the top one they get marked down automatically for not having the Law book open and [apparently] reading from it. Furthermore we remind them before each assessment. The top one we don't, of course. There's no need: if they did not know what the Law book was for none of them would have reached this level. -- David Stevenson Bridge Cats Railways Logic /\_/\ Liverpool, England, UK Nothing ventured, nothing gained =( ^*^ )= david@blakjak.demon.co.uk Emails welcome RTFLB ( | | ) Tel: +44 (0)151 677 7412 Phone before Fax please (_~^ ^~ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jul 25 01:43:15 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA15616 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 25 Jul 1996 01:43:15 +1000 Received: from relay-5.mail.demon.net (relay-5.mail.demon.net [158.152.1.48]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id BAA15610 for ; Thu, 25 Jul 1996 01:43:07 +1000 Received: from post.demon.co.uk by relay-5.mail.demon.net id ag20546; 24 Jul 96 11:38 +0100 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by relay-3.mail.demon.net id aa06592; 24 Jul 96 10:09 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 24 Jul 1996 03:41:17 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Claim or concession? In-Reply-To: <199607231943.MAA17534@tintin.JPL.NASA.GOV> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 1.12 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Jeff Goldsmith wrote: >To: "'Bridge Laws'" >Subject: RE: A claim or concession > >What do you know...a real-life example of this came up >the other day. How do you rule? > Dummy > Immaterial > > Partner Sleepy Me > --- Q > Ax x > --- --- > J2 Q7 > > > Declarer > J > KQ > A > --- > >The contract was 4Dx in a decent pair game. One of us had >been trying to do too much all week (guess whom). At >this point, I was on lead and said "down 1?" which >was suggesting that declarer take two more tricks. >Roughly simultaneously and very fast, declarer said, >"OK," and folded up his cards, and partner said, "NO!" >I said, "OK, then we have to play on, right?" and >proceeded to face the CQ. Declarer said, "I think >this is ridiculous," and faced his hand, claiming >two tricks. While he was doing this, partner had the CJ >obviously detached. I suggested that we call the >director, but declarer refused, insisting, "you choose >what you think is fair." > >Over to you. Please, no suggestions on how I ought >to get more sleep during bridge tournaments :) > Of course, you should have just called the TD. So should declarer. Still, I would rule that you play on but I consider L16 as L68B instructs me too. So, if you had not conceded and claimed, would you have played a heart? Was it an LA? Was a black card suggested? >In reality, I offered declarer the choice between >down two and calling the director. He chose the >former, but not without clear expression of anger >and insinuations of impropriety. I know better; >next time I shall call the director regardless of >his choice, but I was pretty unconscious that day >(partner can attest to that) and wasn't thinking >clearly. Interestingly, after a round of bidding >on the next hand, declarer again said something to >the effect that he thought we were being unfair, >so I offered to put the hand away, pretend that >we hadn't started it, and return to the diagrammed >position, then call the director. He declined. > One of my pet theories has always been that the biggest arguments over rulings-type matters occur when something happens and the TD is not called. This seems to support that. >As it turned out, the decision was between 100 >and 300, which was worth all of 1/2 matchpoint on >a 38 top, so the adjudication was moot, but it is >a real example of claim/concession/rejection, etc. While it is interesting in one way, the actual method, either treat as a concession and play on but consider L16, or treat as a claim and sort it out now would presumably come to the same thing. Still, how many of you consider that playing on was right? If you do, then in the other situation we have been discussing it presumably becomes right to play on. The difference between the two appears to be face-up cards, but the interpretation of L68B that has been bugging us surely does not depend on whether the cards are face up. -- David Stevenson Bridge Cats Railways Logic /\_/\ Liverpool, England, UK Nothing ventured, nothing gained =( ^*^ )= david@blakjak.demon.co.uk Emails welcome RTFLB ( | | ) Tel: +44 (0)151 677 7412 Phone before Fax please (_~^ ^~ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jul 25 03:07:31 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA16375 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 25 Jul 1996 03:07:31 +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 DAA16370 for ; Thu, 25 Jul 1996 03:07:25 +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 KAA01448 for <@mipl7.JPL.NASA.GOV:bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au>; Wed, 24 Jul 1996 10:06:32 -0700 Received: by tintin.JPL.NASA.GOV (940816.SGI.8.6.9/930416.SGI.MIPS) for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au id KAA18623; Wed, 24 Jul 1996 10:13:11 -0700 Date: Wed, 24 Jul 1996 10:13:11 -0700 From: jeff@tintin.JPL.NASA.GOV (Jeff Goldsmith) Message-Id: <199607241713.KAA18623@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 wrote: |Jeff Goldsmith wrote: | |>To: "'Bridge Laws'" |>Subject: RE: A claim or concession |> |>What do you know...a real-life example of this came up |>the other day. How do you rule? |> Dummy |> Immaterial |> |> Partner Sleepy Me |> --- Q |> Ax x |> --- --- |> J2 Q7 |> |> |> Declarer |> J |> KQ |> A |> --- |> |>The contract was 4Dx in a decent pair game. One of us had |>been trying to do too much all week (guess whom). At |>this point, I was on lead and said "down 1?" which |>was suggesting that declarer take two more tricks. |>Roughly simultaneously and very fast, declarer said, |>"OK," and folded up his cards, and partner said, "NO!" |>I said, "OK, then we have to play on, right?" and |>proceeded to face the CQ. Declarer said, "I think |>this is ridiculous," and faced his hand, claiming |>two tricks. While he was doing this, partner had the CJ |>obviously detached. I suggested that we call the |>director, but declarer refused, insisting, "you choose |>what you think is fair." |> |>Over to you. Please, no suggestions on how I ought |>to get more sleep during bridge tournaments :) |> | Of course, you should have just called the TD. So should declarer. |Still, I would rule that you play on but I consider L16 as L68B |instructs me too. So, if you had not conceded and claimed, would you |have played a heart? Was it an LA? Was a black card suggested? No. No chance of a heart. A spade is the right play and is 100% clearcut, but a high club is a reasonable LA. Declarer had already been tapped out via clubs. I may have the explanation wrong (it was over a week ago and I was tired then and tired now); I think my claim occurred after I played the CQ and while declarer was tanking about his play to it. A heart was never a sensible option. Indeed, declarer was more or less marked with HAx on the bidding (and partner KQ) but each had done something a little strange, which is partially why the false defensive claim occurred. Partner's problem, however, is less clear. He has to unblock clubs, so a careless play by he would allow declarer a second trick. I believe he has no UI, however, so that's a nonissue. Am I right? |>In reality, I offered declarer the choice between |>down two and calling the director. He chose the |>former, but not without clear expression of anger |>and insinuations of impropriety. I know better; |>next time I shall call the director regardless of |>his choice, but I was pretty unconscious that day |>(partner can attest to that) and wasn't thinking |>clearly. Interestingly, after a round of bidding |>on the next hand, declarer again said something to |>the effect that he thought we were being unfair, |>so I offered to put the hand away, pretend that |>we hadn't started it, and return to the diagrammed |>position, then call the director. He declined. |> | One of my pet theories has always been that the biggest arguments over |rulings-type matters occur when something happens and the TD is not |called. This seems to support that. Agreed. Declarer was pretty adamant about not calling the director. I think I was suckered into agreeing with him for foolish reasons. |>As it turned out, the decision was between 100 |>and 300, which was worth all of 1/2 matchpoint on |>a 38 top, so the adjudication was moot, but it is |>a real example of claim/concession/rejection, etc. | | While it is interesting in one way, the actual method, either treat as |a concession and play on but consider L16, or treat as a claim and sort |it out now would presumably come to the same thing. Probably in this case, since equity is pretty obvious, but how do the laws work on this? I sorted through them and had some difficulty, although concluded that probably the best ruling is claim/concession refused by partner, UI possible, play continues. | Still, how many of you consider that playing on was right? If you do, I do. |then in the other situation we have been discussing it presumably |becomes right to play on. The difference between the two appears to be |face-up cards, but the interpretation of L68B that has been bugging us |surely does not depend on whether the cards are face up. Indeed, that's the point of my story. 68B is pretty confusing, I think, and since I noticed a discussion about it, I figured I'd add a little grist for the mill with a real-life occurrance, even at the cost of a little embarrassment :) --Jeff # Cthulhu in '96! Why vote for the lesser evil? # --- # http://muggy.gg.caltech.edu/~jeff From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jul 25 05:13:48 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA22854 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 25 Jul 1996 05:13:48 +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 FAA22830 for ; Thu, 25 Jul 1996 05:13:41 +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 MAA05763 for <@mipl7.JPL.NASA.GOV:bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au>; Wed, 24 Jul 1996 12:13:08 -0700 Received: by tintin.JPL.NASA.GOV (940816.SGI.8.6.9/930416.SGI.MIPS) for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au id MAA18777; Wed, 24 Jul 1996 12:19:47 -0700 Date: Wed, 24 Jul 1996 12:19:47 -0700 From: jeff@tintin.JPL.NASA.GOV (Jeff Goldsmith) Message-Id: <199607241919.MAA18777@tintin.JPL.NASA.GOV> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: a strange thought Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Sleep deprivation does odd things to me, and for no good reason, I think I'll share a strange thought... Let's say a pair is playing against a regularly- established partnership. For the sake of convenience, lets say the pair is "me" and "you." We bid to some contract and you are going to be playing it. I am familiar with the opponents and you are (perhaps because you are visiting from a distant place) not. Is it legal for me to tell you before the opening lead some things I know about them that might be germane to the hand that they have failed to disclose? For example, if I know they really play 10-14 notrump openings, but have their card marked 12-14, can I tell you? How about if I know that they frequently underlad aces on opening lead and don't mark this on their convention card? I'll guess that this is improper if we are to be the defense, since it's too easy to communicate illegally if one does this. If, however, I am to be dummy, I don't see any reason I can't do this during the time of the face-down opening lead. What do y'all think? --Jeff (I know you want me to say I'm from California, but I'm really from outer space, at least today :) ) # Cthulhu in '96! Why vote for the lesser evil? # --- # http://muggy.gg.caltech.edu/~jeff From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jul 25 09:43:27 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA26042 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 25 Jul 1996 09:43:27 +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 JAA26037 for ; Thu, 25 Jul 1996 09:43:21 +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 TAA13695 for ; Wed, 24 Jul 1996 19:43:18 -0400 (EDT) Received: by cfa183.harvard.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id TAA02005; Wed, 24 Jul 1996 19:46:02 -0400 Date: Wed, 24 Jul 1996 19:46:02 -0400 From: willner@cfa183.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Message-Id: <199607242346.TAA02005@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Claim or concession? X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk From: David Stevenson > Still, how many of you consider that playing on was right? This is indeed the key question. There are four possible states of the game: 1. No claim and no concession. 2. A claim but no concession. 3. A concession but no claim. 