From owner-bridge-laws Mon Nov 4 22:08:33 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id WAA13093 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 4 Nov 1996 22:08:33 +1100 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 WAA13087 for ; Mon, 4 Nov 1996 22:08:24 +1100 Received: from innet.innet.be (pool03-91.innet.be [194.7.10.91]) by mail.be.innet.net (8.7.6/8.7.3) with SMTP id MAA16315 for ; Mon, 4 Nov 1996 12:08:15 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: <327DDC01.28E7@innet.be> Date: Mon, 04 Nov 1996 12:05:21 +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: Abbreviations References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk The Daily News in Rhodos introduced a new abbreviation, which I find has it's merits, as it is easily pronouncable as well : LOOT Lead-Out-Of-Turn and it's derivative : LOOTer, i.e. The Looter is allowed to take his card back, ... -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.club.innet.be/~pub02163/index.htm From owner-bridge-laws Tue Nov 5 11:12:14 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id LAA28200 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 5 Nov 1996 11:12:14 +1100 Received: from relay-7.mail.demon.net (relay-7.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.9]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id LAA28195 for ; Tue, 5 Nov 1996 11:12:03 +1100 Received: by relay-7.mail.demon.net id aa715039; 4 Nov 96 22:53 GMT Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by relay-6.mail.demon.net id aa614995; 4 Nov 96 22:52 GMT Message-ID: Date: Mon, 4 Nov 1996 16:42:43 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Abbreviations In-Reply-To: <327DDC01.28E7@innet.be> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Herman De Wael wrote: >The Daily News in Rhodos introduced a new abbreviation, which I find has >it's merits, as it is easily pronouncable as well : > >LOOT Lead-Out-Of-Turn > >and it's derivative : LOOTer, i.e. The Looter is allowed to take his >card back, ... > I like it. Come to think of it, I remember once writing in something or other about Bids and Calls OOT. Anyway, I have included LOOT in the list. -- 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 Nov 6 05:39:19 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA16876 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 6 Nov 1996 05:39:19 +1100 Received: from ns-prime.cais.com (ns-prime.cais.com [199.0.216.5]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id FAA16871 for ; Wed, 6 Nov 1996 05:39:11 +1100 Received: from elandau.cais.com.cais.com ([204.157.58.181]) by ns-prime.cais.com (8.7.5/8.7.5-CAIS) with SMTP id NAA24122 for ; Tue, 5 Nov 1996 13:12:51 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <1.5.4.32.19961105183904.0067c7bc@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: Tue, 05 Nov 1996 13:39:04 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Claiming before counting Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk A hand that was reprinted in the latest Bridge World led me to become curious about a point of law (and proved that all this discussion of the laws has affected my mind!). This isn't the sort of thing I'd ever expect to have to resolve at the table. You play 6NT on a diamond lead, all following, with AKQx/K/AKQJ/AKQx opposite xxx/AJ10/xxxx/xxx. The point of the hand is that although it's not immediately obvious where your 12th trick will come from, if you just cash your 10 winners in spades, diamonds and clubs you should never go down. Cashing will give you a complete count on the three suits and reveal the three-card ending. You can take at least two more tricks in any ending, once you know what it is: - If either (or both) black x is good, cash it. - If neither opponent holds two hearts, overtake HK with HA and take the rest. - If either (or both) opponent holds a high black card and two hearts, cash HK and throw him in with his black winner to take last. - If either opponent holds winners in both black suits (giving him no more than one heart and leaving his partner with all hearts), overtake HK with HA and continue. My question is this: Would the explanation above constitute a legally valid claim? Or do the laws require you to demonstrate your ability, at the table, to keep track of the 20 cards the opponents will play to the first 10 tricks? Eric Landau APL Solutions, Inc. elandau@cais.com 1107 Dale Drive (301) 589-4621 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 USA From owner-bridge-laws Wed Nov 6 10:35:11 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA18306 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 6 Nov 1996 10:35:11 +1100 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 KAA18289 for ; Wed, 6 Nov 1996 10:34:59 +1100 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 SAA30135 for ; Tue, 5 Nov 1996 18:34:49 -0500 (EST) Received: by cfa183.harvard.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id SAA03848; Tue, 5 Nov 1996 18:36:06 -0500 Date: Tue, 5 Nov 1996 18:36:06 -0500 From: willner@cfa183.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Message-Id: <199611052336.SAA03848@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Claiming before counting X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > My question is this: Would the explanation above constitute a legally valid > claim? Or do the laws require you to demonstrate your ability, at the > table, to keep track of the 20 cards the opponents will play to the first 10 > tricks? An interesting question. I personally would allow such a claim, especially as only the black suits have to be counted. But if it were in doubt, how would a declarer go about demonstrating the requisite ability to keep track? As a matter of policy, we don't want to discourage claims, so I would argue we should accept this one. Of course this begs the question, is there some claim that is so complex (or requires such difficult counting) that we will not allow it, even if we are sure a computer could get it right? From owner-bridge-laws Wed Nov 6 21:07:41 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id VAA20260 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 6 Nov 1996 21:07:41 +1100 Received: from relay-7.mail.demon.net (relay-7.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.9]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id VAA20255 for ; Wed, 6 Nov 1996 21:07:35 +1100 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by relay-5.mail.demon.net id aa527960; 6 Nov 96 10:03 GMT Message-ID: Date: Wed, 6 Nov 1996 02:59:55 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Claiming before counting In-Reply-To: <199611052336.SAA03848@cfa183.harvard.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Steve Willner wrote: >Eric Landau wrote: >> My question is this: Would the explanation above constitute a legally valid >> claim? Or do the laws require you to demonstrate your ability, at the >> table, to keep track of the 20 cards the opponents will play to the first 10 >> tricks? > >An interesting question. I personally would allow such a claim, >especially as only the black suits have to be counted. But if it were >in doubt, how would a declarer go about demonstrating the requisite >ability to keep track? As a matter of policy, we don't want to >discourage claims, so I would argue we should accept this one. > >Of course this begs the question, is there some claim that is so >complex (or requires such difficult counting) that we will not allow >it, even if we are sure a computer could get it right? One of the problems with discussions in this group is that we generally look at the theory of what the Laws mean rather than the practice of how we apply them: not always, but usually. Sometimes the practical approach is interesting, and sometimes the theoretical approach is not, usually because it is completely clear. Now really this seems to be more a question of the practicality of approach: yet, I wonder. A player is required to accompany his claim by a statement of clarification. What is clarification? Making it clear, is it not? I have no doubt that I would allow Eric's claim because he has made the line of play clear, and the Laws say nothing about checking his ability to count. But I do not believe we should allow a claim that was too complex, even if correct, because then you could not refer to the accompanying statement as clarification. My gut feeling is to disallow a claim that is too complex to be understood: I also think the letter of the Law agrees with me. -- 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 Nov 6 22:53:48 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id WAA20757 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 6 Nov 1996 22:53:48 +1100 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 WAA20752 for ; Wed, 6 Nov 1996 22:53:39 +1100 Received: (from root@localhost) by tom.compulink.co.uk (8.6.9/8.6.9) id LAA11726 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Wed, 6 Nov 1996 11:53:01 GMT Date: Wed, 6 Nov 96 11:48 GMT0 From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: Claiming before counting 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 Steve Willner wrote: >Of course this begs the question, is there some claim that is so >complex (or requires such difficult counting) that we will not allow >it, even if we are sure a computer could get it right? Could we not interpret 70A "adjudicating the result of the board as equitably as possible" to allow defence to NOT face their cards during playing out the claim? I know this is not the procedure in 70B but it "feels fair". Supplementary question on the original hand. (assuming strong hand is North and South declarer) If West held: xxx,Qxxx,xx,JT98 would you allow South to benefit from the squeeze in this ending. x K - x - Qx immaterial - J - AJT - - Cashing the last spade is obviously in line with the claim statement and West throws a small heart. Can south now overtake HK for trick 13 - it can't cost and may (and does) gain but would it constitute being irrational to fail to overtake? a) If E-W conceded the claim saying eg "6N making" and South says (on seeing the layout) "no, up 1, automatic" b) If E-W contested the claim and it was played out under 70B c) If E-W contested the claim and it was played out under my reading of 70A Tim West-Meads. From owner-bridge-laws Wed Nov 6 23:59:41 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA21243 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 6 Nov 1996 23:59:41 +1100 Received: from relay-7.mail.demon.net (relay-7.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.9]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id XAA21238 for ; Wed, 6 Nov 1996 23:59:34 +1100 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by relay-6.mail.demon.net id aa618699; 6 Nov 96 10:03 GMT Message-ID: Date: Wed, 6 Nov 1996 03:01:53 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Should we follow the Laws? MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk The following three quotations are from different articles in RGB. Bobby Goldman wrote: > By allowing pairs to look at their notes against complex methods.. >the playing field gets more level and also for many RGB >experimenters, there would become a greater inclination to allow SOME >semi-destructive methods. > > The way this is done legally is by: "your defenses become part of >the opponents convention card". Tom Goodwin wrote: > (2) Banning natural bids is indeed contrary to the Laws of >Bridge, at least as I understand the Laws. And I am not in favor of >banning (or regulating) natural bids. But it CAN be done in a game >like Classic Bridge, if the organization thinks it desirable to do: >simply make it a Condition of Contest that players entering the event >AGREE, by purchasing an entry, to be bound by the rules established, >even when the rules violate the Laws of Bridge. This does indeed >create a different game -- but wasn't that at least part of the idea? >A similar point can be made about psychs (or psyches -- I do not >know and do not care much which spelling is correct): I am not in >favor of banning or regulating them, but I can see nothing wrong >in principle with a Condition of Contest that players entering the >event AGREE that they will not exercise their legal right to psych >(or psyche). Of course, you would want to have concurrent games >available where such concessions are NOT extracted from the >players -- another aspect of the Classic Bridge idea. > What the organization should not do is to avoid the Laws >without saying that it is doing so. Banning a signoff response of >3m to a 1NT opening bid represents such an evasion. So does >requiring a 2C response to be Stayman (thus banning a natural >2C response). Donald A. Varvel wrote: >I have another concern, though. Classic Card disallows all >sorts of natural bids, that according to the Laws of Bridge must >be allowed. Is a game not governed by the Laws of Bridge really >bridge? Maybe bridge as defined by the Laws can't be marketed >in the United States. These are three examples where what is being played [or suggested] is not Bridge, because it is against the Laws: or perhaps it is Bridge, but only by wangling and/or bending the Laws. There are a lot of other examples: banning psyches in any game: the EBU's method of enforcing the Rule of 19: American ACs who effectively give rulings under a footnote that does not appear in their Law book: and so on. My question is: Should we work on the practical approach: if it is effective, let's do it, and if it is not exactly in accord with the Law book, let's not worry? -or- Should we work on the theoretical approach: the Law makers have set up a Law book, which should be followed, *especially* by national authorities like the ACBL and the EBU? -- 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 Nov 7 02:02:00 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA25030 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 7 Nov 1996 02:02:00 +1100 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 CAA25025 for ; Thu, 7 Nov 1996 02:01:50 +1100 Received: from innet.innet.be (pool03-84.innet.be [194.7.10.84]) by mail.be.innet.net (8.7.6/8.7.3) with SMTP id OAA20733 for ; Wed, 6 Nov 1996 14:18:52 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: <328087A5.635@innet.be> Date: Wed, 06 Nov 1996 12:42:13 +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: Claiming before counting References: <199611052336.SAA03848@cfa183.harvard.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Steve Willner wrote: > > > My question is this: Would the explanation above constitute a legally valid > > claim? Or do the laws require you to demonstrate your ability, at the > > table, to keep track of the 20 cards the opponents will play to the first 10 > > tricks? > > An interesting question. I personally would allow such a claim, > especially as only the black suits have to be counted. But if it were > in doubt, how would a declarer go about demonstrating the requisite > ability to keep track? As a matter of policy, we don't want to > discourage claims, so I would argue we should accept this one. > In this case, easily, as we could simply allow him to do so. As however the object of claiming is, that one can then rest and no longer be allowed to make mistakes, I would have great admiration for someone who can foresee that he will be able to fully count the hand and show three possible endplays all at once. > Of course this begs the question, is there some claim that is so > complex (or requires such difficult counting) that we will not allow > it, even if we are sure a computer could get it right? No, if a player shows that he has considered 27 possible endings, he can claim. But as opponent, I would prefer to see him play out the hand and tell us which of the endings it will become. I would consider it a claim, give him the benefit of the doubt that he had indeed seen all possible endings, but give opponents the benefit of the doubt if there were still a line not seen by declarer. I think a declarer should be allowed to say 'play is over', whatever happens, I make all tricks, and then proceed to show, by playing a line, that it is true. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.club.innet.be/~pub02163/index.htm From owner-bridge-laws Thu Nov 7 03:18:09 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA25540 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 7 Nov 1996 03:18:09 +1100 Received: from relay-7.mail.demon.net (relay-7.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.9]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id DAA25535 for ; Thu, 7 Nov 1996 03:17:57 +1100 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by relay-6.mail.demon.net id aa605595; 6 Nov 96 14:25 GMT Message-ID: Date: Wed, 6 Nov 1996 13:52:54 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Claiming before counting In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Tim West-meads wrote: >Could we not interpret 70A "adjudicating the result of the board as equitably >as possible" to allow defence to NOT face their cards during playing out the >claim? I know this is not the procedure in 70B but it "feels fair". Alright, Tim, WTF are you talking about? Read L68D. -- 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 Nov 7 07:26:56 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA05474 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 7 Nov 1996 07:26:56 +1100 Received: from Mail.IDT.NET (mail.idt.net [198.4.75.205]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id HAA05468 for ; Thu, 7 Nov 1996 07:26:50 +1100 Received: from ppp-26.ts-5.la.idt.net (ppp-26.ts-5.la.idt.net [204.235.93.45]) by Mail.IDT.NET (8.7.4/8.7.3) with SMTP id PAA00598; Wed, 6 Nov 1996 15:26:43 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <32819D74.6A9C@mail.idt.net> Date: Thu, 07 Nov 1996 00:27:32 -0800 From: Irwin J Kostal Reply-To: bigfoot@mail.idt.net X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0Gold (Win95; I; 16bit) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au CC: bigfoot@mail.idt.net Subject: Rulings, So Cal style References: <2.2.16.19961017112328.2727f432@mail.idt.net> <327A1F44.EBB@west.net> <327314FF.499F@mail.idt.net> <328783A7.5627@west.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At the Ventura County Swiss, in Southern California, very recently, the following incident occurred. This took place at my team-mates table, and I have forwarded to you his description of the incident. I wonder what everyone's reaction is. I know that I considered the director's actions to be just short of incredible, and I say just short because I have had other rulings of similar (imo) quality. Irv Kostal > N > Jx > xxx > AKQxxxx > K > W E > KT9X xxx > Axxx KQJx > x Txx > Axxx Txx > S > AQxx > xx > Jx > QJxxx > > AUCTION > > W N E S > > 1C 2D* P 2N** > P P P > > * alerted as 3 suited any shortness > ** alerted as forcing inquiring further > > Opening lead was spade 10. > Dummy tabled and the director was called. > > The bidding explanations were given and the director inquired of the > 2D bidder what 2NT was. > > He replied in the vein that it would normally be forcing but since > his partner alerted and explained the bid he passed (any bid would > show shortness of some sort). > > He went on to explain that 2 of major shows an intermediate hand and > he intended the same for diamonds, forgetting that it was 3 suited. > > Director then asked what 2nt would mean over intermediate (with > some difficulty getting explanation as 2d bidder kept saying > he showed 3 suiter and partner was not playing him for intermediate > hand). He finally got a response that it was invitational and not > forcing. > > He then indicated that over 2nt he would be 3d to show a long diamond > suit (assuming 2d showed intermediate hand). This would of course > indicate heart shortness to partner who would probably bid some > # of spades or clubs. > > director said to play the hand and went to confer. > > After play 2nt bidder went to director and said 2d bidder would rebid > 3nt not 3d to show a solid suit which then, of course, he would pass. > There was no discussion of what 3nt showed when inquiring shortness but > of course that would require ethics. > > the incredible ruling was to choose from one of below options: > > 1. reshuffle hand > 2. let result stand > 3. let opponents play 3nt making > > no, option #3 is not a joke. From owner-bridge-laws Thu Nov 7 09:31:00 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA06563 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 7 Nov 1996 09:31:00 +1100 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 JAA06557 for ; Thu, 7 Nov 1996 09:30:52 +1100 Received: from pip10231 (cph24.ppp.dknet.dk [194.192.100.24]) by pip.dknet.dk (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id XAA05765 for ; Wed, 6 Nov 1996 23:30:39 +0100 Message-Id: <199611062230.XAA05765@pip.dknet.dk> Comments: Authenticated sender is From: "Jens & Bodil" Organization: Alesia Software To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Wed, 6 Nov 1996 23:31:15 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Re: Rulings, So Cal style Priority: normal X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v2.42a) Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Irwin J Kostal : > At the Ventura County Swiss, in Southern California, very recently, the > following incident occurred. This took place at my team-mates table, > and I have forwarded to you his description of the incident. I wonder > what everyone's reaction is. I know that I considered the director's > actions to be just short of incredible, and I say just short because I > have had other rulings of similar (imo) quality. > > Irv Kostal > > > N > > Jx > > xxx > > AKQxxxx > > K > > W E > > KT9X xxx > > Axxx KQJx > > x Txx > > Axxx Txx > > S > > AQxx > > xx > > Jx > > QJxxx > > > > AUCTION > > > > W N E S > > > > 1C 2D* P 2N** > > P P P > > > > * alerted as 3 suited any shortness > > ** alerted as forcing inquiring further > > > > Opening lead was spade 10. > > Dummy tabled and the director was called. > > > > The bidding explanations were given and the director inquired of the > > 2D bidder what 2NT was. Director is in error. He must listen to the complaints, recognize that N may be acting on UI, and ask that the play be continued. Not very experienced, this director. Not good at reading L16. Oppo is right to call at this point, however. > > > > He replied in the vein that it would normally be forcing but since > > his partner alerted and explained the bid he passed (any bid would > > show shortness of some sort). Well, he is telling us that he chose his call under influence of UI from partner. Make a note of that, Watson. > > > > He went on to explain that 2 of major shows an intermediate hand and > > he intended the same for diamonds, forgetting that it was 3 suited. > > > > Director then asked what 2nt would mean over intermediate (with > > some difficulty getting explanation as 2d bidder kept saying > > he showed 3 suiter and partner was not playing him for intermediate > > hand). He finally got a response that it was invitational and not > forcing. Declarer is behaving correctly here, even though he is obliged to answer the director's question. "What would your 2nt mean if you were playing a convention that we know that you are not playing?" is one of the more difficult questions to answer. > > > > He then indicated that over 2nt he would be 3d to show a long diamond > > suit (assuming 2d showed intermediate hand). This would of course > > indicate heart shortness to partner who would probably bid some > > # of spades or clubs. > > > > director said to play the hand and went to confer. Finally! He has no business cross-examining declarer as to what he could have bid when he still has to play the hand. > > > > After play 2nt bidder went to director and said 2d bidder would rebid > > 3nt not 3d to show a solid suit which then, of course, he would pass. > > There was no discussion of what 3nt showed when inquiring shortness but > > of course that would require ethics. It seems that both 3D and 3NT would have been possible if we were playing with screens. Later we shall want to know which would be the more unfortunate choice for N. > > > > the incredible ruling was to choose from one of below options: > > > > 1. reshuffle hand > > 2. let result stand > > 3. let opponents play 3nt making Who gets to choose? EW? How much other information were they allowed to obtain before choosing? Did anyone mention the right to appeal? NS would choose (3), but EW has a difficult choice between (1) and (2). > > > > no, option #3 is not a joke. OK, let us see. N has chosen not to bid at his last turn, even though there is UI available from partner that indicates that this could well be to his advantage. Must not do this. Are the opponents damaged? Could there reasonably have been a better result for the opponents if the irregularity had not happened? 2NT is, we must agree, ice cold in a teams match. Well, 3D (9 tricks) is a likely result, and that is better for the opponents than what they got, so there is damage. Then we must adjust the score. NS are to get the worst result at all probable: Imagine that NS were playing with screens, and it goes 2NT (S: show me your best suit / N: an invite) - 3NT (N: I accept / S: He wants me to choose) - 4C (S: Clubs are long / N: What is this? Slam invite?) - 4D (Nothing new to tell / S: Agrees clubs, slam invite ) ... and we are easily in 5Dx, off 2. EW are to get the best score likely, which in this case should not be quite as exotic, for although it is at all probable that NS go seriously overboard, it is not really likely. I would vote for 4D undoubled, one off. Experienced directors will know how to handle a split score like this in a teams match; 17-12 is a possible result in VPs. Of the three suggested rulings, letting the result stand is the only ruling that could possibly be right, assuming that we did not find that any damage had occurred. And the hardliners (of which I am not one) will want to fine North with a procedural penalty for choosing a logical alternative indicated by unauthorized information from partner. Now, at the end of all this, would you rather play here in Denmark? -- Jens Brix Christiansen, Denmark From owner-bridge-laws Thu Nov 7 16:33:17 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id QAA09357 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 7 Nov 1996 16:33:17 +1100 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 QAA09351 for ; Thu, 7 Nov 1996 16:33:09 +1100 Received: (from root@localhost) by tom.compulink.co.uk (8.6.9/8.6.9) id FAA01942 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Thu, 7 Nov 1996 05:32:36 GMT Date: Thu, 7 Nov 96 05:32 GMT0 From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: Claiming before counting 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 In-Reply-To: David stephenson wrote: > But I do not believe we should allow a claim that > was too complex, even if correct, because then you could not refer to > the accompanying statement as clarification. > My gut feeling is to disallow a claim that is too complex to be > understood: I also think the letter of the Law agrees with me. I can see no grounds for disallowing a claim, however complex, if it is correct. If I were Chemla playing against Garrozzo-Belladonna I could happily claim in this position (clubs trumps, South on lead, four tricks needed) 9 6 K 7 5 none none 8 7 J 5 Q J 4 9 none 3 2 none none Q 4 8 6 none 2 by saying to West "you hold S87,HQJ4 opposite J5,9,32 just making." and facing my cards. They would need no further clarification. The claim is not "too difficult to be understood.", just "too difficult to be understood by all people". The claim should certainly be disallowed if my statement of oppos holdings was incorrect but I can find no grounds for disallowing it otherwise since there is only one rational line of play. If I made the same claim in my local club I would expect to be asked to play it out, or elaborate further, but disallowed because I overestimated opponents competence and didn't want to appear patronising - come on that's pushing L70D too far! Tim West-Meads. (apologies to Remacian1@aol.com for pinching the hand) From owner-bridge-laws Thu Nov 7 23:10:36 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA13347 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 7 Nov 1996 23:10:36 +1100 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 XAA13341 for ; Thu, 7 Nov 1996 23:10:27 +1100 Received: from innet.innet.be (pool03-15.innet.be [194.7.10.15]) by mail.be.innet.net (8.7.6/8.7.3) with SMTP id NAA22902 for ; Thu, 7 Nov 1996 13:09:05 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: <3281D9A2.2609@innet.be> Date: Thu, 07 Nov 1996 12:44:18 +0000 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.02 (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Should we follow the Laws? References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Of course we should, David ! David Stevenson wrote: (or rather quoted a lot) > These are three examples where what is being played [or suggested] is > not Bridge, because it is against the Laws: or perhaps it is Bridge, but > only by wangling and/or bending the Laws. There are a lot of other > examples: banning psyches in any game: the EBU's method of enforcing the > Rule of 19: American ACs who effectively give rulings under a footnote > that does not appear in their Law book: and so on. > I have experience with only one of these : Rule of 19 (18 or whatever). I do not think this is contrary to the Laws, if one uses it for just the purpose needed. If a weak opening is prohibited and defined in a certain way, and a hand is opened that falls within the definition, then it is prohibited. Of course this rule should not be used to ban psyches, which I agree is against the Law, but Rule of 18 offenders are easily distinguished from psychers. If a systems policy prohibits the use of canape openings on three card majors, and AK8 - 876 - 42 - AJ654 is opened 1 Spade by a pair playing canape, then this is the use of a forbidden system. If the same hand is opened 1S by you or me, this is a psyche. > My question is: > > Should we work on the practical approach: if it is effective, let's do > it, and if it is not exactly in accord with the Law book, let's not > worry? > -or- > > Should we work on the theoretical approach: the Law makers have set up > a Law book, which should be followed, *especially* by national > authorities like the ACBL and the EBU? > I of course think the second, but sometimes it only seems that we are not following the Rules. This is what BLML is there for, isn't 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 (_~^ ^~ -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.club.innet.be/~pub02163/index.htm From owner-bridge-laws Thu Nov 7 23:10:49 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA13352 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 7 Nov 1996 23:10:49 +1100 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 XAA13342 for ; Thu, 7 Nov 1996 23:10:29 +1100 Received: from innet.innet.be (pool03-15.innet.be [194.7.10.15]) by mail.be.innet.net (8.7.6/8.7.3) with SMTP id NAA22922 for ; Thu, 7 Nov 1996 13:09:16 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: <3281DA2F.FE4@innet.be> Date: Thu, 07 Nov 1996 12:46:39 +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: Claiming before countin References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Jeff Hack wrote: > > At the table Iw ould call the director and state that this player made a claim > and I don't understand it! The director would have to rule. This assumes > 1) The director understands the claim and 2) The director believes that the > player can do it! Is this possible with 27 different endings? > I agree it would take a lot of time, and I would not encourage players to do this, but I think it should be within the Laws. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.club.innet.be/~pub02163/index.htm From owner-bridge-laws Fri Nov 8 04:01:31 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA17886 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 8 Nov 1996 04:01:31 +1100 Received: from relay-5.mail.demon.net (punt2.demon.co.uk [194.217.242.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id EAA17881 for ; Fri, 8 Nov 1996 04:01:23 +1100 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by relay-5.mail.demon.net id aa510547; 7 Nov 96 15:51 GMT Message-ID: Date: Thu, 7 Nov 1996 15:46:06 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Claiming before counting In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Tim West-meads wrote: >In-Reply-To: >David stephenson wrote: or possibly David Stevenson >> But I do not believe we should allow a claim that >> was too complex, even if correct, because then you could not refer to >> the accompanying statement as clarification. > >> My gut feeling is to disallow a claim that is too complex to be >> understood: I also think the letter of the Law agrees with me. > >I can see no grounds for disallowing a claim, however complex, if it is >correct. If I were Chemla playing against Garrozzo-Belladonna I could happily >claim in this position ... and such a claim could not be described as "too complex". Of course by too complex I do not mean a claim that is well within everyone's understanding. The words "too complex" do *not* equate to "very complex". [s] >They would need no further clarification. Exactly: so it is not "too complex" and it is a claim accompanied by a clarification. Thus obviously from what I wrote earlier I would allow it. [s] >If I made the same claim in my >local club I would expect to be asked to play it out, ... not by any competent Director. > or elaborate further, but >disallowed because I overestimated opponents competence and didn't want to >appear patronising - come on that's pushing L70D too far! If your statement is not a clarification because it is too complex then it does not fall within the Law requiring clarification. If it is a clarification however complex then it does fall within the Law. -- 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 Nov 8 07:21:35 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA27078 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 8 Nov 1996 07:21:35 +1100 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 HAA27072 for ; Fri, 8 Nov 1996 07:21:26 +1100 Received: (from root@localhost) by tom.compulink.co.uk (8.6.9/8.6.9) id UAA14384 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Thu, 7 Nov 1996 20:20:45 GMT Date: Thu, 7 Nov 96 20:20 GMT0 From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: Claiming before counting 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 In-Reply-To: David Stevenson wrote: > Tim West-meads wrote: or possibly Tim West-Meads :-) > > >In-Reply-To: > >David stephenson wrote: > or possibly David Stevenson > Exactly: so it is not "too complex" and it is a claim accompanied by a > clarification. Thus obviously from what I wrote earlier I would allow > it. > >If I made the same claim in my > >local club I would expect to be asked to play it out, > > ... not by any competent Director. Even in a rubber bridge club? > > > or elaborate further, but > >disallowed because I overestimated opponents competence and didn't want to > >appear patronising - come on that's pushing L70D too far! > > If your statement is not a clarification because it is too complex > then it does not fall within the Law requiring clarification. If it is > a clarification however complex then it does fall within the Law. I'm sorry but this last "clarification" is too complex for me. In the specific example given are you saying that: a) the director will uphold my claim without requesting any further elaboration because it would be understood by Bellarozzo? Or b) disallow it because I am not Chemla? Or c) disallow it because it is too complex to be understood by him/my current opponents? Or d) he would ask me to elaborate my claim in more detail? Or e) something else. a) is unreal, several competent players have failed to solve the problem double dummy and even an excellent director need be no more than a competent player. b) and c) appear to be in direct conflict with your earlier statements and essentially imply that any claim must be made in such a way that *any* director will understand it. d) means going outside the procedure stated in 70B (AFAICS). Tim West-Meads From owner-bridge-laws Sat Nov 9 03:58:47 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA09470 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 9 Nov 1996 03:58:47 +1100 Received: from relay-6.mail.demon.net (punt2.demon.co.uk [194.217.242.5]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id DAA09465 for ; Sat, 9 Nov 1996 03:58:38 +1100 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by relay-6.mail.demon.net id aa611721; 8 Nov 96 2:26 GMT Message-ID: Date: Fri, 8 Nov 1996 00:19:57 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Claiming before counting In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Tim West-meads wrote: >In-Reply-To: >David Stevenson wrote: >> Tim West-meads wrote: >or possibly Tim West-Meads :-) From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) This is taken from your header, so if you want a capital M then tell your software to spell it correctly. >> Exactly: so it is not "too complex" and it is a claim accompanied by a >> clarification. Thus obviously from what I wrote earlier I would allow >> it. > >> >If I made the same claim in my >> >local club I would expect to be asked to play it out, >> >> ... not by any competent Director. >Even in a rubber bridge club? Of course a rubber bridge club is different because the Law book is different. Very clever. >> >> > or elaborate further, but >> >disallowed because I overestimated opponents competence and didn't want to >> >appear patronising - come on that's pushing L70D too far! >> >> If your statement is not a clarification because it is too complex >> then it does not fall within the Law requiring clarification. If it is >> a clarification however complex then it does fall within the Law. >I'm sorry but this last "clarification" is too complex for me. Very funny. >In the specific example given are you saying that: >a) the director will uphold my claim without requesting any further > elaboration because it would be understood by Bellarozzo? Or >b) disallow it because I am not Chemla? Or >c) disallow it because it is too complex to be understood by him/my > current opponents? Or >d) he would ask me to elaborate my claim in more detail? Or >e) something else. No, I am not saying anything about the particular example. Why should I? You have reached a point in the argument where you wish to score points, and I am not going to give you the pleasure. -- 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 Nov 11 09:00:49 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA03407 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 11 Nov 1996 09:00:49 +1100 Received: from nic.inlu.net (root@nic.inlu.net [194.7.192.4]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id JAA03402 for ; Mon, 11 Nov 1996 09:00:39 +1100 Received: from mailhost.innet.lu (pool352-34.innet.lu [194.7.193.34]) by nic.inlu.net (8.7.6/8.7.3) with SMTP id WAA14209 for ; Sun, 10 Nov 1996 22:00:20 GMT Date: Sun, 10 Nov 1996 22:00:20 GMT Message-Id: <1.5.4.16.19961111000542.2ce71740@pophost.innet.lu> X-Sender: pub02997@pophost.innet.lu X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.4 (16) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Nikos Sarantakos Subject: Pass out of turn Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Perhaps this is a trifle too naive for you here, but here it goes: Matchpoints, game all, South dealer. Before South has a chance to bid, West, dismayed over the precedent board, passes out of turn. The director is summoned. When he comes, he starts: "Well, if you refuse the bid, etc." Sitting South, I interrupt him: "That means we may also accept it?" Looking at me, he says: "Yes, you can" I say: "OK, I accept it" He says: "It is not upon you to decide, it is upon your partner. Now he is not allowed to accept the pass out of turn, because you have spoken". The level of the match (and the TD) was rather weak and I believe I was not under obligation to know that it was my partner, and not me, who had to decide whether to accept the bid-out-of-turn or not. As it went, opponents passed throughout. I opened a weak 2S with 6-3-3-1 and partner, with a 2-5-2-4 strong hand went (after an Ogust 2NT) to 4S, down one. Now, if partner accepts the pass out of turn, he opens 1H and we may well reach 4H which makes. Given that we had a comfortable lead, we did not appeal. My question is: if this arises in a championship and an appeal is lodged, do you think that: a. the appeal will be approved, b. it will be rejected, or c. it will be considered frivolous. Nikos Sarantakos sarant@innet.lu From owner-bridge-laws Mon Nov 11 10:00:20 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA03733 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 11 Nov 1996 10:00:20 +1100 Received: from relay-7.mail.demon.net (relay-7.