From owner-bridge-laws Sun Dec 1 11:26:07 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id LAA18695 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 1 Dec 1996 11:26:07 +1100 Received: from lionfish.jcu.edu.au (lionfish.jcu.edu.au [137.219.16.119]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id LAA18690 for ; Sun, 1 Dec 1996 11:26:01 +1100 Received: from localhost by lionfish.jcu.edu.au with SMTP id AA18931 (5.65v3.2/IDA-1.5); Sun, 1 Dec 1996 10:25:56 +1000 Date: Sun, 1 Dec 1996 10:25:55 +1000 (EST) From: Laurence Kelso1 To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Law 67B1 Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Hello Lately I seem to have been involved in an inordinate number of defective trick situations. One particular scenario caused me to examine Law 67B1 a little more closely. It relates to when the Director determines that a player has failed to play a card to a previous trick and consequently has too many cards remaining in his hand. The relevant section reads: "When the offender has failed to play a card to the defective trick, the director shall require him forthwith to face a card, and to place it appropriately among his played cards (this card does not affect ownership of the trick) ; if (a) the offender has a card of the suit led to the defective trick, he must choose such a card to place among his played cards, and there is no penalty; (b) the offender has no card of the suit led to the defective trick, he chooses any card to place among his played cards, and (penalty) he is deemed to have revoked on the defective trick - he may be subject to the one-trick penalty of Law 64." There can be no ambiguity when the offender has failed to follow suit, but what about when he has failed to find a discard? The offender never held a card in the required suit , so he can't later contribute one and thus avoid the penalty! But what is the penalty? The phrase "he may be subject to the one-trick penalty of Law 64" seems somewhat vague for the usually succinct code. Under certain circumstances both parts of Law 64A can result in two trick penalties! I believe the relevant section is in Law 64A2 (between the second coma and the first semi-colon), namely "if the offending side won that or any subsequent trick, (penalty) after play ceases, one trick is transferred to the non-offending side". The word "may" covers situations where the offending side doesn't win later tricks. Alternate opinions sought. Laurie From owner-bridge-laws Sun Dec 1 22:38:33 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id WAA21661 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 1 Dec 1996 22:38:33 +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 WAA21652 for ; Sun, 1 Dec 1996 22:38:23 +1100 Received: from innet.innet.be (pool03-66.innet.be [194.7.10.66]) by mail.be.innet.net (8.7.6/8.7.3) with SMTP id MAA19870 for ; Sun, 1 Dec 1996 12:38:16 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: <32A1787C.FC3@innet.be> Date: Sun, 01 Dec 1996 12:22:20 +0000 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01 (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: 13 penalty cards - new twist Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Happened to me yesterday in the Belgian first division. After the bidding, a player fumbles and drops thirteen cards on the floor. His partner covers his eyes and (presumed) dummy helps the player pick up all his cards (the man is slightly handicapped). Everything all right, but now declarer asks : - would I have been allowed to look at the cards ? I say yes, but it is nice of you not to do so. - are these not penalty cards, as after all, partner of offender COULD have seen them ? To which I read him the part of L50A '... UNLESS the director designates otherwise' which seems to solve the issue. Or does it ? Indeed L50A says this. But read L49 : Whenever a declarer ... holds a card so that it is possible for his partner to see its face ... each such card becomes a penalty card. Do we have to conclude that L49 only applies to cards actively shown (led or held) and not to cards exposed inadvertently ? Which means that these become penalty cards of right and the 'unless ..' in L50A could never be applied to these (I would never do so, but..). Endicott's commentary gives no clear examples of when a TD might 'designate otherwise', apart from some mentions of players deciding among themselves (and then usually coming up with wrong rulings). Any comments ? -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.club.innet.be/~pub02163/index.htm From owner-bridge-laws Sun Dec 1 22:38:34 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id WAA21662 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 1 Dec 1996 22:38:34 +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 WAA21650 for ; Sun, 1 Dec 1996 22:38:21 +1100 Received: from innet.innet.be (pool03-66.innet.be [194.7.10.66]) by mail.be.innet.net (8.7.6/8.7.3) with SMTP id MAA19864 for ; Sun, 1 Dec 1996 12:38:12 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: <32A174B5.2E16@innet.be> Date: Sun, 01 Dec 1996 12:06:13 +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: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Stevenson wrote a whole lot : (and with his usual amount of analysis, a very thorough piece of work) > L4: Should you be allowed to change partnerships between matches No David, L4 tells you you cannot change partnerships within a session (for obvious reasons) It says nothing about changing outside sessions. It is silly to extend the definition of session to such a period that it now becomes necessary to have the SO give the TD instructions that he can authorize substitutions in certain cases. Better to let the Laws say that certain substitutions are always inadmissable and others subject to additional regulations, such as the number of players permitted for a contestant. > > 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. > No David, you are wrong. The result of getting a better score in this manner is effectively that of scrapping the board for you altogether. In a Swiss pairs, you will never add the 70,50 and 30 together, scoring 50. You are effectively playing only one competitor and you have played him over one board less. I don't really know how to put my feelings into words, but my intuition is very strong here. > L90B4: This, as has been pointed out, is the one that makes the > session=afternoon unworkable! > And I think this is the most important consequence of the idea of session. > 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. > If you suspend a player for part of the afternoon, do you allow him back for the evening session ? Would he want to come back ? So what's the difference ? > 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". Pardon ? If you write 'round' in L90B4, it becomes legal to compare between two rounds. And you and I know that the round only finishes when the TD calls the change, but the average player doesn't. Finally, I prefer the reading that accords with the average > player's idea. > The average player's idea is that a 10 is not an honour, that they cannot make 7 with the ace of trumps outstanding, that it is illegal to have a good result after a mistake against your system, and ... (need more examples ?) I prefer the reading that accords with the idea that the session is that period after which all boards have been played just as many times as they need to be. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.club.innet.be/~pub02163/index.htm From owner-bridge-laws Mon Dec 2 13:12:56 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id NAA05845 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 2 Dec 1996 13:12:56 +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 NAA05839 for ; Mon, 2 Dec 1996 13:12:44 +1100 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by relay-10.mail.demon.net id aa1004880; 2 Dec 96 2:10 GMT Message-ID: Date: Mon, 2 Dec 1996 02:07:51 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: What is a session? In-Reply-To: <32A174B5.2E16@innet.be> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Herman De Wael wrote: >David Stevenson wrote a whole lot : >> 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. >No David, you are wrong. >The result of getting a better score in this manner is effectively that >of scrapping the board for you altogether. In a Swiss pairs, you will >never add the 70,50 and 30 together, scoring 50. You are effectively >playing only one competitor and you have played him over one board less. >I don't really know how to put my feelings into words, but my intuition >is very strong here. All right, test this against your intuition. You play a pairs tournament, two board rounds, and on one board you get a complete top. On the other board of the round you get average plus. Does average plus get you 100%? No. Should it? No. We do not generally apply the greater than 60% rule against one competitor but over the full 24-27 boards. So it seems quite wrong to me for it to be different in Swiss Pairs. >If you suspend a player for part of the afternoon, do you allow him back >for the evening session ? Would he want to come back ? >So what's the difference ? Again, this is just irrelevant. Whatever you do about the evening session will not be under this law and does not matter. It still seems totally wrong to have an inability to suspend for the rest of the afternoon in Swiss Pairs when you can in an ordinary pairs. -- 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 Dec 3 00:30:24 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA11339 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 3 Dec 1996 00:30:24 +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 AAA11334 for ; Tue, 3 Dec 1996 00:30:16 +1100 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by relay-9.mail.demon.net id aa919887; 2 Dec 96 13:21 GMT Message-ID: <5Xl$VyA0btoyEwHE@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Mon, 2 Dec 1996 13:17:40 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Test MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk My apologies. Owing to problems with my ISP and this address I have been asked by my ISP to make a few test posts within the next day or two. I shall, of course, link them to this article. If anyone is reading this, perhaps they would like to answer this. How many BLML readers does it take to change a lightbulb? -- 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 Dec 3 01:32:34 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA12279 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 3 Dec 1996 01:32:34 +1100 Received: from micros-bh.micros.com (micros-bh.micros.com [206.241.67.66]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id BAA12274 for ; Tue, 3 Dec 1996 01:32:27 +1100 Received: (from uucp@localhost) by micros-bh.micros.com (8.6.12/8.6.11) id JAA28385 for ; Mon, 2 Dec 1996 09:32:31 -0500 Received: from micros.micros.com by micros-bh.micros.com via smap (V1.3) id sma028362; Mon Dec 2 09:32:05 1996 Received: from rna.micros.com (rna.micros.com [206.241.53.100]) by micros.micros.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id JAA22893 for ; Mon, 2 Dec 1996 09:30:38 -0500 From: Chris Miller To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Test X-Mailer: ScoMail 3.0.Bd MIME-Version: 1.0 Date: Mon, 2 Dec 1996 9:23:12 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <9612020923.aa15095@rna.micros.com> Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > If anyone is reading this, perhaps they would like to answer this. > How many BLML readers does it take to change a lightbulb? Is a change of lightbulb permissible under the current Laws? ---- Chris Miller chris@micros.com Micros Systems Inc. Tel: +1 301 210 8000 x2303 12000 Baltimore Ave. Fax: +1 301 210 3465 Beltsville, MD 20705-1291 From owner-bridge-laws Tue Dec 3 03:14:49 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA12835 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 3 Dec 1996 03:14:49 +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 DAA12823 for ; Tue, 3 Dec 1996 03:14:37 +1100 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by relay-10.mail.demon.net id aa1025421; 2 Dec 96 15:58 GMT Message-ID: Date: Mon, 2 Dec 1996 15:55:24 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: 13 penalty cards - new twist In-Reply-To: <32A1787C.FC3@innet.be> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Herman De Wael wrote: >Happened to me yesterday in the Belgian first division. > >After the bidding, a player fumbles and drops thirteen cards on the >floor. His partner covers his eyes and (presumed) dummy helps the player >pick up all his cards (the man is slightly handicapped). > >Everything all right, but now declarer asks : > >- would I have been allowed to look at the cards ? > >I say yes, but it is nice of you not to do so. > >- are these not penalty cards, as after all, partner of offender COULD >have seen them ? > >To which I read him the part of L50A '... UNLESS the director designates >otherwise' which seems to solve the issue. I believe them to be penalty cards. I grant you that the Law is a teensy-weensy bit ambiguous [not for the first time, did I hear someone mutter] since L49 includes this word "held". I grant you that because of this a TD could designate otherwise under L50A so perhaps it requires custom-and-practice or regulation to determine whether such a card is a penalty card. >Or does it ? > >Indeed L50A says this. >But read L49 : > >Whenever a declarer ... holds a card so that it is possible for his >partner to see its face ... each such card becomes a penalty card. > >Do we have to conclude that L49 only applies to cards actively shown >(led or held) and not to cards exposed inadvertently ? Which means that >these become penalty cards of right and the 'unless ..' in L50A could >never be applied to these (I would never do so, but..). Endicott's >commentary gives no clear examples of when a TD might 'designate >otherwise', apart from some mentions of players deciding among >themselves (and then usually coming up with wrong rulings). > >Any comments ? > We generally follow the line quoted here as Endicott's: we only designate otherwise when the players have been giving each other rulings, and then wrongly. When a TD is called at the proper time then any defender's card that is in a position for partner to see its face is a penalty card, ie we would not designate otherwise. The time to designate otherwise is when players are taking advantage of each other's ignorance, intentionally or not. When you have a penalty card, then you are permitted to know what happens to it so that you can ameliorate the penalty as much as possible: L72A5 gives you that right. So when the play has progressed with no TD being called after the infraction, then something happens and declarer claims his rights [eg lead penalties on the partner] which might have been avoided, it seems that designating otherwise would be a good solution for the TD. I'm not arguing with Herman's practical solution. While I believe they were penalty cards, if you get a friendly sort of situation where no-one appears to want to profit then invoking the "designating otherwise" seems quite a good idea. However I do not really think that that is what the Law means. I hear on the grapevine that this problem has been taken care of in the 1997 Laws so we may only need a stopgap solution. -- 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 Dec 3 05:15:52 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA18866 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 3 Dec 1996 05:15:52 +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 FAA18854 for ; Tue, 3 Dec 1996 05:15:45 +1100 Received: from localhost by flash.irvine.com id aa06051; 2 Dec 96 10:15 PST To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au CC: adam@flash.irvine.com Subject: Re: Test In-reply-to: Your message of "Mon, 02 Dec 1996 09:23:12 PST." <9612020923.aa15095@rna.micros.com> Date: Mon, 02 Dec 1996 10:15:08 PST From: Adam Beneschan Message-ID: <9612021015.aa06051@flash.irvine.com> Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > > > If anyone is reading this, perhaps they would like to answer this. > > How many BLML readers does it take to change a lightbulb? > > Is a change of lightbulb permissible under the current Laws? I think the rules say that players should not change light bulbs themselves, but should call the Director, who will consult the Law book to determine the proper size and wattage. -- Adam From owner-bridge-laws Tue Dec 3 06:23:17 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA21796 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 3 Dec 1996 06:23:17 +1100 Received: from freenet.carleton.ca (root@freenet.carleton.ca [134.117.136.20]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id GAA21791 for ; Tue, 3 Dec 1996 06:23:10 +1100 Received: from freenet5.carleton.ca (ac342@freenet5.carleton.ca [134.117.136.25]) by freenet.carleton.ca (8.8.3/8.6.4) with ESMTP id OAA05759 for ; Mon, 2 Dec 1996 14:23:03 -0500 (EST) Received: (ac342@localhost) by freenet5.carleton.ca (8.8.3/NCF-Sun-Client) id TAA16942; Mon, 2 Dec 1996 19:23:02 GMT Date: Mon, 2 Dec 1996 19:23:02 GMT Message-Id: <199612021923.TAA16942@freenet5.carleton.ca> From: ac342@freenet.carleton.ca (A. L. Edwards) To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Test Reply-To: ac342@freenet.carleton.ca Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > >> >> > If anyone is reading this, perhaps they would like to answer this. >> > How many BLML readers does it take to change a lightbulb? >> >> Is a change of lightbulb permissible under the current Laws? > >I think the rules say that players should not change light bulbs >themselves, but should call the Director, who will consult the Law >book to determine the proper size and wattage. > > -- Adam I believe this is another case of RTFLB--to wit, it is NOT specifically covered, and therefore subject to L90. I would suggest that the lightbulb be thrown out of the game for its disruptive behaviour, and that the director appoint a substitute to replace it. A letter to the C&E committee should recommend permanent expulsion of the offending lightbulb--unless, of course, said luminary has a good lawyer, or friends in High Places. Tony (aka ac342) From owner-bridge-laws Tue Dec 3 07:52:25 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA22185 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 3 Dec 1996 07:52:25 +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 HAA22180 for ; Tue, 3 Dec 1996 07:52:18 +1100 Received: (from smap@localhost) by msri.msri.org (8.8.2/8.7.2) id MAA12910; Mon, 2 Dec 1996 12:52:19 -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 sma012906; Mon Dec 2 12:52:04 1996 Received: by boole.msri.org (8.7/DW.6) id MAA25449; Mon, 2 Dec 1996 12:51:25 -0800 (PST) Date: Mon, 2 Dec 1996 12:51:25 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <199612022051.MAA25449@boole.msri.org> From: David Grabiner To: newsr@blakjak.demon.co.uk CC: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au In-reply-to: (message from David Stevenson on Mon, 2 Dec 1996 02:07:51 +0000) Subject: Re: What is a session? Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Stevenson writes: > Herman De Wael wrote: >> David Stevenson wrote a whole lot : >>> 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. >> No David, you are wrong. >> The result of getting a better score in this manner is effectively that >> of scrapping the board for you altogether. In a Swiss pairs, you will >> never add the 70,50 and 30 together, scoring 50. You are effectively >> playing only one competitor and you have played him over one board less. >> I don't really know how to put my feelings into words, but my intuition >> is very strong here. > All right, test this against your intuition. You play a pairs > tournament, two board rounds, and on one board you get a complete top. > On the other board of the round you get average plus. Does average plus > get you 100%? No. Should it? No. > We do not generally apply the greater than 60% rule against one > competitor but over the full 24-27 boards. So it seems quite wrong to > me for it to be different in Swiss Pairs. The same principle is applied in Swiss Teams if a match is forfeited. On a 20-VP scale, you a minimum of 12 VP's for a forfeit win, but you can instead get the average VP's for the rounds you played in the whole event, or the complement of the average VP's for the rounds the opponents played. -- 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 Dec 3 10:26:15 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA23417 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 3 Dec 1996 10:26:15 +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 KAA23412 for ; Tue, 3 Dec 1996 10:26:06 +1100 Received: (from root@localhost) by tom.compulink.co.uk (8.6.9/8.6.9) id XAA10774 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Mon, 2 Dec 1996 23:25:43 GMT Date: Mon, 2 Dec 96 23:24 GMT0 From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: Test 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: <5Xl$VyA0btoyEwHE@blakjak.demon.co.uk> > If anyone is reading this, perhaps they would like to answer this. > How many BLML readers does it take to change a lightbulb? It doesn't matter. The TD has ruled that the light is still working and we are not empowered to change it (but I'm a bit in the dark as to exactly which point of law applies). Tim From owner-bridge-laws Tue Dec 3 11:01:34 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id LAA23808 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 3 Dec 1996 11:01:34 +1100 Received: from emout19.mail.aol.com (emout19.mx.aol.com [198.81.11.45]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id LAA23803 for ; Tue, 3 Dec 1996 11:01:28 +1100 From: Finesse914@aol.com Received: by emout19.mail.aol.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) id TAA03411 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Mon, 2 Dec 1996 19:00:54 -0500 Date: Mon, 2 Dec 1996 19:00:54 -0500 Message-ID: <961202190053_1185843578@emout19.mail.aol.com> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Test Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In a message dated 96-12-02 18:31:00 EST, Tim writes: << It doesn't matter. The TD has ruled that the light is still working and we are not empowered to change it (but I'm a bit in the dark as to exactly which point of law applies). Tim >> We do need to know the type of light bulb it is. If it's one of those newfangled ones, then I want a committee to determine who is and who isn't empowered to change it. But if it's one of those "Classic" ones, I guess I'm flat out of luck. From owner-bridge-laws Tue Dec 3 11:53:03 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id LAA24077 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 3 Dec 1996 11:53:03 +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 LAA24072 for ; Tue, 3 Dec 1996 11:52:55 +1100 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by relay-9.mail.demon.net id aa912622; 3 Dec 96 0:48 GMT Message-ID: Date: Tue, 3 Dec 1996 00:26:14 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Test In-Reply-To: <9612020923.aa15095@rna.micros.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk >> If anyone is reading this, perhaps they would like to answer this. >> How many BLML readers does it take to change a lightbulb? Chris Miller wrote: >Is a change of lightbulb permissible under the current Laws? Two? One to actually change the lightbulb and one to RTFLB. I know it's not done to quote emails, but I don't suppose the person who sent me this will mind if I do not mention his/her name! -- 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 Dec 3 16:10:56 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id QAA25604 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 3 Dec 1996 16:10:56 +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 QAA25599 for ; Tue, 3 Dec 1996 16:10:49 +1100 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by relay-5.mail.demon.net id ab511894; 3 Dec 96 3:49 GMT Message-ID: <2gbM4NBOL6oyEw0V@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Tue, 3 Dec 1996 03:47:26 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Test In-Reply-To: <5Xl$VyA0btoyEwHE@blakjak.demon.co.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Stevenson wrote: > My apologies. Owing to problems with my ISP and this address I have >been asked by my ISP to make a few test posts within the next day or >two. I shall, of course, link them to this article. > > If anyone is reading this, perhaps they would like to answer this. >How many BLML readers does it take to change a lightbulb? More answers! As with the previous reply, I apologise for quoting emails, but since I have not quoted his/her name in either case, I hope they will forgive me. According to General Electric, in a cute TV ad, the answer is "none" as their lightbulbs "never" fail--then the kid throws the ball and you hear a familiar tinkle. One but he/she must do it with finesse. I think this question is in danger of getting more replies than any previous one asked on BLML! :) -- David Stevenson Bridge Cats Railways Logic /\_/\ Liverpool, England, UK http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk =( ^*^ )= david@blakjak.demon.co.uk Emails welcome bluejak on OKB ( | | ) Tel: +44 (0)151 677 7412 Phone before Fax please RTFLB (_~^ ^~ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Dec 3 19:26:45 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id TAA26665 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 3 Dec 1996 19:26:45 +1100 Received: from relay-7.mail.demon.net (relay-7.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.9]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id TAA26660 for ; Tue, 3 Dec 1996 19:26:38 +1100 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by relay-5.mail.demon.net id ab517907; 3 Dec 96 8:22 GMT Message-ID: Date: Tue, 3 Dec 1996 08:20:19 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Test In-Reply-To: <5Xl$VyA0btoyEwHE@blakjak.demon.co.