4. Both a claim and a concession. What to do in State 1 is easy! States 2, 3, and 4 are also easy (Law 68D, play ceases), once it is established which one of them we are in. (Adjudicating particular cases may be difficult, of course, but at least we know how to proceed.) The question is what to do if we are temporarily in state 3 or 4 but forced out of it under L68B. (A defender has immediately objected to partner's concession.) We must go to 1 or 2, but which? The Laws don't seem to specify clearly, but I argue that we go from 3 to 1 and from 4 to 2 (and never from 4 to 1 as David S. would have). This interpretation seems at least consistent with all the Laws and has the beneficial effect that a player who claims, shows his cards, and states a line of play -- as recommended by L68C -- is never forced to play cards in a different order under L57A (a result I consider ludicrous). A claim is not an infraction, and in general claims ought to be encouraged, not punished. Furthermore, as I noted earlier, a defender forced into state 1 can always put the game into state 2 by claiming all the tricks. It seems fair to give the same benefit to a defender who is not aware of all the nuances of the Laws. If I am correct, it can never be right to play on once a claim is made. It is right to play on if a concession is made without a claim and the concession is rejected, but even then the director should be summoned first (L68B). The L68B reference to L57A applies if, for example, a defender simply tosses his hand face up on the table, apparently conceding the rest of the tricks. Once the concession is rejected, we indeed play on, but L16 applies to both defenders, and any exposed cards are penalty cards. Does this make sense? I guess the real lesson from all this is that the optimal procedure for conceding is to claim all the tricks. :-) From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jul 25 11:58:31 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id LAA26914 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 25 Jul 1996 11:58:31 +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 LAA26909 for ; Thu, 25 Jul 1996 11:58:24 +1000 Received: from post.demon.co.uk ([158.152.1.72]) by relay-4.mail.demon.net id ac18484; 25 Jul 96 1:58 GMT Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by relay-3.mail.demon.net id aa01237; 25 Jul 96 2:27 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 25 Jul 1996 02:24:09 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: BLML abbreviations MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 1.12 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk AC Appeals committee ACBL American Contract Bridge League AI Authorised information BBL British Bridge League BLML Bridge-laws mailing list CPU Concealed partnership understanding CTD Chief Tournament director EBU English Bridge Union IMO In my opinion LA Logical alternative L&EC Laws & Ethics Committee (English, Welsh or Scottish) Lnn Law number nn MI Misinformation NCBO National Contract Bridge organisation NBO National Bridge organisation NG Newsgroup NP No problem PP Procedural penalty RGB rec.games.bridge (newsgroup) RoC Rule of coincidence RTFLB Read the ******* Law book! SBU Scottish Bridge Union SO Sponsoring organisation TD Tournament director TDic Tournament director in charge UI Unauthorised information WBF World Bridge Federation WBU Welsh Bridge Union -- David Stevenson Bridge Cats Railways Logic /\_/\ Liverpool, England, UK Nothing ventured, nothing gained =( ^*^ )= david@blakjak.demon.co.uk Emails welcome RTFLB ( | | ) Tel: +44 (0)151 677 7412 Phone before Fax please (_~^ ^~ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jul 25 11:59:57 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id LAA26931 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 25 Jul 1996 11:59:57 +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 LAA26926 for ; Thu, 25 Jul 1996 11:59:50 +1000 Received: from post.demon.co.uk ([158.152.1.72]) by relay-4.mail.demon.net id aa18471; 25 Jul 96 1:58 GMT Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by relay-3.mail.demon.net id aa01239; 25 Jul 96 2:27 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 25 Jul 1996 02:24:28 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: a strange thought In-Reply-To: <199607241919.MAA18777@tintin.JPL.NASA.GOV> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 1.12 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Jeff Goldsmith wrote: >Sleep deprivation does odd things to me, and for >no good reason, I think I'll share a strange thought... > >Let's say a pair is playing against a regularly- >established partnership. For the sake of convenience, >lets say the pair is "me" and "you." We bid to some >contract and you are going to be playing it. I am >familiar with the opponents and you are (perhaps >because you are visiting from a distant place) not. >Is it legal for me to tell you before the opening >lead some things I know about them that might be >germane to the hand that they have failed to disclose? >For example, if I know they really play 10-14 notrump >openings, but have their card marked 12-14, can I tell >you? How about if I know that they frequently underlad >aces on opening lead and don't mark this on their >convention card? > >I'll guess that this is improper if we are to be the >defense, since it's too easy to communicate illegally >if one does this. If, however, I am to be dummy, I >don't see any reason I can't do this during the time >of the face-down opening lead. > >What do y'all think? Is it legal? No. Communication between partners is only allowed in certain ways, and this is not one of them. Should it be legal? No, IMO. What is all this wish to tell partner things? It's just not Bridge. > (I know you want > me to say I'm from > California, but I'm > really from outer space, > at least today :) ) Errm: what's the difference between California and outer space? -- David Stevenson Bridge Cats Railways Logic /\_/\ Liverpool, England, UK Nothing ventured, nothing gained |@ @| david@blakjak.demon.co.uk Emails welcome RTFLB =< + >= Tel: +44 (0)151 677 7412 Phone before Fax please ^ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jul 25 19:12:03 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id TAA28356 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 25 Jul 1996 19:12:03 +1000 Received: from tom.compulink.co.uk (tom.compulink.co.uk [194.153.0.51]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id TAA28351 for ; Thu, 25 Jul 1996 19:11:55 +1000 Received: (from root@localhost) by tom.compulink.co.uk (8.6.9/8.6.9) id KAA28505 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Thu, 25 Jul 1996 10:11:21 +0100 Date: Thu, 25 Jul 96 10:11 BST-1 From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: a strange thought To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Cc: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Reply-To: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Message-Id: Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Jeff wrote on the subject of dummy warning declarer between bidding and play: >For example, if I know they really play 10-14 notrump >openings, but have their card marked 12-14, can I tell >you? Don't waste time telling partner, if they show up with 10/11 call the director. If they do it often enough for you to have noticed they have an illegal agreement. >How about if I know that they frequently underlead >aces on opening lead and don't mark this on their >convention card? And, as far as I can tell, are not required to either - just a matter of style/judgement. Pity you didn't brief partner before the bidding but I think it's too late now:-) What I'm not sure about though, is if you, as dummy, are aware that they have failed to fully disclose the meaning of a conventional bid do you have any rights. (I was thinking here of the 1H control bid from another thread but now in a situation where there is no possibility of your questions giving UI in any convential sense). Tim West-Meads From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jul 26 02:08:14 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA05665 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 26 Jul 1996 02:08:14 +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 CAA05660 for ; Fri, 26 Jul 1996 02:07:59 +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 JAA15619 for <@mipl7.JPL.NASA.GOV:bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au>; Thu, 25 Jul 1996 09:07:10 -0700 Received: by tintin.JPL.NASA.GOV (940816.SGI.8.6.9/930416.SGI.MIPS) for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au id JAA19714; Thu, 25 Jul 1996 09:13:48 -0700 Date: Thu, 25 Jul 1996 09:13:48 -0700 From: jeff@tintin.JPL.NASA.GOV (Jeff Goldsmith) Message-Id: <199607251613.JAA19714@tintin.JPL.NASA.GOV> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Redirecting the words of Alan LeBendig: From AlLeBendig@aol.com Wed Jul 24 18:03:32 1996 Subject: Re: a strange thought In a message dated 96-07-24 15:16:40 EDT, you write: << Subj: a strange thought Date: 96-07-24 15:16:40 EDT From: jeff@tintin.JPL.NASA.GOV (Jeff Goldsmith) Sender: owner-bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Sleep deprivation does odd things to me, and for no good reason, I think I'll share a strange thought... Let's say a pair is playing against a regularly- established partnership. For the sake of convenience, lets say the pair is "me" and "you." We bid to some contract and you are going to be playing it. I am familiar with the opponents and you are (perhaps because you are visiting from a distant place) not. Is it legal for me to tell you before the opening lead some things I know about them that might be germane to the hand that they have failed to disclose? For example, if I know they really play 10-14 notrump openings, but have their card marked 12-14, can I tell you? How about if I know that they frequently underlad I Is that the past perfect of underlead?? aces on opening lead and don't mark this on their convention card? I cannot even begin to imagine any scenario in which any discussion of this nature would be appropriate (or legal) once the bidding has started until such time as the hand is over. Between hands or prior to taking the cards out of board 1 such discussion would be fine. I'll guess that this is improper if we are to be the defense, since it's too easy to communicate illegally if one does this. If, however, I am to be dummy, I don't see any reason I can't do this during the time of the face-down opening lead. What do y'all think? --Jeff I guess it's clear I don't like the idea. Take note I will be gone until the 12th so there will be no reason to insult me about my point of view here. I won't be here to appreciate it. Alan LeBendig # Cthulhu in '96! Why vote for the lesser evil? # --- # http://muggy.gg.caltech.edu/~jeff From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jul 26 02:17:04 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA05718 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 26 Jul 1996 02:17:04 +1000 Received: from mailhub.axion.bt.co.uk (mailhub.axion.bt.co.uk [132.146.5.4]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id CAA05713 for ; Fri, 26 Jul 1996 02:16:57 +1000 Received: from catullus.agw.bt.co.uk by mailhub.axion.bt.co.uk with SMTP (PP); Thu, 25 Jul 1996 17:15:58 +0100 Received: from isdgate.agw.bt.co.uk (isdgate.agw.bt.co.uk [147.150.219.16]) by catullus.agw.bt.co.uk (8.6.12/8.6.11) with SMTP id RAA18326 for ; Thu, 25 Jul 1996 17:01:48 +0100 Received: by isdgate.agw.bt.co.uk with Microsoft Mail id <31F7A8AA@isdgate.agw.bt.co.uk>; Thu, 25 Jul 96 17:02:34 GMT From: "Burn, David" To: "'Bridge Laws'" Subject: RE: Asking for partner (was Mis/insufficient Information) Date: Thu, 25 Jul 96 16:44:00 GMT Message-ID: <31F7A8AA@isdgate.agw.bt.co.uk> Encoding: 121 TEXT X-Mailer: Microsoft Mail V3.0 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk >From David Burn DAVID STEVENSON DS>Richard Lighton wrote: DS> [snip] RICHARD LIGHTON RL> Personally, I still feel entitled to ask "What does X mean?" RL> for any reason, including: RL> RL> - I need to know RL> - partner may never have heard of the convention they are using RL> - It's about time I asked, because if I don't ask now and then RL> when disinterested, partner will know I'm interested when I RL> ask. Yes, David, I remember EBU rules say I'm not allowed to RL> ask for this reason in England. RL> DAVID STEVENSON DS> Do they? I didn't know that. DS> RICHARD LIGHTON Somewhere in the last month or so, I could have sworn that you said that the EBU only allowed you to ask if you had interest. Am I wrong _again?_ David Burn It's about time someone quoted the actual regulation: EBU ORANGE BOOK "The right to ask questions is not a licence to do so without consequence: if you ask about an unalerted call and then pass, you have shown an interest which may influence your partner. Asking about an alerted call and then bidding reduces this possibility, but in either case if your partner acts in a way that suggests he has taken advantage of your question, then unauthorised information may be deemed to have been given. Similarly, if you ask a question and then pass, thus ending the auction, your partner's choice of lead from the logical alternatives available must not be one that could have been suggested by your question. Note: If, at your turn to call, you do not need to have a call explained, it is in your interest to defer all questions until either you are about to make the opening lead or your partner's lead is face-down on the table." David Burn DWS knows perfefctly well what this regulation says: he wrote most of it. It does not expressly forbid anything which is permitted under the Laws - it could not, of course. Instead, it contains a veiled threat: "it is in your interest to defer all questions..." without explaining why, or what will happen if you do not. It is, in my opinion, a more or less pointless piece of legislation that is a relic of a bygone era. There is at least one person and two cats out there who do not agree with me :) [snip] RICHARD LIGHTON Aha! This is the point of dissent. 