From owner-bridge-laws Sun Sep 1 19:05:06 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id TAA22352 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 1 Sep 1996 19:05:06 +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 TAA22347 for ; Sun, 1 Sep 1996 19:04:58 +1000 Received: from post.demon.co.uk ([(null)]) by relay-2.mail.demon.net id aa24952; 1 Sep 96 10:04 BST Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by relay-3.mail.demon.net id aa11370; 1 Sep 96 10:03 BST Message-ID: Date: Sat, 31 Aug 1996 21:34:12 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Abbreviations MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 1.12 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk ABF Australian Bridge Federation AC Appeals committee ACBL American Contract Bridge League AI Authorised information BBL British Bridge League BLML Bridge-laws mailing list BoD Board of directors (ACBL) BoG Board of governors (ACBL) BTW By the way C&E Conduct and ethics (often hearings) CC Convention card CPU Concealed partnership understanding (not Central Processing Unit) CTD Chief Tournament director DBF Danish Bridge Federation DIC Director in charge EBL European Bridge League 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 NABC ACBL North American Bridge Championships NBO National Bridge organisation NCBO National Contract Bridge organisation NG Newsgroup NIBU Northern Ireland Bridge Union NO Non-offender NP No problem OKB OKBridge PP Procedural penalty RGB rec.games.bridge (newsgroup) r.g.b. rec.games.bridge (newsgroup) RoC Rule of coincidence RTFLB Read the [fabulous] 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 http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk =( ^*^ )= david@blakjak.demon.co.uk Emails welcome bluejak on OKB ( | | ) Tel: +44 (0)151 677 7412 Phone before Fax please RTFLB (_~^ ^~ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Sep 2 06:52:26 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA08644 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 2 Sep 1996 06:52:26 +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 GAA08639 for ; Mon, 2 Sep 1996 06:52:19 +1000 Received: from cph52.ppp.dknet.dk (cph52.ppp.dknet.dk [194.192.100.52]) by pip.dknet.dk (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id WAA17134 for ; Sun, 1 Sep 1996 22:52:09 +0200 From: jd@pip.dknet.dk (Jesper Dybdal) To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Wild or gambling action: Action subsequent to infraction Date: Sun, 01 Sep 1996 22:51:42 +0200 Organization: at home Message-ID: <3229e30f.1923045@pipmail.dknet.dk> References: In-Reply-To: X-Mailer: Forte Agent .99e/32.227 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Fri, 30 Aug 1996 22:40:02 +0100, David Stevenson wrote: [snip] > Mike's view is that *without* the infraction there *can* be no damage, >and any damage subsequent to an infraction is consequent on it as a >result. He believes that if players commit an infraction their >opponents should have the right to see if they can benefit, and get a >ruling if not. Simply, he sees the double-shot as reasonable: after all >it only discommodes people who have committed an infraction. In the >example case if the double of 5D is crazy, and makes, and if the TD/AC >decides that North had no LA of Pass, then E/W get a fully deserved bad >board because there is no infraction. > > I actually have a lot of sympathy for Mike's view. [snip] So do I. In fact, it seems to me to be sensible, reasonable, and what the laws say. The non-offenders _are_ damaged by the infraction: they got a worse score with the infraction than without it. I also agree that it really would be no problem to allow non-offenders who wish to run the risk of trying a double-shot to do so. They will probably stop double-shooting when they've done it a couple of times where the TD then determines that though there was a hesitation there was no infraction, and they therefore get to keep their bad result. The only problem seems to me to be the fact that it is a world-wide general practice to do the opposite. -- Jesper Dybdal From owner-bridge-laws Mon Sep 2 20:21:50 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id UAA11258 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 2 Sep 1996 20:21:50 +1000 Received: from zaphod.axion.bt.co.uk (zaphod.axion.bt.co.uk [132.146.5.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id UAA11253 for ; Mon, 2 Sep 1996 20:21:41 +1000 Received: from catullus.agw.bt.co.uk by zaphod.axion.bt.co.uk with SMTP (PP); Mon, 2 Sep 1996 11:20:20 +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 LAA01404 for ; Mon, 2 Sep 1996 11:12:22 +0100 Received: by isdgate.agw.bt.co.uk with Microsoft Mail id <322AC155@isdgate.agw.bt.co.uk>; Mon, 02 Sep 96 11:13:25 GMT From: "Burn, David" To: "'Bridge Laws'" Subject: RE: Wild or gambling action: Action subsequent to infraction Date: Mon, 02 Sep 96 11:10:00 GMT Message-ID: <322AC155@isdgate.agw.bt.co.uk> Encoding: 114 TEXT X-Mailer: Microsoft Mail V3.0 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Eric Landau wrote: >If the Kaplan doctrine were to be done away with, rulings would >become much more consistent. Then, if a committee was convinced >that the NOs would have gotten a better score had there been no >infraction, they would be entitled to that score, period. Jens Brix Christiansen wrote: >The EBL doctrine is, BTW, that it is possible to "break the connection" >after the infraction by doing something stupid, but it has to be >seriously stupid, and should smack of the notorious double shot, >before the compensation is taken away from the non-offenders. >But we covered this in detail a few months ago. David Stevenson wrote: >Maybe we should look at it again. Talking to Mike Swanson [one of the >top British TDs] at Brighton he said that the idea of "wild or gambling >action" [our equivalent to subsequent not consequent] seemed stupid to >him. >Suppose that the bidding goes > W N E S > 1S NB 4S NB[agreed hesitation] > NB 5D X NB > NB NB >The 5D bid is adjudged as using UI, ie Pass would have been an LA. >Generally we would adjust the board back to 4S, unless of course the >other side does better out of 5D. But suppose that the double of 5D is >adjudged as crazy, a total gamble. Then we have a different approach. >Suppose 5D makes, as does 4S. In GB we would adjust to 4S making for >N/S but let 5Dx remain for E/W. [This is legal: see earlier thread.] >In the ACBL they would ... to be honest, I am not sure that they are >consistent, but let us suppose that 5Dx stands for both sides. Why? >The first argument is that the damage was subsequent to the >infraction. This is actually irrelevant: damage is just about always >subsequent to the infraction, and it is just poor wording. >The second argument is that the damage was not consequent on the >infraction, and thus the wording of L16A2 [an infraction of law has >resulted in damage] and other damage laws is not followed. In other >words, if it was not consequent, then it has not resulted in damage. At >least this is a reasonable argument, and if accepted the question asked >should not be "Was damage consequent or subsequent?" but it should be >"Was damage consequent or not?" >Take the example case. What would have happened if there was no >infraction, ie the player had not chosen the illegal LA? He would have >passed 4S out, and there could not have been a double of 5D. So the >double of 5D was a consequence of the infraction, since it could not >have happened without it. David Burn writes: Just because X could not have happened without Y, it does not follow that X is consequent upon Y in the legal context that is being discussed here. One might as well argue that the double of 5D was consequent upon the 17:05 from Victoria to Brighton, since if that train had been cancelled the player would not have arrived in time to double five diamonds. David Stevenson continued: >Mike's view is that *without* the infraction there *can* be no damage, >and any damage subsequent to an infraction is consequent on it as a >result. He believes that if players commit an infraction their >opponents should have the right to see if they can benefit, and get a >ruling if not. Simply, he sees the double-shot as reasonable: after all >it only discommodes people who have committed an infraction. In the >example case if the double of 5D is crazy, and [5D] makes, and if the TD/AC >decides that North had no LA of Pass, then E/W get a fully deserved bad >board because there is no infraction. >I actually have a lot of sympathy for Mike's view. If people commit >an infraction then their opponents probably should have the right to see >if they can benefit before any adjustment is considered: what is wrong >with a double-shot? Consider Rugby Union: If an infraction occurs, the >referee lets play continue for a time to see if the non-offenders gain >an advantage, and then whistles and brings play back only if they don't: >classic double-shot technique! David Burn writes: I have some sympathy for Mike's view, but not much. I do not believe that I should be permitted to cease playing bridge just because my opponents might have committed an infraction. In sports which use the advantage rule, there is not a total amnesty for the non-offending side during the period where "advantage" is being played. If a member of the non-offending side punches another player during that period, he will be sent off just as he would have been in normal circumstances. Similarly, if a non-offender makes a ridiculous bid or play in the belief that should it not work he can have it annulled because of his opponents' earlier infraction, he ought in my view to be disillusioned. I am prepared to concede that if a player is put in a situation that he would not have encountered had his opponents acted ethically, he should not be punished for making an inferior decision in that situation. But he should not be allowed to escape the consequences of an irrational decision. From owner-bridge-laws Mon Sep 2 22:37:31 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id WAA11843 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 2 Sep 1996 22:37:31 +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 WAA11838 for ; Mon, 2 Sep 1996 22:37:24 +1000 Received: from cph12.ppp.dknet.dk (cph12.ppp.dknet.dk [194.192.100.12]) by pip.dknet.dk (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id OAA13306 for ; Mon, 2 Sep 1996 14:37:14 +0200 From: jd@pip.dknet.dk (Jesper Dybdal) To: "'Bridge Laws'" Subject: Re: Wild or gambling action: Action subsequent to infraction Date: Mon, 02 Sep 1996 14:36:47 +0200 Organization: at home Message-ID: <322ad38f.245482@pipmail.dknet.dk> References: <322AC155@isdgate.agw.bt.co.uk> In-Reply-To: <322AC155@isdgate.agw.bt.co.uk> X-Mailer: Forte Agent .99e/32.227 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Mon, 02 Sep 96 11:10:00 GMT, "Burn, David" wrote: >Just because X could not have happened without Y, it >does not follow that X is consequent upon Y in the >legal context that is being discussed here. One might >as well argue that the double of 5D was consequent >upon the 17:05 from Victoria to Brighton, since if >that train had been cancelled the player would not >have arrived in time to double five diamonds. Everything is consequent upon lots of other thing. What is relevant here is only bad scores that are consequent upon certain types of infraction of the laws of bridge committed by an opponent. The fact that a train happens to run on time is not such an infraction of the laws of bridge. -- Jesper Dybdal From owner-bridge-laws Tue Sep 3 01:28:13 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA15354 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 3 Sep 1996 01:28:13 +1000 Received: from zaphod.axion.bt.co.uk (zaphod.axion.bt.co.uk [132.146.5.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id BAA15349 for ; Tue, 3 Sep 1996 01:28:05 +1000 Received: from catullus.agw.bt.co.uk by zaphod.axion.bt.co.uk with SMTP (PP); Mon, 2 Sep 1996 15:51:19 +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 PAA15989 for ; Mon, 2 Sep 1996 15:40:20 +0100 Received: by isdgate.agw.bt.co.uk with Microsoft Mail id <322B0024@isdgate.agw.bt.co.uk>; Mon, 02 Sep 96 15:41:24 GMT From: "Burn, David" To: "'Bridge Laws'" Subject: RE: Wild or gambling action: Action subsequent to infraction Date: Mon, 02 Sep 96 15:26:00 GMT Message-ID: <322B0024@isdgate.agw.bt.co.uk> Encoding: 50 TEXT X-Mailer: Microsoft Mail V3.0 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Jesper Dybdal writes: >Everything is consequent upon lots of other thing. What is relevant >here is only bad scores that are consequent upon certain types of >infraction of the laws of bridge committed by an opponent. The fact >that a train happens to run on time is not such an infraction of the >laws of bridge. The fact that a train happens to run on time in this country is an infraction of the laws of Nature, never mind the laws of bridge! But the point is this: if my opponent commits an infraction, and I deal with that infraction in an irrational manner, I do not believe that I should have redress merely because the infraction ought not to have been there for me to deal with at all. Imagine this end position: S x H x D None C x S None S None H None H A D xxx D xx C None C None S A H x D None C xx Clubs are trumps. South needs the rest. West is on lead. East leads the HA out of turn. Instead of forbidding West from leading a heart, or treating the HA as a penalty card - either of which would make the contract - South chooses to accept the lead out of turn and goes down. Would you allow him to make the contract simply because, if East had not committed the infraction of leading out of turn, South would have made the contract in any case? I do not believe that there should ever come a time when, if you play bridge extremely badly, you can escape the consequences by recourse to law. I also do not believe that a contestant should ever profit from his infraction. This means that, in the above case, I would rule that EW scored the board as making and NS scored it as one down - everybody gets a terrible result! But in a case where one side has cheated and the other side has taken leave of its senses, I don't have a problem with the notion that neither side deserves any matchpoints. From owner-bridge-laws Tue Sep 3 07:24:00 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA24524 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 3 Sep 1996 07:24:00 +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 HAA24519 for ; Tue, 3 Sep 1996 07:23:51 +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 XAA02646 for ; Mon, 2 Sep 1996 23:23:42 +0200 From: jd@pip.dknet.dk (Jesper Dybdal) To: "'Bridge Laws'" Subject: Re: Wild or gambling action: Action subsequent to infraction Date: Mon, 02 Sep 1996 23:23:14 +0200 Organization: at home Message-ID: <322b4a70.3513211@pipmail.dknet.dk> References: <322B0024@isdgate.agw.bt.co.uk> In-Reply-To: <322B0024@isdgate.agw.bt.co.uk> X-Mailer: Forte Agent .99e/32.227 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Mon, 02 Sep 96 15:26:00 GMT, "Burn, David" wrote: >East leads the HA out of turn. Instead of forbidding West from >leading a heart, or treating the HA as a penalty card - either of which >would make the contract - South chooses to accept the lead out of >turn and goes down. Would you allow him to make the contract simply >because, if East had not committed the infraction of leading out of >turn, South would have made the contract in any case? No, I agree with you in this situation. There was an infraction with a fixed penalty, E has paid the penalty, and that is that. In this case there is no law that tells us to adjust if the non-offenders are damaged by the infraction followed by the penalty. But _if_ there were such a law, then I would rule that NS was damaged by the infraction: they got a worse score that they could conceivably get without the infraction. When I wrote "certain types of infraction of the laws of bridge" I was thinking about those infractions for which the laws require the TD to determine whether the non-offenders are damaged and adjust the score if they are. In these situations, I find it reasonable to rule that they _are_ damaged by the infraction and give them an adjusted score, even if the infraction gave them a chance of a good score which they then threw away by doing something stupid that they could not have done without the infraction. (This would also very nicely remove the question of whether it is _legal_ to adjust for the offending side only in such situations. We had that discussion some time ago; I feel no need to repeat it now.) -- Jesper Dybdal From owner-bridge-laws Tue Sep 3 10:00:13 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA25259 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 3 Sep 1996 10:00:13 +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 KAA25254 for ; Tue, 3 Sep 1996 10:00:07 +1000 Received: (from root@localhost) by tom.compulink.co.uk (8.6.9/8.6.9) id AAA11370 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Tue, 3 Sep 1996 00:59:31 +0100 Date: Tue, 3 Sep 96 00:59 BST-1 From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re:Choosing to break the law. 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 I have been watching the thread where a player chooses to break the law because he feels morally obliged to do so. (The example was failing to alert a 2N bid as not promising a 4 card major when a 4CM was held) but there are bound to be others. Personally I don't have a problem with "acting god" as long as the player does 3 things. 1. Inform opponents after the hand 2. Support opponents in any appeal, however ludicrous, if oppo feel damaged. 3. Accept, without question, any penalty imposed. This seems to me to be totally in line with "active ethics" and the spirit of the game. Would (should) the laws allow leniency in these circumstances? Tim West-Meads From owner-bridge-laws Tue Sep 3 11:18:33 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id LAA25493 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 3 Sep 1996 11:18:33 +1000 Received: from hill.msri.org (msri.org [198.129.64.224]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id LAA25488 for ; Tue, 3 Sep 1996 11:18:27 +1000 From: grabiner@msri.org Received: by hill.msri.org for (8.7/1.43r) id SAA04687; Mon, 2 Sep 1996 18:19:09 -0700 (PDT) Received: from boole.msri.org(198.129.65.86) by msri.org via smap (V1.3) id sma004680; Mon Sep 2 18:19:00 1996 Received: by boole.msri.org (8.7/DW.6) id SAA25158; Mon, 2 Sep 1996 18:16:48 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 2 Sep 1996 18:16:48 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199609030116.SAA25158@boole.msri.org> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au In-reply-to: <960830134602_513033775@emout07.mail.aol.com> (AlLeBendig@aol.com) Subject: Offenders reaching lucky contract (was Re: National authority as tournament AC) Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk You write: > In a message dated 96-08-27 17:44:15 EDT, I wrote: > << And some of these difficulties can be avoided. I don't necessarily > expect two different committees to agree on whether a bid is a logical > alternative; however, the problem is often on interpretation of the > Laws. For example, suppose that a player may have acted on UI when he > chose to pass 5S rather than bid 6S, with 6S going down because of a 4-0 > trump split. Some committees will adjust the score from +650 to -100, > ruling that the gain was caused by the use of UI; others will rule that > the use of UI caused a loss, keeping the player out of a 90% slam. >> > This is preposterous!! I have never seen any such ruling from a Regional > Committee let alone an NABC Committee. I assume that the author has an > example to tell us about... I couldn't find a case in which this principle clearly applied either way; however, I only have two of the appeals books (Phoenix and New Orleans), and don't have the other books here, although I have looked through them. I will post a retraction if necessary. I do know that opinions vary on the issue, and I thought that both sides had made it into committee. I think there is a case in one of the older appeals books in which the committee chose not to make an adjustment because the offenders reached a contract which depended on a 3-2 break and a finesse; that was my basis for the claim. I found two examples going the other way. The better example is in Philadelphia, Case 2 from the bulletin; the booklet with expert comments is not available. In a charity KO, West bid to 6S after East's hesitation, holding AQxx xx AKJTxx A opposite Jxxxx KQx Qx xxx. It's only 33% that trumps can be picked up, and a diamond ruff is also possible. The committee ruled that the contract should be corrected to 4S. The other case isn't as clear because it is difficult to evaluate the contract. In Phoenix Case 5 in the book (Case 9 in the bulletin), In the NABC Open Pairs, the auction was (P)-1C-1D-(1H)-1S-2S-2NT-3S(slow)-4S, adjusted back to 3S; the hands were AKJ4 AJ64 54 AT2 opposite T952 K92 9872 K4. Bobby Goldman argued that there should have been no adjustment. Bobby Wolff argued for a different position; N-S should get adjusted to +170, but E-W must keep -420 to protect the field. Neither player discussed the other reason for the lack of equity game from the 4S bid: at most tables, North probably opened 1NT and played there, and 3S would have been a good score because it beats 1NT. Looking for these hands also showed a problem with applying this principle; it's often hard to tell whether the offenders gained an equity advantage, particularly when you have matchpoint considerations. -- David Grabiner, grabiner@msri.org (note new Email) I speak of MSRI and by MSRI but not for MSRI. 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 Tue Sep 3 11:53:37 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id LAA25722 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 3 Sep 1996 11:53:37 +1000 Received: from hill.msri.org (msri.org [198.129.64.224]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id LAA25716 for ; Tue, 3 Sep 1996 11:53:29 +1000 From: grabiner@msri.org Received: by hill.msri.org (8.7/1.43r) id SAA05343; Mon, 2 Sep 1996 18:54:11 -0700 (PDT) Received: from boole.msri.org(198.129.65.86) by msri.org via smap (V1.3) id sma005337; Mon Sep 2 18:53:26 1996 Received: by boole.msri.org (8.7/DW.6) id SAA25177; Mon, 2 Sep 1996 18:51:14 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 2 Sep 1996 18:51:14 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199609030151.SAA25177@boole.msri.org> To: AlLeBendig@aol.com CC: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au In-reply-to: <960830134619_513033919@emout09.mail.aol.com> (AlLeBendig@aol.com) Subject: Re: National authority as tournament AC Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Alan LeBendig writes: > In a message dated 96-08-27 17:44:15 EDT, David Grabiner writes: > But it is a real problem. In particular, there is often a > dispute about procedural penalties. > If these books are to be treated as case law, then the ambiguities in > the case law should be clarified, and the National Appeals Committee > could do this by publishing a set of accepted interpretations for common > problems. > **It has never been suggested that these books be treated as case law. They > are published solely for the purpose of giving us all a chance to see how ACs > are handling different types of problems. It was started as an effort at > introspection. It was hoped that we could all learn from our mistakes once > we were able to agree what was a mistake. This is the point I am trying to address; it's not clear what it a mistake. > I feel strongly that the books > have done a great job of achieving their purpose. Anyone who thinks we could > ever get to a point where all ACs see a similar problem and all make the same > ruling is living in a dream world, My hope has always been that we can all > approach the problems in the same manner. The fact that we might judge the > outcome differently doesn't bother me in the slightest. I understand this problem. I expect committees not to agree over what was a logical alternative, or whether a break in tempo occurred, or what would have been a likely result in a different contract. These are based on different interpretations of the facts. On the other hand, different interpretations of the laws can be corrected, and having the results of these interpretations visible allows for ambiguities to be corrected. > Here are some examples; they happen to be the interpretations with which > I agree, but the important issue is to have some of them. I intended these as examples, but I'll add my comments to this discussion. > If a break in tempo is likely to show a hand which could suggest either > one of two actions over the other (e.g.., a slow forcing pass, or a slow > limit raise), it should not be considered to suggest either one for > purposes of UI. > **That is clearly dealt with in the Laws. The wording change in the new Laws > (if approved) will make that point even better. But it's a clear problem in the interpretation, as I can see in the comments at the end of the New Orleans appeals book. Bobby Goldman argues that an adjustment is in order if "the hesitator's problem [conforms] to the claimed advantage that was taken"; this is apparently a reference to Phoenix Case 5 (Case 9 in the bulletins), in which a player hesitated before correcting a 2NT game invitation to 3S, probably considering a pass, and his partner went on to 4S. Michael Rosenberg wrote, "If I believe someone acted as a *consquence* of his partner's break in tempo, I would not allow the bid to stand if successful and I would change the score for both sides regardless of whether the break in tempo suggested a particular action or not." The above position is still a third option; a hesitation which could equally be weak or strong doesn't suggest one alternative over another. > Damage is not considered to be a result of the infraction if the > non-offending side gained an equity advantage at the table (e.g., > avoiding a 25% slam), even though luck or inferior play caused them to > get an inferior result. No adjustment is in order for either side, > although a procedural penalty may be imposed. [I've already discussed this elsewhere.] > It is your duty to correct a misexplanation at the proper time, even if > the explanation which was given properly describes your hand. (For > example, if you play that 1H-1S shows a forcing 1NT hand without five > spades, and partner says that it denies four spades, you should correct > even if you do not hold four spades.) Likewise, in this situation, if a > player might have bid differently given the correct explanation, an > adjustment may be in order even though the hand fit the actual > explanation. > **The Laws clearly support this point of view. Some aspects of it bother me > and others. Suppose I hold: KT9x QT9x Qx Jxx. Partner opens a NT > (15-17) and I bid 2C. Partner bids 2D and I bid 2NT. Partner does not alert > and bids 3NT. Everyone passes. There has clearly been a failure to alert. > (2NT should have been alerted and defined as not promising a 4 card major.) > I could legally inform the opponents of this ommission. But WHY would I? In some cases, it may be proper to make the correction because a corrected explanation may affect inferences that the opponents can draw from the rest of the auction. > A small procedural penalty (2 IMPS or 1/8 board) should be imposed by > the director in an NABC+ event if a misexplanation is not corrected at > the proper time, either by declarer or dummy not correcting it at the > end of the auction, or be a defender correcting it then. > **I have been pushing for such a penalty to be automatic if the failure to > disclose can in any way be considered material. The current level of > penalties is 3 IMPs or 1/4 board. Those are fairly standard. Don't forget > that a defender cannot disclose until play has concluded and is then > obligated to do so. I would like to see this as a stated policy; what often happens now is that no penalty is imposed at the table, and then the committee either makes or doesn't make an adjustment, but penalizes the offenders; see, for example, New Orleans Case 7, in which most of the experts argued that no penalty should be imposed because the defender who explained prematurely was trying to be ethical and did not cause damage. > The imposition of a procedural penalty for infractions such as the > apparent use of UI is independent of the score adjustment; if a > procedural penalty would have been imposed had there been no damage, > then it should be imposed in addition to the adjusted score. > **I totally agree. I feel that it should even be imposed if the blatant use > of UI results in a bad board for the offending side. If L73C has been > violated, the resulting score should have no bearing on whether or not a > procedural penalty is in order. This needs to be written down, as it's something committees often refuse to do. In the report on Atlanta Case 16, "The result was changed to 4S made four, +620 for East-West. The Committee believed this was enough punishment for making the gratuitous comment and the quarter-board procedural penalty was removed." (The penalty was for announcing, "We play upside-down count and attitude," in the middle of the hand, while playing the C2 from 42.) The reverse problem is more common; I've seen a fair number of cases in which the committee overturns the director's adjusted score but penalizes the offenders three IMPs or 1/4 board. I haven't done a careful survey, but I think the addition of a procedural penalty is more common in such cases than in cases when an adjusted score is upheld; penalties are imposed then only from flagrant infractions or abuse of the committee procedure. -- David Grabiner, grabiner@msri.org (note new Email) I speak of MSRI and by MSRI but not for MSRI. 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 Tue Sep 3 19:24:44 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id TAA27176 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 3 Sep 1996 19:24:44 +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 TAA27171 for ; Tue, 3 Sep 1996 19:24:34 +1000 Received: (from root@localhost) by tom.compulink.co.uk (8.6.9/8.6.9) id KAA21857 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Tue, 3 Sep 1996 10:23:44 +0100 Date: Tue, 3 Sep 96 10:23 BST-1 From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: National authority as tournament AC 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 David Grabiner, grabiner@msri.org wrote: ALB: > If a break in tempo is likely to show a hand which could suggest either > one of two actions over the other (e.g.., a slow forcing pass, or a slow > limit raise), it should not be considered to suggest either one for > purposes of UI. > **That is clearly dealt with in the Laws. The wording change in the new Laws > (if approved) will make that point even better. DG: But it's a clear problem in the interpretation, as I can see in the comments at the end of the New Orleans appeals book. Bobby Goldman argues that an adjustment is in order if "the hesitator's problem [conforms] to the claimed advantage that was taken"; this is apparently a reference to Phoenix Case 5 (Case 9 in the bulletins), in which a player hesitated before correcting a 2NT game invitation to 3S, probably considering a pass, and his partner went on to 4S. Michael Rosenberg wrote, "If I believe someone acted as a *consquence* of his partner's break in tempo, I would not allow the bid to stand if successful and I would change the score for both sides regardless of whether the break in tempo suggested a particular action or not." The above position is still a third option; a hesitation which could equally be weak or strong doesn't suggest one alternative over another. Me: Bobby Goldman's philosophy, if applied, would have effect of introducing (sustaining?) a punitive element for hesitations. While this is probably a possible interpretation of the Law I do not think it is one which would help the game. I take Michael Rosenberg's words to mean "If I think a pair is cheating I will give them a bad score" (ie if the Pair in Phoenix 5 was up before the committee for the fifth time in two days I would understand ruling for an adjustment, although the hand, in isolation, seems not to merit it). I am quite happy to have potential cheats (or those with "dubious" ethics) punished purely on the basis of circumstansial evidence as it is often impossible to gather sufficient evidence to "stand up in court". Tim West-Meads From owner-bridge-laws Tue Sep 3 21:35:47 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id VAA27639 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 3 Sep 1996 21:35:47 +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 VAA27633 for ; Tue, 3 Sep 1996 21:35:32 +1000 Received: from post.demon.co.uk ([(null)]) by relay-2.mail.demon.net id aj06237; 3 Sep 96 12:25 BST Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by relay-3.mail.demon.net id aa26316; 3 Sep 96 12:24 BST Message-ID: Date: Tue, 3 Sep 1996 11:45:17 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Offenders reaching lucky contract In-Reply-To: <199609030116.SAA25158@boole.msri.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 1.12 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Grabiner wrote: >You write: > I wrote {David Grabiner presumably}: >> << And some of these difficulties can be avoided. I don't necessarily >> expect two different committees to agree on whether a bid is a logical >> alternative; however, the problem is often on interpretation of the >> Laws. For example, suppose that a player may have acted on UI when he >> chose to pass 5S rather than bid 6S, with 6S going down because of a 4-0 >> trump split. Some committees will adjust the score from +650 to -100, >> ruling that the gain was caused by the use of UI; others will rule that >> the use of UI caused a loss, keeping the player out of a 90% slam. >> >> This is preposterous!! I have never seen any such ruling from a Regional >> Committee let alone an NABC Committee. I assume that the author has an >> example to tell us about... >I couldn't find a case in which this principle clearly applied either >way; however, I only have two of the appeals books (Phoenix and New >Orleans), and don't have the other books here, although I have looked >through them. I will post a retraction if necessary. I think it is time commonsense was applied. We know the law: if there is damage consequent on an infraction we adjust. Now let's be practical. The `wild and gambling' and `consequent or subsequent' ideas have been discussed and are still being discussed elsewhere. What about damage? If an opponent got a worse score than he would have without the infraction then he has been damaged so adjust. Forget the complications. Bridge doesn't need them: the Law book doesn't require them. What about protecting the field? A very silly concept. Impractical, unnecessary, leading to bias and IMO fairly childish. Bridge is not a totally fair game [thank God!] and never will be. Giving rulings to protect the field is just trying to make work for lawyers. >I do know that opinions vary on the issue, and I thought that both sides >had made it into committee. I think there is a case in one of the older >appeals books in which the committee chose not to make an adjustment >because the offenders reached a contract which depended on a 3-2 break >and a finesse; that was my basis for the claim. > >I found two examples going the other way. The better example is in >Philadelphia, Case 2 from the bulletin; the booklet with expert comments >is not available. In a charity KO, West bid to 6S after East's >hesitation, holding AQxx xx AKJTxx A opposite Jxxxx KQx Qx xxx. It's >only 33% that trumps can be picked up, and a diamond ruff is also >possible. The committee ruled that the contract should be corrected to >4S. > >The other case isn't as clear because it is difficult to evaluate the >contract. In Phoenix Case 5 in the book (Case 9 in the bulletin), In >the NABC Open Pairs, the auction was >(P)-1C-1D-(1H)-1S-2S-2NT-3S(slow)-4S, adjusted back to 3S; the hands >were AKJ4 AJ64 54 AT2 opposite T952 K92 9872 K4. Bobby Goldman argued >that there should have been no adjustment. Bobby Wolff argued for a >different position; N-S should get adjusted to +170, but E-W must keep >-420 to protect the field. Neither player discussed the other reason >for the lack of equity game from the 4S bid: at most tables, North >probably opened 1NT and played there, and 3S would have been a good >score because it beats 1NT. 170 is automatic: how can anyone think otherwise? What has a lack of equity game to do with anything, whatever it means? Furthermore, I just cannot see the reason why anyone should go against the Laws of the game to protect the field as seems to be suggested. >Looking for these hands also showed a problem with applying this >principle; it's often hard to tell whether the offenders gained an >equity advantage, particularly when you have matchpoint considerations. I am sorry that this post does not have my usual clarity [ :) ] but I really cannot understand why anyone wants these absurd complications, so I am having difficulty producing any other argument but "You're crazy!". Sorry. :):) -- David Stevenson Bridge Cats Railways Logic /\_/\ Liverpool, England, UK http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk =( ^*^ )= david@blakjak.demon.co.uk Emails welcome bluejak on OKB ( | | ) Tel: +44 (0)151 677 7412 Phone before Fax please RTFLB (_~^ ^~ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Sep 3 21:39:06 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id VAA27657 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 3 Sep 1996 21:39:06 +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 VAA27640 for ; Tue, 3 Sep 1996 21:35:49 +1000 Received: from post.demon.co.uk ([(null)]) by relay-2.mail.demon.net id ac06338; 3 Sep 96 12:25 BST Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by relay-3.mail.demon.net id aa26327; 3 Sep 96 12:24 BST Message-ID: Date: Tue, 3 Sep 1996 11:44:57 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Choosing to break the law. In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 1.12 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Tim West-meads wrote: >I have been watching the thread where a player chooses to break the law because >he feels morally obliged to do so. (The example was failing to alert a 2N bid >as not promising a 4 card major when a 4CM was held) but there are bound to be >others. > >Personally I don't have a problem with "acting god" as long as the player does >3 things. >1. Inform opponents after the hand >2. Support opponents in any appeal, however ludicrous, if oppo feel >damaged. >3. Accept, without question, any penalty imposed. > >This seems to me to be totally in line with "active ethics" and the spirit of >the game. Would (should) the laws allow leniency in these circumstances? Good TDs act on all information that come their way and use their judgement, allowing for the fact that in the ACBL the regulations sometimes mean that the judgement has to be split between the TD and the AC. So of course your approach will do good and little harm. However, one day it will do harm, perhaps when you misjudge a situation or a person. Be warned!!! :) -- David Stevenson Bridge Cats Railways Logic /\_/\ Liverpool, England, UK http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk =( ^*^ )= david@blakjak.demon.co.uk Emails welcome bluejak on OKB ( | | ) Tel: +44 (0)151 677 7412 Phone before Fax please RTFLB (_~^ ^~ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Sep 3 21:41:47 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id VAA27684 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 3 Sep 1996 21:41:47 +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 VAA27678 for ; Tue, 3 Sep 1996 21:41:40 +1000 Received: from post.demon.co.uk ([(null)]) by relay-2.mail.demon.net id ac06338; 3 Sep 96 12:25 BST Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by relay-3.mail.demon.net id aa26327; 3 Sep 96 12:24 BST Message-ID: Date: Tue, 3 Sep 1996 11:44:57 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Choosing to break the law. In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 1.12 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Tim West-meads wrote: >I have been watching the thread where a player chooses to break the law because >he feels morally obliged to do so. (The example was failing to alert a 2N bid >as not promising a 4 card major when a 4CM was held) but there are bound to be >others. > >Personally I don't have a problem with "acting god" as long as the player does >3 things. >1. Inform opponents after the hand >2. Support opponents in any appeal, however ludicrous, if oppo feel >damaged. >3. Accept, without question, any penalty imposed. > >This seems to me to be totally in line with "active ethics" and the spirit of >the game. Would (should) the laws allow leniency in these circumstances? Good TDs act on all information that come their way and use their judgement, allowing for the fact that in the ACBL the regulations sometimes mean that the judgement has to be split between the TD and the AC. So of course your approach will do good and little harm. However, one day it will do harm, perhaps when you misjudge a situation or a person. Be warned!!! :) -- David Stevenson Bridge Cats Railways Logic /\_/\ Liverpool, England, UK http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk =( ^*^ )= david@blakjak.demon.co.uk Emails welcome bluejak on OKB ( | | ) Tel: +44 (0)151 677 7412 Phone before Fax please RTFLB (_~^ ^~ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Sep 3 22:31:31 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id WAA28081 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 3 Sep 1996 22:31:31 +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 WAA28074 for ; Tue, 3 Sep 1996 22:30:54 +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 OAA24172 for ; Tue, 3 Sep 1996 14:28:28 +0200 Received: from CRI-Message_Server by nov.cri.dk with Novell_GroupWise; Tue, 03 Sep 1996 14:29:27 +0200 Message-Id: X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise 4.1 Date: Tue, 03 Sep 1996 14:24:47 +0200 From: Jens Brix Christiansen To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: National authority as tournament AC Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Well, I feel I have to go on record as not agreeing with Tim here: >>> Tim West-meads 03.09.96 10:23 >>> >Bobby Goldman's philosophy, if applied, would have effect of >introducing (sustaining?) a punitive element for hesitations. >While this is probably a possible interpretation of the Law I >do not think it is one which would help the game. I respect the "probably", but I disagree. I do not find any grounds in the current law for punishing hesitations as such: If a player has something to think about, he may do so. I agree fully with Tim that a change in that direction would not help the game. Jens Brix Christiansen, Denmark From owner-bridge-laws Tue Sep 3 23:22:59 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA28596 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 3 Sep 1996 23:22:59 +1000 Received: from zaphod.axion.bt.co.uk (zaphod.axion.bt.co.uk [132.146.5.