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.9]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id KAA03727 for ; Mon, 11 Nov 1996 10:00:13 +1100 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by relay-5.mail.demon.net id aa516321; 10 Nov 96 22:35 GMT Message-ID: Date: Sun, 10 Nov 1996 11:37:19 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Should we follow the Laws? In-Reply-To: <3281D9A2.2609@innet.be> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Herman De Wael wrote: >Of course we should, David ! > >David Stevenson wrote: (or rather quoted a lot) > >> These are three examples where what is being played [or suggested] is >> not Bridge, because it is against the Laws: or perhaps it is Bridge, but >> only by wangling and/or bending the Laws. There are a lot of other >> examples: banning psyches in any game: the EBU's method of enforcing the >> Rule of 19: American ACs who effectively give rulings under a footnote >> that does not appear in their Law book: and so on. >> > >I have experience with only one of these : Rule of 19 (18 or whatever). > >I do not think this is contrary to the Laws, if one uses it for just the >purpose needed. If a weak opening is prohibited and defined in a >certain way, and a hand is opened that falls within the definition, then >it is prohibited. >Of course this rule should not be used to ban psyches, which I agree is >against the Law, but Rule of 18 offenders are easily distinguished from >psychers. >If a systems policy prohibits the use of canape openings on three card >majors, and AK8 - 876 - 42 - AJ654 is opened 1 Spade by a pair playing >canape, then this is the use of a forbidden system. If the same hand is >opened 1S by you or me, this is a psyche. > >> My question is: >> >> Should we work on the practical approach: if it is effective, let's do >> it, and if it is not exactly in accord with the Law book, let's not >> worry? >> -or- >> >> Should we work on the theoretical approach: the Law makers have set up >> a Law book, which should be followed, *especially* by national >> authorities like the ACBL and the EBU? >> > >I of course think the second, but sometimes it only seems that we are >not following the Rules. This is what BLML is there for, isn't it ? I am surprised that there has been so little followup. There seems no passion, no argument. I have had three emails [so I cannot quote them on BLML, not having been given the authors permission to quote]. Speaking roughly, there are two votes for the first option, and two votes for the second. So the lack of passion does not presage total agreement! [No, I don't know what presage means: do you? It just popped into my mind as I was constructing that sentence.] :) Of course, you may ask what is my contribution to the question: that is no help, because I'm not sure! -- 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 Nov 11 20:18:45 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id UAA08723 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 11 Nov 1996 20:18:45 +1100 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 UAA08710 for ; Mon, 11 Nov 1996 20:18:36 +1100 Received: from default (cph14.ppp.dknet.dk [194.192.100.14]) by pip.dknet.dk (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id KAA00502 for ; Mon, 11 Nov 1996 10:18:19 +0100 Message-Id: <199611110918.KAA00502@pip.dknet.dk> Comments: Authenticated sender is From: "Jens & Bodil" Organization: Alesia Software To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Mon, 11 Nov 1996 10:17:59 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Re: Should we follow the Laws? Priority: normal X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v2.42a) Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: David Stevenson > Herman De Wael wrote: > [snip] > > > >> My question is: > >> > >> Should we work on the practical approach: if it is effective, let's do > >> it, and if it is not exactly in accord with the Law book, let's not > >> worry? > >> -or- > >> > >> Should we work on the theoretical approach: the Law makers have set up > >> a Law book, which should be followed, *especially* by national > >> authorities like the ACBL and the EBU? > >> > > > >I of course think the second, but sometimes it only seems that we are > >not following the Rules. This is what BLML is there for, isn't it ? > > I am surprised that there has been so little followup. There seems no > passion, no argument. I have had three emails [so I cannot quote them > on BLML, not having been given the authors permission to quote]. [snip again] At the risk of being considered intolerably wishy-washy, let me vote for the middle of the road. 1. The law is the law. We follow it, because otherwise we don't have a reasnoably homogeneous international game. We follow it *especially* when we are acting on behalf of national authorities (or zonal authorities or the WBF). 2. The law is made by humans, so it will be open to misunderstandings and it will have inconsistencies. As most readers of BLML know, L9B1c is inconsistent with L25B, so we cannot follow both laws at the same time. In order for the game to remain homogeneous, we need directions on which law to give priority; but the scope of these directions do not necessarily have to be world-wide, and the source of the directions cannot be the law makers, since they are an ad hoc body. So when the laws are hard to follow, don't, but try to be consistent with other rulings in that part of the bridge world. 3. The law evolves with time. This happens because the game evolves and because problems with the existing laws become apparent as they are used. This evolution is driven by practitioners (like many of us) who try to use the laws practically. In some cases, the practices will prompt changes to the laws, either to make the practice the law, or to explicitly rule out the practice. This is reasonable evolution of the laws in my view; it only happens when someone provokes the law body by attacking its weak points. 4. There is also case law. It probably takes priority whenever it is not obvious that the laws were especially designed to stop the practice laid out by case law. (This might just be a paraphrase of (3) above). As examples of productive practices that are not obviously legal, let me mention: a. The move to ban psychic bidding almost completely, as personalized by Bobby Wolff (not that I agree with his point of view, but I certainly recognize this as a "productive practice" in the sense that Bobby Wolff has contributed to rulings that effectively work this way on appeals committee decisions at the WBF level). b. The right to consult written defenses to Highly Unusual Methods (in clear conflict with the footnote to L40E2). c. The splitting of adjusted scores on the ground that the non-offenders have contributed towards their own poor result by taking wild or gambling actions (not explictly sanctioned by L12C2; only supported by case law). d. Regulations that waive penalties for irregularities when screens are in use, provided that no information from the irregularity could have been passed to the "offender's" partner, used to be a practice of this sort. Since 1987 (I believe) such regulations have been made explicitly legal (L80E), but surely this only happened because there was an earlier, somewhat illegal practice. -- Jens Brix Christiansen, Denmark From owner-bridge-laws Mon Nov 11 20:18:39 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id UAA08715 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 11 Nov 1996 20:18:39 +1100 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 UAA08673 for ; Mon, 11 Nov 1996 20:18:28 +1100 Received: from default (cph14.ppp.dknet.dk [194.192.100.14]) by pip.dknet.dk (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id KAA00494 for ; Mon, 11 Nov 1996 10:18:06 +0100 Message-Id: <199611110918.KAA00494@pip.dknet.dk> Comments: Authenticated sender is From: "Jens & Bodil" Organization: Alesia Software To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Mon, 11 Nov 1996 10:17:59 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Of course the rule of 19 is against the laws Priority: normal X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v2.42a) Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In a different thread, Herman De Wael has argued that the rule of 19 is not against the laws when used solely to regulate weak openings. The rule of 19 states that a partnership may not have an agreement to open one of a suit on a hand where the number of high-card points in a hand added to the number of cards in the two longest suits is less than 19. The rule of 19 regulates natural bids (as opposed to conventions). The only law that would seem to authorize such a regulation is L40D, but it explicitly mentions only conventions. Earlier this year we had a discussion here on BLML that seemed to conclude that it was indeed against the laws to regulate natural bids; the difficult part was to agree on just where the line was to be drawn between conventions and bids that are not conventions (natural, for short), but none of us seemed to argue that an agreement to open 1S on KT9543,-,KT9542,2 is a convention, although that agreement does violate the rule of 19. The EBL earlier had a rule of 18 (no points for guessing the wording), but they have repealed that rule because the EBL have realized that the rule is indeed not sanctioned by L40D. (Source of information: Ton Kooijman and Max Bavin at the EBL TD course, Milan, January 1996). -- Jens Brix Christiansen, Denmark From owner-bridge-laws Mon Nov 11 20:18:50 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id UAA08728 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 11 Nov 1996 20:18:50 +1100 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 UAA08722 for ; Mon, 11 Nov 1996 20:18:42 +1100 Received: from default (cph14.ppp.dknet.dk [194.192.100.14]) by pip.dknet.dk (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id KAA00511 for ; Mon, 11 Nov 1996 10:18:27 +0100 Message-Id: <199611110918.KAA00511@pip.dknet.dk> Comments: Authenticated sender is From: "Jens & Bodil" Organization: Alesia Software To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Mon, 11 Nov 1996 10:17:58 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Re: Pass out of turn Priority: normal X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v2.42a) Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: Nikos Sarantakos > Perhaps this is a trifle too naive for you here, but here it goes: Certainly not. It touches on the interpretation of several laws, and I expect disagreement on a number of the points I making here. > > Matchpoints, game all, South dealer. > Before South has a chance to bid, West, dismayed over the precedent board, > passes out of turn. The director is summoned. > > When he comes, he starts: "Well, if you refuse the bid, etc." > > Sitting South, I interrupt him: "That means we may also accept it?" > > Looking at me, he says: "Yes, you can" This is the crucial point. I have to take your account as established facts here; in an actual appeal, the TD would be obliged to make an effort to establish the facts independently of your account. Anyway, this is slightly sloppy of the TD. The perfect TD would, very politely, shut you up and continue to talk with your partner. If you then did not respect his shutting you up, he would rule as I suggest below. > I say: "OK, I accept it" > > He says: "It is not upon you to decide, it is upon your partner. Now he is > not allowed to accept the pass out of turn, because you have spoken". A better ruling, recommended by Endicott and Hansen in the "Commentary", is that you and your partner lose the right to penalize the bid out of turn (which therefore is simply taken back). This assumes, of course, that the TD had no part in seducing you to make this remark. [L10C2, also commenting on L11A, which seems only remotely applicable, however, because of the word "before".] > > The level of the match (and the TD) was rather weak and I believe I was not > under obligation to know that it was my partner, and not me, who had to > decide whether to accept the bid-out-of-turn or not. Certainly. The TD is there to tell you about your rights and obligations [L81C5]. > > As it went, opponents passed throughout. I opened a weak 2S with 6-3-3-1 and > partner, with a 2-5-2-4 strong hand went (after an Ogust 2NT) to 4S, down one. > Now, if partner accepts the pass out of turn, he opens 1H and we may well > reach 4H which makes. > > Given that we had a comfortable lead, we did not appeal. My question is: if > this arises in a championship and an appeal is lodged, do you think that: > a. the appeal will be approved, If I were on the appeals committee, I could be tempted to rule that the board had been irreparably damaged through an error by the TD, so that 3 imps to both sides would be in order [L82C], provided that 1. I was convinced that it was likely that 4H could be reached and made, 2. I did not find grounds for ruling that you are a bridge lawyer, trying to exploit a small mistake made by the TD. Point 2 is going to be difficult for you, because obviously you follow BLML, and anyone who follows BLML could be expected to know that players should not interrupt the TD when he is trying to instruct a player about his rights [L9B2: don't put too much emphasis on the heading; read the contents!] > b. it will be rejected, or > c. it will be considered frivolous. It can be difficult to predict when an appeal is considered frivolous, especially in championships, where the members on the committee have little common history. No doubt someone on the committee will be swayed by the feeling that you are trying for two bites at the proverbial(?) cherry and want to smite you for that, while others will be arguing that in actual fact the TD is guilty of imperfect behavior, which could be taken as damaging to you. -- Jens Brix Christiansen, Denmark From owner-bridge-laws Mon Nov 11 20:37:11 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id UAA08982 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 11 Nov 1996 20:37:11 +1100 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 UAA08943 for ; Mon, 11 Nov 1996 20:36:59 +1100 Received: from innet.innet.be (pool03-241.innet.be [194.7.10.241]) by mail.be.innet.net (8.7.6/8.7.3) with SMTP id KAA17731 for ; Mon, 11 Nov 1996 10:36:43 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: <32870192.2BD@innet.be> Date: Mon, 11 Nov 1996 10:36:02 +0000 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01 (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Pass out of turn References: <1.5.4.16.19961111000542.2ce71740@pophost.innet.lu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Gia Sou Niko, Hei Elei Nikos, Nikos Sarantakos wrote: > > Perhaps this is a trifle too naive for you here, but here it goes: > > Matchpoints, game all, South dealer. > Before South has a chance to bid, West, dismayed over the precedent board, > passes out of turn. The director is summoned. > > When he comes, he starts: "Well, if you refuse the bid, etc." > > Sitting South, I interrupt him: "That means we may also accept it?" > > Looking at me, he says: "Yes, you can" > This is where the TD went wrong. He should have said, 'Yes, your partner can accept it'. > I say: "OK, I accept it" > > He says: "It is not upon you to decide, it is upon your partner. Now he is > not allowed to accept the pass out of turn, because you have spoken". > That is not true : Partner is not allowed to base his decision of accepting or not, upon the fact that you said he should accept it. The best reason to accept a pass out of turn is to show opening values to partner. Since he has them, I think he may do so. > The level of the match (and the TD) was rather weak and I believe I was not > under obligation to know that it was my partner, and not me, who had to > decide whether to accept the bid-out-of-turn or not. > > As it went, opponents passed throughout. I opened a weak 2S with 6-3-3-1 and > partner, with a 2-5-2-4 strong hand went (after an Ogust 2NT) to 4S, down one. > Now, if partner accepts the pass out of turn, he opens 1H and we may well > reach 4H which makes. > > Given that we had a comfortable lead, we did not appeal. My question is: if > this arises in a championship and an appeal is lodged, do you think that: > a. the appeal will be approved, > b. it will be rejected, or > c. it will be considered frivolous. > This falls under the heading director error. Either : he should correct it himself or : the CTD should correct it or : you may ask him to ask the CTD. But these cases are NOT open to appeal. Now since the director error (if there is one) did not interfere with the normal run of the game - you did open normally, didn't you ? - I would never change this result. And no, this is certainly not naive. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.club.innet.be/~pub02163/index.htm From owner-bridge-laws Mon Nov 11 20:56:39 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id UAA09336 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 11 Nov 1996 20:56:39 +1100 Received: from E-MAIL.COM (e-mail.com [199.171.26.5]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id UAA09331 for ; Mon, 11 Nov 1996 20:56:32 +1100 Message-Id: <199611110956.UAA09331@octavia.anu.edu.au> Received: from dl.e-mail.com by E-MAIL.COM (IBM VM SMTP V2R3) with BSMTP id 5620; Mon, 11 Nov 96 04:56:01 EST Date: Mon, 11 Nov 1996 04:55:31 EST From: jfuchs@dl.e-mail.com To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: RE: SHOULD WE FOLLOW THE LAWS? Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Stevenson wrote (not quoted in full) : >> My question is: >> >> Should we work on the practical approach: if it is effective, let's do >> it, and if it is not exactly in accord with the Law book, let's not >> worry? >> -or- >> >> Should we work on the theoretical approach: the Law makers have set up >> a Law book, which should be followed, *especially* by national >> authorities like the ACBL and the EBU? >> > > I am surprised that there has been so little followup. There seems no > passion, no argument. I have had three emails {so I cannot quote them > on BLML, not having been given the authors permission to quote}. > > Speaking roughly, there are two votes for the first option, and two > votes for the second. So the lack of passion does not presage total > agreement! All right then: I will speak up, although I don't have the opportunity to write extensive mails here (at my office) explaining WHY I reply like I do. For me, it is "No" to the first question, "Yes" to the second. {You may add the EBL and the NBB to the list of authorities mentioned...} We should apply the laws as they are, or at least as they appear to be. If we deem a law to be unsatisfactory, we should address the law makers and ask them to have that law amended. Of course, this is a fairly unrealistic reply, because having the laws changed takes years, and several laws do allow more than one interpretation. Nevertheless, that's how I feel about it. Jac Fuchs. From owner-bridge-laws Mon Nov 11 21:29:22 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id VAA09587 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 11 Nov 1996 21:29:22 +1100 Received: from E-MAIL.COM (e-mail.com [199.171.26.5]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id VAA09582 for ; Mon, 11 Nov 1996 21:29:15 +1100 Message-Id: <199611111029.VAA09582@octavia.anu.edu.au> Received: from dl.e-mail.com by E-MAIL.COM (IBM VM SMTP V2R3) with BSMTP id 6234; Mon, 11 Nov 96 05:28:56 EST Date: Mon, 11 Nov 1996 05:28:26 EST From: jfuchs@dl.e-mail.com To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: PASS OUT OF TURN Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Nikos Sarantakos wrote : > Perhaps this is a trifle too naive for you here, but here it goes: > > Matchpoints, game all, South dealer. > Before South has a chance to bid, West, dismayed over the precedent > board, passes out of turn. The director is summoned. > > When he comes, he starts: "Well, if you refuse the bid, etc." > > Sitting South, I interrupt him: "That means we may also accept it?" > > Looking at me, he says: "Yes, you can" > > I say: "OK, I accept it" > > He says: "It is not upon you to decide, it is upon your partner. > Now he is not allowed to accept the pass out of turn, because you > have spoken". > > The level of the match (and the TD) was rather weak and I believe > I was not under obligation to know that it was my partner, and not me, > who had to decide whether to accept the bid-out-of-turn or not. > > As it went, opponents passed throughout. I opened a weak 2S with > 6-3-3-1 and partner, with a 2-5-2-4 strong hand went (after an > Ogust 2NT) to 4S, down one. > Now, if partner accepts the pass out of turn, he opens 1H and we > may well reach 4H which makes. > > Given that we had a comfortable lead, we did not appeal. > My question is: if this arises in a championship and an appeal is > lodged, do you think that: > a. the appeal will be approved, > b. it will be rejected, or > c. it will be considered frivolous. Another very short, sketchy reply of mine. Yes, I think the appeal should be approved, because the TD mishandled the situation by suggesting to South he was entitled to accept the pass too. (+/- L85? offering redress to players that have suffered a wrong ruling). This implies the EW-result should be allowed to stand, hence a split score. Some days I might be in the mood for awarding South a small procedural penalty, if I would be convinced he DID know, but I do conceed that that is NOT good TD-ship. Jac Fuchs From owner-bridge-laws Mon Nov 11 22:59:23 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id WAA10204 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 11 Nov 1996 22:59:23 +1100 Received: from mailhub.axion.bt.co.uk (mailhub.axion.bt.co.uk [132.146.5.4]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id WAA10199 for ; Mon, 11 Nov 1996 22:59:15 +1100 Received: from catullus.agw.bt.co.uk by mailhub.axion.bt.co.uk with SMTP (PP); Mon, 11 Nov 1996 11:57:32 +0000 Received: from ah4gate.agw.bt.co.uk (ah4gate.agw.bt.co.uk [147.150.119.60]) by catullus.agw.bt.co.uk (8.6.12/8.6.11) with SMTP id LAA04027 for ; Mon, 11 Nov 1996 11:45:44 GMT Received: by ah4gate.agw.bt.co.uk with Microsoft Mail id <3287122C@ah4gate.agw.bt.co.uk>; Mon, 11 Nov 96 11:46:52 GMT From: "Burn, David" To: "'Bridge Laws'" Subject: RE: Pass out of turn Date: Mon, 11 Nov 96 11:18:00 GMT Message-ID: <3287122C@ah4gate.agw.bt.co.uk> Encoding: 29 TEXT X-Mailer: Microsoft Mail V3.0 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk >From David Burn Jens Brix Christiansen wrote: > From: Nikos Sarantakos [snip] >If I were on the appeals committee, I could be tempted to rule that >the board had been irreparably damaged through an error by the TD, >so that 3 imps to both sides would be in order [L82C], provided that [snip] I have often wondered about this. If this is a knockout match, and all the other boards are flat, which team has won? You may think this is a stupid question, but I could easily imagine a situation in which both teams claim that they have won by 3 IMPs, and should therefore both progress to the next round - neither of them being willing to play extra boards. In a Swiss teams event, have both teams won 11-9? It has never seemed appropriate to me that because of a wholly arbitrary event outside the control of the players, there should suddenly be more VPs at stake in a match than there are in any other matches. It does not take a great leap of the imagination to create scenarios in which this leads to totally inequitable results. From owner-bridge-laws Tue Nov 12 02:18:30 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA14511 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 12 Nov 1996 02:18:30 +1100 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 CAA14505 for ; Tue, 12 Nov 1996 02:18:23 +1100 Received: from default (cph28.ppp.dknet.dk [194.192.100.28]) by pip.dknet.dk (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id QAA10875 for ; Mon, 11 Nov 1996 16:17:14 +0100 Message-Id: <199611111517.QAA10875@pip.dknet.dk> Comments: Authenticated sender is From: "Jens & Bodil" Organization: Alesia Software To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Mon, 11 Nov 1996 14:12:19 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: AAS at knock-out play [Was: Pass out of turn] Priority: normal X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v2.42a) Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk >From David Burn > > Jens Brix Christiansen wrote: > > > From: Nikos Sarantakos > > [snip] > > >If I were on the appeals committee, I could be tempted to rule that > >the board had been irreparably damaged through an error by the TD, > >so that 3 imps to both sides would be in order [L82C], provided that > > [snip] > > I have often wondered about this. If this is a knockout match, and > all the other boards are flat, which team has won? You may think this > is a stupid question, but I could easily imagine a situation in which > both teams claim that they have won by 3 IMPs, and should therefore both > progress to the next round - neither of them being willing to play extra > boards. Well, that would seem wrong to me. I would draw an analogy from L86B and say that the match is a tie. The tie then needs to be broken by whatever methods are prescribed by the SO. With that ruling, both contestants will of course be willing to play extra boards -- otherwise they have just forfeited their participation in the tournament. In effect, awarding both contestants 3 imps in a knockout match is tantamount to cancelling the board > > In a Swiss teams event, have both teams won 11-9? Yes. There is no doubt in my mind (assuming that 11-9 is consistent with the VP scale that you have in mind). > It has never seemed > appropriate to me that because of a wholly arbitrary event outside the > control of the players, there should suddenly be more VPs at stake in a > match than there are in any other matches. But in a pairs event, when there is a fouled board at just one table, you also have more match points available than at other tables. That is equitable by definition (or, if you wish, by tradition). I see no substantial difference. > It does not take a great leap > of the imagination to create scenarios in which this leads to totally > inequitable results. Agreed. Indemnity points just are not quite as satisfactory as points awarded for play. Still, the 60% usually awarded draws very few protests in my experience. -- Jens Brix Christiansen, Denmark From owner-bridge-laws Tue Nov 12 02:59:04 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA14757 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 12 Nov 1996 02:59:04 +1100 Received: from waffle.cise.npl.co.uk (waffle.cise.npl.co.uk [139.143.18.92]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id CAA14750 for ; Tue, 12 Nov 1996 02:58:52 +1100 Received: from tempest.cise.npl.co.uk by waffle.cise.npl.co.uk; Mon, 11 Nov 1996 15:58:12 GMT Date: Mon, 11 Nov 96 15:58:11 GMT Message-Id: <2504.9611111558@tempest.cise.npl.co.uk> From: Robin Barker To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: (long) split scores and non-balancing scores Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Here is a hand which came up in a county event last weekend. The appeal committee came back with a split score which I had to deal with. I thought the hand had some points of interest, including whether I calculated the score correctly. Feel free to comment on any aspect of the hand. If it matters, I was not the TD at the table but I was consulted and I did talk to EW when they wanted to appeal. Robin Multiple team, 3 board matches. Dealer North, EW vul Team A(NS) v B(EW). 7 5 A 7 A K 8 4 2 J 8 5 2 10 2 A K Q 6 10 8 4 3 K J 6 2 10 3 Q J 7 6 A Q 9 4 3 10 J 9 8 4 3 Q 9 5 9 5 K 7 6 W N E S 1NT X 2H P P X 2S 3C P 3NT P P P There were no alerts, or questions, during the auction. 1NT was weak (12-14). 2H was a transfer to spades and should have been alerted. 3NT went one off, NS +100. East claimed damage: if she had known 2H was a transfer she would have passed 2H. The TD agreed that East's claim had some merit and adjusted to NS 2H-4 for NS -200. EW later appealed, East felt the TD had not understood why they were damaged. East said that if N had bid 2S as required, she would have doubled and they would play 2SX (for 2 down, NS -300). It was pointed out that they could not force North to remember the system, but EW went ahead with the appeal. The appeal was held during a short tea break and the restart was held up while the committee finished their deliberations. As the chairman rushed back to his table he gave me the appeal form with the following split score 70% of 2H-4 -200, 20% of 3NT-1 100, 10% of 2SX-2 -300; and fine NS -3IMP for failure to alert. There was no explanation of the ruling on the form, so the TD had some trouble when reporting the ruling to the players. A quick calculation showed (70% x -200 + 20% x 100 + 10% x -300 = -150) so NS's score had improved, I checked with the chairman that they had ruled against EW and he said that EW were lucky to get any adjustment. The other score on the board (with team B NS) was NS -120 (2NT=); and the other two boards were net team A -4IMP. The score was calculated as follows. 70% x (-200 + 120 = -2IMP) + 20% x ( 100 + 120 = 6IMP) + 10% x (-300 + 120 = -5IMP) = -0.7IMP (to team A). So the score on the board was team A -3.7IMP, team B +0.7IMP. So the score of the match was team A -7.7IMP, team B +4.7IMP. The victory point scale was 0 10-10 1-2 11- 9 3-4 12- 8 5-6 13- 7 7-8 12- 6 so the result of the match was team A 6VP, team B 12.5VP. If EW had not appealed the match result would have been -6IMP (7-13VP) so the appeals committee in effect "fined" NS -1 VP and EW -0.5 VP. Robin Barker, | Email: rmb@cise.npl.co.uk Information Systems Engineering, | Tel: +44 (0) 181 943 7090 B10, National Physical Laboratory, | Fax: +44 (0) 181 977 7091 Teddington, Middlesex, UK. TW11 0LW | WWW: http://www.npl.co.uk From owner-bridge-laws Tue Nov 12 04:55:08 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA18731 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 12 Nov 1996 04:55:08 +1100 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 EAA18726 for ; Tue, 12 Nov 1996 04:54:58 +1100 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 MAA01915 for ; Mon, 11 Nov 1996 12:54:47 -0500 (EST) Received: by cfa183.harvard.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id MAA06824; Mon, 11 Nov 1996 12:56:26 -0500 Date: Mon, 11 Nov 1996 12:56:26 -0500 From: willner@cfa183.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Message-Id: <199611111756.MAA06824@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Of course the rule of 19 is against the laws Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > The rule of 19 regulates natural bids (as opposed to conventions). > The only law that would seem to authorize such a regulation is L40D, > but it explicitly mentions only conventions. Doesn't it also mention initial actions at the one level with a king less than an average hand? That is certainly in the Laws somewhere, but my copy isn't at hand. Let's see, an average hand is presumably a 4432 10-count, or 18. So the sponsoring organization can ban (or regulate) initial actions at the one level that do not conform to a "rule of 16," but I don't see how anything more restrictive can be claimed to be consistent with the Laws. On the general question in another thread of how strictly to apply the Laws, I think _both_ positions are correct. An event that is advertised as a "bridge championship" ought to follow the Laws strictly. On the other hand, there is no reason not to hold bridge-like events that follow different Laws or whose conditions of contest explicitly contradict some of the Laws. Examples are some cash prize individual tournaments with specified bidding systems, the old ACBL "yellow-card" events, and the new Classic Bridge. As long as entrants know the rules in advance, what is the problem? Of course it isn't right to defraud or trick people by advertising bridge and playing something else, but I don't think that happens often enough to be a serious problem. From owner-bridge-laws Tue Nov 12 05:10:49 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA20540 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 12 Nov 1996 05:10:49 +1100 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 FAA20535 for ; Tue, 12 Nov 1996 05:10:42 +1100 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 NAA06172 for ; Mon, 11 Nov 1996 13:10:31 -0500 (EST) Received: by cfa183.harvard.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id NAA06883; Mon, 11 Nov 1996 13:12:10 -0500 Date: Mon, 11 Nov 1996 13:12:10 -0500 From: willner@cfa183.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Message-Id: <199611111812.NAA06883@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: AAS at Swiss (was knock-out) play Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk [Each team gets +3 IMPs] > Yes. There is no doubt in my mind (assuming that 11-9 is consistent > with the VP scale that you have in mind). I agree that this is correct if an AAS is given. In a case where a board is unplayable through no fault of any player, how do we decide whether to give an AAS or to cancel the board and play a substitute? Does it depend on whether the board has already been played at the other table? Playing a substitute board will not often be an option at pairs, but it usually will be possible (for a TD ruling, at least, though not an AC) in teams. From owner-bridge-laws Tue Nov 12 05:14:28 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA20963 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 12 Nov 1996 05:14:28 +1100 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 FAA20957 for ; Tue, 12 Nov 1996 05:14:22 +1100 Received: from cph13.ppp.dknet.dk (cph13.ppp.dknet.dk [194.192.100.13]) by pip.dknet.dk (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id TAA15655 for ; Mon, 11 Nov 1996 19:07:24 +0100 From: jd@pip.dknet.dk (Jesper Dybdal) To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Should we follow the Laws? Date: Mon, 11 Nov 1996 19:08:43 +0100 Organization: at home Message-ID: <328760c5.1420532@pipmail.dknet.dk> References: <199611110918.KAA00502@pip.dknet.dk> In-Reply-To: <199611110918.KAA00502@pip.dknet.dk> X-Mailer: Forte Agent .99f/32.299 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Mon, 11 Nov 1996 10:17:59 +0100, "Jens & Bodil" wrote: >At the risk of being considered intolerably wishy-washy, let me vote >for the middle of the road. I agree with Jens here. We should as a general rule try to follow the laws, even when they are slightly less than perfect. But we should not follow laws that are obviously ridiculous or against very wide-spread practice. -- Jesper Dybdal, Denmark From owner-bridge-laws Tue Nov 12 05:14:38 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA21021 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 12 Nov 1996 05:14:38 +1100 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 FAA20962 for ; Tue, 12 Nov 1996 05:14:26 +1100 Received: from cph13.ppp.dknet.dk (cph13.ppp.dknet.dk [194.192.100.13]) by pip.dknet.dk (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id TAA15659 for ; Mon, 11 Nov 1996 19:07:34 +0100 From: jd@pip.dknet.dk (Jesper Dybdal) To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Pass out of turn Date: Mon, 11 Nov 1996 19:08:54 +0100 Organization: at home Message-ID: <32886193.1626128@pipmail.dknet.dk> References: <1.5.4.16.19961111000542.2ce71740@pophost.innet.lu> <32870192.2BD@innet.be> In-Reply-To: <32870192.2BD@innet.be> X-Mailer: Forte Agent .99f/32.299 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Mon, 11 Nov 1996 10:36:02 +0000, Herman De Wael wrote: >This falls under the heading director error. >Either : he should correct it himself >or : the CTD should correct it >or : you may ask him to ask the CTD. > >But these cases are NOT open to appeal. L92A: "A contestant or his captain may appeal for a review of any ruling made at his table by the Director". Anything is open to appeal. It is true that the committee "may not overrule the Director on a point of law or regulations" (L93B3), but it may "recommend to the Director that he change his ruling" (also L93B3). There are three ways in which you can get a benefit from appealing such a case: (a) the appeal may make the TD or CTD think again and realize that the ruling was wrong, (b) the committee may recommend that the TD change his ruling, which he will then probably do, (c) an ordinary appeal can be the first step on the way to an appeal to the national authority, which can overrule the Director even on a point of law (at least as I read L93 - and I seem to remember that BLML in general agreed with that some time ago). -- Jesper Dybdal, Denmark From owner-bridge-laws Tue Nov 12 05:37:38 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA23525 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 12 Nov 1996 05:37:38 +1100 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 FAA23520 for ; Tue, 12 Nov 1996 05:37:31 +1100 Received: from localhost by flash.irvine.com id aa09602; 11 Nov 96 10:36 PST To: Steve Willner cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au, adam@flash.irvine.com Subject: Re: Of course the rule of 19 is against the laws In-reply-to: Your message of "Mon, 11 Nov 1996 12:56:26 PST." <199611111756.MAA06824@cfa183.harvard.edu> Date: Mon, 11 Nov 1996 10:36:41 PST From: Adam Beneschan Message-ID: <9611111036.aa09602@flash.irvine.com> Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > > > The rule of 19 regulates natural bids (as opposed to conventions). > > The only law that would seem to authorize such a regulation is L40D, > > but it explicitly mentions only conventions. > > Doesn't it also mention initial actions at the one level with a king > less than an average hand? That is certainly in the Laws somewhere, > but my copy isn't at hand. It's also in L40D: D. Regulation of Conventions The sponsoring organization may regulate the use of bidding or play conventions. Zonal organizations may, in addition, regulate partnership understandings (even if not conventional) that permit the partnership's initial actions at the one level to be made with a hand of a king or more below average strength (see page xxiv) ; Zonal organizations may delegate this responsibility. -- Adam From owner-bridge-laws Tue Nov 12 09:07:11 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA24584 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 12 Nov 1996 09:07:11 +1100 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 JAA24579 for ; Tue, 12 Nov 1996 09:07:04 +1100 Received: by hill.msri.org (8.7/1.43r) id OAA22242; Mon, 11 Nov 1996 14:07:04 -0800 (PST) Received: from boole.msri.org(198.129.65.86) by msri.org via smap (V1.3) id sma022223; Mon Nov 11 14:06:29 1996 Received: by boole.msri.org (8.7/DW.6) id OAA18788; Mon, 11 Nov 1996 14:05:43 -0800 (PST) Date: Mon, 11 Nov 1996 14:05:43 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <199611112205.OAA18788@boole.msri.org> From: David Grabiner To: rmb@cise.npl.co.uk CC: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au In-reply-to: <2504.9611111558@tempest.cise.npl.co.uk> (message from Robin Barker on Mon, 11 Nov 96 15:58:11 GMT) Subject: Re: (long) split scores and non-balancing scores Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk You write: > Here is a hand which came up in a county event last weekend. > The appeal committee came back with a split score which I > had to deal with. > I thought the hand had some points of interest, including > whether I calculated the score correctly. Feel free to comment > on any aspect of the hand. > If it matters, I was not the TD at the table but I was > consulted and I did talk to EW when they wanted to appeal. > Robin > Multiple team, 3 board matches. > Dealer North, EW vul > Team A(NS) v B(EW). > 7 5 > A 7 > A K 8 4 2 > J 8 5 2 > 10 2 A K Q 6 > 10 8 4 3 K J 6 2 > 10 3 Q J 7 6 > A Q 9 4 3 10 > J 9 8 4 3 > Q 9 5 > 9 5 > K 7 6 > W N E S > 1NT X 2H > P P X 2S > 3C P 3NT P > P P > There were no alerts, or questions, during the auction. > 1NT was weak (12-14). > 2H was a transfer to spades and should have been alerted. > 3NT went one off, NS +100. > East claimed damage: if she had known 2H was a transfer she > would have passed 2H. > The TD agreed that East's claim had some merit and adjusted to > NS 2H-4 for NS -200. This looks like the right ruling, assuming that East wasn't expected to know the agreement. > EW later appealed, East felt the TD had not understood why > they were damaged. East said that if N had bid 2S as required, > she would have doubled and they would play 2SX (for 2 down, > NS -300). It was pointed out that they could not force North > to remember the system, but EW went ahead with the appeal. If EW was warned, this would suggest an appeal that lacks merit, and East might be penalized for this. > The appeal was held during a short tea break and the restart > was held up while the committee finished their deliberations. > As the chairman rushed back to his table he gave me the appeal > form with the following split score > 70% of 2H-4 -200, > 20% of 3NT-1 100, > 10% of 2SX-2 -300; This last case doesn't make sense. 