73B1 says "communication between partners." David's assertion is that if I ask a question to make sure partner knows about opponent's agreements, I am communicating with partner. My assertion is that I am asking opponents to communicate with partner. Taking an example I used a couple of months ago: I am playing with an inexperienced player in an event where ACBL "announce" procedures are not in effect. I know opponents well enough to know they play both 2C and 2D as Stayman. The bidding goes 1NT-pass-2D(Alert) to me. I have no interest in the auction, but I feel it is appropriate for partner to know that responder does not necessarily have 5 hearts. I want opponents to tell partner that. As I read 73B1, I can make them do that (and not tell partner anything that might be called "information"). As David (and lots of other people) read it, I can not. If anyone agrees with me in the above case, what are your views in the following: We have different agreements about defenses to Stayman and to Transfers. On the auction 1NT-pass-2D(Alert) in the situation above, may I ask? In the case where I don't know opponents' agreements, I can clearly ask, although this may generate unauthorised information if I take no action. David Burn I do not believe that a player has the right to compensate for his partner's ignorance by asking questions based on his superior knowledge or experience. If your partner is not wise enough to look at the opponents' convention card for himself, then it is not for you to compensate for his lack of wisdom. I agree with DWS (!) that such a question is in effect a communication with partner ("They are not playing what you think they are; have a look at the card", or in the second case "Make sure you know what my bid means, because they may not be playing what you think.") In order not to create UI, I believe that you should in effect always ask in auctions where you know that there is going to be a problem for your side. I have been persuaded by some excellent arguments that to ask on random occasions when you have no interest is equally effective, and this has the virtue of not slowing down the game uniformly, so in future I intend to adopt this practice. (Note that this does _not_ mean that I believe random hesitations with no problem are a good idea!) From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jul 26 02:17:26 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA05734 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 26 Jul 1996 02:17:26 +1000 Received: from mailhub.axion.bt.co.uk (mailhub.axion.bt.co.uk [132.146.5.4]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id CAA05729 for ; Fri, 26 Jul 1996 02:17:16 +1000 Received: from catullus.agw.bt.co.uk by mailhub.axion.bt.co.uk with SMTP (PP); Thu, 25 Jul 1996 17:16:10 +0100 Received: from isdgate.agw.bt.co.uk (isdgate.agw.bt.co.uk [147.150.219.16]) by catullus.agw.bt.co.uk (8.6.12/8.6.11) with SMTP id RAA18343 for ; Thu, 25 Jul 1996 17:01:58 +0100 Received: by isdgate.agw.bt.co.uk with Microsoft Mail id <31F7A8B4@isdgate.agw.bt.co.uk>; Thu, 25 Jul 96 17:02:44 GMT From: "Burn, David" To: "'Bridge Laws'" Subject: RE: Disclosure Requirements Date: Thu, 25 Jul 96 16:46:00 GMT Message-ID: <31F7A8B4@isdgate.agw.bt.co.uk> Encoding: 127 TEXT X-Mailer: Microsoft Mail V3.0 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk >From David Burn ALAN LEBENDIG I've been asked my opinion on a situation that came up and I was quite distressed to realize I didn't have one. So please give me your thoughts. S holds: S T9x H x D AQJx C KTxxx. The auction proceeds: E S W N 1NT P P 2D P 3H D P P 4S D AP The NT is 12-14. After S bid 3H, W inquired about 2D. S obviously was splintering in support of diamonds. When the question was asked he realized that 2D showed majors. There is no suggestion of any UI. He properly informed opponents of agreement. At end of auction, is he under any obligation to disclose that he was off base when he made 3H call? My gut instinct tells me no but I'm not sure. Could opponents ever claim damage here? For some reason they were confused defensively. They were rather competent and the auction itself might have tipped them off that there was a problem. MIKE AMOS You don't tell us about any alert of 3H As S, making my splinter, certainly here in UK, I would expect partner to be alerting, but a *natural* jump to 3H would not be alerted. This would then be a UI problem, arising frm my partner's failure to alert. As I don't want to make a complete ass of myself and don't know (want to know?) ACBL alerting regs, (I have enough trouble with EBU regulations :) ), I'm emailing you, but feel free to bounce to bridge- laws if you think it is relevant, DAVID STEVENSON You're right, Mike, you don't want to know. :)) [And nobody believe a word he says about EBU regs: he's OK.] ALAN LEBENDIG Well done, Mike. You bring up a point none of us noticed to date. I was willing to accept that S realized what there agreements were right after he 'splintered'. However, the failure to hear an alert (yes it is alertable here also) is clearly UI. Behind screens he would have continued on to 4D which would have been corrected to 4H at which point I would assume that he might have woken up and corrected to 4S. I believe I could have been persuaded to allow a 4S final contract. Are we still in agreement that S owes no explanation after the auction ends? DAVID STEVENSON Of course mamos is correct in one way, but saying none of us realised is not quite accurate. When you ask a question and say `There is no suggestion of any UI' then I don't worry about whether there is UI: the answer to the question as originally set is, as pointed out in other posts, that you don't tell your opponents anything. It is basic: it is simple: there is no question about it: I was a little surprised the question was asked and tended to assume there were ramifications that I had missed. Very early in learning to be an ethical player and/or a TD we learn that a player's opponents have a right to know his agreements, but nothing else. And, of course, also very early in learning to be a TD we learn that if opponents call you to the table and complain about MI then you ***always*** consider UI as well. Of course, in the given hand, the first reaction was to find out whether 3H was alerted, and so on ... Naively [it seems] I took the `There is no suggestion of any UI' on trust, and, to be honest, rather lost interest in the thread. Obviously mamos is less naive than me! So now, let us reconsider: it appears that there may have been UI. Did North alert South's 3H bid? No? Now I need to know exactly what `When the question was asked he realized that 2D showed majors' means? Is that what he said to a TD? Is he experienced? If you are telling me that 3H was not alerted, that South knew that (ie it was not behind screens), that he told his opponents that 2D showed the majors, that he bid 4S and he said that he had been reminded by the question then he is going to need a pretty convincing argument to stop me returning the board to 3Hx, fining him at least a top for luck, and making a written report to his NCBO. His best chance is that he is an inexperienced player: then he merely gets 3Hx, half a board fine, and a ten minute ethical lecture. Of course, there is still no reason why he should have told the opponents anything different: there was no MI on the board. DAVID BURN Just a second. How are you going to make South play in his splinter bid? Are you telling me that North's pass of the splinter showed a diamond overcall that was prepared to play 3H doubled facing a singleton? If you want blood, then you can adjust to something like 7D doubled (South bids 4D, North bids 4H, South bids 5D, North bids 6H etc.), but 3H doubled is not remotely on the menu. This problem is actually fairly deep, and there are some important principles involved. If West enquired about 2D before South could reasonably have had the chance to deduce anything from the non-alert of 3H, then one might conclude that UI from the non-alert does not apply. But that does not mean that UI does not apply, period. A previous poster (Eric Landau) believes that if it was West's question that woke South up to his error, UI does not apply. I am not sure that I share this belief. My opponents have the right to ask questions for their benefit, not mine, and if I had been South I would have felt bound to continue the auction as if partner had diamonds. I do not know of any passage in the Laws which resolves the question one way or another, though, and if anyone can find some relevant Law I would be grateful. From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jul 26 02:17:36 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA05750 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 26 Jul 1996 02:17:36 +1000 Received: from mailhub.axion.bt.co.uk (mailhub.axion.bt.co.uk [132.146.5.4]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id CAA05735 for ; Fri, 26 Jul 1996 02:17:27 +1000 Received: from catullus.agw.bt.co.uk by mailhub.axion.bt.co.uk with SMTP (PP); Thu, 25 Jul 1996 17:16:13 +0100 Received: from isdgate.agw.bt.co.uk (isdgate.agw.bt.co.uk [147.150.219.16]) by catullus.agw.bt.co.uk (8.6.12/8.6.11) with SMTP id RAA18330 for ; Thu, 25 Jul 1996 17:01:52 +0100 Received: by isdgate.agw.bt.co.uk with Microsoft Mail id <31F7A8AE@isdgate.agw.bt.co.uk>; Thu, 25 Jul 96 17:02:38 GMT From: "Burn, David" To: "'Bridge Laws'" Subject: RE: Misinformation/Insufficient Information Problem Date: Thu, 25 Jul 96 16:44:00 GMT Message-ID: <31F7A8AE@isdgate.agw.bt.co.uk> Encoding: 130 TEXT X-Mailer: Microsoft Mail V3.0 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk >From David Burn TONY'S ORIGINAL PROBLEM Brd #4 Both vul Dlr: West S Q76 W N E S H Q7632 P P 1C(1) P D QJ 1H(2) P 2D P C J96 2S P 3NT P S KJ942 S 85 P P H KT H A54 D 72 D AKT84 opening lead: HJ C 7542 C AKQ result: 3NT making, +600 EW S AT3 H J98 D 9653 1) alerted, no inquiry C T83 2) alerted, explained as more than A,Q or K,Q,Q effectively 2 controls South made a face down opening lead, and North asked if West was promising 4 Spades and 5 Hearts. East said no, 1H said nothing about the heart suit. North called for the director. When I arrived, the situation was explained to me. N/S thought that, because they had not been informed (and were therefore unaware) that 1H was artificial, that South should be able to change the still face down opening lead, in light of the new information. E/W agreed that they had not stated that 1H was artificial. However, they argued that it was implied in their explanation, and that therefore the face down opening lead should not be changed. They also argued that North's inquiry would certainly result in the unnatural lead of a heart. I ruled that the lead could be picked up and changed, since, IMO, the explanation had been incomplete. East said that he would like to appeal the ruling. I asked that the hand be played; at the end ot the hand, he still wanted to appeal the ruling. If it matters, the board was played 8 times, and N/S received 4 matchpoints, E/W 3 matchpoints. At the committee, E/W again agreed that they had not explicitely stated that 1H was artificial, but argued that it was certainly implied by their explanation. They also used the analogy that in the standard auction 2C-2D, 2D would be explained as negative, or waiting, but would be never explained as artificial as well; this precedent should therefore apply over 1C-1H. After hearing both sides, the committee upheld the ruling. They agreed that the explanation of 1H had been incomplete, result stood. East was unhappy with both my and the committee's ruling. 1) As director, how would you rule? Does the level of the players matter? 2) Should North's inquiry about the Heart suit be UI for South? (The original lead, as it happened, was a spade.) 3) Do you agree with E/W analogy of 2C-2D and 1C-1H? 4) How would you rule on a committee? Not that this happened, but, 5) Would the ruling have been different had the lead been face up? 6) Suppose N/S had not called the director at the lead. The hand is played out, and then the director is called. N/S complain that the incomplete information caused them to make a bad lead. How would you rule then? Thanks. Tony (aka ac342) ps. E/W wanted to know if, in the ACBL, there was any other level of appeal after the club appeal. I told him no, I didn't think so, and, after talking with our local regional director, I am now pretty sure there isn't, but...is there? What is the procedure in other countries? DAVID BURN 1) As a director, I would rule misinformation (since there seems to be the possibility that this has occurred; see below). I would let South change his lead to whatever he liked (L47E2). 2) When East-West appealed, I would address the issue of UI from North's question. I would rule that there had been some - what on earth was he doing asking a question about _dummy_ after the face-down lead? I would adjust the score to whatever I calculated the likely result on a spade lead to be (not easy!) 3) I do not agree with the EW analogy at all. Presumably they were playing some kind of Blue Club, a system with which their opponents could not be expected to be familiar, so they had a duty to give full explanations. Suppose my opponents bid 1C (strong) - 1S, alerted and explained as "8+ points, FG". I would assume Precision, and would be most upset when I failed to bid or lead spades and it turned out that the bid meant _any_ 8+ game force. 