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Stevenson wrote: > My apologies. Owing to problems with my ISP and this address I have >been asked by my ISP to make a few test posts within the next day or >two. I shall, of course, link them to this article. > > If anyone is reading this, perhaps they would like to answer this. >How many BLML readers does it take to change a lightbulb? > Everyone's mad!! Another one [no attribution as previously explained]. I should RTFLB as a first stab at answering the question, consult with a fellow director when I couldn't find it, have a wild guess, tell you of your right to appeal my ruling -- 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 Dec 3 21:05:30 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id VAA27124 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 3 Dec 1996 21:05:30 +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 VAA27118 for ; Tue, 3 Dec 1996 21:05:20 +1100 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by relay-5.mail.demon.net id aa502053; 3 Dec 96 9:31 GMT Message-ID: <3FOchUBYM$oyEwGN@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Tue, 3 Dec 1996 09:30:00 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Test In-Reply-To: <5Xl$VyA0btoyEwHE@blakjak.demon.co.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Stevenson wrote: > My apologies. Owing to problems with my ISP and this address I have >been asked by my ISP to make a few test posts within the next day or >two. I shall, of course, link them to this article. > > If anyone is reading this, perhaps they would like to answer this. >How many BLML readers does it take to change a lightbulb? No new replies since the last test post: boo, boo. -- 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 Dec 4 03:27:45 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA01446 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 4 Dec 1996 03:27:45 +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 DAA01431 for ; Wed, 4 Dec 1996 03:27:35 +1100 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by relay-5.mail.demon.net id aa515143; 3 Dec 96 16:07 GMT Message-ID: Date: Tue, 3 Dec 1996 15:42:36 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Test In-Reply-To: <5Xl$VyA0btoyEwHE@blakjak.demon.co.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Stevenson wrote: > My apologies. Owing to problems with my ISP and this address I have >been asked by my ISP to make a few test posts within the next day or >two. I shall, of course, link them to this article. > > If anyone is reading this, perhaps they would like to answer this. >How many BLML readers does it take to change a lightbulb? > Is it a conventional lightbulb ? I suppose one player will do if he doesn't take pause for thought, but as soon as he does, the other three will interfere. -- 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 Dec 4 06:59:51 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA10744 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 4 Dec 1996 06:59:51 +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 GAA10739 for ; Wed, 4 Dec 1996 06:59:43 +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 OAA14897; Tue, 3 Dec 1996 14:59:22 -0500 (EST) Received: by cfa183.harvard.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id OAA16708; Tue, 3 Dec 1996 14:59:27 -0500 Date: Tue, 3 Dec 1996 14:59:27 -0500 From: willner@cfa183.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Message-Id: <199612031959.OAA16708@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au, newsr@blakjak.demon.co.uk Subject: Re: What is a session? X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: David Stevenson > Personally I prefer a reading of the definition that means that an > afternoon is a session. Thanks, David, for your usual careful analysis. It occurs to me that the real problem is that we have three time intervals to define but only two words. "Round" is fine. "Session-1" is an afternoon (or evening) -- what most of us informally call a session. "Session-2" is an interval after which scores can be compared: one board in a barometer, seven (or so) in a Swiss, usually 14-16 in a knockout. Ideally the Laws should define a new word for "Session-2" (Any ideas?), and carefully choose among the three words in each Law. I suppose this is an item for the 2010 Laws. From owner-bridge-laws Wed Dec 4 12:39:17 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id MAA13116 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 4 Dec 1996 12:39:17 +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 MAA13111 for ; Wed, 4 Dec 1996 12:39:10 +1100 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by relay-6.mail.demon.net id aa616476; 3 Dec 96 23:39 GMT Message-ID: Date: Tue, 3 Dec 1996 23:36:32 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Test In-Reply-To: <5Xl$VyA0btoyEwHE@blakjak.demon.co.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Stevenson wrote: > My apologies. Owing to problems with my ISP and this address I have >been asked by my ISP to make a few test posts within the next day or >two. I shall, of course, link them to this article. > > If anyone is reading this, perhaps they would like to answer this. >How many BLML readers does it take to change a lightbulb? > Only ten answers! I think the test is now ending, anyway. Cheers! -- 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 Dec 4 22:18:39 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id WAA15689 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 4 Dec 1996 22:18:39 +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 WAA15683 for ; Wed, 4 Dec 1996 22:17:54 +1100 Received: from innet.innet.be (pool03-223.innet.be [194.7.10.223]) by mail.be.innet.net (8.7.6/8.7.3) with SMTP id MAA08089 for ; Wed, 4 Dec 1996 12:17:22 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: <32A56B51.15F5@innet.be> Date: Wed, 04 Dec 1996 12:15:13 +0000 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01 (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: artificial adjusted scores in team play (long and difficult) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Many of the points I will raise in this article are not really aimed at the present rulebook, but should rather be viewed in light of possible rule changes. Some points may also be of value within the present rules. As a background, I would like to tell about a ruling I recently had. : Team match, three matches playing the same boards. Board 17(N/none)=09 * K 9 8 4 3=09 * 3 2=09 * Q J 7 3=09 * A 9=09 * T 5 \ * A Q 2=09 * K Q T 6 4 \ * A 9 8 7=09 * A 9 8 \ * -=09 * Q 8 2 \ * K 7 6 5 4 3=09 * J 7 6 * J 5 * K T 6 5 4 2 * J T W N E S P 1Cl 2D 2H 4S X P P P 2 Diamonds is alerted by north as a major two-suiter, hearts and spades. This corresponds to the actual system, as described on the convention card, and south admits to having made a bidding error. 4Sp doubled is three down, -500. EW claim they have 6 Hearts. I decide that : A- there is no real infraction, apart from a wrong explanation to West; and B- EW are unlikely to get to 6H, so -500 is enough of compensation against -480 (even in team play). At the table, players don=92t really seem to object, but when the other table do score -980, east west decide to appeal. (the 4 other tables score -480)=20 I don=92t know the decision of the AC yet (nor do I care), but I would like to raise a few points. I don=92t think that the actual ruling is in doubt. With a correct explanation (majors), west=92s bidding becomes even more difficult. It is hard to see how they will reach 6H. In the current rules, a mistake in bidding is allowed. However, in particular the dutch NCBO, the NBB, has recently adopted a policy of ruling against bidding mistakes on the first round. They do this by applying L74B1 (=91paying insufficient attention to the game=92).= I need not say that this is debatable. However, the players do seem to agree with this (in effect) rule change that dissalows unfair advantage from this kind of mistake. And I have heard that in the new rules, a similar proposal is being considered. But I do not want to discuss now the legality of such a ruling under the present Laws, nor the desirability of it under new ones. Rather I would like to draw attention to some points of calculation. First of all, something very important must be mentioned. There is no question of an AS under L12C2. Redress can be given in order to take away an undue advantage, but it should be in the form of an Artificial AS as in L12C1. (A+/A-) And then we reach a first consideration about AAS in team play. In pairs=92 play, the result of a board for a competitor is achieved on one table only. In team play however, the competitor=92s score is an aggregat= e of TWO results on the same board. It is my profound opinion (also under current Laws) that the result at the other table MUST remain a factor in the calculation. Here=92s how I would do this : for the table with the artificial AS, a fictitious =91mean=92 score is determined (by some means to be determined= ). The result for the other table is compared to this mean score. For an average plus, I would not add 3IMPs to the comparison, but rather add 100 points to the mean score, and then compare. If the other table reaches the same =91mean=92 score, then the result is the expected +3IMP, but if it differs, the Average =91plus=92 may give only two IMPs in some cases, or even less. Here=92s how this would work in the example above : The =91mean=92 score could for example be arrived at by a =91Butler=92 ty= pe reasoning. Of the five tables, only one managed to bid to 6hearts, so the average score is -580. A simple comparison with the other table would yield 9IMPs (to the offending side, as it happens). The average plus would be calculated by adding another 100 to the mean and then comparing -980 to -680, giving only 7 IMPs. One very important thing first. In calculating the mean score, one should not simply check all other scores. One should check the likely results after the given start of the bidding. In this case, only the likely results after a pass in north (some norths might open this hand), a 1Club opening in East and a South prevented from bidding his diamonds by a system that uses the 2D bid for a major two-suiter. So the TD or the AC should only weigh the likely results from bidding sequences that start pass-1Club-pass. Maybe a 40% or even higher likelyhood of reaching slam from there might be more correct ? And secondly, this board has at some time returned to normal. After the opening lead, everything becomes normal again. In this hand, it seems as if East-West could do better than three down. It is my opinion that their play after that should still count in the final reckoning. We might calculate something like this : - at the moment of the bidding mistake, the =91mean=92 score is considere= d to be 80%(-480) + 20%(-980) =3D -580. - after the storm clears up, the likely result has become 50%(-500) + 50%(-800) =3D -650. (if we consider that three and four down are equally likely) - so the mistake in bidding costs 70 points. - if we rule that every such bidding mistake should cost at least 100 points, we must award an extra 30 points to the non-offenders. - they get a score of -530 - which is compared to the -980 at the other table, to give 10 IMPs That way, the fact of not taking the fourth down trick would cost the non-offenders 3IMPs. Similarly, we would have to consider the same fact if EW do manage to get 4 down, adding the same 30 to the 800. I agree that I am making things difficult here, but I do think this is the way to go if the Laws should provide for Artifical Adjusted Scores on boards that have actually been played. It is as if we simply take part of the bidding process out of the play of the board, and replacing that particular piece with a 60% result. The other part of my arguments, to say that when giving an AAS in team play, we should let the result at the other table stand, should be part of the calculator's arsenal in any case. --=20 Herman DE WAEL =20 Antwerpen Belgium http://www.club.innet.be/~pub02163/index.htm From owner-bridge-laws Thu Dec 5 06:08:26 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA28845 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 5 Dec 1996 06:08:26 +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 GAA28840 for ; Thu, 5 Dec 1996 06:08:19 +1100 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by relay-5.mail.demon.net id aa502922; 4 Dec 96 18:40 GMT Message-ID: Date: Wed, 4 Dec 1996 15:10:08 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: artificial adjusted scores in team play (long and difficult) In-Reply-To: <32A56B51.15F5@innet.be> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Herman De Wael wrote:=20 >Many of the points I will raise in this article are not really aimed at >the present rulebook, but should rather be viewed in light of possible >rule changes. Some points may also be of value within the present rules. > >As a background, I would like to tell about a ruling I recently had. : > >Team match, three matches playing the same boards. >Board 17(N/none) =20 > * K 9 8 4 3 =20 > * 3 2 =20 > * Q J 7 3 =20 > * A 9 =20 >* T 5 \ * A Q 2=20 >* K Q T 6 4 \ * A 9 8 7 =20 >* A 9 8 \ * - =20 >* Q 8 2 \ * K 7 6 5 4 3 =20 > * J 7 6 > * J 5 > * K T 6 5 4 2 > * J T >W N E S > P 1Cl 2D >2H 4S X P >P P > >2 Diamonds is alerted by north as a major two-suiter, hearts and spades. >This corresponds to the actual system, as described on the convention >card, and south admits to having made a bidding error. >4Sp doubled is three down, -500. EW claim they have 6 Hearts. > >I decide that : A- there is no real infraction, apart from a wrong >explanation to West; and B- EW are unlikely to get to 6H, so -500 is >enough of compensation against -480 (even in team play). > >At the table, players don=92t really seem to object, but when the other >table do score -980, east west decide to appeal. (the 4 other tables >score -480)=20 >I don=92t know the decision of the AC yet (nor do I care), but I would >like to raise a few points. > >I don=92t think that the actual ruling is in doubt. With a correct >explanation (majors), west=92s bidding becomes even more difficult. It is >hard to see how they will reach 6H. >In the current rules, a mistake in bidding is allowed. > >However, in particular the dutch NCBO, the NBB, has recently adopted a >policy of ruling against bidding mistakes on the first round. They do >this by applying L74B1 (=91paying insufficient attention to the game=92). I >need not say that this is debatable. > >However, the players do seem to agree with this (in effect) rule change >that dissalows unfair advantage from this kind of mistake. And I have >heard that in the new rules, a similar proposal is being considered. Whatever a number of players may think, bridge is a game of mistakes. =20 It takes a very stupid player not to wish that his opponents make=20 mistakes. It takes a very selfish player to expect to gain whenever his=20 opponents make a mistake. It would not benefit the game to support such=20 a position in the Laws, and the current Laws certainly do not. >But I do not want to discuss now the legality of such a ruling under the >present Laws, nor the desirability of it under new ones. Rather I would >like to draw attention to some points of calculation. > >First of all, something very important must be mentioned. There is no >question of an AS under L12C2. Redress can be given in order to take >away an undue advantage, but it should be in the form of an Artificial >AS as in L12C1. (A+/A-) There is no *undue* advantage, so there is no question of redress. It=20 is perfectly legal to make a mistake where no infraction is involved so=20 there is and can be no redress in the current case. Suppose you have a singleton king of spades. Declarer, a lady playing=20 bridge for the first time, holding seven spades, drops your singleton=20 king offside because she thought that you cashed the ace first round,=20 finessed second round [her teacher had tried to teach her this for=20 finessing for a queen]. Do you expect redress? It is an exactly=20 similar position: she has made a mistake: she has benefited. Now on the board quoted there can be no legal justification for an=20 adjusted score. Normal bridge play, ie bridge play without infractions,=20 does not lead to adjusted scores. However, since the rest of Herman's=20 article seems to be on a different subject, ie how to apply an=20 artificial adjusted score, let us suppose the board was completely=20 different and an artificial adjusted score was suitable. {NB. I expect everyone knows that I like acronyms, but if AAS stands=20 for artificial adjusted score then what do we use for assigned adjusted=20 score?} >And then we reach a first consideration about AAS in team play. In >pairs=92 play, the result of a board for a competitor is achieved on one >table only. In team play however, the competitor=92s score is an aggregate >of TWO results on the same board. It is my profound opinion (also under >current Laws) that the result at the other table MUST remain a factor in >the calculation. The Laws say otherwise. >Here=92s how I would do this : for the table with the artificial AS, a >fictitious =91mean=92 score is determined (by some means to be determined). >The result for the other table is compared to this mean score. For an >average plus, I would not add 3IMPs to the comparison, but rather add >100 points to the mean score, and then compare. If the other table >reaches the same =91mean=92 score, then the result is the expected +3IMP, >but if it differs, the Average =91plus=92 may give only two IMPs in some >cases, or even less. This would perhaps be all right if the Laws meant this, but the Laws=20 are quite clear that this is *not* how ArtASs are to be calculated. =20 Average plus is 3imps. L86A is perfectly clear. Law 86 - In Team Play A. Average Score at IMP Play=20 When the Director chooses to award an artificial adjusted score of 60% (see Law 84) to a non-offending contestant in IMP play, that score is 3 I.M.P.=20 Note the word "is". =20 The rest of this article, which I have not quoted, is a very long,=20 complex and illegal method of computing an ArtAS. I believe that its=20 complexity shows one very good reason why an ArtAS is ruled the way the=20 Laws currently require. If the Law book was changed to take into account scores elsewhere for=20 calculation of an ArtAS then perhaps Herman's method would be correct=20 [to be honest I did not research it in detail] but I suggest we do not=20 worry about it until the Laws are changed that way. --=20 David Stevenson Bridge Cats Railways Logic /\_/\ Liverpool, England, UK http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk =3D( ^*^ )=3D david@blakjak.demon.co.uk Emails welcome bluejak on OKB ( | | ) Tel: +44 (0)151 677 7412 Phone before Fax please RTFLB (_~^ ^~ =20 From owner-bridge-laws Thu Dec 5 07:40:42 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA29178 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 5 Dec 1996 07:40:42 +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 HAA29173 for ; Thu, 5 Dec 1996 07:40:34 +1100 Received: from default (cph58.ppp.dknet.dk [194.192.100.58]) by pip.dknet.dk (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id VAA27275 for ; Wed, 4 Dec 1996 21:40:20 +0100 Message-Id: <199612042040.VAA27275@pip.dknet.dk> Comments: Authenticated sender is From: "Jens & Bodil" Organization: Alesia Software To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Wed, 4 Dec 1996 21:40:58 +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: willner@cfa183.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) > It occurs to me that the real problem is that we have three time > intervals to define but only two words. "Round" is fine. "Session-1" > is an afternoon (or evening) -- what most of us informally call a > session. "Session-2" is an interval after which scores can be > compared: one board in a barometer, seven (or so) in a Swiss, usually > 14-16 in a knockout. Ideally the Laws should define a new word > for "Session-2" (Any ideas?), Excellent piece of systems analysis, Steve. Impresses the old computer scientist. I fully concur. I believe I have heard the word "stanza" used for "Session-2" at the course in Milan in January. But it could well be that it is reserved for "major shift in movement pattern" rather than "interval after which scores can be compared". Anyway, I nominate "stanza". Pursuing a minority interest, in Danish I suggest "sats". > and carefully choose among the three > words in each Law. > > I suppose this is an item for the 2010 Laws. Whenever. -- Jens Brix Christiansen, Denmark From owner-bridge-laws Thu Dec 5 08:26:20 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA29505 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 5 Dec 1996 08:26:20 +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 IAA29500 for ; Thu, 5 Dec 1996 08:26:14 +1100 Received: from cph4.ppp.dknet.dk (cph4.ppp.dknet.dk [194.192.100.4]) by pip.dknet.dk (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id WAA28675 for ; Wed, 4 Dec 1996 22:26:01 +0100 From: Jesper Dybdal To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: What is a session? Date: Wed, 04 Dec 1996 22:25:58 +0100 Organization: at home Message-ID: <32a7eb50.935485@pipmail.dknet.dk> References: <199612042040.VAA27275@pip.dknet.dk> In-Reply-To: <199612042040.VAA27275@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 Wed, 4 Dec 1996 21:40:58 +0100, "Jens & Bodil" wrote: >I believe I have heard the word "stanza" used for "Session-2" at the >course in Milan in January. But it could well be that it is >reserved for "major shift in movement pattern" rather than "interval >after which scores can be compared". Anyway, I nominate "stanza". >Pursuing a minority interest, in Danish I suggest "sats". I support "stanza" and "sats" (that's already 2 out of 5 Danes on BLML - too bad the laws are not created by voting on BLML). -- Jesper Dybdal, Denmark From owner-bridge-laws Thu Dec 5 23:03:06 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA05382 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 5 Dec 1996 23:03:06 +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 XAA05377 for ; Thu, 5 Dec 1996 23:02:59 +1100 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by relay-9.mail.demon.net id aa916797; 5 Dec 96 12:00 GMT Message-ID: Date: Thu, 5 Dec 1996 03:12:21 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au, OKBridge discussion group 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 Thanks for everyone's opinions. Descriptions of the relevant groups and lists now appear on my Homepage at http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk, along with a variety of other things. A humorous article called Porno on the Net has just appeared! -- 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 Dec 5 23:05:36 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA05404 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 5 Dec 1996 23:05:36 +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 XAA05397 for ; Thu, 5 Dec 1996 23:05:29 +1100 Received: from innet.innet.be (pool03-71.innet.be [194.7.10.71]) by mail.be.innet.net (8.7.6/8.7.3) with SMTP id NAA01131 for ; Thu, 5 Dec 1996 13:05:20 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: <32A6C00D.61E@innet.be> Date: Thu, 05 Dec 1996 12:29:01 +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: artificial adjusted scores in team play (long and difficult) References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Stevenson wrote: > > Herman De Wael wrote: > > > > >However, the players do seem to agree with this (in effect) rule change > >that dissalows unfair advantage from this kind of mistake. And I have > >heard that in the new rules, a similar proposal is being considered. > > Whatever a number of players may think, bridge is a game of mistakes. > It takes a very stupid player not to wish that his opponents make > mistakes. It takes a very selfish player to expect to gain whenever his > opponents make a mistake. It would not benefit the game to support such > a position in the Laws, and the current Laws certainly do not. > Whatever you may think, most players are selfish. All may accept that a bidding mistake may land opponents luckily in a good contract, but few accept the kind of bidding mistake like above. What's more, very few players would object to a rule that would disallow their gaining from an obvious mistake in their first round of bidding. But as I already said : > >But I do not want to discuss now the legality of such a ruling under the > >present Laws, nor the desirability of it under new ones. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.club.innet.be/~pub02163/index.htm From owner-bridge-laws Thu Dec 5 23:05:39 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA05409 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 5 Dec 1996 23:05:39 +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 XAA05398 for ; Thu, 5 Dec 1996 23:05:30 +1100 Received: from innet.innet.be (pool03-71.innet.be [194.7.10.71]) by mail.be.innet.net (8.7.6/8.7.3) with SMTP id NAA01136 for ; Thu, 5 Dec 1996 13:05:23 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: <32A6C2E5.7C83@innet.be> Date: Thu, 05 Dec 1996 12:41:09 +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: artificial adjusted scores in team play (long and difficult) References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Stevenson wrote: > > > {NB. I expect everyone knows that I like acronyms, but if AAS stands > for artificial adjusted score then what do we use for assigned adjusted > score?} > Sorry David, in Dutch these two have different first letters. Do give us two acronyms, please. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.club.innet.be/~pub02163/index.htm From owner-bridge-laws Thu Dec 5 23:05:53 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA05435 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 5 Dec 1996 23:05:53 +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 XAA05415 for ; Thu, 5 Dec 1996 23:05:41 +1100 Received: from innet.innet.be (pool03-71.innet.be [194.7.10.71]) by mail.be.innet.net (8.7.6/8.7.3) with SMTP id NAA01140 for ; Thu, 5 Dec 1996 13:05:26 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: <32A6C358.455B@innet.be> Date: Thu, 05 Dec 1996 12:43:04 +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: artificial adjusted scores in team play (long and difficult) References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Stevenson wrote: >=20 > Herman De Wael wrote: >=20 > >And then we reach a first consideration about AAS in team play. In > >pairs=92 play, the result of a board for a competitor is achieved on o= ne > >table only. In team play however, the competitor=92s score is an aggre= gate > >of TWO results on the same board. It is my profound opinion (also unde= r > >current Laws) that the result at the other table MUST remain a factor = in > >the calculation. >=20 > The Laws say otherwise. >=20 A) Where ? L86A to me simply says that 60% =3D 3IMP B) As I said, if it is not in the current laws, then it should be in the next. --=20 Herman DE WAEL =20 Antwerpen Belgium http://www.club.innet.be/~pub02163/index.htm From owner-bridge-laws Thu Dec 5 23:05:56 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA05440 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 5 Dec 1996 23:05:56 +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 XAA05431 for ; Thu, 5 Dec 1996 23:05:49 +1100 Received: from innet.innet.be (pool03-71.innet.be [194.7.10.71]) by mail.be.innet.net (8.7.6/8.7.3) with SMTP id NAA01158 for ; Thu, 5 Dec 1996 13:05:39 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: <32A6C5F6.6F2E@innet.be> Date: Thu, 05 Dec 1996 12:54:14 +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: artificial adjusted scores in team play (long and difficult) References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I have cut up David's replies in several new postings, here's a final reply to his general arguments : David Stevenson wrote: > > The rest of this article, which I have not quoted, is a very long, agreed > complex agreed > and illegal method of computing an ArtAS. but not illegal. The imfamous footnote says that an AC can do whatever it wishes to restore 'equity'. I think this is a very 'equitable' way of going about reaching a fair result, that takes into account every aspect of the 'uninterrupted' play of the hand : - the auction up to south's mistake; - the play of the hand after everything becomes clear again; - the play at the other table, which is totally unafected by the ruling at one table. I believe that if AC's can choose between Artificial and Assigned scores, they should be able to do so without being bothered that the Artificial one makes the result of the other table null and void. And yet again, if it's not in the current Laws, then it's an idea for the next ones. > I believe that its > complexity shows one very good reason why an ArtAS is ruled the way the > Laws currently require. Thinking that way leads to strange results : the current set of Laws on bidding out of turn is too complex : let's change it to the death penalty. > > If the Law book was changed to take into account scores elsewhere for > calculation of an ArtAS then perhaps Herman's method would be correct > [to be honest I did not research it in detail] but I suggest we do not > worry about it until the Laws are changed that way. > And see them changed to something completely different, so that we can continue for another 12 years discussing how the laws conradict themselves ? Ah David, where would BLML be without our regular differences of opinion ? But please believe me, I like the discussions !!! I hope the others agree, or they might yet throw us of BLML ! -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.club.innet.be/~pub02163/index.htm From owner-bridge-laws Fri Dec 6 01:58:49 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA09145 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 6 Dec 1996 01:58:49 +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 BAA09140 for ; Fri, 6 Dec 1996 01:58:44 +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 JAA21860 for ; Thu, 5 Dec 1996 09:58:30 -0500 (EST) Received: by cfa183.harvard.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id JAA17420; Thu, 5 Dec 1996 09:58:42 -0500 Date: Thu, 5 Dec 1996 09:58:42 -0500 From: willner@cfa183.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Message-Id: <199612051458.JAA17420@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: artificial adjusted scores in team play (long and difficult) X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk From: Herman De Wael > What's more, very few > players would object to a rule that would disallow their gaining from an > obvious mistake in their first round of bidding. Count me as one who would object. Unless we consider intent, a bidding mistake is indistinguishable from a psych. I don't believe score adjustments (as distinguished from conduct penalties) ought to consider intent. Thus if we penalize bidding mistakes, we are in effect outlawing psychs. Some would like that, of course, but I don't. From owner-bridge-laws Fri Dec 6 02:40:23 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA09689 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 6 Dec 1996 02:40:23 +1100 Received: from laplace.math.ntu.edu.tw (yangboy@math.ntu.edu.tw [140.112.50.160]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id CAA09680 for ; Fri, 6 Dec 1996 02:40:10 +1100 Received: by laplace.math.ntu.edu.tw (4.1/SMI-4.1) id AA28592; Thu, 5 Dec 96 23:39:59 CST Date: Thu, 5 Dec 96 23:39:59 CST From: yangboy@math.ntu.edu.tw (B.Y.) Message-Id: <9612051539.AA28592@laplace.math.ntu.edu.tw> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au In-Reply-To: <199612051458.JAA17420@cfa183.harvard.edu> (willner@cfa183.harvard.edu) Subject: Re: artificial adjusted scores in team play (long and difficult) Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Re: the attempt to punish mistakes in bidding. A flame follows. It is almost always best to assume the worst from any large organisation, and the Ayatollahs are not an exception. Here, this is a transparent attempt to restrict systems further from cowards. +---------------------------------------------------------------------------+ |"Complaints [against systems] emanates from [...] (1) low IQ, (2) Smugness,| | (3) Laziness, or (4) Fear of Loss of Prestige." ... Waldemar von Zedtwitz | | >> Professor WHO??, Bridge Enthusiast (yangboy@cauchy.math.ntu.edu.tw) << | +---------------------------------------------------------------------------+ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Dec 6 06:05:10 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA18549 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 6 Dec 1996 06:05:10 +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 GAA18544 for ; Fri, 6 Dec 1996 06:05:03 +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 OAA24088 for ; Thu, 5 Dec 1996 14:04:58 -0500 (EST) Received: by cfa183.harvard.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id OAA17510; Thu, 5 Dec 1996 14:05:10 -0500 Date: Thu, 5 Dec 1996 14:05:10 -0500 From: willner@cfa183.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Message-Id: <199612051905.OAA17510@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: artificial adjusted scores in team play (long and difficult) X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: Herman De Wael > Team match, three matches playing the same boards. > Board 17(N/none) > * K 9 8 4 3 > * 3 2 > * Q J 7 3 > * A 9 > * T 5 \ * A Q 2 > * K Q T 6 4 \ * A 9 8 7 > * A 9 8 \ * - > * Q 8 2 \* K 7 6 5 4 3 > * J 7 6 > * J 5 > * K T 6 5 4 2 > * J T > W N E S > P 1Cl 2D > 2H 4S X P > P P > > 2 Diamonds is alerted by north as a major two-suiter, hearts and spades. > This corresponds to the actual system, as described on the convention > card, and south admits to having made a bidding error. > I decide that : A- there is no real infraction, apart from a wrong > explanation to West; It seems to me that you dismiss this infraction far too easily. Had a correct explanation been given, West would probably double or something. In the actual auction, West intends 2H as natural, but East no doubt takes it as a cue or notrump probe or something. I don't know whether EW would have reached slam if a correct explanation had been given, but at least they would have been on the same page during the auction. In the US, I think it should be fairly automatic for the TD to rule NS -980. An AC would have to consider the EW methods after a correct explanation of the 2D bid and estimate the likelihood that EW would in fact reach slam. A split score is a possible outcome. > It is my profound opinion (also under > current Laws) that the result at the other table MUST remain a factor in > the calculation. This would seem a desirable feature. After all, if somebody goes for 1700 on a part score deal, arguing about whether the adjusted score at the other table should be -50 or +110 shouldn't matter very much. It hardly seems right to throw out the board and award the non- offenders 3 IMPs. From owner-bridge-laws Fri Dec 6 23:25:37 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA24681 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 6 Dec 1996 23:25:37 +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 XAA24676 for ; Fri, 6 Dec 1996 23:25:25 +1100 Received: from innet.innet.be (pool03-248.innet.be [194.7.10.248]) by mail.be.innet.net (8.7.6/8.7.3) with SMTP id NAA24109 for ; Fri, 6 Dec 1996 13:25:07 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: <32A81A80.3E44@innet.be> Date: Fri, 06 Dec 1996 13:07:12 +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: artificial adjusted scores in team play (long and difficult) References: <199612051458.JAA17420@cfa183.harvard.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Steve Willner wrote: > > From: Herman De Wael > > What's more, very few > > players would object to a rule that would disallow their gaining from an > > obvious mistake in their first round of bidding. > > Count me as one who would object. Unless we consider intent, a bidding > mistake is indistinguishable from a psych. I don't believe score > adjustments (as distinguished from conduct penalties) ought to consider > intent. Thus if we penalize bidding mistakes, we are in effect > outlawing psychs. Some would like that, of course, but I don't. There are two completely different concepts here : (a-) the LOL who through a bidding mistake lands in an inferior contract that makes, whereas the superior contract fails. Every player accepts this. (b-) the 'better' player who wants to play more difficult systems, and then forgets his own system. Meanwhile, opponents are prevented from reaching a normal contract. This sort of thing happens many times over : a particular bid is explained as Ghestem, suits A and B. the explanation is correct, but bidder has in fact A and C. In just less than half of the cases, partner has a preference for A, and non-offenders fail to find their fit in suit B. In the Netherlands, this has happened far too often with Ghestem mistakes, and players HAVE come to object against it. The very same players who would not object against point (a-), do object against (b-). This is a trend which I fear will not be stoppable. Don't forget that whereas the LOL has done nothing wrong, the 'better' player has at least done something 'wrong' : he has agreed with partner to play a system which he does not fully know. He is not obliged to play Ghestem. And Steve, do you really like to score a top in 4S on a 3-2 fit after your partner makes a bidding error, preventing opponents from finding a cold 6H ? I certainly don't like this, and I an one who would not object to a rule change. You are talking as a Director, not as a player, I'm afraid. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.club.innet.be/~pub02163/index.htm From owner-bridge-laws Fri Dec 6 23:26:33 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA24701 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 6 Dec 1996 23:26:33 +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 XAA24675 for ; Fri, 6 Dec 1996 23:25:17 +1100 Received: from innet.innet.be (pool03-248.innet.be [194.7.10.248]) by mail.be.innet.net (8.7.6/8.7.3) with SMTP id NAA24120 for ; Fri, 6 Dec 1996 13:25:10 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: <32A81B37.A8A@innet.be> Date: Fri, 06 Dec 1996 13:10:15 +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: artificial adjusted scores in team play (long and difficult) References: <9612051539.AA28592@laplace.math.ntu.edu.tw> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk B.Y. wrote: > > Re: the attempt to punish mistakes in bidding. A flame follows. > I don't respond to flames, but this one is so elegant ... > It is almost always best to assume the worst from any large > organisation, and the Ayatollahs are not an exception. Here, this is > a transparent attempt to restrict systems further from cowards. > No, there is no attempt to restrict systems. It would be very strange to suspect the Dutch of trying to restrict systems. But if you do play a system, you should be barred from making mistakes against it, at least in it's basic forms. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.club.innet.be/~pub02163/index.htm From owner-bridge-laws Sat Dec 7 11:27:35 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id LAA00960 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 7 Dec 1996 11:27:35 +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 LAA00955 for ; Sat, 7 Dec 1996 11:27:27 +1100 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by relay-10.mail.demon.net id ab1008619; 7 Dec 96 0:22 GMT Message-ID: Date: Sat, 7 Dec 1996 00:19:47 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: artificial adjusted scores in team play (long and difficult) In-Reply-To: <199612051905.OAA17510@cfa183.harvard.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Steve Willner wrote: >> From: Herman De Wael >> Team match, three matches playing the same boards. >> Board 17(N/none) >> * K 9 8 4 3 >> * 3 2 >> * Q J 7 3 >> * A 9 >> * T 5 \ * A Q 2 >> * K Q T 6 4 \ * A 9 8 7 >> * A 9 8 \ * - >> * Q 8 2 \* K 7 6 5 4 3 >> * J 7 6 >> * J 5 >> * K T 6 5 4 2 >> * J T >> W N E S >> P 1Cl 2D >> 2H 4S X P >> P P >> >> 2 Diamonds is alerted by north as a major two-suiter, hearts and spades. >> This corresponds to the actual system, as described on the convention >> card, and south admits to having made a bidding error. > >> I decide that : A- there is no real infraction, apart from a wrong >> explanation to West; > >It seems to me that you dismiss this infraction far too easily. Had a >correct explanation been given, West would probably double or >something. In the actual auction, West intends 2H as natural, but East >no doubt takes it as a cue or notrump probe or something. I don't know >whether EW would have reached slam if a correct explanation had been >given, but at least they would have been on the same page during the >auction. > >In the US, I think it should be fairly automatic for the TD to rule NS >-980. An AC would have to consider the EW methods after a correct >explanation of the 2D bid and estimate the likelihood that EW would in >fact reach slam. A split score is a possible outcome. EW got a correct explanation of the 2D bid: that's what all the fuss is about. > >> It is my profound opinion (also under >> current Laws) that the result at the other table MUST remain a factor in >> the calculation. > >This would seem a desirable feature. After all, if somebody goes for >1700 on a part score deal, arguing about whether the adjusted score >at the other table should be -50 or +110 shouldn't matter very much. >It hardly seems right to throw out the board and award the non- >offenders 3 IMPs. -- David Stevenson david@blakjak.demon.co.uk Humour: New article Porno on the Net on http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk Also other funny articles, and cats, bridge and general articles Cat and railway engine pictures much improved now! From owner-bridge-laws Sat Dec 7 11:30:48 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id LAA00977 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 7 Dec 1996 11:30:48 +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 LAA00972 for ; Sat, 7 Dec 1996 11:30:40 +1100 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by relay-9.mail.demon.net id aa924195; 7 Dec 96 0:22 GMT Message-ID: Date: Sat, 7 Dec 1996 00:19:35 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: artificial adjusted scores in team play (long and difficult) In-Reply-To: <32A6C5F6.6F2E@innet.be> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Herman De Wael wrote: >I have cut up David's replies in several new postings, here's a final >reply to his general arguments : > >David Stevenson wrote: >> >> The rest of this article, which I have not quoted, is a very long, > >agreed > >> complex > >agreed > >> and illegal method of computing an ArtAS. > >but not illegal. The imfamous footnote says that an AC can do whatever >it wishes to restore 'equity'. I think this is a very 'equitable' way of >going about reaching a fair result, that takes into account every aspect >of the 'uninterrupted' play of the hand : >- the auction up to south's mistake; >- the play of the hand after everything becomes clear again; >- the play at the other table, which is totally unafected by the ruling >at one table. >I believe that if AC's can choose between Artificial and Assigned >scores, they should be able to do so without being bothered that the >Artificial one makes the result of the other table null and void. > >And yet again, if it's not in the current Laws, then it's an idea for >the next ones. I do not accept that it is legal under the footnote to L12C2. This discussion is concerned with a L12C1 ruling, which is not covered by the footnote. Whatever its legality, present or future, I think it is an awful idea. You can go overboard on this fairness kick, and to introduce impractical ideas for great heights of fairness is not desirable. Suppose that it is included in a future Lawbook that a TD is required at teams to consider the score at the other table, and the part of the bidding and play at the original table in his calculations. OK, we have seen how Herman would do it. He appears to me to be the best person we have on BLML for complex calculation, and if I wanted a complex calculation done I should approach him. Unfortunately we are now going to consider a ruling in Wenduine, where a local TD has to grapple with such a case. Will she be able to? It's a very important case because it may decide the second division of the Blankenberge and District teams league. So, you get the picture? Despite one or two fatuosities in the Laws, it is important that we remember the Laws are not just designed for World championships, ACBL A flights, European Championships and readers of BLML. The Laws are for everyone. They are already very difficult for local TDs to grapple with, which is why the EBU, WBU and SBU spend so much money on training TDs at club level, and we do not want things that considerably complicate for small gains. This is apart from the judgement involved. At the moment, assigned score rulings fall into two types: those where we amend a final score under L12C2 and give an AssAS: those where the result on the board is not obtained [or we decide to cancel it and treat it as not obtained] and give an ArtAS under L12C1. It seems to me another very great leap to start considering things on boards where there is no result or we deem there to be no result. I hope it is clear that I have only two disagreements with Herman, not three. I believe that it is unfair for people not to be allowed to make a mess of their system and garner their 15% of lucky boards to go with their 50% of terrible boards: I believe it is basically a matter of education: if people saw it that way then they would probably agree. I believe that a L12C1 ruling may not take any notice of what happened at the table under the current Law book and should not under any future Law book. However, allowing for a result actually obtained at the other table, while probably illegal under the current Law book, is a case where I could be persuaded fairly easily that a change in the Law to move away from this automatic 3imps would be a good idea. Don't tell anyone, but there is one particular case where a certain authority that I am not mentioning does make such an allowance. Presumably it is legal under some Law or other ... >> I believe that its >> complexity shows one very good reason why an ArtAS is ruled the way the >> Laws currently require. > >Thinking that way leads to strange results : the current set of Laws on >bidding out of turn is too complex : let's change it to the death >penalty. Hehe. The Laws on bidding out of turn may be too complex, but they are able to be applied by a trained TD. I believe your suggestions would move beyond the grasp of many trained TDs, and certainly way beyond ACs. >> If the Law book was changed to take into account scores elsewhere for >> calculation of an ArtAS then perhaps Herman's method would be correct >> [to be honest I did not research it in detail] but I suggest we do not >> worry about it until the Laws are changed that way. >And see them changed to something completely different, so that we can >continue for another 12 years discussing how the laws conradict >themselves ? Yes, I am sorry, I should have reacted more positively to your first suggestion. Just because I believe a thing to be illegal is not a good enough argument not to discuss it. >Ah David, where would BLML be without our regular differences of opinion >? >But please believe me, I like the discussions !!! > >I hope the others agree, or they might yet throw us of BLML ! It is difficult to believe that anyone who does not like arguing about Bridge Laws is actually reading BLML! -- David Stevenson david@blakjak.demon.co.uk Humour: New article Porno on the Net on http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk Also other funny articles, and cats, bridge and general articles Cat and railway engine pictures much improved now! From owner-bridge-laws Sat Dec 7 11:48:18 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id LAA01019 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 7 Dec 1996 11:48:18 +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 LAA01014 for ; Sat, 7 Dec 1996 11:48:12 +1100 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by relay-5.mail.demon.net id aa519157; 7 Dec 96 0:22 GMT Message-ID: Date: Sat, 7 Dec 1996 00:19:21 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: artificial adjusted scores in team play (long and difficult) In-Reply-To: <32A6C2E5.7C83@innet.be> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Herman De Wael wrote: >David Stevenson wrote: >> >> >> {NB. I expect everyone knows that I like acronyms, but if AAS stands >> for artificial adjusted score then what do we use for assigned adjusted >> score?