2SX-2 is not a possible result if E-W had been correctly informed; the correct information makes it more likely, not less likely, that West will bid 3C over 2S. (With no alert, South is likely to be 4-4 in the majors rather than 5-3.) I don't think West would have doubled 2H if he had been correctly informed. I don't know what your policies are on probabilistic splits; I don't like using one here, as the non-offending side should get the most favorable result which is likely, and that is -200. E-W could then be penalized for an appeal which lacked merit. > and fine NS -3IMP for failure to alert. I don't think the committee should be imposing a penalty here, assuming that the director was aware of the facts and chose not to impose one. The fact that E-W didn't like the director's ruling should not be cause for penalizing N-S. > A quick calculation showed (70% x -200 + 20% x 100 + 10% x -300 = -150) > so NS's score had improved, I checked with the chairman that they had > ruled against EW and he said that EW were lucky to get any adjustment. > The other score on the board (with team B NS) was NS -120 (2NT=); and > the other two boards were net team A -4IMP. The score was calculated > as follows. > 70% x (-200 + 120 = -2IMP) + > 20% x ( 100 + 120 = 6IMP) + > 10% x (-300 + 120 = -5IMP) = -0.7IMP (to team A). This is probably the correct way to handle mixed scores at IMPs. The committee ruled that the score would be +100 20% of the time, so N-S should score the +6 for that result on 20% of the boards. > So the score on the board was team A -3.7IMP, team B +0.7IMP. > So the score of the match was team A -7.7IMP, team B +4.7IMP. > The victory point scale was > 0 10-10 > 1-2 11- 9 > 3-4 12- 8 > 5-6 13- 7 > 7-8 12- 6 > so the result of the match was team A 6VP, team B 12.5VP. I suppose the half-VP is the correct score for an intermediate result. -- 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 Tue Nov 12 11:27:07 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id LAA25182 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 12 Nov 1996 11:27:07 +1100 Received: from lsbsdi1.lightspeed.net (root@lsbsdi1.lightspeed.net [204.216.65.99]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id LAA25177 for ; Tue, 12 Nov 1996 11:27:02 +1100 Received: from LOCALNAME (bak-ppp-ls-146.lightspeed.net [204.216.64.182]) by lsbsdi1.lightspeed.net (8.8.2/8.8.2) with SMTP id QAA05987 for ; Mon, 11 Nov 1996 16:26:51 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <32868414.139D@lightspeed.net> Date: Sun, 10 Nov 1996 17:40:36 -0800 From: "John R. Mayne" X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.01KIT (Win16; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: (long) split scores and non-balancing scores References: <2504.9611111558@tempest.cise.npl.co.uk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Robin Barker wrote: > > Here is a hand which came up in a county event last weekend. > The appeal committee came back with a split score which I > had to deal with. > > I thought the hand had some points of interest, including > whether I calculated the score correctly. Feel free to comment > on any aspect of the hand. > > If it matters, I was not the TD at the table but I was > consulted and I did talk to EW when they wanted to appeal. > > Robin > > Multiple team, 3 board matches. > Dealer North, EW vul > Team A(NS) v B(EW). > > 7 5 > A 7 > A K 8 4 2 > J 8 5 2 > 10 2 A K Q 6 > 10 8 4 3 K J 6 2 > 10 3 Q J 7 6 > A Q 9 4 3 10 > J 9 8 4 3 > Q 9 5 > 9 5 > K 7 6 > > W N E S > 1NT X 2H > P P X 2S > 3C P 3NT P > P P > > There were no alerts, or questions, during the auction. > 1NT was weak (12-14). > 2H was a transfer to spades and should have been alerted. > > 3NT went one off, NS +100. > > East claimed damage: if she had known 2H was a transfer she > would have passed 2H. > > The TD agreed that East's claim had some merit and adjusted to > NS 2H-4 for NS -200. > > EW later appealed, East felt the TD had not understood why > they were damaged. East said that if N had bid 2S as required, > she would have doubled and they would play 2SX (for 2 down, > NS -300). It was pointed out that they could not force North > to remember the system, but EW went ahead with the appeal. > > The appeal was held during a short tea break and the restart > was held up while the committee finished their deliberations. > As the chairman rushed back to his table he gave me the appeal > form with the following split score > 70% of 2H-4 -200, > 20% of 3NT-1 100, > 10% of 2SX-2 -300; > and fine NS -3IMP for failure to alert. > I abhor fines for failing to alert. Adjustments for MI or UI are fine, but having every committee punish forgetful people just for forgetting is wrong and improper. It sets a bad precedent. (Hey! They didn't alert and I don't like them. Let's appeal!) > There was no explanation of the ruling on the form, so the TD > had some trouble when reporting the ruling to the players. > Well, I think there are two problems here: UI and MI. I think East is not knowledgeable about the rules, but the committee should be. There are a number of questions I have. First, if north can open 1N with a 5-card heart suit, I would rule 2Hx-4. This is because south's use of UI is blatant, as north should be 2=5 in the majors. If north can't, is a pass by south so unreasonable? I think not; partner with two good spades and four bad hearts can still pull. The bid of 2S at the very least *could* be based on the UI and there is a clear indication that it's the right thing to do. I wouldn't allow it. It seems draconian, but -800 N-S is the right call, East's comments notwithstanding. (I believe that in UI/MI situations, where the offending side takes advantage of the UI, the fact that a different bid by the opponents armed with correct information would have taken the offenders off the hook is not sufficient to withdraw the penalty.) This conclusion makes it unnecessary to argue subsequent/consequent from West's 3C bid taking N/S off the chopping block. > A quick calculation showed (70% x -200 + 20% x 100 + 10% x -300 = -150) > so NS's score had improved, I checked with the chairman that they had > ruled against EW and he said that EW were lucky to get any adjustment. > > The other score on the board (with team B NS) was NS -120 (2NT=); and > the other two boards were net team A -4IMP. The score was calculated > as follows. > 70% x (-200 + 120 = -2IMP) + > 20% x ( 100 + 120 = 6IMP) + > 10% x (-300 + 120 = -5IMP) = -0.7IMP (to team A). > > So the score on the board was team A -3.7IMP, team B +0.7IMP. > So the score of the match was team A -7.7IMP, team B +4.7IMP. > > The victory point scale was > 0 10-10 > 1-2 11- 9 > 3-4 12- 8 > 5-6 13- 7 > 7-8 12- 6 > so the result of the match was team A 6VP, team B 12.5VP. > > If EW had not appealed the match result would have been -6IMP (7-13VP) > so the appeals committee in effect "fined" NS -1 VP and EW -0.5 VP. > I think you scored it right given this committee decision. I dislike split scores in general, and I can think of no justification for a three-way split score. JRM > Robin Barker, | Email: rmb@cise.npl.co.uk > Information Systems Engineering, | Tel: +44 (0) 181 943 7090 > B10, National Physical Laboratory, | Fax: +44 (0) 181 977 7091 > Teddington, Middlesex, UK. TW11 0LW | WWW: http://www.npl.co.uk From owner-bridge-laws Tue Nov 12 12:08:14 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id MAA25392 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 12 Nov 1996 12:08:14 +1100 Received: from hestia.ccs.deakin.edu.au (hestia.ccs.deakin.edu.au [128.184.1.3]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id MAA25387 for ; Tue, 12 Nov 1996 12:08:09 +1100 Received: from cm.deakin.edu.au (elwing.cm.deakin.edu.au [128.184.80.171]) by hestia.ccs.deakin.edu.au (8.7.4/8.7.3) with ESMTP id MAA08428 for ; Tue, 12 Nov 1996 12:08:04 +1100 (EST) Message-Id: <199611120108.MAA08428@hestia.ccs.deakin.edu.au> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: (long) split scores and non-balancing scores In-reply-to: Your message of "Mon, 11 Nov 1996 14:05:43 -0800." <199611112205.OAA18788@boole.msri.org> Date: Tue, 12 Nov 1996 12:08:03 +1100 From: Douglas Newlands Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk ============================================================================= Reply from Douglas.A.Newlands doug@deakin.edu.au ============================================================================= In text. ============================================================================= Your Message ============================================================================= :> Here is a hand which came up in a county event last weekend. :> The appeal committee came back with a split score which I :> had to deal with. : :> Robin : :> Multiple team, 3 board matches. :> Dealer North, EW vul :> Team A(NS) v B(EW). : :> 7 5 :> A 7 :> A K 8 4 2 :> J 8 5 2 :> 10 2 A K Q 6 :> 10 8 4 3 K J 6 2 :> 10 3 Q J 7 6 :> A Q 9 4 3 10 :> J 9 8 4 3 :> Q 9 5 :> 9 5 :> K 7 6 : :> W N E S :> 1NT X 2H :> P P X 2S :> 3C P 3NT P :> P P : :> There were no alerts, or questions, during the auction. :> 2H was a transfer to spades and should have been alerted. :> 3NT went one off, NS +100. :> East claimed damage: if she had known 2H was a transfer she :> would have passed 2H. :> The TD agreed that East's claim had some merit and adjusted to :> NS 2H-4 for NS -200. : :This looks like the right ruling, assuming that East wasn't expected to :know the agreement. What is the intent of alerting if not to give the effect that EW, in some sense, know the NS system? Isn't it then wrong to say "assuming that East wasn't expected to know the agreement", and thus anything following it is faulty? Why can't S think that N has 5 hearts in his 1NT or even has psyched 1N with some hearts if it wasn't for the UI? (I know it's first seat but the vul is OK and it's more the principle than this particular case) Why can't we rule 2HX -4? It is teams so there is no other field to protect. doug. From owner-bridge-laws Tue Nov 12 14:35:25 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id OAA25815 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 12 Nov 1996 14:35:25 +1100 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 OAA25810 for ; Tue, 12 Nov 1996 14:35:17 +1100 Received: from hdavis.erols.com (spg-as17s32.erols.com [207.172.122.116]) by smtp1.erols.com (8.7.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id WAA21132 for ; Mon, 11 Nov 1996 22:35:04 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <2.2.32.19961112033629.006a5bd4@pop.erols.com> X-Sender: hdavis@pop.erols.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 2.2 (32) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Mon, 11 Nov 1996 22:36:29 -0500 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Hirsch Davis Subject: Re: (long) split scores and non-balancing scores Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 05:40 PM 11/10/96 -0800, you wrote: >Robin Barker wrote: {snipped] >> >> Multiple team, 3 board matches. >> Dealer North, EW vul >> Team A(NS) v B(EW). >> >> 7 5 >> A 7 >> A K 8 4 2 >> J 8 5 2 >> 10 2 A K Q 6 >> 10 8 4 3 K J 6 2 >> 10 3 Q J 7 6 >> A Q 9 4 3 10 >> J 9 8 4 3 >> Q 9 5 >> 9 5 >> K 7 6 >> >> W N E S >> 1NT X 2H >> P P X 2S >> 3C P 3NT P >> P P >> >> There were no alerts, or questions, during the auction. >> 1NT was weak (12-14). >> 2H was a transfer to spades and should have been alerted. >> >> 3NT went one off, NS +100. >> >> East claimed damage: if she had known 2H was a transfer she >> would have passed 2H. >> >> The TD agreed that East's claim had some merit and adjusted to >> NS 2H-4 for NS -200. >> >> EW later appealed, East felt the TD had not understood why >> they were damaged. East said that if N had bid 2S as required, >> she would have doubled and they would play 2SX (for 2 down, >> NS -300). It was pointed out that they could not force North >> to remember the system, but EW went ahead with the appeal. >> >> The appeal was held during a short tea break and the restart >> was held up while the committee finished their deliberations. >> As the chairman rushed back to his table he gave me the appeal >> form with the following split score >> 70% of 2H-4 -200, >> 20% of 3NT-1 100, >> 10% of 2SX-2 -300; >> and fine NS -3IMP for failure to alert. >> > >I abhor fines for failing to alert. Adjustments for MI or UI are fine, >but having every committee punish forgetful people just for forgetting is >wrong and improper. It sets a bad precedent. (Hey! They didn't alert and >I don't like them. Let's appeal!) Agreed. > >> There was no explanation of the ruling on the form, so the TD >> had some trouble when reporting the ruling to the players. >> > >Well, I think there are two problems here: UI and MI. I think East is not >knowledgeable about the rules, but the committee should be. There are a >number of questions I have. First, if north can open 1N with a 5-card >heart suit, I would rule 2Hx-4. This is because south's use of UI is >blatant, as north should be 2=5 in the majors. HUH? There is UI here, but S didn't use it. S has spades, always intended to play the hand in spades, and can't be stopped from bidding spades because partner forgot system. You can't stop S from bidding his hand. > >If north can't, is a pass by south so unreasonable? I think not; partner >with two good spades and four bad hearts can still pull. The bid of 2S at >the very least *could* be based on the UI and there is a clear indication >that it's the right thing to do. I wouldn't allow it. It seems draconian, >but -800 N-S is the right call, East's comments notwithstanding. (I >believe that in UI/MI situations, where the offending side takes >advantage of the UI, the fact that a different bid by the opponents armed >with correct information would have taken the offenders off the hook is >not sufficient to withdraw the penalty.) > >This conclusion makes it unnecessary to argue subsequent/consequent from >West's 3C bid taking N/S off the chopping block. > As I mentioned above, I believe the conclusion to be wrong. You can't stop S from bidding his 5 card major opposite a NT opener. Particularly after the opponents have been so kind as to double N's supposed heart suit and reveal that this might not be the place to play. W's fatuous 3C bid saved N-S from playing 2SX. E-W had their chance. The 2S bid exposed (or should have if E-W had any table awareness) the unalerted transfer, so that there is no longer MI present. The damage here is due to W bidding in front of a partner who's out for blood. Poor bridge judgement by W. The 3C bid takes N-S off the hook. However, there was MI in the form of the failure to alert. The contract can be rolled back to 2H undoubled if E can convince anyone that he would actually pass 2H with that hand at favorable vulnerability at IMPs, if he heard an alert. He might on some days, so he gets the benefit of the doubt. Otherwise, the score should stand. The split score and the procedural penalty are just plain silly. > > [snipped] Hirsch From owner-bridge-laws Tue Nov 12 19:01:20 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id TAA26650 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 12 Nov 1996 19:01:20 +1100 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 TAA26645 for ; Tue, 12 Nov 1996 19:01:06 +1100 Received: from default (cph3.ppp.dknet.dk [194.192.100.3]) by pip.dknet.dk (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id IAA01763 for ; Tue, 12 Nov 1996 08:59:59 +0100 Message-Id: <199611120759.IAA01763@pip.dknet.dk> Comments: Authenticated sender is From: "Jens & Bodil" Organization: Alesia Software To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Tue, 12 Nov 1996 08:56:01 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Re: Of course the rule of 19 is against the laws Priority: normal X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v2.42a) Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Adam Beneschan wrote > Steve Willner > > > > > The rule of 19 regulates natural bids (as opposed to conventions). > > > The only law that would seem to authorize such a regulation is L40D, > > > but it explicitly mentions only conventions. > > > > Doesn't it also mention initial actions at the one level with a king > > less than an average hand? That is certainly in the Laws somewhere, > > but my copy isn't at hand. > > It's also in L40D: > > D. Regulation of Conventions > > The sponsoring organization may regulate the use of bidding or play > conventions. Zonal organizations may, in addition, regulate partnership > understandings (even if not conventional) that permit the partnership's > initial actions at the one level to be made with a hand of a king or more > below average strength (see page xxiv) ; Zonal organizations may delegate > this responsibility. Sorry. This part of L40D is not in all versions of the 1987 Laws, so I overlooked it. These small discrepancies form a different thread, which we have spun out earlier. Let me try again on the subject: An agreement to open 1D on [J85, J85, AK542, 98] is not allowed under the rule of 19: there are 9 HCP and 8 cards in the two longest suits, summing to only 17. Yet the hand is not a king or more below average strength, and the bid is not a convention in the sense of the definitions in the laws. I find that L40D does not authorize anyone to forbid this agreement, and until someone can come up with some other point in the laws, I maintain that the rule of 19 is against the laws. -- Jens Brix Christiansen, Denmark From owner-bridge-laws Tue Nov 12 23:20:46 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA28937 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 12 Nov 1996 23:20:46 +1100 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 XAA28931 for ; Tue, 12 Nov 1996 23:20:30 +1100 Received: from innet.innet.be (pool03-70.innet.be [194.7.10.70]) by mail.be.innet.net (8.7.6/8.7.3) with SMTP id NAA26314 for ; Tue, 12 Nov 1996 13:20:20 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: <3288790F.5C47@innet.be> Date: Tue, 12 Nov 1996 13:18:07 +0000 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01 (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: (long) split scores and non-balancing scores References: <2504.9611111558@tempest.cise.npl.co.uk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Robin Barker wrote: [story snipped] [on to the calculation] > > The other score on the board (with team B NS) was NS -120 (2NT=); and > the other two boards were net team A -4IMP. The score was calculated > as follows. > 70% x (-200 + 120 = -2IMP) + > 20% x ( 100 + 120 = 6IMP) + > 10% x (-300 + 120 = -5IMP) = -0.7IMP (to team A). > Correct so far > So the score on the board was team A -3.7IMP, team B +0.7IMP. > So the score of the match was team A -7.7IMP, team B +4.7IMP. > I agree > The victory point scale was > 0 10-10 > 1-2 11- 9 > 3-4 12- 8 > 5-6 13- 7 > 7-8 12- 6 > so the result of the match was team A 6VP, team B 12.5VP. > One small point : Since -7 IMPs, -7.7 IMPs and -8 IMPs all give the same 6VP, I would prefer to see the +4.7 IMPs to yield also 13VP. otherwise, you are working on the assumption that 1.00 to 2.00 gives 11, 2.01 to 2.99 gives 11.5, and so on. I prefer to say : 0.50 to 2.49 gives 11, 2.50 to 4.49 gives 12, and so on. or 0.51 to 2.50, ... (a regulation should cover this) Since the VP table only gives integer results, there is no reason to introduces halves at this stage. But I'm in favor of decimal IMPs and VP anyway, so ... -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.club.innet.be/~pub02163/index.htm From owner-bridge-laws Tue Nov 12 23:34:01 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA29017 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 12 Nov 1996 23:34:01 +1100 Received: from relay-6.mail.demon.net (punt2.demon.co.uk [194.217.242.5]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id XAA29011 for ; Tue, 12 Nov 1996 23:33:55 +1100 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by relay-5.mail.demon.net id aa508474; 12 Nov 96 12:06 GMT Message-ID: Date: Tue, 12 Nov 1996 12:05:22 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Pass out of turn In-Reply-To: <3287122C@ah4gate.agw.bt.co.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Burn, David wrote: >Jens Brix Christiansen wrote: >>If I were on the appeals committee, I could be tempted to rule that >>the board had been irreparably damaged through an error by the TD, >>so that 3 imps to both sides would be in order [L82C], provided that >I have often wondered about this. If this is a knockout match, and >all the other boards are flat, which team has won? You may think this >is a stupid question, but I could easily imagine a situation in which >both >teams claim that they have won by 3 IMPs, and should therefore both >progress to the next round - neither of them being willing to play extra >boards. Indeed. I am worried when such an important person as our friend Mr Burn starts talking about teams not being willing to play extra boards. Since when have they had any say in the matter? Of course, if a TD wants to create an international incident then he could be fool enough to tell each side that they had +3 imps: of course, any competent TD will tell them at the time that his ruling means that the board is flat. >In a Swiss teams event, have both teams won 11-9? It has never seemed >appropriate to me that because of a wholly arbitrary event outside the >control of the players, there should suddenly be more VPs at stake in a >match than there are in any other matches. It does not take a great leap >of the imagination to create scenarios in which this leads to totally >inequitable results. Well, it takes an enormous leap of my imagination. There is a set of Laws cum regulations which give a practical solution to a problem. If you worry about what is theoretically possible then I feel your worries would be better employed elsewhere. :)) As a general principle, the total aggregate score available on a board at a table to both sides is no more that 100% at pairs, or 0 imps at teams, unless there is an outside influence. It is a practical approach and I see no problems with it. In the quoted case the TD by giving a bad ruling has made himself the outside influence. It is true that average plus to both sides is fairly meaningless in a knockout teams, and in David's construction where the other boards are flat, extra boards would be played, anyone refusing to being smartly and correctly banned from the game by his national authority. In Swiss Teams the result is not 11-9 to both sides: it is simply 11- 11, which is allowed for in England at anyrate by the regulations, the scoring software, the master point rules and the EBU Director's Guide plus the experience of the Directors who are used to non-balancing Swiss Teams results. -- 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 Nov 12 23:38:14 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA29078 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 12 Nov 1996 23:38:14 +1100 Received: from barlaeus.ic.uva.nl (root@barlaeus.ic.uva.nl [145.18.68.50]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id XAA29073 for ; Tue, 12 Nov 1996 23:38:06 +1100 Received: from atlas.frw.uva.nl by barlaeus.ic.uva.nl with SMTP id AA26793 (5.67b/IDA-1.4.4 for ); Tue, 12 Nov 1996 13:37:54 +0100 Received: From STUD/WORKQUEUE by atlas.frw.uva.nl via Charon-4.0-VROOM with IPX id 100.961112111654.5280; 12 Nov 96 13:37:55 -100 Message-Id: From: "J.P. Pals" To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Tue, 12 Nov 1996 11:16:53 MET-1 Subject: Re: (long) split scores and non-balancing scores Reply-To: Jan Peter Pals X-Confirm-Reading-To: Jan Peter Pals X-Pmrqc: 1 Priority: normal X-Mailer: Pegasus Mail v3.22 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Mon, 11 Nov 96 15:58:11, Robin Barker wrote: > Here is a hand which came up in a county event last weekend. > The appeal committee came back with a split score which I > had to deal with. > > I thought the hand had some points of interest, including > whether I calculated the score correctly. Feel free to comment > on any aspect of the hand. > > If it matters, I was not the TD at the table but I was > consulted and I did talk to EW when they wanted to appeal. > > Robin > > > Multiple team, 3 board matches. > Dealer North, EW vul > Team A(NS) v B(EW). > > 7 5 > A 7 > A K 8 4 2 > J 8 5 2 > 10 2 A K Q 6 > 10 8 4 3 K J 6 2 > 10 3 Q J 7 6 > A Q 9 4 3 10 > J 9 8 4 3 > Q 9 5 > 9 5 > K 7 6 > > W N E S > 1NT X 2H > P P X 2S > 3C P 3NT P > P P > > There were no alerts, or questions, during the auction. > 1NT was weak (12-14). > 2H was a transfer to spades and should have been alerted. > > 3NT went one off, NS +100. > > East claimed damage: if she had known 2H was a transfer she > would have passed 2H. Wrong argument: she should have claimed that South's 2S bid was based on UI. I strongly disagree with Hirsch Davis that South is allowed to bid 2S. If it is clear-cut that 2H after a double over 1NT is still a transfer, South knows by North's failure to alert that his partner has forgotten the system, and this I is U. He is supposed to act as if there had been an alert, and has to assume that North has at least 4 hearts, maybe even 5, if that's their style. And in view of his heart holding, a pass is obligatory. I agree that the split-score and the way it was calculated are silly. I would have ruled 2H doubled minus 4, +/- 800, and let the committe decide whether North is allowed to wake up after ....2H-pass-pass-X- pass-pass-.... JP * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Jan Peter Pals * * e-mail: jpp@ivip.frw.uva.nl * * Faculty of Environmental Sciences, dept. European Archaeology * * University of Amsterdam * * Nieuwe Prinsengracht 130, NL-1018 VZ Amsterdam * * Tel: (31)-20-525 7394/5830, Fax: (31)-20-525-5822 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * From owner-bridge-laws Wed Nov 13 01:10:51 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA02466 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 13 Nov 1996 01:10:51 +1100 Received: from mailhub.axion.bt.co.uk (mailhub.axion.bt.co.uk [132.146.5.4]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id BAA02461 for ; Wed, 13 Nov 1996 01:10:41 +1100 Received: from catullus.agw.bt.co.uk by mailhub.axion.bt.co.uk with SMTP (PP); Tue, 12 Nov 1996 14:07:32 +0000 Received: from ah4gate.agw.bt.co.uk (ah4gate.agw.bt.co.uk [147.150.119.60]) by catullus.agw.bt.co.uk (8.6.12/8.6.11) with SMTP id NAA21835 for ; Tue, 12 Nov 1996 13:53:48 GMT Received: by ah4gate.agw.bt.co.uk with Microsoft Mail id <328881B1@ah4gate.agw.bt.co.uk>; Tue, 12 Nov 96 13:54:57 GMT From: "Burn, David" To: "'Bridge Laws'" Subject: RE: Pass out of turn Date: Tue, 12 Nov 96 13:53:00 GMT Message-ID: <328881B1@ah4gate.agw.bt.co.uk> Encoding: 104 TEXT X-Mailer: Microsoft Mail V3.0 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk >From David Burn DWS wrote: >Burn, David wrote: >>Jens Brix Christiansen wrote: [JBC] >>>If I were on the appeals committee, I could be tempted to rule that >>>the board had been irreparably damaged through an error by the TD, >>>so that 3 imps to both sides would be in order [L82C], provided that [DALB] >>I have often wondered about this. If this is a knockout match, and >>all the other boards are flat, which team has won? You may think this >>is a stupid question, but I could easily imagine a situation in which >>both >>teams claim that they have won by 3 IMPs, and should therefore both >>progress to the next round - neither of them being willing to play extra >>boards. [DWS] >Indeed. I am worried when such an important person as our friend Mr >Burn starts talking about teams not being willing to play extra boards. >Since when have they had any say in the matter? >Of course, if a TD wants to create an international incident then he >could be fool enough to tell each side that they had +3 imps: of >course, any competent TD will tell them at the time that his ruling >means that the board is flat. On what authority? The Laws as currently written (82C, 86A, 12C1) do not permit the TD to award a flat board. This is the problem to which I was attempting to draw attention. It is a very minor problem, and I do not propose to waste further time with it - but no competent TD could act as DWS supposes, because the Laws do not sanction it. [DALB] >>In a Swiss teams event, have both teams won 11-9? It has never seemed >>appropriate to me that because of a wholly arbitrary event outside the >>control of the players, there should suddenly be more VPs at stake in a >>match than there are in any other matches. It does not take a great leap >>of the imagination to create scenarios in which this leads to totally >>inequitable results. [DWS] >Well, it takes an enormous leap of my imagination. There is a set of >Laws cum regulations which give a practical solution to a problem. If >you worry about what is theoretically possible then I feel your worries >would be better employed elsewhere. :)) Oh, I know, and as I've said I don't propose to devote further time to this relatively trivial issue. But there are equally practical and in my view considerably more equitable ways of resolving the problem, and it is a pity that they are not adopted. >As a general principle, the total aggregate score available on a >board at a table to both sides is no more that 100% at pairs, or 0 imps >at teams, unless there is an outside influence. It is a practical >approach and I see no problems with it. In the quoted case the TD by >giving a bad ruling has made himself the outside influence. >It is true that average plus to both sides is fairly meaningless in a >knockout teams, and in David's construction where the other boards are >flat, extra boards would be played, anyone refusing to being smartly and >correctly banned from the game by his national authority. And suing the National Authority for making him play extra boards in a match his team had won and then banning him when he refused. "But you didn't win!" "Yes we did, the score was 3-0 to us." "But it was 3-0 to the other team as well." "That's not my fault, is it?" [DWS] >In Swiss Teams the result is not 11-9 to both sides: it is simply 11- >11, which is allowed for in England at anyrate by the regulations, the >scoring software, You cannot turn a stupid procedure into a sensible one by programming it into a computer, despite many people's belief to the contrary. [DWS] >the master point rules and the EBU Director's Guide >plus the experience of the Directors who are used to non-balancing Swiss >Teams results. Nor does a stupid procedure become sensible just because people are experienced in using it. If the procedure is stupid, it should be fixed, not perpetuated in as many diverse forms as possible. From owner-bridge-laws Wed Nov 13 02:33:40 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA02968 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 13 Nov 1996 02:33:40 +1100 Received: from mailhub.stratus.com (mailhub.stratus.com [134.111.1.14]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id CAA02960 for ; Wed, 13 Nov 1996 02:33:32 +1100 Received: from krusty.sw.stratus.com (krusty-gw.sw.stratus.com [134.111.100.51]) by mailhub.stratus.com (8.8.2/8.7.3) with ESMTP id KAA16568 for ; Tue, 12 Nov 1996 10:33:44 -0500 (EST) Received: from polyphony.sw.stratus.com (polyphony.sw.stratus.com [134.111.102.225]) by krusty.sw.stratus.com (8.6.11/8.6.11) with ESMTP id KAA21054 for ; Tue, 12 Nov 1996 10:33:22 -0500 Received: from qqsv (qqsv.sw.stratus.com [134.111.102.110]) by polyphony.sw.stratus.com (8.6.11/8.6.11) with SMTP id KAA02114 for ; Tue, 12 Nov 1996 10:33:20 -0500 Message-Id: <199611121533.KAA02114@polyphony.sw.stratus.com> X-Sender: wagman@polyphony.sw.stratus.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Version 2.0.3 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Tue, 12 Nov 1996 10:35:57 -0500 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: wagman@isis.com (QQSV (Dick Wagman)) Subject: Re: (long) split scores and non-balancing scores Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Jan Peter Pals wrote: >> Multiple team, 3 board matches. >> Dealer North, EW vul >> Team A(NS) v B(EW). >> >> 7 5 >> A 7 >> A K 8 4 2 >> J 8 5 2 >> 10 2 A K Q 6 >> 10 8 4 3 K J 6 2 >> 10 3 Q J 7 6 >> A Q 9 4 3 10 >> J 9 8 4 3 >> Q 9 5 >> 9 5 >> K 7 6 >> >> W N E S >> 1NT X 2H >> P P X 2S >> 3C P 3NT P >> P P >> >> There were no alerts, or questions, during the auction. >> 1NT was weak (12-14). >> 2H was a transfer to spades and should have been alerted. >> >> 3NT went one off, NS +100. >> >> East claimed damage: if she had known 2H was a transfer she >> would have passed 2H. > >Wrong argument: she should have claimed that South's 2S bid was based >on UI. > >I strongly disagree with Hirsch Davis that South is allowed to bid >2S. If it is clear-cut that 2H after a double over 1NT is still a >transfer, South knows by North's failure to alert that his partner >has forgotten the system, and this I is U. He is supposed to act as >if there had been an alert, and has to assume that North has at least >4 hearts, maybe even 5, if that's their style. And in view of his >heart holding, a pass is obligatory. (And several other people have argued similarly.) OK, folks, a little thought experiment here. You are playing 12-14 notrumps and Jacoby transfers. Partner opens 1NT; you hold S - AKxxxx, H - KQx, D - , C - AKxx. Your call? It seems like it would be nice to be in 7C if partner holds S - xx, H - Axxx, D - Axx, C - QJxx. How do you get there? I'm not sure of an entire auction, but I know I'd start with 2H and prepare to bid some clubs later. Thus North, who (in theory) might hold S - xx, H - AJxxx, D - KQJ, C - QJx, should *never* pass a Jacoby 2H call. A game (or even a slam) could be missed. The point is that transfers are unlimited bids, and people who play them understand that. That makes North's pass an absolutely impossible bid. Sure, the failure to alert is unauthorized information. But for North to pass (even with five hearts) is a gross violation of partner- ship trust. No; it is far more rational to believe that North forgot that they were playing transfers. Hirsch Davis's argument was absolutely correct; West's foolish 3C call gets North-South off the hook. As a committee member, it's going to take a bunch of work to persuade me that West hadn't figured out that North-South were using transfers by the time the 3C call was made. I'd let the East-West score stand, and I'd require some persuading to go along with -200 for North-South (at 2H undoubled). Splitting the score was silly, in my opinion. --Q (Dick Wagman) Email: wagman@isis.com From owner-bridge-laws Wed Nov 13 04:46:59 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA06187 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 13 Nov 1996 04:46:59 +1100 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 EAA06182 for ; Wed, 13 Nov 1996 04:46:53 +1100 Received: from cph20.ppp.dknet.dk (cph20.ppp.dknet.dk [194.192.100.20]) by pip.dknet.dk (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id SAA15957 for ; Tue, 12 Nov 1996 18:46:42 +0100 From: jd@pip.dknet.dk (Jesper Dybdal) To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: (long) split scores and non-balancing scores Date: Tue, 12 Nov 1996 18:46:40 +0100 Organization: at home Message-ID: <3288b71e.893705@pipmail.dknet.dk> References: <199611121533.KAA02114@polyphony.sw.stratus.com> In-Reply-To: <199611121533.KAA02114@polyphony.sw.stratus.com> X-Mailer: Forte Agent .99f/32.299 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Tue, 12 Nov 1996 10:35:57 -0500, wagman@isis.com (QQSV (Dick Wagman)) wrote: >The point is that transfers are unlimited bids, and people who play >them understand that. Even after a double of 1NT? If you play transfers even after the double, would it not be natural to play that only RD (or an artificial pass that asks opener to redouble) is unlimited? If N's 1NT can include a 5-card heart suit, pass seems to me to be a LA for S. On the other hand, if N's 1NT can have no more than 4 hearts, pass is not a LA. -- Jesper Dybdal, Denmark From owner-bridge-laws Wed Nov 13 06:04:04 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA12025 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 13 Nov 1996 06:04:04 +1100 Received: from relay-5.mail.demon.net (punt2.demon.co.uk [194.217.242.