4) As a committee, I would: Leave EW's score as whatever they got on a heart lead, which is what they deserve for the misinformation. Adjust North-South's score to some percentage of a spade lead and some percentage of a heart lead, based on how likely I think it is that a heart would actually have been led. Fine North severely for gross misconduct. I don't care what Kaplan says (well, I do care what Kaplan says, but I don't care for his views on this at all). It is in my view wholly inappropriate for you to seek to protect partner from his own ignorance by asking questions to which you know the answers. If you don't want to find yourself in that situation, don't play with ignorant partners! The upshot will be that both pairs get a bottom. For some reason, I do not have any problem with this at all! 5) No. Law 47E2 makes no reference to whether the lead was face up or not. 6) I would have adjusted as above, without the fine for NS since they would then have done nothing wrong. No doubt the figures would be slightly different - I might listen with a great deal more sympathy to South's case for leading a heart. From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jul 26 02:28:52 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA05817 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 26 Jul 1996 02:28:52 +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 CAA05812 for ; Fri, 26 Jul 1996 02:28:47 +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 JAA15756 for <@mipl7.JPL.NASA.GOV:bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au>; Thu, 25 Jul 1996 09:28:09 -0700 Received: by tintin.JPL.NASA.GOV (940816.SGI.8.6.9/930416.SGI.MIPS) for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au id JAA19773; Thu, 25 Jul 1996 09:34:44 -0700 Date: Thu, 25 Jul 1996 09:34:44 -0700 From: jeff@tintin.JPL.NASA.GOV (Jeff Goldsmith) Message-Id: <199607251634.JAA19773@tintin.JPL.NASA.GOV> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: a strange thought Hi, |Jeff wrote on the subject of dummy warning declarer between bidding and play: | |>For example, if I know they really play 10-14 notrump |>openings, but have their card marked 12-14, can I tell |>you? | |Don't waste time telling partner, if they show up with 10/11 call the director. | If they do it often enough for you to have noticed they have an illegal |agreement. That really won't work. They'll simply deny your statement and the burden of proof will be on you. Do you keep such records? I don't. It will go on record, but so what? It won't help your score this time around. It's very very difficult to get a score adjustment on the basis of concealed partnership agreement. |>How about if I know that they frequently underlead |>aces on opening lead and don't mark this on their |>convention card? | |And, as far as I can tell, are not required to either - just a matter of |style/judgement. Pity you didn't brief partner before the bidding but I think |it's too late now:-) I disagree. Full disclosure of partnership understandings means that they have to let the opponents know. Indeed, such a partnership understanding is really most effective only when it is not disclosed to the opponents, but partner knows enough to accommodate it. True---to tell partner about their real methods before the hand starts would be best. Some of us require some stimulus before remembering to do such things :) Perhaps more importantly, some pairs, once hearing such a warning, will alter their real methods. (By the way, any resemblance to partnerships real or not is coincidental. This really is a question of theory.) --Jeff # Cthulhu in '96! Why vote for the lesser evil? # --- # http://muggy.gg.caltech.edu/~jeff From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jul 26 04:15:53 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA06340 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 26 Jul 1996 04:15:53 +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 EAA06335 for ; Fri, 26 Jul 1996 04:15:43 +1000 Received: from post.demon.co.uk ([158.152.1.72]) by relay-4.mail.demon.net id af09260; 25 Jul 96 18:15 GMT Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by relay-3.mail.demon.net id aa27390; 25 Jul 96 19:13 +0100 Message-ID: <3cg1h6Boj79xEwCB@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Thu, 25 Jul 1996 19:11:52 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: A claim or concession In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 1.12 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk This is part of a correspondence with Rachael (and Bob) King on this matter, forwarded by permission. Rachael King wrote: >In the first case, we believe that law 49 does not apply and that the cards are >not penalty cards. Our reasoning is as follows : law 69B states that the >concession is cancelled, but that law 73 and 57 may apply. It says nothing about >penalty cards (and neither does the commentary). Law 49 is not blanket. It does >appear to allow disclosure of possesion of cards without them being deemed >penalty cards under direction or application of law. I would claim that >disclosure of possesion of the cards when making a claim is required under law >as you are obliged to state your line. As the objection to the claim is also >permitted under law, I believe that cards disclosed during the objection are >also not subject to law 49. What do you think ? > L69B does not say the concession is cancelled: L68B [a misprint?] says that "no concession has occurred". There is a reference to L16 so UI is possible. L57 is merely a joke in poor taste by the lawmakers: it can apply but it is very rare and there clearly was no premature play on the hand in question. [When does it apply? When a defender concedes just before his partner plays, saying he will play something: his partner objects: no concession has occurred but partner has effectively played prematurely. Look, don't worry about L57 to do with concessions: if it ever happens {very unlikely} then I think it will be obvious.] The rest of your paragraph deals with action after a claim or concession: may I remind you "no concession has occurred". Play continues. There is no claim: no concession: no discussion after a claim: no objections to the claim: nothing: just play continuing. Now, in the light of that, reread L49: with play continuing there are four/six penalty cards. The only thing that might be arguable IMO is the disposition of the CQ. Perhaps I did not make it clear enough at the time: consider the wording "no concession has occurred" then consider what follows from that. Rachael and Bob King wrote: >Law 68B says that a claim of some number of tricks >is a concession of the remainder, if any. It does not >say that a claim and a concession are equivalent. >In the quiz, defender claimed 2 of the last 3 tricks. >Thus by definition he made a claim. It is only the >13th trick that he conceded. Law 68B says that >"if a defender attempts to concede one or more tricks >and his partner immediately objects, no concession has >occurred". Therefore there has been on concession of the >13th trick. The CLAIM has not been recinded. >We believe that the above situation should be ruled >under 68D " after any claim or concession, play ceases. >... if it is disputed by any player (dummy included), the >Director ... apply law 70 or 71". > [I answered this be forwarding David Burn's article showing both his and my views in detail.] -- David Stevenson Bridge Cats Railways Logic /\_/\ Liverpool, England, UK Nothing ventured, nothing gained =( ^*^ )= david@blakjak.demon.co.uk Emails welcome RTFLB ( | | ) Tel: +44 (0)151 677 7412 Phone before Fax please (_~^ ^~ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jul 26 04:27:55 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA06417 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 26 Jul 1996 04:27:55 +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 EAA06412 for ; Fri, 26 Jul 1996 04:27:49 +1000 Received: from cais2.cais.com (cais2.cais.com [199.0.216.200]) by andrew.cais.com (8.6.9/8.6.9) with SMTP id OAA29719 for ; Thu, 25 Jul 1996 14:27:42 -0400 Date: Thu, 25 Jul 1996 14:27:42 -0400 (EDT) From: Eric Landau To: Bridge Laws Discussion List Subject: Telling partner about opponents' tendencies In-Reply-To: <199607251634.JAA19773@tintin.JPL.NASA.GOV> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Thu, 25 Jul 1996, Jeff Goldsmith wrote: > From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) > > |Jeff wrote on the subject of dummy warning declarer between bidding and play: > | > |>For example, if I know they really play 10-14 notrump > |>openings, but have their card marked 12-14, can I tell > |>you? > | > |Don't waste time telling partner, if they show up with 10/11 call the director. > | If they do it often enough for you to have noticed they have an illegal > |agreement. > > That really won't work. They'll simply deny your > statement and the burden of proof will be on you. > Do you keep such records? I don't. It will go > on record, but so what? It won't help your score > this time around. It's very very difficult to get > a score adjustment on the basis of concealed partnership > agreement. Speaking up at the table is totally out of line. "Correcting" the opponents' convention card like that would, IMO, constitute an accusation of cheating (deliberately giving misinformation), and if you did it to me I'd haul you up in front of a C&E committee. Only if, when the smoke clears, they actually show up with 10 or 11 do you have any kind of case, and even then it's hard to imagine that it would justify anything more than a recorder report. If you have evidence of a mis-explanation at the table, that's another story. If partner asked their NT range and was told 12-14, but their CC was marked 10-14, I think you'd be entitled to speak up. > |>How about if I know that they frequently underlead > |>aces on opening lead and don't mark this on their > |>convention card? > | > |And, as far as I can tell, are not required to either - just a matter of > |style/judgement. Pity you didn't brief partner before the bidding but I think > |it's too late now:-) > > I disagree. Full disclosure of partnership > understandings means that they have to let > the opponents know. Indeed, such a partnership > understanding is really most effective only when > it is not disclosed to the opponents, but partner > knows enough to accommodate it. That's just silly. The opponents are entitled to your agreements, not your lifetime of experience at the bridge table. "Agreements" apply to bidding and carding, not to decisions about how to play the hand, whether those decisions are generally based on superior skill or tactical choice. Suppose you know that whenever declarer leads a spot card towards the KJx or KJxx in dummy your partner will always duck smoothly holding the A but not the Q, because he believes that in the long run he'll lose fewer hands by not telegraphing his holding than by ducking a few aces when it would have been right to take them. In some situations this will give you an advantage; you know your partner might well have that A, while declarer will assume it's unlikely. Does this constitute an "agreement" that you have an obligation to disclose? I think not, and I see the ace-underlead tendency as analogous. Sufficient mastery of squeeze technique to know when declarer is in a position to squeeze you "is really most effective only when it is not disclosed to the opponents" too, but that doesn't make it an agreement subject to full disclosure. How is this different from sufficient mastery of opening lead principles to be willing to underlead aces more often than most? > True---to tell partner about their real methods > before the hand starts would be best. Some of us > require some stimulus before remembering to do such > things :) Perhaps more importantly, some pairs, once > hearing such a warning, will alter their real methods. If you think they'll do this, then you think they are cheating. In that case, take them to committee. The Laws do not give you the privilege of announcing openly, to your partner or otherwise, that the opponents cheat. 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 Jul 26 05:14:23 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA12319 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 26 Jul 1996 05:14:23 +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 FAA12314 for ; Fri, 26 Jul 1996 05:14:15 +1000 Received: from post.demon.co.uk ([158.152.1.72]) by relay-4.mail.demon.net id ab18045; 25 Jul 96 19:13 GMT Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by relay-3.mail.demon.net id aa27385; 25 Jul 96 19:13 +0100 Message-ID: <2821J$Byj79xEwAP@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Thu, 25 Jul 1996 19:12:02 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: A claim or concession In-Reply-To: <199607232133.RAA01480@cfa183.harvard.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 1.12 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Steve Willner wrote: >> From: David Stevenson >> Now suppose a defender says "I shall make all the tricks except one" >> and his partner says "I object", neither showing their cards. Does play >> continue? I cannot really answer that because you all know that I >> believe the answer is yes, since no concession has occurred. I am >> asking you to read L68B and then answer the question to yourself. > >As usual, David S. has put the key question to us. I think there are >two possible answers, and Law 68B alone does not distinguish between >them. Certainly the concession is cancelled, but then either: >1) play continues, with Laws 16 and 57A being applied, or >2) the claim is considered to be a claim of all the tricks; play >is over, and the director adjudicates if necessary. > >I confess that 2 makes more sense to me, though reading 68B alone does >indeed suggest that 1 is meant. On the other hand, 68C instructs that >claimer should state a line of play. Do we penalize a player (under >57A) for following proper procedure? And if so, couldn't a >knowledgeable claimer, after partner's objection, remove all penalty >(and force play to cease) by saying "Very well, in that case I claim >them all?" Even if the claim of _all_ tricks is patently ridiculous, >play is over, and the director will adjudicate the actual number of >tricks each side wins. Why should the same be unavailable to a less >knowledgeable defender if it's to his advantage? > I think this is really the answer to the whole problem. No-one has produced any argument [even one I disagree with, perhaps :) ] as to why my reading of L68B is wrong. I think the progression: A claim of some tricks is a concession No concession has occurred There is no claim is clear. Is it possible to come up with a sensible alternative interpretation? So far I have argued that the concession is cancelled: thus there is no claim: thus the Law of penalty cards is applied. It has also been suggested that the concession is cancelled: thus there is no claim: thus what East said constitutes a separate claim. The majority believed the concession is cancelled but the claim remains and must be considered, so play does not continue. [Another minority suggested that there is a claim and a concession so play does not continue, which I do not propose to consider.] It has also been argued [not on the Internet] that East's comments were in the nature of changing the claim from two tricks to three so now there is a valid claim for three tricks and no concession: the arguer agreed that his argument would have been considerably more difficult if the claim/concession had originally been for two tricks out of four and East merely disagreed with one trick. One argument in support of the majority cause is the assertion that showing your cards is the normal way to claim: but the Law does *not* say this: it merely lists three different ways to claim, one of which is to show your cards. One argument is that the hand is ridiculous, and any result apart from three tricks is ridiculous, so why are we considering it? Obviously because it will have a fundamental effect on any contested claim which is also an objected concession in future. Why has this problem arisen: clearly it is a fault in the Laws? It seems reasonable looking at the actual wording of the Laws and the presumptions of many contributors that the objection to