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id XAA28591 for ; Tue, 3 Sep 1996 23:22:50 +1000 Received: from catullus.agw.bt.co.uk by zaphod.axion.bt.co.uk with SMTP (PP); Tue, 3 Sep 1996 14:20:35 +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 OAA11926 for ; Tue, 3 Sep 1996 14:04:46 +0100 Received: by isdgate.agw.bt.co.uk with Microsoft Mail id <322C3B3D@isdgate.agw.bt.co.uk>; Tue, 03 Sep 96 14:05:49 GMT From: "Burn, David" To: "'Bridge Laws'" Subject: RE: Offenders reaching lucky contract Date: Tue, 03 Sep 96 14:00:00 GMT Message-ID: <322C3B3D@isdgate.agw.bt.co.uk> Encoding: 68 TEXT X-Mailer: Microsoft Mail V3.0 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk >From David Burn David Stevenson writes: [snip] >I think it is time commonsense was applied. We know the law: if there >is damage consequent on an infraction we adjust. Now let's be >practical. The `wild and gambling' and `consequent or subsequent' ideas >have been discussed and are still being discussed elsewhere. What about >damage? >If an opponent got a worse score than he would have without the >infraction then he has been damaged so adjust. Forget the >complications. Bridge doesn't need them: the Law book doesn't require >them. It appears to me that the Law book does not support the approach advocated above, nor is it my view that it should. If an opponent ended up with a worse score than he would have without the infraction, this may be for one of two main reasons: (1) He was damaged by the infraction (2) He played foolishly for reasons unconnected with the infraction In case (1) the Laws empower the Director to assign an adjusted score in order to restore equity. They also empower the Director to penalise the offending pair for breach of correct procedure. I have heard advocated the absurd notion that they should do one or the other, but not both. In case (2) the Laws do not empower the Director (or an appeals committee) to assign an adjusted score. A procedural penalty may still be in order. It is vitally important that we use some real "common sense" in interpreting the wording of (eg) Law 16: "The Director shall require the auction and play to continue, standing ready to assign an adjusted score if he considers that an infraction of law has resulted in damage." Now, suppose a player calls you to the table and says: "On the previous board, my opponent put down dummy with the trumps on the left. I get really angry when people do that, and on this board I was so furious that I opened 7NT on a Yarborough, redoubled, and went for 7600. "Now, I would not have done this if my opponent had not broken Law 41D on the previous hand. So, our damage on this board is a direct result of my opponent's infraction on the last board, and I want an adjusted score." Even Mike Swanson might be able to see that this is ludicrous. The words "resulted in damage" simply cannot sensibly be interpreted in anything like as liberal a fashion as DWS and others have suggested. If a player is damaged through an opponent's infraction, let equity be restored. But if a player is damaged through his own ineptitude, let him live with the consequences. From owner-bridge-laws Wed Sep 4 01:40:12 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA02250 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 4 Sep 1996 01:40:12 +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 BAA02245 for ; Wed, 4 Sep 1996 01:40:06 +1000 From: AlLeBendig@aol.com Received: by emout07.mail.aol.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) id LAA19098 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Tue, 3 Sep 1996 11:39:31 -0400 Date: Tue, 3 Sep 1996 11:39:31 -0400 Message-ID: <960903113930_515004357@emout07.mail.aol.com> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Choosing to break the law. Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In a message dated 96-09-02 20:51:14 EDT, Tim West-meads writes: << Subj: Re:Choosing to break the law. Date: 96-09-02 20:51:14 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 I have been watching the thread where a player chooses to break the law because he feels morally obliged to do so. (The example was failing to alert a 2N bid as not promising a 4 card major when a 4CM was held) but there are bound to be others. Personally I don't have a problem with "acting god" as long as the player does 3 things. 1. Inform opponents after the hand 2. Support opponents in any appeal, however ludicrous, if oppo feel damaged. 3. Accept, without question, any penalty imposed. This seems to me to be totally in line with "active ethics" and the spirit of the game. Would (should) the laws allow leniency in these circumstances? >> **I knew eventually Tim and I would find some area of agreement. This all sounds reasonable to me. If I were the dummy, I could explain after the lead and as I placed the dummy. If declarer, I fully recognize disclosure would be required after the hand. If my G-d impression proves to have been poorly timed, obviously I would accept any penalties forthcoming. I have trouble imagining a situation in which a rational person could not recognize when disclosure might be about to damage the opponents. That is still my primary concern here. Alan LeBendig, Los Angeles From owner-bridge-laws Wed Sep 4 01:45:35 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA02293 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 4 Sep 1996 01:45:35 +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 BAA02288 for ; Wed, 4 Sep 1996 01:45:24 +1000 Received: from post.demon.co.uk ([(null)]) by relay-4.mail.demon.net id aa20998; 3 Sep 96 15:28 GMT Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by relay-3.mail.demon.net id aa20512; 3 Sep 96 16:28 BST Message-ID: Date: Tue, 3 Sep 1996 15:38:42 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Abbreviations MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 1.12 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > ABF Australian Bridge Federation > AC Appeals committee > ACBL American Contract Bridge League [lines deleted] And so an answer came from Ian D Crorie : TYVMDHTCAW What do you think? -- Quango /\_/\ /\ /\ quango@blakjak.demon.co.uk =( ^*^ )= @ @ Nanki Poo ( | | ) =( + )= nankipoo@blakjak.demon.co.uk (_~^ ^~ ~ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Sep 4 02:41:44 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA02664 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 4 Sep 1996 02:41:44 +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 CAA02659 for ; Wed, 4 Sep 1996 02:41:36 +1000 Received: from post.demon.co.uk ([(null)]) by relay-4.mail.demon.net id ab21000; 3 Sep 96 15:28 GMT Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by relay-3.mail.demon.net id aa20517; 3 Sep 96 16:28 BST Message-ID: Date: Tue, 3 Sep 1996 15:36:57 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Offenders reaching lucky contract In-Reply-To: <322C3B3D@isdgate.agw.bt.co.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 1.12 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Burn wrote: >David Stevenson writes: > >[snip] > >>I think it is time commonsense was applied. We know the law: if there >>is damage consequent on an infraction we adjust. Now let's be >>practical. The `wild and gambling' and `consequent or subsequent' ideas >>have been discussed and are still being discussed elsewhere. What about >>damage? > >>If an opponent got a worse score than he would have without the >>infraction then he has been damaged so adjust. Forget the >>complications. Bridge doesn't need them: the Law book doesn't require >>them. > >It appears to me that the Law book does not support the approach >advocated >above, nor is it my view that it should. > >If an opponent ended up with a worse score than he would have without the >infraction, this may be for one of two main reasons: > >(1) He was damaged by the infraction >(2) He played foolishly for reasons unconnected with the infraction > Correct, and this thread is discussing (1) in situations where (2) does not apply. I am not disagreeing with anything in your article, David, but I am trying to talk about the situation where the Offenders reach a lucky contract. Sorry I did not make it clear. The Philadelphia sequence was (partners) No 1D 1S 4D 4S 6S No which was a poor contract: 4S was slow: should you adjust: nothing to do with opponents' actions at all. The Phoenix sequence was similar. -- David Stevenson Bridge Cats Railways Logic /\_/\ Liverpool, England, UK http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk =( ^*^ )= david@blakjak.demon.co.uk Emails welcome bluejak on OKB ( | | ) Tel: +44 (0)151 677 7412 Phone before Fax please RTFLB (_~^ ^~ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Sep 4 03:39:42 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA02848 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 4 Sep 1996 03:39:42 +1000 Received: from pip.dknet.dk (root@pip.dknet.dk [193.88.44.48]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id DAA02843 for ; Wed, 4 Sep 1996 03:39:34 +1000 Received: from cph49.ppp.dknet.dk (cph49.ppp.dknet.dk [194.192.100.49]) by pip.dknet.dk (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id TAA08802 for ; Tue, 3 Sep 1996 19:39:18 +0200 From: jd@pip.dknet.dk (Jesper Dybdal) To: "'Bridge Laws'" Subject: Re: Offenders reaching lucky contract Date: Tue, 03 Sep 1996 19:38:51 +0200 Organization: at home Message-ID: <322c6d07.4242730@pipmail.dknet.dk> References: <322C3B3D@isdgate.agw.bt.co.uk> In-Reply-To: <322C3B3D@isdgate.agw.bt.co.uk> X-Mailer: Forte Agent .99e/32.227 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Tue, 03 Sep 96 14:00:00 GMT, "Burn, David" wrote: >It is vitally important that we use some real "common sense" in >interpreting >the wording of (eg) Law 16: > >"The Director shall require the auction and play to continue, standing >ready >to assign an adjusted score if he considers that an infraction of law has >resulted in damage." Those words in L16 tell the director what to do when he has been called because "a player has substantial reason to believe that an opponent who had a logical alternative has chosen an action ...". L16 is about UI situations _only_. Infractions of L41D can (but usually won't) be penalized with a L90 procedural penalty. As I said in the "Wild or gambling action: Action subsequent to infraction" thread, the difference is that no law asks us to decide whether the non-offenders have been damaged by an infraction of L41D. -- Jesper Dybdal From owner-bridge-laws Wed Sep 4 06:00:23 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA11241 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 4 Sep 1996 06:00:23 +1000 Received: from mail-relay.ja.net (mail-relay.ja.net [193.63.105.200]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id GAA11236 for ; Wed, 4 Sep 1996 06:00:14 +1000 Received: from loki.cee.hw.ac.uk by mail-relay.ja.net with JANET SMTP (PP); Tue, 3 Sep 1996 21:02:01 +0100 Received: from thoth.cee.hw.ac.uk by loki.cee.hw.ac.uk with smtp tap_id root (Smail3.1.28.1 #97) id m0uxwLC-000Ap5C; Tue, 3 Sep 96 15:20 BST Received: by thoth.cee.hw.ac.uk (Smail3.1.28.1 #97) id m0uxwL4-000EetC; Tue, 3 Sep 96 15:20 BST Message-Id: Date: Tue, 3 Sep 96 15:20 BST From: Ian D Crorie Subject: Re: Choosing to break the law. To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Organisation: Dept of Computing & Electrical Engineering, Heriot-Watt University, Scotland X-Mailer: Sendmail/Ream v4.15a (The Choice of the Old Generation too) Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Apropos the thread concerning correcting or not correcting misinformation when one's hand happens to conform to what the opponents might expect with the MI. Are we not merely complicating matters by adopting the position characterised in earlier posts as the active ethics one? Let us consider a similar example to the one already suggested: N E S W 1N p 2C p 2H p 2N p 3N and imagine the two Easts on lead in a T-of-4 match. At one table the sequence is correctly alerted and explained as not promising a major in the South hand and East, holding let us say QJTx in both spades and a minor, decides to lead spades, the only lead to beat the contract. At the other table the sequence is not alerted despite this NS having the same systemic understandings as their counterparts. South does not correct the MI before the opening lead because he happens to have a four card spade suit. His East decides to lead the minor QJTx and the contract makes. One might say that the success or failure of the lead chosen is a bit random and so it is but I certainly wouldn't let the result at table two stand. And since a simple "my partner failed to alert 2N: I may or may not have a four card spade suit" would have prevented the problem I believe I would reluctantly impose a PP against the second South when it turned out that he was aware of the relevant Law and decided to break it anyway. I am sympathetic to many AE positions but this one I really dislike. In fact, I don't think it even deserves the name: perhaps David Stevenson could add one of these to his LOA: OE: Overdone Ethics ME: Misplaced Ethics :-} --- "One home to rule them, One dir to bind them One ~user to bring them all and in the darkness find them In the land of Automount, where the shadows lie" From owner-bridge-laws Wed Sep 4 06:20:47 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA11328 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 4 Sep 1996 06:20:47 +1000 Received: from mipl7.jpl.nasa.gov (mipl7.jpl.nasa.gov [128.149.177.7]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id GAA11323 for ; Wed, 4 Sep 1996 06:20:42 +1000 Received: from tintin.JPL.NASA.GOV (tintin.jpl.nasa.gov [128.149.102.7]) by mipl7.jpl.nasa.gov (8.6.12/8.6.6) with ESMTP id NAA04245 for <@mipl7.JPL.NASA.GOV:bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au>; Tue, 3 Sep 1996 13:20:01 -0700 Received: by tintin.JPL.NASA.GOV (940816.SGI.8.6.9/930416.SGI.MIPS) for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au id NAA19005; Tue, 3 Sep 1996 13:19:30 -0700 Date: Tue, 3 Sep 1996 13:19:30 -0700 From: jeff@tintin.JPL.NASA.GOV (Jeff Goldsmith) Message-Id: <199609032019.NAA19005@tintin.JPL.NASA.GOV> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Choosing to break the law. Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Subject: Re: Choosing to break the law. To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Ian D Crorie |Apropos the thread concerning correcting or not correcting |misinformation when one's hand happens to conform to what the |opponents might expect with the MI. |Are we not merely complicating matters by adopting the position |characterised in earlier posts as the active ethics one? Let us |consider a similar example to the one already suggested: While personally, I think one ought just follow the rules and not worry about it, doing so might infuriate less knowledgable players. This happened at the Santa Clara regional last weekend: South opened 1NT, agreed to be 12-14, with a 4333 crummy 15-count. No announcement. The bidding became competitive and finally reached 4S to be played by South. After the auction ended, South said, "my partner forgot to announce. 1NT was 12-14. Would you like to call the director?" East said, "yes." The director rolled the bidding back to East's last call; he chose to double. 4S made in comfort. East/West were rather incensed by the occurrance. --Jeff # Never ascribe to malice what can easily be # attributed to ignorance, laziness, or incompetence. # --- # http://muggy.gg.caltech.edu/~jeff From owner-bridge-laws Wed Sep 4 07:18:50 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA11589 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 4 Sep 1996 07:18:50 +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 HAA11583 for ; Wed, 4 Sep 1996 07:18:41 +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 RAA02253 for ; Tue, 3 Sep 1996 17:18:36 -0400 (EDT) Received: by cfa183.harvard.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id RAA18800; Tue, 3 Sep 1996 17:19:08 -0400 Date: Tue, 3 Sep 1996 17:19:08 -0400 From: willner@cfa183.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Message-Id: <199609032119.RAA18800@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Choosing to break the law. Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk For the one or two people who may not have seen it yet, here's the recent Spingold case that may have started some of this discussion. It's extracted from http://www.acbl.org/~acbl/nabc/miami/miframe.htm There's nothing else in this message, so quit now if you have already seen the writeup. APPEALS CASE 23 SUBJECT: Correcting Misinformation EVENT: Spingold Knockout Teams, third round, August 8 Bd: 29 Karen McCallum Dlr: N S AK Vul: None H K6432 D A32 C K98 Lea DuPont Benito Garozzo S J763 S 52 H Q H JT875 D KJ876 D T54 C AQ4 C 532 Cenk Tuncok S QT984 H A9 D Q9 C JT76 WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH 1NT (1) Pass 2H (2) Pass 2S (3) Pass 2NT (4) Pass 3H Pass 3NT All Pass (1) 14+ to 17 HCP (2) Transfer to spades (3) Denies four spades (4) Transfer to clubs; invitational or better RESULT: The H5 was led (attitude leads). 3NT by North made three, N/S plus 600. FACTS: The Director was called to the table at the end of the play of the hand when North was found to have held five hearts. East said that he had asked about North's 3H bid before making his opening lead, and was told by South that it showed five hearts. North corrected this saying that she did not have to hold five hearts (although she might), but that the bid simply showed heart values and sought direction. East led a heart, allowing the contract to make. East said that he would have led a diamond had North not corrected South's statement, and a diamond lead would have defeated the contract. The Director ruled that there had been misinformation by N/S and adjusted the score to 3NT down two, N/S minus 200. THE APPEAL: N/S appealed. They testified that at the end of the auction, and before making his opening lead, East asked for a review with explanations. South conducted the annotated review, ultimately explaining North's 3H bid as showing five hearts. At that point North intervened saying that the bid did not show five hearts (although she could have five), but rather showed heart values in search of the correct game. (This interpretation was confirmed by N/S's system notes.) North stated that she felt obligated to correct South's expanation for two reasons, even though her hand coincidentally conformed to the mistaken explanation. The first reason was that she felt that E/W were entitled to know the basis on which South had bid 3NT (that he didn't have three-card heart support), and the basis on which North had bid 3H (that she was concerned about the N/S diamond holding for notrump, being somewhat protected in hearts by her length in the suit). If a diamond lead was best for E/W, it could help them to know that North had bid 3H intending to elicit help from South in diamonds. No such inference would be available to E/W if they believed that North's 3H bid was a search for a heart contract, since then it would not directly imply concern about diamonds. (N/S's notes also made it clear that in their methods 3H could never suggest playing in hearts.) North's second reason for her correction was that the erroneously disclosed (but accurate) information about her heart length might act to deter a reasonable (or even normal) heart lead when, given the poor quality of her heart spots, it was possible that such a lead could prove best for E/W. North also stated that her 3H bid was equally intended to keep alive the possibility of a 4S contract, and that she almost bid 4S over 3NT anyway, taking a long time before she finally passed. This was not disputed by E/W. E/W testified that the "emotional" nature of North's disclosure gave them the distinct impression that North wanted to avoid inhibiting a heart lead in case that lead proved to be best for E/W, and that North was therefore attempting to act in E/W's best interest. In addition, East stated that although he initially "had his finger on a diamond lead," North's emotional reaction caused him to change his lead to a heart. He reasoned that, since North was sincerely concerned that a heart lead could be best for E/W, the heart lead must therefore be right. THE COMMITTEE'S DECISION: The Committee members strongly agreed on the following points relating to this case. First, that North acted properly in correcting the misinformation provided by South. In general, a player should be cautious in correcting a misexplanation which accurately describes his actual holding. However, when the misexplanation also contains inaccuracies which could damage the opponents, suggest false inferences, or deny them potentially useful information, the player has an obligation to correct the misinformation. This should be done in a way that makes it clear that the player may indeed have a holding which is consistent with the original explanation. Then the misleading aspects of the explanation should be corrected. For example, "I could certainly have the hand that my partner described, but our agreement is that my bid shows . . ." North's statement that she "could have five hearts" was in keeping with this principle. Second, North could hardly have done any more than she did to make all of the relevant information available to E/W. She disclosed the meaning she intended for her 3H bid (showing heart values and seeking direction for notrump), thus providing the inference that diamonds was of concern to her. (The inference that South's 3NT bid was not necessarily based on diamond values, but rather on the absence of three hearts, was available from his misinterpretation of the 3H bid.) The emotional nature of her reaction made it clear that she was also concerned that hearts could be the winning lead even after she showed heart values, and that she wanted E/W to know it. And finally, East, by his own admission, based his heart lead wholly on the emotional content of North's statement (that she was concerned that the heart lead could be best). Of course, given who East was, he was correct! But by ignoring the informational content of North's statement, including the intended meaning of her 3H bid and the inferences available from it, the winning alternative of the diamond lead was rejected. East was entitled to draw the inferences he did, but (as suggested by Law 73D1) only at his own risk. Based on the preceeding analysis, the Committee restored the result originally achieved at the table: 3NT making three, N/S plus 600. CHAIRPERSON: Alan LeBendig COMMITTEE MEMBERS: Rich Colker, Bill Pollack, John Sutherlin, John Wittes From owner-bridge-laws Wed Sep 4 07:31:01 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA11670 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 4 Sep 1996 07:31:01 +1000 Received: from irvine.com (flash.irvine.com [192.160.8.4]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id HAA11662 for ; Wed, 4 Sep 1996 07:30:55 +1000 Received: from localhost by flash.irvine.com id aa01848; 3 Sep 96 14:30 PDT To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au CC: adam@flash.irvine.com Subject: Re: Choosing to break the law. In-reply-to: Your message of "Tue, 03 Sep 1996 13:19:30 PDT." <199609032019.NAA19005@tintin.JPL.NASA.GOV> Date: Tue, 03 Sep 1996 14:30:18 PDT From: Adam Beneschan Message-ID: <9609031430.aa01848@flash.irvine.com> Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > While personally, I think one ought just follow the > rules and not worry about it, doing so might infuriate > less knowledgable players. This happened at the Santa > Clara regional last weekend: > > South opened 1NT, agreed to be 12-14, with a 4333 crummy > 15-count. No announcement. The bidding became competitive > and finally reached 4S to be played by South. After the > auction ended, South said, "my partner forgot to announce. > 1NT was 12-14. Would you like to call the director?" East > said, "yes." The director rolled the bidding back to East's > last call; he chose to double. 4S made in comfort. East/West > were rather incensed by the occurrance. > > --Jeff Isn't this the director's fault? I don't see where the Laws (specifically, Law 21) authorize the director to roll back the auction after the auction has ended. Law 21B3 should have applied after the play was over, at which point the director (if he was still hanging around the table) would have judged that there was no damage. -- Adam From owner-bridge-laws Wed Sep 4 07:57:20 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA11795 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 4 Sep 1996 07:57:20 +1000 Received: from hill.msri.org (msri.org [198.129.64.224]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id HAA11790 for ; Wed, 4 Sep 1996 07:57:14 +1000 From: grabiner@msri.org Received: by hill.msri.org for (8.7/1.43r) id OAA15021; Tue, 3 Sep 1996 14:57:56 -0700 (PDT) Received: from boole.msri.org(198.129.65.86) by msri.org via smap (V1.3) id sma015019; Tue Sep 3 14:57:40 1996 Received: by boole.msri.org (8.7/DW.6) id OAA25419; Tue, 3 Sep 1996 14:55:28 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 3 Sep 1996 14:55:28 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199609032155.OAA25419@boole.msri.org> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au In-reply-to: <199609032119.RAA18800@cfa183.harvard.edu> (willner@cfa183.harvard.edu) Subject: Re: Choosing to break the law. Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Steve Willner writes: > For the one or two people who may not have seen it yet, here's the > recent Spingold case that may have started some of this discussion. > It's extracted from > http://www.acbl.org/~acbl/nabc/miami/miframe.htm The player who made this correction also made an important point, which is a reason that these corrections should be made: although the player's hand may correspond to the incorrect explanation, the inferences available from the following auction may be different. > North stated that she felt obligated to > correct South's expanation for two reasons, even though her hand > coincidentally conformed to the mistaken explanation. > The first reason was that she felt that E/W were entitled to know the basis > on which South had bid 3NT (that he didn't have three-card heart support), > and the basis on which North had bid 3H (that she was concerned about the > N/S diamond holding for notrump, being somewhat protected in hearts by her > length in the suit). If a diamond lead was best for E/W, it could help them > to know that North had bid 3H intending to elicit help from South in > diamonds. No such inference would be available to E/W if they believed that > North's 3H bid was a search for a heart contract, since then it would not > directly imply concern about diamonds. (N/S's notes also made it clear that > in their methods 3H could never suggest playing in hearts.) And this is what the committee said concerning such explanations: > In general, a player should be cautious in correcting a > misexplanation which accurately describes his actual holding. However, when > the misexplanation also contains inaccuracies which could damage the > opponents, suggest false inferences, or deny them potentially useful > information, the player has an obligation to correct the misinformation. > This should be done in a way that makes it clear that the player may indeed > have a holding which is consistent with the original explanation. -- David Grabiner, grabiner@msri.org (note new Email) I speak of MSRI and by MSRI but not for MSRI. Shop at the Mobius Strip Mall: Always on the same side of the street! Klein Glassworks, Torus Coffee and Donuts, Projective Airlines, etc. From owner-bridge-laws Wed Sep 4 08:25:39 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA11938 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 4 Sep 1996 08:25:39 +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 IAA11931 for ; Wed, 4 Sep 1996 08:25:29 +1000 Message-Id: <199609032225.IAA11931@octavia.anu.edu.au> Received: from RCHVMX2 by VNET.IBM.COM (IBM VM SMTP V2R3) with BSMTP id 9616; Tue, 03 Sep 96 18:25:28 EDT Date: Tue, 3 Sep 96 17:24:59 CDT From: "Kent Burghard" To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Subject: Re: Choosing to break the law. Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Adam Beneschan writes (quoting Jeff Goldsmith): >> ... >> After the auction ended, South said, "my partner forgot to announce. >> 1NT was 12-14. Would you like to call the director?" East >> said, "yes." The director rolled the bidding back to East's >> last call; he chose to double. 4S made in comfort. East/West >> were rather incensed by the occurrance. >> >> --Jeff > >Isn't this the director's fault? I don't see where the Laws >(specifically, Law 21) authorize the director to roll back the auction >after the auction has ended. Law 21B3 should have applied after the >play was over, at which point the director (if he was still hanging >around the table) would have judged that there was no damage. I think we discussed this quirk in the Laws before. While the auction had ended (Pass - Pass - Pass), the auction PERIOD had not. The auction period does not end until the opening lead is faced (Law 17E). 21B. Call Based on Misinformation from an Opponent 1. Change of Call Until the end of the auction period (see Law 17E), a player may, without penalty, change a call when it is probable that he made the call as a result of misinformation given to him by an opponent (failure to alert promptly to a conventional call or special understanding, where such alert is required by the sponsoring organization, is deemed misinformation), provided that his partner has not subsequently called. 17E. End of Auction Period The auction period ends when all four players pass, or when, after three passes in rotaion have followed any call, the opening lead is faced (when a pass out of rotation has been accepted, see Law 34). Kent Burghard Rochester, Minnesota From owner-bridge-laws Wed Sep 4 08:35:15 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA12097 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 4 Sep 1996 08:35:15 +1000 Received: from irvine.com (flash.irvine.com [192.160.8.4]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id IAA12092 for ; Wed, 4 Sep 1996 08:35:09 +1000 Received: from localhost by flash.irvine.com id aa05351; 3 Sep 96 15:34 PDT To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au CC: adam@flash.irvine.com Subject: Re: Choosing to break the law. In-reply-to: Your message of "Tue, 03 Sep 1996 14:30:18 PDT." <9609031430.aa01848@flash.irvine.com> Date: Tue, 03 Sep 1996 15:34:34 PDT From: Adam Beneschan Message-ID: <9609031534.aa05351@flash.irvine.com> Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > > Isn't this the director's fault? I don't see where the Laws > (specifically, Law 21) authorize the director to roll back the auction > after the auction has ended. Law 21B3 should have applied after the > play was over, at which point the director (if he was still hanging > around the table) would have judged that there was no damage. > > -- Adam Uh, never mind. I misread law 17E. -- Adam From owner-bridge-laws Wed Sep 4 08:42:31 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA12140 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 4 Sep 1996 08:42:31 +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 IAA12135 for ; Wed, 4 Sep 1996 08:42:25 +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 SAA07976 for ; Tue, 3 Sep 1996 18:42:21 -0400 (EDT) Received: by cfa183.harvard.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id SAA18866; Tue, 3 Sep 1996 18:42:53 -0400 Date: Tue, 3 Sep 1996 18:42:53 -0400 From: willner@cfa183.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Message-Id: <199609032242.SAA18866@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Choosing to break the law. X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Spingold appeals committee said: > In general, a player should be cautious in correcting a > misexplanation which accurately describes his actual holding. However, when > the misexplanation also contains inaccuracies which could damage the > opponents, suggest false inferences, or deny them potentially useful > information, the player has an obligation to correct the misinformation. > This should be done in a way that makes it clear that the player may indeed > have a holding which is consistent with the original explanation. The problem with the above is the "when." How is a player to know whether a mis-explanation could give rise to false inferences or not? Is it possible to have confidence in such a judgement? Even the simple case cited by Al LeBendig seems dubious to me. If responder could have a four card major, the fact that opener bid directly to 3NT suggests that opener does NOT have four cards in an unbid major. That seems a useful inference on defense. It seems to me that the simplest rule is "always correct," keeping in mind the caution in the last sentence above. If you don't correct when you should have, you get an adjusted score and likely a procedural penalty. If you do correct in proper form, there should be no adjusted score (unless the opponents were damaged in the bidding), and the only procedural penalty that might be assessed is one for the original mis-explanation. From owner-bridge-laws Wed Sep 4 08:55:24 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA12291 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 4 Sep 1996 08:55:24 +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 IAA12285 for ; Wed, 4 Sep 1996 08:55:18 +1000 Received: from cfa183.harvard.edu (cfa183.harvard.edu [131.142.12.59]) by cfa.harvard.edu (8.7.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id SAA03028 for ; Tue, 3 Sep 1996 18:55:13 -0400 (EDT) Received: by cfa183.harvard.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id SAA18880; Tue, 3 Sep 1996 18:55:46 -0400 Date: Tue, 3 Sep 1996 18:55:46 -0400 From: willner@cfa183.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Message-Id: <199609032255.SAA18880@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: End of auction period X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > 17E. End of Auction Period > The auction period ends when all four players pass, or when, > after three passes in rotaion have followed any call, the opening > lead is faced (when a pass out of rotation has been accepted, > see Law 34). There's an even subtler quirk in the Laws here. Normally the final pass may be changed if the declaring side gave misinformation. If, however, a deal is passed out, this says that the final pass may NOT be changed even if it was based on misinformation, because that pass ends the auction period. To explore this a little further, let's suppose the player in fourth seat asks some questions before calling. In particular, say he asks about the upper limit shown by the respective passes. If a wrong answer is given and fourth hand passes, when should the mis-explanation be corrected? Law 75D2 doesn't seem to cover this case! I suspect these anomalies were not intended by the lawmakers, but there they are. Any members of the Laws Commission taking notes? Or am I missing something? From owner-bridge-laws Thu Sep 5 00:05:54 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA17498 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 5 Sep 1996 00:05:54 +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 AAA17492 for ; Thu, 5 Sep 1996 00:05:45 +1000 Received: from post.demon.co.uk ([(null)]) by relay-4.mail.demon.net id bf10429; 4 Sep 96 11:05 GMT Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by relay-3.mail.demon.net id aa06110; 4 Sep 96 11:22 BST Message-ID: <95WTMNBVqNLyEw8n@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Wed, 4 Sep 1996 02:25:41 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Choosing to break the law. In-Reply-To: <199609032242.SAA18866@cfa183.harvard.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 1.12 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Steve Willner wrote: >Spingold appeals committee said: >> In general, a player should be cautious in correcting a >> misexplanation which accurately describes his actual holding. However, when >> the misexplanation also contains inaccuracies which could damage the >> opponents, suggest false inferences, or deny them potentially useful >> information, the player has an obligation to correct the misinformation. >> This should be done in a way that makes it clear that the player may indeed >> have a holding which is consistent with the original explanation. > >The problem with the above is the "when." How is a player to know >whether a mis-explanation could give rise to false inferences or not? >Is it possible to have confidence in such a judgement? Even the simple >case cited by Al LeBendig seems dubious to me. If responder could have >a four card major, the fact that opener bid directly to 3NT suggests >that opener does NOT have four cards in an unbid major. That seems a >useful inference on defense. > >It seems to me that the simplest rule is "always correct," keeping in >mind the caution in the last sentence above. If you don't correct when >you should have, you get an adjusted score and likely a procedural >penalty. If you do correct in proper form, there should be no adjusted >score (unless the opponents were damaged in the bidding), and the only >procedural penalty that might be assessed is one for the original >mis-explanation. There have been a few suggestions as to breaking the Law. As you know I am unhappy with this because of the `God' complex [law-breaking is addictive and grows on one]. However, there have been some comments about situations where the opponents "cannot" be misled. I want to make two comments. (1) If you do not follow the Laws you are taking a risky line, which will go wrong sometime. If you follow the Laws then you should be satisfied with your own ethics in this area, which is the best way to control ethics. (2) One occasion that is unlikely to cause problems is not where you misinform opponents but you add a rider to correct information. This is safest when you are Declarer [otherwise you add UI problems]. "My partner is wrong when he says that I must have four hearts: I need not have. However, you might find he is right this time!" You then take the smiley card out of the bidding box and play it! :) -- David Stevenson Bridge Cats Railways Logic /\_/\ Liverpool, England, UK http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk =( ^*^ )= david@blakjak.demon.co.uk Emails welcome bluejak on OKB ( | | ) Tel: +44 (0)151 677 7412 Phone before Fax please RTFLB (_~^ ^~ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Sep 5 01:27:06 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA20980 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 5 Sep 1996 01:27:06 +1000 Received: from zaphod.axion.bt.co.uk (zaphod.axion.bt.co.uk [132.146.5.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id BAA20974 for ; Thu, 5 Sep 1996 01:26:55 +1000 Received: from catullus.agw.bt.co.uk by zaphod.axion.bt.co.uk with SMTP (PP); Wed, 4 Sep 1996 16:24:50 +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 QAA19123 for ; Wed, 4 Sep 1996 16:04:05 +0100 Received: by isdgate.agw.bt.co.uk with Microsoft Mail id <322DA8B1@isdgate.agw.bt.co.uk>; Wed, 04 Sep 96 16:05:05 GMT From: "Burn, David" To: "'Bridge Laws'" Subject: RE: Offenders reaching lucky contract Date: Wed, 04 Sep 96 13:36:00 GMT Message-ID: <322DA8B1@isdgate.agw.bt.co.uk> Encoding: 50 TEXT X-Mailer: Microsoft Mail V3.0 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk >From David Burn Jesper Dybdal wrote: DB: It is vitally important that we use some real "common sense" in DB: interpreting the wording of (eg) Law 16: DB: DB: "The Director shall require the auction and play to continue, standing DB: ready DB: to assign an adjusted score if he considers that an infraction of law has DB: resulted in damage." JD: Those words in L16 tell the director what to do when he has been JD: called because "a player has substantial reason to believe that an JD: opponent who had a logical alternative has chosen an action ...". L16 JD: is about UI situations _only_. JD: Infractions of L41D can (but usually won't) be penalized with a L90 JD: procedural penalty. As I said in the "Wild or gambling action: Action JD: subsequent to infraction" thread, the difference is that no law asks JD: us to decide whether the non-offenders have been damaged by an JD: infraction of L41D. What does 12A1 ask us to do? "The Director may award an assigned adjusted score when he judges that these Laws do not provide indemnity to the non-offending contestant for the particular type of violation of law committed by an opponent." It appears to me that this Law (and 12C2) require the Director (and may subsequently require an appeals committee) to consider _any and all_ infractions from the point of view of deciding whether the non- offenders have been damaged as a result, and if so, what redress should be given. If an inexperienced player called you to the table and said: "My opponent put dummy down with the trumps on the left. I misdefended because, thinking for a moment that trumps were the suit on dummy's right, I ruffed with a non-trump. Can I have an adjusted score, please?" would you not at least consider giving him one? And would you not use L12A1 as your authority for so doing? From owner-bridge-laws Thu Sep 5 01:27:59 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA20999 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 5 Sep 1996 01:27:59 +1000 Received: from zaphod.axion.bt.co.uk (zaphod.axion.bt.co.uk [132.146.5.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id BAA20994 for ; Thu, 5 Sep 1996 01:27:52 +1000 Received: from catullus.agw.bt.co.uk by zaphod.axion.bt.co.uk with SMTP (PP); Wed, 4 Sep 1996 16:27:01 +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 QAA19222 for ; Wed, 4 Sep 1996 16:07:27 +0100 Received: by isdgate.agw.bt.co.uk with Microsoft Mail id <322DA97C@isdgate.agw.bt.co.uk>; Wed, 04 Sep 96 16:08:28 GMT From: "Burn, David" To: "'Bridge Laws'" Subject: RE: Offenders reaching lucky contract Date: Wed, 04 Sep 96 14:11:00 GMT Message-ID: <322DA97C@isdgate.agw.bt.co.uk> Encoding: 89 TEXT X-Mailer: Microsoft Mail V3.0 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk >From David Burn David Stevenson wrote: [snip] DWS: The Philadelphia sequence was (partners) No 1D 1S 4D 4S 6S No which DWS: was a poor contract: 4S was slow: should you adjust: nothing to do with DWS: opponents' actions at all. This is a very difficult question, and I am aware that some time ago I gave a ruling in a major English tournament that was not universally understood or accepted. The sequence then (uncontested) was: No-1NT-2H(spades)-2S-3H(non-forcing)-3S(slow)-4S-No 4S was a ludicrous contract which was defended absurdly and made. Our committee ruled (on appeal) that: The defenders kept -620 (which they would have done in any case, as those who have read my views in the "consequent and subsequent" debate could have guessed). The declaring side kept +620. The 3S bidder, who had a really awful 1NT opening with 2-3 in the majors, was in fact deliberating between 3S and pass (and this was obvious). But the appellants argued that since he _could have been_ deliberating between 3S and 4S, the 4S call should be diasllowed because it _could have been_ preferred over a pass in the light of UI. I said this at the time: "In order for there to be unauthorised information, there must first be information. To test whether information has been exchanged, ask yourself: if the player accused of using UI in fact knew his partner's hand, would he have chosen the action that he did? If not, then there is no information, and thus no unauthorised information." In the case above, if the 4S bidder had known her partner's actual hand, she would have set fire to the venue rather than have to play the hand in 4S. So it was clear that the 4S bid was merely a piece of lunacy (though it is possible that she had seen Marc Smith defend before, of course). 