} >> > >Sorry David, in Dutch these two have different first letters. >Do give us two acronyms, please. It is difficult to give something which people look at and immediately realise what it is [which is my view of what acronyms are for] that is any shorter than ArtAS and AssAS, IMO. In my view this is the simple sort of thing that law-makers should avoid. No end of TDs have confused these two ideas, and having such similar names helps the confusion. -- David Stevenson david@blakjak.demon.co.uk Humour: New article Porno on the Net on http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk Also other funny articles, and cats, bridge and general articles Cat and railway engine pictures much improved now! From owner-bridge-laws Sat Dec 7 12:25:35 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id MAA01130 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 7 Dec 1996 12:25:35 +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 MAA01125 for ; Sat, 7 Dec 1996 12:25:30 +1100 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by relay-5.mail.demon.net id aa500244; 7 Dec 96 1:24 GMT Message-ID: Date: Sat, 7 Dec 1996 01:16:48 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: artificial adjusted scores in team play (long and difficult) In-Reply-To: <32A6C358.455B@innet.be> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Herman De Wael wrote:=20 >David Stevenson wrote: >>=20 >> Herman De Wael wrote: >>=20 >> >And then we reach a first consideration about AAS in team play. In >> >pairs=92 play, the result of a board for a competitor is achieved on one >> >table only. In team play however, the competitor=92s score is an aggreg= ate >> >of TWO results on the same board. It is my profound opinion (also under >> >current Laws) that the result at the other table MUST remain a factor in >> >the calculation. >>=20 >> The Laws say otherwise. >>=20 > >A) Where ? L86A to me simply says that 60% =3D 3IMP L12C1 defines an ArtAS and directs you to L86A for teams. If you give=20 an Average Plus, that is 3 imps by this definition. --=20 David Stevenson david@blakjak.demon.co.uk Humour: New article Porno on the Net on http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk Also other funny articles, and cats, bridge and general articles Cat and railway engine pictures much improved now! From owner-bridge-laws Sat Dec 7 12:44:20 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id MAA01193 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 7 Dec 1996 12:44:20 +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 MAA01188 for ; Sat, 7 Dec 1996 12:44:14 +1100 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by relay-6.mail.demon.net id aa604199; 7 Dec 96 0:22 GMT Message-ID: Date: Sat, 7 Dec 1996 00:19:09 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: artificial adjusted scores in team play (long and difficult) In-Reply-To: <32A81A80.3E44@innet.be> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Herman De Wael wrote: >Steve Willner wrote: >> >> From: Herman De Wael > >> > What's more, very few >> > players would object to a rule that would disallow their gaining from an >> > obvious mistake in their first round of bidding. >> >> Count me as one who would object. Unless we consider intent, a bidding >> mistake is indistinguishable from a psych. I don't believe score >> adjustments (as distinguished from conduct penalties) ought to consider >> intent. Thus if we penalize bidding mistakes, we are in effect >> outlawing psychs. Some would like that, of course, but I don't. > >There are two completely different concepts here : > >(a-) the LOL who through a bidding mistake lands in an inferior contract >that makes, whereas the superior contract fails. Every player accepts >this. > >(b-) the 'better' player who wants to play more difficult systems, and >then forgets his own system. Meanwhile, opponents are prevented from >reaching a normal contract. > >This sort of thing happens many times over : > >a particular bid is explained as Ghestem, suits A and B. the explanation >is correct, but bidder has in fact A and C. In just less than half of >the cases, partner has a preference for A, and non-offenders fail to >find their fit in suit B. > >In the Netherlands, this has happened far too often with Ghestem >mistakes, and players HAVE come to object against it. The very same >players who would not object against point (a-), do object against (b-). > >This is a trend which I fear will not be stoppable. > >Don't forget that whereas the LOL has done nothing wrong, the 'better' >player has at least done something 'wrong' : he has agreed with partner >to play a system which he does not fully know. He is not obliged to play >Ghestem. > >And Steve, do you really like to score a top in 4S on a 3-2 fit after >your partner makes a bidding error, preventing opponents from finding a >cold 6H ? >I certainly don't like this, and I an one who would not object to a rule >change. > >You are talking as a Director, not as a player, I'm afraid. Count me as one who is happy to accept a top in 4S. When my partner and I have a complete mess then usually we get a bad board, occasionally a good one. I do not think it unfair for my 15% of good boards to try to balance my 50% of bad ones. Ghestem is a special case. A special regulation for Ghestem only would be acceptable to me because there are so many problems, but to make it such that every time a player opens 1NT on the wrong point-count because he has forgotten his range, he cannot get a good score seems against the whole spirit of playing a card game that has a reasonable luck factor, a feature of all card games [except one, of course]. My feelings as expressed here are player based. I believe that system mistakes are very much part of the tussle. -- David Stevenson david@blakjak.demon.co.uk Humour: New article Porno on the Net on http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk Also other funny articles, and cats, bridge and general articles Cat and railway engine pictures much improved now! From owner-bridge-laws Sat Dec 7 13:03:06 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id NAA01239 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 7 Dec 1996 13:03:06 +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 NAA01234 for ; Sat, 7 Dec 1996 13:03:00 +1100 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by relay-10.mail.demon.net id aa1028041; 7 Dec 96 2:00 GMT Message-ID: Date: Sat, 7 Dec 1996 01:47:56 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: artificial adjusted scores in team play (long and difficult) In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Stevenson wrote: >Steve Willner wrote: > >>> From: Herman De Wael >>> Team match, three matches playing the same boards. >>> Board 17(N/none) >>> * K 9 8 4 3 >>> * 3 2 >>> * Q J 7 3 >>> * A 9 >>> * T 5 \ * A Q 2 >>> * K Q T 6 4 \ * A 9 8 7 >>> * A 9 8 \ * - >>> * Q 8 2 \* K 7 6 5 4 3 >>> * J 7 6 >>> * J 5 >>> * K T 6 5 4 2 >>> * J T >>> W N E S >>> P 1Cl 2D >>> 2H 4S X P >>> P P >>> >>> 2 Diamonds is alerted by north as a major two-suiter, hearts and spades. >>> This corresponds to the actual system, as described on the convention >>> card, and south admits to having made a bidding error. >> >>> I decide that : A- there is no real infraction, apart from a wrong >>> explanation to West; >> >>It seems to me that you dismiss this infraction far too easily. Had a >>correct explanation been given, West would probably double or >>something. In the actual auction, West intends 2H as natural, but East >>no doubt takes it as a cue or notrump probe or something. I don't know >>whether EW would have reached slam if a correct explanation had been >>given, but at least they would have been on the same page during the >>auction. >> >>In the US, I think it should be fairly automatic for the TD to rule NS >>-980. An AC would have to consider the EW methods after a correct >>explanation of the 2D bid and estimate the likelihood that EW would in >>fact reach slam. A split score is a possible outcome. > > EW got a correct explanation of the 2D bid: that's what all the fuss >is about. Reset brain. Because of one thing and another I rather skimmed through the first part of Herman's offering, and failed to realise there was a screen involved. After all, Herman's problem was not about the ruling on the actual hand, and screens are generally straight! I seem to have read the words "corresponds to the actual system" and "no real infraction" and little else! Sorry Steve. Given that East had a correct explanation of the partnership methods, and West had an explanation of the partnership methods which while incorrect was actually helpful, there is not one chance in a thousand that EW would have reached the slam if West had been correctly informed. They were not damaged, and since there is not even the slightest possibility, I would have thought that even an ACBL TD, working under different interpretations, would rule no damage and therefore no adjustment on this one, and the AC would, I trust, routinely keep the $50. -- David Stevenson david@blakjak.demon.co.uk Humour: New article Porno on the Net on http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk Also other funny articles, and cats, bridge and general articles Cat and railway engine pictures much improved now! From owner-bridge-laws Sat Dec 7 22:55:34 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id WAA03393 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 7 Dec 1996 22:55:34 +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 WAA03388 for ; Sat, 7 Dec 1996 22:55:27 +1100 Received: from innet.innet.be (pool03-74.innet.be [194.7.10.74]) by mail.be.innet.net (8.7.6/8.7.3) with SMTP id MAA19038 for ; Sat, 7 Dec 1996 12:55:13 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: <32A9664A.32D0@innet.be> Date: Sat, 07 Dec 1996 12:42:50 +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: artificial adjusted scores in team play (long and difficult) References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Stevenson wrote: > > > I do not accept that it is legal under the footnote to L12C2. This > discussion is concerned with a L12C1 ruling, which is not covered by the > footnote. > You may be right, but my suggestion here is to treat the A+ 'ruling' as an artificial score after all. That is how I reach the very strange -530 score. Then it is L12C2, and thus legally permitted. > Whatever its legality, present or future, I think it is an awful idea. > You can go overboard on this fairness kick, and to introduce impractical > ideas for great heights of fairness is not desirable. > [parts about Belgian coastal regions snipped] You are right, of course. My whole argument may be too difficult for the average TD. But it might be possible to give a guideline such as : When attributing an ArtAS in team play, the TD shall determine an average score to be used in the comparison with the actual result at the other table. If the ArtAS is an 'average plus', this average score shall be augmented by 100 points before the comparison, for an 'average minus', 100 points shall be deducted. The TD shall inform both sides that they may appeal his determination of the average score. Is this so difficult ? Other points in a different posting. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.club.innet.be/~pub02163/index.htm From owner-bridge-laws Sat Dec 7 22:55:58 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id WAA03409 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 7 Dec 1996 22:55:58 +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 WAA03403 for ; Sat, 7 Dec 1996 22:55:47 +1100 Received: from innet.innet.be (pool03-74.innet.be [194.7.10.74]) by mail.be.innet.net (8.7.6/8.7.3) with SMTP id MAA19043 for ; Sat, 7 Dec 1996 12:55:15 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: <32A96873.DAA@innet.be> Date: Sat, 07 Dec 1996 12:52:03 +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: artificial adjusted scores in team play (long and difficult) References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Stevenson wrote: > > > Count me as one who is happy to accept a top in 4S. When my partner > and I have a complete mess then usually we get a bad board, > occasionally a good one. I do not think it unfair for my 15% of good > boards to try to balance my 50% of bad ones. > This is the usual argument, and I agree completely. However : > Ghestem is a special case. A special regulation for Ghestem only > would be acceptable to me because there are so many problems, but to > make it such that every time a player opens 1NT on the wrong point-count > because he has forgotten his range, he cannot get a good score seems > against the whole spirit of playing a card game that has a reasonable > luck factor, a feature of all card games [except one, of course]. > > My feelings as expressed here are player based. I believe that system > mistakes are very much part of the tussle. > There are indeed two different cases, and the difference does not reside in the LOL vs expert. In the usual case of a mistake providing a top, there is no recourse to the Laws anyway. If somebody miscounts and Ace and then makes a grand slam with a missing Ace, the misinformation (actually correct explanation) does not normally affect the opponents' decision. You will not defend your not leading an Ace by saying that they explained they had all aces, would you ? In the Ghestem case however, it can happen that the wrong explanation of the actual holdings DOES interfere with non-offenders bidding. I would suggest that in this case the score for the offenders should be brought back to the 'normal' score (-not a L12C2 but my new type of L12C1-) ie. an equitable result that would be normal if opponents had received a correct description of the hand as the mistaken bidder had intended to describe it. With some more argumentation, I do believe we could work out a definition for the distinction between those kinds of mistakes that can remain 'unpunished' and those that we may find less acceptable. Hands up those who might agree on such a distinction. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.club.innet.be/~pub02163/index.htm From owner-bridge-laws Sun Dec 8 02:35:00 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA07081 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 8 Dec 1996 02:35:00 +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 CAA07076 for ; Sun, 8 Dec 1996 02:34:49 +1100 Received: from cph53.ppp.dknet.dk (cph53.ppp.dknet.dk [194.192.100.53]) by pip.dknet.dk (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id QAA27834 for ; Sat, 7 Dec 1996 16:34:32 +0100 From: Jesper Dybdal To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: artificial adjusted scores in team play (long and difficult) Date: Sat, 07 Dec 1996 16:34:22 +0100 Organization: at home Message-ID: <32a98b31.1201307@pipmail.dknet.dk> References: <32A96873.DAA@innet.be> In-Reply-To: <32A96873.DAA@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 Sat, 07 Dec 1996 12:52:03 +0000, Herman De Wael wrote: >In the usual case of a mistake providing a top, there is no recourse to >the Laws anyway. If somebody miscounts and Ace and then makes a grand >slam with a missing Ace, the misinformation (actually correct >explanation) does not normally affect the opponents' decision. You will >not defend your not leading an Ace by saying that they explained they >had all aces, would you ? No, but I could defend not trying to guess _partner's_ ace by saying that they explained they had all the aces. >With some more argumentation, I do believe we could work out a >definition for the distinction between those kinds of mistakes that can >remain 'unpunished' and those that we may find less acceptable. You still need to solve the problem of distinguishing between a psyche and a misbid. I believe there are many players who will suddenly be able to convince themselves that their bid was a deliberate psyche. >Hands up those who might agree on such a distinction. I do not agree. I believe that as long as psyches are allowed at all (and I don't want psyches banned), we cannot and should not in any situation take away a good score received by making a call contrary to the system. Players have an obligation to _explain_ their system correctly, not to play it correctly, and I believe that those rules are reasonable and consistent. It is true that sometimes players feel cheated; the TD then has to explain carefully that no player is required to be able to bid correctly, and that most often a misbid will give a good score to the opponents. It is my impression that most players can understand and accept that when it is explained to them. -- Jesper Dybdal, Denmark From owner-bridge-laws Sun Dec 8 03:45:18 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA07346 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 8 Dec 1996 03:45:18 +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 DAA07341 for ; Sun, 8 Dec 1996 03:45:08 +1100 Received: (from root@localhost) by tom.compulink.co.uk (8.6.9/8.6.9) id QAA26589 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Sat, 7 Dec 1996 16:44:41 GMT Date: Sat, 7 Dec 96 16:44 GMT0 From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: artificial adjusted scores in team play (long and difficult) 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 (in response to Herman's post) wrote: > Now on the board quoted there can be no legal justification for anð > adjusted score. Normal bridge play, ie bridge play without infractions,ð > does not lead to adjusted scores. I am in full agreement with David's point about mistakes and adjusted scores. I make enough mistakes when playing bridge to find the idea that I could never benefit from them truly appalling. (There might be a claim on the given hand on UI or concealed understanding grounds but please, never, never, never on the "can't make a mistake and get lucky ticket.") I would have no objection to the tournament organisers stating that players must be fully aware of their conventions and that lapses will be punished (either by a ruling on the board or requiring that a "standard" system be adopted for the remainder of play). If people wish to play under these regulations that would be their choice - but imposing such regulation without prior warning is IMO a gross breach of the current laws. > Law 86 - In Team Play > > A. Average Score at IMP Playð > When the Director chooses to award an artificial adjusted score of > 60% (see Law 84) to a non-offending contestant in IMP play, that > score is 3 I.M.P.ð > > > > Note the word "is". > ð > The rest of this article, which I have not quoted, is a very long,ð > complex and illegal method of computing an ArtAS. I believe that itsð > complexity shows one very good reason why an ArtAS is ruled the way theð > Laws currently require. I also agree with David on his interpretation that if the director assigns an A+ then the minimum the non-offending side can score on a board is 3imps. However, let us try the following scenario (made deliberately extreme). At one table East removes North's cards from the board and looks at them rendering the hand unplayable. The director is called, and arrives after a few minutes (he was at another table) and rules A+/A-. At the other table meanwhile EW bid and make a vulnerable 7NT on the same hand (thanks to North leading C2 from QJT,QJT,QJT,J432). It is here that an award of a mere 3imps to the non-offenders looks absurd. Since my reading of L12c1 is that the director *may* assign an ArtAS of more than 60% (at least 60% to non-offending side) then Herman's approach could provide the basis for such a calculation. IMO a change in the law so that the result at the other table was always taken into account would be a good thing for restoring equity (but KISS if possible). Until then the result can only be taken into account if it was particularly good for the non-offenders. Tim West-Meads From owner-bridge-laws Sun Dec 8 22:45:51 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id WAA09607 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 8 Dec 1996 22:45:51 +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 WAA09602 for ; Sun, 8 Dec 1996 22:45:42 +1100 Received: from default (cph17.ppp.dknet.dk [194.192.100.17]) by pip.dknet.dk (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id MAA12838 for ; Sun, 8 Dec 1996 12:45:31 +0100 Message-Id: <199612081145.MAA12838@pip.dknet.dk> Comments: Authenticated sender is From: "Jens & Bodil" Organization: Alesia Software To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Sun, 8 Dec 1996 12:46:13 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: You must explain your system correctly Priority: normal X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v2.42a) Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In a different thread, currently very much active, I read > From: Jesper Dybdal > > Players have an obligation to _explain_ their system correctly, not to > play it correctly, and I believe that those rules are reasonable and > consistent. I agree with Jesper here. Let me, however, expound on the definition of "their system", based on some material that I learned on the EBL International TD course this past January. I shall use a case from a recent Danish 1st division match. (Sorry, I do not have the actual hands on me). North opens 1NT. South has a game-going hand with 3 spades,4 hearts, 1 low diamond, and a decent 5-card club suit. The bidding goes as follows: N E S W 1NT - 2C 2D - 3D 3H - 4H - - - EW's diamond bids are natural; N's pass denies a 4-card major, and his bid of 4H is to play (holding 3 hearts, as it were). E inquires before the opening bid about declarer's holding and is informed that he has shown 4 spades, 5 hearts, and a game-going hand. Eventually E misdefends by switching to clubs rather than spades after cashing his diamond trick. I was called because S did not hold a hand corresponding to N's explanation. I questioned S about his choice of bid, and he said that under the circumstances he had no other bid to make, although he agreed that with N that their system agreement was that he was showing 5 hearts and 4 spades; 3 clubs, it seems, would not be forcing in this auction. I am pretty sure that NS can show me written material supporting N's explanation; this would support a ruling that S misbid, and thus there would be no irregularity that could end up in redress to EW. However, in Milan we were taught to treat this as evidence that NS are not playing the system they have written down, even though it was obvious that North was surprised at South's holding. Consequently, I informed South that he should have corrected his partner's explanation before the opening lead, perhaps with a remark like "in this auction, there are other holdings where I have no choice but to bid 4H"; I ruled that his failure to do so damaged EW, and I adjusted the score, allowing E to find the spade switch, etc. This ruling was appealed, but (primarily) on the grounds that my "at all probable" score was too harsh for the defenders; the committee is still at work on this. ============== It would seem that my ruling here is precariously close to "thou shalt not benefit from a misbid". Some of the esteemed readers might find that "you did not explain your actual system" is word magic used to conceal that I am really ruling against benefitting from a misbid. When offering your opinions, bear in mind that the match is between two top Danish teams, both of which include Olympic Bronze medalists (although not some of them are not from 1996), so LOL-protection is not an issue here. -- Jens Brix Christiansen, Denmark From owner-bridge-laws Mon Dec 9 01:52:25 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA13000 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 9 Dec 1996 01:52:25 +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 BAA12995 for ; Mon, 9 Dec 1996 01:51:53 +1100 Received: from innet.innet.be (pool03-223.innet.be [194.7.10.223]) by mail.be.innet.net (8.7.6/8.7.3) with SMTP id PAA24659 for ; Sun, 8 Dec 1996 15:51:28 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: <32AAB358.42D6@innet.be> Date: Sun, 08 Dec 1996 12:23:52 +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: artificial adjusted scores in team play (long and difficult) References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Tim West-meads wrote: > > At one table East removes North's cards from the board and looks at them > rendering the hand unplayable. The director is called, and arrives after a few > minutes (he was at another table) and rules A+/A-. At the other table > meanwhile EW bid and make a vulnerable 7NT on the same hand (thanks to North > leading C2 from QJT,QJT,QJT,J432). > > It is here that an award of a mere 3imps to the non-offenders looks absurd. > > Since my reading of L12c1 is that the director *may* assign an ArtAS of more > than 60% (at least 60% to non-offending side) then Herman's approach could > provide the basis for such a calculation. > > IMO a change in the law so that the result at the other table was always taken > into account would be a good thing for restoring equity (but KISS if possible). > Until then the result can only be taken into account if it was particularly > good for the non-offenders. > > Tim West-Meads Good example. (almost) Exactly what I was saying. But why just the non-offenders ? At the other table, both pairs are non-offenders. My idea is to let their result stand no matter what. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.club.innet.be/~pub02163/index.htm From owner-bridge-laws Mon Dec 9 06:12:45 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA21854 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 9 Dec 1996 06:12:45 +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 GAA21843 for ; Mon, 9 Dec 1996 06:12:34 +1100 Received: (from root@localhost) by tom.compulink.co.uk (8.6.9/8.6.9) id TAA06151 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Sun, 8 Dec 1996 19:12:12 GMT Date: Sun, 8 Dec 96 19:11 GMT0 From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: You must explain your system correctly 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: <199612081145.MAA12838@pip.dknet.dk> Jens Brix Christiansen, Denmark wrote: > 3 clubs, it seems, would not be forcing in this auction. and sufficient? > It would seem that my ruling here is precariously close to "thou > shalt not benefit from a misbid". Some of the esteemed readers might > find that "you did not explain your actual system" is word magic used > to conceal that I am really ruling against benefitting from a misbid. > When offering your opinions, bear in mind that the match is between > two top Danish teams, both of which include Olympic Bronze medalists > (although not some of them are not from 1996), so LOL-protection is > not an issue here. I, for one, can see a clear distinction here. It was not a "normal" misbid but a deliberate decison to make an anti-system bid as no other bid was available. Since it sounds highly likely that his partner would have made the same bid on the given auction a cetain level of partnership understanding can surely be assumed. At this level the players should have sufficient grasp of the both the laws and the weaknesses of their own system to give a warning to oppos. Obviously if the system notes showed that a different bid would have expressed the given hand then (as a pro-mistaker) I would not support your ruling. Indeed if the original explanation had been "Without the 3D bid would show..., but we haven't discussed this particular sequence" then your ruling would not be my choice as oppos had IMO sufficient opportunity then to protect themselves. Tim West-Meads From owner-bridge-laws Mon Dec 9 06:12:45 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA21855 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 9 Dec 1996 06:12:45 +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 GAA21844 for ; Mon, 9 Dec 1996 06:12:37 +1100 Received: (from root@localhost) by tom.compulink.co.uk (8.6.9/8.6.9) id TAA06164 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Sun, 8 Dec 1996 19:12:14 GMT Date: Sun, 8 Dec 96 19:11 GMT0 From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: artificial adjusted scores in team play (long and difficult) 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: <32AAB358.42D6@innet.be> Herman De Wael wrote: > But why just the non-offenders ? At the other table, both pairs are > non-offenders. (Unfortunately) L86 uses the term "non-offending contestant" and I have read elsewhere that a "contestant" at teams is the entire team. > My idea is to let their result stand no matter what. So this would require a change in the law (IMO for the better, but that's a different matter). Tim West-Meads From owner-bridge-laws Mon Dec 9 06:19:30 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA21914 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 9 Dec 1996 06:19:30 +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 GAA21909 for ; Mon, 9 Dec 1996 06:19:23 +1100 Received: from cph39.ppp.dknet.dk (cph39.ppp.dknet.dk [194.192.100.39]) by pip.dknet.dk (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id UAA20758 for ; Sun, 8 Dec 1996 20:19:14 +0100 From: Jesper Dybdal To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: You must explain your system correctly Date: Sun, 08 Dec 1996 20:19:08 +0100 Organization: at home Message-ID: <32b20178.9332419@pipmail.dknet.dk> References: <199612081145.MAA12838@pip.dknet.dk> In-Reply-To: <199612081145.MAA12838@pip.dknet.dk> X-Mailer: Forte Agent .99g/32.339 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Sun, 8 Dec 1996 12:46:13 +0100, "Jens & Bodil" wrote: >I am pretty sure that NS can show me written material supporting N's >explanation; this would support a ruling that S misbid, and thus >there would be no irregularity that could end up in redress to EW. >However, in Milan we were taught to treat this as evidence that NS >are not playing the system they have written down, even though it was >obvious that North was surprised at South's holding. This situation is different from the most common use of the word "misbid": the problem here is not that S failed to choose the systematically correct bid, but that the system did not have a bid to describe his hand. The problem is not S's bid, but N's failure to explain that S could have a hand that was impossible to show. This very interesting subject boils down to the question: how large "holes" are you allowed to have in your system without telling your opponents about them? A slightly different and much more common example is 1C from me, 1H from LHO, 1S from partner, pass. Unfortunately, I sometimes have a 2-3-4-4 distribution with three small hearts, and the system has no bid for that hand - 1N shows a heart stopper, 2C shows a 5-suit, 2D shows 5-4 in the minors and strength. In practice, I choose between 1N and 2C, depending on the quality of the clubs. If my partner is asked what my 1N or 2C means, he should of course remember to say that there are hands which cannot be shown in that situation - but should we adjust against him if he neglects to do that? Should he alert 1N or 2C, so that the opponents can get a chance to ask? - and should we adjust if he does not alert and nobody asks? (My own answers to these last three questions are currently maybe, no, and no - and I'd like to hear if anybody has different answers.) Some years ago I ruled a situation where a player had opened 2C, the system's only forcing opening. Partner had a quite strong one-suited spade hand. However, their system offered no way to show a positive one-suited hand, so the partner made a positive response that showed a quite different kind of hand, and they ended up in a bad contract which won because the opponents got the defense wrong, not expecting a good 6-card spade suit (I don't remember the details, unfortunately). On that occasion, I adjusted the score because I believe that if your system makes it impossible to show such an ordinary hand in response to a forcing opening, then you have to tell the opponents that. I believe it was appealed and that the AC (which was the Danish National AC) changed the ruling to let the original result stand - but my memory of that could be wrong. -- Jesper Dybdal, Denmark From owner-bridge-laws Tue Dec 10 10:44:55 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA09908 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 10 Dec 1996 10:44:55 +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 KAA09903 for ; Tue, 10 Dec 1996 10:44:47 +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 SAA29787; Mon, 9 Dec 1996 18:44:21 -0500 (EST) Received: by cfa183.harvard.