concession is designed primarily for a concession of all the remaining tricks. While L68A doesn't say that you should show your cards when making a claim, it clearly allows for it, and our rulings should reflect that. I PROPOSE THAT When a defender claims some but not all of the remaining tricks, so he has also made a concession, then, if his partner immediately objects, this is treated as an adjustment to the claim and dealt with under L69 or L70 as appropriate. As a matter of interpretation that we treat an objection to a concession as only applying when the concession is for all the remaining tricks so there is no claim involved. That we tell the Law-makers that there is this problem in the Laws so that [hopefully] it will have disappeared once the new Law book arrives. -------- Several people have referred to L57A Premature Play in this and other related threads: surely this is only relevant to the rare case where a player makes a concession before his partner has played to the current trick: his partner objects and now it as though they have played out of order to this trick. It cannot apply to the rest of the hand. The CQ [in the example] is not treated as being played prematurely. I think we should ignore this Law unless it obviously applies - and that will be very rare. --------- In a different thread Eric worries about a reasonable approach to the players, and are we too Laws-oriented. IMO the reason for these discussions is to understand the Laws, and is not the same as interpreting them in a real-life situation. The above argument is a case in point: if you happen to agree with me [must happen sometimes :) ] then you can tell other TDs what the Law says and our interpretation: then when a TD comes to the table in a similar case he has the knowledge to go with his judgement and the facts in his specific case. --------- My apologies for quoting someone earlier in this thread when I had only got information second hand. This meant that I was in disgrace with four different people in a single week all for matters to do with the Internet, and all of whom work for the same organisation. :):) -- David Stevenson Bridge Cats Railways Logic /\_/\ Liverpool, England, UK Nothing ventured, nothing gained =( ^*^ )= david@blakjak.demon.co.uk Emails welcome RTFLB ( | | ) Tel: +44 (0)151 677 7412 Phone before Fax please (_~^ ^~ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jul 26 05:48:15 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA14640 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 26 Jul 1996 05:48:15 +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 FAA14635 for ; Fri, 26 Jul 1996 05:48:08 +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 MAA19803 for <@mipl7.JPL.NASA.GOV:bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au>; Thu, 25 Jul 1996 12:47:18 -0700 Received: by tintin.JPL.NASA.GOV (940816.SGI.8.6.9/930416.SGI.MIPS) for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au id MAA19985; Thu, 25 Jul 1996 12:53:20 -0700 Date: Thu, 25 Jul 1996 12:53:20 -0700 From: jeff@tintin.JPL.NASA.GOV (Jeff Goldsmith) Message-Id: <199607251953.MAA19985@tintin.JPL.NASA.GOV> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk To: Bridge Laws Discussion List Says Eric Landau: |On Thu, 25 Jul 1996, Jeff Goldsmith wrote: | |> From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) |> |> |Jeff wrote on the subject of dummy warning declarer between bidding and play: |> | |> |>For example, if I know they really play 10-14 notrump |> |>openings, but have their card marked 12-14, can I tell |> |>you? |> | |> |Don't waste time telling partner, if they show up with 10/11 call the director. |> | If they do it often enough for you to have noticed they have an illegal |> |agreement. |> |> That really won't work. They'll simply deny your |> statement and the burden of proof will be on you. |> Do you keep such records? I don't. It will go |> on record, but so what? It won't help your score |> this time around. It's very very difficult to get |> a score adjustment on the basis of concealed partnership |> agreement. | |Speaking up at the table is totally out of line. "Correcting" the |opponents' convention card like that would, IMO, constitute an accusation |of cheating (deliberately giving misinformation), and if you did it to me Hardly. "Deliberately" is an important word. That is neither express nor implied by the dummy's hypothetical statement. |I'd haul you up in front of a C&E committee. Only if, when the smoke |clears, they actually show up with 10 or 11 do you have any kind of case, |and even then it's hard to imagine that it would justify anything more |than a recorder report. In science, we call that a "predictive model." |> I disagree. Full disclosure of partnership |> understandings means that they have to let |> the opponents know. Indeed, such a partnership |> understanding is really most effective only when |> it is not disclosed to the opponents, but partner |> knows enough to accommodate it. | |That's just silly. The opponents are entitled to your agreements, not |your lifetime of experience at the bridge table. "Agreements" apply to |bidding and carding, not to decisions about how to play the hand, whether |those decisions are generally based on superior skill or tactical choice. Reread Law 75. "Special partnership agreements" must be disclosed. If dummy has KJx and East leads low vs. a suit contract after the bidding has gone 1S-2S; 4S, and West puts up the Queen from Q9xx, the only reason for that play is the (perhaps implicit) partnership agreement that a low lead is reasonably likely to be from the ace. If partners can act upon the information, then the opponents are entitled to it. This is not the same as common bridge knowledge; if the auction had gone 1C-1S; 2NT-3C!; 3S-4S, then the ace underlead is just a "decision" about the opening lead based on skill or tactical choice. In the previous case, the low lead would not work out well if 3rd hand didn't know about the likelihood; declarer scratches his head as he wins the stiff 10.... |Suppose you know that whenever declarer leads a spot card towards the |KJx or KJxx in dummy your partner will always duck smoothly holding the A |but not the Q, because he believes that in the long run he'll lose fewer |hands by not telegraphing his holding than by ducking a few aces when it |would have been right to take them. In some situations this will give you |an advantage; you know your partner might well have that A, while declarer |will assume it's unlikely. Does this constitute an "agreement" that you |have an obligation to disclose? I think not, and I see the ace-underlead |tendency as analogous. I see these cases as quite different. Firstly, any expert player might duck smoothly in this case; many or most will never underlead an ace on the bidding I gave earlier. Secondly, *your* actions are not predicated upon the knowledge that partner will play specifically this way. It is not an agreement requiring of disclosure to say to partner, "let's play well, today." :) |Sufficient mastery of squeeze technique to know when declarer is in a |position to squeeze you "is really most effective only when it is not |disclosed to the opponents" too, but that doesn't make it an agreement |subject to full disclosure. How is this different from sufficient mastery |of opening lead principles to be willing to underlead aces more often than |most? Perhaps I don't understand. Are you claiming that it is normal good technique regularly to underlead aces vs. suit contracts without partner's knowing that you are likely to do it? Are you claiming that it is obvious and correct to rise with the queen in the diagrammed position above with a partner about whom you know little? Are you claiming that if your partner told you, "I underlead aces a lot," you wouldn't be much more prone to play the queen? This is a good tangent: What is the groupthink about "must one disclose a strong tendency to underlead aces vs. suit contracts?" |> True---to tell partner about their real methods |> before the hand starts would be best. Some of us |> require some stimulus before remembering to do such |> things :) Perhaps more importantly, some pairs, once |> hearing such a warning, will alter their real methods. | |If you think they'll do this, then you think they are cheating. In that |case, take them to committee. Hahaha...with what evidence? Or are you claiming that there are no players of your acquaintance for whom this claim might be both valid and unprosecutable? In any case, one can easily make the statement so that it is fully clear as not to be an accusation, for example, "at this vulnerability, you guys open 1NT a little light sometimes, right?" I think Eric's major objection here is that he thinks I am suggesting that my statements imply a deliberate act of misinformation by the opponents. Hardly. There are many out there who will misdisclose due to ignorance or carelessness; many think that "stretching" a few points to open 1NT is so standard in their neck of the woods as to be assumed without comment. In other places, that happens rarely. Indeed, I have had discussions go "We play 12-14 NTs." "Do you ever open 1NT with 10 or 11 HCP?" "Of course. We *said* we play weak notrumps." The general consensus has been that making a statement like the one hypothesized for dummy is improper and a bad idea. Could be. What caused me to throw it out for consideration is that I think it's interesting in a few tangential aspects: (1) dummy's goal is to *avoid* allowing the opponents to perform an infraction, and thus to avoid the possibility of an adjustment later; can he do that? (2) best I can tell, there's no penalty for such a statement other than possible C&E if one really believes that such a claim is an accusation, so if it matters, has dummy transmitted unauthorized information? On what other basis can the action be penalized? (3) the infraction that is being attempted to be avoided is one that is extremely difficult to prosecute reasonably, but cannot occur in the face of the information suggested. There's an old saying about an ounce of prevention... --Jeff # Cthulhu in '96! Why vote for the lesser evil? # --- # http://muggy.gg.caltech.edu/~jeff From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jul 26 05:54:41 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA14746 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 26 Jul 1996 05:54:41 +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 FAA14741 for ; Fri, 26 Jul 1996 05:54:35 +1000 Received: from post.demon.co.uk ([158.152.1.72]) by relay-4.mail.demon.net id ag23928; 25 Jul 96 19:54 GMT Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by relay-3.mail.demon.net id ab20914; 25 Jul 96 20:47 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 25 Jul 1996 20:31:08 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Disclosure Requirements In-Reply-To: <31F7A8B4@isdgate.agw.bt.co.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 1.12 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Burn wrote: > >Just a second. How are you going to make South play >in his splinter bid? Are you telling me that North's >pass of the splinter showed a diamond overcall that >was prepared to play 3H doubled facing a singleton? >If you want blood, then you can adjust to something >like 7D doubled (South bids 4D, North bids 4H, South >bids 5D, North bids 6H etc.), but 3H doubled is not >remotely on the menu. I have already apologised at length for my stupidity and failure to look at the hand: what do you want, a second apology? I am sorry that I made this obvious mistake. Please see my previous post for my explanation. -- David Stevenson Bridge Cats Railways Logic /\_/\ Liverpool, England, UK Nothing ventured, nothing gained =( ^*^ )= david@blakjak.demon.co.uk Emails welcome RTFLB ( | | ) Tel: +44 (0)151 677 7412 Phone before Fax please (_~^ ^~ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jul 26 09:51:15 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA15507 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 26 Jul 1996 09:51:15 +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 JAA15502 for ; Fri, 26 Jul 1996 09:51:04 +1000 Received: from post.demon.co.uk ([158.152.1.72]) by relay-4.mail.demon.net id af02481; 25 Jul 96 23:46 GMT Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by relay-3.mail.demon.net id aa24298; 25 Jul 96 23:05 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 25 Jul 1996 23:02:34 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Asking for partner (was Mis/insufficient Information) In-Reply-To: <31F7A8AA@isdgate.agw.bt.co.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 1.12 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Burn, David wrote: >RICHARD LIGHTON > >Somewhere in the last month or so, I could have sworn that >you said that the EBU only allowed you to ask if you had interest. >Am I wrong _again?