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id GAA12020 for ; Wed, 13 Nov 1996 06:03:55 +1100 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by relay-6.mail.demon.net id aa607305; 12 Nov 96 18:42 GMT Message-ID: Date: Tue, 12 Nov 1996 18:34:45 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Of course the rule of 19 is against the laws In-Reply-To: <199611120759.IAA01763@pip.dknet.dk> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Jens & Bodil wrote: >> D. Regulation of Conventions >> >> The sponsoring organization may regulate the use of bidding or play >> conventions. Zonal organizations may, in addition, regulate partnership >> understandings (even if not conventional) that permit the partnership's >> initial actions at the one level to be made with a hand of a king or more >> below average strength (see page xxiv) ; Zonal organizations may delegate >> this responsibility. > >Sorry. This part of L40D is not in all versions of the 1987 Laws, so >I overlooked it. These small discrepancies form a different thread, >which we have spun out earlier. Hullo! What part of this is not in which Law book? Admittedly "(see page xxiv)" is not in the English version, but I imagine you are referring to something more serious. What does your Law book say about L40D, please [translated into English, please!]. -- 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 Nov 13 06:57:09 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA12254 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 13 Nov 1996 06:57:09 +1100 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 GAA12249 for ; Wed, 13 Nov 1996 06:57:03 +1100 Received: by hill.msri.org for (8.7/1.43r) id LAA05063; Tue, 12 Nov 1996 11:57:02 -0800 (PST) Received: from euclid.msri.org(198.129.65.53) by msri.org via smap (V1.3) id sma005018; Tue Nov 12 11:56:03 1996 Received: by euclid.msri.org (8.7/MSRI) id LAA16650; Tue, 12 Nov 1996 11:48:25 -0800 (PST) Date: Tue, 12 Nov 1996 11:48:25 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <199611121948.LAA16650@euclid.msri.org> From: David Grabiner To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Major or minor penalty card? Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk West made the opening lead, and while dummy was being put down, East put his cards on the table in order to write down the contract on his scoresheet. However, he put them in one pile face up, exposing the three of diamonds. Is this a major or minor penalty card? The director ruled major; as South, I thought this was wrong, but didn't want to get in a long argument, particularly because we were already a board behind. Law 50C: A single card below the rank of an honor and exposed inadvertently (as in playing two cards to a trick, or in dropping a card accidentally) becomes a minor penalty card. Any card of honor rank, or any card exposed through deliberate play (as in leading out of turn, or in revoking and then correcting), becomes a major penalty card; when one defender has two or more penalty cards, all such cards become major penalty cards. The director said that this was a deliberate action, but the rule says "deliberate play." -- 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 Wed Nov 13 07:07:27 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA12313 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 13 Nov 1996 07:07:27 +1100 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 HAA12308 for ; Wed, 13 Nov 1996 07:07:22 +1100 Received: from hdavis.erols.com (spg-as57s27.erols.com [207.172.109.111]) by smtp2.erols.com (8.7.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id PAA17059 for ; Tue, 12 Nov 1996 15:07:14 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <2.2.32.19961112200834.00687c38@pop.erols.com> X-Sender: hdavis@pop.erols.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 2.2 (32) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Tue, 12 Nov 1996 15:08:34 -0500 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Hirsch Davis Subject: Re: (long) split scores and non-balancing scores Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 06:46 PM 11/12/96 +0100, you wrote: >On Tue, 12 Nov 1996 10:35:57 -0500, wagman@isis.com (QQSV (Dick >Wagman)) wrote: >>The point is that transfers are unlimited bids, and people who play >>them understand that. > >Even after a double of 1NT? If you play transfers even after the >double, would it not be natural to play that only RD (or an artificial >pass that asks opener to redouble) is unlimited? > >If N's 1NT can include a 5-card heart suit, pass seems to me to be a >LA for S. On the other hand, if N's 1NT can have no more than 4 >hearts, pass is not a LA. >-- >Jesper Dybdal, Denmark > > So what if N has a 5 card heart suit or if S is limited? There is no guarantee that E will take action and let N or S back in the auction. There is also no guarantee that S has any hearts at all. N's pass may stop the auction in a 5-card heart fit, as opposed to the known 7-card spade fit. Not particularly rational in my book, nor part of any system I know. It is perfectly legal for S to use N's pass, which is not a possible bid, (not to mention E's penalty double), as AI to infer that partner has forgotten system and correct to spades. Pass can never be a logical alternative for S. Hirsch From owner-bridge-laws Wed Nov 13 07:53:30 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA12680 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 13 Nov 1996 07:53:30 +1100 Received: from relay-6.mail.demon.net (punt2.demon.co.uk [194.217.242.5]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id HAA12674 for ; Wed, 13 Nov 1996 07:52:17 +1100 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by relay-6.mail.demon.net id ab607284; 12 Nov 96 18:42 GMT Message-ID: Date: Tue, 12 Nov 1996 18:38:52 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: (long) split scores and non-balancing scores In-Reply-To: <32868414.139D@lightspeed.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk John R. Mayne wrote: >> The appeal was held during a short tea break and the restart >> was held up while the committee finished their deliberations. >> As the chairman rushed back to his table he gave me the appeal >> form with the following split score >> 70% of 2H-4 -200, >> 20% of 3NT-1 100, >> 10% of 2SX-2 -300; >> and fine NS -3IMP for failure to alert. >I abhor fines for failing to alert. Adjustments for MI or UI are fine, >but having every committee punish forgetful people just for forgetting is >wrong and improper. It sets a bad precedent. (Hey! They didn't alert and >I don't like them. Let's appeal!) While I agree about fines for failure to alert, I especially abhor fines for something that did not happen. North didn't alert a bid that was not alertable in his reading of the situation. Anyway, at county level, this fine was out of order IMO. >> There was no explanation of the ruling on the form, so the TD >> had some trouble when reporting the ruling to the players. I think that it is clear that the AC did a poor job, probably because of lack of time and/or experience. If the former then perhaps the appeal should not have been heard during the break. >Well, I think there are two problems here: UI and MI. I think East is not >knowledgeable about the rules, but the committee should be. There are a >number of questions I have. First, if north can open 1N with a 5-card >heart suit, I would rule 2Hx-4. This is because south's use of UI is >blatant, as north should be 2=5 in the majors. > >If north can't, is a pass by south so unreasonable? I think not; partner >with two good spades and four bad hearts can still pull. The bid of 2S at >the very least *could* be based on the UI and there is a clear indication >that it's the right thing to do. I wouldn't allow it. It seems draconian, >but -800 N-S is the right call, East's comments notwithstanding. (I >believe that in UI/MI situations, where the offending side takes >advantage of the UI, the fact that a different bid by the opponents armed >with correct information would have taken the offenders off the hook is >not sufficient to withdraw the penalty.) > >This conclusion makes it unnecessary to argue subsequent/consequent from >West's 3C bid taking N/S off the chopping block. Unfortunately that does not seem to be the way that people think about consequent or subsequent. Anyway, the 3C bid was not outrageous, so as far as I am concerned it was subsequent, or to use the English approach, it was not wild or gambling action. --------- Hirsch Davis wrote: >>Well, I think there are two problems here: UI and MI. I think East is not >>knowledgeable about the rules, but the committee should be. There are a >>number of questions I have. First, if north can open 1N with a 5-card >>heart suit, I would rule 2Hx-4. This is because south's use of UI is >>blatant, as north should be 2=5 in the majors. >HUH? There is UI here, but S didn't use it. S has spades, always intended >to play the hand in spades, and can't be stopped from bidding spades because >partner forgot system. You can't stop S from bidding his hand. This argument is often used by players in UI situations, but it is just wrong. When you have UI available to you from your partner your actions are limited by the Laws, choice among logical alternatives and so on, and whatever you originally intended to do is now irrelevant. A TD/AC certainly has the right to adjust on the basis of not allowing you to bid 2S. As for suggesting that South did not use it, how do you know? Looks to me as though he might have. >W's fatuous 3C bid saved N-S from playing 2SX. E-W had their chance. The >2S bid exposed (or should have if E-W had any table awareness) the unalerted >transfer, so that there is no longer MI present. The damage here is due to >W bidding in front of a partner who's out for blood. Poor bridge judgement >by W. The 3C bid takes N-S off the hook. Poor bridge judgement should not be sufficient to allow opponents to get away with profit from infractions, and certainly is not here. >However, there was MI in the form of the failure to alert. The contract can >be rolled back to 2H undoubled if E can convince anyone that he would >actually pass 2H with that hand at favorable vulnerability at IMPs, if he >heard an alert. He might on some days, so he gets the benefit of the doubt. >Otherwise, the score should stand. >The split score and the procedural penalty are just plain silly. When you say that E might convince them on some days you are putting the case [excellently, IMO] for the split score, not against it. --------- David Grabiner wrote: >> The appeal was held during a short tea break and the restart >> was held up while the committee finished their deliberations. >> As the chairman rushed back to his table he gave me the appeal >> form with the following split score >> 70% of 2H-4 -200, >> 20% of 3NT-1 100, >> 10% of 2SX-2 -300; >This last case doesn't make sense. 2SX-2 is not a possible result if >E-W had been correctly informed; the correct information makes it more >likely, not less likely, that West will bid 3C over 2S. (With no alert, >South is likely to be 4-4 in the majors rather than 5-3.) I don't think >West would have doubled 2H if he had been correctly informed. Yes, this argument takes care of the 2Sx-2: clearly wrong. >I don't know what your policies are on probabilistic splits; I don't >like using one here, as the non-offending side should get the most >favorable result which is likely, and that is -200. E-W could then be >penalized for an appeal which lacked merit. In England we run Bridge under a Law book which includes a footnote to L12C2 that reads: * An Appeals Committee may vary an assigned adjusted score in order to do equity. This is understood to refer to split scores, and being in the Law book it is normal for an AC to use it. --------- Douglas Newlands wrote: >:> There were no alerts, or questions, during the auction. >:> 2H was a transfer to spades and should have been alerted. >:> 3NT went one off, NS +100. >:> East claimed damage: if she had known 2H was a transfer she >:> would have passed 2H. >:> The TD agreed that East's claim had some merit and adjusted to >:> NS 2H-4 for NS -200. >:This looks like the right ruling, assuming that East wasn't expected to >:know the agreement. >What is the intent of alerting if not to give the effect that EW, in some >sense, know the NS system? >Isn't it then wrong to say "assuming that East wasn't expected to know the >agreement", and thus anything following it is faulty? >Why can't S think that N has 5 hearts in his 1NT or even has psyched 1N >with some hearts if it wasn't for the UI? (I know it's first seat but >the vul is OK and it's more the principle than this particular case) >Why can't we rule 2HX -4? Seems reasonable. > It is teams so there is no other field >to protect. That looks like material for another thread! --------- We do not know exactly what was said by the East player to the TD. If damage was only claimed because she would have passed 2H then maybe the TD was right to rule 2H-4 based on MI. Still, it is normal to examine UI as well as MI in these cases. It is unsurprising that players tend not to think of both when explaining how they have been damaged. Personally, I think that I would have ruled 2Hx-4 as a TD. Given that you accept that ruling then the advantage of the system practised in England with the footnote to L12C2 is seen. It may be a correct ruling, but it is a very harsh one, especially when her first comment was "I would have passed 2H out.". I think that the AC might have taken notice of this and I feel that a split score of 30% 2Hx-4, 70% 2H-4 might seem fairer while being legal under our system. I believe the actual split was ill thought out and the fine 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 Wed Nov 13 08:40:28 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA13016 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 13 Nov 1996 08:40:28 +1100 Received: from ns-prime.cais.com (ns-prime.cais.com [199.0.216.5]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id IAA12918 for ; Wed, 13 Nov 1996 08:39:56 +1100 Received: from elandau.cais.com.cais.com ([204.157.58.181]) by ns-prime.cais.com (8.7.5/8.7.5-CAIS) with SMTP id QAA12773 for ; Tue, 12 Nov 1996 16:13:38 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <1.5.4.32.19961112213921.0068cfc0@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: Tue, 12 Nov 1996 16:39:21 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: Major or minor penalty card? Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 11:48 AM 11/12/96 -0800, David wrote: > >West made the opening lead, and while dummy was being put down, East put >his cards on the table in order to write down the contract on his >scoresheet. However, he put them in one pile face up, exposing the >three of diamonds. > >Is this a major or minor penalty card? The director ruled major; as >South, I thought this was wrong, but didn't want to get in a long >argument, particularly because we were already a board behind. > >Law 50C: > >A single card below the rank of an honor and exposed inadvertently (as >in playing two cards to a trick, or in dropping a card accidentally) >becomes a minor penalty card. Any card of honor rank, or any card >exposed through deliberate play (as in leading out of turn, or in >revoking and then correcting), becomes a major penalty card; when one >defender has two or more penalty cards, all such cards become major >penalty cards. > >The director said that this was a deliberate action, but the rule says >"deliberate play." I would rule minor penalty card. It seems clear from your description of the facts that the D3 was "exposed inadvertently" and not "exposed through deliberate play." Eric Landau APL Solutions, Inc. elandau@cais.com 1107 Dale Drive (301) 589-4621 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 USA From owner-bridge-laws Wed Nov 13 08:44:56 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA13080 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 13 Nov 1996 08:44:56 +1100 Received: from bert.xavier.vic.edu.au (bert.xavier.vic.edu.au [203.22.118.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id IAA13074 for ; Wed, 13 Nov 1996 08:44:50 +1100 Received: (from stark@localhost) by bert.xavier.vic.edu.au (8.6.11/8.6.9) id IAA29253; Wed, 13 Nov 1996 08:41:24 +1100 From: "Mr. Justin Stark" Message-Id: <199611122141.IAA29253@bert.xavier.vic.edu.au> Subject: Re: The Rule of 19 In-Reply-To: from David Stevenson at "Nov 12, 96 06:34:45 pm" To: newsr@blakjak.demon.co.uk Date: Wed, 13 Nov 1996 08:41:24 +1100 (EST) Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4ME+ PL25 (25)] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Length: 0 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk From owner-bridge-laws Wed Nov 13 09:40:46 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA13672 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 13 Nov 1996 09:40:46 +1100 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 JAA13667 for ; Wed, 13 Nov 1996 09:40:38 +1100 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 RAA17658 for ; Tue, 12 Nov 1996 17:40:33 -0500 (EST) Received: by cfa183.harvard.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id RAA07768; Tue, 12 Nov 1996 17:42:14 -0500 Date: Tue, 12 Nov 1996 17:42:14 -0500 From: willner@cfa183.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Message-Id: <199611122242.RAA07768@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: (long) split scores and non-balancing scores X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > On Tue, 12 Nov 1996 10:35:57 -0500, wagman@isis.com (QQSV (Dick > Wagman)) wrote: > >The point is that transfers are unlimited bids, and people who play > >them understand that. > From: jd@pip.dknet.dk (Jesper Dybdal) > Even after a double of 1NT? If you play transfers even after the > double, would it not be natural to play that only RD (or an artificial > pass that asks opener to redouble) is unlimited? This makes sense to me. I was going to write much the same thing. > If N's 1NT can include a 5-card heart suit, pass seems to me to be a > LA for S. Agreed. > On the other hand, if N's 1NT can have no more than 4 > hearts, pass is not a LA. This is probably location-dependent, but I think pass would be a LA in ACBL play. (I don't remember where the original question came from, though.) If North cannot be 2-5 in the majors, the next most likely distribution for the pass is 2-4. It might make more sense to play in the 3-4 than the 5-2, especially as one opponent has already failed to double 2H. While pass may not be correct, it doesn't seem so ridiculous that it fails to qualify as a LA under the very stringent ACBL rules. From owner-bridge-laws Wed Nov 13 12:13:48 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id MAA14662 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 13 Nov 1996 12:13:48 +1100 Received: from lsbsdi1.lightspeed.net (root@lsbsdi1.lightspeed.net [204.216.65.99]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id MAA14657 for ; Wed, 13 Nov 1996 12:13:42 +1100 Received: from LOCALNAME (bak-ppp-ls-117.lightspeed.net [204.216.64.153]) by lsbsdi1.lightspeed.net (8.8.2/8.8.2) with SMTP id RAA24825 for ; Tue, 12 Nov 1996 17:13:31 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <3287E084.571B@lightspeed.net> Date: Mon, 11 Nov 1996 18:27:16 -0800 From: "John R. Mayne" X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.01KIT (Win16; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Advance defenses Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I have only been on BLML for a few months, so pardon me if this has been thoroughly beaten to death already, or if it is not sufficiently sophisticated for the mailing list. My question involves advance defenses, such as psyching 1NT to defeat DONT or making very aggressive sandwich overcalls vs. support doubles, or doubling NTs on a vague assortment of hands to injure opponents due to an ill-conceived run-out structure. These are sometimes legal, sometimes not depending on your (damn, I need that abbreviation list--NCO?) locale. In the ACBL, I believe systemically psyching 3rd seat 1NTs favorable against DONT or Brozel is illegal, but making otherwise unsound overcalls in sandwich seat vs. support doubles is. There are two issues I see surrounding these: 1. To what extent should they be legal? and 2. Who wins when one party wants to change their agreement? (A: We play hyper-aggressive weak 2s. B: We play Weiss. A: We play normal pre-empts, then. B: We play standard, then.....) As to the legality, it seems to me any natural-type agreement designed to interfere with a conventional treatment by the opposition should be allowed. I would include psyching NTs against non-penalty doubles and bidding more aggressively when they are hindered from penalizing you. I hope to hear other opinions. (The next question is whether you should allow controlled psychs of 1NT against artificial doubles. My guess is that they *should* but my other guess is that will be a tremendously unpopular view and is currently unsupported by coherent logical argument(from me, anyway).) As to who wins the priority wars, I do not agree with the second party theory (first to act must commit first). I believe instead that natural bids should first take precedence over artificial bids, then later vs. initial. So, in the Weiss debate (Weiss, by the way, is an unpopular method essentially swapping 2N and double after a weak 2) A is weakening his pre-empt in response to an artificial convention (takeout double). B now wants to play a different artificial structure, and A wants to go to sounder pre-empts. I rule for A; B must commit. If B will play wholly natural methods, I rule that A must commit. But even this rule is not so simple to apply. Suppose I wish to play double of a 10-12 NT is 15+ or any 5-4 or better (Cone of Silence Doubles) because I think their artificial run-out system is fun to watch implode and the opponents decide instead to play natural over COS doubles. I certainly don't like this, since COS doubles have never worked, and are theoretically worse over a sensible run-out system. So our options as authority are: COS doubles/artificial run-out. Natural doubles/artificial run-out. COS doubles/ natural run-out. Since I am combatting artificiality with artificiality, I think I should have to commit first. I have only a foggy guess as to whether any of this is really correct. Is anyone convinced? Thoughts, flames welcomed as always. JRM From owner-bridge-laws Wed Nov 13 12:14:26 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id MAA14669 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 13 Nov 1996 12:14:26 +1100 Received: from bert.xavier.vic.edu.au (bert.xavier.vic.edu.au [203.22.118.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id MAA14663 for ; Wed, 13 Nov 1996 12:13:57 +1100 Received: (from stark@localhost) by bert.xavier.vic.edu.au (8.6.11/8.6.9) id MAA01104 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Wed, 13 Nov 1996 12:13:37 +1100 From: "Mr. Justin Stark" Message-Id: <199611130113.MAA01104@bert.xavier.vic.edu.au> Subject: Rule of 19 - Again (Sorry) To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Wed, 13 Nov 1996 12:13:37 +1100 (EST) X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4ME+ PL25 (25)] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Length: 1429 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In regrards to the rule of 19..... The WBF seems to have a Law covering the valuation of opening bids. In Australia the rules are played as follows, and I was of the impression that is was based upon the WBF ruling on the matter..... Opening Points are defined as the total number of High Card Points held, plus the number of cards held in the two longest suits. Rules: One Level Opening : Require 18 Opening Points Two Level Opening : Require 15 Opening Points Three Level Opening : Require 12 Opening Points This covers opening bids, and any system that systemicly does not abide by these guideline is classified as a HUM. Other laws covering the type of system are also used, but these take into account the Opening Point rules defined above... Cheers. |""""~"""""~"""""~"""""~"""""~"""""~""""~""""~"""""~""""~"| | Mr. Justin Stark _ | | Unix Sys. Administrator, Xavier College .-~ ) | | Internet Co-ordinator, ABF _..--~~~~,' ,-/ _ | | .-'. . . .' ,-',' ,' )| | Email: ,'. . . _ ,--~,-'__..-' ,' | | Justin.Stark@xavier.vic.edu.au. (@)' ---~~~~ ,' | | Justin.Stark@bridge.asn.au . . '~~ ,-' | | /. . . . . ,-' | | http://www.bridge.asn.au ,' | """~"""~"""~"""~"""~"""~"""~"""~"""~"""~"""~"""~"""~"""~""" From owner-bridge-laws Wed Nov 13 13:07:47 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id NAA15008 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 13 Nov 1996 13:07:47 +1100 Received: from relay-5.mail.demon.net (punt2.demon.co.uk [194.217.242.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id NAA15003 for ; Wed, 13 Nov 1996 13:07:36 +1100 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by relay-5.mail.demon.net id ab509843; 13 Nov 96 1:18 GMT Message-ID: Date: Wed, 13 Nov 1996 01:14:57 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Pass out of turn In-Reply-To: <328881B1@ah4gate.agw.bt.co.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Burn, David wrote: >DWS wrote: > >>Burn, David wrote: > >>>Jens Brix Christiansen wrote: > >[JBC] >>>>If I were on the appeals committee, I could be tempted to rule that >>>>the board had been irreparably damaged through an error by the TD, >>>>so that 3 imps to both sides would be in order [L82C], provided that > >[DALB] >>>I have often wondered about this. If this is a knockout match, and >>>all the other boards are flat, which team has won? You may think this >>>is a stupid question, but I could easily imagine a situation in which > > >>>both >>>teams claim that they have won by 3 IMPs, and should therefore both >>>progress to the next round - neither of them being willing to play >extra >>>boards. > >[DWS] >>Indeed. I am worried when such an important person as our friend Mr >>Burn starts talking about teams not being willing to play extra boards. > > >>Since when have they had any say in the matter? > >>Of course, if a TD wants to create an international incident then he >>could be fool enough to tell each side that they had +3 imps: of >>course, any competent TD will tell them at the time that his ruling >>means that the board is flat. > >On what authority? The Laws as currently written (82C, 86A, 12C1) >do not permit the TD to award a flat board. This is the problem to >which I was attempting to draw attention. It is a very minor problem, >and I do not propose to waste further time with it - but no competent >TD could act as DWS supposes, because the Laws do not sanction it. Perhaps you could look at L86B which provides the required authority. -- 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 Nov 13 14:55:35 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id OAA15476 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 13 Nov 1996 14:55:35 +1100 Received: from relay-5.mail.demon.net (punt2.demon.co.uk [194.217.242.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id OAA15471 for ; Wed, 13 Nov 1996 14:55:26 +1100 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by relay-6.mail.demon.net id aa604024; 13 Nov 96 1:17 GMT Message-ID: Date: Wed, 13 Nov 1996 01:13:13 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Should we follow the Laws? In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I have received this from Donald Varvel I was particularly bothered by Bobby Goldman's blase' assurance that using your own partnership's notes could be allowed when defending against opponents' non-GCC methods, because your notes became an appendix to the opponents' convention card. Now, wait a minute. The laws forbid "using notes". Your own bidding notes are exactly what the writers of the laws had in mind. Period. They forbade it. I don't think what is expressly forbidden can be made permissable by *any* subterfuge. The laws say that natural bids within a king of an average hand must be allowed. The EBU doesn't allow such bids if they fail the Rule of 18 or 19 or whatever. But, but, ... The laws say they *must* be allowed, and the EBU doesn't allow them. Why was that law written if it can freely be ignored? Why do NCBO's continue to do things that the laws say very specifically they *can't* do? Where is the authority? I would be fairly happy to play in a game where absolutely no conventions were allowed, only natural bids which can be by agreement various ranges, therefore by inference forcing or not forcing. I think there would be no end of arguments about whether people were playing conventions, but it might be better than the present situation. But allowing certain conventions while banning certain NATURAL BIDS is clearly contrary to the laws. The solution is simple and obvious. If the folks running NCBO's think it is so important to run games that are not in accordance with the laws of bridge, they should work to get the laws changed. Surely the same bureaucrats who run the NCBO's are in a position to appoint the members of the laws commission. However, I will say what I really want. I want hardly any restrictions for games at the highest level -- in this country, unrestricted events at Nationals in which you play at least 7 boards against the same team. I would like all *constructive* bids to be allowed in unrestricted events at the Regional level and above. I would like a standard toolkit to be allowed in *all* events, except for special restricted events with reduced prizes (masterpoints or money). That toolkit I think should include transfers, artificial negative bids, asking bids and relays in constructive auctions (possibly all the time), any bid showing 3 or more cards in the bid suit and not saying anything specific about another suit (i.e., natural bids, but without the ban on 3-card major-suit openings that as far as I can tell was put in specifically to make Roman illegal), a limited number of non-natural openings, and quite likely a ban on 1-level opening bids a king less than an average hand (i.e., by agreement on less than about 8 points or the equivalent. That bans forcing pass systems by the backdoor of banning ferts. (I don't see a forcing pass in itself as being any more difficult to defend than a Polish or Swedish club, but the fert creates a scramble that the experienced scramblers are more likely to win.) I wouldn't mind at all seeing a concurrent "all natural" game, though, and might play in it from time to time. Copyright 1996 by Donald A. Varvel Permission is granted to quote part or all of this letter, provided it is not done for profit and this notice is included. From owner-bridge-laws Wed Nov 13 15:59:21 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id PAA15670 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 13 Nov 1996 15:59:21 +1100 Received: from relay-7.mail.demon.net (relay-7.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.9]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id PAA15665 for ; Wed, 13 Nov 1996 15:59:09 +1100 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by relay-6.mail.demon.net id aa629295; 13 Nov 96 4:50 GMT Message-ID: Date: Wed, 13 Nov 1996 04:46:45 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Major or minor penalty card? In-Reply-To: <199611121948.LAA16650@euclid.msri.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Grabiner wrote: >West made the opening lead, and while dummy was being put down, East put >his cards on the table in order to write down the contract on his >scoresheet. However, he put them in one pile face up, exposing the >three of diamonds. > >Is this a major or minor penalty card? The director ruled major; as >South, I thought this was wrong, but didn't want to get in a long >argument, particularly because we were already a board behind. > >Law 50C: > >A single card below the rank of an honor and exposed inadvertently (as >in playing two cards to a trick, or in dropping a card accidentally) >becomes a minor penalty card. Any card of honor rank, or any card >exposed through deliberate play (as in leading out of turn, or in >revoking and then correcting), becomes a major penalty card; when one >defender has two or more penalty cards, all such cards become major >penalty cards. > >The director said that this was a deliberate action, but the rule says >"deliberate play." Minor. I am surprised at the Director: this seems too obvious to me. Did he attempt to play the card? No! -- 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 Nov 13 22:13:00 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id WAA17801 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 13 Nov 1996 22:13:00 +1100 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 WAA17796 for ; Wed, 13 Nov 1996 22:12:52 +1100 Received: (from root@localhost) by tom.compulink.co.uk (8.6.9/8.6.9) id LAA12161 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Wed, 13 Nov 1996 11:12:16 GMT Date: Wed, 13 Nov 96 11:12 GMT0 From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: (long) split scores and non-balancing scores 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 In-Reply-To: <2504.9611111558@tempest.cise.npl.co.uk> This hand raises a number of interesting questions before ruling but a split score looks like the issue has been ducked. The actual scoring after the ruling all looks eminently reasonable. If the appeal was "North should have been *made* to bid 2S" - even after being told by a director that you can't make people remember their conventions, or force them to stick to them - shouldn't it have been dismissed as frivolous? But had they appealed differently, or had NS appealed the ruling then the hand could make an excellent workout for trainee directors. Tim West-Meads. ****Long analysis (some probably wrong) follows below***** The first issue relates to "establishing the facts". In my experience playing transfers after the double of your weak NT is very unusual. South clearly intended such but the actual situation may well come into the category of "undiscussed". If that were the case then surely any ruling must be based on UI rather than MI. Even if transfers here was the agreement I really hate the idea of penalising for non-alert (or any other MI) when someone has forgotten their own system and bid accordingly. Again I feel that potential UI use by the non alerter is the place for rulings to be made. If North remembered the system and chose to pass, but forgot to alert there is "genuine" MI. I can't believe East would actually pass if 2H was alerted and passed by North. I can believe that what she meant was "If I thought North had forgotten the system (no alert) but also knew that 2H was a transfer I would have passed". However a "standard" UK convention card would not give this information so it appears to be an impossible situation. Since double is the obvious bid whether or not 2H is alerted surely there can be no damage (and no redress) for that. Although it does rule out 2H-4 as a possible score. If West had appealed on the grounds that she would have doubled 2H, if alerted, then I would rule for 2Sx-2 as that looks like a likely bid to me (but then so does doubling a natural 2H so what do I know). If North remembered the system, knew he should alert and chose not to, then passed hoping oppos would screw up, we have cheating to deal with. The next candidate is 2S. If 1NT can contain a 5CM then a fair number of people would elect to pass 2H here (2Hx-4) depending on your analysis. If 1NT denies a 5CM then it is a lot closer (at least here in the UK, there would IMO be enough passers in the US to make it an LA). A difficult decision, personally I believe that most people would bid 2S here. (I could be easily swayed on my ruling as I think the number of passers would be around 20-30%) North's action when 2S is bid needs consideration. If he has "woken up" should he alert now? Should he be expected to "know" he should alert now? What if he didn't realise he hadn't alerted 2H? If he did nothing what action would you expect after a pass from West? West's 3C bid, as a bid, makes me feel sick, but how do we intepret it? Did he know what was going on and decide to take action now that NS have "found their fit"? Might he be double-shotting?. Is the auction not such that he should try to protect himself? Has the director just tried to wash down a box valium with a pint of whisky? From owner-bridge-laws Wed Nov 13 22:25:03 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id WAA17857 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 13 Nov 1996 22:25:03 +1100 Received: from mailhub.axion.bt.co.uk (mailhub.axion.bt.co.uk [132.146.5.4]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id WAA17852 for ; Wed, 13 Nov 1996 22:24:55 +1100 Received: from catullus.agw.bt.co.uk by mailhub.axion.bt.co.uk with SMTP (PP); Wed, 13 Nov 1996 11:21:49 +0000 Received: from ah4gate.agw.bt.co.uk (ah4gate.agw.bt.co.uk [147.150.119.60]) by catullus.agw.bt.co.uk (8.6.12/8.6.11) with SMTP id LAA26458 for ; Wed, 13 Nov 1996 11:12:37 GMT Received: by ah4gate.agw.bt.co.uk with Microsoft Mail id <3289AD6A@ah4gate.agw.bt.co.uk>; Wed, 13 Nov 96 11:13:46 GMT From: "Burn, David" To: "'Bridge Laws'" Subject: RE: Pass out of turn Date: Wed, 13 Nov 96 11:07:00 GMT Message-ID: <3289AD6A@ah4gate.agw.bt.co.uk> Encoding: 34 TEXT X-Mailer: Microsoft Mail V3.0 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk >From David Burn [snip of familiar stuff] David Stevenson wrote: [DWS] >>>Of course, if a TD wants to create an international incident then he >>>could be fool enough to tell each side that they had +3 imps: of >>>course, any competent TD will tell them at the time that his ruling >>>means that the board is flat. [DALB] >>On what authority? The Laws as currently written (82C, 86A, 12C1) >>do not permit the TD to award a flat board. This is the problem to >>which I was attempting to draw attention. It is a very minor problem, >>and I do not propose to waste further time with it - but no competent >>TD could act as DWS supposes, because the Laws do not sanction it. [DWS] >Perhaps you could look at L86B which provides the required authority. No, it does not. Law 86B deals explicitly with assigned adjusted scores (e.g. the TD awards a non-offending side -100 for 4H one down and an offending side -620 for 4H making). The Laws I have mentioned relate to artificial adjusted scores (e.g. +3 IMPs for director error), and as I have said do not sanction the award of a flat board. They should do, of course, and I agree entirely with the practical approach which interprets the Laws in this obvious fashion. As I have said, this is a minor quibble only, and I really do not propose to say *any* more about it :) But the Laws are inexact, and ought to be tidied up. From owner-bridge-laws Thu Nov 14 00:50:00 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA21551 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 14 Nov 1996 00:50:00 +1100 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 AAA21546 for ; Thu, 14 Nov 1996 00:49:53 +1100 Received: from cph56.ppp.dknet.dk (cph56.ppp.dknet.dk [194.192.100.56]) by pip.dknet.dk (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id OAA14223 for ; Wed, 13 Nov 1996 14:49:43 +0100 From: jd@pip.dknet.dk (Jesper Dybdal) To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: (long) split scores and non-balancing scores Date: Wed, 13 Nov 1996 14:49:41 +0100 Organization: at home Message-ID: <328bc8fd.4835362@pipmail.dknet.dk> References: <199611122242.RAA07768@cfa183.harvard.edu> In-Reply-To: <199611122242.RAA07768@cfa183.harvard.edu> X-Mailer: Forte Agent .99f/32.299 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Tue, 12 Nov 1996 17:42:14 -0500, willner@cfa183.