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id SAA00606; Mon, 9 Dec 1996 18:44:28 -0500 Date: Mon, 9 Dec 1996 18:44:28 -0500 From: willner@cfa183.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Message-Id: <199612092344.SAA00606@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au, jd@pip.dknet.dk Subject: Re: You must explain your system correctly X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: Jesper Dybdal > This situation is different from the most common use of the word > "misbid": the problem here is not that S failed to choose the > systematically correct bid, but that the system did not have a bid to > describe his hand. The problem is not S's bid, but N's failure to > explain that S could have a hand that was impossible to show. This is an important distinction and a good lesson for all of us. If a player claims the result should stand because it was a misbid, not a misexplanation, we should ask "What is the systemically correct call with your hand?" If there is none, the explanation of the call chosen ought to have included the possibility of the hand actually held. A common situation here in the US is 1H-1NT (forcing). Now opener's 2m rebid should show three cards, 2H should show six, and anything higher should show extra values. Unfortunately, I sometimes get dealt a 4-5-2-2 minimum. Unless acceptable evidence specifically proves misbid in this case, I think we should rule misexplanation if the situation occurs and this possibility was not mentioned. From owner-bridge-laws Wed Dec 11 04:56:40 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA23470 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 11 Dec 1996 04:56:40 +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 EAA23465 for ; Wed, 11 Dec 1996 04:56:31 +1100 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by relay-10.mail.demon.net id aa1006993; 10 Dec 96 17:52 GMT Message-ID: <3tBcbvCoyXryEwcy@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Tue, 10 Dec 1996 15:07:20 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: You must explain your system correctly In-Reply-To: <199612092344.SAA00606@cfa183.harvard.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Steve Willner wrote: >> From: Jesper Dybdal >> This situation is different from the most common use of the word >> "misbid": the problem here is not that S failed to choose the >> systematically correct bid, but that the system did not have a bid to >> describe his hand. The problem is not S's bid, but N's failure to >> explain that S could have a hand that was impossible to show. > >This is an important distinction and a good lesson for all of us. If a >player claims the result should stand because it was a misbid, not a >misexplanation, we should ask "What is the systemically correct call >with your hand?" If there is none, the explanation of the call chosen >ought to have included the possibility of the hand actually held. > >A common situation here in the US is 1H-1NT (forcing). Now opener's 2m >rebid should show three cards, 2H should show six, and anything higher >should show extra values. Unfortunately, I sometimes get dealt a >4-5-2-2 minimum. Unless acceptable evidence specifically proves misbid >in this case, I think we should rule misexplanation if the situation >occurs and this possibility was not mentioned. I agree with Steve. Why am I bothering to post this? Those who have been with us from the early days have some idea how often this happens. Must be his Xmas present! -- David Stevenson david@blakjak.demon.co.uk My Homepage at http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk is still developing See my Cat User manual, or the Czech Railway engine, or the description of bridge Newsgroups, or the sadness and joy of Rainbow Bridge. From owner-bridge-laws Wed Dec 11 11:27:54 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id LAA00643 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 11 Dec 1996 11:27:54 +1100 Received: from msri.org (msri.org [198.129.64.224]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id LAA00638 for ; Wed, 11 Dec 1996 11:27:47 +1100 Received: (from smap@localhost) by msri.org (8.8.2/8.7.2) id QAA15781 for ; Tue, 10 Dec 1996 16:27:43 -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 sma015770; Tue Dec 10 16:27:00 1996 Received: by boole.msri.org (8.7/DW.6) id QAA27929; Tue, 10 Dec 1996 16:26:22 -0800 (PST) Date: Tue, 10 Dec 1996 16:26:22 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <199612110026.QAA27929@boole.msri.org> From: David Grabiner To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Insufficient cue-bid Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk RHO opened 1D, and then I pulled the 1D card out of my box and saw the problem too late. The director ruled that the insufficient bid was not conventional, although the required correction might be, so partner would not be barred if I rebid 2D. (This is a problem we have already discussed.) The follow-up was more interesting. Partner asked whether he could take an inference from the withdrawn 1D bid, and was told that he could However, if partner took the 2D bid as natural, a bid which couldn't be made without the irregularity, it would seem that Law 27B1(b) would apply: If the Director judges that the insufficient bid conveyed such substantial information as to damage the non-offending side, he shall assign an adjusted score. This seems to be the equivalent of the usual rule that an adjusted score may be awarded if the offender could have known that the infraction would work to his advantage, but it isn't as clear; it makes the situation look like the withdrawn bid is AI but may be penalized as UI if it makes a difference. I then had a further problem. I knew from partner's question to the director that he intended to take 2D as natural, and given my Michaels hand, that was likely to get us to some doubled diamond contract. However, I treated this as UI; I would have assumed that 2D should still be Michaels, and would have bid it, so I went ahead with the bid rather than bidding 3H to bar partner. How would you deal with these problems? From owner-bridge-laws Wed Dec 11 13:28:40 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id NAA02875 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 11 Dec 1996 13:28:40 +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 NAA02870 for ; Wed, 11 Dec 1996 13:28:32 +1100 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by relay-9.mail.demon.net id aa915825; 11 Dec 96 2:26 GMT Message-ID: Date: Wed, 11 Dec 1996 02:23:01 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Insufficient cue-bid In-Reply-To: <199612110026.QAA27929@boole.msri.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Grabiner wrote: >RHO opened 1D, and then I pulled the 1D card out of my box and saw the >problem too late. > >The director ruled that the insufficient bid was not conventional, >although the required correction might be, so partner would not be >barred if I rebid 2D. (This is a problem we have already discussed.) > >The follow-up was more interesting. Partner asked whether he could take >an inference from the withdrawn 1D bid, and was told that he could >However, if partner took the 2D bid as natural, a bid which couldn't be >made without the irregularity, it would seem that Law 27B1(b) would >apply: > >If the Director judges that the insufficient bid conveyed such >substantial information as to damage the non-offending side, he shall >assign an adjusted score. > >This seems to be the equivalent of the usual rule that an adjusted >score may be awarded if the offender could have known that the >infraction would work to his advantage, but it isn't as clear; it makes >the situation look like the withdrawn bid is AI but may be penalized as >UI if it makes a difference. Yes, that's about right. The difference of this Law from other ones is that it apparently is to correct unfortunate happenings as well as deliberate: that is why it is somewhat different. >I then had a further problem. I knew from partner's question to the >director that he intended to take 2D as natural, and given my Michaels >hand, that was likely to get us to some doubled diamond contract. >However, I treated this as UI; I would have assumed that 2D should still >be Michaels, and would have bid it, so I went ahead with the bid rather >than bidding 3H to bar partner. It seems from what you have said that the TD may have not informed you correctly. The 2D is a natural bid, and that is AI for all four players, and a competent TD will tell you so. >How would you deal with these problems? The general approach is for the players to be made aware that correction to the lowest sufficient bid is to be considered natural by all four players under L16C. If, as a result, they reach a contract that the TD feels they would not have reached without the insufficient bid, he rules it back under L27B1B, and some warning to that effect should be made. This is understood to cover the very rare case where a player might perceive some advantage in making an insufficient bid, and the somewhat commoner case where a player might accidentally get such an advantage. -- David Stevenson david@blakjak.demon.co.uk My Homepage at http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk is still developing See my Cat User manual, or the Czech Railway engine, or the description of bridge Newsgroups, or the sadness and joy of Rainbow Bridge. From owner-bridge-laws Wed Dec 11 18:21:45 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id SAA03792 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 11 Dec 1996 18:21:45 +1100 Received: from lionfish.jcu.edu.au (lionfish.jcu.edu.au [137.219.16.119]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id SAA03787 for ; Wed, 11 Dec 1996 18:21:28 +1100 Received: from localhost by lionfish.jcu.edu.au with SMTP id AA08159 (5.65v3.2/IDA-1.5); Wed, 11 Dec 1996 17:20:56 +1000 Date: Wed, 11 Dec 1996 17:20:55 +1000 (EST) From: Laurence Kelso1 Reply-To: Laurence Kelso1 To: David Grabiner Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Insufficient cue-bid In-Reply-To: <199612110026.QAA27929@boole.msri.org> Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Tue, 10 Dec 1996, David Grabiner wrote: > > RHO opened 1D, and then I pulled the 1D card out of my box and saw the > problem too late. > > The director ruled that the insufficient bid was not conventional, > although the required correction might be, so partner would not be > barred if I rebid 2D. (This is a problem we have already discussed.) > > The follow-up was more interesting. Partner asked whether he could take > an inference from the withdrawn 1D bid, and was told that he could > However, if partner took the 2D bid as natural, a bid which couldn't be > made without the irregularity, it would seem that Law 27B1(b) would > apply: > > If the Director judges that the insufficient bid conveyed such > substantial information as to damage the non-offending side, he shall > assign an adjusted score. > > This seems to be the equivalent of the usual rule that an adjusted > score may be awarded if the offender could have known that the > infraction would work to his advantage, but it isn't as clear; it makes > the situation look like the withdrawn bid is AI but may be penalized as > UI if it makes a difference. > > I then had a further problem. I knew from partner's question to the > director that he intended to take 2D as natural, and given my Michaels > hand, that was likely to get us to some doubled diamond contract. > However, I treated this as UI; I would have assumed that 2D should still > be Michaels, and would have bid it, so I went ahead with the bid rather > than bidding 3H to bar partner. > > How would you deal with these problems? I think the whole problem arrises because of the initial Directors decision to not treat your 1D action as conventional. You intended to make a conventional overcall (michaels) and you held a michaels type hand. How can your insufficient bid be "incontravertably non-conventional"? Of-course your partner will assume that your correction to 2D is natural. This is authorised information for everyone. Law 27B1(b) comes into opperation only if it turns out to be advantageous to show a real diamond suit when it would have been impossible without the original infraction. Laurie From owner-bridge-laws Thu Dec 12 02:22:36 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA09824 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 12 Dec 1996 02:22:36 +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 CAA09819 for ; Thu, 12 Dec 1996 02:22:28 +1100 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by relay-6.mail.demon.net id aa621858; 11 Dec 96 14:11 GMT Message-ID: Date: Wed, 11 Dec 1996 14:06:31 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Insufficient cue-bid In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Laurence Kelso1 wrote: >On Tue, 10 Dec 1996, David Grabiner wrote: >> RHO opened 1D, and then I pulled the 1D card out of my box and saw the >> problem too late. >I think the whole problem arrises because of the initial Directors >decision to not treat your 1D action as conventional. You intended to make >a conventional overcall (michaels) and you held a michaels type hand. How >can your insufficient bid be "incontravertably non-conventional"? As I understood the problem David was going to bid 1D initially. You seem to have read it differently. If you assume he was going to bid 1D initially, then it is an interesting problem of a type. If he was intending to bid 2D, then it is a less interesting problem and clear Director error. -- David Stevenson david@blakjak.demon.co.uk My Homepage at http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk is still developing See my Cat User manual, or the Czech Railway engine, or the description of bridge Newsgroups, or the sadness and joy of Rainbow Bridge. From owner-bridge-laws Thu Dec 12 08:47:14 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA19688 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 12 Dec 1996 08:47:14 +1100 Received: from msri.org (msri.org [198.129.64.224]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id IAA19683 for ; Thu, 12 Dec 1996 08:47:06 +1100 Received: (from smap@localhost) by msri.org (8.8.2/8.7.2) id NAA26445; Wed, 11 Dec 1996 13:46:54 -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 sma026439; Wed Dec 11 13:46:45 1996 Received: by boole.msri.org (8.7/DW.6) id NAA28488; Wed, 11 Dec 1996 13:46:09 -0800 (PST) Date: Wed, 11 Dec 1996 13:46:09 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <199612112146.NAA28488@boole.msri.org> From: David Grabiner To: newsr@blakjak.demon.co.uk CC: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au In-reply-to: (message from David Stevenson on Wed, 11 Dec 1996 14:06:31 +0000) Subject: Re: Insufficient cue-bid Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Stevenson writes: > Laurence Kelso1 wrote: >> On Tue, 10 Dec 1996, David Grabiner wrote: >>> RHO opened 1D, and then I pulled the 1D card out of my box and saw the >>> problem too late. >> I think the whole problem arrises because of the initial Directors >> decision to not treat your 1D action as conventional. You intended to make >> a conventional overcall (michaels) and you held a michaels type hand. How >> can your insufficient bid be "incontravertably non-conventional"? > As I understood the problem David was going to bid 1D initially. You > seem to have read it differently. If you assume he was going to bid 1D > initially, then it is an interesting problem of a type. If he was > intending to bid 2D, then it is a less interesting problem and clear > Director error. I intended to bid 2D over 1D, but pulled the wrong card. Is the director allowed to check my hand to see whether the insufficient bad was conventional? (And even then, it is 2D that would be conventional, not the 1D that I bid, but we've discussed this problem already.) -- 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 Dec 12 11:19:48 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id LAA20264 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 12 Dec 1996 11:19:48 +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 LAA20259 for ; Thu, 12 Dec 1996 11:19:41 +1100 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by relay-9.mail.demon.net id ab920952; 12 Dec 96 0:14 GMT Message-ID: Date: Wed, 11 Dec 1996 22:24:18 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Abbreviations MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk ABF Australian Bridge Federation AC Appeals committee ACBL American Contract Bridge League AI Authorised information ArtAS Artificial adjusted score AssAS Assigned adjusted score BBL British Bridge League BLML Bridge-laws mailing list BoD Board of directors [ACBL] BoG Board of governors [ACBL] BTW By the way C&E Conduct and ethics [often hearings] CC Convention card CPU Concealed partnership understanding CTD Chief Tournament director DBF Danish Bridge Federation DIC Director in charge EBL European Bridge League EBU English Bridge Union IMHO In my humble opinion [included under protest] IMO In my opinion LA Logical alternative L&EC Laws & Ethics Committee [English, Welsh or Scottish] Lnn Law number nn LOOT Lead-Out-Of-Turn MI Misinformation NABC ACBL North American Bridge Championships NBO National Bridge organisation NCBO National Contract Bridge organisation NG Newsgroup NIBU Northern Ireland Bridge Union NO Non-offender NP No problem OKB OKBridge PP Procedural penalty RGB rec.games.bridge [newsgroup] r.g.b. rec.games.bridge [newsgroup] RGBO rec.games.bridge.okbridge [newsgroup] rgbo rec.games.bridge.okbridge [newsgroup] RLB Real Life Bridge [to distinguish from OKBridge] RoC Rule of coincidence RTFLB Read the [fabulous] Law book! SBU Scottish Bridge Union SO Sponsoring organisation TBW The Bridge World [magazine] TD Tournament director TDic Tournament director in charge UI Unauthorised information WBF World Bridge Federation WBU Welsh Bridge Union -- David Stevenson david@blakjak.demon.co.uk My Homepage at http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk is still developing See my Cat User manual, or the Czech Railway engine, or the description of bridge Newsgroups, or the sadness and joy of Rainbow Bridge. From owner-bridge-laws Thu Dec 12 12:55:11 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id MAA20719 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 12 Dec 1996 12:55:11 +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 MAA20714 for ; Thu, 12 Dec 1996 12:55:00 +1100 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by relay-10.mail.demon.net id ab1005907; 12 Dec 96 1:52 GMT Message-ID: Date: Thu, 12 Dec 1996 01:36:46 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Insufficient cue-bid In-Reply-To: <199612112146.NAA28488@boole.msri.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Grabiner wrote: >David Stevenson writes: > >> Laurence Kelso1 wrote: > >>> On Tue, 10 Dec 1996, David Grabiner wrote: > >>>> RHO opened 1D, and then I pulled the 1D card out of my box and saw the >>>> problem too late. > >>> I think the whole problem arrises because of the initial Directors >>> decision to not treat your 1D action as conventional. You intended to make >>> a conventional overcall (michaels) and you held a michaels type hand. How >>> can your insufficient bid be "incontravertably non-conventional"? > >> As I understood the problem David was going to bid 1D initially. You >> seem to have read it differently. If you assume he was going to bid 1D >> initially, then it is an interesting problem of a type. If he was >> intending to bid 2D, then it is a less interesting problem and clear >> Director error. > >I intended to bid 2D over 1D, but pulled the wrong card. Is the >director allowed to check my hand to see whether the insufficient bad >was conventional? (And even then, it is 2D that would be conventional, >not the 1D that I bid, but we've discussed this problem already.) > Oh well, the TD got it wrong, and I stand corrected. No, he is *not* allowed to check your hand: looking at players' hands is a total no-no for a competent TD because of the UI he creates. I take people away from the table and ask them. It was a more interesting problem if you had intended to bid 1D! -- David Stevenson david@blakjak.demon.co.uk My Homepage at http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk is still developing See my Cat User manual, or the Czech Railway engine, or the description of bridge Newsgroups, or the sadness and joy of Rainbow Bridge. From owner-bridge-laws Thu Dec 12 12:56:56 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id MAA20743 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 12 Dec 1996 12:56:56 +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 MAA20738 for ; Thu, 12 Dec 1996 12:56:47 +1100 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by relay-9.mail.demon.net id aa911057; 12 Dec 96 1:51 GMT Message-ID: Date: Thu, 12 Dec 1996 00:49:03 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Law 25B MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk This email from David Sharp, an EBU TD, reproduced with permission. David - an opinion would be welcome S W N E 1C 4H P 5D(1) P 6C(2) P(3) P(4) 1 cue agreeing hearts 2 cue 3 Lots of questions 4 distracted!..... followed 3 seconds later by "Oh dear I didn't mean that!" So, you decide, wrongly or wrongly, that this isn't a mechanical error, (east claimed that he was trying to produce an alert card, not a pass, but he'd already produced it when his partner bid 6C, and that it can't be changed without a penalty. Should you now apply Law 25B and let him bid 6H? Best regards, David -- David Stevenson david@blakjak.demon.co.uk My Homepage at http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk is still developing See my Cat User manual, or the Czech Railway engine, or the description of bridge Newsgroups, or the sadness and joy of Rainbow Bridge. From owner-bridge-laws Thu Dec 12 17:52:25 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id RAA22631 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 12 Dec 1996 17:52:25 +1100 Received: from lionfish.jcu.edu.au (lionfish.jcu.edu.au [137.219.16.119]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id RAA22621 for ; Thu, 12 Dec 1996 17:52:14 +1100 Received: from localhost by lionfish.jcu.edu.au with SMTP id AA06830 (5.65v3.2/IDA-1.5); Thu, 12 Dec 1996 16:51:54 +1000 Date: Thu, 12 Dec 1996 16:51:54 +1000 (EST) From: Laurence Kelso1 To: David Stevenson Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Law 25B In-Reply-To: Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Thu, 12 Dec 1996, David Stevenson wrote: > This email from David Sharp, an EBU TD, reproduced with permission. > > David - an opinion would be welcome > > S W N E > 1C 4H P 5D(1) > P 6C(2) P(3) P(4) > > 1 cue agreeing hearts > 2 cue > 3 Lots of questions > 4 distracted!..... followed 3 seconds later by "Oh dear I didn't mean > that!" > > So, you decide, wrongly or wrongly, that this isn't a mechanical error, > (east claimed that he was trying to produce an alert card, not a pass, but > he'd already produced it when his partner bid 6C, and that it can't be > changed without a penalty. > > Should you now apply Law 25B and let him bid 6H? No - to apply 25B, east needs to have substituted another call, or at least attempted one. The end result is very harsh - I would probably have allowed a correction under 25A - but that decision was made before the problem was framed. Laurie From owner-bridge-laws Fri Dec 13 10:05:57 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA08442 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 13 Dec 1996 10:05:57 +1100 Received: from lionfish.jcu.edu.au (lionfish.jcu.edu.au [137.219.16.119]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id KAA08437 for ; Fri, 13 Dec 1996 10:05:52 +1100 Received: from localhost by lionfish.jcu.edu.au with SMTP id AA18356 (5.65v3.2/IDA-1.5); Fri, 13 Dec 1996 09:04:45 +1000 Date: Fri, 13 Dec 1996 09:04:44 +1000 (EST) From: Laurence Kelso1 To: Herman De Wael Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Law 25B In-Reply-To: <32B02A1C.7C7B@innet.be> Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Thu, 12 Dec 1996, Herman De Wael wrote: > Laurence Kelso1 wrote: > > > > > > > > Should you now apply Law 25B and let him bid 6H? > > > > No - to apply 25B, east needs to have substituted another call, or at > > least attempted one. > > > > Isn't 'Oh dear I didn't mean that' an attempt at correction ? > 25B is headed "If a call is substituted when section A does not apply:" Without a call I don't see how much of 25B can be used. 25B2(b)(2) is obviously what one would like to quote as a basis for allowing the correction to 6H, however I am not convinced that the pre-requisite conditions (i.e. a substituted call) exist. Laurie From owner-bridge-laws Fri Dec 13 10:17:47 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA08584 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 13 Dec 1996 10:17:47 +1100 Received: from lionfish.jcu.edu.au (lionfish.jcu.edu.au [137.219.16.119]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id KAA08579 for ; Fri, 13 Dec 1996 10:17:42 +1100 Received: from localhost by lionfish.jcu.edu.au with SMTP id AA25715 (5.65v3.2/IDA-1.5); Fri, 13 Dec 1996 09:17:17 +1000 Date: Fri, 13 Dec 1996 09:17:17 +1000 (EST) From: Laurence Kelso1 To: Eric Landau Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Law 25B In-Reply-To: <1.5.4.32.19961212134032.00678390@cais.com> Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Thu, 12 Dec 1996, Eric Landau wrote: > At 04:51 PM 12/12/96 +1000, you wrote: > > >On Thu, 12 Dec 1996, David Stevenson wrote: > > > >> S W N E > >> 1C 4H P 5D(1) > >> P 6C(2) P(3) P(4) > >> > >> 1 cue agreeing hearts > >> 2 cue > >> 3 Lots of questions > >> 4 distracted!..... followed 3 seconds later by "Oh dear I didn't mean > >> that!" > >> > >> So, you decide, wrongly or wrongly, that this isn't a mechanical error, > >> (east claimed that he was trying to produce an alert card, not a pass, but > >> he'd already produced it when his partner bid 6C, and that it can't be > >> changed without a penalty. > >> > >> Should you now apply Law 25B and let him bid 6H? > > > >The end result is very harsh - I would probably have allowed a correction > >under 25A - but that decision was made before the problem was framed. > > L25A clearly does not apply here, and shouldn't. E passed because he was > "distracted", which caused him to mishear, misperceive or misremember the > auction. At the point when he passed, he presumably thought that the > auction had already reached 6H. Thus he "intended" to pass; his putting out > the pass card was a voluntary action. L25A covers "involuntary" calls; it > would apply here only if E (could convince the TD that he) was reaching for > the 6H card intending to bid 6H, but pulled the P card out by accident. I agree 25A doesn't apply in the scenarios you describe. Grabbing a pass card instead of an alert card is a mechanical error. Laurie From owner-bridge-laws Fri Dec 13 11:34:51 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id LAA09195 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 13 Dec 1996 11:34:51 +1100 Received: from mimas.glo.be (dns.glo.be [206.48.177.