_ > >David Burn > >It's about time someone quoted the actual regulation: > >EBU ORANGE BOOK > >"The right to ask questions is not a licence to do so >without consequence: if you ask about an unalerted call >and then pass, you have shown an interest which may >influence your partner. Asking about an alerted call and >then bidding reduces this possibility, but in either >case if your partner acts in a way that suggests he has >taken advantage of your question, then unauthorised >information may be deemed to have been given. Similarly, >if you ask a question and then pass, thus ending the >auction, your partner's choice of lead from the logical >alternatives available must not be one that could have >been suggested by your question. > >Note: If, at your turn to call, you do not need to have >a call explained, it is in your interest to defer all >questions until either you are about to make the opening >lead or your partner's lead is face-down on the table." > >David Burn > >DWS knows perfefctly well what this regulation says: he >wrote most of it. It does not expressly forbid anything >which is permitted under the Laws - it could not, of >course. Instead, it contains a veiled threat: "it is in >your interest to defer all questions..." without >explaining why, or what will happen if you do not. It >is, in my opinion, a more or less pointless piece of >legislation that is a relic of a bygone era. There is >at least one person and two cats out there who do not >agree with me :) Oh charming! If ever you want cabfare, David, you can walk. How kind of you. I said that I would talk about and if necessary defend the EBU's regulations at some later date. That is one reason why I have not quoted it before. I think, David, that if you are going to quote a regulation for which you have a certain responsibility, knowing that I do not want to discuss it at this moment, your last sentence is somewhat unfair. Not to mention the fact that you have quoted the wrong regulation. -- David Stevenson Bridge Cats Railways Logic /\_/\ Liverpool, England, UK Nothing ventured, nothing gained =( ^*^ )= david@blakjak.demon.co.uk Emails welcome RTFLB ( | | ) Tel: +44 (0)151 677 7412 Phone before Fax please (_~^ ^~ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jul 26 12:43:31 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id MAA16485 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 26 Jul 1996 12:43:31 +1000 Received: from tom.compulink.co.uk (tom.compulink.co.uk [194.153.0.51]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id MAA16480 for ; Fri, 26 Jul 1996 12:43:24 +1000 Received: (from root@localhost) by tom.compulink.co.uk (8.6.9/8.6.9) id DAA04667 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Fri, 26 Jul 1996 03:42:43 +0100 Date: Fri, 26 Jul 96 03:42 BST-1 From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: No Subject (was a strange thought) To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Cc: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Reply-To: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Message-Id: Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Jeff wrote: >Reread Law 75. "Special partnership agreements" must be disclosed. >If dummy has KJx and East leads low vs. a suit contract after >the bidding has gone 1S-2S; 4S, and West puts up the Queen >from Q9xx, the only reason for that play is the (perhaps implicit) >partnership agreement that a low lead is reasonably likely to be >from the ace. In some of my partnerships it is due to the (explicit) feeling that unsupported tens "aren't proper honour cards" thus a low card can only be from the Ace. I had never previously considered that this might come under the terms of a "Special Partnership Agreement" but maybe it does. Anyone got any A3 (English paper size, approx 12" x 18") convention cards:-) Tim West-Meads From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jul 26 13:13:47 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id NAA16708 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 26 Jul 1996 13:13:47 +1000 Received: from laplace.math.ntu.edu.tw (yangboy@math.ntu.edu.tw [140.112.50.160]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id NAA16702 for ; Fri, 26 Jul 1996 13:13:38 +1000 Received: by laplace.math.ntu.edu.tw (4.1/SMI-4.1) id AA17917; Fri, 26 Jul 96 11:14:17 CST Date: Fri, 26 Jul 96 11:14:17 CST Message-Id: <9607260314.AA17917@laplace.math.ntu.edu.tw> From: "B.Y." To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au In-Reply-To: (twm@cix.compulink.co.uk) Subject: Re: No Subject (was a strange thought) Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Minor nitpick. When partner leads low, say the deuce, putting up the queen from Qxxx when dummy has KJxx would be quite obvious if your agreement (this particular item can be located on most convention cards I know of) is that the ten-spot does not count as an honour and you play second highest from bad suits (not a uncommon common way to play I believe). Any special agreement would be unnecessary here. However, Jeff's point is quite valid if the pair in question play 3rd and 5th .... From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jul 26 19:57:33 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id TAA17854 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 26 Jul 1996 19:57:33 +1000 Received: from ursa.cus.cam.ac.uk (cusexim@ursa.cus.cam.ac.uk [131.111.8.6]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id TAA17849 for ; Fri, 26 Jul 1996 19:57:24 +1000 Received: from rm10006 by ursa.cus.cam.ac.uk with smtp (Exim 0.534 #1) id E0ujjdl-0004zu-00; Fri, 26 Jul 1996 10:57:01 +0100 Date: Fri, 26 Jul 1996 10:57:00 +0100 (BST) From: "R. Michaels" To: "R. Michaels" cc: Bridge Laws Discussion List Subject: Re: Telling partner about opponents' tendencies In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Thu, 25 Jul 1996, Eric Landau wrote: > On Thu, 25 Jul 1996, Jeff Goldsmith wrote: > > > From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) [snip- generally about telling partner oppo don't quite play the methods they describe] > > True---to tell partner about their real methods > > before the hand starts would be best. Some of us > > require some stimulus before remembering to do such > > things :) Perhaps more importantly, some pairs, once > > hearing such a warning, will alter their real methods. > > If you think they'll do this, then you think they are cheating. In that > case, take them to committee. The Laws do not give you the privilege of > announcing openly, to your partner or otherwise, that the opponents cheat. Come on Eric. You know as well as I do that huge number of bridge players che^H^H^H behave unethically in subtle ways by not quite playing what they claim to be playing on their cc. One of the commonest examples, is when they alert a bid, give it a specific general meaning, but then only actually use it on a small subset of alledgedly suitable hands. This is virtually impossible to catch. eg. If my cc describes my opening 2H as 3-9 hcp, at least 5H, and my partner always describes my bid as that when asked, but infact 3rd at NV v V I only ever do it on 3-7 hcp with 5H, and 2nd at V, I always have 6-9 hcp and 6H, then I am cheating. AND it seems to me that _huge_ numbers of players do precisely this. If they get asked why they didn't open something 2H, they just claim that they didn't feel like it, and there is no law against it. And you try and get a psyche recorded for failing to open a hand within their stated range and shape 2H. The only way for a pair to deal with opponents like this is to be preinformed either by previous experience, or by a chat with someone who has such experience. This is not 'general bridge experience'. It is an awareness that many people don't play by the rules. True, all good players know this, and make allowances for it: 'What is this 2H ?' '3-9 5+H' 'Even at this position and vun ?' (it is 2nd at V v NV) 'Oh. Well, quite likely to be 6H now, and not lower range' 'Aha. Thanks you' Suppose the second question was only asked for the benefit of partner, because the questioner knows full well what the answer is going to be. Is this 'illegal communication'. Should the director be called about this, he'll most likely laugh at the complaint, and maybe take a disliking to the caller for frivolous and pointless complaining. But this pair is unlikely to call the director, because they no longer have a problem. And other pairs won't notice, so they won't either. And if you ever get a committee to award an adjusted score, or a procedural penalty, for failure to fully disclose methods, when claim is that they are playing something subtly different (ie 11-14 rather than 12-14) or a subset type (as above), then I'll buy you a pint (of beer). Cheers, Robin From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jul 26 22:03:14 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id WAA18466 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 26 Jul 1996 22:03:14 +1000 Received: from mailhub.axion.bt.co.uk (mailhub.axion.bt.co.uk [132.146.5.4]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id WAA18461 for ; Fri, 26 Jul 1996 22:03:06 +1000 Received: from catullus.agw.bt.co.uk by mailhub.axion.bt.co.uk with SMTP (PP); Fri, 26 Jul 1996 13:01:44 +0100 Received: from isdgate.agw.bt.co.uk (isdgate.agw.bt.co.uk [147.150.219.16]) by catullus.agw.bt.co.uk (8.6.12/8.6.11) with SMTP id MAA07985 for ; Fri, 26 Jul 1996 12:57:30 +0100 Received: by isdgate.agw.bt.co.uk with Microsoft Mail id <31F8C0E8@isdgate.agw.bt.co.uk>; Fri, 26 Jul 96 12:58:16 GMT From: "Burn, David" To: "'Bridge Laws'" Subject: RE: A claim or concession Date: Fri, 26 Jul 96 12:44:00 GMT Message-ID: <31F8C0E8@isdgate.agw.bt.co.uk> Encoding: 49 TEXT X-Mailer: Microsoft Mail V3.0 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk >From David Burn [much even more familiar stuff deleted] DAVID STEVENSON I think this is really the answer to the whole problem. No-one has produced any argument [even one I disagree with, perhaps :) ] as to why my reading of L68B is wrong. I think the progression: A claim of some tricks is a concession No concession has occurred There is no claim is clear. Is it possible to come up with a sensible alternative interpretation? David Burn Yes, of course. If it weren't, no one would be arguing with you - except from force of habit, perhaps :) What you appear to believe the Law says is: "A claim of some tricks is [one and the same thing as] a concession of the remaining tricks." That is one implication of the English word "is"; cf: "A triangle is a three-sided polygon". What I believe the Law says is: "A claim of some tricks is [among other things] a concession of the remaining tricks." That is another implication of the English word "is"; cf: "A giraffe is a quadruped". DAVID STEVENSON So far I have argued that the concession is cancelled: thus there is no claim: thus the Law of penalty cards is applied. David Burn That is a logical consequence of your interpretation of the word "is" in L68B. It is, in my opinion, based on a false premise. The concession aspect of the claim is cancelled, but the non-concession aspect of the claim remains to be dealt with; cf: "A giraffe is an animal with three legs". You can object in part to this statement, and you can object in part to a claim/concession. And, for the last time, no card exposed by a player who claims in accordance with L68 should be treated as a penalty card under L49. From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jul 26 22:25:28 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id WAA18552 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 26 Jul 1996 22:25:28 +1000 Received: from mailhub.axion.bt.co.uk (mailhub.axion.bt.co.uk [132.146.5.4]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id WAA18547 for ; Fri, 26 Jul 1996 22:25:18 +1000 Received: from catullus.agw.bt.co.uk by mailhub.axion.bt.co.uk with SMTP (PP); Fri, 26 Jul 1996 13:23:41 +0100 Received: from isdgate.agw.bt.co.uk (isdgate.agw.bt.co.uk [147.150.219.16]) by catullus.agw.bt.co.uk (8.6.12/8.6.11) with SMTP id NAA08616 for ; Fri, 26 Jul 1996 13:11:23 +0100 Received: by isdgate.agw.bt.co.uk with Microsoft Mail id <31F8C429@isdgate.agw.bt.co.uk>; Fri, 26 Jul 96 13:12:09 GMT From: "Burn, David" To: "'Bridge Laws'" Subject: RE: Asking for partner (was Mis/insufficient Information) Date: Fri, 26 Jul 96 13:11:00 GMT Message-ID: <31F8C429@isdgate.agw.bt.co.uk> Encoding: 76 TEXT X-Mailer: Microsoft Mail V3.0 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk >From David Burn DAVID STEVENSON David Burn wrote: >RICHARD LIGHTON > >Somewhere in the last month or so, I could have sworn that >you said that the EBU only allowed you to ask if you had interest. >Am I wrong _again?_ > >David Burn > >It's about time someone quoted the actual regulation: > >EBU ORANGE BOOK > >"The right to ask questions is not a licence to do so >without consequence: if you ask about an unalerted call >and then pass, you have shown an interest which may >influence your partner. Asking about an alerted call and >then bidding reduces this possibility, but in either >case if your partner acts in a way that suggests he has >taken advantage of your question, then unauthorised >information may be deemed to have been given. Similarly, >if you ask a question and then pass, thus ending the >auction, your partner's choice of lead from the logical >alternatives available must not be one that could have >been suggested by your question. > >Note: If, at your turn to call, you do not need to have >a call explained, it is in your interest to defer all >questions until either you are about to make the opening >lead or your partner's lead is face-down on the table." > >David Burn > >DWS knows perfefctly well what this regulation says: he >wrote most of it. It does not expressly forbid anything >which is permitted under the Laws - it could not, of >course. Instead, it contains a veiled threat: "it is in >your interest to defer all questions..." without >explaining why, or what will happen if you do not. It >is, in my opinion, a more or less pointless piece of >legislation that is a relic of a bygone era. There is >at least one person and two cats out there who do not >agree with me :) DAVID STEVENSON Oh charming! If ever you want cabfare, David, you can walk. How kind of you. I said that I would talk about and if necessary defend the EBU's regulations at some later date. That is one reason why I have not quoted it before. I think, David, that if you are going to quote a regulation for which you have a certain responsibility, knowing that I do not want to discuss it at this moment, your last sentence is somewhat unfair. Not to mention the fact that you have quoted the wrong regulation. David Burn writes: I apologise unreservedly if I have offended DWS. He is right in what he says - I am the person with ultimate responsibility for the EBU's regulations, and I accept that responsibility in full. However, unlike a number of officials that I could but will not mention, I do not believe in trying to defend the indefensible. Rather, I believe in trying to put it right. I await with bated breath the regulation that I should have quoted :) From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jul 27 00:55:35 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA22168 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 27 Jul 1996 00:55:35 +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 AAA22163 for ; Sat, 27 Jul 1996 00:55:29 +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 KAA10916 for ; Fri, 26 Jul 1996 10:55:26 -0400 (EDT) Received: by cfa183.harvard.