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) wrote: >This is probably location-dependent, but I think pass would be a LA in >ACBL play. (I don't remember where the original question came from, >though.) If North cannot be 2-5 in the majors, the next most likely >distribution for the pass is 2-4. I don't think so. With 2-4, it would never occur to North to pass a transfer bid; if North cannot have a 5-card heart suit, South can therefore conclude that North has definitely forgotten his system, and 2S is then the only reasonable bid from South. -- Jesper Dybdal, Denmark From owner-bridge-laws Thu Nov 14 04:16:23 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA22844 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 14 Nov 1996 04:16:23 +1100 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 EAA22839 for ; Thu, 14 Nov 1996 04:16:11 +1100 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 MAA27137 for ; Wed, 13 Nov 1996 12:16:02 -0500 (EST) Received: by cfa183.harvard.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id MAA08509; Wed, 13 Nov 1996 12:17:46 -0500 Date: Wed, 13 Nov 1996 12:17:46 -0500 From: willner@cfa183.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Message-Id: <199611131717.MAA08509@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: (long) split scores and non-balancing scores X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: jd@pip.dknet.dk (Jesper Dybdal) > I don't think so. With 2-4, it would never occur to North to pass a > transfer bid; This appears to be a difference in bridge judgment. With, say, xx AKJx Axxx xxx, after 1NT-x-2H-P, I might very well pass if not vulnerable. How bad can things be at 50 a trick? Even vulnerable, it might be right to pass until the double goes on, though a confident 2S could work better. Of course some Norths (Jesper?) will never, ever pass a transfer, and South is entitled to use that information as long as it is disclosed to the opponents too. (Should South then alert the pass? I think so.) > if North cannot have a 5-card heart suit, South can > therefore conclude that North has definitely forgotten his system, and > 2S is then the only reasonable bid from South. As you say, if the "screen test" makes forgetfulness the only reasonable option, South is allowed to know that. What if the true agreement is "no agreement?" This is perhaps the most likely case in practice. Now the failure to alert is not an infraction, but it is still UI. I don't think anything is changed except that there will be no adjustment for misinformation. From owner-bridge-laws Thu Nov 14 06:13:05 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA01419 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 14 Nov 1996 06:13:05 +1100 Received: from relay-5.mail.demon.net (punt2.demon.co.uk [194.217.242.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id GAA01414 for ; Thu, 14 Nov 1996 06:12:58 +1100 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by relay-5.mail.demon.net id ab520388; 13 Nov 96 19:11 GMT Message-ID: Date: Wed, 13 Nov 1996 18:56:18 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Rule of 19 - Again (Sorry) In-Reply-To: <199611130113.MAA01104@bert.xavier.vic.edu.au> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Mr. Justin Stark wrote: >In regrards to the rule of 19..... > >The WBF seems to have a Law covering the valuation of opening bids. >In Australia the rules are played as follows, and I was of the impression >that is was based upon the WBF ruling on the matter..... > >Opening Points are defined as the total number of High Card Points held, >plus the number of cards held in the two longest suits. > >Rules: >One Level Opening : Require 18 Opening Points >Two Level Opening : Require 15 Opening Points >Three Level Opening : Require 12 Opening Points > >This covers opening bids, and any system that systemicly does not >abide by these guideline is classified as a HUM. > >Other laws covering the type of system are also used, but these >take into account the Opening Point rules defined above... If I have understood correctly, the Laws make it illegal to regulate natural bids in this way, but you can regulate conventions this way. However, when people originally put these regulations in place, the WBF accepted them and effectively legalised them by saying they would not challenge them. Recently there has been a shift in thinking and it now appears that people are reverting to saying that this form of regulation is illegal for natural bids. Since you can regulate conventions however you want, one method of regulating natural bids has been to say that if you play an opening bid of one as less than the Rule of 18 then you can play no conventions with it whatever: some say no conventions when you have opened: some say no conventions throughout the system. Whether this method is legal: whether the original WBF statement was legal: whether it matters: what we should be doing about it: these are all matters being discussed currently. Some people see options: some people see the whole thing as totally clear and cast in stone. I have been asking in another thread whether we have to follow the Laws exactly, with varying response. -- 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 Nov 14 06:24:07 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA01453 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 14 Nov 1996 06:24:07 +1100 Received: from relay-7.mail.demon.net (relay-7.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.9]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id GAA01447 for ; Thu, 14 Nov 1996 06:24:02 +1100 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by relay-6.mail.demon.net id aa602664; 13 Nov 96 19:11 GMT Message-ID: Date: Wed, 13 Nov 1996 18:54:04 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Pass out of turn In-Reply-To: <3289AD6A@ah4gate.agw.bt.co.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Burn, David wrote: >[DWS] >>Perhaps you could look at L86B which provides the required authority. > >No, it does not. Law 86B deals explicitly with assigned adjusted scores >(e.g. the TD awards a non-offending side -100 for 4H one down and an >offending side -620 for 4H making). The Laws I have mentioned relate >to artificial adjusted scores (e.g. +3 IMPs for director error), and as I >have said do not sanction the award of a flat board. > >They should do, of course, and I agree entirely with the practical >approach which interprets the Laws in this obvious fashion. As I have >said, this is a minor quibble only, and I really do not propose to say >*any* more about it :) But the Laws are inexact, and ought to be tidied >up. Sorry, I had missed the word assign. In fact all they need to do is to change that word assign to award and it is cleared up. From the fact that the reference is to L12C rather than L12C2 I would guess that it was a mistake rather than deliberate choice of wording. -- 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 Nov 14 06:29:28 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA01478 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 14 Nov 1996 06:29:28 +1100 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 GAA01473 for ; Thu, 14 Nov 1996 06:29:19 +1100 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 OAA03124; Wed, 13 Nov 1996 14:28:53 -0500 (EST) Received: by cfa183.harvard.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id OAA08644; Wed, 13 Nov 1996 14:30:39 -0500 Date: Wed, 13 Nov 1996 14:30:39 -0500 From: willner@cfa183.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Message-Id: <199611131930.OAA08644@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au, newsr@blakjak.demon.co.uk Subject: Re: Rule of 19 - Again (Sorry) X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk From: David Stevenson > Since you can regulate conventions however you want, one method of > regulating natural bids has been to say that if you play an opening bid > of one as less than the Rule of 18 then you can play no conventions with > it whatever: some say no conventions when you have opened: This seems legal to me (though its desirability could certainly be debated). The ACBL does this after certain undesired 1NT and two-bids. > some say no conventions throughout the system. This, on the other hand, seems bizarre. I'd expect it of the ACBL, but I have always thought the other NCBO's had more sense. Perhaps I'm wrong; wouldn't be the first time. From owner-bridge-laws Thu Nov 14 06:35:23 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA01513 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 14 Nov 1996 06:35:23 +1100 Received: from relay-7.mail.demon.net (relay-7.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.9]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id GAA01508 for ; Thu, 14 Nov 1996 06:35:12 +1100 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by relay-6.mail.demon.net id aa604945; 13 Nov 96 19:17 GMT Message-ID: Date: Wed, 13 Nov 1996 19:15:47 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Advance defenses In-Reply-To: <3287E084.571B@lightspeed.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk John R. Mayne wrote: >I have only been on BLML for a few months, so pardon me if this has been >thoroughly beaten to death already, or if it is not sufficiently >sophisticated for the mailing list. It is interesting and I cannot remember considering it before. > My question involves advance defenses, such as psyching 1NT to defeat >DONT or making very aggressive sandwich overcalls vs. support doubles, or >doubling NTs on a vague assortment of hands to injure opponents due to an >ill-conceived run-out structure. > >These are sometimes legal, sometimes not depending on your (damn, I need >that abbreviation list--NCO?) locale. In the ACBL, I believe systemically >psyching 3rd seat 1NTs favorable against DONT or Brozel is illegal, but >making otherwise unsound overcalls in sandwich seat vs. support doubles >is. I cannot see any reason why they should be illegal where psyching is not involved. Where psyching is involved it is surely just a question of whether agreements over psyching are allowed, so generally this idea becomes illegal. In the example you give, it is surely illegal to have any agreement to psyche 3rd seat 1NT openings: to know that your partner will do it because of DONT or Brozel is such an agreement. > There are two issues I see surrounding these: 1. To what extent should >they be legal? and 2. Who wins when one party wants to change their >agreement? (A: We play hyper-aggressive weak 2s. B: We play Weiss. A: We >play normal pre-empts, then. B: We play standard, then.....) > > As to the legality, it seems to me any natural-type agreement designed >to interfere with a conventional treatment by the opposition should be >allowed. I would include psyching NTs against non-penalty doubles and >bidding more aggressively when they are hindered from penalizing you. I >hope to hear other opinions. (The next question is whether you should >allow controlled psychs of 1NT against artificial doubles. My guess is >that they *should* but my other guess is that will be a tremendously >unpopular view and is currently unsupported by coherent logical >argument(from me, anyway).) > > As to who wins the priority wars, I do not agree with the second party >theory (first to act must commit first). I believe instead that natural >bids should first take precedence over artificial bids, then later vs. >initial. Yes, but why? I can see no reason in Law for this view, which appears to be personal preference. The second party theory is perfectly logical. If you play strong preempts against penalty doubles, and weak preempts against takeout doubles, and we play penalty doubles against weak preempts and takeout doubles against strong preempts, then everyone knows that. Now you open 3H and I have a right to know what you play this as. You know how we play our doubles. You could, of course, just give the spiel about strong versus penalty etc, but that is only acceptable if you do not know which it is: once this has happened once you have an implicit understanding and I have a right to know what it is. [s] >I have only a foggy guess as to whether any of this is really correct. Is >anyone convinced? Thoughts, flames welcomed as always. I believe that the second party theory is right. I cannot see any justification for the conventionality or naturalness of the position to be relevant. I believe that Advance defences are legal unless you are breaking some Law or Regulation, which is quite likely if psyching is involved. -- 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 Nov 14 06:39:10 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA01535 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 14 Nov 1996 06:39:10 +1100 Received: from msri.msri.org (msri.org [198.129.64.224]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id GAA01530 for ; Thu, 14 Nov 1996 06:39:05 +1100 Received: (from smap@localhost) by msri.msri.org (8.8.2/8.7.2) id LAA22279; Wed, 13 Nov 1996 11:39:04 -0800 (PST) X-Authentication-Warning: msri.org: smap set sender to using -f Received: from boole.msri.org(198.129.65.86) by msri.org via smap (V1.3) id sma022277; Wed Nov 13 11:38:46 1996 Received: by boole.msri.org (8.7/DW.6) id LAA19727; Wed, 13 Nov 1996 11:38:01 -0800 (PST) Date: Wed, 13 Nov 1996 11:38:01 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <199611131938.LAA19727@boole.msri.org> From: David Grabiner To: stark@bert.xavier.vic.edu.au CC: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au In-reply-to: <199611130113.MAA01104@bert.xavier.vic.edu.au> (stark@bert.xavier.vic.edu.au) Subject: Re: Rule of 19 - Again (Sorry) Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk You write: > In regrards to the rule of 19..... > The WBF seems to have a Law covering the valuation of opening bids. > In Australia the rules are played as follows, and I was of the impression > that is was based upon the WBF ruling on the matter..... > Opening Points are defined as the total number of High Card Points held, > plus the number of cards held in the two longest suits. > Rules: > One Level Opening : Require 18 Opening Points > Two Level Opening : Require 15 Opening Points > Three Level Opening : Require 12 Opening Points > This covers opening bids, and any system that systemicly does not > abide by these guideline is classified as a HUM. This seems to be a new version of the Marty Bergen rule (an old ACBL rule which required a weak two-bid to have at least 5 HCP). A system which allows a weak two-bid on KQT9xx x xxx xxx would be a HUM by this definition, but that's a normal weak two-bid for most players. The ACBL's current rule is that you may only play conventions over the weak two-bid if you have an agreed range less than 7 HCP; however, the ACBL seems to recognize that opening an agreed 5-11 range on a 4-count (which most players do) apparently does not create an implicit agreement. Opening a 10-13 NT on a 9-count does. -- 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 Thu Nov 14 09:12:24 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA02471 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 14 Nov 1996 09:12:24 +1100 Received: from ns-prime.cais.com (ns-prime.cais.com [199.0.216.5]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id JAA02466 for ; Thu, 14 Nov 1996 09:12:18 +1100 Received: from elandau.cais.com.cais.com ([204.157.58.181]) by ns-prime.cais.com (8.7.5/8.7.5-CAIS) with SMTP id QAA19828 for ; Wed, 13 Nov 1996 16:45:59 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <1.5.4.32.19961113221134.006fc9d8@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: Wed, 13 Nov 1996 17:11:34 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: "Failure to alert" with no agreement Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 12:17 PM 11/13/96 -0500, Steve wrote: >What if the true agreement is "no agreement?" This is perhaps the >most likely case in practice. Now the failure to alert is not an >infraction, but it is still UI. I don't think anything is changed >except that there will be no adjustment for misinformation. Is Steve correct that "the failure to alert... is still UI"? That scares me. I very often sit down with a new partner after minimal discussion, and this kind of situation -- where we don't have agreements and have to grope it out -- is pretty common. We've agree to play transfers, but haven't discussed whether they're on or off after a double. It goes 1NT-X to me, and I want to play in 2H, but I don't know whether partner will take 2H as to play or as a transfer to spades. I know that whatever I bid, he will have to guess what it means. So I decide to bid 2D, hoping that either he'll think it's a transfer and bid 2H, or, if not, the opponents will double and then I can bid 2H, which will make my intentions clear. Partner, who understands the position we're in, knows that when I bid 2D I might have either diamonds or hearts, and knows that he's being put to a guess. Knowing that our actual agreement is "no agreement", he will (properly) not alert, regardless of whether he is about to guess to bid 2H or pass. Where's the UI? If it goes 2D-P-P-X-2H, will I really be doing something wrong (taking advantage of the "failure to alert")? If so, wouldn't that mean that it's effectively illegal to have no explicit agreement? On the other side of the coin, if partner guesses to bid 2H, has he really given the opponents misinformation by failing to alert to what he's about to guess, when we actually have no agreement? Eric Landau APL Solutions, Inc. elandau@cais.com 1107 Dale Drive (301) 589-4621 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 USA From owner-bridge-laws Thu Nov 14 10:47:53 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA03030 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 14 Nov 1996 10:47:53 +1100 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 KAA03025 for ; Thu, 14 Nov 1996 10:47:41 +1100 Received: from hdavis.erols.com (spg-as59s01.erols.com [207.172.108.1]) by smtp1.erols.com (8.7.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id SAA07130 for ; Wed, 13 Nov 1996 18:47:31 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <2.2.32.19961113234903.00685444@pop.erols.com> X-Sender: hdavis@pop.erols.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 2.2 (32) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Wed, 13 Nov 1996 18:49:03 -0500 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Hirsch Davis Subject: Re: (long) split scores and non-balancing scores Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 12:17 PM 11/13/96 -0500, you wrote: >> From: jd@pip.dknet.dk (Jesper Dybdal) > >> I don't think so. With 2-4, it would never occur to North to pass a >> transfer bid; > >This appears to be a difference in bridge judgment. With, say, > xx AKJx Axxx xxx, after 1NT-x-2H-P, I might very well pass if not >vulnerable. How bad can things be at 50 a trick? Even vulnerable, it >might be right to pass until the double goes on, though a confident 2S >could work better. Of course some Norths (Jesper?) will never, ever >pass a transfer, and South is entitled to use that information as long >as it is disclosed to the opponents too. (Should South then alert the >pass? I think so.) > Hmmm. What if partner has 8-9 HCP and decent spades, but no hearts. Neither he nor your teammates are going to thank you for that minus 50/trick when you have a decent spade partial on the hand. Not to mention the possibility that pard has a decent hand with offensive, but not defensive, potential, and may have elected to start showing suits rather than RD on the road to the proper game or even slam. By opening NT you have limited and described your hand; your partner has a good idea where the hand should play- you don't. I won't pass a transfer that might end the auction if I want to keep my partner. The idea that you must alert a system failure is an interesting one. How do you explain the alert: "not a possible bid in our system"? Doesn't this run the risk of providing more info to partner than to the opponents (yes, partner can't use the UI but why tempt him?) While we are required to disclose all partnership agreements, are we also required to disclose all failures to adhere to same? >> if North cannot have a 5-card heart suit, South can >> therefore conclude that North has definitely forgotten his system, and >> 2S is then the only reasonable bid from South. > >As you say, if the "screen test" makes forgetfulness the only reasonable >option, South is allowed to know that. > >What if the true agreement is "no agreement?" This is perhaps the >most likely case in practice. Now the failure to alert is not an >infraction, but it is still UI. I don't think anything is changed >except that there will be no adjustment for misinformation. > > In any case where there is no agreement, both the failure to alert and the alert are UI. Really puts it to a new partnership, who may never have discussed a wide variety of situations. I believe that correct procedure is not to alert, make your best guess and keep on bidding. If opponents ask, simply say that the auction was not discussed. OTOH, this could be UI to partner too. Perhaps we should require a minimum number of hours of partnership discussion before allowing pairs to play in ACBL events...;) Hirsch From owner-bridge-laws Thu Nov 14 14:43:58 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id OAA03887 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 14 Nov 1996 14:43:58 +1100 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 OAA03881 for ; Thu, 14 Nov 1996 14:43:49 +1100 Received: (from root@localhost) by tom.compulink.co.uk (8.6.9/8.6.9) id DAA25409 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Thu, 14 Nov 1996 03:43:19 GMT Date: Thu, 14 Nov 96 03:43 GMT0 From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: "Failure to alert" with no agreement 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 In-Reply-To: <1.5.4.32.19961113221134.006fc9d8@cais.com> Eric Landau wrote: > At 12:17 PM 11/13/96 -0500, Steve wrote: > > >What if the true agreement is "no agreement?" This is perhaps the > >most likely case in practice. Now the failure to alert is not an > >infraction, but it is still UI. I don't think anything is changed > >except that there will be no adjustment for misinformation. > > Is Steve correct that "the failure to alert... is still UI"? That scares > me. I very often sit down with a new partner after minimal discussion, and > this kind of situation -- where we don't have agreements and have to grope > it out -- is pretty common. If partner fails to alert you have at least one new piece of information. He does not believe that an agreement to play transfers over 1NT means that you also agree to play transfers over 1NT doubled. Playing with screens you could not possess this information. The information may be completely useless to anyone (so you wouldn't necessarily expect an unfavourable UI ruling) but it is information, and AFAICS unauthorised. I am also uncomfortable with an underlying problem. Should we allow both players to correctly guess that they were playing an undiscussed convention instead of the (IMO) more common natural alternative when neither of them alerted? I think this would open up significant avenues for abuse. Tim West-Meads From owner-bridge-laws Fri Nov 15 01:57:38 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA11944 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 15 Nov 1996 01:57:38 +1100 Received: from relay-6.mail.demon.net (punt2.demon.co.uk [194.217.242.5]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id BAA11938 for ; Fri, 15 Nov 1996 01:57:32 +1100 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by relay-6.mail.demon.net id aa600775; 14 Nov 96 14:53 GMT Message-ID: Date: Thu, 14 Nov 1996 13:34:59 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: (long) split scores and non-balancing scores In-Reply-To: <2.2.32.19961113234903.00685444@pop.erols.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Hirsch Davis wrote: >The idea that you must alert a system failure is an interesting one. How do >you explain the alert: "not a possible bid in our system"? Doesn't this run >the risk of providing more info to partner than to the opponents (yes, >partner can't use the UI but why tempt him?) While we are required to >disclose all partnership agreements, are we also required to disclose all >failures to adhere to same? When partner passes your forcing bid [whether a transfer or something else] you *know* that this is anti-system: don't you think your opponents have a right to know that as well? The fact that his pass is "impossible" *is* a partnership agreement and should be treated as such. While it is fairly sensible to try to avoid giving UI to your partner, there are some occasions when you have to. At such time you should just do whatever you must, and trust to partner's ethics and/or the TD/AC's ruling to allow for it. So if partner passes a forcing bid, and this is alertable under your regulations, then you alert it and let happen whatever happens. >Perhaps we should require a minimum number of hours of >partnership discussion before allowing pairs to play in ACBL events...;) I don't know about ACBL events, but I *like* my opponents not to know what they are doing, and would prefer they do *not* get discouraged from being incompetent. -- 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 Nov 15 02:04:30 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA12143 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 15 Nov 1996 02:04:30 +1100 Received: from relay-7.mail.demon.net (relay-7.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.9]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id CAA12138 for ; Fri, 15 Nov 1996 02:04:24 +1100 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by relay-5.mail.demon.net id aa517975; 14 Nov 96 14:53 GMT Message-ID: Date: Thu, 14 Nov 1996 13:34:53 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: "Failure to alert" with no agreement In-Reply-To: <1.5.4.32.19961113221134.006fc9d8@cais.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Eric Landau wrote: >>What if the true agreement is "no agreement?" This is perhaps the >>most likely case in practice. Now the failure to alert is not an >>infraction, but it is still UI. I don't think anything is changed >>except that there will be no adjustment for misinformation. > >Is Steve correct that "the failure to alert... is still UI"? That scares >me. I very often sit down with a new partner after minimal discussion, and >this kind of situation -- where we don't have agreements and have to grope >it out -- is pretty common. > >We've agree to play transfers, but haven't discussed whether they're on or >off after a double. It goes 1NT-X to me, and I want to play in 2H, but I >don't know whether partner will take 2H as to play or as a transfer to >spades. I know that whatever I bid, he will have to guess what it means. >So I decide to bid 2D, hoping that either he'll think it's a transfer and >bid 2H, or, if not, the opponents will double and then I can bid 2H, which >will make my intentions clear. > >Partner, who understands the position we're in, knows that when I bid 2D I >might have either diamonds or hearts, and knows that he's being put to a >guess. Knowing that our actual agreement is "no agreement", he will >(properly) not alert, regardless of whether he is about to guess to bid 2H >or pass. Where's the UI? If it goes 2D-P-P-X-2H, will I really be doing >something wrong (taking advantage of the "failure to alert")? If so, >wouldn't that mean that it's effectively illegal to have no explicit agreement? > >On the other side of the coin, if partner guesses to bid 2H, has he really >given the opponents misinformation by failing to alert to what he's about to >guess, when we actually have no agreement? Perhaps it depends on your alerting regulations. It *is* reasonable to have no agreement. IMO you should alert if partner's bid *might* be an alertable one: then, if asked, say no agreement. Now, if you accept that, partner's failure to alert is UI, but a very mild case of 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 Fri Nov 15 02:26:06 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA12299 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 15 Nov 1996 02:26:06 +1100 Received: from ns-prime.cais.com (ns-prime.cais.com [199.0.216.5]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id CAA12293 for ; Fri, 15 Nov 1996 02:26:00 +1100 Received: from elandau.cais.com.cais.com ([204.157.58.181]) by ns-prime.cais.com (8.7.5/8.7.5-CAIS) with SMTP id JAA15038 for ; Thu, 14 Nov 1996 09:59:43 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <1.5.4.32.19961114152715.0068a100@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: Thu, 14 Nov 1996 10:27:15 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: "Failure to alert" with no agreement Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 03:43 AM 11/14/96 GMT0, Tim wrote: >If partner fails to alert you have at least one new piece of information. He >does not believe that an agreement to play transfers over 1NT means that you >also agree to play transfers over 1NT doubled. Playing with screens you could >not possess this information. The information may be completely useless to >anyone (so you wouldn't necessarily expect an unfavourable UI ruling) but it is >information, and AFAICS unauthorised. But when there are two alternatives, X and Y, not having agreement X is not the same as having agreement Y. So when partner doesn't alert 2D, there are two possibilities: (1) He believes, incorrectly, that we've agreed to play 2D natural, or (2) He believes, correctly, that we have no agreement, and that he, along with both me and the opponents, are guessing. If I base my subsequent bidding on the assumption that (2) is correct (which is what I was assuming when I bid 2D), there has been no UI and no MI from his failure to alert (unless you believe that "no agreement" is alertable!). >I am also uncomfortable with an underlying problem. Should we allow both >players to correctly guess that they were playing an undiscussed convention >instead of the (IMO) more common natural alternative when neither of them >alerted? I think this would open up significant avenues for abuse. How many partnerships have specific agreements for every possible auction as to whether 4NT is natural or Blackwood? I'd hate to think that when an LOL bids 4NT on an undiscussed auction, hoping it will be taken as Blackwood (even on an auction where most partnerships would assume it to be natural), and her partner responds showing aces, that they have committed an infraction. Eric Landau APL Solutions, Inc. elandau@cais.com 1107 Dale Drive (301) 589-4621 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 USA From owner-bridge-laws Fri Nov 15 03:01:59 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA12626 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 15 Nov 1996 03:01:59 +1100 Received: from styx.ios.com (lighton@styx.ios.com [198.4.75.44]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id DAA12621 for ; Fri, 15 Nov 1996 03:01:54 +1100 Received: (from lighton@localhost) by styx.ios.com (8.6.12/8.6.9) id LAA18799 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Thu, 14 Nov 1996 11:01:56 -0500 Date: Thu, 14 Nov 1996 11:01:56 -0500 From: Richard Lighton Message-Id: <199611141601.LAA18799@styx.ios.com> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: "Failure to alert" with no agreement Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Stevenson wrote: > Hirsch Davis wrote: > > >The idea that you must alert a system failure is an interesting one. How do > >you explain the alert: "not a possible bid in our system"? Doesn't this run > >the risk of providing more info to partner than to the opponents (yes, > >partner can't use the UI but why tempt him?) While we are required to > >disclose all partnership agreements, are we also required to disclose all > >failures to adhere to same? > > When partner passes your forcing bid [whether a transfer or something > else] you *know* that this is anti-system: don't you think your > opponents have a right to know that as well? The fact that his pass is > "impossible" *is* a partnership agreement and should be treated as such. Agreed. We have a similar example that is even in our system notes. As we play it, 2NT-3NT shows at least 5-4 in the minors and is a slam try. Believe me, this is accident prone! Fortunately, it is responder who forgets, not opener. After 2NT-3NT;4C/4D, responder is supposed to bid in steps depending on his minor suit distribution. There are 3 steps. More than once we have had the auction 2NT-3NT (Alert) 4C - 4NT (Alert) "Please explain the alerts." "3NT shows at least 5-4 in the minors, slam invitational. 4NT is impossible. He forgot." More often than not, it's partner (not me) who has to do the explaining :-( At least we have the advantage (?) that 4C/D over 3NT is an automatic "wake-up" and we yet have to perpetrate 2NT-3NT;4D-4NT which is a possible call in the system. Richard Lighton | A rock feels no pain / And an island never cries. (lighton@ios.com) | -- Simon and Garfunkel Wood-Ridge NJ | No man is an island USA | -- John Donne From owner-bridge-laws Fri Nov 15 10:41:38 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA23264 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 15 Nov 1996 10:41:38 +1100 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 KAA23259 for ; Fri, 15 Nov 1996 10:41:29 +1100 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 SAA22751 for ; Thu, 14 Nov 1996 18:41:09 -0500 (EST) Received: by cfa183.harvard.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id SAA09531; Thu, 14 Nov 1996 18:42:58 -0500 Date: Thu, 14 Nov 1996 18:42:58 -0500 From: willner@cfa183.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Message-Id: <199611142342.SAA09531@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: (long) split scores and non-balancing scores X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au > Neither he nor your teammates are going to thank you for that minus 50/trick > when you have a decent spade partial on the hand.... > I won't pass a transfer that might end the auction if I > want to keep my partner. Of course it can work out badly. A lot depends on methods of _both_ partnerships. Is RHO's pass forcing, for example? Still, it's easy to see how it can work out well, especially if LHO's double will be for takeout (a poor method IMHO, but better players than I use it). No doubt there are other players who adopt your position about passing transfers, but not all of us are in that category. In the original hand, I don't think we can _assume_ a pass implies a forget, though investigation might convince us that it does in the case in question. > The idea that you must alert a system failure is an interesting one. How do > you explain the alert: "not a possible bid in our system"? If the auction has come up before, you will have a good idea what the failure shows. If not, you have to disclose as much of your system as is relevant for the opponents to form their own guesses. > In any case where there is no agreement, both the failure to alert and the > alert are UI. Really puts it to a new partnership, who may never have > discussed a wide variety of situations. I believe that correct procedure is > not to alert, make your best guess and keep on bidding. This was my first impression, but now (based on more thought and other comments) I'm not so sure. Consider the auction 1NT-x-2D ; we play transfers, but we haven't discussed whether they apply after a double. (Bad idea, but so it goes.) One thing that is surely wrong is to announce "transfer" (new ACBL procedure if transfers were agreed). That is clear MI. If asked, the explanation to give is clear enough: "We play transfers, but we haven't discussed whether they apply after a double." So... should one alert? I think I'd alert behind screens; what harm can it do then? And I think it's probably right to alert without screens, but I can see arguments on both sides. Probably the alert regulations ought to cover cases like this, but I don't think they do. From owner-bridge-laws Fri Nov 15 11:10:55 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id LAA23385 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 15 Nov 1996 11:10:55 +1100 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 LAA23378 for ; Fri, 15 Nov 1996 11:10:35 +1100 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 TAA06695 for ; Thu, 14 Nov 1996 19:10:07 -0500 (EST) Received: by cfa183.harvard.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id TAA09560; Thu, 14 Nov 1996 19:11:56 -0500 Date: Thu, 14 Nov 1996 19:11:56 -0500 From: willner@cfa183.