4S could not have been based on any information about partner's hand, thus it could not have been based on any UI about partner's hand. This seemed perfectly clear and logical to me and to the two stalwarts who sat with me on the appeals committee. But there were howls of protest from the appellants when the ruling was made known; they had expected us to disallow the 4S call simply because a slow 3S could suggest bidding 4S, and it took all of my feeble eloquence to convince them that in fact this was not what the Laws required. Now, in the Philadelphia case quoted above, I would probably apply the same test. If 6S was a poor contract, then it is quite likely that the 6S bidder would not have bid it if he had possessed information about his partner's hand. And if he did not possess information about partner's hand, then he did not possess UI about partner's hand, so L16 does not apply as far as the result is concerned; the hand is scored as 6S making for both sides. However, if 6S was not an evident action for the player who bid it, I would punish him for basing his action on an inference from partner's tempo. That it happened to be a false inference is neither here nor there. To that extent I agree with Michael Rosenberg, quoted in an earlier post as saying that a player who appears to base an action on an inference from partner's tempo, demeanour or the like deserves a poor score. If the punishment that I meted out took the form of, say, a 13 IMP fine, I do not think that anyone who knew me would be particularly astonished. I would be very interested in the views of this group on the principle that where there is no ostensible information, there is no UI. From owner-bridge-laws Thu Sep 5 02:52:36 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA22012 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 5 Sep 1996 02:52:36 +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 CAA22005 for ; Thu, 5 Sep 1996 02:52:25 +1000 Received: from lhost.monmouth.com (ppp31.monmouth.com [205.164.220.63]) by shell.monmouth.com (8.7.4/8.7.3) with SMTP id MAA07242 for ; Wed, 4 Sep 1996 12:48:23 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <199609041648.MAA07242@shell.monmouth.com> Comments: Authenticated sender is From: "Stefanie Rohan" To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Wed, 4 Sep 1996 12:45:05 -400 Subject: RE: Offenders reaching lucky contract 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 Burn wrote: > > David Stevenson wrote: > [snip] > > DWS: The Philadelphia sequence was (partners) No 1D 1S 4D 4S 6S No which > > DWS: was a poor contract: 4S was slow: should you adjust: nothing to do > with > DWS: opponents' actions at all. > > This is a very difficult question, and I am aware that some > time ago I gave a ruling in a major English tournament that > was not universally understood or accepted. The sequence then > (uncontested) was: > > No-1NT-2H(spades)-2S-3H(non-forcing)-3S(slow)-4S-No > > 4S was a ludicrous contract which was defended absurdly and made. Are these situations really analogous? Doesn't the 'defended absurdly' mean anything in terms of letting the NO's keep their score? It looks as if they were handed a top board but gave it back. I tend to think that if they earn their poor score in this manner, that they get to keep it. I know others will disagree. > > Our committee ruled (on appeal) that: > > > Now, in the Philadelphia case quoted above, I would probably > apply the same test. If 6S was a poor contract, then it is > quite likely that the 6S bidder would not have bid it if he > had possessed information about his partner's hand. And if he > did not possess information about partner's hand, then he did > not possess UI about partner's hand, so L16 does not apply > as far as the result is concerned; the hand is scored as 6S > making for both sides. This test seems very onerous to the non-offenders.You are saying that the UI is deemed not sufficiently accurate if the receiver of the UI is not able to bid the hand as if he had full knowledge of his partner's hand! In the Philadelphia case, can it be imagined that the 4S bidder was thinking of passing 4D? Obviously not. The only alternative he could have been considering is making a slam try. THAT, then, is the UI, and it is clear. The UI need not transmit his hand, in its entirety, to partner. > > However, if 6S was not an evident action for the player who > bid it, I would punish him for basing his action on an > inference from partner's tempo. That it happened to be a > false inference is neither here nor there. To that extent I > agree with Michael Rosenberg, quoted in an earlier post as > saying that a player who appears to base an action on an > inference from partner's tempo, demeanour or the like > deserves a poor score. > > If the punishment that I meted out took the form of, say, > a 13 IMP fine, I do not think that anyone who knew me would > be particularly astonished. Obviously, if there were no LA's to the 6S bid, then no adjustment is warranted. But are you saying that, if there were LA's, you would allow the NO's to keep their poor score? Yet an infraction has occurred, and the NO's clearly have been damaged. Remember that in this case the contract happens to be cold; it is not as if the NO's threw away their own good score through egregious misdefense. > I would be very interested in the views of this group on > the principle that where there is no ostensible information, > there is no UI. > If there is no information, how can it be classified as authorized or unauthorized? It is when there is information (partner had a problem) but the message can have several conficting meanings (she was considering passing/making a stronger move) that it gets a little tricky. Certainly in theory, if two or more totally reasonable actions could equally have been suggested to a player by partner's hesitation (and there are no remaining LA's which could NOT have been suggested), then the player should be allowed to choose from among these reasonable actions without penalty. But the anecdotal evidence is that hesitations will much more frequently be based on a strong hand, so the suggested actions are never equal. But again, in the Philadelphia hand, there were no such conflicting messages. The argument that the NO's gained an equity advantage when the offenders reached a poor contract is very seductive. But if this poor contract happens to make, then the NO's are damaged. When L16 talks about 'damage' I think it means real 'damage' -- i.e. a poor score. I don't think that the equity position of the hand, on a single-dummy basis, is a valid criterion for deciding whether there was any damage. After all, L16A2 states: 'The Director shall require the auction and play to continue, standing ready to assign an adjusted score if he considers that an infraction of law has resulted in damage.' Why wait until after the play to determine damage if it is permissible simply to look at the offenders' hands and decide whether the NO's have been damaged by the offenders having reached their contract? Cheers, Stefanie Rohan From owner-bridge-laws Thu Sep 5 06:53:27 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA02766 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 5 Sep 1996 06:53:27 +1000 Received: from hill.msri.org (msri.org [198.129.64.224]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id GAA02761 for ; Thu, 5 Sep 1996 06:53:20 +1000 From: grabiner@msri.org Received: by hill.msri.org (8.7/1.43r) id NAA25195; Wed, 4 Sep 1996 13:54:02 -0700 (PDT) Received: from boole.msri.org(198.129.65.86) by msri.org via smap (V1.3) id sma025154; Wed Sep 4 13:53:01 1996 Received: by boole.msri.org (8.7/DW.6) id NAA25594; Wed, 4 Sep 1996 13:50:51 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 4 Sep 1996 13:50:51 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199609042050.NAA25594@boole.msri.org> To: DBURN@lnhdent.agw.bt.co.uk CC: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au In-reply-to: <322DA97C@isdgate.agw.bt.co.uk> (DBURN@lnhdent.agw.bt.co.uk) Subject: RE: Offenders reaching lucky contract Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Burn writes: > David Stevenson wrote: > [snip] > DWS: The Philadelphia sequence was (partners) No 1D 1S 4D 4S 6S No which > DWS: was a poor contract: 4S was slow: should you adjust: nothing to do > with > DWS: opponents' actions at all. > This is a very difficult question, and I am aware that some > time ago I gave a ruling in a major English tournament that > was not universally understood or accepted. The sequence then > (uncontested) was: > No-1NT-2H(spades)-2S-3H(non-forcing)-3S(slow)-4S-No > 4S was a ludicrous contract which was defended absurdly and made. > Our committee ruled (on appeal) that: > The declaring side kept +620. The 3S bidder, who had a really > awful 1NT opening with 2-3 in the majors, was in fact deliberating > between 3S and pass (and this was obvious). But the appellants > argued that since he _could have been_ deliberating between 3S > and 4S, the 4S call should be diasllowed because it _could have > been_ preferred over a pass in the light of UI. > I said this at the time: > "In order for there to be unauthorised information, there must > first be information. To test whether information has been > exchanged, ask yourself: if the player accused of using UI in > fact knew his partner's hand, would he have chosen the action > that he did? If not, then there is no information, and thus no > unauthorised information." I don't think this is the correct test. The alleged UI carries a certain amount of information, but not the whole hand. If that information could have suggested the action, then there is an infraction. If the information which was passed did not suggest one action over another, then there is no infraction. Thus, an ambiguous hesitation, such as the one above or a slow forcing pass, doesn't usually pass any information and should not lead to an adjustment. It could not have passed the specific information which made this action more attractive. There was a long discussion on the net about the announcement, "We play upside-down count and attitude," which accompanied the play of the deuce from a doubleton. In this case, the "could have been" rule might apply. The announcement might have either called attention to an even number of cards (which, given partner's hand, made a continuation less attractive) or to a doubleton (which made a continuation more attractive). It is reasonable to make an adjustment because the announcement could have called attention to the doubleton. > Now, in the Philadelphia case quoted above, I would probably > apply the same test. If 6S was a poor contract, then it is > quite likely that the 6S bidder would not have bid it if he > had possessed information about his partner's hand. And if he > did not possess information about partner's hand, then he did > not possess UI about partner's hand, so L16 does not apply > as far as the result is concerned; the hand is scored as 6S > making for both sides. The hands were AQxx xx AKJTxx A opposite Jxxxx KQx Qx xxx. I wouldn't apply this principle. The UI which was clearly passed was that the 4S bidder was considering a slam try. This suggested 6S over passing. It is true that the rest of the hesitator's hand did not suggest 6S over passing, but bidding 6S remains an infraction, and one which could have been subject to penalty. Whether damage occurred is another matter, which has already been discussed. -- David Grabiner, grabiner@msri.org (note new Email) I speak of MSRI and by MSRI but not for MSRI. 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 Thu Sep 5 07:30:38 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA03055 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 5 Sep 1996 07:30:38 +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 HAA03049 for ; Thu, 5 Sep 1996 07:30:32 +1000 Received: from cfa183.harvard.edu (cfa183.harvard.edu [131.142.12.59]) by cfa.harvard.edu (8.7.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id RAA22482 for ; Wed, 4 Sep 1996 17:30:24 -0400 (EDT) Received: by cfa183.harvard.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id RAA19249; Wed, 4 Sep 1996 17:31:01 -0400 Date: Wed, 4 Sep 1996 17:31:01 -0400 From: willner@cfa183.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Message-Id: <199609042131.RAA19249@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: RE: Offenders reaching lucky contract X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: "Burn, David" > I would be very interested in the views of this group on > the principle that where there is no ostensible information, > there is no UI. This is a very interesting question that may have been misunderstood. Or maybe I'm the one who misunderstands... Let's try a concrete example: opponents silent, the bidding goes 1S-P-3S = limit raise after long hesitation. Normally the hesitation could show either a minimum or a maximum and thus doesn't in itself suggest one action over another. In practice, opener may often be able to judge from facial expression or tone of voice whether 3S is weak or strong, and if we have evidence of that, we will rule an infraction of L16A. I trust we all more or less agree so far. I think David B.'s question is this: suppose responder is weak, and opener bids 4S with a minimum hand. Or responder is strong, and opener passes with a maximum. Normally either of these actions would be in for a big loss, but today is declarer's lucky day and the 10% 4S makes or the 90% 4S bid at other tables fails. (Of course the TD will never be called in the 90% of cases where declarer gets the deserved result.) I think what David B. is saying is that even though opener's action seems crazy, there is no L16A violation. Whatever responder's mannerism might have been, it didn't pass useful information. I agree with this. On the other hand, there might be a L73C violation. At any rate, it seems worth (the TD) asking the player why he made the bizarre call. Maybe it was an honest attempt to _comply_ with L73C, in which case the score must stand. More likely it was unknowing, picking up on some unconscious (though inaccurate) clue. If so, a procedural penalty seems in order: whatever is standard for a normal L73C violation. (I think 1/4 board or 3 IMPs, but correction welcome. This probably ought to be larger.) If the player is experienced and the action sufficiently bizarre, I suppose one could argue that the evidence implies a _deliberate_ violation of L73C. This would seem to call for C&E action, though I wouldn't argue with a large PP of the kind David B. advocates. It does seem to me that the appropriate action depends very much on intent, and a C&E hearing, not a score adjustment hearing, is the proper venue to examine intent. From owner-bridge-laws Thu Sep 5 11:13:04 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id LAA05467 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 5 Sep 1996 11:13:04 +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 LAA05461 for ; Thu, 5 Sep 1996 11:12:51 +1000 Received: (from root@localhost) by tom.compulink.co.uk (8.6.9/8.6.9) id CAA21470 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Thu, 5 Sep 1996 02:12:05 +0100 Date: Thu, 5 Sep 96 02:11 BST-1 From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: == No Subject == 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 David Burn wrote: >I would be very interested in the views of this group on >the principle that where there is no ostensible information, >there is no UI. This seemed to me like stating the obvious, until people started disagreeing with it. Surely for information to be "unauthorised" the information must actually exist, or maybe we need UM added to the list of abbreviations! Even if a hesitation "suggests" a possible action there should be no penalty if the hesitation itself totally misrepresents the (hesitators')hand. The "inspired lunacy" of the example David gave certainly seems to support this idea. However I am not sure the same reasoning applies to The Philadelphia Experiment. I can see three reasons for the slow 4S here. 1. The hesitator genuinely considered a slam try (UI acted on, rule against etc) 2. The hesitator was trying to remember the partnership agreements and choose between 4S (to play) 4S (a cue bid) and 5D (to play) or whatever. No UI - result stands. 3. The hesitator was trying to prevent partner from bidding again in order to avoid a poor slam. Disqualify, flog, hang etc. There may be others but I expect the TD/AC to establish which is most likely the case and act accordingly. Stephanie Rohan wrote: >This test seems very onerous to the non-offenders.You are saying >that the UI is deemed not sufficiently accurate if the receiver >of the UI is not able to bid the hand as if he had full >knowledge of his partner's hand! I interpreted David's intention as being slightly different, ie "If (cards unseen) the hesitation seems to suggest bidding on, but when looking at the hesitating hand that could not possibly be the desired message then there is no UI". David, please forgive me if that was not what you meant. IMO it is not "onerous" to the non-offenders as there is no infraction and thus no offenders. Stephanie again >If there is no information, how can it be classified as >authorized or unauthorized? It is when there is information >(partner had a problem) but the message can have several >conficting meanings (she was considering passing/making a >stronger move) that it gets a little tricky. Certainly in >theory, if two or more totally reasonable actions could equally >have been suggested to a player by partner's hesitation (and >there are no remaining LA's which could NOT have been >suggested), then the player should be allowed to choose >from among these reasonable actions without penalty. But the >anecdotal evidence is that hesitations will much more frequently >be based on a strong hand, so the suggested actions are never >equal. I agree about the anecdotal evidence, but this could well be because in the situations where hesitation suggests a pass no-one really thinks about it. OTOH I doubt we will ever see any statistics one way or the other. Tim West-Meads From owner-bridge-laws Thu Sep 5 12:44:52 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id MAA05967 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 5 Sep 1996 12:44:52 +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 MAA05961 for ; Thu, 5 Sep 1996 12:44:36 +1000 Received: from post.demon.co.uk ([(null)]) by relay-4.mail.demon.net id ap17567; 5 Sep 96 1:35 GMT Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by relay-3.mail.demon.net id ab13453; 5 Sep 96 1:09 BST Message-ID: Date: Thu, 5 Sep 1996 01:01:20 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Offenders reaching lucky contract In-Reply-To: <322DA97C@isdgate.agw.bt.co.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 1.12 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Burn wrote: >David Stevenson wrote: >> The Philadelphia sequence was (partners) No 1D 1S 4D 4S 6S No which >>was a poor contract: 4S was slow: should you adjust: nothing to do >>with opponents' actions at all. >This is a very difficult question, and I am aware that some >time ago I gave a ruling in a major English tournament that >was not universally understood or accepted. The sequence then >(uncontested) was: > >No-1NT-2H(spades)-2S-3H(non-forcing)-3S(slow)-4S-No > >4S was a ludicrous contract which was defended absurdly and made. > >Our committee ruled (on appeal) that: > >The defenders kept -620 (which they would have done in any >case, as those who have read my views in the "consequent and >subsequent" debate could have guessed). > >The declaring side kept +620. The 3S bidder, who had a really >awful 1NT opening with 2-3 in the majors, was in fact deliberating >between 3S and pass (and this was obvious). But the appellants >argued that since he _could have been_ deliberating between 3S >and 4S, the 4S call should be diasllowed because it _could have >been_ preferred over a pass in the light of UI. > >I said this at the time: > >"In order for there to be unauthorised information, there must >first be information. To test whether information has been >exchanged, ask yourself: if the player accused of using UI in >fact knew his partner's hand, would he have chosen the action >that he did? If not, then there is no information, and thus no >unauthorised information." > I believe that your ruling was right but I am not so sure of the logic. There was information: the information is that the opener had a problem. While this information was unauthorised it did not suggest bidding 4S so there is no reason to adjust. I do not believe that a definition of information is what is shown about the hand: it is the presumption that the player has a problem that is the information. >In the case above, if the 4S bidder had known her partner's >actual hand, she would have set fire to the venue rather than >have to play the hand in 4S. So it was clear that the 4S bid >was merely a piece of lunacy (though it is possible that >she had seen Marc Smith defend before, of course). 4S could >not have been based on any information about partner's hand, >thus it could not have been based on any UI about partner's >hand. > >This seemed perfectly clear and logical to me and to the >two stalwarts who sat with me on the appeals committee. But >there were howls of protest from the appellants when the >ruling was made known; they had expected us to disallow the >4S call simply because a slow 3S could suggest bidding 4S, >and it took all of my feeble eloquence to convince them that >in fact this was not what the Laws required. > >Now, in the Philadelphia case quoted above, I would probably >apply the same test. If 6S was a poor contract, then it is >quite likely that the 6S bidder would not have bid it if he >had possessed information about his partner's hand. And if he >did not possess information about partner's hand, then he did >not possess UI about partner's hand, so L16 does not apply >as far as the result is concerned; the hand is scored as 6S >making for both sides. > The difference in Philadelphia is that there is every chance that the UI has been misread. Instead of the alternatives as in your first case [opener could have been worrying about whether to give preference *or* whether to bid game] in the Philadelphia case it may be that partner could only think of one thing to give partner a problem [whether to make a slam try or not]. So if he bids 6S in this case it is not so clear. I believe we sometimes err by considering L16A as the basis of whether to adjust after UI. L16A tells us what UI is and gives an idea of how to treat it, but L73F1 is the one that really words it clearly. Law 73 - Communication between Partners C. Player Receives Unauthorized Information from Partner When a player has available to him unauthorized information from his partner's remark, question, explanation, gesture, mannerism, special emphasis, inflection, haste or hesitation, he must carefully avoid taking any advantage that might accrue to his side. F. Violation of Proprieties When a violation of the Proprieties described in this Law results in damage to an innocent opponent: 1. Player Acts on Unauthorized Information If the Director determines that a player chose from among logical alternative actions one that could reasonably have been suggested over another by his partner's remark, manner, tempo, or the like, he shall award an adjusted score (see Law 16). Now IMO the player has violated the Proprieties by bidding 6S in contravention of L73C. It does not matter whether 6S makes or not: if the only reason for partner being unhappy that occurs to him is that he is considering a slam try then L73C does not permit him to bid 6S. So now we come to the wording of L73F: was there a violation of the Proprieties? Yes! as described in this Law? Yes! Did it result in damage? Yes! to an innocent opponent? Yes! Did the player choose an LA that could have been suggested? Yes in Philadelphia, no in your earlier case! So it seems that you should adjust in Philadelphia. >However, if 6S was not an evident action for the player who >bid it, I would punish him for basing his action on an >inference from partner's tempo. That it happened to be a >false inference is neither here nor there. To that extent I >agree with Michael Rosenberg, quoted in an earlier post as >saying that a player who appears to base an action on an >inference from partner's tempo, demeanour or the like >deserves a poor score. > That's fine: he is clearly in breach of L73C and should be fined accordingly if there is no adjustment. However ... >If the punishment that I meted out took the form of, say, >a 13 IMP fine, I do not think that anyone who knew me would >be particularly astonished. > >I would be very interested in the views of this group on >the principle that where there is no ostensible information, >there is no UI. IMO the information is that partner has a problem and that is UI. ---- Let me just make up two problems. 1S - 3S [slow] -; 4S - - -. This is the sequence that has been considered in the past. Opener knows that the 3S bidder had a problem: that is UI. Opener does not know what the problem is so he can choose amongst LAs without being in breach of L73C, so we do not adjust under L73F1. 1S - 3S -; 4S DBL [slow] - 5C; DBL - - -. This type of sequence often happens: the doubler's hand was a doubtful penalty double: 4S is making: the 5C hand might easily have passed the double. The 5C bidder knows his partner has a problem: that is UI. The problem on this type of sequence is almost invariably that the double is not cast-iron, so bidding 5C is a breach of L73C, and if 4S is making we duly adjust under L73F1. In the second case, what happens in the very rare occasion when the doubler was thinking of something else ["Am I too strong to double because the wimp opposite won't stand it?" or even "Where shall we go to eat after the session?"]? It is very rare because this usually will work to the opponents benefit, but suppose that despite the super-power double, 4S is cold. Now 5C is still a breach of L73C, and the opponents would get a better score if the violation had not occurred so they have been damaged and we should adjust. -- David Stevenson Bridge Cats Railways Logic /\_/\ Liverpool, England, UK http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk =( ^*^ )= david@blakjak.demon.co.uk Emails welcome bluejak on OKB ( | | ) Tel: +44 (0)151 677 7412 Phone before Fax please RTFLB (_~^ ^~ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Sep 5 23:08:07 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA11265 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 5 Sep 1996 23:08:07 +1000 Received: from pip.dknet.dk (0@pip.dknet.dk [193.88.44.48]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id XAA11255 for ; Thu, 5 Sep 1996 23:07:59 +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 PAA15247 for ; Thu, 5 Sep 1996 15:07:51 +0200 From: jd@pip.dknet.dk (Jesper Dybdal) To: "'Bridge Laws'" Subject: Re: Offenders reaching lucky contract Date: Thu, 05 Sep 1996 15:07:23 +0200 Organization: at home Message-ID: <322ecb8c.2509268@pipmail.dknet.dk> References: <322DA8B1@isdgate.agw.bt.co.uk> In-Reply-To: <322DA8B1@isdgate.agw.bt.co.uk> X-Mailer: Forte Agent .99e/32.227 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Wed, 04 Sep 96 13:36:00 GMT, "Burn, David" wrote: >What does 12A1 ask us to do? > >"The Director may award an assigned adjusted score when he judges >that these Laws do not provide indemnity to the non-offending >contestant for the particular type of violation of law committed by >an opponent." > >It appears to me that this Law (and 12C2) require the Director (and >may subsequently require an appeals committee) to consider _any and >all_ infractions from the point of view of deciding whether the non- >offenders have been damaged as a result, and if so, what redress >should be given. Oops - you're right. As long as we're discussing infractions for which the laws do not prescribe a penalty (such as your L41D example), L12A1 means that we should consider damage to the non-offenders. But "any and all" is too much: as regards infractions for which there is a prescribed penalty (such as your example in another thread of a declarer who does not take the obvious advantage of a penalty card), L12B says that we must not adjust. It is my impression that there is wide-spread acceptance (also on BLML) that L12B means that we are not allowed to use L12A1 as an excuse to adjust when a fixed penalty is prescribed by a law. -- Jesper Dybdal From owner-bridge-laws Thu Sep 5 23:08:05 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA11264 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 5 Sep 1996 23:08:05 +1000 Received: from pip.dknet.dk (0@pip.dknet.dk [193.88.44.48]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id XAA11254 for ; Thu, 5 Sep 1996 23:07:56 +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 PAA15240 for ; Thu, 5 Sep 1996 15:07:45 +0200 From: jd@pip.dknet.dk (Jesper Dybdal) To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Offenders reaching lucky contract Date: Thu, 05 Sep 1996 15:07:17 +0200 Organization: at home Message-ID: <322ed025.3686410@pipmail.dknet.dk> References: In-Reply-To: X-Mailer: Forte Agent .99e/32.227 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Thu, 5 Sep 1996 01:01:20 +0100, David Stevenson wrote: [about 1S - 3S -; 4S DBL [slow] - 5C; DBL - - -] > In the second case, what happens in the very rare occasion when the >doubler was thinking of something else ["Am I too strong to double >because the wimp opposite won't stand it?" or even "Where shall we go to >eat after the session?"]? It is very rare because this usually will >work to the opponents benefit, but suppose that despite the super-power >double, 4S is cold. Now 5C is still a breach of L73C, and the opponents >would get a better score if the violation had not occurred so they have >been damaged and we should adjust. The words of L73C ("must carefully avoid taking any advantage that might accrue to his side") can be interpreted in that way. But if that was the intention, why write something different in L16A: "could reasonably have been suggested over another by the extraneous information"? (I assume we agree that the slow double does not suggest pass rather than 5C.) Also, the words of L73C seems to put an obligation on the player himself; an obligation which in your interpretation seems impossible to fulfill since it requires the player to know whether his partner's slow double was caused by a borderline hand or by thinking about something outside the game. -- Jesper Dybdal From owner-bridge-laws Fri Sep 6 01:01:25 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA14636 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 6 Sep 1996 01:01:25 +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 BAA14630 for ; Fri, 6 Sep 1996 01:01:10 +1000 From: AlLeBendig@aol.com Received: by emout12.mail.aol.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) id LAA01153 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Thu, 5 Sep 1996 11:00:28 -0400 Date: Thu, 5 Sep 1996 11:00:28 -0400 Message-ID: <960905110028_194927230@emout12.mail.aol.com> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Offenders reaching lucky contract Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In a message dated 96-09-04 11:32:26 EDT, David Burn writes: << In the case above, if the 4S bidder had known her partner's actual hand, she would have set fire to the venue rather than have to play the hand in 4S. So it was clear that the 4S bid was merely a piece of lunacy (though it is possible that she had seen Marc Smith defend before, of course). 4S could not have been based on any information about partner's hand, thus it could not have been based on any UI about partner's hand. This seemed perfectly clear and logical to me and to the two stalwarts who sat with me on the appeals committee. But there were howls of protest from the appellants when the ruling was made known; they had expected us to disallow the 4S call simply because a slow 3S could suggest bidding 4S, and it took all of my feeble eloquence to convince them that in fact this was not what the Laws required. **I agree with David here. Partner may have been considering pass or 3NT or 4S. I don't think anyone could believe that the 4S call could have reasonably been suggested by the UI. It will be even clearer when we get to demonstrably (I hope we make it there). Now, in the Philadelphia case quoted above, I would probably apply the same test. If 6S was a poor contract, then it is quite likely that the 6S bidder would not have bid it if he had possessed information about his partner's hand. And if he did not possess information about partner's hand, then he did not possess UI about partner's hand, so L16 does not apply as far as the result is concerned; the hand is scored as 6S making for both sides. **I find this case quite different. It is reasonable to assume that partner is only thinking about a continuation here. The logical assumption is that with a poor hand there would be no consideration given to anything but signing off. It seems irrelevant if the hand corresponds to that thought process. However, if 6S was not an evident action for the player who bid it, I would punish him for basing his action on an inference from partner's tempo. That it happened to be a false inference is neither here nor there. To that extent I agree with Michael Rosenberg, quoted in an earlier post as saying that a player who appears to base an action on an inference from partner's tempo, demeanour or the like deserves a poor score. If the punishment that I meted out took the form of, say, a 13 IMP fine, I do not think that anyone who knew me would be particularly astonished. **I personally am in favor of such a fine. I would be very interested in the views of this group on the principle that where there is no ostensible information, there is no UI. >> **I firmly believe that to be the intent of L16. I still feel that TDs and ACs are much to quick to rush to a determination of LA when this condition has not been satisfied. Alan LeBendig, Los Angeles From owner-bridge-laws Fri Sep 6 03:11:24 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA15407 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 6 Sep 1996 03:11:24 +1000 Received: from zaphod.axion.bt.co.uk (zaphod.axion.bt.co.uk [132.146.5.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id DAA15402 for ; Fri, 6 Sep 1996 03:11:14 +1000 Received: from catullus.agw.bt.co.uk by zaphod.axion.bt.co.uk with SMTP (PP); Thu, 5 Sep 1996 18:09:32 +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 QAA24607 for ; Thu, 5 Sep 1996 16:11:26 +0100 Received: by isdgate.agw.bt.co.uk with Microsoft Mail id <322EFBED@isdgate.agw.bt.co.uk>; Thu, 05 Sep 96 16:12:29 GMT From: "Burn, David" To: "'Bridge Laws'" Subject: RE: Offenders reaching lucky contract Date: Thu, 05 Sep 96 16:10:00 GMT Message-ID: <322EFBED@isdgate.agw.bt.co.uk> Encoding: 112 TEXT X-Mailer: Microsoft Mail V3.0 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk >From David Burn This will be my last post to this group for a fortnight, since I am going on holiday tomorrow. I'm sorry to leave this interesting discussion at this early stage, but I hope to catch up with it when I return. Thanks to all who gave their opinions in response to my previous post in this thread. This is a composite reply to all of you. David Grabiner supplied me with the actual hands in the Philadelphia case: Jxxxx KQx Qx xxx facing AQxx xx AKJ10xx A Auction repeated for convenience: No-1D-1S-4D-4S(slow)-6S Until I saw the hands, I had been prepared to concede the possibility that no UI had been passed, and therefore there was no reason to adjust the score under Laws 16 and 73. But it is obvious having seen the hands that: West had what he considered a marginal slam try (in particular, he had a heart control, which must have been a source of some concern to East); by passing slowly he communicated this fact to East illegally; East took advantage of the information received when he bid 6S. Stephanie Rohan made exactly these points in her post, and I agree with them entirely. Information (real information - we'll come to DWS in a minute) had been exchanged and exploited to the detriment of the non-offenders. I would have put this back to 4S in about three microseconds. I would also have fined East (in this country) or wheeled him before a C&E Committee (in the USA). This may appear to contradict what I said about the test for information having been exchanged - that if the alleged receiver of UI would not have acted the way he did with knowledge of partner's hand, no information should be considered to have been exchanged. I did not state my position clearly enough, for which I apologise. I restate it now: if it is _inconceivable_ that an alleged receiver of UI would have done what he did with _any_ knowledge of the opposite hand, then no information has been exchanged. Here, East might very well have done precisely what he did had he known West's hand, or had he known merely that West had a heart control. If East was behind in the match with a few boards to play, for example, he would jump at the chance to bid a 26% slam (but would not bid a no-play one). DWS believes that "information" can be of the form: "I have a problem". If there are two opposite types of problem that you can have, he suggests that there is no UI; if you can have but one type of problem (as in the Philadelphia case above), he suggests that there will be UI. I don't have any quarrel with this reasoning; it is merely another way of saying that if a break in tempo contains no information (because the reason for it cannot be determined), it contains no UI. Where there is no information, as I said in my previous post, there is no unauthorised information. He then quotes Law 73 thus: F. Violation of Proprieties When a violation of the Proprieties described in this Law results in damage to an innocent opponent: 1. Player Acts on Unauthorized Information If the Director determines that a player chose from among logical alternative actions one that could reasonably have been suggested over another by his partner's remark, manner, tempo, or the like, he shall award an adjusted score (see Law 16). and thereby undoes much of the previous good work. However, he has quoted the Law that is at the heart of the misunderstanding and confusion surrounding this type of position, so let us examine it further. In the simple case which a number of people have quoted: 1S-3S(slow)-? the point has been well made that since the 3S bid could be a 3.5S bid or a 2.5S bid, the pause is information-free. But since it _could_ suggest "pass unless you're really maximum" _or_ "bid unless you're really minimum", _any_ action except an evident one by opener can be disallowed under L73F as written. We have all agreed that this ought not to happen, but we are not the people who have given and will continue to give many very foolish rulings under the interpretation of L73 described above. What L73F1 ought to say, in my opinion, is this: F. Violation of Proprieties When a violation of the Proprieties described in this Law results in damage to an innocent opponent: 1. Player Acts on Unauthorized Information If the Director determines that a player chose from among logical alternative actions one that could reasonably have been suggested over another by _the information conveyed in_ his partner's remark, manner, tempo, or the like, he shall award an adjusted score (see Law 16). Tim West-Meads agreed with every word I said. He'll learn. See you all in a fortnight, unless the Basque separatists practise on me and my head. From owner-bridge-laws Fri Sep 6 12:18:41 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id MAA25492 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 6 Sep 1996 12:18:41 +1000 Received: from relay-2.mail.demon.net (disperse.demon.co.uk [158.152.1.77]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id MAA25487 for ; Fri, 6 Sep 1996 12:18:32 +1000 Received: from post.demon.co.uk ([(null)]) by relay-2.mail.demon.net id at24933; 6 Sep 96 2:32 BST Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by relay-3.mail.demon.net id aa17989; 6 Sep 96 1:52 BST Message-ID: Date: Thu, 5 Sep 1996 23:49:54 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Offenders reaching lucky contract In-Reply-To: <322EFBED@isdgate.agw.bt.co.