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id KAA02557; Fri, 26 Jul 1996 10:58:15 -0400 Date: Fri, 26 Jul 1996 10:58:15 -0400 From: willner@cfa183.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Message-Id: <199607261458.KAA02557@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: A claim or concession X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: David Stevenson > I think the progression: > A claim of some [but not all] tricks is a concession > No concession has occurred > There is no claim > is clear. Is it possible to come up with a sensible alternative > interpretation? Not to belabor the point -- which I've already made at length but evidently not clearly -- the third line could read: Therefore there is a claim of all tricks If you want to argue that this is not sensible, I'm ready to listen. > While L68A doesn't say that you should show your cards when making a > claim, it clearly allows for it, and our rulings should reflect that. L68C says that a claimer "should" state a line of play. It is rather hard to do that without showing one's cards or at least revealing what cards one holds. The Preface uses this very Law to explain that "should" means that failure to comply is an infraction that will jeopardize one's rights. Any interpretation that results in a disadvantage for exposing cards in the course of a claim is, IMHO, insupportable. (An erroneous claim may, of course, result in disadvantage, but the accompanying exposure of cards should not.) From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jul 27 01:13:52 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA22301 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 27 Jul 1996 01:13:52 +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 BAA22296 for ; Sat, 27 Jul 1996 01:13:46 +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 LAA25459 for ; Fri, 26 Jul 1996 11:13:42 -0400 (EDT) Received: by cfa183.harvard.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id LAA02584; Fri, 26 Jul 1996 11:16:31 -0400 Date: Fri, 26 Jul 1996 11:16:31 -0400 From: willner@cfa183.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Message-Id: <199607261516.LAA02584@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Are opponents' questions AI? X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: "Burn, David" > A previous poster (Eric Landau) believes that if it > was West's question that woke South up to his error, > UI does not apply. I am not sure that I share this > belief. My opponents have the right to ask questions > for their benefit, not mine, and if I had been South > I would have felt bound to continue the auction as > if partner had diamonds. I do not know of any passage > in the Laws which resolves the question one way or > another, though, and if anyone can find some relevant > Law I would be grateful. This is interesting. I've always assumed that questions asked (or not asked) by the opponents are authorized information for me. I've never read any commentary suggesting otherwise. Yet the only reference I can find is "mannerisms" under Law 16 (and perhaps 73D1, though it deals with variations). Are questions mannerisms for this purpose? If not, what happens to claims of deception by means of asking questions? ("He asked if I could have the ace even though he held it himself." is a common enough complaint. Though again L73F2 does not mention questions!) Are we to throw out such claims for redress because drawing an inference from the question was not allowed? Do we really want to deem questions asked UI and apply the full rigor of Law 16? If we don't deem questions AI, is there any alternative? Lots of questions; not many answers. From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jul 29 06:48:29 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA13500 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 29 Jul 1996 06:48:29 +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 GAA13494 for ; Mon, 29 Jul 1996 06:48:21 +1000 Received: from post.demon.co.uk ([158.152.1.72]) by relay-2.mail.demon.net id ae15425; 28 Jul 96 21:43 +0100 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by relay-3.mail.demon.net id aa25308; 28 Jul 96 21:41 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Sun, 28 Jul 1996 21:40:14 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: A claim or concession In-Reply-To: <31F8C0E8@isdgate.agw.bt.co.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 1.12 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Burn, David wrote: >DAVID STEVENSON > > I think this is really the answer to the whole problem. No-one has >produced any argument [even one I disagree with, perhaps :) ] as to why >my reading of L68B is wrong. I think the progression: > A claim of some tricks is a concession > No concession has occurred > There is no claim > is clear. Is it possible to come up with a sensible alternative >interpretation? > >David Burn > >Yes, of course. If it weren't, no one would be arguing with you > - except from force of habit, perhaps :) > >What you appear to believe the Law says is: "A claim of >some tricks is [one and the same thing as] a concession >of the remaining tricks." That is one implication of the >English word "is"; cf: "A triangle is a three-sided polygon". > >What I believe the Law says is: "A claim of some tricks is >[among other things] a concession of the remaining tricks." >That is another implication of the English word "is"; cf: >"A giraffe is a quadruped". > I am sorry that I have not made myself clear: I thought I had. I have already conceded that I was wrong to assume the meaning of "is" as in "A triangle is a three-sided polygon". My apologies for not making this clear. It is the progression: A claim of some tricks is a concession No concession has occurred There is no claim which is the same IMO as: A giraffe is a quadruped There is no quadruped Therefore there is no giraffe which I believe is logical? -- David Stevenson Bridge Cats Railways Logic /\_/\ Liverpool, England, UK Nothing ventured, nothing gained =( ^*^ )= david@blakjak.demon.co.uk Emails welcome RTFLB ( | | ) Tel: +44 (0)151 677 7412 Phone before Fax please (_~^ ^~ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jul 29 23:46:49 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA17895 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 29 Jul 1996 23:46:49 +1000 Received: from ids2.idsonline.com (root@ids2.idsonline.com [204.157.204.5]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id XAA17890 for ; Mon, 29 Jul 1996 23:46:42 +1000 Received: from ip174.idsonline.com (ip174.idsonline.com [204.157.204.174]) by ids2.idsonline.com (8.6.13/8.6.12) with SMTP id JAA17261 for ; Mon, 29 Jul 1996 09:45:37 -0400 Message-ID: <31FCC1D5.426B@ids2.idsonline.com> Date: Mon, 29 Jul 1996 09:51:17 -0400 From: "Larry E. Goode" X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.0 (Win16; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Unathorized Information Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk matchpoints North Bd: 5 S- T8432 Dlr: N H- J4 Vul:N-S D- KJ C- AJT9 West East S- J75 S- KQ96 H- KQT9 H- A732 D- 9642 D- 8753 C- 84 C- 5 South S- A H- 865 D- AQT C- KQ7632 N E S W pass pass 1C 1H 2S(1) 3C X 3H 4C P 5C all pass (1) N/S were playing fit showing jumps. South did not alert 2S and upon being asked its meaning explained that it showed spades with a near maximum pass. Result - N/S +620 E/W called for the director and claimed that North (an expert player) had chosen from logical alternatives the 4C bid suggested by the unauthorized information. a) How do you rule? b) Suppose the director assigned an adjusted score of +300 to N/S (for 3H doubled, down 2) and you were sitting on the AC. North claims he would have bid 4C playing behind screens and this was unaffected by the UI. What's your decision? c) Any other comments? Larry From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jul 30 00:30:42 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA20318 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 30 Jul 1996 00:30:42 +1000 Received: from mailhub.axion.bt.co.uk (mailhub.axion.bt.co.uk [132.146.5.4]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id AAA20313 for ; Tue, 30 Jul 1996 00:30:32 +1000 Received: from catullus.agw.bt.co.uk by mailhub.axion.bt.co.uk with SMTP (PP); Mon, 29 Jul 1996 15:27:04 +0100 Received: from isdgate.agw.bt.co.uk (isdgate.agw.bt.co.uk [147.150.219.16]) by catullus.agw.bt.co.uk (8.6.12/8.6.11) with SMTP id PAA24496 for ; Mon, 29 Jul 1996 15:19:13 +0100 Received: by isdgate.agw.bt.co.uk with Microsoft Mail id <31FCD6A3@isdgate.agw.bt.co.uk>; Mon, 29 Jul 96 15:20:03 GMT From: "Burn, David" To: "'Bridge Laws'" Subject: RE: A claim or concession Date: Mon, 29 Jul 96 15:18:00 GMT Message-ID: <31FCD6A3@isdgate.agw.bt.co.uk> Encoding: 98 TEXT X-Mailer: Microsoft Mail V3.0 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk DAVID STEVENSON Burn, David wrote: >DAVID STEVENSON > > I think this is really the answer to the whole problem. No-one has >produced any argument [even one I disagree with, perhaps :) ] as to why >my reading of L68B is wrong. I think the progression: > A claim of some tricks is a concession > No concession has occurred > There is no claim > is clear. Is it possible to come up with a sensible alternative >interpretation? > >David Burn > >Yes, of course. If it weren't, no one would be arguing with you > - except from force of habit, perhaps :) > >What you appear to believe the Law says is: "A claim of >some tricks is [one and the same thing as] a concession >of the remaining tricks." That is one implication of the >English word "is"; cf: "A triangle is a three-sided polygon". > >What I believe the Law says is: "A claim of some tricks is >[among other things] a concession of the remaining tricks." >That is another implication of the English word "is"; cf: >"A giraffe is a quadruped". > DAVID STEVENSON I am sorry that I have not made myself clear: I thought I had. I have already conceded that I was wrong to assume the meaning of "is" as in "A triangle is a three-sided polygon". My apologies for not making this clear. It is the progression: A claim of some tricks is a concession No concession has occurred There is no claim which is the same IMO as: A giraffe is a quadruped There is no quadruped Therefore there is no giraffe which I believe is logical? DAVID BURN The trouble is, of course, that the Laws of bridge are not written in a formal language. The two implications of "is" discussed above are equivalent to: (1) X is Y - there is a thing X that is one and the same thing as the thing Y. (2) X is Y - there is a set of things X which are all members of the set of things Y. Now, if either of those was what I believe is meant by "a claim is a concession", DWS's logic would be faultless. But it isn't. The Law does not say: "A claim [of less than all the tricks] is one and the same thing as a concession [of the rest of the tricks]." Nor does it say: "All claims [of less than all the tricks] are concessions [of the rest of the tricks]." What it says is: "There is a component of every claim [of less than all the tricks] which is [in sense (1) above] a concession [of the rest of the tricks]". In more formal terms: (3) X is Y - there is a composite thing X part of which is the thing Y. The example I chose was poor, and DWS is right to argue against it. Perhaps a better example would be: "A computer is an electronic mailer". The argument: A computer is an e-mailer There is no e-mailer Therefore there is no computer is (of course) false; that component of the computer which deals with e-mail may be missing, or broken, but the computer still exists. And just as you can break the e-mailer without breaking the computer, so you can cancel a concession without cancelling the claim of which the concession is part. What we really need, of course, is a formal language in which the Laws of bridge can be written and in which requests for rulings, appeals and so on can be stated. Then all we would need to do would be to compile the Laws and create an interface for the input of Director calls, and a computer could give impeccable rulings. Are you out there, Matt Ginsberg? From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jul 30 00:50:34 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA20991 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 30 Jul 1996 00:50:34 +1000 Received: from ursa.cus.cam.ac.uk (cusexim@ursa.cus.cam.ac.uk [131.111.8.6]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id AAA20984 for ; Tue, 30 Jul 1996 00:50:22 +1000 Received: from rm10006 by ursa.cus.cam.ac.uk with smtp (Exim 0.54 #1) id E0uktdr-0007Gl-00; Mon, 29 Jul 1996 15:49:55 +0100 Date: Mon, 29 Jul 1996 15:49:55 +0100 (BST) From: "R. Michaels" To: "Larry E. Goode" cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Unathorized Information In-Reply-To: <31FCC1D5.426B@ids2.idsonline.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Mon, 29 Jul 1996, Larry E. Goode wrote: > matchpoints > > North > Bd: 5 S- T8432 > Dlr: N H- J4 > Vul:N-S D- KJ > C- AJT9 > West East > S- J75 S- KQ96 > H- KQT9 H- A732 > D- 9642 D- 8753 > C- 84 C- 5 > South > S- A > H- 865 > D- AQT > C- KQ7632 > > N E S W > pass pass 1C 1H > 2S(1) 3C X 3H > 4C P 5C all pass > > (1) N/S were playing fit showing jumps. South did not alert > 2S and upon being asked its meaning explained that it > showed spades with a near maximum pass. > > Result - N/S +620 > > E/W called for the director and claimed that North (an expert > player) had chosen from logical alternatives the 4C bid suggested > by the unauthorized information. > > > a) How do you rule? [snip] I think it is important to know 1) How many clubs S promised by opening 1C, and what NT range he was playing. (if a strong NT with 4cM and strong 1m openers, so that 1C is rarely 4, and then not weak, I may well rule differently, to if 1C is often a weak NT, with only 3 clubs, or maybe even 2 of them) 2) What was the double of 3 clubs supposed to mean? 