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Message-Id: <199611150011.TAA09560@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Advance defenses X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > John R. Mayne wrote: > > My question involves advance defenses, such as psyching 1NT to defeat > >DONT or making very aggressive sandwich overcalls vs. support doubles, or > >doubling NTs on a vague assortment of hands to injure opponents due to an > >ill-conceived run-out structure. > > > >These are sometimes legal, sometimes not depending on your (damn, I need > >that abbreviation list--NCO?) locale. In the ACBL, I believe systemically > >psyching 3rd seat 1NTs favorable against DONT or Brozel is illegal, but > >making otherwise unsound overcalls in sandwich seat vs. support doubles > >is. > > From: David Stevenson > I cannot see any reason why they should be illegal where psyching is > not involved. Where psyching is involved it is surely just a question > of whether agreements over psyching are allowed, so generally this idea > becomes illegal. Once again David and I don't see eye to eye. I'd say there are two separate cases: psyching and having a partnership agreement. If we are truly talking about a psych, then surely it is legal according to L40A. Of course the _second_ time it happens, partnership experience may well make it something else. > In the example you give, it is surely illegal to have any agreement to > psyche 3rd seat 1NT openings: to know that your partner will do it > because of DONT or Brozel is such an agreement. If we have an agreement, it is not a psych. The question becomes, is it legal for a third seat NT to show 12-14 or 0-5 (or whatever)? This would not be legal in typical ACBL games, but it might be legal at the option of the SO. (In most ACBL games, and in most other jurisdictions, I think, the 1NT opening is required to show 8 HCP.) Doubles of 1NT on a wide assortment of hands are legal in most games if not all. Of course the meaning of the double must be properly disclosed to the opponents. Aggressive sandwich overcalls versus support doubles are probably legal but surely have to be disclosed. The interesting question is _when_ they have to be disclosed: when made, or before the auction starts. I can see a case for either. > > There are two issues I see surrounding these: 1. To what extent should > >they be legal? and 2. Who wins when one party wants to change their > >agreement? (A: We play hyper-aggressive weak 2s. B: We play Weiss. A: We > >play normal pre-empts, then. B: We play standard, then.....) > > As to who wins the priority wars, I do not agree with the second party > >theory (first to act must commit first). I believe instead that natural > >bids should first take precedence over artificial bids, then later vs. > >initial. > > Yes, but why? I can see no reason in Law for this view, which appears > to be personal preference. The second party theory is perfectly > logical. Here I agree entirely with David (!). You are allowed to have contingent agreements in a wide variety of situations, but when you make a call, you MUST (if asked) explain to the opponents what it means _without contingencies_. For example, if your 1NT opening varies with seat or vulnerability, you must explain it _in current circumstances_, perhaps (preferably!) adding that the answer might be different in other situations. This is (IMHO) required by L75A and L75C, though it isn't explicitly spelled out. It is certainly established by case law in many if not all jurisdictions. From owner-bridge-laws Fri Nov 15 11:26:10 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id LAA23472 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 15 Nov 1996 11:26:10 +1100 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 LAA23467 for ; Fri, 15 Nov 1996 11:25:53 +1100 Received: (from root@localhost) by tom.compulink.co.uk (8.6.9/8.6.9) id AAA12691 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Fri, 15 Nov 1996 00:25:09 GMT Date: Fri, 15 Nov 96 00:24 GMT0 From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: "Failure to alert" with no agreement 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 In-Reply-To: <1.5.4.32.19961114152715.0068a100@cais.com> > At 03:43 AM 11/14/96 GMT0, Tim wrote: > > >If partner fails to alert you have at least one new piece of information. > He >does not believe that an agreement to play transfers over 1NT means that > you >also agree to play transfers over 1NT doubled. Playing with screens you > could >not possess this information. The information may be completely > useless to >anyone (so you wouldn't necessarily expect an unfavourable UI > ruling) but > it is > >information, and AFAICS unauthorised. > > But when there are two alternatives, X and Y, not having agreement X is not > the same as having agreement Y. So when partner doesn't alert 2D, there are > two possibilities: > > (1) He believes, incorrectly, that we've agreed to play 2D natural, or > > (2) He believes, correctly, that we have no agreement, and that he, along > with both me and the opponents, are guessing. > But the third possibility, that he believed, incorrectly, that you had agreed to play 2D as transfer has been eliminated. I can't actually see how this would affect your bidding but it is still UI. Had he alerted you would also be in possession of equally useless UI. UI does not have to suggest one bid over another to be U, it does to lead to an unfavourable ruling. I appreciate that in a fairly common interpretation UI=Ruled against and that this would be extremely unfair here. > If I base my subsequent bidding on the assumption that (2) is correct (which > is what I was assuming when I bid 2D), there has been no UI and no MI from > his failure to alert (unless you believe that "no agreement" is alertable!). > Your partnership shares the knowledge that the sequence is undiscussed. Your opponents are unaware of this and, absent alerts, are likely to assume that the 2D is natural. An alert, giving on request the explanation "We have agreed to play transfers after 1NT but have not discussed whether they are on or off after a double" would,IMO, alleviate the MI problem. You still get the useless UI of course. > >I am also uncomfortable with an underlying problem. Should we allow both > >players to correctly guess that they were playing an undiscussed convention > >instead of the (IMO) more common natural alternative when neither of them > >alerted? I think this would open up significant avenues for abuse. > > How many partnerships have specific agreements for every possible auction as > to whether 4NT is natural or Blackwood? I'd hate to think that when an LOL > bids 4NT on an undiscussed auction, hoping it will be taken as Blackwood > (even on an auction where most partnerships would assume it to be natural), > and her partner responds showing aces, that they have committed an infraction. In most (all?) auctions in the UK 4NT would not be alertable anyway so the situation is slightly different (and when an LOL bids 4NT it is always Blackwood(-:). I take your point about assuming an infraction, but I believe that alerts in undiscussed sequences, where a bid may be conventional due to similarities with an agreed sequence, are in the spirit of alerting bids that carry a meaning your opponents might not expect. Tim West-Meads From owner-bridge-laws Fri Nov 15 11:26:31 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id LAA23489 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 15 Nov 1996 11:26:31 +1100 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 LAA23484 for ; Fri, 15 Nov 1996 11:26:25 +1100 Received: from cph19.ppp.dknet.dk (cph19.ppp.dknet.dk [194.192.100.19]) by pip.dknet.dk (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id BAA23614 for ; Fri, 15 Nov 1996 01:26:16 +0100 From: jd@pip.dknet.dk (Jesper Dybdal) To: Bridge Laws Discussion List Subject: Re: "Failure to alert" with no agreement Date: Fri, 15 Nov 1996 01:26:13 +0100 Organization: at home Message-ID: <328cb79a.831525@pipmail.dknet.dk> References: <1.5.4.32.19961113221134.006fc9d8@cais.com> In-Reply-To: <1.5.4.32.19961113221134.006fc9d8@cais.com> X-Mailer: Forte Agent .99f/32.299 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Wed, 13 Nov 1996 17:11:34 -0500, Eric Landau wrote: >We've agree to play transfers, but haven't discussed whether they're on or >off after a double. It goes 1NT-X to me, and I want to play in 2H, but I >don't know whether partner will take 2H as to play or as a transfer to >spades. I know that whatever I bid, he will have to guess what it means. >So I decide to bid 2D, hoping that either he'll think it's a transfer and >bid 2H, or, if not, the opponents will double and then I can bid 2H, which >will make my intentions clear. > >Partner, who understands the position we're in, knows that when I bid 2D I >might have either diamonds or hearts, and knows that he's being put to a >guess. Knowing that our actual agreement is "no agreement", he will >(properly) not alert, regardless of whether he is about to guess to bid 2H >or pass. I think partner should alert. I tend to consider a lack of alert equivalent to the explanation "we have an agreement that it is natural". So in this situation I will always alert; if asked, I'll explain that we play transfers but have no agreement about whether we also do it over a double. -- Jesper Dybdal, Denmark From owner-bridge-laws Sat Nov 16 14:19:03 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id OAA05070 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 16 Nov 1996 14:19:03 +1100 Received: from relay-7.mail.demon.net (relay-7.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.9]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id OAA05065 for ; Sat, 16 Nov 1996 14:18:57 +1100 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by relay-5.mail.demon.net id aa511847; 15 Nov 96 16:34 GMT Message-ID: Date: Fri, 15 Nov 1996 16:32:16 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Advance defenses In-Reply-To: <199611150011.TAA09560@cfa183.harvard.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Steve Willner wrote: >> >These are sometimes legal, sometimes not depending on your (damn, I need >> >that abbreviation list--NCO?) locale. In the ACBL, I believe systemically >> >psyching 3rd seat 1NTs favorable against DONT or Brozel is illegal, but >> >making otherwise unsound overcalls in sandwich seat vs. support doubles >> >is. >> From: David Stevenson >> I cannot see any reason why they should be illegal where psyching is >> not involved. Where psyching is involved it is surely just a question >> of whether agreements over psyching are allowed, so generally this idea >> becomes illegal. >Once again David and I don't see eye to eye. > >I'd say there are two separate cases: psyching and having a partnership >agreement. > >If we are truly talking about a psych, then surely it is legal according >to L40A. Of course the _second_ time it happens, partnership experience >may well make it something else. That's what I said: "... becomes illegal." How do we differ? >> In the example you give, it is surely illegal to have any agreement to >> psyche 3rd seat 1NT openings: to know that your partner will do it >> because of DONT or Brozel is such an agreement. >If we have an agreement, it is not a psych. The question becomes, is >it legal for a third seat NT to show 12-14 or 0-5 (or whatever)? This >would not be legal in typical ACBL games, but it might be legal at the >option of the SO. (In most ACBL games, and in most other >jurisdictions, I think, the 1NT opening is required to show 8 HCP.) I think this is pure semantics. I believe that it was clear that this is what I meant. All right, all right, cancel the word psyche and replace with concealed partnership understanding. It still isn't legal. -- 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 Nov 17 13:11:24 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id NAA13612 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 17 Nov 1996 13:11:24 +1100 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 NAA13607 for ; Sun, 17 Nov 1996 13:11:18 +1100 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 DAA15498; Sun, 17 Nov 1996 03:11:08 +0100 From: jd@pip.dknet.dk (Jesper Dybdal) To: Bridge Laws List Cc: Steen Laursen Subject: A simple lead out of turn Date: Sun, 17 Nov 1996 03:11:04 +0100 Organization: at home Message-ID: <329c7370.13122849@pipmail.dknet.dk> X-Mailer: Forte Agent .99f/32.299 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk The auction ends. I ask "My lead?" and play a card face down. LHO says "yes". I turn the card. RHO and partner say "no" in unison - and they're right. Your ruling? Would it make a difference if it had been RHO (dummy) instead of LHO (declarer) who said "yes"? -- Jesper Dybdal, Denmark From owner-bridge-laws Sun Nov 17 17:54:34 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id RAA14044 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 17 Nov 1996 17:54:34 +1100 Received: from msri.msri.org (msri.org [198.129.64.224]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id RAA14039 for ; Sun, 17 Nov 1996 17:54:27 +1100 Received: (from smap@localhost) by msri.msri.org (8.8.2/8.7.2) id WAA11153; Sat, 16 Nov 1996 22:54:26 -0800 (PST) X-Authentication-Warning: msri.org: smap set sender to using -f Received: from boole.msri.org(198.129.65.86) by msri.org via smap (V1.3) id sma011150; Sat Nov 16 22:53:43 1996 Received: by boole.msri.org (8.7/DW.6) id WAA21354; Sat, 16 Nov 1996 22:52:59 -0800 (PST) Date: Sat, 16 Nov 1996 22:52:59 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <199611170652.WAA21354@boole.msri.org> From: David Grabiner To: jd@pip.dknet.dk CC: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au, sl@dsri.dk In-reply-to: <329c7370.13122849@pipmail.dknet.dk> (jd@pip.dknet.dk) Subject: Re: A simple lead out of turn Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk You write: > The auction ends. I ask "My lead?" and play a card face down. LHO > says "yes". I turn the card. RHO and partner say "no" in unison - > and they're right. > Your ruling? No penalty; you were informed that it was your turn to lead by an opponent, and there is no penalty for such a lead out of turn. > Would it make a difference if it had been RHO (dummy) instead of LHO > (declarer) who said "yes"? No. Dummy is within his rights to say it is your turn to lead (although he is wrong here), and in any case, the auction period was not over until the lead was faced. -- 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 Mon Nov 18 20:46:24 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id UAA01106 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 18 Nov 1996 20:46:24 +1100 Received: from relay-7.mail.demon.net (relay-7.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.9]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id UAA01100 for ; Mon, 18 Nov 1996 20:46:17 +1100 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by relay-5.mail.demon.net id aa527737; 18 Nov 96 2:48 GMT Message-ID: <1mpsZ1Cq28jyEwtB@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Mon, 18 Nov 1996 02:44:58 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Newsgroup description MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I intend to put a description of Newsgroups and Bridge mailing lists on my Homepage, which has a link from the Bridge World page. In the case of the bridge-laws mailing list [BLML] I was thinking of something along the lines of: This mailing list consists of serious discussions of the Laws and regulations, together with particular rulings. It is international, with the majority of posters split between North America and Europe, with a number of posters from the rest of the world. To subscribe to this mailing list, you send an email with no subject to: majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au. In the body of the email you include: subscribe bridge-laws. Is this fair? Is it correct? Have you any other suggestions? -- 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 Nov 19 08:32:37 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA15300 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 19 Nov 1996 08:32:37 +1100 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 IAA15295 for ; Tue, 19 Nov 1996 08:32:30 +1100 Received: from default (cph42.ppp.dknet.dk [194.192.100.42]) by pip.dknet.dk (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id WAA06893 for ; Mon, 18 Nov 1996 22:32:19 +0100 Message-Id: <199611182132.WAA06893@pip.dknet.dk> Comments: Authenticated sender is From: "Jens & Bodil" Organization: Alesia Software To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Mon, 18 Nov 1996 22:31:12 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Re: A simple lead out of turn Priority: normal X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v2.42a) Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: jd@pip.dknet.dk (Jesper Dybdal) > > The auction ends. I ask "My lead?" and play a card face down. LHO > says "yes". I turn the card. RHO and partner say "no" in unison - > and they're right. > > Your ruling? Summarizing a conversation that Jesper and I have had on the phone, David Grabiner has this ruling right, but he left out the obvious reference. It is a case of RTFLB, in casu L47E1. You take your card back, and your partner leads. Declarer's play in view of the knowledge gained by your lead is restricted by L16C2, since he is "offending side". Jesper and I agree that the phrase "non-offending side" in L16C2 should more pedantically have been "his opponents". I find it less clear whether L16C1 or L16C2 applies to the defenders; fortunately that does not make a difference as to whether they may enjoy the fruits of the knowledge gained by the withdrawn card. Next year this might become a real question, not just a nitpicking academic one ... > Would it make a difference if it had been RHO (dummy) instead of > LHO (declarer) who said "yes"? No difference. -- Jens Brix Christiansen, Denmark From owner-bridge-laws Tue Nov 19 15:30:45 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id PAA17493 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 19 Nov 1996 15:30:45 +1100 Received: from relay-7.mail.demon.net (relay-7.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.9]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id PAA17488 for ; Tue, 19 Nov 1996 15:30:35 +1100 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by relay-5.mail.demon.net id aa511124; 19 Nov 96 4:17 GMT Message-ID: Date: Tue, 19 Nov 1996 04:15:36 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: A simple lead out of turn In-Reply-To: <199611182132.WAA06893@pip.dknet.dk> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Jens & Bodil wrote: >It is a case of RTFLB, in casu L47E1. You take your card back, and >your partner leads. Declarer's play in view of the knowledge gained >by your lead is restricted by L16C2, since he is "offending side". >Jesper and I agree that the phrase "non-offending side" in L16C2 >should more pedantically have been "his opponents". I do not think it is a matter of pedantry: the references throughout the Laws to offenders, non-offenders, offending side, non-offending side and whatever are unhelpful at best, misleading and sometimes extremely insulting. Since the terminology is so unhelpful, it is no wonder that complications arise when the distinction between offenders and non- offenders is not totally clearcut. Perhaps if they have to use these terms they could at least include them in the Definitions. -- 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 Nov 19 22:01:44 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id WAA21239 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 19 Nov 1996 22:01:44 +1100 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 WAA21233 for ; Tue, 19 Nov 1996 22:01:38 +1100 Received: (from root@localhost) by tom.compulink.co.uk (8.6.9/8.6.9) id LAA28702 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Tue, 19 Nov 1996 11:01:03 GMT Date: Tue, 19 Nov 96 10:59 GMT0 From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: A simple lead out of turn 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 In-Reply-To: <199611182132.WAA06893@pip.dknet.dk> > From: jd@pip.dknet.dk (Jesper Dybdal) > > The auction ends. I ask "My lead?" and play a card face down. LHO > says "yes". I turn the card. RHO and partner say "no" in unison - > and they're right. > > Your ruling? I don't understand why this doesn't take us to Law 54b and Declarer having accepted the lead out of turn. That is, you have a faced lead out of turn, Declarer said yes to the "my lead" question, which sounds to me like an acceptance. Does 54b require that the acceptance be more formal and follow the facing of the lead? Tim West-Meads From owner-bridge-laws Wed Nov 20 01:27:28 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA24915 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 20 Nov 1996 01:27:28 +1100 Received: from relay-10.mail.demon.net (punt.demon.co.uk [194.217.242.133]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id BAA24906 for ; Wed, 20 Nov 1996 01:27:22 +1100 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by relay-10.mail.demon.net id aa1009539; 19 Nov 96 14:27 GMT Message-ID: Date: Tue, 19 Nov 1996 13:46:25 +0000 To: Bridge Laws From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Sending to the mailing list MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk When I post to BLML the posting gets refused on average one time in two. There is no real problem: I send it again and eventually it gets through. However, I am wondering [a] whether anyone else has this problem [b] whether Markus is aware of a problem if it is not just me [c] whether I am using the correct address: I have always posted to : should I be posting to ? Any ideas? -- 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 Nov 20 01:27:26 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA24913 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 20 Nov 1996 01:27:26 +1100 Received: from relay-10.mail.demon.net (punt.demon.co.uk [194.217.242.133]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id BAA24901 for ; Wed, 20 Nov 1996 01:27:15 +1100 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by relay-9.mail.demon.net id aa917504; 19 Nov 96 14:27 GMT Message-ID: Date: Tue, 19 Nov 1996 13:45:47 +0000 To: Bridge Laws From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: A simple lead out of turn In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Tim West-meads wrote: >In-Reply-To: Jesper Dybdal >> The auction ends. I ask "My lead?" and play a card face down. LHO >> says "yes". I turn the card. RHO and partner say "no" in unison - >> and they're right. >> >> Your ruling? >I don't understand why this doesn't take us to Law 54b and Declarer having >accepted the lead out of turn. That is, you have a faced lead out of turn, >Declarer said yes to the "my lead" question, which sounds to me like an >acceptance. Does 54b require that the acceptance be more formal and follow the >facing of the lead? You don't have a faced lead out of turn. The question concerned LHO saying "Yes" before it was faced which is L47E1 not L54B. -- 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 Nov 20 12:11:42 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id MAA07689 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 20 Nov 1996 12:11:42 +1100 Received: from lcbe.edu.on.ca ([199.71.108.2]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id MAA07673 for ; Wed, 20 Nov 1996 12:11:33 +1100 Received: from 199.71.108.131 ([199.71.108.131]) by phoenix.lcbe.edu.on.ca with SMTP id <18442-2>; Tue, 19 Nov 1996 20:10:45 -0500 Message-ID: <32925BA6.CFD@lcbe.edu.on.ca> Date: Tue, 19 Nov 1996 20:15:20 -0500 From: "K. J. Dawson" Organization: LCBE X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0Gold (Macintosh; I; PPC) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Running a suit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In the play of the hand the declarer makes the statement "run the clubs from the top". Does this statement require all of the cards in the suit be played before switching to another suit, or may the declarer change his mind and switch to another suit (finds out the suit does not run as expected or that he finds himself squeezed before playing all of the suit)? From owner-bridge-laws Wed Nov 20 12:47:45 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id MAA08114 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 20 Nov 1996 12:47:45 +1100 Received: from msri.msri.org (msri.org [198.129.64.224]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id MAA08109 for ; Wed, 20 Nov 1996 12:47:39 +1100 Received: (from smap@localhost) by msri.msri.org (8.8.2/8.7.2) id RAA14760; Tue, 19 Nov 1996 17:47:34 -0800 (PST) X-Authentication-Warning: msri.org: smap set sender to using -f Received: from euclid.msri.org(198.129.65.53) by msri.org via smap (V1.3) id sma014755; Tue Nov 19 17:46:44 1996 Received: by euclid.msri.org (8.7/MSRI) id RAA27028; Tue, 19 Nov 1996 17:41:49 -0800 (PST) Date: Tue, 19 Nov 1996 17:41:49 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <199611200141.RAA27028@euclid.msri.org> From: David Grabiner To: dawsonj@lcbe.edu.on.ca CC: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au In-reply-to: <32925BA6.CFD@lcbe.edu.on.ca> (dawsonj@lcbe.edu.on.ca) Subject: Re: Running a suit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk You write: > In the play of the hand the declarer makes the statement "run the clubs > from the top". Does this statement require all of the cards in the suit > be played before switching to another suit, or may the declarer change > his mind and switch to another suit (finds out the suit does not run as > expected or that he finds himself squeezed before playing all of the > suit)? 71D. Claimer Proposes New Line of Play The Director shall not accept from claimer any successful line of play not embraced in the original clarification statement if there is an alternative normal line of play that would be less successful. Footnote: For the purposes of Laws 69, 70, and 71, ``normal'' includes play that would be careless or inferior for the class of player involved, but not irrational. This depends on the details of the hand. If the play would clearly be irrational, the declarer may take another reasonable line of play; for example, if the clubs are AKQJ965 opposite 7 and the suit breaks 5-0, it could be irrational for declarer to give up the ten and let the defenders run their established suit while he had side-suit winners to cash. If the declarer finds himself squeezed on the suit, then running the suit would probably be "careless or inferior", not irrational, as it is a problem which declarer might have aniticipated but apparently didn't. Therefore, declarer should be allowed to squeeze himself, and should make the least favorable normal discard on that squeeze. From owner-bridge-laws Wed Nov 20 13:40:44 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id NAA08519 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 20 Nov 1996 13:40:44 +1100 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 NAA08513 for ; Wed, 20 Nov 1996 13:40:36 +1100 Received: from localhost by flash.irvine.com id aa27822; 19 Nov 96 18:39 PST To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au CC: adam@flash.irvine.com Subject: Re: Running a suit In-reply-to: Your message of "Tue, 19 Nov 1996 17:41:49 PST." <199611200141.RAA27028@euclid.msri.org> Date: Tue, 19 Nov 1996 18:39:53 PST From: Adam Beneschan Message-ID: <9611191839.aa27822@flash.irvine.com> Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Grabiner writes: > [K.J. Dawson writes:] > > In the play of the hand the declarer makes the statement "run the clubs > > from the top". Does this statement require all of the cards in the suit > > be played before switching to another suit, or may the declarer change > > his mind and switch to another suit (finds out the suit does not run as > > expected or that he finds himself squeezed before playing all of the > > suit)? > > 71D. Claimer Proposes New Line of Play > > The Director shall not accept from claimer any successful line of play > not embraced in the original clarification statement if there is an > alternative normal line of play that would be less successful. > > Footnote: For the purposes of Laws 69, 70, and 71, ``normal'' includes > play that would be careless or inferior for the class of player > involved, but not irrational. > > > This depends on the details of the hand. If the play would clearly be > irrational, the declarer may take another reasonable line of play; for > example, if the clubs are AKQJ965 opposite 7 and the suit breaks 5-0, it > could be irrational for declarer to give up the ten and let the > defenders run their established suit while he had side-suit winners to > cash. > > If the declarer finds himself squeezed on the suit, then running the > suit would probably be "careless or inferior", not irrational, as it is > a problem which declarer might have aniticipated but apparently didn't. > Therefore, declarer should be allowed to squeeze himself, and should > make the least favorable normal discard on that squeeze. I don't think the original question was about claiming; therefore, none of 71D applies. My assumption is that this is occurring while play is still going on, and that declarer's original intention was to run all the clubs, watch the discards, and then make a decision about how to continue---or something like that. To answer the original question: The sequence of play is that declarer names a card from dummy when it's dummy's turn to play (or plays it himself). In this case, declarer is not naming any card, but the card he's playing from dummy is assumed by something he said on a previous trick. The Laws are silent AFAIK on the subject of allowing the declarer to name the card at trick X to be played to trick X+1 or X+2. Technically, it probably isn't allowed. So really, what should happen when declarer says "Run the clubs from the top" is that dummy plays the top club, the trick is complete, and then dummy waits for declarer to designate a card to lead to the next trick. In practice, of course, instructions like this do occur, and everyone knows what they mean. However, the fact is that at dummy's turn to play, declarer may select any legal card from dummy, and there's nothing in the Laws to indicate that declarer forfeits this right by virtue of something he said on a previous trick. -- Adam From owner-bridge-laws Wed Nov 20 13:53:48 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id NAA08646 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 20 Nov 1996 13:53:48 +1100 Received: from relay-11.mail.demon.net (relay-11.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.137]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id NAA08641 for ; Wed, 20 Nov 1996 13:53:41 +1100 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by relay-9.mail.demon.net id aa901267; 20 Nov 96 2:53 GMT Message-ID: Date: Wed, 20 Nov 1996 02:49:16 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au, bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Running a suit In-Reply-To: <199611200141.RAA27028@euclid.msri.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Grabiner wrote: >You write: > >> In the play of the hand the declarer makes the statement "run the clubs >> from the top". Does this statement require all of the cards in the suit >> be played before switching to another suit, or may the declarer change >> his mind and switch to another suit (finds out the suit does not run as >> expected or that he finds himself squeezed before playing all of the >> suit)? > >71D. Claimer Proposes New Line of Play The rest of this article is a reasonable argument if declarer has claimed. But, surely, he has not? The statement "run the clubs from the top" is equivalent to declarer saying "Top club" the requisite number of times, and that does not constitute a claim. No, I do not believe that this should be dealt with as a claim. Please accept my apologies that I have duplicated this message as a test. -- 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 Nov 20 13:54:05 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id NAA08662 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 20 Nov 1996 13:54:05 +1100 Received: from relay-11.mail.demon.net (relay-11.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.137]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id NAA08657 for ; Wed, 20 Nov 1996 13:53:57 +1100 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by relay-10.mail.demon.net id aa1027245; 20 Nov 96 2:53 GMT Message-ID: Date: Wed, 20 Nov 1996 02:44:44 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au, bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Running a suit In-Reply-To: <32925BA6.CFD@lcbe.edu.on.ca> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk K. J. Dawson wrote: >In the play of the hand the declarer makes the statement "run the clubs >from the top". Does this statement require all of the cards in the suit >be played before switching to another suit, or may the declarer change >his mind and switch to another suit (finds out the suit does not run as >expected or that he finds himself squeezed before playing all of the >suit)? This does not seem to be covered by the Laws directly. Discussion at the EBU's Panel TD's training weekend elicited the view that Bridge is played one trick at a time. Thus the statement "run the clubs from the top" might be taken as an indication as to what declarer is thinking but has no validity and declarer may change his mind. This would be illegal under L74B2 or L73D2 if he knew he was not going to run them [or there was a reasonable chance he would not] and wanted to discommode the defence. However, in general, Declarer can not be held to his statement. Please accept my apologies that I have duplicated this message as a test. -- 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 Nov 21 04:39:31 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA17756 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 21 Nov 1996 04:39:31 +1100 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 EAA17751 for ; Thu, 21 Nov 1996 04:39:22 +1100 Received: from default (cph46.ppp.dknet.dk [194.192.100.46]) by pip.dknet.dk (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id SAA09180 for ; Wed, 20 Nov 1996 18:39:11 +0100 Message-Id: <199611201739.SAA09180@pip.dknet.dk> Comments: Authenticated sender is From: "Jens & Bodil" Organization: Alesia Software To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Wed, 20 Nov 1996 18:39:46 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Re: Running a suit Priority: normal X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v2.42a) Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: David Stevenson > David Grabiner wrote: > > >You write: > > > >> In the play of the hand the declarer makes the statement "run the clubs > >> from the top". Does this statement require all of the cards in the suit > >> be played before switching to another suit, or may the declarer change > >> his mind and switch to another suit (finds out the suit does not run as > >> expected or that he finds himself squeezed before playing all of the > >> suit)? > > > >71D. Claimer Proposes New Line of Play > > The rest of this article is a reasonable argument if declarer has > claimed. But, surely, he has not? The statement "run the clubs from > the top" is equivalent to declarer saying "Top club" the requisite > number of times, and that does not constitute a claim. > > No, I do not believe that this should be dealt with as a claim. It could be a claim, and it could not be a claim. The director needs to establish the facts at the table, basically by interacting with declarer in order to get some feeling for his intentions. I feel that L68A applies here, because "run the clubs" in may book is, after all, a statement to the effect that declarer will win all the clubs; thus it would be ruled as a claim (unless he demonstrably did not intend to claim). If the director is satisfied that no claim was intended, which is not too difficult to imagine, I would rule that declarer has asked for a top club for this trick only; L46B does cater for sloppy designations of cards, but not for storing instructions to dummy for the next several tricks. So, when we get to the next trick, it would be proper (though somewhat tiresome) for dummy not to play any card until directed (once more) by declarer to run the clubs. If the director rules that declarer has claimed, I support David Grabiner's analysis. The director should be careful not ask any secretary bird exactly what it takes to constitute a claim; rather he should consult L68A. -- Jens Brix Christiansen, Denmark From owner-bridge-laws Thu Nov 21 05:46:16 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA24512 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 21 Nov 1996 05:46:16 +1100 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 FAA24507 for ; Thu, 21 Nov 1996 05:46:09 +1100 Received: from localhost by flash.irvine.com id aa23465; 20 Nov 96 10:45 PST To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au CC: adam@flash.irvine.com Subject: Re: Running a suit In-reply-to: Your message of "Wed, 20 Nov 1996 18:39:46 PST." <199611201739.SAA09180@pip.dknet.dk> Date: Wed, 20 Nov 1996 10:45:34 PST From: Adam Beneschan Message-ID: <9611201045.aa23465@flash.irvine.com> Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > I feel that L68A applies here, because "run the clubs" in may book > is, after all, a statement to the effect that declarer will win all > the clubs; thus it would be ruled as a claim (unless he demonstrably > did not intend to claim). It may well be "a statement to the effect that declarer will win all the clubs." However, this still doesn't by itself make it a claim. A claim is a "statement to the effect that a contestant will win a specific number of tricks". That is to say, the contestant is saying how many tricks he will win OVER THE ENTIRE REMAINDER OF THE HAND. (This is the only sensible interpretation.) A statement that means in effect "I'm going to win 6 club tricks, but I don't know how many tricks I'm going to win after that" is not a claim, by this definition. In order to claim, declarer is going to have to say something more than "Run the clubs" (e.g. "I'll run the clubs and concede the rest"), or he'll have to face his hand or do something else to indicate that play is over. -- Adam From owner-bridge-laws Thu Nov 21 18:44:22 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id SAA28903 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 21 Nov 1996 18:44:22 +1100 Received: from user.rose.com (root@user.rose.com [199.212.158.3]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id SAA28895 for ; Thu, 21 Nov 1996 18:44:14 +1100 Message-ID: <32940649.7AC4@toronto-bridge.com> Date: Thu, 21 Nov 1996 02:35:37 -0500 From: "Mary E. Bryce" Reply-To: dgbryce@toronto-bridge.com X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0Gold (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Running a suit References: <199611201739.SAA09180@pip.dknet.dk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Many thoughts, many electrons. But the really interesting questions arise in the non-claiming situation when _dummy_ is alleged to have intervened in some way as will so often be the case. David G. Bryce From owner-bridge-laws Fri Nov 22 05:18:05 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA12868 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 22 Nov 1996 05:18:05 +1100 Received: from relay-7.mail.demon.net (relay-7.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.9]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id FAA12863 for ; Fri, 22 Nov 1996 05:17:57 +1100 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by relay-5.mail.demon.net id aa525298; 21 Nov 96 18:11 GMT Message-ID: Date: Thu, 21 Nov 1996 18:10:43 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Running a suit In-Reply-To: <32940649.7AC4@toronto-bridge.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Mary E. Bryce wrote: >Many thoughts, many electrons. But the really interesting questions >arise in the non-claiming situation when _dummy_ is alleged to have >intervened in some way as will so often be the case. I don't see it as a problem: you have Laws to cover dummy's intervention. I don't see the problem with the claim supposition either: it is also clearly covered by the Law. The interest in the first case, however, lies in the fact that it is not covered explicitly by the Laws. Incidentally, David, why have you changed your name to Mary? :)) -- 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 Nov 22 12:36:09 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id MAA18183 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 22 Nov 1996 12:36:09 +1100 Received: from relay-11.mail.demon.net (relay-11.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.137]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id MAA18178 for ; Fri, 22 Nov 1996 12:36:01 +1100 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by relay-9.mail.demon.net id aa903492; 22 Nov 96 0:35 GMT Message-ID: Date: Thu, 21 Nov 1996 23:19:56 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Newsgroup description In-Reply-To: <1mpsZ1Cq28jyEwtB@blakjak.demon.co.