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 1.12 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Burn wrote: >DWS believes that "information" can be of the form: "I have a >problem". If there are two opposite types of problem that you >can have, he suggests that there is no UI; if you can have but one >type of problem (as in the Philadelphia case above), he suggests >that there will be UI. I don't have any quarrel with this >reasoning; it is merely another way of saying that if a >break in tempo contains no information (because the reason for it >cannot be determined), it contains no UI. Where there is no >information, as I said in my previous post, there is no >unauthorised information. It may be a different way of putting the same thing but that is because it is certainly not what I meant and I do not believe that it was what I said. The information that a hesitation suggests is "I have a problem". Whether there are two types of hand or not this information is unauthorised and I *strongly* disagree that there is no UI in such cases. Look at it this way: your partner hesitates [and all the rest: consults the ceiling, scratches his head, and so on]. What do you deduce: he has a problem. You know that. Are you allowed to use that knowledge? No! The knowledge is not authorised for use, in other words it is UI. So if there is UI then we look at the Laws, especially L73C and L73F1. > >He then quotes Law 73 thus: > >F. Violation of Proprieties > When a violation of the Proprieties described in this Law results > in damage to an innocent opponent: > 1. Player Acts on Unauthorized Information > If the Director determines that a player chose from among > logical alternative actions one that could reasonably have > been suggested over another by his partner's remark, manner, > tempo, or the like, he shall award an adjusted score (see > Law 16). > >and thereby undoes much of the previous good work. However, he >has quoted the Law that is at the heart of the misunderstanding >and confusion surrounding this type of position, so let us >examine it further. > I am sorry to undo the previous good work: unfortunately I did not write the Laws. Regrettably since there is UI we have to deal with it. >In the simple case which a number of people have quoted: > >1S-3S(slow)-? > >the point has been well made that since the 3S bid could be a >3.5S bid or a 2.5S bid, the pause is information-free. But since it >_could_ suggest "pass unless you're really maximum" _or_ "bid >unless you're really minimum", _any_ action except an evident >one by opener can be disallowed under L73F as written. We have >all agreed that this ought not to happen, but we are not the >people who have given and will continue to give many very foolish >rulings under the interpretation of L73 described above. > As I have made clear I do not believe the pause is information free. In fact I see no particular problem. Has the player chosen an LA suggested by the UI? No, because the knowledge he has a problem, while it is UI, does not suggest any particular LA. Therefore this Law gives us no reason to adjust. >What L73F1 ought to say, in my opinion, is this: > >F. Violation of Proprieties > When a violation of the Proprieties described in this Law results > in damage to an innocent opponent: > 1. Player Acts on Unauthorized Information > If the Director determines that a player chose from among > logical alternative actions one that could reasonably have > been suggested over another by _the information conveyed in_ > his partner's remark, manner, tempo, or the like, he shall > award an adjusted score (see Law 16). > Well, the Law doesn't say this, and we do not need it to say this to cover the situations being discussed, so I see no particular problem. >Tim West-Meads agreed with every word I said. He'll learn. ROTFL. :):) >See you all in a fortnight, unless the Basque separatists practise >on me and my head. Our loss: their gain. :):) -- David Stevenson Bridge Cats Railways Logic /\_/\ Liverpool, England, UK http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk =( ^*^ )= david@blakjak.demon.co.uk Emails welcome bluejak on OKB ( | | ) Tel: +44 (0)151 677 7412 Phone before Fax please RTFLB (_~^ ^~ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Sep 6 17:20:10 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id RAA26314 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 6 Sep 1996 17:20:10 +1000 Received: from smtp2.erols.com (root@smtp2.erols.com [205.252.116.102]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id RAA26309 for ; Fri, 6 Sep 1996 17:20:03 +1000 Received: from hirschda (as15s23.erols.com [206.161.164.215]) by smtp2.erols.com (8.7.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id DAA27916 for ; Fri, 6 Sep 1996 03:19:56 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <1.5.4.32.19960906072117.0067e174@pop.erols.com> X-Sender: hdavis@pop.erols.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.4 (32) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Fri, 06 Sep 1996 03:21:17 -0400 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Hirsch Davis Subject: Re: Choosing to break the law. Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 02:30 PM 9/3/96 PDT, you wrote: > > > While personally, I think one ought just follow the > > rules and not worry about it, doing so might infuriate > > less knowledgable players. This happened at the Santa > > Clara regional last weekend: > > > > South opened 1NT, agreed to be 12-14, with a 4333 crummy > > 15-count. No announcement. The bidding became competitive > > and finally reached 4S to be played by South. After the > > auction ended, South said, "my partner forgot to announce. > > 1NT was 12-14. Would you like to call the director?" East > > said, "yes." The director rolled the bidding back to East's > > last call; he chose to double. 4S made in comfort. East/West > > were rather incensed by the occurrance. > > > > --Jeff > >Isn't this the director's fault? I don't see where the Laws >(specifically, Law 21) authorize the director to roll back the auction >after the auction has ended. Law 21B3 should have applied after the >play was over, at which point the director (if he was still hanging >around the table) would have judged that there was no damage. > > -- Adam > > > The TD was correct to roll back the auction. Although the auction had ended, the auction period does not end until the opening lead has been faced. Until that point the auction can be rolled back to the last call by the non-offending side(see Laws 17.E, 21.B.1). East's double was legal, and made with full understanding of the opponent's agreements. The only fault I see in this situation, on the information given, is in East's bad bidding judgement. The Laws provide no recourse from that . Hirsch From owner-bridge-laws Fri Sep 6 20:19:38 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id UAA26999 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 6 Sep 1996 20:19:38 +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 UAA26994 for ; Fri, 6 Sep 1996 20:19:31 +1000 Received: from innet.innet.be (pool03-69.innet.be [194.7.10.53]) by mail.be.innet.net (8.7.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id MAA13272 for ; Fri, 6 Sep 1996 12:19:21 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <322F0994.742B@innet.be> Date: Thu, 05 Sep 1996 17:10:44 +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: Choosing to break the law. References: <95WTMNBVqNLyEw8n@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk It seems to me this discussion is not going places. There can be no justification ever for breaking the Law. However, sometimes you have no action available which does not break one law or another. Then you have a problem. A frequent case : You bid something; Partner explains it as something else than what you intended; He bids something; You know what he's intending it to mean - as you heard him explaining what he thought your bid meant; However, in your original meaning, his bid means something totally different; Of course you should bid according to your understanding of the bidding, but when they ask for explanations, what do you tell them ? Of course the meaning he intended, for otherwise you give him UI - and it's the correct description of his hand anyway; But that is actually breaking the Law, because your interpretation is of course the correct one, so you are deliberately providing wrong explanations ! I do not have examples at the ready, but I know you all have encountered such things ! -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.club.innet.be/~pub02163/index.htm From owner-bridge-laws Fri Sep 6 20:28:50 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id UAA27028 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 6 Sep 1996 20:28:50 +1000 Received: from mail-1.mail.demon.net (mail-1.mail.demon.net [158.152.1.211]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id UAA27023 for ; Fri, 6 Sep 1996 20:28:44 +1000 Received: from post.demon.co.uk ([158.152.1.72]) by mail-1.mail.demon.net id ah06305; 6 Sep 96 10:41 BST Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by relay-3.mail.demon.net id aa04408; 6 Sep 96 10:38 BST Message-ID: Date: Fri, 6 Sep 1996 10:36:42 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Choosing to break the law. In-Reply-To: <1.5.4.32.19960906072117.0067e174@pop.erols.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 1.12 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Hirsch Davis wrote: >Adam wrote: >>Jeff wrote: >> > While personally, I think one ought just follow the >> > rules and not worry about it, doing so might infuriate >> > less knowledgable players. This happened at the Santa >> > Clara regional last weekend: >> > >> > South opened 1NT, agreed to be 12-14, with a 4333 crummy >> > 15-count. No announcement. The bidding became competitive >> > and finally reached 4S to be played by South. After the >> > auction ended, South said, "my partner forgot to announce. >> > 1NT was 12-14. Would you like to call the director?" East >> > said, "yes." The director rolled the bidding back to East's >> > last call; he chose to double. 4S made in comfort. East/West >> > were rather incensed by the occurrance. >> >>Isn't this the director's fault? I don't see where the Laws >>(specifically, Law 21) authorize the director to roll back the auction >>after the auction has ended. Law 21B3 should have applied after the >>play was over, at which point the director (if he was still hanging >>around the table) would have judged that there was no damage. >The TD was correct to roll back the auction. Although the auction had >ended, the auction period does not end until the opening lead has been >faced. Until that point the auction can be rolled back to the last call by >the non-offending side(see Laws 17.E, 21.B.1). East's double was legal, and >made with full understanding of the opponent's agreements. The only fault I >see in this situation, on the information given, is in East's bad bidding >judgement. The Laws provide no recourse from that . If East's pass ended the auction, then the TD was correct to roll it back [see L21B1 and L17E]. If West's pass ended the auction the TD was not correct [qv]. No doubt the TD read the Law from the Law book, didn't he, Jeff? Actually Jeff's actual words were: >> >The director rolled the bidding back to East's last call and somehow that sounds to me as though West's pass ended the auction and the TD was wrong. -- David Stevenson Bridge Cats Railways Logic /\_/\ Liverpool, England, UK http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk =( ^*^ )= david@blakjak.demon.co.uk Emails welcome bluejak on OKB ( | | ) Tel: +44 (0)151 677 7412 Phone before Fax please RTFLB (_~^ ^~ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Sep 7 02:36:53 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA04053 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 7 Sep 1996 02:36:53 +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 CAA04048 for ; Sat, 7 Sep 1996 02:36:47 +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 JAA20049 for <@mipl7.JPL.NASA.GOV:bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au>; Fri, 6 Sep 1996 09:35:50 -0700 Received: by tintin.JPL.NASA.GOV (940816.SGI.8.6.9/930416.SGI.MIPS) for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au id JAA23400; Fri, 6 Sep 1996 09:35:10 -0700 Date: Fri, 6 Sep 1996 09:35:10 -0700 From: jeff@tintin.JPL.NASA.GOV (Jeff Goldsmith) Message-Id: <199609061635.JAA23400@tintin.JPL.NASA.GOV> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Choosing to break the law. Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Stevenson said, | Actually Jeff's actual words were: |>> >The director rolled the bidding back to East's last call |and somehow that sounds to me as though West's pass ended the auction |and the TD was wrong. I might've said it wrong...the director rolled back the auction to before the last pass and allowed the defender who had ended the auction (but not the auction period) to try again. He changed his mind to double for no good reason, other than he had the option :) --Jeff # Never ascribe to malice what can easily be # attributed to ignorance, laziness, or incompetence. # --- # http://muggy.gg.caltech.edu/~jeff From owner-bridge-laws Sat Sep 7 06:56:46 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA05146 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 7 Sep 1996 06:56:46 +1000 Received: from cais.cais.com (cais.com [199.0.216.4]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id GAA05141 for ; Sat, 7 Sep 1996 06:56:38 +1000 Received: from elandau1.cais.com (elandau.cais.com [204.157.58.181]) by cais.cais.com (8.6.10/8.6.5) with SMTP id QAA21433 for ; Fri, 6 Sep 1996 16:56:35 -0400 Message-Id: <1.5.4.32.19960906205620.00672d0c@cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.4 (32) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Fri, 06 Sep 1996 16:56:20 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: National authority as tournament AC Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk >I have TBW's "Appeals Committee" booklets, but those date from the >1980's; this seems not to be the same booklet for which you made a >"shameless plug." That booklet was called "Ruling the Game." It was the first with that title; I believe there was a subsequent Vol.2 and perhaps 3. >It should either be done away with or established. There are more >problems which are caused by applying or failure to apply the Kaplan >doctrine than by inconsistent use, although I have seen some such cases >in recent appeals committee booklets. Here's an example of the kind of problems the Kaplan doctrine can cause. Playing in an NABC+ matchpoint event in Philadelphia earlier this year, I was on defense against 5S after an auction that had concluded with 4NT- P-5C-P-5S. I asked my (very well-known expert) opponents what 4NT was, and was told that it was "Blackwood." Dummy tabled two aces, and I had one, so I "knew" that my partner held the missing ace. I was able to figure out a line of defense that would defeat the contract "for sure," and took it. Declarer won the missing ace and made the hand. On further inquiry, it turned out that 4NT was actually RKCB 14-30, and 5C had shown one or four aces. I felt that I had been misinformed, and called the director. As it happened, my play was technically inferior; another line would have retained all my chances when partner held the missing ace, and would not have given away the contract on the actual lie. I had been guilty of trying to save my concentration and stamina for later hands, when I might need them; I had found what looked like a "sure play" and simply took it without going deeper into the hand. The director, after consulting with the DIC, ruled that at that level of play I had made an "egregious error" and, under the Kaplan doctrine, was therefore not entitled to redress. The screening room director opined that that ruling was so clear-cut that I would probably lose my $50 if I appealed. My partner and I, with nothing to gain and $50 to lose, wanted to appeal if only to get the facts on record, since our opponents clearly had not been forthcoming, and should have known better. So we took an informal "corridor poll" of 8 or 10 top-level experts 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 Sep 7 07:12:32 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA05208 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 7 Sep 1996 07:12:32 +1000 Received: from cais.cais.com (cais.com [199.0.216.4]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id HAA05203 for ; Sat, 7 Sep 1996 07:12:24 +1000 Received: from elandau1.cais.com (elandau.cais.com [204.157.58.181]) by cais.cais.com (8.6.10/8.6.5) with SMTP id RAA24237 for ; Fri, 6 Sep 1996 17:12:14 -0400 Message-Id: <1.5.4.32.19960906211206.0067875c@cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.4 (32) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Fri, 06 Sep 1996 17:12:06 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: National authority as tournament AC Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk My apologies to all; I am working with new e-mail software, and just accidentally sent you all a message that was actually in mid- composition. Here's the complete message (I hope). /eric >I have TBW's "Appeals Committee" booklets, but those date from the >1980's; this seems not to be the same booklet for which you made a >"shameless plug." That booklet was called "Ruling the Game." It was the first with that title; I believe there was a subsequent Vol.2 and perhaps 3. >It should either be done away with or established. There are more >problems which are caused by applying or failure to apply the Kaplan >doctrine than by inconsistent use, although I have seen some such cases >in recent appeals committee booklets. Here's an example of the kind of problems the Kaplan doctrine can cause. Playing in an NABC+ matchpoint event in Philadelphia earlier this year, I was on defense against 5S after an auction that had concluded with 4NT-P-5C-P-5S. I asked my (very well-known expert) opponents what 4NT ws, and was told that it was "Blackwood." Dummy tabled two aces, and I had one, so I "knew" that my partner held the missing ace. I was able to figure out a line of defense that would defeat the contract "for sure," and took it. Declarer won the missing ace and made the hand. On further inquiry, it turned out that 4NT was actually RKCB 14-30, and 5C had shown one or four aces. I felt that I had been misinformed, and called the director. As it happened, my play was technically inferior; another line would have retained all my chances when partner held the missing ace, and would not have given away the contract on the actual lie. I had been guilty of trying to save my concentration and stamina for later hands, when I might need them; I had found what looked like a "sure play" and simply took it without going deeper into the hand. The director, after consulting with the DIC, ruled that at that level of play I had made an "egregious error" and, under the Kaplan doctrine, was therefore not entitled to redress. The screening room director opined that that ruling was so clear-cut that I would probably lose my $50 if I appealed. My partner and I, with nothing to gain and $50 to lose, wanted to appeal if only to get the facts on record, since our opponents clearly had not been forthcoming, and should have known better. So we took an informal "corridor poll" of 8 or 10 top-level experts all of whom had served on NABC committees many times. Their opinions ranged from agreeing 100% with the SRD to disagreeing violently, to the point where one suggested that we were being grossly unfair to the bridge community in general if we didn't bring this pair before a committee for what he considered their blatant ethical violation. The majority felt we should be entitled to redress. But we ultimately decided that since we had nothing to gain and didn't want to risk $50 just to be altruistic to the "bridge community in general" we wouldn't appeal. When the hand was subsequently discussed on r.g.b, the opinions were similar to those of the experts at the tournament. The point, of course, is that everyone felt we had been inappropriately misinformed; the only issue is whether we had lost our entitlement to redress due to my "egregious" error. Absent the Kaplan doctrine, 100% of the directors and "consultees" would have felt we were entitled to redress. Given the Kaplan doctrine, opinions ranged from our protest being "100% clear-cut" to its being "frivolous." Had we appealed, we would have faced a 50-50 decision (dependent entirely on who happened to be selected for that particular AC) and the risk of being hit with a $50 "frivolous protest" penalty. 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 Sep 7 07:44:16 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA05288 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 7 Sep 1996 07:44:16 +1000 Received: from smtp1.erols.com (root@smtp1.erols.com [205.252.116.101]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id HAA05283 for ; Sat, 7 Sep 1996 07:44:08 +1000 Received: from hirschda (as3s21.erols.com [207.96.105.93]) by smtp1.erols.com (8.7.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id RAA07121 for ; Fri, 6 Sep 1996 17:44:01 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <1.5.4.32.19960906214526.0067ff18@pop.erols.com> X-Sender: hdavis@pop.erols.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.4 (32) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Fri, 06 Sep 1996 17:45:26 -0400 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Hirsch Davis Subject: Re: Choosing to break the law. Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 10:36 AM 9/6/96 +0100, you wrote: >Hirsch Davis wrote: > >>Adam wrote: > >>>Jeff wrote: > >>> > While personally, I think one ought just follow the >>> > rules and not worry about it, doing so might infuriate >>> > less knowledgable players. This happened at the Santa >>> > Clara regional last weekend: >>> > >>> > South opened 1NT, agreed to be 12-14, with a 4333 crummy >>> > 15-count. No announcement. The bidding became competitive >>> > and finally reached 4S to be played by South. After the >>> > auction ended, South said, "my partner forgot to announce. >>> > 1NT was 12-14. Would you like to call the director?" East >>> > said, "yes." The director rolled the bidding back to East's >>> > last call; he chose to double. 4S made in comfort. East/West >>> > were rather incensed by the occurrance. >>> >>>Isn't this the director's fault? I don't see where the Laws >>>(specifically, Law 21) authorize the director to roll back the auction >>>after the auction has ended. Law 21B3 should have applied after the >>>play was over, at which point the director (if he was still hanging >>>around the table) would have judged that there was no damage. > >>The TD was correct to roll back the auction. Although the auction had >>ended, the auction period does not end until the opening lead has been >>faced. Until that point the auction can be rolled back to the last call by >>the non-offending side(see Laws 17.E, 21.B.1). East's double was legal, and >>made with full understanding of the opponent's agreements. The only fault I >>see in this situation, on the information given, is in East's bad bidding >>judgement. The Laws provide no recourse from that . > > If East's pass ended the auction, then the TD was correct to roll it >back [see L21B1 and L17E]. If West's pass ended the auction the TD was >not correct [qv]. No doubt the TD read the Law from the Law book, >didn't he, Jeff? > > Actually Jeff's actual words were: >>> >The director rolled the bidding back to East's last call >and somehow that sounds to me as though West's pass ended the auction >and the TD was wrong. > >-- >David Stevenson Bridge Cats Railways Logic /\_/\ >Liverpool, England, UK http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk =( ^*^ )= >david@blakjak.demon.co.uk Emails welcome bluejak on OKB ( | | ) >Tel: +44 (0)151 677 7412 Phone before Fax please RTFLB (_~^ ^~ > > Not enough information given. The question asked if the auction could be rolled back after the final pass, which can be done until the opening lead is faced. You are of course correct that the bidding could not be rolled back to E if W made the final pass, however, there is certainly not enough information in the post to ascertain this. There is also not enough information to determine if a score adjustment is in order, should E/W have contended that they would have bid differently had the NT range been announced at the proper time. In the interest of brevity, I was just addressing the question asked by Adam. Sorry if this was confusing. Hirsch From owner-bridge-laws Sat Sep 7 10:49:50 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA07549 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 7 Sep 1996 10:49:50 +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 KAA07544 for ; Sat, 7 Sep 1996 10:49:41 +1000 Received: from post.demon.co.uk ([(null)]) by relay-4.mail.demon.net id ai11275; 6 Sep 96 22:56 GMT Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by relay-3.mail.demon.net id aa01418; 6 Sep 96 22:48 BST Message-ID: <0LLZd+A9fJMyEwmS@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Fri, 6 Sep 1996 22:30:37 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Choosing to break the law. In-Reply-To: <322F0994.742B@innet.be> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 1.12 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Herman De Wael wrote: >It seems to me this discussion is not going places. > >There can be no justification ever for breaking the Law. > >However, sometimes you have no action available which does not break one >law or another. Then you have a problem. > >A frequent case : > >You bid something; >Partner explains it as something else than what you intended; >He bids something; >You know what he's intending it to mean - as you heard him explaining >what he thought your bid meant; >However, in your original meaning, his bid means something totally >different; >Of course you should bid according to your understanding of the bidding, >but when they ask for explanations, what do you tell them ? > >Of course the meaning he intended, for otherwise you give him UI - and >it's the correct description of his hand anyway; >But that is actually breaking the Law, because your interpretation is of >course the correct one, so you are deliberately providing wrong >explanations ! No, no, no! You give the opponents a description of the system as you play it. You **MUST NOT AND MAY NOT** do otherwise. So you give him UI? Tough: that *is not* against the Law. Using UI is against the Law: giving it is not [well, not in this case anyway]. I think this thread *is* going somewhere: it is showing more and more examples of when people wish not to follow the Law with good motives, but the dangers are getting more and more apparent. >I do not have examples at the ready, but I know you all have encountered >such things ! This one was not an example where you have only two choices, both of which break the Law. That does not mean there are none: I should be very interested to see them if anyone can provide any. -- David Stevenson Bridge Cats Railways Logic /\_/\ Liverpool, England, UK http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk =( ^*^ )= david@blakjak.demon.co.uk Emails welcome bluejak on OKB ( | | ) Tel: +44 (0)151 677 7412 Phone before Fax please RTFLB (_~^ ^~ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Sep 9 09:58:13 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA00375 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 9 Sep 1996 09:58:13 +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 JAA00370 for ; Mon, 9 Sep 1996 09:58:06 +1000 Received: from post.demon.co.uk ([(null)]) by relay-4.mail.demon.net id aa05811; 8 Sep 96 22:33 GMT Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by relay-3.mail.demon.net id aa29628; 8 Sep 96 23:32 BST Message-ID: Date: Sun, 8 Sep 1996 21:21:59 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Choosing to break the law. In-Reply-To: <199609061635.JAA23400@tintin.JPL.NASA.GOV> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 1.12 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Jeff Goldsmith wrote: >David Stevenson said, >| Actually Jeff's actual words were: >|>> >The director rolled the bidding back to East's last call >|and somehow that sounds to me as though West's pass ended the auction >|and the TD was wrong. >I might've said it wrong...the director rolled back the auction >to before the last pass and allowed the defender who had ended >the auction (but not the auction period) to try again. He changed >his mind to double for no good reason, other than he had the option :) Damn: I've misguessed *again*! :) Hold everything ... He what? Did he know that he can only change it if "it is probable that he made the call as a result of misinformation"? He doesn't have the option otherwise. Tell us, Jeff: did the TD read it from the Law book? Did he warn him that misinformation is *not* sufficient to allow him an option to change it? -- David Stevenson Bridge Cats Railways Logic /\_/\ Liverpool, England, UK http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk =( ^*^ )= david@blakjak.demon.co.uk Emails welcome bluejak on OKB ( | | ) Tel: +44 (0)151 677 7412 Phone before Fax please RTFLB (_~^ ^~ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Sep 9 23:31:21 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA02842 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 9 Sep 1996 23:31:21 +1000 Received: from mail1 (mail1.cais.com [199.0.216.5]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id XAA02837 for ; Mon, 9 Sep 1996 23:31:13 +1000 Received: from cais3.cais.com ([199.0.216.227]) by mail1 (8.7.5/8.7.5-CAIS) with SMTP id IAA04661 for ; Mon, 9 Sep 1996 08:15:24 -0400 (EDT) Date: Mon, 9 Sep 1996 08:40:00 -0400 (EDT) From: Eric Landau To: Bridge Laws Discussion List Subject: Re: National authority as tournament AC In-Reply-To: <199609062222.SAA20013@cfa183.harvard.edu> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Fri, 6 Sep 1996, Steve Willner wrote: > > From: Eric Landau > > > The point, of course, is that everyone felt we had been inappropriately > > misinformed; the only issue is whether we had lost our entitlement to > > redress due to my "egregious" error. > > Did the director rule that the offenders kept their score? If > misinformation causes damage, the score for the offenders should be > adjusted even if an "egregious error" denies the non-offenders any > benefit. No. The director, however, consulted with the DIC before issuing any ruling. My impression is that the director was inclined (cowed) into accepting the opponents' argument that they didn't intend to be unforthcoming (although it was clear in the circumstances at the time that they did so intend; there was similar action on the previous hand), that "Blackwood" was sufficiently responsive to the question "What was 4NT?", that there are many forms of Blackwood, and that it was up to me to protect myself by inquiring further if I wanted to know what particular flavor of Blackwood they were playing, rather than assume. Then that the DIC, rather than take sides in this argument, pulled out the "Kaplan doctrine" to justify the floor director's ruling of "no adjustment." 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 Sep 10 01:38:05 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA06155 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 10 Sep 1996 01:38:05 +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 BAA06150 for ; Tue, 10 Sep 1996 01:37:59 +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 IAA28859 for <@mipl7.JPL.NASA.GOV:bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au>; Mon, 9 Sep 1996 08:37:03 -0700 Received: by tintin.JPL.NASA.GOV (940816.SGI.8.6.9/930416.SGI.MIPS) for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au id IAA26043; Mon, 9 Sep 1996 08:36:35 -0700 Date: Mon, 9 Sep 1996 08:36:35 -0700 From: jeff@tintin.JPL.NASA.GOV (Jeff Goldsmith) Message-Id: <199609091536.IAA26043@tintin.JPL.NASA.GOV> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Choosing to break the law. Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk |>David Stevenson said, | |>| Actually Jeff's actual words were: |>|>> >The director rolled the bidding back to East's last call |>|and somehow that sounds to me as though West's pass ended the auction |>|and the TD was wrong. | |>I might've said it wrong...the director rolled back the auction |>to before the last pass and allowed the defender who had ended |>the auction (but not the auction period) to try again. He changed |>his mind to double for no good reason, other than he had the option :) | | Damn: I've misguessed *again*! :) | | Hold everything ... | | He what? | | Did he know that he can only change it if "it is probable that he made |the call as a result of misinformation"? He doesn't have the option |otherwise. Tell us, Jeff: did the TD read it from the Law book? Did he |warn him that misinformation is *not* sufficient to allow him an option |to change it? I do not know, but my guess is "no, the director did not read from the lawbook," and "no, he didn't explain that the non-offending side could only change his call if it is probable that he made the call as a result of the misinformation." The player in question doesn't have reasons for making his calls anyway, so it's impossible to judge upon what basis, misinformation or not, he made his first call. I suspect, however, that he did almost enough, what directors normally do here, which is to say, "OK, now that you know what the bid means, would you have made your last call differently?" "Duh, uh, sure. I want to double." "OK, double. Continue the auction from there." The difference between the two is really semantic only; the director didn't tell the player on what basis he can change his action, but it's illogical for him to change it unless the changed explanation gives him reason to, other than, perhaps, if he was sleeping during the auction and "forgot" to double the previous time. Ignoring that possibility, is there really a difference between what the director did (and most do) and what he's really supposed to do? My judgment is "no." --Jeff # Never ascribe to malice what can easily be # attributed to ignorance, laziness, or incompetence. # --- # http://muggy.gg.caltech.edu/~jeff From owner-bridge-laws Tue Sep 10 10:34:51 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA16176 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 10 Sep 1996 10:34:51 +1000 Received: from relay-4.mail.demon.net (relay-4.mail.demon.net [158.152.1.108]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id KAA16164 for ; Tue, 10 Sep 1996 10:34:36 +1000 Received: from post.demon.co.uk ([(null)]) by relay-4.mail.demon.net id aa03849; 9 Sep 96 23:07 GMT Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by relay-3.mail.demon.net id aa07045; 10 Sep 96 0:07 BST Message-ID: Date: Mon, 9 Sep 1996 17:29:52 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Choosing to break the law. In-Reply-To: <199609091536.IAA26043@tintin.JPL.NASA.GOV> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 1.12 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Jeff Goldsmith wrote: >|>David Stevenson said, >| Did he know that he can only change it if "it is probable that he made >|the call as a result of misinformation"? He doesn't have the option >|otherwise. Tell us, Jeff: did the TD read it from the Law book? Did he >|warn him that misinformation is *not* sufficient to allow him an option >|to change it? >I do not know, but my guess is "no, the director did >not read from the lawbook," and "no, he didn't explain >that the non-offending side could only change his call >if it is probable that he made the call as a result of >the misinformation." The player in question doesn't have >reasons for making his calls anyway, so it's impossible >to judge upon what basis, misinformation or not, >he made his first call. > >I suspect, however, that he did almost enough, what >directors normally do here, which is to say, "OK, now >that you know what the bid means, would you have made >your last call differently?" "Duh, uh, sure. I want >to double." "OK, double. Continue the auction from >there." > >The difference between the two is really semantic only; >the director didn't tell the player on what basis he >can change his action, but it's illogical for him to >change it unless the changed explanation gives him reason >to, other than, perhaps, if he was sleeping during the >auction and "forgot" to double the previous time. Ignoring >that possibility, is there really a difference between >what the director did (and most do) and what he's really >supposed to do? My judgment is "no." And mine, but only because the TD expressed it the way you suggest he did. To be honest, I am not worried about whether he used the Law book, but it *is* important that he gives some form of indication that the change must be because of the misinformation. You see, when you say it is illogical to change it otherwise, think of the following case [used in TD training in England]: 1D[Precision] 1H[no alert] Dbl[Sputnik] Now the next player remembers that 1H requires an alert. He tells the opponents so and the TD is called. Can the double be changed? The player wishes to change it to Pass. Why? Because of the misinformation? No, he has a minimum double, and if he is *allowed* to change it then he thinks that double and pass at one turn expresses this. He is a perfectly ethical player, so he asked whether he is allowed to in those circumstances. So I am happy enough if the TD said [as you put it]: >"OK, now that you know what the bid means, would you have made your >last call differently?" but not if he said: "Do you want to change your call?" Of course, in a similar case in the play, he *is* allowed to change his play, so he should do so to give partner a signal! -- David Stevenson Bridge Cats Railways Logic /\_/\ Liverpool, England, UK http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk =( ^*^ )= david@blakjak.demon.co.uk Emails welcome bluejak on OKB ( | | ) Tel: +44 (0)151 677 7412 Phone before Fax please RTFLB (_~^ ^~ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Sep 11 01:07:49 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA23763 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 11 Sep 1996 01:07:49 +1000 Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [128.103.40.170]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id BAA23758 for ; Wed, 11 Sep 1996 01:07:40 +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 LAA20788 for ; Tue, 10 Sep 1996 11:07:34 -0400 (EDT) Received: by cfa183.harvard.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id LAA21161; Tue, 10 Sep 1996 11:08:31 -0400 Date: Tue, 10 Sep 1996 11:08:31 -0400 From: willner@cfa183.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Message-Id: <199609101508.LAA21161@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Choosing to break the law. X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: David Stevenson > So I am happy enough if the TD said [as you put it]: > >"OK, now that you know what the bid means, would you have made your > >last call differently?" > but not if he said: > "Do you want to change your call?" > > Of course, in a similar case in the play, he *is* allowed to change > his play, so he should do so to give partner a signal! Hmmm... is it the player's responsibility or the director's to determine whether the change of call is allowed under L21B1? L72A6 gives responsibility for enforcement of Laws to the director, not to the players. One way to read these Laws is that the director first determines whether a change of call is permissible under the circumstances or not; if so, the player can make the change regardless of what his motivation might be. The advantage of this interpretation is that it is consistent with other rules and avoids inquiry into a player's motives. The disadvantage is that the director has to make a possibly difficult determination. From owner-bridge-laws Wed Sep 11 02:49:14 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA24285 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 11 Sep 1996 02:49:14 +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 CAA24280 for ; Wed, 11 Sep 1996 02:49:07 +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 JAA05775 for <@mipl7.JPL.NASA.GOV:bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au>; Tue, 10 Sep 1996 09:48:14 -0700 Received: by tintin.JPL.NASA.GOV (940816.SGI.8.6.9/930416.SGI.MIPS) for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au id JAA27393; Tue, 10 Sep 1996 09:47:43 -0700 Date: Tue, 10 Sep 1996 09:47:43 -0700 From: jeff@tintin.JPL.NASA.GOV (Jeff Goldsmith) Message-Id: <199609101647.JAA27393@tintin.JPL.NASA.GOV> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Choosing to break the law. Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk |David Stevenson said, |>The difference between the two is really semantic only; |>the director didn't tell the player on what basis he |>can change his action, but it's illogical for him to |>change it unless the changed explanation gives him reason |>to, other than, perhaps, if he was sleeping during the |>auction and "forgot" to double the previous time. Ignoring |>that possibility, is there really a difference between |>what the director did (and most do) and what he's really |>supposed to do? My judgment is "no." | | And mine, but only because the TD expressed it the way you suggest he |did. To be honest, I am not worried about whether he used the Law book, |but it *is* important that he gives some form of indication that the |change must be because of the misinformation. | | You see, when you say it is illogical to change it otherwise, think of |the following case [used in TD training in England]: | 1D[Precision] 1H[no alert] Dbl[Sputnik] | | Now the next player remembers that 1H requires an alert. He tells the |opponents so and the TD is called. Can the double be changed? The |player wishes to change it to Pass. Why? Because of the |misinformation? No, he has a minimum double, and if he is *allowed* to |change it then he thinks that double and pass at one turn expresses |this. He is a perfectly ethical player, so he asked whether he is |allowed to in those circumstances. | | So I am happy enough if the TD said [as you put it]: |>"OK, now that you know what the bid means, would you have made your |>last call differently?" | but not if he said: |"Do you want to change your call?" In *this* case, because it is in the pass-out seat, it's clear that the choice between double and pass is one of misinformation (or foolishness) not of system or description. In most other cases, it'd be more of an issue, I concur. On a technical note, ought the rules read as they do? It might be easier to play that, upon receipt of misinformation, a player may change his call for any reason. My reasoning is that one ought not place ethical restrictions on the non-offending side, and this case is pretty much that. --Jeff # Never ascribe to malice what can easily be # attributed to ignorance, laziness, or incompetence. # --- # http://muggy.gg.caltech.edu/~jeff From owner-bridge-laws Wed Sep 11 18:07:58 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id SAA08188 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 11 Sep 1996 18:07:58 +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 SAA08183 for ; Wed, 11 Sep 1996 18:07:50 +1000 Received: from post.demon.co.uk ([(null)]) by relay-4.mail.demon.net id bh28732; 11 Sep 96 2:40 GMT Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by relay-3.mail.demon.net id aa29018; 11 Sep 96 2:53 BST Message-ID: Date: Wed, 11 Sep 1996 02:45:48 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Abbreviations In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 1.12 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Stevenson wrote: >And so an answer came from Ian D Crorie : > > TYVMDHTCAW > >What do you think? Thank you very much David: hope the cats are well. Congratulations to Wally Farley, Jesper Dybal and Jens Brix Christiansen on working this out. -- David Stevenson Bridge Cats Railways Logic /\_/\ Liverpool, England, UK http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk =( ^*^ )= david@blakjak.demon.co.uk Emails welcome bluejak on OKB ( | | ) Tel: +44 (0)151 677 7412 Phone before Fax please RTFLB (_~^ ^~ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Sep 11 20:18:37 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id UAA08741 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 11 Sep 1996 20:18:37 +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 UAA08736 for ; Wed, 11 Sep 1996 20:18:24 +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 MAA18292 for ; Wed, 11 Sep 1996 12:16:22 +0200 Received: from CRI-Message_Server by nov.cri.dk with Novell_GroupWise; Wed, 11 Sep 1996 12:17:33 +0200 Message-Id: X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise 4.1 Date: Wed, 11 Sep 1996 12:16:40 +0200 From: Jens Brix Christiansen To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Choosing to break the law. Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk >>> Jeff Goldsmith 10.09.96 18:47 >>> >On a technical note, ought the rules read as they do? It >might be easier to play that, upon receipt of misinformation, >a player may change his call for any reason. My reasoning is >that one ought not place ethical restrictions on the >non-offending side, and this case is pretty much that. I do not support Jeff's suggested change of the Laws. With that change, we would give nitpickers who could find a techincal but otherwise irrelevant fault with an explanation of a call too much room. In practice we would have to let the TD judge whether a fault with an explanation was too nitpicking to make a difference, and we would have problems ensuring homogeneous interpretation all over the world. As it is now, the TD has to judge whether the mistaken explanation makes a difference for the selection of a call; while this also involves difficult decisions in borderline situations, it does shut up the nitpickers, and it appears to be easier to enforce in much the same way all over the world. Jens Brix Christiansen, Denmark From owner-bridge-laws Thu Sep 12 03:50:49 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA13954 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 12 Sep 1996 03:50:49 +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 DAA13949 for ; Thu, 12 Sep 1996 03:50:38 +1000 Received: from post.demon.co.uk ([(null)]) by relay-4.mail.demon.net id ac27515; 11 Sep 96 0:14 GMT Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by relay-3.mail.demon.net id aa12671; 11 Sep 96 0:55 BST Message-ID: Date: Wed, 11 Sep 1996 00:52:20 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Choosing to break the law. In-Reply-To: <199609101508.LAA21161@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 >> So I am happy enough if the TD said [as you put it]: >> >"OK, now that you know what the bid means, would you have made your >> >last call differently?" >> but not if he said: >> "Do you want to change your call?" >> >> Of course, in a similar case in the play, he *is* allowed to change >> his play, so he should do so to give partner a signal! > >Hmmm... is it the player's responsibility or the director's to >determine whether the change of call is allowed under L21B1? L72A6 >gives responsibility for enforcement of Laws to the director, not to >the players. One way to read these Laws is that the director first >determines whether a change of call is permissible under the >circumstances or not; if so, the player can make the change regardless >of what his motivation might be. > >The advantage of this interpretation is that it is consistent with >other rules and avoids inquiry into a player's motives. The >disadvantage is that the director has to make a possibly difficult >determination. Law 84 - Rulings on Agreed Facts When the Director is called to rule on a point of law or regulation in which the facts are agreed upon, he shall rule as follows: C. Player's Option If a law gives a player a choice among penalties, the Director explains the options and sees that a penalty is selected and paid. As far as I can see you are trying to increase the number of rulings by going against the spirit [if not the letter] of L84C. Let us look at a similar case. A defender leads out of turn: you are called: you say carry on and call me back at the end. When called back at the end you find out what happened. "Aha!" you say "that is not what the Laws require: I shall adjust the score!" Now you may think that any TD that does that is crazy [I hope you do]: obviously the TD should have explained their options. Similarly in the present case the players have the options to change the call if the original call was based on the misinformation: I cannot believe that you would not want the player to be aware of this. You say that the responsibility for the enforcement lies with the TD: of course, but enforcing them surely includes following L84C and explaining their options. If people know what is required of them by the Laws they will usually do as required: to hide a part of the Law from them so that the TD can return and give a judgement ruling I find both silly and illegal. -- David Stevenson Bridge Cats Railways Logic /\_/\ Liverpool, England, UK http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk =( ^*^ )= david@blakjak.demon.co.uk Emails welcome bluejak on OKB ( | | ) Tel: +44 (0)151 677 7412 Phone before Fax please RTFLB (_~^ ^~ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Sep 12 07:32:33 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA22736 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 12 Sep 1996 07:32:33 +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 HAA22731 for ; Thu, 12 Sep 1996 07:32:19 +1000 Received: from post.demon.co.uk ([(null)]) by relay-4.mail.demon.net id au29616; 11 Sep 96 11:36 GMT Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by relay-3.mail.demon.net id aa17374; 11 Sep 96 12:34 BST Message-ID: Date: Wed, 11 Sep 1996 12:01:55 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Choosing to break the law. In-Reply-To: <199609101647.JAA27393@tintin.JPL.NASA.GOV> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 1.12 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Jeff Goldsmith wrote: >|David Stevenson said, >|>The difference between the two is really semantic only; >|>the director didn't tell the player on what basis he >|>can change his action, but it's illogical for him to >|>change it unless the changed explanation gives him reason >|>to, other than, perhaps, if he was sleeping during the >|>auction and "forgot" to double the previous time. Ignoring >|>that possibility, is there really a difference between >|>what the director did (and most do) and what he's really >|>supposed to do? My judgment is "no." >| And mine, but only because the TD expressed it the way you suggest he >|did. To be honest, I am not worried about whether he used the Law book, >|but it *is* important that he gives some form of indication that the >|change must be because of the misinformation. >| >| You see, when you say it is illogical to change it otherwise, think of >|the following case [used in TD training in England]: >| 1D[Precision] 1H[no alert] Dbl[Sputnik] >| >| Now the next player remembers that 1H requires an alert. He tells the >|opponents so and the TD is called. Can the double be changed? The >|player wishes to change it to Pass. Why? Because of the >|misinformation? No, he has a minimum double, and if he is *allowed* to >|change it then he thinks that double and pass at one turn expresses >|this. He is a perfectly ethical player, so he asked whether he is >|allowed to in those circumstances. >| >| So I am happy enough if the TD said [as you put it]: >|>"OK, now that you know what the bid means, would you have made your >|>last call differently?" >| but not if he said: >|"Do you want to change your call?" >In *this* case, because it is in the pass-out seat, it's >clear that the choice between double and pass is one of >misinformation (or foolishness) not of system or description. >In most other cases, it'd be more of an issue, I concur. > >On a technical note, ought the rules read as they do? It >might be easier to play that, upon receipt of misinformation, >a player may change his call for any reason. My reasoning is >that one ought not place ethical restrictions on the >non-offending side, and this case is pretty much that. Think of restoring equity. If you would double in a particular sequence but did not because of misinformation, then equity is restored by letting you double. If you would not double in a particular sequence anyway, then equity is certainly not restored by letting you double now. The distinction between the bidding and the play is strange, and I think unintentional. You lead from KJ9763 JT5 8 A98 against the sequence 1S - 2C -; 2NT - 3NT -; - - and choose the HJ. Dummy appears with Q KQ93 JT97 T754 Great lead! Fortunately, at this point declarer says "Shouldn't you have alerted my 2NT bid partner?": they play it as forcing, and that is alertable in GB [NO FLAMES PLEASE {+}]. "Sorry, yes." You, of course, knew that 2NT was forcing, since most of the better players play it that way, and it certainly did not affect your lead in any way. The TD reads L47E2A out: naturally you put your HJ back in your hand and replace it with the SK. The ruling is correct, I assure you: but do you feel comfortable with the Law? Note: {+} Comments on GB alerting regulations will be accepted from Americans if and *only* if they are accompanied by a full explanation including nuances of the ACBL alerting regulations. :):) -- David Stevenson Bridge Cats Railways Logic /\_/\ Liverpool, England, UK http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk =( ^*^ )= david@blakjak.demon.co.uk Emails welcome bluejak on OKB ( | | ) Tel: +44 (0)151 677 7412 Phone before Fax please RTFLB (_~^ ^~ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Sep 12 07:52:05 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA22801 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 12 Sep 1996 07:52:05 +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 HAA22795 for ; Thu, 12 Sep 1996 07:51:56 +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 OAA13738 for <@mipl7.JPL.NASA.GOV:bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au>; Wed, 11 Sep 1996 14:51:01 -0700 Received: by tintin.JPL.NASA.GOV (940816.SGI.8.6.9/930416.SGI.MIPS) for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au id OAA00605; Wed, 11 Sep 1996 14:50:31 -0700 Date: Wed, 11 Sep 1996 14:50:31 -0700 From: jeff@tintin.JPL.NASA.GOV (Jeff Goldsmith) Message-Id: <199609112150.OAA00605@tintin.JPL.NASA.GOV> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Choosing to break the law. Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk |David Stevenson said, |>|Jeff Goldsmith wrote: | | |>|>The difference between the two is really semantic only; |>|>the director didn't tell the player on what basis he |>|>can change his action, but it's illogical for him to |>|>change it unless the changed explanation gives him reason |>|>to, other than, perhaps, if he was sleeping during the |>|>auction and "forgot" to double the previous time. Ignoring |>|>that possibility, is there really a difference between |>|>what the director did (and most do) and what he's really |>|>supposed to do? My judgment is "no." | |>| And mine, but only because the TD expressed it the way you suggest he |>|did. To be honest, I am not worried about whether he used the Law book, |>|but it *is* important that he gives some form of indication that the |>|change must be because of the misinformation. |>| |>| You see, when you say it is illogical to change it otherwise, think of |>|the following case [used in TD training in England]: |>| 1D[Precision] 1H[no alert] Dbl[Sputnik] |>| |>| Now the next player remembers that 1H requires an alert. He tells the |>|opponents so and the TD is called. Can the double be changed? The |>|player wishes to change it to Pass. Why? Because of the |>|misinformation? No, he has a minimum double, and if he is *allowed* to |>|change it then he thinks that double and pass at one turn expresses |>|this. He is a perfectly ethical player, so he asked whether he is |>|allowed to in those circumstances. |>| |>| So I am happy enough if the TD said [as you put it]: |>|>"OK, now that you know what the bid means, would you have made your |>|>last call differently?" |>| but not if he said: |>|"Do you want to change your call?" | |>In *this* case, because it is in the pass-out seat, it's |>clear that the choice between double and pass is one of |>misinformation (or foolishness) not of system or description. |>In most other cases, it'd be more of an issue, I concur. |> |>On a technical note, ought the rules read as they do? It |>might be easier to play that, upon receipt of misinformation, |>a player may change his call for any reason. My reasoning is |>that one ought not place ethical restrictions on the |>non-offending side, and this case is pretty much that. | | Think of restoring equity. If you would double in a particular |sequence but did not because of misinformation, then equity is restored |by letting you double. If you would not double in a particular sequence |anyway, then equity is certainly not restored by letting you double now. Right. I agree that this makes sense in theory and in a perfect world, would be a sensible rule. In practice, however, do we want the non-offending side to be required to have to judge whether or not the misinformation was entirely the reason why they want to change their call? What if they judge wrong? Do we feel good that the offending side can appeal now as the non-offending side and have all the rules biased towards them? At worst, it seems as if the misinformation-receivers at least ought to be treated as the non-offending side in determining such judgments, which is to say, very generously. | The distinction between the bidding and the play is strange, and I |think unintentional. You lead from | | KJ9763 | JT5 | 8 | A98 | | against the sequence 1S - 2C -; 2NT - 3NT -; - - and choose the HJ. |Dummy appears with | Q | KQ93 | JT97 | T754 | | Great lead! Fortunately, at this point declarer says "Shouldn't you |have alerted my 2NT bid partner?": they play it as forcing, and that is |alertable in GB [NO FLAMES PLEASE {+}]. "Sorry, yes." You, of course, |knew that 2NT was forcing, since most of the better players play it that |way, and it certainly did not affect your lead in any way. | | The TD reads L47E2A out: naturally you put your HJ back in your hand |and replace it with the SK. The ruling is correct, I assure you: but do |you feel comfortable with the Law? Bad example. Declarer failed to correct the misexplanation before the opening lead. The corrected lead bonus for the non-offending side is simply a by-product of this failure. Had he made the correction at the correct time, the leader could have changed his lead, but without seeing dummy, I don't see any advantage accruing to him by this option's being made available. What if, however, the opening lead had been made face up quickly, before a reasonable amount of time had passed for declarer to issue his correction? (Jeff's Peeve #n+1, of course...I think that any opening lead made face up that causes some sort of problem in this way ought to cause all rights to be forfeited by the leader's side.) On the other hand, that the laws allow play correction without required cause, but not bidding correction without demonstration that the misinformation led to the uncorrected choice, does seem fishy to me. I don't know the intent of the lawmakers, so I'm not willing to guess why this is so. I don't see any particular advantage to the distinction, but I've not thought it through carefully. --Jeff # Never ascribe to malice what can easily be # attributed to ignorance, laziness, or incompetence. # --- # http://muggy.gg.caltech.edu/~jeff From owner-bridge-laws Thu Sep 12 20:31:51 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id UAA25420 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 12 Sep 1996 20:31:51 +1000 Received: from mail.be.innet.net (mail.be.innet.net [194.7.1.8]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id UAA25414 for ; Thu, 12 Sep 1996 20:31:36 +1000 Received: from innet.innet.be (pool03-34.innet.be [194.7.10.18]) by mail.be.innet.net (8.7.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id MAA10244 for ; Thu, 12 Sep 1996 12:31:27 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <3237FF4F.5F4D@innet.be> Date: Thu, 12 Sep 1996 12:17:19 +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 3 - Fouled Boards 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 Description of the problems A mistake that undoubtedly happens even more frequently than it is discov= ered is the=20 fouled board. Hands are returned to the board in differing compositions,= the board is=20 turned, or there is a misduplication. If a deal is played differently at= one table, a=20 60%-60% artificial adjusted score is usually the result. When it has bee= n played more=20 than once, a fouled board is the result. Two or more different deals will now have been played. Part of the pairs= have played=20 one deal, the rest have played another. It does not matter how great the difference between the differing deals i= s. The=20 switching of the club two and three is enough. =20 The Laws do not impose on the director to rule on whether the change is s= ignificant or=20 not. The differing vulnerability or even a different dealer is enough to= be of possible=20 importance to the result on the board, so a =91fouled board=92 is ruled a= ccording to Law 87.=20 =20 Law 87B also states what the director should now do : =91He rates each gr= oup=20 separately=92. This much is clear, but after that, there are certain adjustments to be m= ade. Solutions 1) Mitchell In the Mitchell system, these corrections are the most important. Scoring a subset of the total group yields result on a lower =91Top=92. = This should always=20 be upgraded to the =91normal=92 top. The Mitchell 1 system dealt with this problem in exactly the same way as = they handled=20 the =91artificial score=92 problem as described in the next chapter : To the scores awarded in each subset is added a number, equal to the numb= er of tables in=20 all other groups. Suppose that on the next board 4 tables play one version, 7 another versi= on :=20 [table see www] The first group get seven matchpoints extra, the second group 4 MP. As you can see, the average within both groups is 10 MP, the total is the= correct 110. 2) Mitchell-Neuberg The Mitchell (1) method of dealing with this problem is unsatisfactory. = The first pair,=20 scoring 620, deserves a top or near-top, no matter what. In stead, they = score a meagre=20 65%. A better way of solving the problem could be to use percentages straight = away : [table see www] This is not the approach chosen by Gerard Neuberg however, and for a good= reason : Although the first pair now does score near to the absolute top, this is = probably too=20 high a score. Since 7 tables did NOT play the board, nobody can be absol= utely sure that=20 their score of +620 will not be matched or even bettered. And the pair s= coring 110 have=20 proved themselves slightly better : they have outclassed a larger field. In this discussion, we do not take into consideration that the first pair= have played=20 superbly, perhaps executing a double squeeze, any more than we would subt= ract points if=20 it were their opponents who by revoking allowed them to win an unmakeable= contract. In the calculations above, we have divided by the original top and multip= lied by the new=20 top : x10/3 and x10/6. Gerard Neuberg chose in stead to base the multiplication on the number of= results in=20 each group and in total : x11/4 and x11/7. If one does this calculation on the raw scores, the averages do not remai= n average. In=20 the first group, the average 3 would become 8.25, which is less than the = average 10 in=20 the total field. In order to have averages return to average, in Mr Neuberg=92s formula, o= ne MP is added=20 before the multiplication, and subtracted again afterwards : [table] The score for the first pair is calculated as : 6+1 =3D 7; 7/4x11 =3D 19.= 25; 19.25-1 =3D=20 18.25. Although they score near the top (91.25%), they have a lower score than t= he best in the=20 other group. A good illustration why the Neuberg formula is =91correct=92 is provided = by the following=20 example : In a tournament of 15 tables, everybody plays 4H. This contrac= t is made if=20 one can find the CQ. 60% of the players manage this. However, at the en= d it becomes=20 clear that 5 tables have played a board in which the D2 an D3 have been s= witched. Law=20 87 comes into operation. In the different Mitchell systems, this would g= ive the=20 following results :=20 NS EW MP/g mpM1 mpM=92 mpM2 620 6 16 18 20 620 6 16 18 20 620 6 16 18 20 100 1 11 3 5 100 1 11 3 5 620 13 18 19,5 20 620 13 18 19,5 20 620 13 18 19,5 20 620 13 18 19,5 20 620 13 18 19,5 20 620 13 18 19,5 20 100 3 8 4,5 5 100 3 8 4,5 5 100 3 8 4,5 5 100 3 8 4,5 5 Only when using the Neuberg formula are the results in both groups the sa= me. 3) Ascherman In the Ascherman system, the average is equal to the number of comparable= scores, so the=20 first and second methods above coincide to give : [table] All remarks concerning the =91correctness=92 of these results that applie= d to the Neuberg=20 formula, also apply here. Please remark that the Ascherman scores are of course 1 MP higher than th= ose obtained in=20 the Mitchell-Neuberg system. This explains why the Ascherman system will= still give=20 exactly the same ranking as the Mitchell system. It will not surprise you to know that in the second example above, the tw= o groups of the=20 fouled board produce the same results when using the Ascherman scoring (2= 1 and 6 MP). 4) Cross-IMPs Normally, after calculating all cross-differences and converting them to = IMPs, an=20 average is made, although this is usually only done to obtain more manage= able numbers. =20 This immediately solves the problem of the fouled board, but it leaves us= with one=20 question : should one divide by the number of results on the board, or by= the number of=20 comparisons ? =20 It is my opinion that you should divide by the number of results, for two= reasons : 1) If only one score remains, the total cross-IMPs will be 0. With 0 com= parisons, this=20 would lead to an unanswerable 0/0, whereas dividing by the number of resu= lts yield 0/1 =3D=20 0 IMP 2) Suppose only two results are 'in the same group' : +400 and -50. The = comparison will=20 give +10 to the better pairs, -10 to the lesser abled opponents. Now sup= pose there are=20 four results, twice each +400 and -50. The total comparisons add up to += 20. When=20 dividing by the number of comparisons, this gives +6.66 as opposed to +10= . However,=20 when dividing by the number of results, both (exactly equal) situations g= ive results of=20 +5 (10/2 or 20/4). To illustrate the point we calculate our special example, using the divis= ion by number=20 of comparisons (A), and by the number of scores (B) : NS EW totIMPs CI(A) CI(B) 620 +24 +6 +4.8 620 +24 +6 +4.8 620 +24 +6 +4.8 100 -36 -9 -7.2 100 -36 -9 -7.2 620 +48 +5.4 +4.8 620 +48 +5.4 +4.8 620 +48 +5.4 +4.8 620 +48 +5.4 +4.8 620 +48 +5.4 +4.8 620 +48 +5.4 +4.8 100 -72 -8 -7.2 100 -72 -8 -7.2 100 -72 -8 -7.2 100 -72 -8 -7.2 It is clear that method B should be preferred. 5) Butler The Butler system does not really pose any problems in calculating fouled= boards. 6) Bastille Nor does the Bastille system, but it does present us with an interesting = question, when=20 we check our =91special case=92 as above. In the calculation of the mean= score, one score=20 at each end is not used. This causes the mean score to be different with= in both=20 groups. Without a foul, over the 15 results, the mean would be : (9x620-4x100)/13= =3D 398.5 But within the two groups, these averages become : small group : (2x620-1x100)/3 =3D 380 large group : (5x620-3x100)/8 =3D 350 And the results would change accordingly. There is a problem with the Butler and Bastille systems. When the groups= become too=20 small, it gets less and less interesting to drop the extreme scores when = calculating the=20 average. This poses the problem when one should, and when not to drop sc= ores. Perhaps=20 it would be best never to drop any scores. Or we could use another approach : always drop, either side, a same perce= ntage of=20 scores, say 10%. With 10 results on a board, this is one score either si= de, so we=20 revert to the normal Butler or Bastille method. With 20 results, two res= ults are=20 dropped from either side. With any other number of results, the appropri= ate =91last=92=20 result is counted in part. Example : our special example above : In the big group, with ten results, the average is calculated over the no= rmal 8 scores :=20 350 In the smaller group, we drop half the extreme scores, so we have : (620x50%+620x2-100-100x50%)/4 =3D 350
Or without the foul, we drop one 620 completely and one 620 by 50%, at th= e other end the=20 same, so we are left with : (7.5x620-4.5x100)/12 =3D 350 This way of calculating the average gives us a result consistent with our= wishes that=20 events that occur with the same relative frequency should produce the sam= e results. This alternate way of calculating the average was first used at a second = =91Revolutionary=20 Tournament=92 at the Royal Squeeze Bridge Club on 14 july 1995. --=20 Herman DE WAEL =20 Antwerpen Belgium http://www.club.innet.be/~pub02163/index.htm From owner-bridge-laws Thu Sep 12 20:31:39 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id UAA25415 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 12 Sep 1996 20:31:39 +1000 Received: from mail.be.innet.net (mail.be.innet.net [194.7.1.8]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id UAA25408 for ; Thu, 12 Sep 1996 20:31:31 +1000 Received: from innet.innet.be (pool03-34.innet.be [194.7.10.18]) by mail.be.innet.net (8.7.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id MAA10237 for ; Thu, 12 Sep 1996 12:31:23 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <3237FE31.4126@innet.be> Date: Thu, 12 Sep 1996 12:12:33 +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] I'm back Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I'm back. I had a touch of Olympicitis. But the [calc] series continues! -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.club.innet.be/~pub02163/index.htm From owner-bridge-laws Thu Sep 12 21:41:36 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id VAA25725 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 12 Sep 1996 21:41:36 +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 VAA25720 for ; Thu, 12 Sep 1996 21:41:25 +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 NAA08240 for ; Thu, 12 Sep 1996 13:40:53 +0200 Received: from CRI-Message_Server by nov.cri.dk with Novell_GroupWise; Thu, 12 Sep 1996 13:40:27 +0200 Message-Id: X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise 4.1 Date: Thu, 12 Sep 1996 13:40:24 +0200 From: Jens Brix Christiansen To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [calc] Problem 3 - Fouled Boards Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I am convinced that the techniques for scoring fouled boards described as Neuberg or Ascherman are an equitable way of calculating scores when match points are in use. I am not convinced, however, that L87B authorizes these adjustments. There are other variants in use. The EBL suggests, for instance, that if there are just two results, the better result gets 65% and the worse result gets 55% (and the scores do not balance). I also find it questionable that this treatment is covered by the wording of L87B. What does the group think? Are we covered by the right to score any way we want, as long as we announce it beforehand, or should we implore the lawmakers to authorize what seems to be worldwide practice? Jens Brix Christiansen From owner-bridge-laws Thu Sep 12 22:42:48 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id WAA25955 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 12 Sep 1996 22:42:48 +1000 Received: from mail1 (mail1.cais.com [199.0.216.5]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id WAA25949 for ; Thu, 12 Sep 1996 22:42:40 +1000 Received: from cais3.cais.com (cais3.cais.com [199.0.216.227]) by mail1 (8.7.5/8.7.5-CAIS) with SMTP id IAA13512 for ; Thu, 12 Sep 1996 08:16:26 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 12 Sep 1996 08:42:33 -0400 (EDT) From: Eric Landau To: Bridge Laws Discussion List Subject: Re: [calc] Problem 3 - Fouled Boards In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Thu, 12 Sep 1996, Jens Brix Christiansen wrote: > I am convinced that the techniques for scoring fouled boards > described as Neuberg or Ascherman are an equitable way > of calculating scores when match points are in use. I am not > convinced, however, that L87B authorizes these adjustments. > > There are other variants in use. The EBL suggests, for instance, > that if there are just two results, the better result gets 65% and > the worse result gets 55% (and the scores do not balance). I > also find it questionable that this treatment is covered by the > wording of L87B. > > What does the group think? Are we covered by the right to > score any way we want, as long as we announce it beforehand, > or should we implore the lawmakers to authorize what seems to > be worldwide practice? The key passage in L87B is "rates each group separately as provided in the regulations..." I would interpret the adverbial phrase ("as provided...") as modifying the verb ("rates") rather than the entire predicate (rates... separately). That would mean that you can use any calculation method you choose, but must use the same method for "each group." I see nothing that justifies making an exception in the case where one of the groups has only one or two members. If I understand Neuberg/Ascherman correctly, either would be OK. The EBL method for handling the case where two pairs play the board after the foul, as described above, would not be acceptable. My reading is that a score given for a fouled board under L87B is not "an artifical adjusted score" subject to L88. 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 Sep 13 01:34:17 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA29983 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 13 Sep 1996 01:34:17 +1000 Received: from mail.be.innet.net (mail.be.innet.net [194.7.1.8]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id BAA29965 for ; Fri, 13 Sep 1996 01:34:08 +1000 Received: from innet.innet.be (pool03-25.innet.be [194.7.10.9]) by mail.be.innet.net (8.7.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id RAA04216 for ; Thu, 12 Sep 1996 17:34:00 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <323844DF.2831@innet.be> Date: Thu, 12 Sep 1996 17:14:07 +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] Problem 4 - Fouled Board in small groups Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Fouled Boards in small groups Description of the problem Sometimes a board is fouled, and played in the differing composition=20 only a very limited number of times. When it has been played only once, only an artificial adjusted score=20 (usually 60%-60%) can solve the problem. When it has been played two or three times, one could use the solutions=20 provided in the previous chapter, but this puts too much importance on a=20 piece of luck. Suppose you have played a board that only two other tables have played.=20 Although you play normally, you have the worst result of three. The=20 Ascherman system is the kindest to you : it gives you a 17% result. =20 Perhaps one extra trick would give you an equal top and 67%. It is=20 generally considered that this is too harsh and normal comparisons=20 within a small group should not be done. Solution There are two main solutions to the problem. One is a recommendation to=20 tournament directors : whenever a fouled board is discovered after=20 having been played more than once, it should continue to be played as=20 long as possible. One should try to get as many as possible =91comparabl= e=20 results=92 in any group. But sometimes this is not possible. For two and three results within a=20 group, the WBF has put forward an alternative solution. These tables=20 get artificial adjusted scores, but not of the 60-60 variety. In stead,=20 the comparison is made between the scores, and the artificial scores=20 shall be : 65-55 in the case of two results and 70-60-50 in the case of=20 three. Of course, equal scores produce equal results, so for example : NS EW artNS artEW 620 65% 55% 620 65% 55% 100 50% 70% This solution should be limited to groups of two and three tables, for=20 practical reasons. Starting with four tables, the problem is no longer so acute. Also, when applying the first rule set out above, the problem shall not=20 easily occur with four results. Three results is quite possible though,=20 particularly when playing a barometer tournament. (When playing four=20 boards per round, it is possible for a misduplicated board to be played=20 at three tables) In fact, the only time I have had to use the 70-60-50 rule was not as TD=20 but as player. I myself found it hard to believe that a 6D which we had=20 missed was made all around the room, with two outstanding aces. As this=20 was in a barometer, the fouled board was easily discovered to have been=20 played at just three tables. I had to ask the TD for a 65% artificial=20 score and duly got it. Of course, these artificial scores are treated just as any others, see=20 the next chapter. --=20 Herman DE WAEL =20 Antwerpen Belgium http://www.club.innet.be/~pub02163/index.htm From owner-bridge-laws Fri Sep 13 01:42:29 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA00137 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 13 Sep 1996 01:42:29 +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 BAA00119 for ; Fri, 13 Sep 1996 01:42:01 +1000 Received: from innet.innet.be (pool03-25.innet.be [194.7.10.9]) by mail.be.innet.net (8.7.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id RAA04855; Thu, 12 Sep 1996 17:41:48 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <32384AEB.1A70@innet.be> Date: Thu, 12 Sep 1996 17:39:55 +0000 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.02 (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au, Jens Brix Christiansen Subject: Re: [calc] Problem 3 - Fouled Boards References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Jens Brix Christiansen wrote: > There are other variants in use. The EBL suggests, for instance, > that if there are just two results, the better result gets 65% and > the worse result gets 55% (and the scores do not balance). I > also find it questionable that this treatment is covered by the > wording of L87B. > see problem 4, just posted > What does the group think? Are we covered by the right to > score any way we want, as long as we announce it beforehand, > or should we implore the lawmakers to authorize what seems to > be worldwide practice? > I think Law 79D tells us we can do as we b****y well want. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.club.innet.be/~pub02163/index.htm From owner-bridge-laws Fri Sep 13 01:44:05 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA00164 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 13 Sep 1996 01:44:05 +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 BAA00158 for ; Fri, 13 Sep 1996 01:43:59 +1000 Received: from innet.innet.be (pool03-25.innet.be [194.7.10.9]) by mail.be.innet.net (8.7.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id RAA05013; Thu, 12 Sep 1996 17:43:52 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <32384B67.50F@innet.be> Date: Thu, 12 Sep 1996 17:41:59 +0000 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.02 (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au, David Stevenson Subject: Re: [calc] I'm back References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Stevenson wrote: > > > Oh G*d! Get out the killfile! :))))))))))))))))))) > > Cheers which is exactly why I include the [calc] bit. However, I hope this was just a general comment, as I would like to receive your input on these -I think- important problems. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.club.innet.be/~pub02163/index.htm From owner-bridge-laws Fri Sep 13 02:17:11 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA00476 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 13 Sep 1996 02:17:11 +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 CAA00469 for ; Fri, 13 Sep 1996 02:16:44 +1000 Received: from innet.innet.be (pool03-46.innet.be [194.7.10.30]) by mail.be.innet.net (8.7.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id SAA07722 for ; Thu, 12 Sep 1996 18:16:16 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <3238488C.610E@innet.be> Date: Thu, 12 Sep 1996 17:29:48 +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 5 : AAS Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Problem 5. Artificial Adjusted Scores A. Description of the problem Sometimes, due to an irregularity, a table has not been able to score a=20 normal result on the board. The pairs are instead awarded artificial=20 adjusted scores. These scores will usually be given in %, where 60% and 40% are the most=20 frequent, but 50% or any other number can also occur. We are not concerned here with the result for the pairs getting the=20 artificial score, as it is the director who immediately determines this=20 result. There are some considerations in these matters too, but they=20 are dealt with in chapter X. We are concerned here with the effect that the =91drop-out=92 score will=20 have on the rest of the field. B. Solutions 1) Mitchell The normal way this problem was resolved in the old times managed to=20 retain integer results : to the normal scores are added the number of=20 tables who did not obtain a normal result on the board. NS EW MP mpM 110 15 16 80 9 10 90 3 4 100 0 1 60% 60% - 9* 110 15 16 0 0 6 7 90 12 13 90 3 4 80 9 10 90 The artificial score has been awarded with 9 MP. This is only a=20 temporary score, used for two reasons : =B7 The total of 90 should temporarily remain unchanged for purpose of=20 checking. =B7 The scores for both sides need not balance. When manually calculatin= g=20 match-points, we usually award 50%, and then correct the final total. This is actually not a bad way of manually calculating a small=20 tournament. 2) Mitchell-Neuberg There is no reason why the Neuberg formula should not be used to solve=20 this problem. There should be no difference between a board that has=20 been fouled and played =91on the other side=92, and a board where one or=20 more tables have received an artificial score. The WBF has produced guidelines stating that the Neuberg formula should=20 be used in this instance. The Mitchell 1 system is therefor out of=20 official use. =20 NS EW MP mpM 110 15 16.78 80 9 10.11 90 3 3.44 100 0 0.11 60% 60% - 9* 110 15 16.78 0 0 6 6.78 90 12 13.44 90 3 3.44 80 9 10.11 90 3) Ascherman In the Ascherman system, the (adapted) Neuberg formula, is of course=20 used. NS EW MP mpM 110 16 17.78 80 10 11.11 90 4 4.44 100 1 1.11 60% 60% - 10* 110 16 17.78 0 0 7 7.78 90 13 14.44 90 4 4.44 80 10 11.11 100 4) Cross-IMPs, Butler, Bastille There are no real problems in this category. --=20 Herman DE WAEL =20 Antwerpen Belgium http://www.club.innet.be/~pub02163/index.htm From owner-bridge-laws Fri Sep 13 20:11:07 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id UAA12562 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 13 Sep 1996 20:11:07 +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 UAA12518 for ; Fri, 13 Sep 1996 20:10:51 +1000 Received: from innet.innet.be (pool03-81.innet.be [194.7.10.65]) by mail.be.innet.net (8.7.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id MAA12998; Fri, 13 Sep 1996 12:10:34 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <32394EC8.4EE5@innet.be> Date: Fri, 13 Sep 1996 12:08:40 +0000 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.02 (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au, Steve Willner Subject: Re: [calc] Problem 3 - Fouled Boards References: <199609121922.PAA22380@cfa183.harvard.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Steve Willner wrote: > > > > I don't worry much about Bastille or Butler scoring, since those methods > > > are fundamentally flawed anyway. > > > > > > > Do elaborate when you find some time. > > You have written up the worst problem with Butler yourself: an improved > result on a board may lead to a lower finish. (Hamman-Wolff in an > invitational, Salsomaggiore, maybe??) Schiphol - Holland actually. > > I confess I don't remember Bastille specifically, but isn't it a > variation of Butler? Yes, but without the problem as described in the Hamman-Wolff- Leufkens-Westra Case. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.club.innet.be/~pub02163/index.htm From owner-bridge-laws Fri Sep 13 22:22:09 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id WAA13808 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 13 Sep 1996 22:22:09 +1000 Received: from relay-4.mail.demon.net (relay-4.mail.demon.net [158.152.1.108]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id WAA13803 for ; Fri, 13 Sep 1996 22:21:58 +1000 Received: from post.demon.co.uk ([(null)]) by relay-4.mail.demon.net id aa18772; 12 Sep 96 20:35 GMT Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by relay-3.mail.demon.net id ac25485; 12 Sep 96 21:21 BST Message-ID: Date: Thu, 12 Sep 1996 21:11:40 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [calc] I'm back In-Reply-To: <32384B67.50F@innet.be> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 1.12 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Herman De Wael wrote: >David Stevenson wrote: >> >> Oh G*d! Get out the killfile! :))))))))))))))))))) >> >> Cheers > >which is exactly why I include the [calc] bit. > >However, I hope this was just a general comment, as I would like to >receive your input on these -I think- important problems. This is neither my area of expertise nor my general interest, but you may rest assured that I shall read them, skipping over the mathematical bits. Please start [or end] each article with a summary. I do find it difficult to grasp where these articles are heading, in some cases. I do not really understand your Problem 3 nor your Problem 5 and I just don't agree with Problem 4: I think the EBU was dead right to start treating small numbers of fouled boards the same as large numbers. -- David Stevenson Bridge Cats Railways Logic /\_/\ Liverpool, England, UK http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk =( ^*^ )= david@blakjak.demon.co.uk Emails welcome bluejak on OKB ( | | ) Tel: +44 (0)151 677 7412 Phone before Fax please RTFLB (_~^ ^~ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Sep 13 23:20:45 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA14037 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 13 Sep 1996 23:20:45 +1000 Received: from mail1 (mail1.cais.com [199.0.216.5]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id XAA14032 for ; Fri, 13 Sep 1996 23:20:38 +1000 Received: from cais3.cais.com (cais3.cais.com [199.0.216.227]) by mail1 (8.7.5/8.7.5-CAIS) with SMTP id IAA16434 for ; Fri, 13 Sep 1996 08:54:25 -0400 (EDT) Date: Fri, 13 Sep 1996 09:20:27 -0400 (EDT) From: Eric Landau To: Bridge Laws Discussion List Subject: Re: [calc] Problem 4 - Fouled Board in small groups In-Reply-To: <323844DF.2831@innet.be> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I'm fascinated by the ongoing discussion of fouled boards. Apparently the whole philosophy of how to deal with them has changed radically since the dark ages when I was directing regularly (20-30 years ago). Back then, a fouled board was considered (absent any unrelated, additional irregularity) to have been played "normally" in the sense of L12; L88 was irrelevant. The field was divided into two groups, with the same scoring method applied to both groups whether the split was 13-13 or 25-1. The formula was simply to matchpoint a group using the natural top, then award each pair 1/2 MP for each pair in the other group. That meant that the average score in each group was the game average, and the MPs balanced normally. If only one pair played a specific-to-the-card deal (i.e. constituted a group of one) they got an average regardless of their result -- they had, after all, obtained the average (only) result on that specific deal. There was no criterion (and no felt need for one) by which one group could or would be designated as having played the board any more "normally" than the other. Perhaps the change in viewpoint has come about due to the prevalent use now of pre-duplicated rather than hand-dealt boards. This certainly provides a criterion -- only the group that played the board in the configuration that matched the hand records may be deemed to have played it "normally" -- but I don't see how it provides a justification for making such a now-possible distinction. Doing so would require us to establish some arbitrary "cut-off" point for deeming the groups to be "unbalanced" with respect to "normality"; if the split is 13-13, we certainly don't want to award more MPs to one group just because they were lucky enough to be on the "wrong" side of the foul. Even worse, why should all 13 pairs playing a board that was fouled for their section in duplication get a bonus just because scores are being compared across two sections? Or is this irrelevant, in which case we're simply saying that a board hasn't been played "normally" if it was played with too small a comparison group (no more than three?)