'Penalties' is insufficient, since it is clearly a cue bid. Any ruling given should clearly consider the answers to these questions first, I'd have thought. Cheers, Robin From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jul 30 00:55:26 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA21049 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 30 Jul 1996 00:55:26 +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 AAA21038 for ; Tue, 30 Jul 1996 00:54:50 +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 QAA05431 for ; Mon, 29 Jul 1996 16:52:40 +0200 Received: from CRI-Message_Server by nov.cri.dk with Novell_GroupWise; Mon, 29 Jul 1996 16:53:41 +0200 Message-Id: X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise 4.1 Date: Mon, 29 Jul 1996 16:53:30 +0200 From: Jens Brix Christiansen To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Try this, but RTFLB first! Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I forgot to RTFLB at the EBL course at Milan this past January. Even so, I got the ruling right. I have the right to be lucky. Apparently no marks were lost for not reading the book, but ... Screens are in use; the screen puts N and E on the same side. W is declarer in 4H after E has shown support. S leads the C2 face up (out of turn) and W raises the screen without noticing. It turns out that N has led a card face down and E has started to put down dummy, exposing the H5 and the H4. At this point, everybody notices the problem, and they call the TD. Now what? If too many wrong answers come in, I will be happy to function as an oracle later. This is one of the cases in the course where there is only one right ruling. Jens Brix Christiansen, Denmark and Europe From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jul 30 05:45:39 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA01084 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 30 Jul 1996 05:45:39 +1000 Received: from ids2.idsonline.com (root@ids2.idsonline.com [204.157.204.5]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id FAA01079 for ; Tue, 30 Jul 1996 05:45:33 +1000 Received: from ip174.idsonline.com (ip244.idsonline.com [204.157.204.244]) by ids2.idsonline.com (8.6.13/8.6.12) with SMTP id PAA05096 for ; Mon, 29 Jul 1996 15:44:34 -0400 Message-ID: <31FD15F2.597@ids2.idsonline.com> Date: Mon, 29 Jul 1996 15:50:10 -0400 From: "Larry E. Goode" X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.0 (Win16; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Unauthorized Information - addendum Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk added info: N/S were playing Standard American, 15-17 NT, 5 card majors (could be 4 in 3rd-4th), 1C showed 3+. No questions were asked about the double of 3C nor do I suspect the N/S pair had any specific agreement. My knowledge of South's style (I wasn't there) would cause me to guess he meant the double to show a real club suit and better than minimum opening values. matchpoints North Bd: 5 S- T8432 Dlr: N H- J4 Vul:N-S D- KJ C- AJT9 West East S- J75 S- KQ96 H- KQT9 H- A732 D- 9642 D- 8753 C- 84 C- 5 South S- A H- 865 D- AQT C- KQ7632 N E S W pass pass 1C 1H 2S(1) 3C X 3H 4C P 5C all pass (1) N/S were playing fit showing jumps. South did not alert 2S and upon being asked its meaning explained that it showed spades with a near maximum pass. Result - N/S +620 E/W called for the director and claimed that North (an expert player) had chosen from logical alternatives the 4C bid suggested by the unauthorized information. a) How do you rule? b) Suppose the director assigned an adjusted score of +300 to N/S (for 3H doubled, down 2) and you were sitting on the AC. North claims he would have bid 4C playing behind screens and this was unaffected by the UI. What's your decision? c) Any other comments? Larry From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jul 30 06:46:27 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA01518 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 30 Jul 1996 06:46:27 +1000 Received: from ursa.cus.cam.ac.uk (cusexim@ursa.cus.cam.ac.uk [131.111.8.6]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id GAA01513 for ; Tue, 30 Jul 1996 06:46:19 +1000 Received: from rm10006 by ursa.cus.cam.ac.uk with smtp (Exim 0.54 #1) id E0ukzCe-0001Qp-00; Mon, 29 Jul 1996 21:46:12 +0100 Date: Mon, 29 Jul 1996 21:46:12 +0100 (BST) From: "R. Michaels" To: "R. Michaels" cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Unauthorized Information - addendum In-Reply-To: <31FD15F2.597@ids2.idsonline.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Mon, 29 Jul 1996, Larry E. Goode wrote: > added info: N/S were playing Standard American, 15-17 NT, 5 card > majors (could be 4 in 3rd-4th), 1C showed 3+. No questions were asked > about the double of 3C nor do I suspect the N/S pair had any specific > agreement. My knowledge of South's style (I wasn't there) would > cause me to guess he meant the double to show a real club suit and > better than minimum opening values. > > > matchpoints > > North > Bd: 5 S- T8432 > Dlr: N H- J4 > Vul:N-S D- KJ > C- AJT9 > West East > S- J75 S- KQ96 > H- KQT9 H- A732 > D- 9642 D- 8753 > C- 84 C- 5 > South > S- A > H- 865 > D- AQT > C- KQ7632 > > N E S W > pass pass 1C 1H > 2S(1) 3C X 3H > 4C P 5C all pass > > (1) N/S were playing fit showing jumps. South did not alert > 2S and upon being asked its meaning explained that it > showed spades with a near maximum pass. > > Result - N/S +620 > > E/W called for the director and claimed that North (an expert > player) had chosen from logical alternatives the 4C bid suggested > by the unauthorized information. > > a) How do you rule? I'd probably be inclined to asjust the score to 3Hx > b) Suppose the director assigned an adjusted score of +300 > to N/S (for 3H doubled, down 2) and you were sitting on > the AC. North claims he would have bid 4C playing behind > screens and this was unaffected by the UI. What's your > decision? I don't believe North. North has a fairly minimum Fit Jump. He has to most defensive possible shape, for the 2S bid, and has defensive holdings. In short he should be interested in defending. Presumably, he must take the X of 3C to show extra, real C, and, since it forces to 4C, sets up a forcing pass over 3H. So, since South offered N a choice of actions by his X of 3C, and North is pretty much maximally defensive, he should clearly double, shouldn't he. Bidding 4C is just silly. True, I am presuming North to be a sensible player, but if Souths hand is changed to, say Ax Qxx Axx KQxxx, would North then like to be in 4C ? I don't think so. > c) Any other comments? > Larry > From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jul 30 23:17:30 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA07031 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 30 Jul 1996 23:17:30 +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 XAA07026 for ; Tue, 30 Jul 1996 23:17:24 +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 JAA28960 for ; Tue, 30 Jul 1996 09:17:20 -0400 Date: Tue, 30 Jul 1996 09:17:19 -0400 (EDT) From: Eric Landau To: Bridge Laws Discussion List Subject: Re: Unathorized Information In-Reply-To: <31FCC1D5.426B@ids2.idsonline.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Mon, 29 Jul 1996, Larry E. Goode wrote: > matchpoints > > North > Bd: 5 S- T8432 > Dlr: N H- J4 > Vul:N-S D- KJ > C- AJT9 > West East > S- J75 S- KQ96 > H- KQT9 H- A732 > D- 9642 D- 8753 > C- 84 C- 5 > South > S- A > H- 865 > D- AQT > C- KQ7632 > > N E S W > pass pass 1C 1H > 2S(1) 3C X 3H > 4C P 5C all pass > > (1) N/S were playing fit showing jumps. South did not alert > 2S and upon being asked its meaning explained that it > showed spades with a near maximum pass. > > Result - N/S +620 > > E/W called for the director and claimed that North (an expert > player) had chosen from logical alternatives the 4C bid suggested > by the unauthorized information. > > a) How do you rule? Let's go through the "four questions": - UI? Clearly. - LAs? Yes. N has what he has already described, and might easily pass with nothing further to add. - Bid suggested? Yes. Knowing that S doesn't realize that N's bid showed club support clearly suggests bidding clubs. - Consequent damage? Quite possibly. S doesn't have a clear call if N hasn't shown clubs, and might well double. Some might argue that some players would even consider a pass, but that seems kind of far-fetched to me. Assuming S doubles, N, who has in theory bid out his entire hand, would be likely to pass the double. So adjust the score. My first thought was NS +100 (3HX -1), but on second thought, it's not that hard to find one spade ruff, even after CA lead, so NS +300. > b) Suppose the director assigned an adjusted score of +300 > to N/S (for 3H doubled, down 2) and you were sitting on > the AC. North claims he would have bid 4C playing behind > screens and this was unaffected by the UI. What's your > decision? Uphold. I'm prepared to grant that N would have bid 4C without the UI, but that doesn't matter. Given that the 4C bid was suggested by the UI, the Laws allow it to stand only if there is no LA that wasn't suggested by the UI, which is not the case. > c) Any other comments? It's nice to see a ruling problem posted in which the committee made the right decision. If one were to judge solely by the rulings that get rehashed on r.g.b and BLML, one might think that committees hardly ever got anything right. 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 Jul 30 23:57:00 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA07251 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 30 Jul 1996 23:57:00 +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 XAA07246 for ; Tue, 30 Jul 1996 23:56:51 +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 JAA15663 for ; Tue, 30 Jul 1996 09:56:46 -0400 (EDT) Received: by cfa183.harvard.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id JAA04205; Tue, 30 Jul 1996 09:59:36 -0400 Date: Tue, 30 Jul 1996 09:59:36 -0400 From: willner@cfa183.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Message-Id: <199607301359.JAA04205@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Unathorized Information X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > Uphold. I'm prepared to grant that N would have bid 4C without the UI, > but that doesn't matter. Would anybody consider a procedural penalty for North? If so, how much? From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jul 31 06:42:43 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA20688 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 31 Jul 1996 06:42:43 +1000 Received: from tom.compulink.co.uk (tom.compulink.co.uk [194.153.0.51]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id GAA20679 for ; Wed, 31 Jul 1996 06:42:16 +1000 Received: (from root@localhost) by tom.compulink.co.uk (8.6.9/8.6.9) id VAA02739 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Tue, 30 Jul 1996 21:41:40 +0100 Date: Tue, 30 Jul 96 21:41 BST-1 From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: Unauthorised information To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Cc: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Reply-To: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Message-Id: Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Eric Landau (with regard to Larry Goode's hand) wrote: > matchpoints > > North > Bd: 5 S- T8432 > Dlr: N H- J4 > Vul:N-S D- KJ > C- AJT9 > West East > S- J75 S- KQ96 > H- KQT9 H- A732 > D- 9642 D- 8753 > C- 84 C- 5 > South > S- A > H- 865 > D- AQT > C- KQ7632 > > N E S W > pass pass 1C 1H > 2S(1) 3C X 3H > 4C P 5C all pass > > (1) N/S were playing fit showing jumps. South did not alert > 2S and upon being asked its meaning explained that it > showed spades with a near maximum pass. > > Result - N/S +620 > > E/W called for the director and claimed that North (an expert > player) had chosen from logical alternatives the 4C bid suggested > by the unauthorized information. > > a) How do you rule? >Let's go through the "four questions": >- UI? Clearly. Agreed >- LAs? Yes. N has what he has already described, and might easily pass >with nothing further to add. Wait a minute. If South's double showed a 5/6 card suit and North uses the LOTT then there is no LA. Best estimate of the hand gives 18 total tricks and thus 4C is a 60%+ bid - ie nothing else is "logical" within the LAW. Apologies to Larry Cohen if my analysis is wrong. I agree with the TDs ruling but the appeal must rest on North's defence. >other questions no longer relevant if above is accepted. Tim West-Meads. From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jul 31 23:03:13 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA24025 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 31 Jul 1996 23:03:13 +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 XAA24020 for ; Wed, 31 Jul 1996 23:03:06 +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 JAA22397 for ; Wed, 31 Jul 1996 09:03:01 -0400 Date: Wed, 31 Jul 1996 09:03:01 -0400 (EDT) From: Eric Landau Reply-To: Eric Landau To: Bridge Laws Discussion List Subject: Re: Unauthorised information In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Tue, 30 Jul 1996, Tim West-meads wrote: > Eric Landau (with regard to Larry Goode's hand) wrote: > >- LAs? Yes. N has what he has already described, and might easily pass > >with nothing further to add. > > Wait a minute. If South's double showed a 5/6 card suit and North uses the > LOTT then there is no LA. Best estimate of the hand gives 18 total tricks and > thus 4C is a 60%+ bid - ie nothing else is "logical" within the LAW. Apologies > to Larry Cohen if my analysis is wrong. The "Law" of total tricks has yet to take its place among the international Laws of Duplicate Contract Bridge, and there are still a few players out there (experts, even) who believe that there are "logical alternative" bidding styles to one in which every competitive bidding decision is based on the LOTT. Suppose North had told the committee that he considered his 4C bid to be a 100% action based on the theory that it's never right to let the opponents play in 3H when you have nine black cards. We would laugh at him, or worse. Should we really be tempted to reverse our ruling just because North's claim that 4C was 100% rests on Larry Cohen's pet theory rather than his own? Eric Landau APL Solutions, Inc. elandau@cais.com 1107 Dale Drive (301) 589-4621 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 USA