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Stevenson wrote: > I intend to put a description of Newsgroups and Bridge mailing lists >on my Homepage, which has a link from the Bridge World page. > > In the case of the bridge-laws mailing list [BLML] I was thinking of >something along the lines of: > >This mailing list consists of serious discussions of the Laws and >regulations, together with particular rulings. It is international, >with the majority of posters split between North America and Europe, >with a number of posters from the rest of the world. > >To subscribe to this mailing list, you send an email with no subject to: >majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au. In the body of the email you include: >subscribe bridge-laws. After receiving comments I have amended the above as follows: This mailing list consists of serious discussions of the Laws and the regulations of various authorities, both in general terms and in detail. Some of the discussions are included here rather than in rec.games.bridge [see earlier description] because of the length of the articles. A basic familiarity with the Laws of Duplicate Contract Bridge is assumed in posting. The mailing list is international, with the majority of posters split between the USA and Europe, but with a number of posters from the rest of the world. To subscribe to this mailing list, you send an email with no subject to . In the body of the email you include: subscribe bridge-laws. -- 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 Nov 22 17:35:34 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id RAA19233 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 22 Nov 1996 17:35:34 +1100 Received: from user.rose.com (root@user.rose.com [199.212.158.3]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id RAA19224 for ; Fri, 22 Nov 1996 17:34:47 +1100 Message-ID: <32953C3A.33A@toronto-bridge.com> Date: Fri, 22 Nov 1996 01:38:02 -0400 From: dgbryce Reply-To: dgbryce@toronto-bridge.com Organization: David G. Bryce X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0 (Win16; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: David Stevenson CC: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Running a suit References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Stevenson wrote: > > Mary E. Bryce wrote: > > >Many thoughts, many electrons. But the really interesting questions > >arise in the non-claiming situation when _dummy_ is alleged to have > >intervened in some way as will so often be the case. > > I don't see it as a problem: you have Laws to cover dummy's > intervention. I don't see the problem with the claim supposition > either: it is also clearly covered by the Law. The interest in the > first case, however, lies in the fact that it is not covered explicitly > by the Laws. Yes, of course. But, some people's responses seem to contemplate allowing declarer to stop running the suit. I believe that to be so also normally (at least in a non-claim situation). Declarer is allowed to see things such as somebody showing up when the ace is played from a combined eight card holding headed by AKQJ. When dummy just sits there without touching a card when the first trick in the suit has been quitted his silence might be interpreted as a suggestion to declarer rather than doing his duty as people have suggested. > > Incidentally, David, why have you changed your name to Mary? :)) > Just using my wife's computer with her info pre-set. I did change the reply to header but I see the list still has the sender as Mary. Ignored again :} -- David G. Bryce, Barrister and Solicitor Tel: 416-364-9916 100 Lombard Street, Suite 108 Fax: 416-364-7505 Toronto, Ontario M5C 1M3 E-Mail: dgbryce@toronto-bridge.com From owner-bridge-laws Sat Nov 23 01:51:00 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA24443 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 23 Nov 1996 01:51:00 +1100 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 BAA24438 for ; Sat, 23 Nov 1996 01:50:50 +1100 Received: from innet.innet.be (pool03-20.innet.be [194.7.10.20]) by mail.be.innet.net (8.7.6/8.7.3) with SMTP id PAA01520 for ; Fri, 22 Nov 1996 15:50:37 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: <3295ABEA.2CB9@innet.be> Date: Fri, 22 Nov 1996 13:34:34 +0000 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01 (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: David-Mary (was : Running a suit) References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Stevenson wrote: > > Mary E. Bryce wrote: > > Incidentally, David, why have you changed your name to Mary? :)) > Too many David's out there as it is. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.club.innet.be/~pub02163/index.htm From owner-bridge-laws Sat Nov 23 12:29:01 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id MAA28283 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 23 Nov 1996 12:29:01 +1100 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 MAA28278 for ; Sat, 23 Nov 1996 12:28:52 +1100 Received: from cph47.ppp.dknet.dk (cph47.ppp.dknet.dk [194.192.100.47]) by pip.dknet.dk (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id CAA01541 for ; Sat, 23 Nov 1996 02:28:43 +0100 From: jd@pip.dknet.dk (Jesper Dybdal) To: Bridge Laws List Subject: What is a session? Date: Sat, 23 Nov 1996 02:28:51 +0100 Organization: at home Message-ID: <329a5281.3616360@pipmail.dknet.dk> X-Mailer: Forte Agent .99f/32.299 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On rgb, David Stevenson wrote: >Dale Johannesen wrote: >>Also, you are not allowed to compare scores with other contestants >>within a session. This rule would make Swisses a bit difficult to >>score if a match weren't a session. > > Now hold it one minute: this rule [as you put it] is solely an ACBL >regulation, right? And the definition of session is a matter of Law. >You could have a match and a session not the same and get rid of this >rule, and you would still be within the Laws. Law 90B: "Offences subject to penalty include but are not limited to: ... 4. Comparing Scores any comparison of scores with another contestant during a session. ..." I have to admit that I never noticed the exact wording until now. This seems to create a problem: calculating the IMP result of the first half of a match seems to be illegal, unless a half match is considered a "session". On the other hand, the definition of a "session" contains the words "..., and after which the ranking of contestants may be established". But the ranking cannot be established mid-way through a match. My conclusion: the laws are not perfectly consistent, and the wording of Law 90B4 should not always be taken quite seriously; in a teams tournament a match should normally be considered a session. I'm sending this message to rgb and to the Bridge Laws Mailing List (BLML), where I suggest that any further discussion of what a "session" is should take place. If you wish to subscribe to BLML, send a message to majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au containing the two lines: subscribe bridge-laws end -- Jesper Dybdal, Denmark From owner-bridge-laws Sat Nov 23 18:16:29 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id SAA29379 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 23 Nov 1996 18:16:29 +1100 Received: from user.rose.com (root@user.rose.com [199.212.158.3]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id SAA29374 for ; Sat, 23 Nov 1996 18:16:22 +1100 Message-ID: <3296A2A6.3E51@toronto-bridge.com> Date: Sat, 23 Nov 1996 02:07:18 -0500 From: "Mary E. Bryce" Reply-To: mbryce@toronto-bridge.com X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0Gold (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Herman De Wael CC: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: David-Mary (was : Running a suit) References: <3295ABEA.2CB9@innet.be> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Herman De Wael wrote: > > David Stevenson wrote: > > > > Mary E. Bryce wrote: > > > > Incidentally, David, why have you changed your name to Mary? :)) > > > > Too many David's out there as it is. > Pas possible, monsieur. Not enough David. Jealous, Herman ? dgb From owner-bridge-laws Sun Nov 24 11:06:51 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id LAA05488 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 24 Nov 1996 11:06:51 +1100 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 LAA05483 for ; Sun, 24 Nov 1996 11:06:41 +1100 Received: from default (cph18.ppp.dknet.dk [194.192.100.18]) by pip.dknet.dk (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id BAA20209 for ; Sun, 24 Nov 1996 01:06:29 +0100 Message-Id: <199611240006.BAA20209@pip.dknet.dk> Comments: Authenticated sender is From: "Jens & Bodil" Organization: Alesia Software To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Sun, 24 Nov 1996 01:05:37 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Re: What is a session? Priority: normal X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v2.42a) Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: jd@pip.dknet.dk (Jesper Dybdal) [snippage] > My conclusion: the laws are not perfectly consistent, and the > wording of Law 90B4 should not always be taken quite seriously; in a > teams tournament a match should normally be considered a session. > At the EBL TD course in Milan last January, we were told that there is a plan to clairfy the "session" concept in the 1997 laws. Alas, the rumor from Milan is that the SO will be charged with defining what a session is in each event. Considering that some of the problems with "session" is inherent to the laws themselves, that fix seems insufficient. -- Jens Brix Christiansen, Denmark From owner-bridge-laws Mon Nov 25 02:38:21 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA10367 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 25 Nov 1996 02:38:21 +1100 Received: from relay-11.mail.demon.net (relay-11.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.137]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id CAA10362 for ; Mon, 25 Nov 1996 02:38:12 +1100 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by relay-10.mail.demon.net id ab1027423; 23 Nov 96 3:59 GMT Message-ID: Date: Sat, 23 Nov 1996 03:56:47 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: What is a session? In-Reply-To: <329a5281.3616360@pipmail.dknet.dk> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Jesper Dybdal wrote: >On rgb, David Stevenson wrote: >>Dale Johannesen wrote: >>>Also, you are not allowed to compare scores with other contestants >>>within a session. This rule would make Swisses a bit difficult to >>>score if a match weren't a session. >> >> Now hold it one minute: this rule [as you put it] is solely an ACBL >>regulation, right? And the definition of session is a matter of Law. >>You could have a match and a session not the same and get rid of this >>rule, and you would still be within the Laws. > >Law 90B: >"Offences subject to penalty include but are not limited to: >... >4. Comparing Scores >any comparison of scores with another contestant during a session. >..." > >I have to admit that I never noticed the exact wording until now. Aaaaaaaaaaarrrrrrrrgggggggghhhhhhhhhhhhhhh !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Don't you dare let **anyone** from England read this! I have been having arguments about sessions and this will destroy me! I just hope someone has corrected this in the new Laws!!!! >This seems to create a problem: calculating the IMP result of the >first half of a match seems to be illegal, unless a half match is >considered a "session". On the other hand, the definition of a >"session" contains the words "..., and after which the ranking of >contestants may be established". But the ranking cannot be >established mid-way through a match. > >My conclusion: the laws are not perfectly consistent, and the wording >of Law 90B4 should not always be taken quite seriously; in a teams >tournament a match should normally be considered a session. My arguments have been about Swiss Pairs, when it does not seem right that each individual match is a session, and my arguments have been accepted: but of course players can compare scores between each match. -- 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 Nov 25 03:08:30 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA10408 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 25 Nov 1996 03:08:30 +1100 Received: from relay-11.mail.demon.net (relay-11.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.137]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id DAA10403 for ; Mon, 25 Nov 1996 03:08:22 +1100 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by relay-10.mail.demon.net id aa1013423; 22 Nov 96 17:16 GMT Message-ID: <6nU$J2CE5dlyEwt8@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Fri, 22 Nov 1996 17:09:25 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Running a suit In-Reply-To: <32953C3A.33A@toronto-bridge.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk dgbryce wrote: >David Stevenson wrote: >> >> Mary E. Bryce wrote: >> >> >Many thoughts, many electrons. But the really interesting questions >> >arise in the non-claiming situation when _dummy_ is alleged to have >> >intervened in some way as will so often be the case. >> >> I don't see it as a problem: you have Laws to cover dummy's >> intervention. I don't see the problem with the claim supposition >> either: it is also clearly covered by the Law. The interest in the >> first case, however, lies in the fact that it is not covered explicitly >> by the Laws. > >Yes, of course. But, some people's responses seem to contemplate >allowing declarer to stop running the suit. I believe that to be so also >normally (at least in a non-claim situation). Declarer is allowed to see >things such as somebody showing up when the ace is played from a >combined eight card holding headed by AKQJ. When dummy just sits there >without touching a card when the first trick in the suit has been >quitted his silence might be interpreted as a suggestion to declarer >rather than doing his duty as people have suggested. Now it is making sense. You say "Run the clubs". Dummy plays three rounds without comment and does not play the fourth. Under L43A1C, L73A1 or L73B1 [or something] we nail his hide to the wall and under L73C and L73F1 we make sure he does not gain therefrom. But the interesting case is where dummy plays one round only. If asked, he can say that having read BLML he knows that the play goes one trick at a time so that is his only reason for not playing a second and not because partner hasn't noticed something vital. Well, I tell you what I would do. I would explain L73C to declarer to make sure he carried on, or L73F1 to adjust it afterwards. I would treat it as communication between partners, but *without* the moral lecture [in case I am wrong]. However, if they try to argue with me I shall explain that the whole situation was caused by saying "Run the clubs" and tell them not to do so in future. -- 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 Nov 25 18:06:30 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id SAA24673 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 25 Nov 1996 18:06:30 +1100 Received: from user.rose.com (root@user.rose.com [199.212.158.3]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id SAA24667 for ; Mon, 25 Nov 1996 18:06:23 +1100 Message-ID: <32993826.3DD3@toronto-bridge.com> Date: Mon, 25 Nov 1996 02:09:42 -0400 From: dgbryce Reply-To: dgbryce@toronto-bridge.com Organization: David G. Bryce X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0 (Win16; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: David Stevenson CC: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Running a suit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Stevenson wrote: > > dgbryce wrote: > > >David Stevenson wrote: > >> > >> Mary E. Bryce wrote: > >> Snipped.. > But the interesting case is where dummy plays one round only. If > asked, he can say that having read BLML he knows that the play goes one > trick at a time so that is his only reason for not playing a second and > not because partner hasn't noticed something vital. Well, maybe dummy will get away with that. But IMHO, whatever fancy stuff he reads on this list, dummy had better be reaching for a card when declarer stops 'im. Run the clubs is universally understood to mean "keep on playing them from the top [until I tell you to stop?] and be smart about it." > > Well, I tell you what I would do. I would explain L73C to declarer to > make sure he carried on, or L73F1 to adjust it afterwards. I would > treat it as communication between partners, but *without* the moral > lecture [in case I am wrong]. However, if they try to argue with me I > shall explain that the whole situation was caused by saying "Run the > clubs" and tell them not to do so in future. > Well, it always takes a good director! -- David G. Bryce, Barrister and Solicitor Tel: 416-364-9916 100 Lombard Street, Suite 108 Fax: 416-364-7505 Toronto, Ontario M5C 1M3 E-Mail: dgbryce@toronto-bridge.com From owner-bridge-laws Tue Nov 26 10:41:47 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA10028 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 26 Nov 1996 10:41:47 +1100 Received: from msri.msri.org (msri.org [198.129.64.224]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id KAA10023 for ; Tue, 26 Nov 1996 10:41:39 +1100 Received: (from smap@localhost) by msri.msri.org (8.8.2/8.7.2) id PAA02380 for ; Mon, 25 Nov 1996 15:41:41 -0800 (PST) X-Authentication-Warning: msri.org: smap set sender to using -f Received: from boole.msri.org(198.129.65.86) by msri.org via smap (V1.3) id sma002374; Mon Nov 25 15:41:34 1996 Received: by boole.msri.org (8.7/DW.6) id PAA24193; Mon, 25 Nov 1996 15:40:53 -0800 (PST) Date: Mon, 25 Nov 1996 15:40:53 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <199611252340.PAA24193@boole.msri.org> From: David Grabiner To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Information available by either authorized or unauthorized means Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Playing with bidding boxed, South opens 1C. West, who holds a 22-point 5-3-4-1 hand and didn't see the 1C bid, bids 2C. East volunteers an unrequested explanation of the bid as Michaels; this is UI to West. However, West can also see the 1C bid sitting on the table. Is this UI or AI? The followup was 3C by North, 3H by East, double by South, 3S by West, and the question was whether the 3S bid was allowed. It became moot with subsequent bidding, so I didn't get a director's ruling on the specific point. -- 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 Tue Nov 26 22:04:54 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id WAA13186 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 26 Nov 1996 22:04:54 +1100 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 WAA13180 for ; Tue, 26 Nov 1996 22:04:47 +1100 Received: (from root@localhost) by tom.compulink.co.uk (8.6.9/8.6.9) id LAA14833 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Tue, 26 Nov 1996 11:04:22 GMT Date: Tue, 26 Nov 96 11:04 GMT0 From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: UI ruling with no offending side? 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 Here's a little something from last night at the YC. MPs, 21st board (of 24), no vul, dealer South S W N E 1nt(11-14) X At this point North calls the Director and says "I think I may have UI about this hand because of something another player said to me earlier in the evening." North held xx Qxx AJTx T8xx In the N/S system a pass demands a redouble from partner and 2C is a weak escape showing at least 4-4 in the minors. The comment North believed gave him UI was along the lines of "Oh good, someone else playing that silly defense over 1N-X" - the comment did not refer to any particular hand. 12-14 is the most common NT range at the YC with a few 10-12/11-14/14-16/15-17. North could not remember who had made the comment, or in what circumstances. What should the ruling have been? Personally I was very impressed by the N/S ethics. Tim West-Meads. **** actual ruling and events for anyone who is interested *** FWIW the director's actual ruling was "Bid and play the hand out as you would normally and if it turns out that it was a UI situation then 60% to both pairs". North chose to pass and 1Nxx made exactly (was cold) for a clear top. N,S and East agreed that 60/60 was the "proper" result and recalled the director who said that he thought the actual result should be allowed to stand. East (me) said he wished to appeal that and was supported by NS and 60/60 was recorded. From owner-bridge-laws Wed Nov 27 00:09:39 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA13621 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 27 Nov 1996 00:09:39 +1100 Received: from relay-9.mail.demon.net (punt.demon.co.uk [194.217.242.129]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id AAA13616 for ; Wed, 27 Nov 1996 00:09:32 +1100 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by relay-9.mail.demon.net id ae913322; 26 Nov 96 12:54 GMT Message-ID: <0k8MJIBrIumyEwlJ@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Tue, 26 Nov 1996 12:27:23 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: UI ruling with no offending side? In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Tim West-meads wrote: >Here's a little something from last night at the YC. >MPs, 21st board (of 24), no vul, dealer South > >S W N E >1nt(11-14) X > >At this point North calls the Director and says "I think I may have UI about >this hand because of something another player said to me earlier in the >evening." > >North held >xx >Qxx >AJTx >T8xx > >In the N/S system a pass demands a redouble from partner and 2C is a weak >escape showing at least 4-4 in the minors. > >The comment North believed gave him UI was along the lines of "Oh good, someone >else playing that silly defense over 1N-X" - the comment did not refer to any >particular hand. 12-14 is the most common NT range at the YC with a few >10-12/11-14/14-16/15-17. North could not remember who had made the comment, or >in what circumstances. > >What should the ruling have been? Read L16B. > >Personally I was very impressed by the N/S ethics. Absolutely bog standard ethics. > >Tim West-Meads. > >**** actual ruling and events for anyone who is interested *** >FWIW the director's actual ruling was "Bid and play the hand out as you would >normally and if it turns out that it was a UI situation then 60% to both >pairs". North chose to pass and 1Nxx made exactly (was cold) for a clear top. >N,S and East agreed that 60/60 was the "proper" result and recalled the >director who said that he thought the actual result should be allowed to stand. > East (me) said he wished to appeal that and was supported by NS and 60/60 was >recorded. I **really** hope the TD was **not** the one that I trained. Why should the players have two bites at the cherry? RTFLB. -- 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 Nov 27 00:48:48 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA16693 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 27 Nov 1996 00:48:48 +1100 Received: from relay-6.mail.demon.net (punt2.demon.co.uk [194.217.242.5]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id AAA16687 for ; Wed, 27 Nov 1996 00:48:40 +1100 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by relay-6.mail.demon.net id aa626615; 26 Nov 96 11:22 GMT Message-ID: Date: Tue, 26 Nov 1996 03:59:43 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Newsgroup description In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Stevenson wrote: > After receiving comments I have amended the above as follows: > >This mailing list consists of serious discussions of the Laws and the >regulations of various authorities, both in general terms and in detail. >Some of the discussions are included here rather than in >rec.games.bridge [see earlier description] because of the length of the >articles. A basic familiarity with the Laws of Duplicate Contract >Bridge is assumed in posting. The mailing list is international, with >the majority of posters split between the USA and Europe, but with a >number of posters from the rest of the world. > >To subscribe to this mailing list, you send an email with no subject to >. In the body of the email you include: >subscribe bridge-laws. > A further comment suggests the following where North America has replaced the USA. while the RGB and RGBO descriptions include the term "from the USA" it seems correct to retain it there, but not here, because of the slightly different wording. I hope I have now got the balance right for our Canadian friends. This mailing list consists of serious discussions of the Laws and the regulations of various authorities, both in general terms and in detail. Some of the discussions are included here rather than in rec.games.bridge [see earlier description] because of the length of the articles. A basic familiarity with the Laws of Duplicate Contract Bridge is assumed in posting. The mailing list is international, with the majority of posters split between North America and Europe, but with a number of posters from the rest of the world. To subscribe to this mailing list, you send an email with no subject to . In the body of the email you include: subscribe bridge-laws. -- 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 Nov 27 03:50:07 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA17525 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 27 Nov 1996 03:50:07 +1100 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 DAA17512 for ; Wed, 27 Nov 1996 03:50:00 +1100 Received: (from root@localhost) by tom.compulink.co.uk (8.6.9/8.6.9) id QAA11060 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Tue, 26 Nov 1996 16:49:34 GMT Date: Tue, 26 Nov 96 16:49 GMT0 From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: UI ruling with no offending side? 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 In-Reply-To: <0k8MJIBrIumyEwlJ@blakjak.demon.co.uk> David Stevenson wrote: >>What should the ruling have been? > Read L16B. I believe the director's difficulty was that he could not determine whether the offending comment was made in relation to the board in question. That is, had the comment been made in relation to a different board, or just generally, then 16B is apparently rendered inapplicable by it's own first sentence. Even if the UI did relate to the given board it remains unclear to me whether 60/60 would be fair to all concerned. > I **really** hope the TD was **not** the one that I trained. That depends which one you trained:-) Tim West-Meads From owner-bridge-laws Wed Nov 27 05:24:49 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA24603 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 27 Nov 1996 05:24:49 +1100 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 FAA24598 for ; Wed, 27 Nov 1996 05:24:41 +1100 Received: from default (cph9.ppp.dknet.dk [194.192.100.9]) by pip.dknet.dk (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id TAA11510 for ; Tue, 26 Nov 1996 19:24:29 +0100 Message-Id: <199611261824.TAA11510@pip.dknet.dk> Comments: Authenticated sender is From: "Jens & Bodil" Organization: Alesia Software To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Tue, 26 Nov 1996 19:22:14 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Re: UI ruling with no offending side? Priority: normal X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v2.42a) Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > Date: Tue, 26 Nov 1996 12:27:23 +0000 > From: David Stevenson > Tim West-meads wrote: > [snip] > >The comment North believed gave him UI was along the lines of "Oh good, someone > >else playing that silly defense over 1N-X" - the comment did not refer to any > >particular hand. 12-14 is the most common NT range at the YC with a few > >10-12/11-14/14-16/15-17. North could not remember who had made the comment, or > >in what circumstances. > > > >What should the ruling have been? > > Read L16B. Excellent, David. But you shirk the issue: The director needs to heed "If the Director considers that the information could interfere with normal play", and that is the hard part in my mind. TFLB uses "considers" and "could" here, which probably means that the TD is to act if there is the slightest evidence that he should. OTOH, we always try to get a real result on the board if at all possible. So what does the remark imply? (1.) Someone else has had a chance to invoke his defense against 1NTx. (2.) The defense was the same as here. (3.) The decision made is likely to be especially remarkable for this defense. (1) Seems to indicate that the double is not below par. (2) Tells us nothing. (3) Indicates that the pass leading to 1NTxx was actually chosen, but there is little information regarding the fate of 1NTxx; perhaps several tricks down is the most dramatic event we could envisage. Sitting here, with plenty of time, my ruling would be to let play continue (and that is final); and I would cheerfully acknowledge North's ethics. The elasticity of "considers" is enough to encompass the uncertainty whether the board mentioned in the UI is the one actually being played. In effect, you never know in these situations whether you are playing the board that was referenced, unless someone has been blunt enough to he mentioned board numbers along with his comments -- and in that case North, with his excellent grasp for ethics, would surely have consulted the TD much earlier. > > > >Personally I was very impressed by the N/S ethics. > > Absolutely bog standard ethics. Come on, David, that is just too grouchy. Are you having an unusually dismal November in Liverpool?. I fear that no bridge player could impress you with his ethics :) BTW, is this a new fad usage of "bog" in England? I *do* know what bog usually means, because en English friend of mine once laughed his head off at the signs displayed on a Danish bookshop ("boghandel" or "boghandler"). > >FWIW the director's actual ruling was "Bid and play the hand out as you would > >normally and if it turns out that it was a UI situation then 60% to both > >pairs". North chose to pass and 1Nxx made exactly (was cold) for a clear top. > >N,S and East agreed that 60/60 was the "proper" result and recalled the > >director who said that he thought the actual result should be allowed to stand. > > East (me) said he wished to appeal that and was supported by NS and 60/60 was > >recorded. This illustrates the problem with impressing seasoned TDs with ethics very well. There is very little, if any, room between "minimal required ethics" and "mistaken ethics beyond the rules of the game". Obviously, unless they feel that UI really made a difference to their decisions, NS are trying to be ethical beyond what is required, which they should not, but this is still somehow impressive. Tim's decision to appeal is not that easy to justify: When the TD rules "result stands", he is apparently saying that he found that the UI had no influence on the board. When Tim then wants to appeal, he is implying that the AC could find that UI did indeed have influence on the board; in my book he ought to be able to point out what alternative action he believes North could have taken, or, possibly, that the entire discussion could have implied further UI to South (which I suppose is then to be adjudged under L16A ?). Of course, Tim may be appealing because the TD did not look it up in the book, and he wants to make sure that he is getting a book ruling; that would be a sure sign of too much BLML reading and too little bridge play ;-) > Why should the players have two bites at the cherry? RTFLB. They should not. Less than perfect ruling. -- Jens Brix Christiansen, Denmark From owner-bridge-laws Wed Nov 27 11:15:03 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id LAA28275 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 27 Nov 1996 11:15:03 +1100 Received: from relay-7.mail.demon.net (relay-7.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.9]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id LAA28269 for ; Wed, 27 Nov 1996 11:14:49 +1100 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by relay-6.mail.demon.net id aa617895; 26 Nov 96 23:57 GMT Message-ID: Date: Tue, 26 Nov 1996 23:53:20 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: UI ruling with no offending side? In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Tim West-meads wrote: >David Stevenson wrote: >>>What should the ruling have been? > >> Read L16B. > >I believe the director's difficulty was that he could not determine whether the >offending comment was made in relation to the board in question. >That is, had the comment been made in relation to a different board, or just >generally, then 16B is apparently rendered inapplicable by it's own first >sentence. Even if the UI did relate to the given board it remains unclear to >me whether 60/60 would be fair to all concerned. Ok, ok, it was merely a crappy ruling not a shoot the TD offence. But where does this 60/60 being fair to all concerned come from? Look, he was called during the auction, right? He read the law out of the Law book, didn't he: he did, didn't he? He is given an instruction as to how to proceed, and it does not include giving players a double shot. "If the director considers that the information could interfere with normal play, he may:" and he is given three options. So there it is, take it or leave it. If he thinks this might be the board, then he should either decide the information is inconsequential, play it out, result stands OR he should give A6060. He doesn't know it is the board? Too bad. But he may not make up a new Law that gives competitors the greater of their result or 60%: he has a filthy decision to make, so he should make it, and stand by it. I must say that all my arguments on this hand have been about the Laws. Personally, I believe the UI was inconsequential and should have been treated as such. >> I **really** hope the TD was **not** the one that I trained. >That depends which one you trained:-) I think that I had better not say! -- 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 Nov 27 22:41:45 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id WAA01442 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 27 Nov 1996 22:41:45 +1100 Received: from relay-11.mail.demon.net (relay-11.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.137]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id WAA01437 for ; Wed, 27 Nov 1996 22:41:38 +1100 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by relay-9.mail.demon.net id aa907047; 27 Nov 96 11:28 GMT Message-ID: Date: Wed, 27 Nov 1996 03:20:22 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Newsgroup description In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Stevenson wrote: All my own thread! > A further comment suggests the following where North America has >replaced the USA. while the RGB and RGBO descriptions include the term >"from the USA" it seems correct to retain it there, but not here, >because of the slightly different wording. I hope I have now got the >balance right for our Canadian friends. > >This mailing list consists of serious discussions of the Laws and the >regulations of various authorities, both in general terms and in detail. >Some of the discussions are included here rather than in >rec.games.bridge [see earlier description] because of the length of the >articles. A basic familiarity with the Laws of Duplicate Contract >Bridge is assumed in posting. The mailing list is international, with >the majority of posters split between North America and Europe, but with >a number of posters from the rest of the world. > >To subscribe to this mailing list, you send an email with no subject to >. In the body of the email you include: >subscribe bridge-laws. Another email suggests replacing "serious" with "technical": I agree. It also suggests that there should be an indication that few people will benefit from this: I don't agree: I think it already is warning enough. After all, the aim is to get the right people to join. So my current idea is exactly as above except for "technical" instead of "serious". -- 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 Nov 27 22:54:23 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id WAA01472 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 27 Nov 1996 22:54:23 +1100 Received: from relay-11.mail.demon.net (relay-11.