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id LAA09190 for ; Fri, 13 Dec 1996 11:34:43 +1100 Received: from phobos.glo.be (root@phobos.glo.be [206.48.176.11]) by mimas.glo.be (8.8.3/8.7.3) with ESMTP id BAA19334 for ; Fri, 13 Dec 1996 01:34:50 +0100 Received: from gi31451 (p5-25.z03.glo.be [206.48.186.153]) by phobos.glo.be (8.8.3/8.6.9) with ESMTP id BAA18801 for ; Fri, 13 Dec 1996 01:34:34 +0100 Message-Id: <199612130034.BAA18801@phobos.glo.be> From: "Fornoville Norbert" To: Subject: Re: Law 25B Date: Fri, 13 Dec 1996 01:31:54 -0000 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet Mail 4.70.1132 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=Default Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk ---------- > From: Laurence Kelso1 > To: Eric Landau > Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au > Subject: Re: Law 25B > Date: 12 dec 96 11:17 > > > > On Thu, 12 Dec 1996, Eric Landau wrote: > > > At 04:51 PM 12/12/96 +1000, you wrote: > > > > >On Thu, 12 Dec 1996, David Stevenson wrote: > > > > > >> S W N E > > >> 1C 4H P 5D(1) > > >> P 6C(2) P(3) P(4) > > >> > > >> 1 cue agreeing hearts > > >> 2 cue > > >> 3 Lots of questions ...................... > > >> 4 distracted!..... followed 3 seconds later by "Oh dear I didn't mean > > >> that!" > > >> > > >> So, you decide, wrongly or wrongly, that this isn't a mechanical error, > > >> (east claimed that he was trying to produce an alert card, not a pass, but > > >> he'd already produced it when his partner bid 6C, and that it can't be > > >> changed without a penalty. > > >> > > >> Should you now apply Law 25B and let him bid 6H? > > > > > >The end result is very harsh - I would probably have allowed a correction > > >under 25A - but that decision was made before the problem was framed. > > > > L25A clearly does not apply here, and shouldn't. E passed because he was > > "distracted", which caused him to mishear, misperceive or misremember the > > auction. At the point when he passed, he presumably thought that the > > auction had already reached 6H. Thus he "intended" to pass; his putting out > > the pass card was a voluntary action. L25A covers "involuntary" calls; it > > would apply here only if E (could convince the TD that he) was reaching for > > the 6H card intending to bid 6H, but pulled the P card out by accident. > > > I agree 25A doesn't apply in the scenarios you describe. Grabbing a pass > card instead of an alert card is a mechanical error. > > > Laurie What do you do if LHO opponents accept the change of the call ? And what do you think about ruling against (3) lots of question ? Can you apply is some case L73D2 ? > Norbert From owner-bridge-laws Fri Dec 13 15:35:51 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id PAA10041 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 13 Dec 1996 15:35:51 +1100 Received: from lionfish.jcu.edu.au (lionfish.jcu.edu.au [137.219.16.119]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id PAA10036 for ; Fri, 13 Dec 1996 15:35:46 +1100 Received: from localhost by lionfish.jcu.edu.au with SMTP id AA09999 (5.65v3.2/IDA-1.5); Fri, 13 Dec 1996 14:34:51 +1000 Date: Fri, 13 Dec 1996 14:34:51 +1000 (EST) From: Laurence Kelso1 To: Fornoville Norbert Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Law 25B In-Reply-To: <199612130034.BAA18801@phobos.glo.be> Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Fri, 13 Dec 1996, Fornoville Norbert wrote: > > > ---------- > > > > > > On Thu, 12 Dec 1996, Eric Landau wrote: > > > > > At 04:51 PM 12/12/96 +1000, you wrote: > > > > > > >On Thu, 12 Dec 1996, David Stevenson wrote: > > > > > > > >> S W N E > > > >> 1C 4H P 5D(1) > > > >> P 6C(2) P(3) P(4) > > > >> > > > >> 1 cue agreeing hearts > > > >> 2 cue > > > >> 3 Lots of questions ...................... > > > >> 4 distracted!..... followed 3 seconds later by "Oh dear I didn't > mean > > > >> that!" > > > >> > > > >> So, you decide, wrongly or wrongly, that this isn't a mechanical > error, > > > >> (east claimed that he was trying to produce an alert card, not a > pass, but > > > >> he'd already produced it when his partner bid 6C, and that it can't > be > > > >> changed without a penalty. > > > >> > > > >> Should you now apply Law 25B and let him bid 6H? > > > > > > And what do you think about ruling against (3) lots of question ? Can you > apply is some case L73D2 ? > > > > > Norbert > L73D2 implies deliberate intent to mislead - It is inapropriate here and would require disciplinary penalties plus C&E action. I suppose you could speak to the opponents regarding general etiquette (i.e. L74A2) Laurie From owner-bridge-laws Sat Dec 14 01:18:12 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA14710 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 14 Dec 1996 01:18:12 +1100 Received: from emout14.mail.aol.com (emout14.mx.aol.com [198.81.11.40]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id BAA14704 for ; Sat, 14 Dec 1996 01:17:52 +1100 From: AlLeBendig@aol.com Received: by emout14.mail.aol.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA00528; Fri, 13 Dec 1996 09:10:50 -0500 Date: Fri, 13 Dec 1996 09:10:50 -0500 Message-ID: <961213091049_1686292654@emout14.mail.aol.com> To: SLix328357@aol.com, RayRaskin@aol.com, jonathan@pathcom.com, hjpiltch@ix.netcom.com, wjhb08a@prodigy.com, DANJOANM@worldnet.att.net, CWILK@aol.com, al_levy@gateway.grumman.com, JApfelbaum@worldnet.att.net, can.bridge.fed@sk.sympatico.ca, Jimkirkham@aol.com, blubaugh@su1.in.net, glasson@pluto.njcc.com, pisarra@ccnet.co, DMFV47B@prodigy.com, pab@access5.digex.net, 74431.3434@compuserve.com, eok@vir.co, rcolker%udcvax.bitnet@vtbit.cc.vt.edu, kwalker@prairenet.org, david@blak.jak.demon.co.uk (davidstevenson), martino@courier6.aero.org, bseagram@interlog.com, 74774.3335@compuserve.com, bfer@nando.net, bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au, jonbriss@ix.netcom.com, lobo@ac.net, trfg36C@prodigy.com, rcolker@udc.edu, patti@dance.reno.nv.us, mrubin@world.std.com, marcl@primenet.com, diane@cyberverse.com, tlg@ime.net, crabwell@wwdc.com Subject: Re: charity books for kids Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk This was forwarded to me by a friend. I was certain we could all spare the time. Alan > Let me reassure you before you read this..(it has the sound of an urban legend, > but it has been carefully checked out for truth). > > This has been checked on Haughton-Mifflin's homepage and found to be > entirely true. > > I am writing and I would like for you to write and to ship this on to your > mailing lists as well. > > Karen > ----------------- > Forwarded Message: > Subj: charity books for kids > Date: 96-12-12 12:18:11 EST > From: donnag@mont.mindspring.com (Donna Garverick or Henry Sun) > Resent-from: discuss@OKbridge.Com > To: discuss@OKbridge.Com > > I received this message from an internet ministry group, and want > to pass it on to discuss in case any who are philanthropically > oriented might wish to follow through. > > Thanks for your patience. > > HenrySun > > > >The Houghton-Mifflin publishing co. is giving books to children's > >hospitals; how many books they give depends on how many emails they > >receive from people around the world. for every 25 emails they receive, > >they give one book--it seems like a great way to help a good cause. > > > >all you have to do is email: share@hmco.com. > > > >hope you can spare the seconds...and let your friends know. so far they > >only have 3, 400 messages...last year they reached 23,000. > > > >------------------------------------------------------------------------- > >John Cheng Dept. of History, 3G1 > >jcheng@osf1.gmu.edu George Mason University > >703-993-1258 Fairfax, VA 22030-4444 > From owner-bridge-laws Sun Dec 15 23:33:37 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA27194 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 15 Dec 1996 23:33:37 +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 XAA27187 for ; Sun, 15 Dec 1996 23:33:18 +1100 Received: from innet.innet.be (pool03-26.innet.be [194.7.10.26]) by mail.be.innet.net (8.7.6/8.7.3) with SMTP id NAA12067 for ; Sun, 15 Dec 1996 13:33:08 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: <32B3D84D.24F9@innet.be> Date: Sun, 15 Dec 1996 10:51:57 +0000 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01 (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: illegal deception Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk A player from my club has recently suffered a score reversal. Opponents bid 4NT blackwood and the response is 5H. He askes the meaning and over the response 'two aces', continues 'without the trump queen ?', to which the answer is 'yes, indeed'. When opponents later need to find this trump queen, they of course finesse over partner, and the slam goes down. They consider that his remark had been deceptive, since he had the queen himself. The director applies L73F2. If the director determines that an innocent player has drawn a false inference from a deceptive remark, manner, tempop, or the like, of an opponent who could have known, at the time of the action, that the deception could work to his benefit, the director shall award an adjusted score (see Law 12) Two remarks of mine : 1) 'an innocent player'. The explanation was incomplete to start with. Can such a player still be deemed 'innocent'. 2) I'm not talking about the title to L73F2 (Player injured by illegal deception), which we all know not to be in the Law itself, but read the start of L73F : When a violation of the proprieties described in this law results in damage to an innocent opponent: If we read the 'this law' as meaning L73, we find as breaches of propriety : - proper communication between partners - inappropriate communication - variations in tempo - deception through call or play if we read it as meaning all laws, we could also find L74C, which lists 8 other breaches of propriety. My question is : can asking any question about opponent's system ever be considered a violation of propriety ? I'm not really questioning the correctness of the ruling in itself. I know the player and believe him when he said he did not have the intention to mislead, but the Law states clearly that since he 'could have known', an adjusted score is to be given. But I'm scared to see that I can no longer ask questions about opponent's system without first checking to see if I could gain benefit from something they might find misleading. Example. In Antwerpen, two systems are currently much in use. One uses 2D as general strong, others use 2D multi. Both are alertable. I always ask for the meaning of 2D, even if I have absolutely nothing. Of course at the time I am asking I know that I am misleading opponents. Of course I know that it might work in my benefit. But if L73E says that : It is entirely appropriate to avoid giving information to the opponents by making all calls in unvarying tempo and manner. should it not also be appropriate to avoid giving information by legally asking questions about opponents' system? And this even if you know the answer ? The players in question have already decided not to appeal the decision, so feel free to comment. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.club.innet.be/~pub02163/index.htm From owner-bridge-laws Mon Dec 16 03:11:29 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA00821 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 16 Dec 1996 03:11:29 +1100 Received: from mule0.mindspring.com (mule0.mindspring.com [204.180.128.166]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id DAA00816 for ; Mon, 16 Dec 1996 03:11:21 +1100 Received: from Robb (ip132.an19.new-york4.ny.psi.net [38.26.30.132]) by mule0.mindspring.com (8.8.2/8.7.3) with SMTP id QAA59444 for ; Sun, 15 Dec 1996 16:11:14 GMT Message-Id: <3.0.32.19961215111038.0069acd0@pop.pipeline.com> X-Sender: robbg@pop.pipeline.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0 (32) Date: Sun, 15 Dec 1996 11:10:40 -0500 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Robb Gordon Subject: Re: illegal deception Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 10:51 AM 12/15/96 +0000, you wrote: >A player from my club has recently suffered a score reversal. > >Opponents bid 4NT blackwood and the response is 5H. He askes the meaning >and over the response 'two aces', continues 'without the trump queen ?', >to which the answer is 'yes, indeed'. > >When opponents later need to find this trump queen, they of course >finesse over partner, and the slam goes down. > >They consider that his remark had been deceptive, since he had the queen >himself. > >The director applies L73F2. > > If the director determines that an innocent player has drawn a false >inference from a deceptive remark, manner, tempop, or the like, of an >opponent who could have known, at the time of the action, that the >deception could work to his benefit, the director shall award an >adjusted score (see Law 12) > >Two remarks of mine : > >1) 'an innocent player'. The explanation was incomplete to start with. >Can such a player still be deemed 'innocent'. > >2) I'm not talking about the title to L73F2 (Player injured by illegal >deception), which we all know not to be in the Law itself, but read the >start of L73F : > > When a violation of the proprieties described in this law results in >damage to an innocent opponent: > >If we read the 'this law' as meaning L73, we find as breaches of >propriety : >- proper communication between partners >- inappropriate communication >- variations in tempo >- deception through call or play >if we read it as meaning all laws, we could also find L74C, which lists >8 other breaches of propriety. > >My question is : can asking any question about opponent's system ever be >considered a violation of propriety ? Certainly. Your partner opens 1 club (natural). Your RHO, in a suspicious tone of voice asks "Is that natural? (despite no alert). You get to 3NT and your LHO leads a club from xxx... Actually this is a violation of Law as well as propriety. As to your specific situation, it has happenned many times before and the question is not deemed deceptive per se, but the person might not have asked in such a leading manner. > >I'm not really questioning the correctness of the ruling in itself. I >know the player and believe him when he said he did not have the >intention to mislead, but the Law states clearly that since he 'could >have known', an adjusted score is to be given. > >But I'm scared to see that I can no longer ask questions about >opponent's system without first checking to see if I could gain benefit >from something they might find misleading. > >Example. In Antwerpen, two systems are currently much in use. One uses >2D as general strong, others use 2D multi. Both are alertable. I always >ask for the meaning of 2D, even if I have absolutely nothing. Of course >at the time I am asking I know that I am misleading opponents. Of course >I know that it might work in my benefit. But if L73E says that : If you always ask, how can it be misleading? > > It is entirely appropriate to avoid giving information to the opponents >by making all calls in unvarying tempo and manner. > >should it not also be appropriate to avoid giving information by legally >asking questions about opponents' system? And this even if you know the >answer ? > >The players in question have already decided not to appeal the decision, >so feel free to comment. > >-- >Herman DE WAEL >Antwerpen Belgium >http://www.club.innet.be/~pub02163/index.htm > > From owner-bridge-laws Mon Dec 16 17:44:00 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id RAA12050 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 16 Dec 1996 17:44:00 +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 RAA12045 for ; Mon, 16 Dec 1996 17:43:48 +1100 Received: from LOCALNAME (bak-ppp-ls-158.lightspeed.net [204.216.64.194]) by lsbsdi1.lightspeed.net (8.8.4/8.8.4) with SMTP id WAA18593; Sun, 15 Dec 1996 22:43:35 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <32B3AF77.311A@lightspeed.net> Date: Sat, 14 Dec 1996 23:57:43 -0800 From: "John R. Mayne" X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.01KIT (Win16; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Herman De Wael CC: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: illegal deception References: <32B3D84D.24F9@innet.be> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Herman De Wael wrote: > > A player from my club has recently suffered a score reversal. > > Opponents bid 4NT blackwood and the response is 5H. He askes the meaning > and over the response 'two aces', continues 'without the trump queen ?', > to which the answer is 'yes, indeed'. > > When opponents later need to find this trump queen, they of course > finesse over partner, and the slam goes down. > > They consider that his remark had been deceptive, since he had the queen > himself. > > The director applies L73F2. > > If the director determines that an innocent player has drawn a false > inference from a deceptive remark, manner, tempop, or the like, of an > opponent who could have known, at the time of the action, that the > deception could work to his benefit, the director shall award an > adjusted score (see Law 12) > > Two remarks of mine : > > 1) 'an innocent player'. The explanation was incomplete to start with. > Can such a player still be deemed 'innocent'. > > 2) I'm not talking about the title to L73F2 (Player injured by illegal > deception), which we all know not to be in the Law itself, but read the > start of L73F : > > When a violation of the proprieties described in this law results in > damage to an innocent opponent: > > If we read the 'this law' as meaning L73, we find as breaches of > propriety : > - proper communication between partners > - inappropriate communication > - variations in tempo > - deception through call or play > if we read it as meaning all laws, we could also find L74C, which lists > 8 other breaches of propriety. > > My question is : can asking any question about opponent's system ever be > considered a violation of propriety ? > > I'm not really questioning the correctness of the ruling in itself. I > know the player and believe him when he said he did not have the > intention to mislead, but the Law states clearly that since he 'could > have known', an adjusted score is to be given. > > But I'm scared to see that I can no longer ask questions about > opponent's system without first checking to see if I could gain benefit > from something they might find misleading. > > Example. In Antwerpen, two systems are currently much in use. One uses > 2D as general strong, others use 2D multi. Both are alertable. I always > ask for the meaning of 2D, even if I have absolutely nothing. Of course > at the time I am asking I know that I am misleading opponents. Of course > I know that it might work in my benefit. But if L73E says that : > > It is entirely appropriate to avoid giving information to the opponents > by making all calls in unvarying tempo and manner. > > should it not also be appropriate to avoid giving information by legally > asking questions about opponents' system? And this even if you know the > answer ? > > The players in question have already decided not to appeal the decision, > so feel free to comment. > Chip Martel recently wrote an article for the ACBL Bulletin on this subject, an article which was specifically stated to be ACBL policy, which stated that such questions were acceptable under many circumstances, and score adjustments were inappropriate. In my view the problem was caused by an incomplete explanation of the 5H bid, and the faulty explanation made the question necessary if he had or hadn't the card. The explanation (I am guessing) conflicted with the convention card, or if not with common practice. Therefore, I don't believe the question should be considered deceptive. Had this been normal Blackwood, and the questioner knew or should have known that, I'd hang him. Side note: I was especially happy to read Martel's article, because several years ago in a Flight C national event, I had a score adjusted when I got the following explanation of an RKC 5H: (which I did not play) Me: What is 5H He: RKC Me: What does that show? He: Two keys. Me: Is that all? He: Um. Yes. Me: It doesn't say anything about anything else? He: (Pause) Me: (exasperated) Like the trump queen? He: Denies the trump queen. I had the trump queen and was pondering a double (which would have worked, but been dumb anyway.) The director turned off two to off one and I got an ethics lecture. Anyway, I agree with current ACBL policy on this one. I think that questions caused by insufficient explanations OR questions caused by the complexity of the opponents systems are fair and should not be considered deceptive. JRM > -- > Herman DE WAEL > Antwerpen Belgium > http://www.club.innet.be/~pub02163/index.htm From owner-bridge-laws Mon Dec 16 20:52:18 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id UAA12650 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 16 Dec 1996 20:52:18 +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 UAA12645 for ; Mon, 16 Dec 1996 20:52:09 +1100 Received: (from root@localhost) by tom.compulink.co.uk (8.8.4/8.6.9) id JAA20365 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Mon, 16 Dec 1996 09:51:47 GMT Date: Mon, 16 Dec 96 09:50 GMT0 From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: illegal deception 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: <32B3D84D.24F9@innet.be> Herman DE WAEL wrote: > A player from my club has recently suffered a score reversal. > > Opponents bid 4NT blackwood and the response is 5H. He askes the meaning > and over the response 'two aces', continues 'without the trump queen ?', > to which the answer is 'yes, indeed'. > > When opponents later need to find this trump queen, they of course > finesse over partner, and the slam goes down. > > They consider that his remark had been deceptive, since he had the queen > himself. I have a problem with this ruling as it appears to reward the giving of an incomplete explanation of the bidding. If I am allowed to draw an inference here from whether or not a question is asked I reckon my chances of "finding" the queen rise significantly by always saying "two aces" and nothing more in response to an enquiry. Basically it is impossible to get full disclosure of oppos system without either asking a question that you know "could prove deceptive" or revealing an abscence of trump queens. Since any possible infraction is the direct result of an irregularity on the part of opponents I would be happier if this particular one went down as "you draw inferences at your own risk". >My question is : can asking any question about opponent's system ever be >considered a violation of propriety ? Yes, it can. But perhaps we could establish the guideline that ANY questions you ask after non-disclosure of system are entirely justified (and maybe even that such questions cannot be considered the basis of UI). Tim West-Meads From owner-bridge-laws Mon Dec 16 22:04:21 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id WAA12849 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 16 Dec 1996 22:04:21 +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 WAA12843 for ; Mon, 16 Dec 1996 22:04:14 +1100 Received: from innet.innet.be (pool03-28.innet.be [194.7.10.28]) by mail.be.innet.net (8.7.6/8.7.3) with SMTP id MAA20712 for ; Mon, 16 Dec 1996 12:04:07 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: <32B539AD.465B@innet.be> Date: Mon, 16 Dec 1996 11:59:41 +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: illegal deception References: <32B3D84D.24F9@innet.be> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Herman De Wael wrote: > > A player from my club has recently suffered a score reversal. > and so on After some more thought about the problem, I now realize there is a small hole in the Laws. L73E defines authorized deception : by play and calls. L73F defines unauthorized deception : through breaches of propriety. If there is deception through an authorized procedure, we don't know what to do. I suggest that since L73E does not say that all other deception is illegal, the deceptive question should be allowed. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.club.innet.be/~pub02163/index.htm From owner-bridge-laws Mon Dec 16 22:04:30 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id WAA12855 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 16 Dec 1996 22:04:30 +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 WAA12850 for ; Mon, 16 Dec 1996 22:04:24 +1100 Received: from innet.innet.be (pool03-28.innet.be [194.7.10.28]) by mail.be.innet.net (8.7.6/8.7.3) with SMTP id MAA20720 for ; Mon, 16 Dec 1996 12:04:11 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: <32B539DF.326B@innet.be> Date: Mon, 16 Dec 1996 12:00:31 +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: illegal deception References: <3.0.32.19961215111038.0069acd0@pop.pipeline.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Robb Gordon wrote: > > > Certainly. Your partner opens 1 club (natural). Your RHO, in a suspicious > tone of voice asks "Is that natural? (despite no alert). You get to 3NT > and your LHO leads a club from xxx... > > Actually this is a violation of Law as well as propriety. > A different matter entirely. You have not been misled. Your bad score is the result of opponent using UI. > As to your specific situation, it has happenned many times before and > the question is not deemed deceptive per se, but the person might not > have asked in such a leading manner. > What leading manner ? How do you know in what tone the question was asked ? I didn't tell you (if I could write tones) ? They didn't tell me (and they could produce tones). -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.club.innet.be/~pub02163/index.htm From owner-bridge-laws Tue Dec 17 02:08:54 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA16858 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 17 Dec 1996 02:08:54 +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 CAA16853 for ; Tue, 17 Dec 1996 02:08:47 +1100 Message-Id: <199612161508.CAA16853@octavia.anu.edu.au> Received: from dl.e-mail.com by E-MAIL.COM (IBM VM SMTP V2R3) with BSMTP id 9468; Mon, 16 Dec 96 10:08:38 EST Date: Mon, 16 Dec 1996 10:07:57 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: illegal deception Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Herman De Wael wrote: >> >> A player from my club has recently suffered a score reversal. >> > and so on > > After some more thought about the problem, I now realize there is a > small hole in the Laws. > > L73E defines authorized deception : by play and calls. > L73F defines unauthorized deception : through breaches of propriety. > > If there is deception through an authorized procedure, we don't know > what to do. > > I suggest that since L73E does not say that all other deception is > illegal, the deceptive question should be allowed. Allow this ? NO WAY !!! I suppose this fine piece of deception is a ploy by Herman to discover whether we still read his mails ... Jac Fuchs From owner-bridge-laws Tue Dec 17 02:49:01 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA17003 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 17 Dec 1996 02:49:01 +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 CAA16998 for ; Tue, 17 Dec 1996 02:48:51 +1100 Received: from elandau.cais.com.cais.com (elandau.cais.com [204.157.58.181]) by ns-prime.cais.com (8.7.5/8.7.5-CAIS) with SMTP id KAA11432 for ; Mon, 16 Dec 1996 10:22:23 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <1.5.4.32.19961216154956.006739dc@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: Mon, 16 Dec 1996 10:49:56 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: illegal deception Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 10:51 AM 12/15/96 +0000, Herman wrote: >A player from my club has recently suffered a score reversal. > >Opponents bid 4NT blackwood and the response is 5H. He askes the meaning >and over the response 'two aces', continues 'without the trump queen ?', >to which the answer is 'yes, indeed'. > >When opponents later need to find this trump queen, they of course >finesse over partner, and the slam goes down. > >They consider that his remark had been deceptive, since he had the queen >himself. > >The director applies L73F2. > > If the director determines that an innocent player has drawn a false >inference from a deceptive remark, manner, tempop, or the like, of an >opponent who could have known, at the time of the action, that the >deception could work to his benefit, the director shall award an >adjusted score (see Law 12) Herman says below, "I know the player and believe him when he said he did not have the intention to mislead." My commentary assumes that the TD/AC who gave the ruling agrees with Herman on this. If, on the other hand, the TD/AC believed that the player DID "have [or might have had] the intention to mislead", then the ruling was entirely appropriate. But if not, then the subject line for this thread should have been "Bridge Lawyers Run Amok". Giving a score adjustment in this case is a very bad ruling, from a number of perspectives: (1) It takes the most stringent possible interpretation of L73F2, which is ludicrous. If we take the word "could" in its most restrictive sense, then any time a player does anything that causes an opponent to take a wrong inference we will decide that he "could have known... that [it] could work to his benefit". In a previous discussion, a scenario was offered in which a player who introduced himself and his partner to his opponents upon arriving at the table "could have known, at the time of the action, that [it] could work to his benefit." A far more reasonable interpretation emphasizes the "deception" aspect. The law does not say "a remark, manner, tempo, or the like"; it says "a deceptive remark, manner, tempo, or the like". It doesn't say "the remark, manner, tempo, or the like, could work to his benefit"; it says "the deception could work to his benefit". In the 1975 Laws, applicability of L73F2 required "deliberately and improperly deceptive information". This made it a no-op for TDs and ACs who, in order to award an adjusted score under L73F2, had to rule that the offender had committed a deliberate and improper action of a magnitude that required C&E action, and therefore had to meet a burden of proof sufficient for C&E action -- the player's intent had to be established -- which is well beyond what the lawmakers felt should be required for a mere adjusted score. Hence "could have" and "could work" in the new Laws. The point of the change was to make the appearance of deliberate deception sufficient justification for a score adjustment, so that TDs or ACs could take action without meeting the burden of proof required for C&E action, without obligating themselves to refer the matter for C&E action, and without leaving themselves open to real lawsuits from pros arguing that such a finding (of an action which can only be construed as blatant cheating) adversely affected their ability to earn their livelihood. Then there's the title of L73F2, "Player Injured by Illegal Deception". Yes, I know that from a narrow technical legalistic perspective the title isn't part of the law, and can be disregarded. But surely it can, also, be sensibly regarded as an indication of the intentions of the writers of the law. The point of L73F2 is to allow a TD or AC to award a score adjustment when they believe that there may have been a deliberate attempt to deceive, without requiring 100% certainty or hard evidence. It is not intended to, and should not, be used to justify a score adjustment when they believe with 100% certainty that there was no deliberate attempt to deceive. (2) The initial "infraction" here was the 4NT bidder's incomplete explanation (MI) of 5H. A true bridge lawyer, receiving this explanation which he assumed to be incomplete, would have kept his mouth shut, and later looked for some rationalization by which he could convince a TD/AC that the MI damaged his side and should provide some basis for an adjustment in his favor. Here, our "offender" spoke up, presumably because he was trying to do one or more of (a) be friendly and helpful to the opponents by preventing them from committing an MI infraction, (b) ethically and properly "protect himself" from an offense that he believed was being committed, or (c) simply (but within the Laws) dispense with the legalistic nonsense and get on with the game. He is to be commended, not punished, for doing so. (3) The fact that our "offender" held the trump Q himself is a red herring, and in no way creates any presumption of possible intentional deception. Sure, he knows that his opponents are missing that card. But, as a defender, he must try to take whatever inferences he can from the declaring side's auction. In doing so, it may be crucial for him to know whether the partner of the 5H bidder's subsequent calls were taken knowing that his partner didn't have it, or whether he might have been hoping that he did. This is information to which he is absolutely entitled, and it is 100% proper for him to ask for it. >Two remarks of mine : > >1) 'an innocent player'. The explanation was incomplete to start with. >Can such a player still be deemed 'innocent'. Sure. He can certainly commit an infraction and still be the "innocent party" relative to some infraction committed by the other side. But that's not the case here. >2) I'm not talking about the title to L73F2 (Player injured by illegal >deception), which we all know not to be in the Law itself, but read the >start of L73F : > > When a violation of the proprieties described in this law results in >damage to an innocent opponent: > >If we read the 'this law' as meaning L73, we find as breaches of >propriety : >- proper communication between partners >- inappropriate communication >- variations in tempo >- deception through call or play >if we read it as meaning all laws, we could also find L74C, which lists >8 other breaches of propriety. > >My question is : can asking any question about opponent's system ever be >considered a violation of propriety ? Sure. But, again, we've been given no reason to believe that that was the case here. >I'm not really questioning the correctness of the ruling in itself. I >know the player and believe him when he said he did not have the >intention to mislead, but the Law states clearly that since he 'could >have known', an adjusted score is to be given. > >But I'm scared to see that I can no longer ask questions about >opponent's system without first checking to see if I could gain benefit >from something they might find misleading. I believe that Herman is wrong in not questioniing the correctness of the ruling, and is right to be scared. I don't see how one could go about "first checking to see" -- and, if one could, how one could do it without raising the possibility of giving UI to partner. It seems to me that if we accept this ruling, then we must conclude that when you receive possible MI, you have no choice but to maintain an expressionless silence, since ANYTHING you say may subsequently turn out to be such such that you "COULD gain benefit from something THEY MIGHT find misleading." >Example. In Antwerpen, two systems are currently much in use. One uses >2D as general strong, others use 2D multi. Both are alertable. I always >ask for the meaning of 2D, even if I have absolutely nothing. Of course >at the time I am asking I know that I am misleading opponents. Of course >I know that it might work in my benefit. But if L73E says that : > > It is entirely appropriate to avoid giving information to the opponents >by making all calls in unvarying tempo and manner. > >should it not also be appropriate to avoid giving information by legally >asking questions about opponents' system? This is the real trap that we fall into if we take such a stringent interpretation of L73F2. If you ask when you have nothing, you "could have known, at the time of the action, that [your question] could work to [your] benefit." But if you ask only when you have something, then your question (or its absence) provides prima facie UI to your partner. That leads to a situation where the bottom line is that a pair's decision to play a method with which their opponents are unfamiliar will produce a greater legal burden and risk for their opponents than for themselves. This is totally contrary to the spirit of the Laws, and is a situation which we wish to avoid at all costs. Unfortunately, recent discussions on r.g.b have suggested that many players beleive that this is precisely the situation we are now in. >And this even if you know the >answer ? That's debatable -- and continues to be debated on r.g.b and elsewhere. But, to restate a point made above, that's just not an issue in this case. Because "the answer" here isn't that he does or doesn't have the trump Q, which you know, but whether his partner does or doesn't know that he doesn't have the trump Q, which you don't know. Eric Landau elandau@cais.com APL Solutions, Inc. elandau@acm.org 1107 Dale Drive (301) 589-4621 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 From owner-bridge-laws Tue Dec 17 07:30:28 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA26202 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 17 Dec 1996 07:30:28 +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 HAA26197 for ; Tue, 17 Dec 1996 07:30:20 +1100 Received: from default (cph2.ppp.dknet.dk [194.192.100.2]) by pip.dknet.dk (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id VAA04477 for ; Mon, 16 Dec 1996 21:30:07 +0100 Message-Id: <199612162030.VAA04477@pip.dknet.dk> Comments: Authenticated sender is From: "Jens & Bodil" Organization: Alesia Software To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Mon, 16 Dec 1996 21:30:52 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Re: Law 25B Priority: normal X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v2.42a) Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > Date: Thu, 12 Dec 1996 00:49:03 +0000 > From: David Stevenson > This email from David Sharp, an EBU TD, reproduced with permission. > > David - an opinion would be welcome > > S W N E > 1C 4H P 5D(1) > P 6C(2) P(3) P(4) > > 1 cue agreeing hearts > 2 cue > 3 Lots of questions > 4 distracted!..... followed 3 seconds later by "Oh dear I didn't mean > that!" > > So, you decide, wrongly or wrongly, that this isn't a mechanical error, I would have preferred the decision where this was a mechanical error; in Denmark, this would mean that no call had been made yet, and L25 as such was not yet applicable. Our lovely regulations say that the call is made when the card is taken out of the bidding box with the intent to make the call thus signified; but when a wrong card is taken out of the bidding box, no call is made even though the card is also placed on the table. Of course the next player does not know this, so the whole thing runs along the lines of L25A anyway. > (east claimed that he was trying to produce an alert card, not a pass, but > he'd already produced it when his partner bid 6C, I am slightly confused. Are you saying that the P(4) card was produced when 6C was bid? If so, it would seem obvious that East was trying to alert, and moreover it would seem strange that no one questioned the apparent pass out of turn. > and that it can't be > changed without a penalty. Assuming that a call is ruled as made, it looks as if L25A is applicable, since the pause was not one for thought; East is reacting immediately when he finds out that he has committed an error. Still the TD on the floor has established the facts otherwise, so we must soldier on ... > > Should you now apply Law 25B and let him bid 6H? I would not let him. L25B does not apply until East changes his call. He has not changed it yet, and the TD has now ruled that he may not (since the TD can read out of the law book that changes can be made only according to L25A). East now gets to play in 6C. This is unfortunate because of the injustice in L25B that causes East to lose the right to change the call when the TD arrives before he attempts to do so. Other TDs will award East the rights he would have had if he had changed his call to anything immediately; they then base their ruling on L9B1c. There is a similar problem with L35B. Imagine that a player has just been forced by the TD to pass during the remainder of the auction. The TD is called away before the acution proceeds (unfortunately). Somewhat confused by all the fuss, the banned player bids an ill-judged sacrifice which his LHO can double and defeat for an excellent score. If LHO calls the TD and asks permission to double, the TD must deny the permission, cancel the sacrifice, etc. If, out of ignorance, LHO first doubles and then calls, the TD must let the auction proceed. Again, the LHO with the more proper behavior gets the worse result. And we all know what to do to a LHO who is a BLML lurker and still doubles without calling the TD. We have done this before. Is it time to initiate a BLML FAQ? No, I am not volunteering. The only Laws work I am about to volunteer for in the next few months has to do with getting out a Danish translation of the mythical 1997 Laws. Aren't the English-speaking NCBOs lucky that they don't have to translate? -- Jens Brix Christiansen, Denmark From owner-bridge-laws Tue Dec 17 22:27:03 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id WAA29972 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 17 Dec 1996 22:27:03 +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 WAA29958 for ; Tue, 17 Dec 1996 22:26:33 +1100 Received: from innet.innet.be (pool03-42.innet.be [194.7.10.42]) by mail.be.innet.net (8.7.6/8.7.3) with SMTP id MAA13122 for ; Tue, 17 Dec 1996 12:26:02 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: <32B53DDF.7B7F@innet.be> Date: Mon, 16 Dec 1996 12:17:39 +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: illegal deception References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Tim West-meads wrote: > > > I have a problem with this ruling as it appears to reward the giving of an > incomplete explanation of the bidding. If I am allowed to draw an inference > here from whether or not a question is asked I reckon my chances of "finding" > the queen rise significantly by always saying "two aces" and nothing more in > response to an enquiry. Basically it is impossible to get full disclosure of > oppos system without either asking a question that you know "could prove > deceptive" or revealing an abscence of trump queens. > good point > > Yes, it can. But perhaps we could establish the guideline that ANY questions > you ask after non-disclosure of system are entirely justified (and maybe even > that such questions cannot be considered the basis of UI). > very good suggestion > Tim West-Meads -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.club.innet.be/~pub02163/index.htm From owner-bridge-laws Tue Dec 17 22:26:41 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id WAA29964 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 17 Dec 1996 22:26:41 +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 WAA29957 for ; Tue, 17 Dec 1996 22:26:31 +1100 Received: from innet.innet.be (pool03-42.innet.be [194.7.10.42]) by mail.be.innet.net (8.7.6/8.7.3) with SMTP id MAA13134 for ; Tue, 17 Dec 1996 12:26:07 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: <32B53F67.73BD@innet.be> Date: Mon, 16 Dec 1996 12:24:07 +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: illegal deception References: <32B3D84D.24F9@innet.be> <32B3AF77.311A@lightspeed.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk John R. Mayne wrote: > > > Had this been normal Blackwood, and the questioner knew or should have > known that, I'd hang him. > I'll tell him not to meet you. It was absolutely normal RKCB, and he knew. > Side note: I was especially happy to read Martel's article, because > several years ago in a Flight C national event, I had a score adjusted > when I got the following explanation of an RKC 5H: (which I did not play) > > Me: What is 5H > He: RKC > Me: What does that show? > He: Two keys. > Me: Is that all? > He: Um. Yes. > Me: It doesn't say anything about anything else? > He: (Pause) > Me: (exasperated) Like the trump queen? > He: Denies the trump queen. > > I had the trump queen and was pondering a double (which would have > worked, but been dumb anyway.) The director turned off two to off one and > I got an ethics lecture. Anyway, I agree with current ACBL policy on this > one. > This problem, although very similar (well almost absolutely equal) has one difference. You had to drag the answer out, my friend didn't. It was all over in a flash. Your case may well have hinged on UI towards your partner, who now might have led something else. That was certainly not the case here. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.club.innet.be/~pub02163/index.htm From owner-bridge-laws Wed Dec 18 00:42:22 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA03309 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 18 Dec 1996 00:42:22 +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 AAA03304 for ; Wed, 18 Dec 1996 00:42:16 +1100 Message-Id: <199612171342.AAA03304@octavia.anu.edu.au> Received: from dl.e-mail.com by E-MAIL.COM (IBM VM SMTP V2R3) with BSMTP id 2818; Tue, 17 Dec 96 08:42:07 EST Date: Tue, 17 Dec 1996 08:41:26 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: RE: ILLEGAL DECEPTION Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Herman de Wael wrote: > Tim West-meads wrote: > > > > > > I have a problem with this ruling as it appears to reward the giving > > of an incomplete explanation of the bidding. If I am allowed to draw > > an inference here from whether or not a question is asked I reckon my > > chances of "finding" the queen rise significantly by always saying > > "two aces" and nothing more in response to an enquiry. Basically it > > is impossible to get full disclosure of oppos system without either > > asking a question that you know "could prove deceptive" or revealing > > an abscence of trump queens. > > good point > > > > Yes, it can. But perhaps we could establish the guideline that ANY > > questions you ask after non-disclosure of system are entirely justified > > (and maybe even that such questions cannot be considered the basis of UI). > > > very good suggestion My previous reply was a kind of shorthand; I do not have the opportunities here (at my office) to explain in depth why I adhere to a particular opinion. Hence I hardly ever take part in discussions. My apologies for that. Having said that, I want to point out that it is NOT up to OPPONENTS to see to it that a player provides a full disclosure of his agreements. If a player fails to give a full explanation, why not let it be ? The TD is there to right this wrong afterwards. An opponent should not try and set his opponent on the right track, at least not in a way which (IMO correctly) may be used/held against him later on. Just let the player who explains stumble: the TD will adjust the score afterwards, if necessary. Although it is hard to say which phrases are neutral and which are not, I am in favour of allowing 'neutrally phrased' questions - like "what is your agreement on the meaning of this call?" - only. Questions like "does this lead deny the possession of an honour?" can only lead to trouble ... Jac Fuchs From owner-bridge-laws Wed Dec 18 08:12:02 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA13472 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 18 Dec 1996 08:12:02 +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 IAA13467 for ; Wed, 18 Dec 1996 08:11:55 +1100 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by relay-6.mail.demon.net id aa625444; 17 Dec 96 20:26 GMT Message-ID: Date: Tue, 17 Dec 1996 20:24:08 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: illegal deception In-Reply-To: <1.5.4.32.19961216154956.006739dc@cais.