? That seems awfully arbitrary, since, say, a 5-3 split is a whole lot more balanced than a 22-4 split. I can certainly see why we would want a better way to score fouled boards than the old "center the natural MPs" method. But I don't see any justification for a method in which a pair's MP expectation is either average or above average depending on which side of the foul they happened to play the board. It just feels very wrong to award average or better to a pair when other pair(s) played the identical deal and all of them got better results, even if there were only one or two of them. It seems to me that no matter how we decide to handle the groups, they should both be handled the same way regardless of their (absolute or relative) size. Can anyone explain the rationale behind introducing "extra" MPs into the game score because of a fouled board? 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 Sep 13 23:52:10 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA14225 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 13 Sep 1996 23:52:10 +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 XAA14220 for ; Fri, 13 Sep 1996 23:51:57 +1000 X-Organization: Computer Resources International A/S, Bregneroedvej 144, DK-3460 Birkeroed, Denmark Received: from nov.cri.dk (nov.cri.dk [130.227.50.162]) by cabra.cri.dk (8.6.12/8.6.10) with SMTP id PAA28550 for ; Fri, 13 Sep 1996 15:51:28 +0200 Received: from CRI-Message_Server by nov.cri.dk with Novell_GroupWise; Fri, 13 Sep 1996 15:50:55 +0200 Message-Id: X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise 4.1 Date: Fri, 13 Sep 1996 15:50:49 +0200 From: Jens Brix Christiansen To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [calc] Problem 4 - Fouled Board in small groups Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk >>> Eric Landau 13.09.96 15:20 >>> >Can anyone explain the rationale behind introducing "extra" MPs into the >game score because of a fouled board? I am speculating now, but try this: Case 1: You are deprived of the right to play a board because the TD accidentally exposes the traveling score sheet to all players at the table. 60%-60%. This is the law. Case2: You play the board, but the clumsy TD has fouled it when he examined it on its way to your table. No one else has played the fouled board. 50%-50% according to the straight L87. But you could argue that this is just like case 1 and award 60%-60% (no result could be obtained on the board through no fault of either side). Eventually the regulations are amended to implement this approach. Case 3: Two tables out of 30 play one version; the other 28 tables play the other version. The four pairs playing one version are deprived of their chance to produce a serious top (just like the two pairs in the first two cases). Let us award them a small compensation for this (say, 10%) before scoring the board. This compensation is just like the compensation given to players who have no chance to play the board through no fault of their own. =========================================== For those still with me, let me quote from memory how the official Danish regulations are right now: Large groups: As Eric did traditionally. Two points for each favorable comparison, zero points for each unfavorable comaprison, one point for each equal score, one point for each score that cannot be compared. We do not aplly Neuberg-style scaling; the top (and bottom) on a board that has been fouled is simply lower than it would have been otherwise. Small groups (less than 15% of the tables): As above, but each pair is awarded 10% of a top as compensation(?) for being in a small group. [Jesper will no doubt scream loud enogh for all of us to hear if I got this wrong; I don't have the regulations with me right now, and (hi David) I look them up when I need them for practical TD work.] I don't really like these regulations, but at least they are written down and unambiguous. ===================================================== As far as the Neuberg formula is concerned, it is disturbing to me that no rounding rules are agreed on and that, when pushed, the authorities want us to calculate exact rational numbers. It is also disturbing to me that in practice the formula precludes practical calculation of tournament results by hand. Jens Brix Christiansen, Denmark From owner-bridge-laws Sat Sep 14 01:20:11 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA17530 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 14 Sep 1996 01:20:11 +1000 Received: from mail1 (mail1.cais.com [199.0.216.5]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id BAA17524 for ; Sat, 14 Sep 1996 01:20:03 +1000 Received: from cais3.cais.com (cais3.cais.com [199.0.216.227]) by mail1 (8.7.5/8.7.5-CAIS) with SMTP id KAA16889 for ; Fri, 13 Sep 1996 10:53:50 -0400 (EDT) Date: Fri, 13 Sep 1996 11:19:51 -0400 (EDT) From: Eric Landau To: Bridge Laws Discussion List Subject: Re: [calc] Problem 4 - Fouled Board in small groups In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Fri, 13 Sep 1996, Jens Brix Christiansen wrote: > >>> Eric Landau 13.09.96 15:20 >>> > > >Can anyone explain the rationale behind introducing "extra" MPs into the > >game score because of a fouled board? > > I am speculating now, but try this: > > Case 1: > You are deprived of the right to play a board because the TD > accidentally exposes the traveling score sheet to all players at the > table. 60%-60%. This is the law. > > Case2: > You play the board, but the clumsy TD has fouled it when he examined > it on its way to your table. No one else has played the fouled board. > 50%-50% according to the straight L87. But you could argue that > this is just like case 1 and award 60%-60% (no result could be > obtained on the board through no fault of either side). Eventually > the regulations are amended to implement this approach. > > Case 3: > Two tables out of 30 play one version; the other 28 tables play the > other version. The four pairs playing one version are deprived of > their chance to produce a serious top (just like the two pairs in > the first two cases). Let us award them a small compensation for > this (say, 10%) before scoring the board. This compensation is > just like the compensation given to players who have no chance > to play the board through no fault of their own. > > =========================================== > > For those still with me, let me quote from memory how the official > Danish regulations are right now: > > Large groups: As Eric did traditionally. Two points for each favorable > comparison, zero points for each unfavorable comaprison, one point > for each equal score, one point for each score that cannot be compared. > We do not aplly Neuberg-style scaling; the top (and bottom) on a > board that has been fouled is simply lower than it would have been > otherwise. > > Small groups (less than 15% of the tables): As above, but each pair > is awarded 10% of a top as compensation(?) for being in a small group. > > [Jesper will no doubt scream loud enogh for all of us to hear if I got > this wrong; I don't have the regulations with me right now, and > (hi David) I look them up when I need them for practical TD work.] > > I don't really like these regulations, but at least they are written down > and unambiguous. I find Jens' argument compelling -- it certainly seems "intuitively obvious" that 1 table of 26 playing a fouled board should receive some "compensation" rather than giving neither side a chance at an above- average result. But it's equally obvious that when the split is 13-13, neither side should be given an advantage over the other. So a line needs to be drawn, and any line we draw is going to introduce some unfairness at the margin. The Danish 15%/10% method Jens describes gives 10% of the MPs as compensation to 3/26, but gives nothing to 4/26 -- and gives 10% to 1/7 but nothing to 1/6 (Howells still exist, don't they? :-)) -- which hardly seems intuitively fair. High numbers would be just as bad; why compensate, say, 12/26 but not 14/26? One possible approach would be to compensate everybody involved. The amount of the compensation would be some percentage of the "unavailable" MPs; a pair would get something more than 1/2 for each pair in the other group. That would eliminate the problem at the margin, and would give the same compensation to both groups, so a pair wouldn't gain an advantage by being on one side or the other of the foul. But that would still seem to yield results that are intuitively unfair to "the field," by raising the MP expectation of the pairs who were "lucky" enough to get to play the fouled board. Yes, Jens' Case 2 certainly seems awfully similar to Case 1. And Case 3 is awfully similar to Case 2. But Case 4 (3/30) is just as similar to Case 3. And any Case N+1 is going to be just as similar to its corresponding Case N for any N, so the induction fails unless we compensate everybody. Only the distinction between Case 1 and Case 2 is qualitative rather than quantitative, and thus seems like the only place where can find any non-arbitary justification for "breaking the chain." Ugh. I don't see a good solution. I suppose that if there were obvious easy answers to problems like this our little group wouldn't exist. Eric Landau APL Solutions, Inc. elandau@cais.com 1107 Dale Drive (301) 589-4621 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 USA From owner-bridge-laws Sat Sep 14 01:48:31 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA17697 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 14 Sep 1996 01:48:31 +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 BAA17691 for ; Sat, 14 Sep 1996 01:48:23 +1000 Received: from innet.innet.be ([194.7.10.87]) by mail.be.innet.net (8.7.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id RAA10239 for ; Fri, 13 Sep 1996 17:48:07 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <32399D2E.C3D@innet.be> Date: Fri, 13 Sep 1996 17:43:10 +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 6 : different number of scores on a board 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 Problem 6. Different number of scores A. Description of the problem Sometimes a movement is used which leads to different boards being=20 played a different number of times. This is of course a thing to be=20 avoided, but sometimes this is not always possible. Here are a few=20 instances where I have encountered this problem : =B7 When playing Multiple Mitchell movements in several rows of unequal=20 length. There is one set of boards that is not in use in all series. =B7 When playing an appendix tournament, using the first round to=20 duplicate the boards. Those boards not in use in the first round, will=20 play all scheduled rounds =3D one more than the boards duplicated in the=20 first round. =B7 In tournaments in which there are more boards than are actually=20 played, when a bye occurs. The bye can be considered as a =91phantom=92,= a=20 pair with its own movement. Since this phantom does not play all=20 boards, some boards contain more results than others. In my club we=20 always play a Mitchell movement, with between 26 and 32 boards. With 23=20 pairs we have a problem : we have to curtail a 12 table Mitchell, and=20 there are then two sets of boards that have been played 10 times, all=20 the others having only 9 results. I am only dealing here with this problem occurring within the one=20 session. The next chapter deals with the similar problem, when it=20 occurs over two different sessions. B. Solutions 1) Mitchell In the Mitchell (1) system, it would be most logical to deal with this=20 problem by using percentages. Since the system was never fully written=20 down, and since it is no longer of practical use, we should not go=20 further into this. One mistake should however be cited at this moment, so as to make clear=20 how not to go about tackling this problem. It is the solution we used=20 when I started calculating my club tournaments, by hand, some 15 years=20 ago. We used to keep track, for every pair, of the total of the tops of=20 the boards they did play. At the end, we divided the total of their=20 matchpoints by what they could have got. This breaks a fundamental principle I wish to cite now : every board=20 should count equally heavy. Every board should be brought to the same=20 top, and only then added. The ways in which the boards are brought to=20 the same top are perhaps still under discussion, but it must be done. 2) Mitchell-Neuberg The WBF has not specifically stated how this problem should be dealt=20 with. =20 Law 78A does not give a solution, Law 87B, which deals with fouled=20 boards is not applicable. I think most Tournament Directors would use percentages to solve this=20 problem. All boards with the same top would be taken together, and by=20 using percentages and a formula such as the one described in the next=20 chapter, they would get a result. This system is actually equal to one in which the scores are handled=20 board per board. Their results are recalculated on a =91normal=92 top us= ing=20 a simple formula : (most other boards contain only 10 results =3D top 18) =20 NS EW MP mpM2 620 20 18 80 11 9.9 90 3 2.7 100 0 0 110 18 16.2 90 15 13.5 50 6 5.4 0 0 8 7.2 90 15 13.5 90 3 2.7 80 11 9.9 99 The average is indeed 9, the top 18. There is however not one good reason why the Neuberg formula should not=20 also be used in this case. As in fact it is in European Pairs=92 Championships. I was first made=20 aware of this during the European Ladies=92 Pairs Championships in=20 Killarney in 1991, when this did prove necessary. Claude Dadoun, the=20 French TD in charge had no doubt that it had to be done this way, even=20 if no regulation stipulated this. This is where I draw the line between the Mitchell 2 and 3 systems. If=20 you do not use the Neuberg formula in this case, you are working with=20 the Mitchell 2 system. In the Mitchell 3 system, the Neuberg formula is=20 used for this problem. Everyone is completely entitled to use the Mitchell 2 system, since no=20 WBF guidelines have been given concerning this problem. In contrast,=20 the Mitchell 1 system should not be used. Let=92s use the Neuberg formula on the previous example : NS EW mp mpM3 620 20 18.09 80 11 9.91 90 3 2.64 100 0 -0.09 110 18 16.27 90 15 13.55 50 6 5.36 0 0 8 7.18 90 15 13.55 90 3 2.64 80 11 9.91 99 Two remarks : =B7 Don=92t say that it doesn=92t change much. What did you expect, a=20 different winner ? I once got that. See the example. =B7 Negative scores ? A score higher than the top ? Yes indeed. This=20 follows logically out of our concern to be =91correct=92. You don=92t li= ke it=20 : tough. Gerard Neuberg suggests one solution : always take the highest=20 number of scores as basis for your =91normal=92 top. Indeed we can prove that it does not matter which =91top=92 you choose, a= s=20 long as you score all boards on the same top. 3) Ascherman Since in the Ascherman system percentages and the (adapted) Neuberg=20 formula yield the same result, there is no problem here : NS EW mp mpA 620 21 19.09 80 12 10.91 90 4 3.64 100 1 0.91 110 19 17.27 90 16 14.55 50 7 6.36 0 0 9 8.18 90 16 14.55 90 4 3.64 80 12 10.91 110 4) Cross-IMPs, Butler, Bastille These problems do not pose any more problems in IMP-style tournaments=20 than those already dealt with. --=20 Herman DE WAEL =20 Antwerpen Belgium http://www.club.innet.be/~pub02163/index.htm From owner-bridge-laws Sat Sep 14 05:03:09 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA18675 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 14 Sep 1996 05:03:09 +1000 Received: from worldcom.ch (ns.worldcom.ch [194.51.96.111]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id FAA18661 for ; Sat, 14 Sep 1996 05:02:50 +1000 Received: from Default by worldcom.ch (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id VAA25423; Fri, 13 Sep 1996 21:04:46 +0200 Date: Fri, 13 Sep 1996 21:04:46 +0200 Message-Id: <199609131904.VAA25423@worldcom.ch> X-Sender: fsb@worldcom.ch X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.2 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: Herman De Wael From: "Y. Calame" Subject: Re: [calc] Problem 6 : different number of scores on a board Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk >: tough. Gerard Neuberg suggests one solution : always take the highest >number of scores as basis for your 'normal' top. Thats the way I calculate for 3 reasons: - psycologically a minus something mp score is stupid (try to explain to the player why his cold bottom became a colder bottom) - on most case there will be more "high top" boards than "low top" - anyway (as you noted) the result is the same. I think the neuberg must be used because: suppose 14 rounds 16 1/2 table (likely in my club), board 32 has only 13 results for any 87B reason board 33 has only 13 results because of the movement. Why should scoring be different. yvan From owner-bridge-laws Sat Sep 14 07:29:00 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA19493 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 14 Sep 1996 07:29:00 +1000 Received: from relay-4.mail.demon.net (relay-4.mail.demon.net [158.152.1.108]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id HAA19488 for ; Sat, 14 Sep 1996 07:28:50 +1000 Received: from post.demon.co.uk ([(null)]) by relay-4.mail.demon.net id ai20018; 12 Sep 96 20:43 GMT Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by relay-3.mail.demon.net id ab27062; 12 Sep 96 21:25 BST Message-ID: Date: Thu, 12 Sep 1996 21:24:45 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [calc] Problem 3 - Fouled Boards In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 1.12 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Jens Brix Christiansen wrote: >I am convinced that the techniques for scoring fouled boards >described as Neuberg or Ascherman are an equitable way >of calculating scores when match points are in use. I am not >convinced, however, that L87B authorizes these adjustments. Law 87 - Fouled Board B. Scoring the Fouled Board In scoring a fouled board the Director determines as closely as possible which scores were made on the board in its correct form, and which in the changed form. He divides the score on that basis into two groups, and rates each group separately as provided in the regulations of the sponsoring organization. This seems to me to give wide powers, certainly including our so- called modified match-pointing, which is [I believe] Neuberg. Perhaps you could explain why this does not cover it? To take a stupid case, if there are 10 tables, so a normal top of 18, and 3 tables play a fouled board, 7 the correct one, suppose I score it as follows: 2,1,0 for the fouled board [ie an average of 1] for both sides 18,16,14,12,10,8,6 for the rest [ie an average of 12] for both sides [Note: we give 2 points for each pair we beat, 1 for each pair we tie with: in much of the world 1,0.5,0 is used: if you do then just halve my figures.] Of course this is highly unfair, but is it illegal? I have divided the set of scores into two groups as required by the first sentence and I have rated each group separately. If my SO produce a regulation permitting this form of scoring then IMO it is legal under L87B. >There are other variants in use. The EBL suggests, for instance, >that if there are just two results, the better result gets 65% and >the worse result gets 55% (and the scores do not balance). Are you sure? The EBU changed their practice to stop giving 55%-45%, and my understanding was that they were following Europe [or vice- versa]. Certainly it seems fairer to use Neuberg [or whatever it is] for any number. > I also find it questionable that this treatment is covered by the >wording of L87B. Also legal IMO: same argument. >What does the group think? Are we covered by the right to >score any way we want, as long as we announce it beforehand, >or should we implore the lawmakers to authorize what seems to >be worldwide practice? I believe it is authorised now. -- David Stevenson Bridge Cats Railways Logic /\_/\ Liverpool, England, UK http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk =( ^*^ )= david@blakjak.demon.co.uk Emails welcome bluejak on OKB ( | | ) Tel: +44 (0)151 677 7412 Phone before Fax please RTFLB (_~^ ^~ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Sep 14 09:15:03 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA20057 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 14 Sep 1996 09:15:03 +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 JAA20052 for ; Sat, 14 Sep 1996 09:14:51 +1000 Received: from mail.isys.net by mail.hamburg.netsurf.de with smtp (/\==/\ Smail3.1.28.1 #28.1); id m0v1hQn-000HkgC; Sat, 14 Sep 96 01:13 MET DST Received: from meckwell by mail.isys.net with smtp (/\oo/\ Smail3.1.29.1 #29.6); id ; Sat, 14 Sep 96 01:02 MESZ Date: Sat, 14 Sep 1996 01:19:44 +0200 (MET DST) From: Henk Uijterwaal X-Sender: henk@meckwell Reply-To: henk.uijterwaal@hamburg.netsurf.de To: Herman De Wael cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au, Steve Willner Subject: Re: [calc] Problem 3 - Fouled Boards In-Reply-To: <32394EC8.4EE5@innet.be> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Fri, 13 Sep 1996, Herman De Wael wrote: > > You have written up the worst problem with Butler yourself: an improved > > result on a board may lead to a lower finish. (Hamman-Wolff in an > > invitational, Salsomaggiore, maybe??) > Schiphol - Holland actually. No, The Hague, Holland. Henk ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Henk Uijterwaal Email: henk.uijterwaal@hamburg.netsurf.de (home) henk@desy.de (work) WWW: http://www-zeus.desy.de/~uijter ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ %DCL-E-NOCFFE, unable to locate coffee - keyboard input suspended. From owner-bridge-laws Sat Sep 14 18:21:26 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id SAA23823 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 14 Sep 1996 18:21:26 +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 SAA23816 for ; Sat, 14 Sep 1996 18:21:18 +1000 Received: from innet.innet.be ([194.7.10.86]) by mail.be.innet.net (8.7.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id KAA04742 for ; Sat, 14 Sep 1996 10:21:12 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <323A7E99.6895@innet.be> Date: Sat, 14 Sep 1996 09:44:57 +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: [calc] Problem 3 - Fouled Boards References: <199609131414.KAA22674@cfa183.harvard.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Steve Willner wrote: > I'll have to have another look at your web site, then. Maybe my > comments should have been restricted to Butler. Or is Bastille just > Butler with fractional IMPs? Yes it is. > As you say, that solves the worst > problem, but there are still problems if not everyone plays all the > boards and with undue swings on certain deals. Cross-IMPs solves most > of those. (I guess you could say "undue swings" is a feature, not > a bug, but I don't care for it.) If not everyone plays all the boards you have - a bad movement - a problem that cannot be solved by the method of counting I do not know what you mean with 'undue swings' or how it would be different between Butler and Cross-IMPs. Intuitively, I also think Cross-IMPs is truer to the spirit of teams, but I have not yet managed to prove so mathematically. However, since Butler is so common, and players find it so simple, I think one or other form of Butler (or both) is here to stay. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.club.innet.be/~pub02163/index.htm From owner-bridge-laws Sat Sep 14 18:21:34 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id SAA23836 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 14 Sep 1996 18:21:34 +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 SAA23826 for ; Sat, 14 Sep 1996 18:21:26 +1000 Received: from innet.innet.be ([194.7.10.86]) by mail.be.innet.net (8.7.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id KAA04746 for ; Sat, 14 Sep 1996 10:21:14 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <323A8050.402F@innet.be> Date: Sat, 14 Sep 1996 09:52:16 +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: [calc] Problem 3 - Fouled Boards References: <199609131451.QAA22033@worldcom.ch> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Y. Calame wrote: > > >4) Cross-IMPs > > I disagree. > > - With two results 'in the same group' : +400 and -50. The swing is 10 > imps, thats bridge. > With twice each +400 and -50. The total comparisons add up to +20. 6.66 > imps, thats > bridge again: you played three matches, won two and tied one for an average > 6.66 imps gain. > The fact is, you are not playing a team match. In a team match, you AND your partners at the other table combine to lose 10 IMPs. In a pairs tournament, you should lose only a fraction of this. > - Suppose you are the only one down in your non-vul game. > Using the number of results divider: > in a four table tournament you will loose 7.5 imps, in a 5 tables trn you > will loose 8, ... I think that is correct. If you manage to be the only one in a larger field to go down, surely your result should be worse ! > But in bridge you lost 10 imps, as you will with the "divide by comparisons" > method, > whatever the number of table is. > Which is not correct, IMMHO. > - Question: why did you invent Bastille ? > Of course bastille is a vast impovement over butler, but Cavendish > (Cross-IMPs) is better. As I posted to Steve, I have not been able to prove this mathematically (as yet). > I you score by computer: use Cavendish. Any method can be scored with a computer, but the players would like to see what's going on. They can never figure out a Cross-IMPs calculation. > I you score by hand: play matchpoints or team of four. If you really want > to play pair-imps use Butler. > Or Bastille, which is undoubtedly better than Butler. I hope no one argues with that. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.club.innet.be/~pub02163/index.htm From owner-bridge-laws Sat Sep 14 18:21:36 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id SAA23837 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 14 Sep 1996 18:21:36 +1000 Received: from mail.be.innet.net (mail.be.innet.net [194.7.1.8]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id SAA23824 for ; Sat, 14 Sep 1996 18:21:25 +1000 Received: from innet.innet.be ([194.7.10.86]) by mail.be.innet.net (8.7.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id KAA04751 for ; Sat, 14 Sep 1996 10:21:16 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <323A80C0.10D0@innet.be> Date: Sat, 14 Sep 1996 09:54:08 +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: [calc] Problem 3 - Fouled Boards References: <199609131451.QAA22033@worldcom.ch> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Y. Calame wrote: > > Of course bastille is a vast impovement over butler, but Cavendish > (Cross-IMPs) is better. This is the first time I've encoutered the word Cavendish in this meaning. Is it in general use ? -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.club.innet.be/~pub02163/index.htm From owner-bridge-laws Sat Sep 14 18:21:41 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id SAA23842 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 14 Sep 1996 18:21:41 +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 SAA23835 for ; Sat, 14 Sep 1996 18:21:32 +1000 Received: from innet.innet.be ([194.7.10.86]) by mail.be.innet.net (8.7.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id KAA04758 for ; Sat, 14 Sep 1996 10:21:21 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <323A8462.693@innet.be> Date: Sat, 14 Sep 1996 10:09:38 +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: [calc] Problem 4 - Fouled Board in small groups References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Eric Landau wrote: > > I'm fascinated by the ongoing discussion of fouled boards. Apparently the > whole philosophy of how to deal with them has changed radically since the > dark ages when I was directing regularly (20-30 years ago). > >From what follows, apparantly not all that much. > Back then, a fouled board was considered (absent any unrelated, additional > irregularity) to have been played "normally" in the sense of L12; L88 was > irrelevant. The field was divided into two groups, with the same scoring > method applied to both groups whether the split was 13-13 or 25-1. It still is. The > formula was simply to matchpoint a group using the natural top, then award > each pair 1/2 MP for each pair in the other group. That meant that the > average score in each group was the game average, and the MPs balanced > normally. which is the method I describe as Mitchell 1. > If only one pair played a specific-to-the-card deal (i.e. > constituted a group of one) they got an average regardless of their > result -- they had, after all, obtained the average (only) result on that > specific deal. Nothing changed > There was no criterion (and no felt need for one) by which > one group could or would be designated as having played the board any more > "normally" than the other. > There still isn't. If you have miscomprehended, please read again and point out the paragraphs that led you to believe this, and I will change them. [bit snipped because started on a wron premise] > > Or is this irrelevant, in which case we're simply saying that a board > hasn't been played "normally" if it was played with too small a comparison > group (no more than three?)? That seems awfully arbitrary, since, say, a > 5-3 split is a whole lot more balanced than a 22-4 split. > This method was probably not intended for a 5-3 split, and should perhaps not be used for this, but rather for a 23-3 split. I now see what you are talking about : In a 5-3 split, the small group would get : in Mitchell 1 : 5-7-9 (top 14) in the WBF formula : 7 - 8.4 - 9.8, and you find this too great a bonus. You may be right, but only in this small example. I think a 70% score is adequate compensation, and only in a small field does the Mitchell 1 provide a compensation which is not too small. In a 23-3 split, the Mitchell 1 method would give 23-25-27, and 27 is far below 70% !! > I can certainly see why we would want a better way to score fouled boards > than the old "center the natural MPs" method. But I don't see any > justification for a method in which a pair's MP expectation is either > average or above average depending on which side of the foul they happened > to play the board. It just feels very wrong to award average or better to > a pair when other pair(s) played the identical deal and all of them got > better results, even if there were only one or two of them. It seems to > me that no matter how we decide to handle the groups, they should both be > handled the same way regardless of their (absolute or relative) size. > In basis, I agree, but the Neuberg formula in a 23-3 split would give : 7.66 - 25 - 42.33, and this is deemed too harsh by the WBF. I don't know why they stopped at three, but I have explained that a small group of four is not likely to occur anyway. > Can anyone explain the rationale behind introducing "extra" MPs into the > game score because of a fouled board? > You do this whenever you award average plus to both sides, so why not here ? -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.club.innet.be/~pub02163/index.htm From owner-bridge-laws Sun Sep 15 03:12:28 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA28318 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 15 Sep 1996 03:12:28 +1000 Received: from pip.dknet.dk (root@pip.dknet.dk [193.88.44.48]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id DAA28313 for ; Sun, 15 Sep 1996 03:12:21 +1000 Received: from cph5.ppp.dknet.dk (cph5.ppp.dknet.dk [194.192.100.5]) by pip.dknet.dk (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id TAA07845 for ; Sat, 14 Sep 1996 19:12:12 +0200 From: jd@pip.dknet.dk (Jesper Dybdal) To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [calc] Problem 3 - Fouled Boards Date: Sat, 14 Sep 1996 19:11:42 +0200 Organization: at home Message-ID: <323ae734.5427995@pipmail.dknet.dk> References: <199609131414.KAA22674@cfa183.harvard.edu> <323A7E99.6895@innet.be> In-Reply-To: <323A7E99.6895@innet.be> X-Mailer: Forte Agent .99e/32.227 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Sat, 14 Sep 1996 09:44:57 +0000, Herman De Wael wrote: >Intuitively, I also think Cross-IMPs is truer to the spirit of teams, >but I have not yet managed to prove so mathematically. Cross-IMPs has the nice property that the strategy of when to bid on is the same as at teams: the probability of 10 tricks that you need in order to bid 4H instead of staying in 3H is the same in cross-IMPs as in teams, but different in Butler scoring. This is a good reason to prefer cross-IMPs over Butler when the desire is to get close to "the spirit of teams". -- Jesper Dybdal From owner-bridge-laws Sun Sep 15 05:51:56 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA29193 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 15 Sep 1996 05:51:56 +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 FAA29188 for ; Sun, 15 Sep 1996 05:51:46 +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 PAA24082 for ; Sat, 14 Sep 1996 15:51:41 -0400 (EDT) Received: by cfa183.harvard.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id PAA23176; Sat, 14 Sep 1996 15:52:53 -0400 Date: Sat, 14 Sep 1996 15:52:53 -0400 From: willner@cfa183.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Message-Id: <199609141952.PAA23176@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [calc] Problem 3 - Fouled Boards Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > Any method can be scored with a computer, but the players would like to > see what's going on. They can never figure out a Cross-IMPs calculation. Sorry, I beg to differ. There's nothing hard to figure out about cross-IMPs, though of course it's a bit tedious to score by hand. I play at a club that plays a cross-IMP game once a month. Typically seven tables are scored by hand. It does take a bit longer to score than the matchpoint games, but it's nowhere near double the time. Butler ought to be thrown in the trash heap. From owner-bridge-laws Sun Sep 15 11:41:40 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id LAA00521 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 15 Sep 1996 11:41:40 +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 LAA00516 for ; Sun, 15 Sep 1996 11:41:21 +1000 Received: from post.demon.co.uk ([(null)]) by relay-2.mail.demon.net id ai05770; 15 Sep 96 2:29 BST Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by relay-3.mail.demon.net id aa06750; 15 Sep 96 2:22 BST Message-ID: Date: Sun, 15 Sep 1996 02:18:29 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Choosing to break the law. In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 1.12 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk We were discussing the situation where someone was able to take his call back under L21B1 after misinformation from an opponent. So I am happy enough if the TD said: "OK, now that you know what the bid means, would you have made your last call differently?" but not if he said: "Do you want to change your call?" Steve Willner wrote: >Hmmm... is it the player's responsibility or the director's to >determine whether the change of call is allowed under L21B1? L72A6 >gives responsibility for enforcement of Laws to the director, not to >the players. One way to read these Laws is that the director first >determines whether a change of call is permissible under the >circumstances or not; if so, the player can make the change regardless >of what his motivation might be. > >The advantage of this interpretation is that it is consistent with >other rules and avoids inquiry into a player's motives. The >disadvantage is that the director has to make a possibly difficult >determination. Hmmmmmmm: I think that Steve and I have had a slight misunderstanding [NO LAUGHING AT THE BACK!]. Similarly in the present case the players have the options to change the call if the original call was based on the misinformation: I cannot believe that you would not want the player to be aware of this. You say that the responsibility for the enforcement lies with the TD: of course, but enforcing them surely includes following L84C and explaining their options. If people know what is required of them by the Laws they will usually do as required: to hide a part of the Law from them so that the TD can return and give a judgement ruling I find both silly and illegal. >Of course the TD must explain the options. > >Look, there are two possible procedures: > >1. The TD determines whether or not it was probable that the call was >made on the basis of misinformation and rules, "You may [or may not] >change your call." [Of course giving the reason and advising of >the right to appeal if appropriate.] > >or > >2. The TD rules "You may change your call if it was based on >misinformation," leaving the determination of whether or not >it was so based to the player. > >Either of these seems consistent with the Laws, and each has some >advantages. > >Did you understand something different, or have I misunderstood you? Apparently I have misunderstood you, and I shall explain why. One of the absolute rules of being a good TD IMO [and in the opinion of all senior British TDs] is that you *never* look at the cards in anyone's hand until the hand is over. >I agree with this. Consequent on this and parallel with it is the principle that you cannot make judgement decisions before the end of the hand. Such decisions require both a look at the hands and the sort of enquiry that gives information away. >I don't agree that this always applies, though surely it often does. Now I think about it, I suppose that you might mean to make a determination without looking at the hand, but I cannot see how that is possible. >Yes, this is what I meant. Maybe it's impossible, but I'm not so sure. > >We can certainly ask for the original explanation and the changed >explanation. If they are very different, it is reasonable to judge >that it is "probable" that the original call was made on the basis of >misinformation. > >There is a problem if the original and final explanations are almost >but not quite the same. Also if there is a failure to alert a bid that >is almost universally alerted. (I think you gave an example of a >forcing 2NT bid; a couple of months ago, I'd have used negative doubles >here in the States.) It is very unlikely in these cases that the >original call was based on misinformation, but it is just barely >possible. I would accept that the TD rules "not based on >misinformation, no change allowed" and let an AC (or the TD himself >after the hand) adjust the score if that turns out to be wrong, but I >can understand if you have objections. My argument is that letting the >player judge for himself is likely to lead to more and more difficult >appeals. > >Whether this procedure is best or not, I don't see that it conflicts >with anything in the Laws. > >Neither procedure is perfect; the question is which is least imperfect. >The point is that there has to be an auction and a result at the table; >this result is subject to adjustment. We want to obtain the result >that will least likely be adjusted later. Which procedure does that? Now we know about what we are talking [NO SNIGGERING IN THE RANKS!]