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.137]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id WAA01467 for ; Wed, 27 Nov 1996 22:54:13 +1100 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by relay-10.mail.demon.net id aa1003939; 27 Nov 96 11:35 GMT Message-ID: Date: Wed, 27 Nov 1996 11:34:15 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: UI ruling with no offending side? In-Reply-To: <199611261824.TAA11510@pip.dknet.dk> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Jens & Bodil wrote: >David Stevenson >> Tim West-meads wrote: > [snip] >> >The comment North believed gave him UI was along the lines of "Oh good, >someone >> >else playing that silly defense over 1N-X" - the comment did not refer to >any >> >particular hand. 12-14 is the most common NT range at the YC with a few >> >10-12/11-14/14-16/15-17. North could not remember who had made the comment, >or >> >in what circumstances. >> > >> >What should the ruling have been? >> Read L16B. >Excellent, David. But you shirk the issue: The director needs to >heed "If the Director considers that the information could interfere >with normal play", and that is the hard part in my mind. TFLB uses >"considers" and "could" here, which probably means that the TD is to >act if there is the slightest evidence that he should. OTOH, we >always try to get a real result on the board if at all possible. In this type of ruling there are two parts. First, you need to invoke the correct Law or Regulation. Second the TD needs to apply his judgement as to the correct way of applying that Law or Regulation. Speaking in a very general way, BLML tends to be concerned with the first and RGB with the second. I felt that the interest in this particular ruling lay in the approach to it rather than the judgement decision. Maybe I am wrong, but I do not feel that I was shirking anything. In fact, if you read my later posts, you will notice that I have commented on the judgement decision, but without much interest. When a TD gets a ruling wrong by his approach, failure to RTFLB, looking at the wrong Law, etc, he has made a mistake. When he gets a judgement ruling wrong: well he hasn't got it wrong: his judgement just does not agree with others. Now I am happy to discuss matters of judgement on BLML but we normally don't, so it did not occur to me that the main interest lay in the judgement bit. >So what does the remark imply? (1.) Someone else has had a chance to >invoke his defense against 1NTx. (2.) The defense was the same as >here. (3.) The decision made is likely to be especially remarkable >for this defense. (1) Seems to indicate that the double is not below >par. (2) Tells us nothing. (3) Indicates that the pass leading to >1NTxx was actually chosen, but there is little information regarding >the fate of 1NTxx; perhaps several tricks down is the most dramatic >event we could envisage. Sitting here, with plenty of time, my >ruling would be to let play continue (and that is final); Exactly. > and I would >cheerfully acknowledge North's ethics. Doesn't hurt. >The elasticity of "considers" is enough to encompass the uncertainty >whether the board mentioned in the UI is the one actually being >played. In effect, you never know in these situations whether you >are playing the board that was referenced, unless someone has been >blunt enough to he mentioned board numbers along with his comments -- >and in that case North, with his excellent grasp for ethics, would >surely have consulted the TD much earlier. >> >Personally I was very impressed by the N/S ethics. >> >> Absolutely bog standard ethics. > >Come on, David, that is just too grouchy. Are you having an >unusually dismal November in Liverpool?. I fear that no bridge >player could impress you with his ethics :) I have played all my life amongst players who would go to the TD and tell him when they had UI in this sort of way. Not just do I consider it normal, I would expect my group to consider it normal. It wasn't my group, do I hear you say? But it was the YC, and that is the same sort of player. If you play in a group where it was not normal to report such a thing, then I think your group's general level of ethics could be improved. I mean nothing about your own ethics, of course. Of course people impress me with their ethics. I am often pleasurably surprised. But not by a YC player telling the TD he has UI. I went back and read the original article before I answered. There is a reference at the bottom to North/South doing something later: but the reference to level of ethics does not refer to this in my reading of the article. > BTW, is this a new fad >usage of "bog" in England? I *do* know what bog usually means, >because en English friend of mine once laughed his head off at the >signs displayed on a Danish bookshop ("boghandel" or "boghandler"). Touch of slang, I'm a farid. >> >FWIW the director's actual ruling was "Bid and play the hand out as you >would >> >normally and if it turns out that it was a UI situation then 60% to both >> >pairs". North chose to pass and 1Nxx made exactly (was cold) for a clear >top. >> >N,S and East agreed that 60/60 was the "proper" result and recalled the >> >director who said that he thought the actual result should be allowed to >stand. >> > East (me) said he wished to appeal that and was supported by NS and 60/60 >was >> >recorded. > >This illustrates the problem with impressing seasoned TDs with >ethics very well. There is very little, if any, room between >"minimal required ethics" and "mistaken ethics beyond the rules of >the game". Obviously, unless they feel that UI really made a >difference to their decisions, NS are trying to be ethical beyond >what is required, which they should not, but this is still >somehow impressive. Fine: but read the original article. The reference to level of ethics did not refer to this section at all. >Tim's decision to appeal is not that easy to justify: When the TD >rules "result stands", he is apparently saying that he found that >the UI had no influence on the board. When Tim then wants to appeal, >he is implying that the AC could find that UI did indeed have >influence on the board; in my book he ought to be able to point out >what alternative action he believes North could have taken, or, >possibly, that the entire discussion could have implied further UI to >South (which I suppose is then to be adjudged under L16A ?). Of >course, Tim may be appealing because the TD did not look it up in the >book, and he wants to make sure that he is getting a book ruling; >that would be a sure sign of too much BLML reading and too little >bridge play ;-) Tim's appealing because he thought the ruling was not necessarily correct: that's all the justification he needs. >> Why should the players have two bites at the cherry? RTFLB. > >They should not. Less than perfect ruling. Shirk the issue, indeed. -- 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 Nov 28 02:55:04 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA05483 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 28 Nov 1996 02:55:04 +1100 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 CAA05478 for ; Thu, 28 Nov 1996 02:54:55 +1100 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 KAA03164 for ; Wed, 27 Nov 1996 10:54:40 -0500 (EST) Received: by cfa183.harvard.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id KAA14623; Wed, 27 Nov 1996 10:55:00 -0500 Date: Wed, 27 Nov 1996 10:55:00 -0500 From: willner@cfa183.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Message-Id: <199611271555.KAA14623@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: What is a session? X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: David Stevenson > My arguments have been about Swiss Pairs, when it does not seem right > that each individual match is a session, and my arguments have been > accepted: but of course players can compare scores between each match. First, let's make sure we are talking about the same kind of contest. I take it "Swiss Pairs" is a form of IMP pairs where, at any moment, the same set of boards is in play at all tables. If so, why would a single match *not* be a session? In my mind, the key point for a session is that no board has been played some but not all of the times it will be played, and any board can be freely discussed without harming the contest. Are there other implications that make this an inappropriate definition? On rgb, I have claimed that in a barometer pairs, each single board is a session. (Or at least can be, at the discretion of the SO.) From owner-bridge-laws Thu Nov 28 03:03:59 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA05541 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 28 Nov 1996 03:03:59 +1100 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 DAA05536 for ; Thu, 28 Nov 1996 03:03:51 +1100 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 LAA15392; Wed, 27 Nov 1996 11:03:03 -0500 (EST) Received: by cfa183.harvard.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id LAA14645; Wed, 27 Nov 1996 11:03:23 -0500 Date: Wed, 27 Nov 1996 11:03:23 -0500 From: willner@cfa183.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Message-Id: <199611271603.LAA14645@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au, grabiner@msri.org Subject: Re: Information available by either authorized or unauthorized means X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: David Grabiner > Playing with bidding boxed, South opens 1C. West, who holds a 22-point > 5-3-4-1 hand and didn't see the 1C bid, bids 2C. East volunteers an > unrequested explanation of the bid as Michaels; this is UI to West. > However, West can also see the 1C bid sitting on the table. Is this UI > or AI? The 1C bid is AI, of course, but it may not be useful if there is also UI (partner's explanation). I once asked Edgar Kaplan a similar question involving a player who pulls the wrong bidding card and notices too late to correct under L25A. Kaplan's answer was that if there is no UI, the player can do whatever he wants to try to get to a reasonable contract, but if anybody asks a question that could draw attention to the mistaken bid, the player is under UI restrictions. I must say I am not entirely happy with this answer. From owner-bridge-laws Thu Nov 28 06:57:32 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA14792 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 28 Nov 1996 06:57:32 +1100 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 GAA14787 for ; Thu, 28 Nov 1996 06:57:25 +1100 Received: from cph55.ppp.dknet.dk (cph55.ppp.dknet.dk [194.192.100.55]) by pip.dknet.dk (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id UAA21574 for ; Wed, 27 Nov 1996 20:57:15 +0100 From: Jesper Dybdal To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: What is a session? Date: Wed, 27 Nov 1996 20:57:14 +0100 Organization: at home Message-ID: <329c8f02.587675@pipmail.dknet.dk> References: <199611271555.KAA14623@cfa183.harvard.edu> In-Reply-To: <199611271555.KAA14623@cfa183.harvard.edu> X-Mailer: Forte Agent .99f/32.299 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Wed, 27 Nov 1996 10:55:00 -0500, willner@cfa183.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) wrote: >On rgb, I have claimed that in a barometer pairs, each single board >is a session. (Or at least can be, at the discretion of the SO.) We also have the concept of a "round": "A part of a session played without progression of players." Of course, there is nothing in this definition that directly says that you cannot play two consecutive rounds with the same placement of all players, but I assume that we agree that the intention obviously is to define "round" just as we normally use the word: in a barometer, the sequence of a few boards played before the players move. A session consists of at least one round, and therefore is not a single board (I take the liberty of ignoring events with 1-board rounds here). The full definition of "session" is: "An extended period of play during which a specified number of boards is scheduled to be played before comparison of scores, and after which the ranking of contestants may be established." "An extended period" seems to indicate that this is something more than a round. On the other hand, "before comparison of scores" seems to say that a barometer round is a session. -- Jesper Dybdal, Denmark From owner-bridge-laws Thu Nov 28 08:07:58 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA15231 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 28 Nov 1996 08:07:58 +1100 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 IAA15226 for ; Thu, 28 Nov 1996 08:07:50 +1100 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 QAA01182 for ; Wed, 27 Nov 1996 16:07:45 -0500 (EST) Received: by cfa183.harvard.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id QAA14744; Wed, 27 Nov 1996 16:08:05 -0500 Date: Wed, 27 Nov 1996 16:08:05 -0500 From: willner@cfa183.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Message-Id: <199611272108.QAA14744@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: What is a session? X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: Jesper Dybdal [rearranged for convenience of reply] > The full definition of "session" is: > "An extended period of play during which a specified number of boards > is scheduled to be played before comparison of scores, and after which > the ranking of contestants may be established." > We also have the concept of a "round": > "A part of a session played without progression of players." This of course implies that session is at least as long as a whole round, but I don't see why the definition necessarily had to be written that way. Still, it is what the Laws say, so my original claim that a session can be one board must fail (except in the trivial case of one-board rounds). > "An extended period" seems to indicate that this is something more > than a round. On the other hand, "before comparison of scores" seems > to say that a barometer round is a session. I'd argue that "an extended period" isn't very quantitative, and for a barometer it makes sense to consider a round and a session to be identical. At first, I thought this might have an unwanted effect on the appeals period, but L79C does not use "session." It does use "scores are posted," though. Does that mean every board or the final score for the 24 or 26 board interval? (This is what we would normally consider a "session.") Given that in a barometer, scores are in fact compared after every board, I'd argue that the definitions are not entirely consistent with this form of contest. From owner-bridge-laws Thu Nov 28 08:16:10 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA15286 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 28 Nov 1996 08:16:10 +1100 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 IAA15281 for ; Thu, 28 Nov 1996 08:16:03 +1100 Received: from default (cph34.ppp.dknet.dk [194.192.100.34]) by pip.dknet.dk (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id WAA24106 for ; Wed, 27 Nov 1996 22:15:52 +0100 Message-Id: <199611272115.WAA24106@pip.dknet.dk> Comments: Authenticated sender is From: "Jens & Bodil" Organization: Alesia Software To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Wed, 27 Nov 1996 22:16:29 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Re: What is a session? Priority: normal X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v2.42a) Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: Jesper Dybdal > Date: Wed, 27 Nov 1996 20:57:14 +0100 > The full definition of "session" is: > > "An extended period of play during which a specified number of boards > is scheduled to be played before comparison of scores, and after which > the ranking of contestants may be established." > > "An extended period" seems to indicate that this is something more > than a round. On the other hand, "before comparison of scores" seems > to say that a barometer round is a session. As Jesper knows, but elected not to say, we have a regulation in Denmark to the effect that in barometer pairs, one round constitutes a session for the purpose of L88, but for all other purposes a session does not end until there is a break of some kind. We define this somewhat backwards. Here is my translation of the two relevant paragraphs in our regulations for pairs tournaments: [3.0.2] If an event is divided into sessions, the boards used in any session must be played completely during that session. A session may not span a fairly long break. [3.3.3] Points for bye rounds are assigned only when the results for an entire session are calculated; in barometer pairs, however, for one round at a time. This appalling piece of regulatory text is, unfortunately, still around even though both Jesper and I have been involved in cleaning up the regulations. Let us hope that we get this right after the 1997 Laws appear. -- Jens Brix Christiansen, Denmark From owner-bridge-laws Thu Nov 28 09:57:48 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA16139 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 28 Nov 1996 09:57:48 +1100 Received: from clothes.peg.apc.org (www.peg.apc.org [192.131.13.10]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id JAA16134 for ; Thu, 28 Nov 1996 09:57:43 +1100 Received: from v26.dialup.peg.apc.org (v26.dialup.peg.apc.org [192.203.176.218]) by clothes.peg.apc.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id IAA29086 for ; Thu, 28 Nov 1996 08:56:35 +1000 (EST) Message-Id: <199611272256.IAA29086@clothes.peg.apc.org> From: "Jane Stapleton" Organization: Sound Connexions To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Thu, 28 Nov 1996 09:49:59 +0000 Subject: Re: What is a session? Reply-to: soundconnex@peg.apc.org Priority: normal X-mailer: Pegasus Mail/Windows (v1.22) Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: What is a session? Sender: owner-bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Jesper Dybdal wrote: >Also, you are not allowed to compare scores with other >contestants within a session. This rule would make Swisses a >bit difficult to score if a match were not a session I can't see a problem in taking the Laws' definition of a session and applying it directly to the particular format requirements of a Swiss Pairs. The Laws, Chapter 1, "DEFINITIONS", defines a session as "An extended period of play during which a specified number of boards is scheduled before comparison of scores, and after which the ranking of contestants may be established". In Australia, two 14-board 'rounds/matches' are usually played in three and a half hours with a Swiss draw after each 'round/match'. It seems to me that, taking a legalistic view of what HAS to happen in a Swiss Pairs event, each 14 board set therefore can become in effect, by definition, "an extended period of play during which [14 boards are] scheduled before comparison of scores, and after which the ranking of contestants [is] established" to allow the draw for the following 'session' (i.e. round/match) to be completed. In other words, it seems essentially a matter of pragmatic semantics to me. Using similar logic, a teams match over x boards where scoring up happens at the half way point, the number of boards played in each half match would thus become, by definition, "an extended period of play during which x/2 boards are scheduled before comparison of scores", etc., thus labelling each half match as a "session". Or is it simply enough to specify this in the evnt regulations? But perhaps this is being rather simplistic? From owner-bridge-laws Thu Nov 28 13:44:46 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id NAA17128 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 28 Nov 1996 13:44:46 +1100 Received: from relay-11.mail.demon.net (relay-11.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.137]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id NAA17123 for ; Thu, 28 Nov 1996 13:44:37 +1100 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by relay-10.mail.demon.net id aa1015906; 28 Nov 96 2:44 GMT Message-ID: Date: Thu, 28 Nov 1996 02:34:26 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: What is a session? In-Reply-To: <199611271555.KAA14623@cfa183.harvard.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Steve Willner wrote: >> From: David Stevenson >> My arguments have been about Swiss Pairs, when it does not seem right >> that each individual match is a session, and my arguments have been >> accepted: but of course players can compare scores between each match. >First, let's make sure we are talking about the same kind of contest. >I take it "Swiss Pairs" is a form of IMP pairs where, at any moment, >the same set of boards is in play at all tables. Swiss Pairs is match point pairs where during one match, everyone will play the same eight boards, or alternatively, everyone will play eight of the ten boards for that match. You then play your next eight board match against a pair with the same score, or alternatively, the pairing is done one round in arrears. After every match the hands are dead: when you play eight from ten then there will be two boards in each round that you will never play. >If so, why would a single match *not* be a session? > >In my mind, the key point for a session is that no board has been >played some but not all of the times it will be played, and any >board can be freely discussed without harming the contest. Are >there other implications that make this an inappropriate definition? > >On rgb, I have claimed that in a barometer pairs, each single board >is a session. (Or at least can be, at the discretion of the SO.) I suppose we need to consider not just what is a session, but what we need the definition for. Many people consider L79C as referring to a session, but of course the word does not appear therein. So what are we defining a session for? -- 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 Nov 29 10:49:10 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA02420 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 29 Nov 1996 10:49:10 +1100 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 KAA02415 for ; Fri, 29 Nov 1996 10:49:02 +1100 Received: from cph16.ppp.dknet.dk (cph16.ppp.dknet.dk [194.192.100.16]) by pip.dknet.dk (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id AAA02422 for ; Fri, 29 Nov 1996 00:48:45 +0100 From: Jesper Dybdal To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: What is a session? Date: Fri, 29 Nov 1996 00:48:43 +0100 Organization: at home Message-ID: <32a0244e.1058081@pipmail.dknet.dk> References: <199611272256.IAA29086@clothes.peg.apc.org> In-Reply-To: <199611272256.IAA29086@clothes.peg.apc.org> X-Mailer: Forte Agent .99f/32.299 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Thu, 28 Nov 1996 09:49:59 +0000, "Jane Stapleton" wrote: >Jesper Dybdal wrote: >>Also, you are not allowed to compare scores with other >>contestants within a session. This rule would make Swisses a >>bit difficult to score if a match were not a session Well, just for the record: I didn't exactly write that - but I did quote a message from David Stevenson in which he quoted Dale Johannesen who wrote it. -- Jesper Dybdal, Denmark From owner-bridge-laws Fri Nov 29 15:55:19 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id PAA04121 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 29 Nov 1996 15:55:19 +1100 Received: from server3.syd.mail.ozemail.net (server3.syd.mail.ozemail.net [203.108.7.41]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id PAA04116 for ; Fri, 29 Nov 1996 15:55:14 +1100 Received: from oznet02.ozemail.com.au (oznet02.ozemail.com.au [203.2.192.124]) by server3.syd.mail.ozemail.net (8.8.3/8.6.12) with ESMTP id PAA10570 for ; Fri, 29 Nov 1996 15:55:10 +1100 (EST) Received: from LOCALNAME (slbri4p12.ozemail.com.au [203.108.199.28]) by oznet02.ozemail.com.au (8.8.3/8.6.12) with SMTP id PAA08083 for ; Fri, 29 Nov 1996 15:55:09 +1100 (EST) Date: Fri, 29 Nov 1996 15:55:09 +1100 (EST) Message-Id: <199611290455.PAA08083@oznet02.ozemail.com.au> X-Sender: rbusch@ozemail.com.au (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: Reg Busch Subject: 13 penalty cards. Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk The defender on lead, imagining for some reason that he is dummy, lays down all 13 cards in his hand. How do you rule? Our group have divided views. (1) Simply apply Law 51 (2) Apply Law 12A2 - normal play of board impossible. Reg Busch Tel/Fax 61 7 3288 2446 Reg Busch rbusch@ozemail.com.au Tel/Fax 61 7 32882446 From owner-bridge-laws Fri Nov 29 22:03:24 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id WAA05878 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 29 Nov 1996 22:03:24 +1100 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 WAA05873 for ; Fri, 29 Nov 1996 22:03:16 +1100 Received: from innet.innet.be (pool03-218.innet.be [194.7.10.218]) by mail.be.innet.net (8.7.6/8.7.3) with SMTP id MAA11273 for ; Fri, 29 Nov 1996 12:03:06 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: <329EC573.22F6@innet.be> Date: Fri, 29 Nov 1996 11:13:55 +0000 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01 (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: What is a session? References: <199611272256.IAA29086@clothes.peg.apc.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Jane Stapleton wrote: > > > I can't see a problem in taking the Laws' definition of a session > and applying it directly to the particular format requirements of > a Swiss Pairs. > > The Laws, Chapter 1, "DEFINITIONS", defines a session as "An > extended period of play during which a specified number of boards > is scheduled before comparison of scores, and after which the > ranking of contestants may be established". > > In Australia, two 14-board 'rounds/matches' are usually played in > three and a half hours with a Swiss draw after each > 'round/match'. It seems to me that, taking a legalistic view of > what HAS to happen in a Swiss Pairs event, each 14 board set > therefore can become in effect, by definition, "an extended > period of play during which [14 boards are] scheduled before > comparison of scores, and after which the ranking of contestants > [is] established" to allow the draw for the following 'session' > (i.e. round/match) to be completed. In other words, it seems > essentially a matter of pragmatic semantics to me. > > Using similar logic, a teams match over x boards where scoring up > happens at the half way point, the number of boards played in > each half match would thus become, by definition, "an extended > period of play during which x/2 boards are scheduled before > comparison of scores", etc., thus labelling each half match as a > "session". > > Or is it simply enough to specify this in the evnt regulations? > > But perhaps this is being rather simplistic? I agree completely. I did not want to reply earlier, waiting to see if someone else would spot the obvious. A session is the period during which boards are in play, so comparisons cannot yet be done. L88 (is that the one) says you are not allowed to compare within a session. So where's the problem. Of course one round of a barometer equals a session. Of course half a team match equals a session. I don't see the problem here -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.club.innet.be/~pub02163/index.htm From owner-bridge-laws Fri Nov 29 22:59:15 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id WAA06042 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 29 Nov 1996 22:59:15 +1100 Received: from relay-11.mail.demon.net (relay-11.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.137]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id WAA06037 for ; Fri, 29 Nov 1996 22:59:09 +1100 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by relay-10.mail.demon.net id aa1002893; 29 Nov 96 11:51 GMT Message-ID: Date: Fri, 29 Nov 1996 11:44:53 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: 13 penalty cards. In-Reply-To: <199611290455.PAA08083@oznet02.ozemail.com.au> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Reg Busch wrote: >The defender on lead, imagining for some reason that he is dummy, lays down >all 13 cards in his hand. How do you rule? > >Our group have divided views. (1) Simply apply Law 51 (2) Apply Law 12A2 - >normal play of board impossible. We have actually discussed this. My view is simple: apply L51. It refers to two or more penalty cards: if it meant no more than six, or eight or whatever, it would say so. L12A2 is a cop-out: you can play the board out, using the normal rules, so play is not impossible. -- 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 Nov 29 23:05:30 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA06091 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 29 Nov 1996 23:05:30 +1100 Received: from waffle.cise.npl.co.uk (waffle.cise.npl.co.uk [139.143.18.92]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id XAA06086 for ; Fri, 29 Nov 1996 23:05:24 +1100 Received: from tempest.cise.npl.co.uk by waffle.cise.npl.co.uk; Fri, 29 Nov 1996 12:04:45 GMT Date: Fri, 29 Nov 96 12:04:42 GMT Message-Id: <15007.9611291204@tempest.cise.npl.co.uk> From: Robin Barker To: rbusch@ozemail.com.au Subject: Re: 13 penalty cards. Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Reg You ask. > The defender on lead, imagining for some reason that he is dummy, lays down > all 13 cards in his hand. How do you rule? > > Our group have divided views. (1) Simply apply Law 51 (2) Apply Law 12A2 - > normal play of board impossible. In England this was once the subject of an incident: another TD ruled (2) against David Stephenson (as a player) and David thought (1) was the right ruling. David's basic argument (he will correct me if I get this wrong) is that the appropriate law is headed "Two or more penalty cards". If it was not meant to apply in this case, it would be headed "Two or more, but less than twelve, penalty cards". Law 12 does not apply, play of the board is possible because the law (the one headed "Two or more penalty cards") tells you how it is possible. Robin Robin Barker, | Email: rmb@cise.npl.co.uk Information Systems Engineering, | Tel: +44 (0) 181 943 7090 B10, National Physical Laboratory, | Fax: +44 (0) 181 977 7091 Teddington, Middlesex, UK. TW11 0LW | WWW: http://www.npl.co.uk From owner-bridge-laws Sat Nov 30 00:45:17 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA09482 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 30 Nov 1996 00:45:17 +1100 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 AAA09455 for ; Sat, 30 Nov 1996 00:45:10 +1100 Received: (from root@localhost) by tom.compulink.co.uk (8.6.9/8.6.9) id NAA07789 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Fri, 29 Nov 1996 13:44:40 GMT Date: Fri, 29 Nov 96 13:44 GMT0 From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: 13 penalty cards. 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 In-Reply-To: <199611290455.PAA08083@oznet02.ozemail.com.au> As I see it the only objection to applying L 51 is that the result will almost certainly distort the scores around the room in a Matchpoint type event. In teams then only the offending side suffers, and that due to their own mistake. However, were it known that Law 12A2/C1 would be applied in this situation it would give a (less than entirely ethical) player who feels himself to be in a 0 MP contract the chance to turn this to 40% quite easily. If we felt that "non-distortion" was important then there is, IMO, a possible alternative and that is to say that "A deliberate exposure of all remaining cards (in this case 13) constitutes a claim under 68A" This would enable a director to rule for the best likely result for the non-offending side, rather than a result based on one hand playing "misere". On the whole I think using L51 is probably best but I'd try anything to avoid using L12C1. One advantage of using L51 is that the "comedy tale" type of bridge author should be able to build a good story hand around the outcome:-). Tim West-Meads From owner-bridge-laws Sat Nov 30 03:57:03 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA10499 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 30 Nov 1996 03:57:03 +1100 Received: from relay-7.mail.demon.net (relay-7.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.9]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id DAA10494 for ; Sat, 30 Nov 1996 03:56:49 +1100 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by relay-6.mail.demon.net id aa608758; 29 Nov 96 14:50 GMT Message-ID: Date: Fri, 29 Nov 1996 14:49:19 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: What is a session? In-Reply-To: <329EC573.22F6@innet.be> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Herman De Wael wrote: >Jane Stapleton wrote: >> I can't see a problem in taking the Laws' definition of a session >> and applying it directly to the particular format requirements of >> a Swiss Pairs. >> >> The Laws, Chapter 1, "DEFINITIONS", defines a session as "An >> extended period of play during which a specified number of boards >> is scheduled before comparison of scores, and after which the >> ranking of contestants may be established". >> >> In Australia, two 14-board 'rounds/matches' are usually played in >> three and a half hours with a Swiss draw after each >> 'round/match'. It seems to me that, taking a legalistic view of >> what HAS to happen in a Swiss Pairs event, each 14 board set >> therefore can become in effect, by definition, "an extended >> period of play during which [14 boards are] scheduled before >> comparison of scores, and after which the ranking of contestants >> [is] established" to allow the draw for the following 'session' >> (i.e. round/match) to be completed. In other words, it seems >> essentially a matter of pragmatic semantics to me. >> >> Using similar logic, a teams match over x boards where scoring up >> happens at the half way point, the number of boards played in >> each half match would thus become, by definition, "an extended >> period of play during which x/2 boards are scheduled before >> comparison of scores", etc., thus labelling each half match as a >> "session". >> >> Or is it simply enough to specify this in the evnt regulations? >> >> But perhaps this is being rather simplistic? >I agree completely. > >I did not want to reply earlier, waiting to see if someone else would >spot the obvious. > >A session is the period during which boards are in play, so comparisons >cannot yet be done. >L88 (is that the one) says you are not allowed to compare within a >session. > >So where's the problem. > >Of course one round of a barometer equals a session. > >Of course half a team match equals a session. > >I don't see the problem here Hmmmmm. I did ask earlier what we needed a session for, but no-one answered. I think that a lot of the problem is that players have an idea what a session is, and it does not necessarily seem to be the same as the Law definition. In England, if players play a barometer-scored event, or a Swiss event, from 1.00 to 4.30, and then from 7.30 to 11.00, then the players think that they have played a two-session event: in fact they are often advertised that way. Session An extended period of play during which a specified number of boards is scheduled to be played before comparison of scores, and after which the ranking of contestants may be established. Suppose we decide that the period from 1.00 to 4.30 is a session: how does that conflict with the Laws? Well, it certainly is "an extended period of play" and "during which a specified number of boards is scheduled to be played" is fine. It is also true, despite comments on the thread to the contrary, that "after which the ranking of contestants may be established" applies: it does not matter that there are other times at which this may be true. The above Definition does not say that *if* you can rank the players *then* you have a session: it says *if* you have a session *then* you can rank the players. The difficulty IMO lies in "before comparison of scores". It seems that if you have an extended period of play scheduled before you compare then you have a session: what does comparison mean? For that matter, what does "extended" mean? I think the problem lies in the fact that this Definition was written with a simple 24-27 board pairs session in mind and not really updated correctly as newer forms of event were brought in. I hear on the grapevine that the 1997 Laws have tackled this problem, so we only need a stopgap decision now. I searched my copy of the Laws for "session", and found it in the following places: Definitions: Board Laws: 2 Event 4 Round 5A Session 8C 80C 88 90B4 91A If you compare the definitions of a round is a session, and an afternoon is a session, then you will find that either works the same for the Definitions [all four] and L2. Let us examine the other Laws. L4: Should you be allowed to change partnerships between matches in a Swiss Teams? I cannot see why not, but it would seem sensible to leave it to SO regulation. Note that the TD could allow a change anyway. L5A: Should you be allowed to change directions between matches in a Swiss Teams? I cannot see why not. However, I think that to allow it in a barometer pairs is against the spirit of this Law. It would seem sensible to leave both cases to SO regulation. Note that the TD could allow a change anyway. L8C: The difference between using L8B and L8C at the end of a round seems marginal and unimportant: perhaps L8C for the end of an afternoon seems slightly more correct. L80C: This is the sort of Law that suggests a session should be the same as an afternoon, without it mattering too much. L88: A very big difference is possible dependent on the definition of a session. You play three matches, getting 70%, 50%, 30% respectively. If you receive an average plus in the first one should you get 60% or 70%? To me, 60% seems fairer: if it was an ordinary pairs you would not get 70%! Again, this could be something for SO regulation. L90B4: This, as has been pointed out, is the one that makes the session=afternoon unworkable! L91A: While it is very important that this is defined, it seems to me that it provides more support for the session=afternoon approach. Suppose a player is drunk and abusive half-way through the afternoon. It does not seem right that a Director can suspend him for the rest of the afternoon in an ordinary pairs, but only to the end of the current round in Swiss or barometer. Personally I prefer a reading of the definition that means that an afternoon is a session. L4 and L5A can be left to SOs who can empower their TDs to allow changes if they see fit. L8C and L80C fit well without it mattering too much. L88 and L91A certainly support the afternoon is a session approach otherwise there are differences based on the form of scoring, and that seems illogical. In my view L90B4 is the only problem, and I am happy to assume they meant "round" and not "session". Finally, I prefer the reading that accords with the average player's idea. -- 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 Nov 30 04:16:38 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA10635 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 30 Nov 1996 04:16:38 +1100 Received: from relay-7.mail.demon.net (relay-7.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.9]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id EAA10630 for ; Sat, 30 Nov 1996 04:16:29 +1100 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by relay-6.mail.demon.net id aa606118; 29 Nov 96 16:31 GMT Message-ID: Date: Fri, 29 Nov 1996 15:58:08 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: 13 penalty cards. In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Tim West-meads wrote: >If we felt that "non-distortion" was important then there is, IMO, a possible >alternative and that is to say that "A deliberate exposure of all remaining >cards (in this case 13) constitutes a claim under 68A" And why should we when it isn't? If that is not a distortion then I have no idea what is. Law 68 - Claim or Concession of Tricks A. Claim Defined Any statement to the effect that a contestant will win a specific number of tricks is a claim of those tricks. A contestant also claims when he suggests that play be curtailed, or when he shows his cards (unless he demonstrably did not intend to claim). Someone who puts all 13 cards down face up and did not intend to claim did not claim, which is as it should be. I do get annoyed [not with you, Tim, but generally] at this whole concept of not distorting results or protecting the field. In my view it has ***no validity whatever** because it is not in the Law book. It is a stupid concept anyway, because random type results are normal in Bridge. It's silly, pointless 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 Sat Nov 30 06:03:27 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA11242 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 30 Nov 1996 06:03:27 +1100 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 GAA11237 for ; Sat, 30 Nov 1996 06:03:21 +1100 Received: from cph13.ppp.dknet.dk (cph13.ppp.dknet.dk [194.192.100.13]) by pip.dknet.dk (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id UAA25485 for ; Fri, 29 Nov 1996 20:03:12 +0100 From: Jesper Dybdal To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: 13 penalty cards. Date: Fri, 29 Nov 1996 20:03:10 +0100 Organization: at home Message-ID: <32a1332c.2509558@pipmail.dknet.dk> References: In-Reply-To: X-Mailer: Forte Agent .99f/32.299 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Fri, 29 Nov 1996 15:58:08 +0000, David Stevenson wrote: > I do get annoyed [not with you, Tim, but generally] at this whole >concept of not distorting results or protecting the field. In my view >it has ***no validity whatever** because it is not in the Law book. It >is a stupid concept anyway, because random type results are normal in >Bridge. It's silly, pointless and illegal. I agree completely with this view. If a player makes a bad error, it often happens that he gets a terrible result, his opponents get a good result, and the results of the rest of the field are also affected somewhat. This is the case if he forgets to draw the last trump, and it is also the case if he shows his hand and gets 13 penalty cards. I see no reason at all to view these two errors differently with regard to their effects on the field. -- Jesper Dybdal, Denmark