. I accept that what Steve is suggesting is legal, namely that the TD will attempt to discover whether the call may be based on misinformation: he will make decision at the time, without looking at the player's hand, and then tell him that he may change his call, or alternatively he may tell him that he may not change his call. While this is no doubt legal, personally I believe that it will often be completely impossible to do. Let us consider: 1S 3C NB 3NT NB NB NB There are no alerts. Before the opening lead dummy calls the TD and tells him and the table that his partner has forgotten to alert 3C, which is Ghestem [the English TD's favourite convention] and that he has shown the red suits. Can the final pass be changed? In my view, the only person who can possibly decide this is the player. He is the only one who can tell whether the misinformation [the failure to alert] has stopped him doubling [the most obvious change]. The TD can determine that it is quite a major change, but I cannot see at all how he can determine whether it should be changed, since that depends on two things, namely the contents of the player's hand, and his thinking process before he passed originally. Neither of these two is available to the TD, so he cannot make an intelligent decision. The best he can do is to tell the player that he is allowed to change his pass **if** it is because of the misinformation. -- David Stevenson Bridge Cats Railways Logic /\_/\ Liverpool, England, UK http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk =( ^*^ )= david@blakjak.demon.co.uk Emails welcome bluejak on OKB ( | | ) Tel: +44 (0)151 677 7412 Phone before Fax please RTFLB (_~^ ^~ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Sep 15 11:46:11 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id LAA00548 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 15 Sep 1996 11:46:11 +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 LAA00543 for ; Sun, 15 Sep 1996 11:46:04 +1000 Received: from post.demon.co.uk ([(null)]) by relay-2.mail.demon.net id ad06142; 15 Sep 96 2:29 BST Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by relay-3.mail.demon.net id aa07355; 15 Sep 96 2:25 BST Message-ID: Date: Sun, 15 Sep 1996 02:25:44 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [calc] Problem 3 - Fouled Boards In-Reply-To: <323ae734.5427995@pipmail.dknet.dk> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 1.12 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Jesper Dybdal wrote: >Herman De Wael wrote: >>Intuitively, I also think Cross-IMPs is truer to the spirit of teams, >>but I have not yet managed to prove so mathematically. >Cross-IMPs has the nice property that the strategy of when to bid on >is the same as at teams: the probability of 10 tricks that you need in >order to bid 4H instead of staying in 3H is the same in cross-IMPs as >in teams, but different in Butler scoring. > >This is a good reason to prefer cross-IMPs over Butler when the desire >is to get close to "the spirit of teams". What is "the spirit of teams"? I like to play a session and score up at the end by imping against some other scores. Why do I like Butler? Because I can play a session and score up at the end by imping against some other scores. Isn't this "the spirit of teams"? I am actually somewhat serious here. I worry that some decisions made about the game are made in an effort to reach total fairness. I am often unconvinced that that should be a primary goal. Herman De Wael wrote: >Steve Willner wrote: >> I'll have to have another look at your web site, then. Maybe my >> comments should have been restricted to Butler. Or is Bastille just >> Butler with fractional IMPs? >Yes it is. [s] >Or Bastille, which is undoubtedly better than Butler. I hope no one >argues with that. If Bastille makes it more difficult for people to calculate their own scores then I probably do argue whether it is better. It may be fairer: I cannot tell because I do not know exactly what it is; but it sounds as though it does not reflect IMO "the spirit of teams" to such a degree. -- David Stevenson Bridge Cats Railways Logic /\_/\ Liverpool, England, UK http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk =( ^*^ )= david@blakjak.demon.co.uk Emails welcome bluejak on OKB ( | | ) Tel: +44 (0)151 677 7412 Phone before Fax please RTFLB (_~^ ^~ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Sep 15 21:31:22 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id VAA04338 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 15 Sep 1996 21:31:22 +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 VAA04327 for ; Sun, 15 Sep 1996 21:31:11 +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 NAA12638 for ; Sun, 15 Sep 1996 13:31:01 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <323C0466.46A0@innet.be> Date: Sun, 15 Sep 1996 13:28:06 +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: [calc] Problem 3 - Fouled Boards References: <199609131414.KAA22674@cfa183.harvard.edu> <323A7E99.6895@innet.be> <323ae734.5427995@pipmail.dknet.dk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Jesper Dybdal wrote: > > On Sat, 14 Sep 1996 09:44:57 +0000, Herman De Wael > wrote: > >Intuitively, I also think Cross-IMPs is truer to the spirit of teams, > >but I have not yet managed to prove so mathematically. > > Cross-IMPs has the nice property that the strategy of when to bid on > is the same as at teams: the probability of 10 tricks that you need in > order to bid 4H instead of staying in 3H is the same in cross-IMPs as > in teams, but different in Butler scoring. > I have just proven this to be false. See my post. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.club.innet.be/~pub02163/index.htm From owner-bridge-laws Sun Sep 15 21:31:24 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id VAA04339 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 15 Sep 1996 21:31:24 +1000 Received: from mail.be.innet.net (mail.be.innet.net [194.7.1.8]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id VAA04328 for ; Sun, 15 Sep 1996 21:31:13 +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 NAA12631 for ; Sun, 15 Sep 1996 13:30:54 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <323BFE65.2093@innet.be> Date: Sun, 15 Sep 1996 13:02:29 +0000 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.02 (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: My intuition was wrong (was : [calc] Problem 3 - Fouled Boards) References: <199609131414.KAA22674@cfa183.harvard.edu> <323A7E99.6895@innet.be> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Herman De Wael wrote: > > Intuitively, I also think Cross-IMPs is truer to the spirit of teams, > but I have not yet managed to prove so mathematically. I've tried to do so now, and my findings are staggering. My (our) intuition proves to be wrong : Butler is far closer to team tactics than cross-IMPs !!! To prove this, I have calculated break-even points. What probability for success is needed to make a decision worth while, using the scoring method in effect. I have done this for various types of decisions : - bidding to game or not - bidding to slam or not - bidding to grand slam - safety-play or not in a partscore - in game - in slam all vulnerable and not. I will elaborate for the decision to go to game (say 4 hearts), non vulnerable. At teams, we must calculate twice : do opponents go to game or not ? If they go to game : Then if we don't, and game makes, we lose 250 points or 6 IMPs. But if game fails, we win 190 points or 5 IMPs. If the game has a probability of success of 45.5%, we have an expectancy of no result. (45.5 x -6 + 54.5 x 5 = 0). If the game has a higher probability (say 50% for one finesse), then the expectancy is higher than zero and we should bid it. If OTOH they do not go to game, then by going to game ourselves, we can expect to win 6 IMPs, so if we don't bid game, we lose those expected 6. So the calculation is exactly the same, and it does not matter what they do at the other table, we should bid any game with a probability higher than 45.5%. Vulnerable, this is even less : 37.5%. At pairs we should calculate a few times, depending on the relative number of tables that bid game. At Mitchell or Ascherman scoring : If 20% of the field are in game, and it makes, then we score 40% if we don't bid it, 90% if we do. But if it fails, we score 60% if we didn't bid it, only 10% if we did. So the break-even point is at 50%. The same is true no matter what percentage of the field are in game. This is true for all contracts, and it is what makes pairs play so difficult. At Butler or Bastille : If 20% of the field are in game, and it makes, the average will be : 20%x420+80%x170 = 220. Bidding it ourselves would yield 200 = 5.2 IMPs at Bastille. By not bidding it, we lose 1.6 IMPs, a difference of 6.8. If on the other hand the contract fails, then the average is 102. We can now win 1.3 IMPs by staying out of game, but lose 4.2 by bidding it. The difference is 5.4 IMPs, and this gives us a 44.4% break-even point. If a different number of tables bid the game contract, the averages will shift. This produces changes in the wins and losses, but the difference between the score when bidding the game or not, remains remarkably constant. If 40% or 60% of the field bid the game, the break-even point is at 44.0%, at 80% it is again 44.4%. This is remarkably close to the Team mark and this should make Butler tactics indistinguishable from team play. At Cross-IMPs however, this is no longer true. If 80% are in a game that makes, and so are we, we will win 1 IMP (20% of 5 IMPs), if we don't bid the game, we lose 80% of 6IMPs = 4.8 IMPs, a net gain of 5.8 IMPs for bidding the game. If the game does not make, then bidding is loses us 20% of 6IMPs (-1.2), staying out of it gains us 4 (80% of 5), a loss of 5.2 IMPs. Since we stand to win more than we could lose, we should bid the game easily. In fact the break-even point is at 47.3%. The same is not true however, when only 20% of the field are in the game contract. Now if it loses, we would lose 5.8 IMPs by bidding it, and we will only win 5.2 if it wins. The game would now need to be at 52.7% to be a good one ! Thus, Cross-IMPs tactics would be to only bid games at 50%, vulnerable and not vulnerable alike. So : my intuition was wrong : it is in fact Butler that more closely resembles team play tactically. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.club.innet.be/~pub02163/index.htm From owner-bridge-laws Mon Sep 16 02:06:41 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA08072 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 16 Sep 1996 02:06:41 +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 CAA08060 for ; Mon, 16 Sep 1996 02:06:33 +1000 Received: from cph44.ppp.dknet.dk (cph44.ppp.dknet.dk [194.192.100.44]) by pip.dknet.dk (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id SAA11968 for ; Sun, 15 Sep 1996 18:06:25 +0200 From: jd@pip.dknet.dk (Jesper Dybdal) To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Choosing to break the law. Date: Sun, 15 Sep 1996 18:05:54 +0200 Organization: at home Message-ID: <323c0ae8.893805@pipmail.dknet.dk> References: In-Reply-To: X-Mailer: Forte Agent .99e/32.227 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Sun, 15 Sep 1996 02:18:29 +0100, David Stevenson wrote: [about L21B1 changes of call following MI] >The >best he can do is to tell the player that he is allowed to change his >pass **if** it is because of the misinformation. I agree completely with David here. This is the only thing the TD can do without looking at the hand and interviewing the player in detail about his system and bidding style - which it would be a very bad idea to do in the middle of the hand. The TD should simply make it clear that the player may later have to explain how the misinformation influenced the call. This law is unusual in that it requires a non-offender to judge whether he is allowed to do something: he has to judge whether the MI made any difference. Since the player is a non-offender, I believe that the TD should allow a change if there is just a small chance that the player is right when he says it made a difference. Only when it quite obviously is not true that the MI made a difference should the TD adjust. And when the TD does adjust, which side(s) should be considered offenders when applying L12C2? I think it will be reasonable to consider both sides as offenders: one side because the problem was originally caused by its offense, the other side because it has changed its call even though the requirements cited by the TD for that to be allowed are very clearly not met. -- Jesper Dybdal From owner-bridge-laws Mon Sep 16 02:06:44 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA08078 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 16 Sep 1996 02:06:44 +1000 Received: from pip.dknet.dk (root@pip.dknet.dk [193.88.44.48]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id CAA08070 for ; Mon, 16 Sep 1996 02:06:37 +1000 Received: from cph44.ppp.dknet.dk (cph44.ppp.dknet.dk [194.192.100.44]) by pip.dknet.dk (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id SAA11975 for ; Sun, 15 Sep 1996 18:06:30 +0200 From: jd@pip.dknet.dk (Jesper Dybdal) To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: My intuition was wrong (was : [calc] Problem 3 - Fouled Boards) Date: Sun, 15 Sep 1996 18:05:59 +0200 Organization: at home Message-ID: <323c2944.8665560@pipmail.dknet.dk> References: <199609131414.KAA22674@cfa183.harvard.edu> <323A7E99.6895@innet.be> <323BFE65.2093@innet.be> In-Reply-To: <323BFE65.2093@innet.be> X-Mailer: Forte Agent .99e/32.227 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Sun, 15 Sep 1996 13:02:29 +0000, Herman De Wael wrote: >Herman De Wael wrote: >> Intuitively, I also think Cross-IMPs is truer to the spirit of teams, >> but I have not yet managed to prove so mathematically. >I've tried to do so now, and my findings are staggering. My (our) >intuition proves to be wrong : Butler is far closer to team tactics than >cross-IMPs !!! I calculated break-even points some years ago, and got quite different results from yours (as I also posted on rgb some time ago - I'll go into more detail here). For matchpoint pairs, we agree that the break-even point is obviously 50%, so I'll ignore matchpoints in the following. I believe it is irrelevant what happens when 20% or 80% of the field bids the game: since we are interested only in the borderline hands around the break-even point, it seems to me that the only reasonable assumption to make about the field is that 50% are in game. After all, if we have a borderline hand and only 20% or as many as 80% are in game, then the field is playing against odds. In the following, I'll first calculate the break-even points, and then try to point out the errors in your cross-IMP calculation. I use the following assumptions when calculating break-even points: (a) We have a safe alternative contract that will definitely win. (b) If we bid on, the contract will either just win or go down one - and we are not doubled. (c) In Butler, the datum score is the average of the two scores obtained by bidding on and not, respectively. (d) In teams and cross-IMPs, all other tables play one of the two contracts we are considering. Particularly (a) does not always hold in real life: sometimes even the alternative contract cannot win. This means that in practice you should often bid on with slightly smaller chances than calculated here, because the price when it is wrong may be small. Since what I'm interested in here is primarily the principle of how to calculate the break-even scores, I'll take the liberty of assuming that Butler datum scores are rounded away from 0 to a multiple of 10; if you use a different way, you may get slightly different results. Let us define: P: the probability that the contract considered wins. G: the gain of bidding on instead of not when the contract wins. L: the loss of bidding on instead of not when the contract goes down. Bidding on is a good idea when the expected net average gain of doing so is positive: P * G + (1-P) * L > 0 which becomes P > L / (G+L) I.e., the break-even point is L/(G+L). Let's take 4H vulnerable and not as examples: ***** Butler: ** Non-vulnerable: If the contract wins, the datum score with 50% in game will be the average of 420 and 170 = 295, rounded to 300. By bidding on, we gain 3 IMPs. If we do not bid on, we lose 4 IMPs. The gain G of bidding on is 7 IMPs. If the contract loses, the datum score will be the average of -50 and 140 = 45, rounded to 50. Staying out of game gives 3 IMPs, bidding on loses 3 IMPs. The loss of bidding on (L) is 6 IMPs. This gives a break-even point of 46.2%. ** Vulnerable: If it wins: datum = (620+170)/2 = 395, rounded to 400. We score 6 or lose 6 IMPs: G = 12 IMPs. If it loses: datum = (-100+140)/2 = 20. We lose 3 or win 3 IMPs: L = 6 IMPs. This gives a break-even point of 33.3%. ***** Teams: ** Non-vulnerable: If 4H wins, we get G=6 IMPs more by scoring 420 than by scoring 170, assuming that the other table has one of those two results. It if loses, we get L=5 IMPs less by scoring -50 than by scoring 140. This gives a break-even point of 45.5%. ** Vulnerable: If 4H wins, we get G=10 IMPs more by scoring 620 than by scoring 170, assuming that the other table has one of those two results. It if loses, we get L=6 IMPs less by scoring -100 than by scoring 140. This gives a break-even point of 37.5%. ***** Cross-IMPs: Since cross-IMPs are simply a large number of teams comparisons, the break-even probabilities are the same as for teams: ** Non-vulnerable: If 4H wins: for each other table we will get 6 IMPs more by bidding on than by not bidding on, assuming they all score either 420 or 170. Total gain by bidding on compared to not bidding on is G=6*N, where N is the number of other tables to compare with. If it loses: for each other table we will lose 5 IMPs by bidding on. L = 5*N. This still gives a break-even point of 45.5%. ** Vulnerable: This is of course still the same as the teams: 37.5%. ***** Conclusion: (My) conclusion: cross-IMPs are tactically the same as teams (45.5% - 37.5%). Butler is not the same; in particular, the vulnerability makes a larger difference than at teams (46.2% - 33.3%). (And thank you for forcing me to recalculate these figures carefully: it turned out that some of the Butler figures I calculated years ago are wrong.) ***** Your calculation: I couldn't see why your cross-IMP calculation should give a result different from mine, until I checked the details and found that you've interchanged a 5 and a 6: >If 80% are in a game that makes, and so are we, we will win 1 IMP (20% >of 5 IMPs), if we don't bid the game, we lose 80% of 6IMPs = 4.8 IMPs, a >net gain of 5.8 IMPs for bidding the game. I think that should be 20% of _6_ IMPs (420-170 = 250 = 6 IMPs), so the net gain is 1.2 + 4.8 = 6 IMPs. >If the game does not make, then bidding is loses us 20% of 6IMPs (-1.2), That should be 20% of 5 IMPs (140-(-50) = 190 = 5 IMPs), 1 IMP. >staying out of it gains us 4 (80% of 5), a loss of 5.2 IMPs. A loss of _5_ IMPs. >Since we stand to win more than we could lose, we should bid the game >easily. In fact the break-even point is at 47.3%. It is 5/(5+6) = 45.5%, just as for teams. >The same is not true however, when only 20% of the field are in the game >contract. Now if it loses, we would lose 5.8 IMPs by bidding it, and we >will only win 5.2 if it wins. The game would now need to be at 52.7% to >be a good one ! No: the calculation gives the same result: the gain or loss per table is the same as for teams, and the break-even point is therefore the same. -- Jesper Dybdal From owner-bridge-laws Mon Sep 16 02:06:42 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA08077 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 16 Sep 1996 02:06:42 +1000 Received: from pip.dknet.dk (root@pip.dknet.dk [193.88.44.48]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id CAA08062 for ; Mon, 16 Sep 1996 02:06:34 +1000 Received: from cph44.ppp.dknet.dk (cph44.ppp.dknet.dk [194.192.100.44]) by pip.dknet.dk (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id SAA11972 for ; Sun, 15 Sep 1996 18:06:28 +0200 From: jd@pip.dknet.dk (Jesper Dybdal) To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [calc] Problem 3 - Fouled Boards Date: Sun, 15 Sep 1996 18:05:57 +0200 Organization: at home Message-ID: <323c1115.2474488@pipmail.dknet.dk> References: In-Reply-To: X-Mailer: Forte Agent .99e/32.227 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Sun, 15 Sep 1996 02:25:44 +0100, David Stevenson wrote: >Jesper Dybdal wrote: >>This is a good reason to prefer cross-IMPs over Butler when the desire >>is to get close to "the spirit of teams". > > What is "the spirit of teams"? I like to play a session and score up >at the end by imping against some other scores. Why do I like Butler? >Because I can play a session and score up at the end by imping against >some other scores. Isn't this "the spirit of teams"? Sorry - I should of course have said "my personal perception of the spirit of teams". You are quite right that the really important point here is our individual and varying ideas of what the "spirit of teams" is. -- Jesper Dybdal From owner-bridge-laws Mon Sep 16 07:55:08 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA16899 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 16 Sep 1996 07:55:08 +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 HAA16894 for ; Mon, 16 Sep 1996 07:55:01 +1000 Received: from cph33.ppp.dknet.dk (cph33.ppp.dknet.dk [194.192.100.33]) by pip.dknet.dk (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id XAA24764 for ; Sun, 15 Sep 1996 23:54:53 +0200 From: jd@pip.dknet.dk (Jesper Dybdal) To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: My intuition was wrong (was : [calc] Problem 3 - Fouled Boards) Date: Sun, 15 Sep 1996 23:54:23 +0200 Organization: at home Message-ID: <323c7a3d.256729@pipmail.dknet.dk> References: <199609131414.KAA22674@cfa183.harvard.edu> <323A7E99.6895@innet.be> <323BFE65.2093@innet.be> <323c2944.8665560@pipmail.dknet.dk> In-Reply-To: <323c2944.8665560@pipmail.dknet.dk> X-Mailer: Forte Agent .99e/32.227 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Sun, 15 Sep 1996 18:05:59 +0200, I wrote: > P * G + (1-P) * L > 0 Oops - that went too fast. It should of course read: P * G - (1-P) * L > 0 I still believe that the rest is correct. -- Jesper Dybdal From owner-bridge-laws Mon Sep 16 20:02:42 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id UAA19106 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 16 Sep 1996 20:02:42 +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 UAA19101 for ; Mon, 16 Sep 1996 20:02:31 +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 MAA18756 for ; Mon, 16 Sep 1996 12:02:20 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <323D40BB.6E75@innet.be> Date: Mon, 16 Sep 1996 11:57:47 +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 7 : several sessions Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Problem 7. Several sessions A. Description of the problem Many tournaments are played over more than one session. This gives rise=20 to two types of problems : =B7 Firstly, the total over the several sessions will usually be=20 calculated using only the end total scores of the individual sessions. =20 The specific board scores need not be kept. Formulas must be at hand to=20 deal with this. =B7 Secondly, all problems concerning =91different tops=92 come back to h= aunt=20 us in even greater complexity. B. Solutions 1) Mitchell When all boards have equal tops, and all pairs have played the same=20 number of boards, it is possible to calculate the final results directly=20 using matchpoints. When one or other thing interferes with this however, most frequently=20 percentages are used. Special care needs to be given to the problem of weighing these=20 percentages. =20 Example : A pair has played 28 boards in the first session, scoring 210 mp (the=20 top being 14). This is equal to 53.57%. In the second session, the top is 10, and our pair score 144 mp out of=20 24 boards =3D 60.00%. Their final result will be : (53.57%x28 + 60.00%x24)/52 =3D 56.54%. This formula has been well known for years and should be considered a=20 part of any Mitchell system. One slightly strange consequence of this method has been much commented=20 upon, and can best be illustrated by continuing the example above. A second pair plays 24 boards in the first session, scoring 179 mp or =20 53.27%. They play 28 boards in the second session, scoring 167 mp or=20 59.64%. Although they have finished behind the first pair in both sessions=20 separately, they finish ahead of them in the total ranking, as their=20 final percentage will be : (53.27%x24 + 59.64%x28)/52 =3D 56.70%. This is however completely natural. It can best be explained by=20 considering that the second pair had more than half their boards at 60%,=20 while the first pair played less than half of theirs at that percentage. 2) Mitchell-Neuberg The Mitchell 2 system uses exactly the same formula as the Mitchell 1=20 does, and has the same implications. Whereas in the Mitchell 3 system, one should also check the =91tops=92 on= =20 each board. Indeed in a personal conversation with Gerard Neuberg in April 1992, he=20 confirmed that it is his opinion too, that the formula that is generally=20 known under his name, should be used whenever different boards have=20 obtained different numbers of results, regardless of the reason why this=20 occurred. This is not easy, and there are four ways of achieving this : =B7 The simplest is to calculate every board of the second session using=20 the Neuberg formula towards the same top as the first. Quite a lot of=20 work. =B7 Or you could simply recalculate the whole lot at once, at the end of=20 the second session. For our first pair in the example above, this=20 produces : 144 + 24 (one for each board) =3D 168; 168/6x8=3D 224; 224 - 2= 4 =3D=20 200 =3D 59.52%. You can then use the formula or simply add the mp to giv= e=20 410 mp over 52 boards with top 14. The second pair would have :=20 (167+28)/6x8-28 =3D 232 mp, added to their first session result of 179, t= o=20 give 411 mp. =B7 It can be proven mathematically that it does not matter in which=20 direction you =91Neubergize=92. Therefore you could also recalculate all= =20 the boards from the first session towards the top you would like to use=20 in the second. =B7 Or finally, you could recalculate the totals from the first session=20 all together. This makes the most sense to me, as these calculations can=20 be done during the second session, thus sparing a lot of work at the end=20 of that session. 3) Ascherman As you might imagine, the Ascherman system is spared the terrible=20 calculations above. The percentage formula is the most handy, but=20 simply converting matchpoints is also quite easily done. 4) Cross-IMPs, Butler, Bastille Adding IMPs and checking the total number of boards played is all that=20 is required. 5) Example I have once encountered an actual tournament where the difference=20 between the Mitchell 2 and Mitchell 3 systems produced a different=20 winner : the Ladies=92 Pairs Championships of Antwerp of 1989. There were 25 competitors, playing in two sessions. The movement was a=20 Mitchell/Double Howell, in which the first round of the Mitchell was=20 left out to accommodate those pairs meeting in the double Howell. In the first session, there were 26 boards, 24 with 11 results, and 2=20 with 12. In the second session, there were also 26 boards, all with 12=20 results. Pairs 3 and 18 produced the following results (including some boards=20 where the Neuberg formula was used after attribution of some artificial=20 adjusted scores to other pairs). Simply using percentages, the result is :=20 pair 3 pair 18 # mp perc. # mp perc. total TOP 20 22 270.13 61.394% 20 213.64 53.411% total TOP 22 2 31 70.455% 2 13 29.545% total first session 24 62.149% 22 51.241% total TOP 22 24 305 57.765% 26 385 67.308% total second session 24 57.765% 26 67.308% total percentage 48 59.957% 48 59.944% On the other hand, if all results are translated to top 20 : pair 3 pair 18 # mp perc. # mp perc. total 11 results 22 270.13 61.394% 20 213.64 53.411% total 12 results 2 28.25 70.625% 2 11.75 29.375% total first session 24 298.38 62.163% 22 225.39 51.225% total second session 24 277.58 57.830% 26 350.75 67.452% total on TOP 20 48 575.97 59.997% 48 576.14 60.015% The other pair has won ! Similarly, using top 22 : pair 3 pair 18 # mp perc. # mp perc. total 11 results 22 296.69 61.300% 20 234.88 53.383% total 12 results 2 31 70.455% 2 13 29.545% total first session 24 327.69 62.063% 22 247.88 51.215% total second session 24 305 57.765% 26 385 67.308% total on TOP 22 48 632.69 59.914% 48 632.88 59.932% Which of course produces the same ranking. Finally, using the Ascherman system : pair 3 pair 18 # mp perc. # mp perc. total 11 results(TOP 22)22 292.13 60.357% 20 233.64 53.101% total 12 results(TOP 24) 2 33 68.750% 2 15 31.250% total first session 24 61.056% 22 51.115% total second session(24)24 329 57.118% 26 411 65.865% total percentage 48 59.087% 48 59.104% In Ascherman, only percentages are important, although one can also=20 calculate directly in matchpoints. --=20 Herman DE WAEL =20 Antwerpen Belgium http://www.club.innet.be/~pub02163/index.htm From owner-bridge-laws Mon Sep 16 20:55:47 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id UAA21321 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 16 Sep 1996 20:55:47 +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 UAA21316 for ; Mon, 16 Sep 1996 20:55:37 +1000 Received: from innet.innet.be (pool03-25.innet.be [194.7.10.9]) by mail.be.innet.net (8.7.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id MAA22661 for ; Mon, 16 Sep 1996 12:55:31 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <323D4AF6.1847@innet.be> Date: Mon, 16 Sep 1996 12:41:26 +0000 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.02 (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: My calculation was wrong (was : Re: My intuition was wrong (was : [calc] Problem 3 - Fouled Boards)) References: <199609131414.KAA22674@cfa183.harvard.edu> <323A7E99.6895@innet.be> <323BFE65.2093@innet.be> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I remember an episode of 'Happy Days' in which 'the Fonz' had to admit he was wrong. He did not get much further than 'I was WRRRR', but I can : I was WRONG Herman De Wael wrote: > > > At Cross-IMPs however, this is no longer true. yes it is > > If 80% are in a game that makes, and so are we, we will win 1 IMP (20% this should be : 1.2 (20% of 6 IMPs 420-170) > of 5 IMPs), if we don't bid the game, we lose 80% of 6IMPs = 4.8 IMPs, a > net gain of 5.8 IMPs for bidding the game. net gain : 6 IMPs > If the game does not make, then bidding it loses us 20% of 6IMPs (-1.2), no : 5 IMPs (-50-140) > staying out of it gains us 4 (80% of 5), a loss of 5.2 IMPs. a loss of 5 > Since we stand to win more than we could lose, we should bid the game > easily. In fact the break-even point is at 47.3%. > no : 45.45454% > The same is not true however, when only 20% of the field are in the game yes it is > contract. Now if it loses, we would lose 5.8 IMPs by bidding it, and we > will only win 5.2 if it wins. The game would now need to be at 52.7% to > be a good one ! > no : also 45.45454% > > So : my intuition was wrong : it is in fact Butler that more closely > resembles team play tactically. SO : my calculation was wrong, my intuition was right. Cross-IMPs mimics Team play exactly (as of course is logical). The fact remains however that Bastille calculation is quite close to Team play (or can you distinguish a game at 45.5% from one at 44.0% ?) so that the system is still a valid alternative. Sorry folks ! And thank you to Yves and Jesper for pointing out my mistake ! -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.club.innet.be/~pub02163/index.htm From owner-bridge-laws Mon Sep 16 20:56:24 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id UAA21350 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 16 Sep 1996 20:56:24 +1000 Received: from mail.be.innet.net (mail.be.innet.net [194.7.1.8]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id UAA21323 for ; Mon, 16 Sep 1996 20:56:07 +1000 Received: from innet.innet.be (pool03-25.innet.be [194.7.10.9]) by mail.be.innet.net (8.7.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id MAA22676 for ; Mon, 16 Sep 1996 12:55:42 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <323D4D83.EE5@innet.be> Date: Mon, 16 Sep 1996 12:52:19 +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: [calc] Problem 3 - Fouled Boards References: <199609131414.KAA22674@cfa183.harvard.edu> <323A7E99.6895@innet.be> <323ae734.5427995@pipmail.dknet.dk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk After the dust settles on my wrong calculation, I will now reply again to this statement : Jesper Dybdal wrote: > > On Sat, 14 Sep 1996 09:44:57 +0000, Herman De Wael > wrote: > >Intuitively, I also think Cross-IMPs is truer to the spirit of teams, > >but I have not yet managed to prove so mathematically. > > Cross-IMPs has the nice property that the strategy of when to bid on > is the same as at teams: the probability of 10 tricks that you need in > order to bid 4H instead of staying in 3H is the same in cross-IMPs as > in teams, but different in Butler scoring. > You are right, but the difference is so small (at least when using Bastille), that this should not influence players tactics. So the preference between Cross-IMPs and Bastille has to be settled on other criteria. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.club.innet.be/~pub02163/index.htm From owner-bridge-laws Tue Sep 17 01:32:17 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA25858 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 17 Sep 1996 01:32:17 +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 BAA25853 for ; Tue, 17 Sep 1996 01:32:08 +1000 Received: from cfa183.harvard.edu (cfa183.harvard.edu [131.142.12.59]) by cfa.harvard.edu (8.7.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id LAA17912 for ; Mon, 16 Sep 1996 11:32:03 -0400 (EDT) Received: by cfa183.harvard.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id LAA23884; Mon, 16 Sep 1996 11:33:19 -0400 Date: Mon, 16 Sep 1996 11:33:19 -0400 From: willner@cfa183.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Message-Id: <199609161533.LAA23884@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Choosing to break the law. X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: jd@pip.dknet.dk (Jesper Dybdal) > I agree completely with David here. This is the only thing the TD can > do without looking at the hand and interviewing the player in detail > about his system and bidding style - which it would be a very bad idea > to do in the middle of the hand. Although I don't like it, I think the weight of argument forces me to agree. L21B1 specifies "as a result of misinformation." If instead it had said "on the basis of misinformation," my suggestion might have more merit. As Jesper and David have said, there is no reasonable way to judge "result" without seeing the hand and quizzing the players on their methods. If I were on the Laws Commission, I might suggest a change in this Law. > This law is unusual in that it requires a non-offender to judge > whether he is allowed to do something: he has to judge whether the MI > made any difference. Since the player is a non-offender, I believe > that the TD should allow a change if there is just a small chance that > the player is right when he says it made a difference. Only when it > quite obviously is not true that the MI made a difference should the > TD adjust. I agree with all this. The first is why I dislike the current wording and went looking for a way around it. A non-offender should not be put in this position. Of course the TD will give the non-offenders the benefit of the doubt whenever possible. > I think it will be reasonable to consider both sides as offenders: That's an interesting view, but I think it is correct. Should one also consider a procedural penalty if it is obvious that the change of call had no relation whatever to the MI? From owner-bridge-laws Tue Sep 17 09:00:14 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA06460 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 17 Sep 1996 09:00:14 +1000 Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [128.103.40.170]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id JAA06455 for ; Tue, 17 Sep 1996 09:00:08 +1000 Received: from cfa183.harvard.edu (cfa183.harvard.edu [131.142.12.59]) by cfa.harvard.edu (8.7.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id TAA31294 for ; Mon, 16 Sep 1996 19:00:03 -0400 (EDT) Received: by cfa183.harvard.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id TAA24098; Mon, 16 Sep 1996 19:01:21 -0400 Date: Mon, 16 Sep 1996 19:01:21 -0400 From: willner@cfa183.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Message-Id: <199609162301.TAA24098@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [calc] Problem 3 - Fouled Boards X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: Herman De Wael > If not everyone plays all the boards you have > - a bad movement > - a problem that cannot be solved by the method of counting Nevertheless, it may be inevitable if you have a half-table. You have to find some method of counting that does as well as possible under the circumstances. Butler fails miserably. Cross-IMPs works OK. I believe Bastille fails as badly as Butler, but I'm not certain. In order to solve this problem, the NS scores and the EW scores on each board must _separately_ sum to zero. Cross-IMPs does that automatically. One could force Butler (or more easily Bastille) to have that property by putting in a correction on each board. This would be another way to solve the above problem. > I do not know what you mean with 'undue swings' or how it would be > different between Butler and Cross-IMPs. Consider when half the field is +420 and half -50. Under cross-IMPs, the difference is 470 or 10 IMPs. (Actual scores are +5 and -5.) Under Butler, the datum is 370/2 = 185 rounded to 190. Scores are +6 and -6, a difference of 12 IMPs. That's what I meant by "undue swings." (I think Bastille is the same as Butler, but maybe someone could check me on that.) One could argue that a 12 IMP swing is "better" than a 10 IMP swing in this situation, but it is surely different than the 10 IMPs one would swing in a team game. Incidentally, for the cross-IMPs to work out, you want to divide by the number of _results_, not by the number of _comparisons_. I think this is what Herman was telling us earlier. The divisor only matters if some boards are played a different number of times than other boards. From owner-bridge-laws Tue Sep 17 15:55:18 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id PAA07728 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 17 Sep 1996 15:55:18 +1000 Received: from relay-4.mail.demon.net (relay-4.mail.demon.net [158.152.1.108]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id PAA07721 for ; Tue, 17 Sep 1996 15:54:51 +1000 Received: from post.demon.co.uk ([(null)]) by relay-4.mail.demon.net id ae00397; 17 Sep 96 5:39 GMT Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by relay-3.mail.demon.net id aa20326; 17 Sep 96 0:08 BST Message-ID: Date: Mon, 16 Sep 1996 17:23:53 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Choosing to break the law. In-Reply-To: <199609161533.LAA23884@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) > >> I agree completely with David here. This is the only thing the TD can >> do without looking at the hand and interviewing the player in detail >> about his system and bidding style - which it would be a very bad idea >> to do in the middle of the hand. > >Although I don't like it, I think the weight of argument forces me >to agree. L21B1 specifies "as a result of misinformation." If >instead it had said "on the basis of misinformation," my suggestion >might have more merit. As Jesper and David have said, there is >no reasonable way to judge "result" without seeing the hand and >quizzing the players on their methods. Wahey !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Score one !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! -- David Stevenson Bridge Cats Railways Logic /\_/\ Liverpool, England, UK http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk =( ^*^ )= david@blakjak.demon.co.uk Emails welcome bluejak on OKB ( | | ) Tel: +44 (0)151 677 7412 Phone before Fax please RTFLB (_~^ ^~ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Sep 18 00:37:40 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA12762 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 18 Sep 1996 00:37:40 +1000 Received: from worldcom.ch (ns.worldcom.ch [194.51.96.111]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id AAA12733 for ; Wed, 18 Sep 1996 00:37:28 +1000 Received: from Default by worldcom.ch (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id QAA08487; Tue, 17 Sep 1996 16:39:32 +0200 Date: Tue, 17 Sep 1996 16:39:32 +0200 Message-Id: <199609171439.QAA08487@worldcom.ch> X-Sender: fsb@worldcom.ch (Unverified) X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.2 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "Y. Calame" Subject: EBL SYSTEMS POLICY Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Does anybody know if the version of the "EBL SYSTEMS POLICY" I have (http://home.worldcom.ch/~fsb/rt/eblsyspo.html), dated October 1, 1992 is still valid ? (Or where to find a more recent version) yvan From owner-bridge-laws Wed Sep 18 05:20:12 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA23314 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 18 Sep 1996 05:20:12 +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 FAA23273 for ; Wed, 18 Sep 1996 05:20:04 +1000 Received: from mail.isys.net by mail.hamburg.netsurf.de with smtp (/\==/\ Smail3.1.28.1 #28.1); id m0v35gT-000HqlC; Tue, 17 Sep 96 21:19 MET DST Received: from meckwell by mail.isys.net with smtp (/\oo/\ Smail3.1.29.1 #29.6); id ; Tue, 17 Sep 96 21:19 MESZ Date: Tue, 17 Sep 1996 21:25:43 +0200 (MET DST) From: Henk Uijterwaal X-Sender: henk@meckwell Reply-To: henk.uijterwaal@hamburg.netsurf.de To: "Y. Calame" cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: EBL SYSTEMS POLICY In-Reply-To: <199609171439.QAA08487@worldcom.ch> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Tue, 17 Sep 1996, Y. Calame wrote: > Does anybody know if the version of the "EBL SYSTEMS POLICY" I have > (http://home.worldcom.ch/~fsb/rt/eblsyspo.html), dated October 1, 1992 > is still valid ? (Or where to find a more recent version) As far as I know, the EBL followed the latest WBF System Policy revision. This would imply that a few restrictions have been dropped (1f, 1g, most of 2b) and the wording has changed a bit. The WBF policy is on the last 2 pages (A4 sized paper, 8pt font) of the March '96 WBF newsletter. I'm not going to type that in :) The editor is Eric Kokish, eok@vir.com, he might have it on a file or can send you a copy. Henk. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Henk Uijterwaal Email: henk.uijterwaal@hamburg.netsurf.de (home) henk@desy.de (work) WWW: http://www-zeus.desy.de/~uijter ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ %DCL-E-NOCFFE, unable to locate coffee - keyboard input suspended. From owner-bridge-laws Thu Sep 19 00:55:45 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA02648 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 19 Sep 1996 00:55:45 +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 AAA02643 for ; Thu, 19 Sep 1996 00:55:36 +1000 Received: from post.demon.co.uk ([(null)]) by relay-4.mail.demon.net id bx16068; 18 Sep 96 14:45 GMT Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by relay-3.mail.demon.net id aa28674; 18 Sep 96 15:39 BST Message-ID: Date: Wed, 18 Sep 1996 13:24:50 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: EBL SYSTEMS POLICY In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 1.12 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Henk Uijterwaal wrote: >On Tue, 17 Sep 1996, Y. Calame wrote: > >> Does anybody know if the version of the "EBL SYSTEMS POLICY" I have >> (http://home.worldcom.ch/~fsb/rt/eblsyspo.html), dated October 1, 1992 >> is still valid ? (Or where to find a more recent version) > >As far as I know, the EBL followed the latest WBF System Policy >revision. This would imply that a few restrictions have been >dropped (1f, 1g, most of 2b) and the wording has changed a bit. > >The WBF policy is on the last 2 pages (A4 sized paper, 8pt font) >of the March '96 WBF newsletter. I'm not going to type that in :) >The editor is Eric Kokish, eok@vir.com, he might have it on a file >or can send you a copy. I cannot remember the address [sorry] but I should try the WBF webpage. -- David Stevenson Bridge Cats Railways Logic /\_/\ Liverpool, England, UK http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk =( ^*^ )= david@blakjak.demon.co.uk Emails welcome bluejak on OKB ( | | ) Tel: +44 (0)151 677 7412 Phone before Fax please RTFLB (_~^ ^~ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Sep 19 07:28:14 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA12474 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 19 Sep 1996 07:28:14 +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 HAA12469 for ; Thu, 19 Sep 1996 07:28:05 +1000 Received: from mail.isys.net by mail.hamburg.netsurf.de with smtp (/\==/\ Smail3.1.28.1 #28.1); id m0v3U8K-000HuDC; Wed, 18 Sep 96 23:26 MET DST Received: from meckwell by mail.isys.net with smtp (/\oo/\ Smail3.1.29.1 #29.6); id ; Wed, 18 Sep 96 23:26 MESZ Date: Wed, 18 Sep 1996 23:32:12 +0200 (MET DST) From: Henk Uijterwaal X-Sender: henk@meckwell Reply-To: henk.uijterwaal@hamburg.netsurf.de To: David Stevenson cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: EBL SYSTEMS POLICY In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Wed, 18 Sep 1996, David Stevenson wrote: > I cannot remember the address [sorry] but I should try the WBF > webpage. http://www.bridge.gr And the system policy is NOT there... Henk. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Henk Uijterwaal Email: henk.uijterwaal@hamburg.netsurf.de (home) henk@desy.de (work) WWW: http://www-zeus.desy.de/~uijter ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ %DCL-E-NOCFFE, unable to locate coffee - keyboard input suspended. From owner-bridge-laws Thu Sep 19 11:39:20 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id LAA14144 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 19 Sep 1996 11:39:20 +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 LAA14138 for ; Thu, 19 Sep 1996 11:39:02 +1000 Received: from post.demon.co.uk ([(null)]) by relay-4.mail.demon.net id aa22319; 19 Sep 96 1:37 GMT Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by relay-3.mail.demon.net id aa12833; 19 Sep 96 2:37 BST Message-ID: Date: Thu, 19 Sep 1996 00:56:48 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: EBL SYSTEMS POLICY In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 1.12 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Henk Uijterwaal wrote: >David Stevenson wrote: > >> I cannot remember the address [sorry] but I should try the WBF >> webpage. > >http://www.bridge.gr > >And the system policy is NOT there... Damn! Sorry .... [Note: I am away and have no Net access from 20th to 30th] -- David Stevenson Bridge Cats Railways Logic /\_/\ Liverpool, England, UK http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk =( ^*^ )= david@blakjak.demon.co.uk Emails welcome bluejak on OKB ( | | ) Tel: +44 (0)151 677 7412 Phone before Fax please RTFLB (_~^ ^~ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Sep 19 20:39:38 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id UAA17845 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 19 Sep 1996 20:39:38 +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 UAA17839 for ; Thu, 19 Sep 1996 20:39:25 +1000 Received: from innet.innet.be (pool03-208.innet.be [194.7.10.208]) by mail.be.innet.net (8.7.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id MAA22536 for ; Thu, 19 Sep 1996 12:39:15 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <32413E36.6E49@innet.be> Date: Thu, 19 Sep 1996 12:36:06 +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: [calc] Problem 3 - Fouled Boards References: <199609162301.TAA24098@cfa183.harvard.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Steve Willner wrote: > > > From: Herman De Wael > > If not everyone plays all the boards you have > > - a bad movement > > - a problem that cannot be solved by the method of counting > > Nevertheless, it may be inevitable if you have a half-table. You > have to find some method of counting that does as well as possible > under the circumstances. I agree, this is what I said. A problem in movement has nothing to do with the way of calculating. We must deal with good and bad movements alike. > Butler fails miserably. > I believe Bastille fails as badly as Butler, but I'm not certain. > > In order to solve this problem, the NS scores and the EW scores on each > board must _separately_ sum to zero. If you mean that opponents' scores must sum to zero, that also happens automatically in Butler. If you mean that all NS scores together must sum to zero, I ask : why ? > Cross-IMPs does that > automatically. One could force Butler (or more easily Bastille) to > have that property by putting in a correction on each board. This > would be another way to solve the above problem. > > > I do not know what you mean with 'undue swings' or how it would be > > different between Butler and Cross-IMPs. > > Consider when half the field is +420 and half -50. Under cross-IMPs, > the difference is 470 or 10 IMPs. (Actual scores are +5 and -5.) > Under Butler, the datum is 370/2 = 185 rounded to 190. Scores are +6 > and -6, a difference of 12 IMPs. That's what I meant by "undue > swings." (I think Bastille is the same as Butler, but maybe someone > could check me on that.) In Bastille, the average would be 185, and + and - 235 would give + and - 5.9 IMPs, a swing of 11.8. One could argue that a 12 IMP swing is > "better" than a 10 IMP swing in this situation, but it is surely > different than the 10 IMPs one would swing in a team game. > This is of course true, but it is always the case. I have once tried to make a Butler-IMP table that would first double the difference, then convert to IMPs, then half that again. But that would only make things difficult, and it doesn't solve the problem really. Butler scores are always more than half of the Team equivalent. As I already said : yes - Cross-IMPs is closer to teams, but the tactics in Butler do not change significantly, and Butler is well-known and easy to understand for players, so ... > Incidentally, for the cross-IMPs to work out, you want to divide by the > number of _results_, not by the number of _comparisons_. I think this > is what Herman was telling us earlier. The divisor only matters if > some boards are played a different number of times than other boards. Exactly. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.club.innet.be/~pub02163/index.htm From owner-bridge-laws Thu Sep 19 23:02:23 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA18327 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 19 Sep 1996 23:02:23 +1000 Received: from worldcom.ch (ns.worldcom.ch [194.51.96.111]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id XAA18322 for ; Thu, 19 Sep 1996 23:02:14 +1000 Received: from Default by worldcom.ch (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id PAA06002; Thu, 19 Sep 1996 15:04:16 +0200 Date: Thu, 19 Sep 1996 15:04:16 +0200 Message-Id: <199609191304.PAA06002@worldcom.ch> X-Sender: fsb@worldcom.ch X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.2 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "Y. Calame" Subject: WBF SYSTEMS POLICY Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk >>David Stevenson wrote: >> >>> I cannot remember the address [sorry] but I should try the WBF >>> webpage. >> >>http://www.bridge.gr >> >>And the system policy is NOT there... Now it's at http://home.worldcom.ch/~fsb/rt/wbfsyspo.html yvan From owner-bridge-laws Fri Sep 20 04:54:11 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA28799 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 20 Sep 1996 04:54:11 +1000 Received: from hill.msri.org (msri.org [198.129.64.224]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id EAA28788 for ; Fri, 20 Sep 1996 04:54:05 +1000 From: grabiner@msri.org Received: by hill.msri.org (8.7/1.43r) id LAA25900; Thu, 19 Sep 1996 11:54:47 -0700 (PDT) Received: from boole.msri.org(198.129.65.86) by msri.org via smap (V1.3) id sma025897; Thu Sep 19 11:54:11 1996 Received: by boole.msri.org (8.7/DW.6) id LAA01337; Thu, 19 Sep 1996 11:52:01 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 19 Sep 1996 11:52:01 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199609191852.LAA01337@boole.msri.org> To: hermandw@innet.be CC: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au In-reply-to: <32413E36.6E49@innet.be> (message from Herman De Wael on Thu, 19 Sep 1996 12:36:06 +0000) Subject: Re: [calc] Problem 3 - Fouled Boards Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk You write: > Steve Willner wrote: >> >> > From: Herman De Wael >> > If not everyone plays all the boards you have >> > - a bad movement >> > - a problem that cannot be solved by the method of counting >> >> Nevertheless, it may be inevitable if you have a half-table. You >> have to find some method of counting that does as well as possible >> under the circumstances. > I agree, this is what I said. A problem in movement has nothing to do > with the way of calculating. We must deal with good and bad movements > alike. >> Butler fails miserably. >> I believe Bastille fails as badly as Butler, but I'm not certain. >> >> In order to solve this problem, the NS scores and the EW scores on each >> board must _separately_ sum to zero. > If you mean that opponents' scores must sum to zero, that also happens > automatically in Butler. > If you mean that all NS scores together must sum to zero, I ask : why ? Because the N-S scores for pairs which have played different boards will not be comparable. If the Bastille or Butler averages are zero on boards 1-3 but +1 on each of boards 25-27, then a pair which played boards 4-27 will have a three-IMP edge over a pair which played boards 1-24. >> Cross-IMPs does that >> automatically. One could force Butler (or more easily Bastille) to >> have that property by putting in a correction on each board. This >> would be another way to solve the above problem. The natural correction is to adjust every board by the average score on that board. Thus, in the example above, a N-S pair which tied the datum on board 25 would get -1 IMP. The disadvantage of this correction is that it reduces the effect of throwing out the extreme scores; this N-S pair may have played at par but lost an IMP because one of the E-W pairs went for 800, just as we could have at cross-IMPs. The correction would rarely be an exact number of IMPs, which suggests that it would work better with Bastille. -- David Grabiner, grabiner@msri.org, http://baseball.berkeley.edu/~grabiner I speak of MSRI and by MSRI but not for MSRI. 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 Sep 20 08:14:07 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA04413 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 20 Sep 1996 08:14:07 +1000 Received: from hill.msri.org (msri.org [198.129.64.224]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id IAA04408 for ; Fri, 20 Sep 1996 08:14:01 +1000 From: grabiner@msri.org Received: by hill.msri.org for (8.7/1.43r) id PAA00831; Thu, 19 Sep 1996 15:14:44 -0700 (PDT) Received: from boole.msri.org(198.129.65.86) by msri.org via smap (V1.3) id sma000798; Thu Sep 19 15:13:48 1996 Received: by boole.msri.org (8.7/DW.6) id PAA01411; Thu, 19 Sep 1996 15:11:36 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 19 Sep 1996 15:11:36 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199609192211.PAA01411@boole.msri.org> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au CC: grabiner@msri.org Subject: A case of the Kaplan doctrine Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I have now found an apparent example of the Kaplan doctrine. This is the disputed principle that there is no damage if the non-offending side gains an equity advantage at the table but gets a worse result because of luck. This now brings back a point which I raised several weeks ago. The Kaplan doctrine either should or shouldn't exist. There are opinions on both sides, but I think it is clearly worse for the existence of the doctrine to depend on the composition of the committee than for it either to exist or not. This case is from the 1994 world championships in Albuquerque. It seems to appear twice in the on-line version, as cases 10 and 14 in . It is case 26 in the book. The auction is the same in both on-line versions, as well as the alleged misexplanation, but with different facts; the book has the facts of case 10 but the decision of case 14. (This suggests that the same case may have been reported twice.) It is the case 14 decision which is an instance of the Kaplan doctrine. Bobby Wolff was the only panelist to publish a comment, and his comment agreed with the decision while proposing a procedural penalty for E-W; this suggests that the decision was not considered controversial. Less important comments follow the hands. Appeals Report #10 Event: McConnell Cup Sept. 20 Chairman: Edgar Kaplan Board 14 Love All NORTH Dealer East K A 7 6 A K 10 4 A K Q 8 2 WEST EAST 9 8 7 3 Q J 10 2 K J 9 8 5 3 2 - - Q 9 5 3 2 6 J 10 9 5 3 SOUTH A 6 5 4 Q 10 4 J 8 7 6 7 4 WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH - - Pass Pass Pass 1C Pass 1H Dbl Pass 1S 1NT Pass 2C Pass 2NT Pass 3D Pass 3NT Pass 4NT Pass 6D All Pass APPELLANTS' REASON FOR REQUESTING REVIEW West's double was explained to South as "shows hearts" while it was not Alerted to North. North asked the meaning of double, and East answered "takeout". (It was asked twice). The bid of 1H was Alerted on both sides. If North had known that the distribution could be unbalanced, she surely would have passed 3NT. From the other side South declarer 6D thinking North had had the same explanation she had had. COMMITTEE DECISION [from the on-line version] No adjustment. North and East failed to communicate adequately using only verbal means. North should probably understand this since a double of an artificial bid is rarely for takeout. North's contention that she would pass and play 3NT if she knew the double showed hearts is not convincing. Result stands. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Appeal Report #14 McConnell Cup Teams, Tuesday Committee Chairman: Edgar Kaplan Committee members present: Billy Eisenberg, Clare Tornay Scribe: Tony Sowter [same hands and bidding as above; 1C explained as strong, 1H as 7-plus high-card points, fewer than three controls.] THE FACTS North had described South's 1H bid to East as 7-plus points with fewer than three controls without specifying that it was artificial. East thought that South's bid was natural and so described West's double as being for takeout. In practice, North failed to make 6D when East was able to ruff the HA, but North felt that with the correct explanation of West's double, North-South might not have bid to 6D. THE DIRECTOR The director ruled no adjustment to the score because he was not convinced by North's contention that she would pass and play 3NT if she knew that the double showed hearts. THE COMMITTEE The committee allowed the result to stand because 6D was a good contract that failed only because the hearts were 7-0. In other words, if West had only held six hearts, the committee felt that North would still have wished to be in 6D. She was just unlucky to go down. COMMENT Largely due to the language difficulties at the table, the committee returned the deposit, although they stressed that in describing the 1H response to East, North should have emphasized the fact that the bid was artificial and had nothing to do with the heart suit. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- It's possible to find a non-Kaplan-doctrine interpretation of this judgement. The case 14 committee could have concluded that passing was not a logical alternative given the correct information. This would be a well-established justification for denying an adjustment; however, the committee didn't seem to make this point, although the director did. Based on the published information, I woudl assume that the committee applied the Kaplan doctrine. If the committee was ruling on the Kaplan doctrine, it should not even have considered keeping the deposit. An appeal which would be sustained by many other committees should not be frivolous, as this discourages the filing of legitimate appeals. (If the committee was ruling as in case 10, however, it could consider keeping the deposit.) The case 10 decision raises an interesting issue; what are you supposed to do if you have received an explanation which you believe to be wrong, particularly if it is apparently based on a misinterpretation of your own bidding? -- David Grabiner, grabiner@msri.org, http://baseball.berkeley.edu/~grabiner I speak of MSRI and by MSRI but not for MSRI. 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 Sep 20 23:50:13 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA11112 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 20 Sep 1996 23:50:13 +1000 Received: from relay-2.mail.demon.net (disperse.demon.co.uk [158.152.1.77]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id XAA11107 for ; Fri, 20 Sep 1996 23:50:01 +1000 Received: from post.demon.co.uk ([(null)]) by relay-2.mail.demon.net id aa17317; 20 Sep 96 9:49 BST Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by relay-3.mail.demon.net id aa06874; 20 Sep 96 9:43 BST Message-ID: Date: Fri, 20 Sep 1996 02:08:47 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: A case of the Kaplan doctrine In-Reply-To: <199609192211.PAA01411@boole.msri.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 1.12 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Grabiner wrote: >I have now found an apparent example of the Kaplan doctrine. This is >the disputed principle that there is no damage if the non-offending side >gains an equity advantage at the table but gets a worse result because >of luck. This hand does not look to me like the Kaplan principle at all. How would the bidding have been different without the MI? I can't see it. I just believe there was no damage consequent on the MI. >This now brings back a point which I raised several weeks ago. The >Kaplan doctrine either should or shouldn't exist. There are opinions on >both sides, but I think it is clearly worse for the existence of the >doctrine to depend on the composition of the committee than for it >either to exist or not. > >This case is from the 1994 world championships in Albuquerque. It seems >to appear twice in the on-line version, as cases 10 and 14 in >. It is case 26 >in the book. The auction is the same in both on-line versions, as well >as the alleged misexplanation, but with different facts; the book has >the facts of case 10 but the decision of case 14. (This suggests that >the same case may have been reported twice.) It is the case 14 decision >which is an instance of the Kaplan doctrine. > >Bobby Wolff was the only panelist to publish a comment, and his comment >agreed with the decision while proposing a procedural penalty for E-W; >this suggests that the decision was not considered controversial. > >Less important comments follow the hands. > >Appeals Report #10 > >Event: McConnell Cup Sept. 20 > >Chairman: Edgar Kaplan > >Board 14 >Love All NORTH >Dealer East K > A 7 6 > A K 10 4 > A K Q 8 2 > >WEST EAST >9 8 7 3 Q J 10 2 >K J 9 8 5 3 2 - - >Q 9 5 3 2 >6 J 10 9 5 3 > > SOUTH > A 6 5 4 > Q 10 4 > J 8 7 6 > 7 4 > > WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH > - - Pass Pass > Pass 1C Pass 1H > Dbl Pass 1S 1NT > Pass 2C Pass 2NT > Pass 3D Pass 3NT > Pass 4NT Pass 6D > All Pass > >APPELLANTS' REASON FOR REQUESTING REVIEW >West's double was explained to South as "shows hearts" while it was not >Alerted to North. North asked the meaning of double, and East answered >"takeout". (It was asked twice). The bid of 1H was Alerted on both >sides. If North had known that the distribution could be unbalanced, she >surely would have passed 3NT. From the other side South declarer 6D >thinking North had had the same explanation she had had. > >COMMITTEE DECISION [from the on-line version] >No adjustment. North and East failed to communicate adequately using only >verbal means. North should probably understand this since a double of an >artificial bid is rarely for takeout. North's contention that she would pass >and play 3NT if she knew the double showed hearts is not convincing. Result >stands. > >---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > >Appeal Report #14 > >McConnell Cup Teams, Tuesday > >Committee Chairman: Edgar Kaplan >Committee members present: Billy Eisenberg, Clare Tornay >Scribe: Tony Sowter > >[same hands and bidding as above; 1C explained as strong, 1H as 7-plus >high-card points, fewer than three controls.] > >THE FACTS >North had described South's 1H bid to East as 7-plus points with fewer >than three controls without specifying that it was artificial. East thought >that South's bid was natural and so described West's double as being for >takeout. In practice, North failed to make 6D when East was able to >ruff the HA, but North felt that with the correct explanation of >West's double, North-South might not have bid to 6D. > >THE DIRECTOR >The director ruled no adjustment to the score because he was not convinced >by North's contention that she would pass and play 3NT if she knew that the >double showed hearts. > >THE COMMITTEE >The committee allowed the result to stand because 6D was a good >contract that failed only because the hearts were 7-0. In other words, if >West had only held six hearts, the committee felt that North would still >have wished to be in 6D. She was just unlucky to go down. > >COMMENT >Largely due to the language difficulties at the table, the committee >returned the deposit, although they stressed that in describing the 1H >response to East, North should have emphasized the fact that the bid was >artificial and had nothing to do with the heart suit. > >---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > >It's possible to find a non-Kaplan-doctrine interpretation of this >judgement. The case 14 committee could have concluded that passing was >not a logical alternative given the correct information. This would be >a well-established justification for denying an adjustment; however, the >committee didn't seem to make this point, although the director did. >Based on the published information, I woudl assume that the committee >applied the Kaplan doctrine. > >If the committee was ruling on the Kaplan doctrine, it should not even >have considered keeping the deposit. An appeal which would be sustained >by many other committees should not be frivolous, as this discourages >the filing of legitimate appeals. (If the committee was ruling as in >case 10, however, it could consider keeping the deposit.) > >The case 10 decision raises an interesting issue; what are you supposed >to do if you have received an explanation which you believe to be wrong, >particularly if it is apparently based on a misinterpretation of your >own bidding? > -- David Stevenson Bridge Cats Railways Logic /\_/\ Liverpool, England, UK http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk =( ^*^ )= david@blakjak.demon.co.uk Emails welcome bluejak on OKB ( | | ) Tel: +44 (0)151 677 7412 Phone before Fax please RTFLB (_~^ ^~ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Sep 21 00:15:30 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA12898 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 21 Sep 1996 00:15:30 +1000 Received: from cais.cais.com (cais.com [199.0.216.4]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id AAA12893 for ; Sat, 21 Sep 1996 00:15:23 +1000 Received: from elandau1.cais.com (elandau.cais.com [204.157.58.181]) by cais.cais.com (8.6.10/8.6.5) with SMTP id KAA25493 for ; Fri, 20 Sep 1996 10:15:15 -0400 Message-Id: <1.5.4.32.19960920141630.0068a060@cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.4 (32) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Fri, 20 Sep 1996 10:16:30 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: A case of the Kaplan doctrine Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 03:11 PM 9/19/96 -0700, David wrote: >I have now found an apparent example of the Kaplan doctrine. This is >the disputed principle that there is no damage if the non-offending side >gains an equity advantage at the table but gets a worse result because >of luck. Kaplan's original doctrine is that there is no (redressable) damage if the non-offending side gains an equity advantage at the table but gets a worse result because of their own subsequent actions (a.k.a "egregious error"). That does not seem to be an issue in the case David cites. David's "disputed principle" -- which seems to be the rationale for the decision according to case #14 -- has only recently been disputed at all. This is, IMHO, part of a new and disturbing trend to mete out "punishment" for technical infractions in the form of score adjustments without regard to whether or not the infraction had any equity impact. Adjustments are intended to restore equity that was "lost" at the table due to an infraction. But restoring equity doesn't necessarily mean that the side whose equity position was thus improved gets a better result; luck still has its role to play. In this case, the NOs reached the best contract despite the misinformation, so there was no loss of equity at any point (as there would have been had the misinformation caused them to get a bad result by missing their best contract). That the best contract happened to fail on this deal because of a very unlucky 7-0 break isn't relevent to the equity position. In effect, what the NOs attempted to argue was that a correct explanation of the opponents' bidding would have induced them to make an error (missing the good 6D) which would have worked out to their advantage (due to 6D failing on the 7-0 heart break). The committee properly rejected this as simply not valid grounds for redress. Personally, I wouldn't have gotten far enough to adjudicate this point. I'd have agreed with the director, and with the committee decision as reported in case #10, that there was no reason to believe that the misinformation might have affected the result at the table. They apparently just didn't believe that North would have passed 3NT given a correct explanation. As David says, this could be grounds for keeping the $50 deposit, if they believed that N-S understood that there was no damage resulting from the original infraction, and were simply looking for "something for nothing." The Kaplan doctrine would have come into play had the circumstances been such that (a) the committee believed that North might have passed 3NT given a correct explanation, AND (b) 6D was an inferior contract that failed on normal breaks. Under those circumstances, my position (by rejecting the Kaplan doctrine) would be that N-S were entitled to redress. The Kaplan doctrine would have required the committee to adjudicate further as to whether N-S's reaching 6D was a direct consequence of the infraction (give redress) or, rather, a result of N-S's own bad (given their level of expertise) bidding (deny redress). The actual case presented no such issue. 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 Sep 21 06:45:45 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA16172 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 21 Sep 1996 06:45:45 +1000 Received: from hill.msri.org (msri.org [198.129.64.224]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id GAA16167 for ; Sat, 21 Sep 1996 06:45:37 +1000 From: grabiner@msri.org Received: by hill.msri.org (8.7/1.43r) id NAA14180; Fri, 20 Sep 1996 13:46:22 -0700 (PDT) Received: from boole.msri.org(198.129.65.86) by msri.org via smap (V1.3) id sma014172; Fri Sep 20 13:45:58 1996 Received: by boole.msri.org (8.7/DW.6) id NAA01828; Fri, 20 Sep 1996 13:43:48 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 20 Sep 1996 13:43:48 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199609202043.NAA01828@boole.msri.org> To: elandau@cais.cais.com CC: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au In-reply-to: <1.5.4.32.19960920141630.0068a060@cais.com> (message from Eric Landau on Fri, 20 Sep 1996 10:16:30 -0400) Subject: Re: A case of the Kaplan doctrine Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk You write: > At 03:11 PM 9/19/96 -0700, David wrote: >> I have now found an apparent example of the Kaplan doctrine. This is >> the disputed principle that there is no damage if the non-offending side >> gains an equity advantage at the table but gets a worse result because >> of luck. > Kaplan's original doctrine is that there is no (redressable) damage if the > non-offending side gains an equity advantage at the table but gets a worse > result because of their own subsequent actions (a.k.a "egregious error"). > That does not seem to be an issue in the case David cites. What is usually done here is that the offenders' score gets adjusted but the non-offenders keep their bad result. > David's "disputed principle" -- which seems to be the rationale for the > decision according to case #14 -- has only recently been disputed at all. > This is, IMHO, part of a new and disturbing trend to mete out "punishment" > for technical infractions in the form of score adjustments without regard > to whether or not the infraction had any equity impact. > Adjustments are intended to restore equity that was "lost" at the table due > to an infraction. But restoring equity doesn't necessarily mean that the > side whose equity position was thus improved gets a better result; luck > still has its role to play. The case under discussion two weeks ago went the other way; the offenders reached a 30% slam which made, and the result was adjusted to game making for both sides. Bobby Goldman was the only member of the expert panel to disagree. -- David Grabiner, grabiner@msri.org, http://baseball.berkeley.edu/~grabiner I speak of MSRI and by MSRI but not for MSRI. Shop at the Mobius Strip Mall: Always on the same side of the street! Klein Glassworks, Torus Coffee and Donuts, Projective Airlines, etc. From owner-bridge-laws Sun Sep 22 19:33:06 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id TAA00182 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 22 Sep 1996 19:33:06 +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 TAA00175 for ; Sun, 22 Sep 1996 19:32:54 +1000 Received: from innet.innet.be (pool03-224.innet.be [194.7.10.224]) by mail.be.innet.net (8.7.6/8.7.3) with SMTP id LAA29266 for ; Sun, 22 Sep 1996 11:32:43 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <324521A8.27F5@innet.be> Date: Sun, 22 Sep 1996 11:23:20 +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 8 - Split-Scores 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 8. Split-Scores A. Description of the problem A Split-Score is the result of an intervention by the tournament director, usually even after review by the appeals committee. It is therefor not a common occurrence, and has not received much attention in the past. The usual way in which results of boards containing a split-score was calculated was to consider the board twice : once for the North-South results, once for East-West. There is however one problem with this approach : the results of the NS and EW-pairs at any one table need no longer be the complement of each other. There are certain disadvantages to this. If no better way were to be found, these disadvantages could well be classed with many others, which make that winning a Bridge Tournament still needs some luck. There is however a better approach : if you consider a split-score two separate scores, each with only half the 'weight' of a normal score, one can employ the normal rules for the system used. This will be described in more detail for every separate system. In every example we have the same board, calculated first normally, and then when one score of +450 is changed to -50 for NS, +450 for EW. We give a frequency table for each. B. Solutions 1) Mitchell 1-3 score freq mpM +480 1 18.0 +450 4 13.0 +420 2 7.0 -50 2 3.0 -100 1 0.0 The same principle is applied after changing the +450 into -50/+450 : both scores have a frequency of one half. score freq mpM +480 1 18.0 +450 3.5 13.5 +420 2 8.0 -50 2.5 3.5 -100 1 0.0 Obviously the NS pair (-50) scores 3.5, and the EW pair (+450) scores the complement of 13.5 = 4.5. Another way of explaining this method would be to go back to the official way in which the Mitchell system is included in the International Laws. In this description, every score has to be compared to every other score. If it is the higher, two scoring-units are attributed; if it is equal, one; if it is lower, none. This can be completed : if comparing to a split-score, one scoring-unit is attributed for being higher than each of the separate scores, one half point when equalling either of the scores. There is one major disadvantage to this method, when using the Mitchell (Neuberg) system. Suppose the NS pair would get an even worse score of -150. The frequency table then becomes : score freq mpM +480 1 18.0 +450 3.5 13.5 +420 2 8.0 -50 2 4.0 -100 1 1.0 -150 0.5 -0.5 The NS pair scores a negative result ! I do not consider this an illogical result. It is the complete Mitchell system that is illogical in giving 0 points to a pair who has scored a normal result. In the Ascherman system, this strange result becomes quite normal indeed. 2) Ascherman Exactly the same reasoning, with of course one extra point for each pair : score freq mpA +480 1 19.0 +450 4 14.0 +420 2 8.0 -50 2 4.0 -100 1 1.0 after changing to the split-score : score freq mpA +480 1 19.0 +450 3.5 14.5 +420 2 9.0 -50 2.5 4.5 -100 1 1.0 or with the NS pair getting -150 : score freq mpA +480 1 19.0 +450 3.5 14.5 +420 2 9.0 -50 2 5.0 -100 1 2.0 -150 0.5 0.5 The negative result has now changed into a very bad 2.5% ! 3) Cross-IMPs The same principle should be applied : when comparing to the split-score, one should compare with each score separately, then convert into IMPs and halve both these IMP-scores before adding them to the grand total. For the split-scores themselves, you should also compare with the other splitscore (and with the own score, but that's always 0 IMPs), halve the conversion in IMPs and add. This is another reason why I consider it better to divide by the number of scores, not by the number of comparisons. score freq C-IMP +480 1 +4.65 +450 3.5 +4.00 +420 2 +3.10 -50 2 -6.60 -100 1 -7.45 -150 0.5 -8.30 Calculation for the pairs scoring +420 : -Comparing with +480 : -60 = -2 IMP x 1 = -2 -Comparing with +450 : -30 = -1 IMP x 3.5 = -3.5 -Comparing with +420 : 0 = 0 IMP x 2 = 0 -Comparing with -50 : +470 = +10 IMP x 2 = +20 -Comparing with -100 : +520 = +11 IMP x 1 = +11 -Comparing with -150 : +570 = +11 IMP x 0.5 = +5.5 Total of the comparisons : +31 IMP, divided by 10 = +3.1 IMP 4) Butler, Bastille Only one average is calculated : (example only in Bastille, Butler = rounding) score freq Bast +480 1 +4.4 +450 4 +3.7 +420 2 +2.9 -50 2 -8.5 -100 1 -9.4 average : 317.50 score freq Bast +480 1 +5.1 +450 3.5 +4.5 +420 2 +3.7 -50 2.5 -7.9 -100 1 -8.9 average : 286.25 The average is calculated as : (450x3.5 + 420x2 - 50x2.5) / 8 and with the NS pair getting -150 : score freq mpM +480 1 +5.1 +450 3.5 +4.5 +420 2 +3.8 -50 2 -7.9 -100 1 -8.8 -150 0.5 -9.6 average : 283.125 In this last example, the average was calculated as follows. The total of all the scores is 2620 (480+3,5*450+2*420-2*50-100-75), from which we subtract the 480, and -75 (half the lowest score) and -50 (half the second lowest score) : 2620-480+125 = 2265 / 8 = 283.125 Remember that in the Bastille system the average is NOT rounded, but normally only the integer part will be displayed. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium From owner-bridge-laws Sat Sep 28 09:31:36 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA17534 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 28 Sep 1996 09:31:36 +1000 Received: from hill.msri.org (msri.org [198.129.64.224]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id JAA17529 for ; Sat, 28 Sep 1996 09:31:26 +1000 From: grabiner@msri.org Received: by hill.msri.org for (8.7/1.43r) id QAA27766; Fri, 27 Sep 1996 16:32:10 -0700 (PDT) Received: from boole.msri.org(198.129.65.86) by msri.org via smap (V1.3) id sma027736; Fri Sep 27 16:31:22 1996 Received: by boole.msri.org (8.7/DW.6) id QAA04588; Fri, 27 Sep 1996 16:29:12 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 27 Sep 1996 16:29:12 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199609272329.QAA04588@boole.msri.org> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Who are your peers? Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk This seems to be another question which committees do not answer consistently. I would think that the coprrect definition would be, "players of a comparable level of ability *who have made the same decisions you have already made*." Sometimes, this assumption is implicitly made. Say that East bids 4S in a competitive auction. South has an offensive hand and should bid 5H, but he chooses to pass (non-forcing). North hesitates and then doubles, and South now bids 5H. The score will probably be adjusted if necessary (and it should be); maybe a player of South's ability should have bid 5H, but this South chose to leave the decision to partner, and must now respect it. The argument is clearer under the old 75% rule; if 90% of Souths wouldn't have stood for the double but 90% of those would have bid 5H directly, that destroys the clear majority basis for this action. However, you have cases such as the following one from New Orleans. North was vulnerable in a KO, and held AJT6 KQ97 AT9 43. East opened 2S showing both minors, South bid 3H, North bid 4D, and South hesitated and bid 4H. North's 4S bid was then disallowed. This case led to mixed opinions from the expert panel. The dissenters made essentially the point above; it wasn't clear to show both aces after a signoff, but those Norths who didn't intend to show both aces would have bid 3S (and then passed 4H but bid 4D over 4C) rather than 4D. The supporters didn't address this point at all. -- David Grabiner, grabiner@msri.org, http://baseball.berkeley.edu/~grabiner I speak of MSRI and by MSRI but not for MSRI. 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 Sat Sep 28 13:02:02 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id NAA20344 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 28 Sep 1996 13:02:02 +1000 Received: from emout18.mail.aol.com (emout18.mx.aol.com [198.81.11.44]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id NAA20339 for ; Sat, 28 Sep 1996 13:01:55 +1000 From: AlLeBendig@aol.com Received: by emout18.mail.aol.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA25888 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Fri, 27 Sep 1996 23:01:20 -0400 Date: Fri, 27 Sep 1996 23:01:20 -0400 Message-ID: <960927230118_531785003@emout18.mail.aol.com> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Who are your peers? Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In a message dated 96-09-27 19:45:01 EDT, you write: << Subj: Who are your peers? Date: 96-09-27 19:45:01 EDT From: grabiner@msri.org Sender: owner-bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au This seems to be another question which committees do not answer consistently. I would think that the coprrect definition would be, "players of a comparable level of ability *who have made the same decisions you have already made*." **Committees try to answer these questions consistently. It is frequently very difficult to judge. The second part of this statement does receive some consideration especially when there are clear negative inferences. If someone has already made one or two "bad" bids, we're certainly not as prone to suddenly assume the player will wake up and make a judgement at a level he has not exhibited to this point. Sometimes, this assumption is implicitly made. Say that East bids 4S in a competitive auction. South has an offensive hand and should bid 5H, but he chooses to pass (non-forcing). North hesitates and then doubles, and South now bids 5H. The score will probably be adjusted if necessary (and it should be); maybe a player of South's ability should have bid 5H, but this South chose to leave the decision to partner, and must now respect it. The argument is clearer under the old 75% rule; **In some ways it was clearer. The problem was that committee members were viewing the problem double dummy and it was easy for some to feel that they would have made the right decision and therefore 75% of their peers would have also. Since the Europeans still use a percentage designation, I'm interested in knowing if they have experienced this tendency. if 90% of Souths wouldn't have stood for the double but 90% of those would have bid 5H directly, that destroys the clear majority basis for this action. However, you have cases such as the following one from New Orleans. North was vulnerable in a KO, and held AJT6 KQ97 AT9 43. East opened 2S showing both minors, South bid 3H, North bid 4D, and South hesitated and bid 4H. North's 4S bid was then disallowed. This case led to mixed opinions from the expert panel. The dissenters made essentially the point above; it wasn't clear to show both aces after a signoff, but those Norths who didn't intend to show both aces would have bid 3S (and then passed 4H but bid 4D over 4C) rather than 4D. The supporters didn't address this point at all. **This was a very interesting and controversial decision. The supporters made their point based on the fact that after the hesitation it was nearly impossible for N to be wrong by continuing. Without the UI, there was some risk. I think Rich Colker (currently our National Recorder) wrote the best argument in support of the Committee decision. I'm going to quote him: **"This was a good Committee Decision. This case represented a fairly straightforward class of Committee decisions which aren't well understood by the general bridge public. Thus, it is not unexpected that it ruffled the feathers of several players. North's 4S bid was a normal, well-reasoned, expert move toward slam which, in the opinion of the highly expert Committee, was likely to have been taken by a majority of North's peers. Still' it was not, in the Committee's opinion (nor in mine) an action which was clear enough to allow in the wake of South's hesitation. Paradoxically, if another South player had held something like xxx AJTxxx Qx KQ and had signed off (too) quickly in 4H, and North had passed (avoiding the danger of 5H on a diamond lead), a Committee should impose a 4S bid on North and force N-S to go down in 5H! Compare this decision with that in Case Two. The principle is the same: Players must not take any action which clearly could have been suggested by their partner's irregularity, unless that action would have been clear without it. In the present case, the action just happened to be the 'normal' one, which most of the player's peers would have taken. Still, it wasn't clear enough in light of the unauthorized information from South's hesitation. The objective in such situations is not simply to restore equity! It is to ensure that the offending side cannot possibly benefit from their irregularity and, coincidentally, to protect the nonoffenders by restoring equity for them, resolving any doubt about what would have happened in their favor." There were eight experts that commented on this decision. Six of the eight agreed with the decision. One of those was on the actual Committee. Alan LeBendig Los Angeles, CA