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Eric Landau wrote: [s] I am not repeating what Eric has written. I consider him correct in this matter. His views are my views. I merely want to comment on some side issues. >A far more reasonable interpretation emphasizes the "deception" aspect. The >law does not say "a remark, manner, tempo, or the like"; it says "a >deceptive remark, manner, tempo, or the like". It doesn't say "the remark, >manner, tempo, or the like, could work to his benefit"; it says "the >deception could work to his benefit". In the 1997 Laws the words deceptive and deception do not appear. Law 73 - Communication F. Violation of Proprieties When a violation of the Proprieties described in this Law results in damage to an innocent opponent: 2. Player Injured by Illegal Deception If the Director determines that an innocent player has drawn a false inference from a remark, manner, tempo, or the like, of an opponent who has no demonstrable bridge reason for the action, and who could have known at the time of the action, that the action could work to his benefit, the Director shall award an adjusted score (see Law 12C). I think this makes it clearer that we should not apply L73F2 in the quoted case. -------- Robb Gordon wrote: >Herman de Wael wrote: >>Example. In Antwerpen, two systems are currently much in use. One uses >>2D as general strong, others use 2D multi. Both are alertable. I always >>ask for the meaning of 2D, even if I have absolutely nothing. Of course >>at the time I am asking I know that I am misleading opponents. Of course >>I know that it might work in my benefit. But if L73E says that : >If you always ask, how can it be misleading? How do the opponents know that Herman always asks? -------- Tim West-meads wrote: >I have a problem with this ruling as it appears to reward the giving of an >incomplete explanation of the bidding. If I am allowed to draw an inference >here from whether or not a question is asked I reckon my chances of "finding" >the queen rise significantly by always saying "two aces" and nothing more in >response to an enquiry. Basically it is impossible to get full disclosure of >oppos system without either asking a question that you know "could prove >deceptive" or revealing an abscence of trump queens. While I do not disagree with the conclusion [I am certainly not adjusting in Herman's case] there is no need to base it on a cheating problem. If players actually give wrong answers deliberately for effect they will get found out and dealt with extremely severely. -------- Tim West-meads wrote: >Herman de Wael wrote: >>My question is : can asking any question about opponent's system ever be >>considered a violation of propriety ? >Yes, it can. But perhaps we could establish the guideline that ANY questions >you ask after non-disclosure of system are entirely justified (and maybe even >that such questions cannot be considered the basis of UI). Yes, but you have to follow the Laws. I know it sounds good, and my sympathies are with your approach, but asking a question must be UI for partner. NOTE: All quotations from, comments on or digests of the 1997 Laws are based on a "final draft copy" in the writer's possession. At the time of writing this draft copy has not been approved by all the regulatory bodies involved so no guarantee is given that it is in fact the same as the Law book will be when it is officially published. -- 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 Dec 19 00:39:27 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA20489 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 19 Dec 1996 00:39:27 +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 AAA20484 for ; Thu, 19 Dec 1996 00:39:20 +1100 Received: from elandau.cais.com.cais.com (elandau.cais.com [204.157.58.181]) by ns-prime.cais.com (8.7.5/8.7.5-CAIS) with SMTP id IAA13315 for ; Wed, 18 Dec 1996 08:12:58 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <1.5.4.32.19961218134005.00676e64@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, 18 Dec 1996 08:40:05 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: RE: ILLEGAL DECEPTION Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 08:41 AM 12/17/96 EST, Jac wrote: > >Herman de Wael wrote: > >> Tim West-meads wrote: >> > >> > I have a problem with this ruling as it appears to reward the giving >> > of an incomplete explanation of the bidding. If I am allowed to draw >> > an inference here from whether or not a question is asked I reckon my >> > chances of "finding" the queen rise significantly by always saying >> > "two aces" and nothing more in response to an enquiry. Basically it >> > is impossible to get full disclosure of oppos system without either >> > asking a question that you know "could prove deceptive" or revealing >> > an abscence of trump queens. > >> good point > >> > Yes, it can. But perhaps we could establish the guideline that ANY >> > questions you ask after non-disclosure of system are entirely justified >> > (and maybe even that such questions cannot be considered the basis of UI). > >> very good suggestion Wait a minute. The question at issue was asked in order to determine whether there had been a non-disclosure or not. You can't make the legitimacy of the question depend on the answer. >My previous reply was a kind of shorthand; I do not have the opportunities >here (at my office) to explain in depth why I adhere to a particular opinion. >Hence I hardly ever take part in discussions. My apologies for that. > >Having said that, I want to point out that it is NOT up to OPPONENTS to >see to it that a player provides a full disclosure of his agreements. >If a player fails to give a full explanation, why not let it be ? >The TD is there to right this wrong afterwards. An opponent should not >try and set his opponent on the right track, at least not in a way which >(IMO correctly) may be used/held against him later on. >Just let the player who explains stumble: the TD will adjust the score >afterwards, if necessary. That, IMO, is the bridge-lawyer answer: Let him commit a possible infraction, and hope that if you get a bad result the TD will adjust the score. Some of us would prefer to be able to head off the infraction in the first place, either (a) because we'd rather just play bridge than compete for score in the committee room, or (b) because we think we have better chances of beating our opponents at the table with the benefit of full disclosure of their methods than of winning a (likely to be random) ruling in committee. Eric Landau elandau@cais.com APL Solutions, Inc. elandau@acm.org 1107 Dale Drive (301) 589-4621 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 From owner-bridge-laws Thu Dec 19 04:02:01 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA21866 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 19 Dec 1996 04:02:01 +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 EAA21861 for ; Thu, 19 Dec 1996 04:01:54 +1100 Message-Id: <199612181701.EAA21861@octavia.anu.edu.au> Received: from dl.e-mail.com by E-MAIL.COM (IBM VM SMTP V2R3) with BSMTP id 6675; Wed, 18 Dec 96 12:01:43 EST Date: Wed, 18 Dec 1996 12:01:02 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: ILLEGAL DECEPTION Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > Eric Landau wrote : > At 08:41 AM 12/17/96 EST, Jac wrote: > > > >Herman de Wael wrote: > > > >> Tim West-meads wrote: > >> > > >> > I have a problem with this ruling as it appears to reward the giving > >> > of an incomplete explanation of the bidding. If I am allowed to draw > >> > an inference here from whether or not a question is asked I reckon my > >> > chances of "finding" the queen rise significantly by always saying > >> > "two aces" and nothing more in response to an enquiry. Basically it > >> > is impossible to get full disclosure of oppos system without either > >> > asking a question that you know "could prove deceptive" or revealing > >> > an abscence of trump queens. > > > >> good point > > > >> > Yes, it can. But perhaps we could establish the guideline that ANY > >> > questions you ask after non-disclosure of system are entirely justified > >> > (and maybe even that such questions cannot be considered the basis of > >> > UI). > > > >> very good suggestion > > Wait a minute. The question at issue was asked in order to determine > whether there had been a non-disclosure or not. You can't make the > legitimacy of the question depend on the answer. > >>My previous reply was a kind of shorthand; I do not have the opportunities >>here (at my office) to explain in depth why I adhere to a particular opinion. >>Hence I hardly ever take part in discussions. My apologies for that. >> >>Having said that, I want to point out that it is NOT up to OPPONENTS to >>see to it that a player provides a full disclosure of his agreements. >>If a player fails to give a full explanation, why not let it be ? >>The TD is there to right this wrong afterwards. An opponent should not >>try and set his opponent on the right track, at least not in a way which >>(IMO correctly) may be used/held against him later on. >>Just let the player who explains stumble: the TD will adjust the score >>afterwards, if necessary. > > That, IMO, is the bridge-lawyer answer: Let him commit a possible > infraction, and hope that if you get a bad result the TD will adjust the > score. Some of us would prefer to be able to head off the infraction in the > first place, either (a) because we'd rather just play bridge than compete > for score in the committee room, or (b) because we think we have better > chances of beating our opponents at the table with the benefit of full > disclosure of their methods than of winning a (likely to be random) ruling > in committee. Well, I do react like a bridge-lawyer more often than others do. Also, I do not feel like being one, or at least, I am not yet prepared to confess. But all that is not relevant to the point I tried to make. I did react as TD, not as a player (actually, I play so infrequently that I might almost claim that I do more TD'ing than playing). What I intended to convey is that I do not want to open another Pandora's box by allowing players to put all kinds of accident-prone questions alledgedly to prevent their opponents from an infraction (an incorrect explanation, in this case). As a TD, I would prefer having to clean up the mess caused by incorrect explanations only. If this sort of question would be allowed, I would also have to deal with : 1) players who failed to put another question to make sure that a given explanation was 100% correct; 2) players who handed their partners UI by phrasing a question the wrong way; 3) players who deceived their opponents intentionally by a question; 4) players who claim that their opponents should have known that their explanation was incomplete or wrong and should have acted accordingly (e.g. by putting an additional question); 5) players who object to an opponent harrassing them, because their opponent keeps questioning him although they already have given an answer that they deem to be sufficient/correct. 6) and so on. I just do not want to shift the possible blame to the innocent player - let it remain with the player who committed the (initial) infraction. Jac Fuchs From owner-bridge-laws Thu Dec 19 10:38:27 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA01802 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 19 Dec 1996 10:38:27 +1100 Received: from lionfish.jcu.edu.au (lionfish.jcu.edu.au [137.219.16.119]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id KAA01797 for ; Thu, 19 Dec 1996 10:38:21 +1100 Received: from localhost by lionfish.jcu.edu.au with SMTP id AA17366 (5.65v3.2/IDA-1.5); Thu, 19 Dec 1996 09:38:03 +1000 Date: Thu, 19 Dec 1996 09:38:02 +1000 (EST) From: Laurence Kelso1 Reply-To: Laurence Kelso1 To: David Stevenson Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Revoke then claim In-Reply-To: Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Tue, 17 Dec 1996, David Stevenson (in rgb) wrote: > A. L. Edwards wrote: > > >Barry Wolk (wolk@ccm.umanitoba.ca) writes: > >> The following constructed ending is based on something similar that > >> happened at the club. > >> > >> North: K4 void void 863 > >> West: East: > >> 63 Q72 > >> 4 52 > >> void void > >> 97 void > >> South: AJ85 void void K > >> > >> Playing NT, S cashed the club K, and both E and W discarded hearts. > >> Declarer then claimed, saying "2 spades and 2 clubs" Naturally West > >> objected. How do you rule? > >> > >> Ruling on the revoke is easy -- it was caught in time to let it be > >> corrected. Then how do you rule on the claim? And would the ruling be > >> the same if the EW cards were > >> West: Q3 4 void 97 Easr: 762 52 void void > >> > >> I would like to cancel the claim and let play continue, with declarer > >> allowed to make his own decision on how to play the spade suit. However, > >> this is contrary to the Laws. > -------------- > > I have not given an answer to the problem because, > uncharacteristically, I am not sure what the answer is, and I wished to > see others' answers before commenting. Perhaps, however, I can put the > argument back on track. > > There has been a revoke. It was not established, because the revoking > side did not play to the next trick, claim, acquiesce in a claim nor [in > Europe] did the defenders ask each other "Having none?". > > Once the revoke is made, play ceases. There cannot be any more play > by the players under any circumstances whatever. [OK Jens, Herman, > Steve et al, I think that is too strong a statement by the thickness of > a hair!] It is now a matter for the TD to decide. He will decide as > equitably as possible to both sides, because the Law tells him to, but > any doubtful points go against the claimer. There are some situations > where the Law goes on to make specific comments. > > There you are: now, how do you rule? > > ------------- I too am not sure what the answer is - but there are a couple of things worth considering. The revoke is not established, so West should be able to correct it by substituting a club. L62C1 now gives declarer the option of withdrawing any card played after the revoke and before it was corrected. Is this the authority needed for the Director to allow the claim to be withdrawn? If declarer had layed down the SA and then claimed, would he have been able to withdraw it after West's correction? Even if we can cancel the claim, since it occured after the revoke, there may still be too much UI to permit play to continue. The Director may still have to adjudicate, however applying the guidelines of L70 in resolving any doubtful points in favour of the non-claimer seems inappropriate here, since (as you rightly point out) he is really the non-offender in this mess. Wouldn't rulling under L12A1 be a better option? Laurie From owner-bridge-laws Thu Dec 19 13:16:01 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id NAA02808 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 19 Dec 1996 13:16:01 +1100 Received: from emout01.mail.aol.com (emout01.mx.aol.com [198.81.11.92]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id NAA02802 for ; Thu, 19 Dec 1996 13:15:39 +1100 From: AlLeBendig@aol.com Received: by emout01.mail.aol.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) id VAA27181; Wed, 18 Dec 1996 21:07:53 -0500 Date: Wed, 18 Dec 1996 21:07:53 -0500 Message-ID: <961218210751_1120986039@emout01.mail.aol.com> To: blubaugh@su1.in.net, glasson@pluto.njcc.com, pisarra@ccnet.co, DMFV47B@prodigy.com, pab@access5.digex.net, 74431.3434@compuserve.com, eok@vir.co, rcolker%udcvax.bitnet@vtbit.cc.vt.edu, kwalker@prairenet.org, david@blak.jak.demon.co.uk (davidstevenson), martino@courier6.aero.org, SLix328357@aol.com, RayRaskin@aol.com, jonathan@pathcom.com, hjpiltch@ix.netcom.com, wjhb08a@prodigy.com, DANJOANM@worldnet.att.net, CWILK@aol.com, al_levy@gateway.grumman.com, JApfelbaum@worldnet.att.net, can.bridge.fed@sk.sympatico.ca, Jimkirkham@aol.com, bseagram@interlog.com, 74774.3335@compuserve.com, bfer@nando.net, bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au, jonbriss@ix.netcom.com, lobo@ac.net, trfg36C@prodigy.com, rcolker@udc.edu, patti@dance.reno.nv.us, mrubin@world.std.com, marcl@primenet.com, diane@cyberverse.com, tlg@ime.net, crabwell@wwdc.com Subject: Re: Houghton Mifflin book offering Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I just received this e-mail and wanted to forward it to everyone I sent the original to: > Apparently we have had great success.. and now it's time to stop! > > << > You may have recently received a letter telling you that Houghton Mifflin > Publishing Corporation will donate one book to a children's hospital for > every 25 e-mails they receive. The story is true, but Houghton Mifflin has > reached its goal of 50,000 e-mail letters and their "Polar Express" > campaign is now over. PLEASE DO NOT SEND ANY MORE E-MAIL LETTERS TO > HOUGHTON MIFFLIN (SHARE@HMCO.COM). > >> > Thanks, Alan From owner-bridge-laws Thu Dec 19 15:48:23 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id PAA03421 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 19 Dec 1996 15:48:23 +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 PAA03416 for ; Thu, 19 Dec 1996 15:48:16 +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 XAA04133 for ; Wed, 18 Dec 1996 23:48:10 -0500 (EST) Received: by cfa183.harvard.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id XAA05062; Wed, 18 Dec 1996 23:48:29 -0500 Date: Wed, 18 Dec 1996 23:48:29 -0500 From: willner@cfa183.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Message-Id: <199612190448.XAA05062@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Revoke then claim Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: Laurence Kelso1 > The revoke is not established, so West should be able to correct it by > substituting a club. L62C1 now gives declarer the option of withdrawing > any card played after the revoke and before it was corrected. Is this the > authority needed for the Director to allow the claim to be withdrawn? > If declarer had layed down the SA and then claimed, would he have been > able to withdraw it after West's correction? If declarer had simply laid down the S-A, there is no question he would be allowed to withdraw it. The question is whether "play ceases" after a claim regardless of other circumstances or whether L62C1 allows withdrawing a claim and not only a single card. I prefer a broad interpretation of L62C1 myself, but I'll concede that the language is very far from mandating that interpretation. Still, a broad interpretation seems consistent with the spirit and intent of the Laws, and it's reasonable to suppose the lawmakers never considered a claim after a non-established revoke. I think most players would readily accept such a ruling. David S. may not. :-) > Even if we can cancel the claim, since it occured after the revoke, there > may still be too much UI to permit play to continue. The Director may > still have to adjudicate, however applying the guidelines of L70 in > resolving any doubtful points in favour of the non-claimer seems > inappropriate here, since (as you rightly point out) he is really the > non-offender in this mess. > > Wouldn't rulling under L12A1 be a better option? I certainly think so, for whatever that's worth. In assigning an adjusted score, I'd consider the revoking side offenders and declarer's side non-offenders. From owner-bridge-laws Thu Dec 19 17:46:57 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id RAA03854 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 19 Dec 1996 17:46:57 +1100 Received: from ids2.idsonline.com ([204.157.204.5]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id RAA03849 for ; Thu, 19 Dec 1996 17:46:47 +1100 Received: from va100.idsonline.com (va100.idsonline.com [205.177.128.100]) by ids2.idsonline.com (8.6.13/8.6.12) with SMTP id CAA26619; Thu, 19 Dec 1996 02:41:36 -0500 Message-ID: <32B8E45E.2482@ids2.idsonline.com> Date: Thu, 19 Dec 1996 01:44:46 -0500 From: "Larry E. Goode" Reply-To: mule@ids2.idsonline.com X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0Gold (Win16; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws CC: Steve Willner Subject: Re: Revoke then claim References: <199612190448.XAA05062@cfa183.harvard.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Steve Willner wrote: > I prefer a broad interpretation of L62C1 myself, but I'll concede that > the language is very far from mandating that interpretation. Still, > a broad interpretation seems consistent with the spirit and intent of > the Laws, and it's reasonable to suppose the lawmakers never considered > a claim after a non-established revoke. I think most players would > readily accept such a ruling. David S. may not. :-) > Without meaning to single out Steve (I've lost the original post for this thread, but I can be silent no longer), since I'm mostly agreeing with him, I see this as much more black and white. I don't see it as a broad interpretation of L62C1 at all. C. Subsequent Cards Played to Trick 1. By Non-offending Side Each member of the non-offending side may, without penalty, withdraw any card he may have played after the revoke but before attention was drawn to it (see Law 47F). If they they can withdraw any card without penalty, how could they not be able to withdraw a sequence of cards (ie., a claim) without penalty? > From: Laurence Kelso1 > > Even if we can cancel the claim, since it occured after the revoke, there > > may still be too much UI to permit play to continue. The Director may > > still have to adjudicate, however applying the guidelines of L70 in > > resolving any doubtful points in favour of the non-claimer seems > > inappropriate here, since (as you rightly point out) he is really the > > non-offender in this mess. > > This is a non-sequitor. If we cancel the claim (certainly my view), we can not then apply L70 which deals with contested claims. Claiming is like pregancy in this respect... you can't claim a little bit. > > Wouldn't rulling under L12A1 be a better option? > > I certainly think so, for whatever that's worth. In assigning an > adjusted score, I'd consider the revoking side offenders and declarer's > side non-offenders. How did L12A1 get to be an option? A. Right to Award an Adjusted Score The Director may award an adjusted score (or scores), either on his own initiative or on the application of any player, but only when these Laws empower him to do so, or: 1. Laws Provide No Indemnity The Director may award an assigned adjusted score when he judges that these Laws do not provide indemnity to the non-offending contestant for the particular type of violation of law committed by an opponent. As best as I can tell, declarer has commited no offense by claiming after a revoke. As the non-offending contestant I'm not sure exactly what indemity he would be looking for by playing the hand out. As I say, I lost the original post, but if all the information he received came from the defenders after the revoke, none of it is unauthorized or in any way tainted by an ethical cloud. If the defenders received any UI from the revoke so as to require adjusting the result shouldn't we use L12C? From owner-bridge-laws Thu Dec 19 20:21:42 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id UAA04181 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 19 Dec 1996 20:21:42 +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 UAA04176 for ; Thu, 19 Dec 1996 20:21:35 +1100 Received: from coruncanius.demon.co.uk ([194.222.115.176]) by relay-5.mail.demon.net id aa527712; 19 Dec 96 9:06 GMT Message-ID: Date: Thu, 19 Dec 1996 09:01:08 +0000 To: Laurence Kelso1 Cc: David Stevenson , bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Labeo Subject: Re: Revoke then claim In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In message , Laurence Kelso1 writes > > >On Tue, 17 Dec 1996, David Stevenson (in rgb) wrote: > >> A. L. Edwards wrote: >> >> >Barry Wolk (wolk@ccm.umanitoba.ca) writes: >> >> The following constructed ending is based on something similar that >> >> happened at the club. >> >> >> >> North: K4 void void 863 >> >> West: East: >> >> 63 Q72 >> >> 4 52 >> >> void void >> >> 97 void >> >> South: AJ85 void void K >> >> >> >> Playing NT, S cashed the club K, and both E and W discarded hearts. >> >> Declarer then claimed, saying "2 spades and 2 clubs" Naturally West >> >> objected. How do you rule? >> >> >> >> Ruling on the revoke is easy -- it was caught in time to let it be >> >> corrected. Then how do you rule on the claim? And would the ruling be >> >> the same if the EW cards were >> >> West: Q3 4 void 97 Easr: 762 52 void void >> >> >> >> I would like to cancel the claim and let play continue, with declarer >> >> allowed to make his own decision on how to play the spade suit. However, >> >> this is contrary to the Laws. > >> -------------- >> >> I have not given an answer to the problem because, >> uncharacteristically, I am not sure what the answer is, and I wished to >> see others' answers before commenting. Perhaps, however, I can put the >> argument back on track. >> >> There has been a revoke. It was not established, because the revoking >> side did not play to the next trick, claim, acquiesce in a claim nor [in >> Europe] did the defenders ask each other "Having none?". >> >> Once the revoke is made, play ceases. There cannot be any more play >> by the players under any circumstances whatever. [OK Jens, Herman, >> Steve et al, I think that is too strong a statement by the thickness of >> a hair!] It is now a matter for the TD to decide. He will decide as >> equitably as possible to both sides, because the Law tells him to, but >> any doubtful points go against the claimer. There are some situations >> where the Law goes on to make specific comments. >> >> There you are: now, how do you rule? >> >> ------------- > >I too am not sure what the answer is - but there are a couple of things >worth considering. > >The revoke is not established, so West should be able to correct it by >substituting a club. L62C1 now gives declarer the option of withdrawing >any card played after the revoke and before it was corrected. Is this the >authority needed for the Director to allow the claim to be withdrawn? >If declarer had layed down the SA and then claimed, would he have been >able to withdraw it after West's correction? > >Even if we can cancel the claim, since it occured after the revoke, there >may still be too much UI to permit play to continue. The Director may >still have to adjudicate, however applying the guidelines of L70 in >resolving any doubtful points in favour of the non-claimer seems >inappropriate here, since (as you rightly point out) he is really the >non-offender in this mess. > >Wouldn't rulling under L12A1 be a better option? > > >Laurie > > > Labeo offers the following thoughts. Since the revoke is not established and declarer's claim has ended the play the Director needs to resolve the situation. West must be allowed to rectify his play. As declarer's claim was based upon the withdrawn play he should not be held to it. West although allowed to correct his play has all same committed an infraction and remains an 'offending' player. My first thought was to look at Law 84E, but it is invidious to ask the Director to make for declarer the choice which he would have made for himself if the revoke had been corrected and with no claim made play had continued normally. The claim, provoked by the infraction, has killed that possibility. So the route I would be inclined to go down in the heat of battle is 12A2. It strikes me that in this case the revoke has created a situation where the Laws prevent the possibility of normal play of the board and in which there are good reasons not to ask the Director to make a bridge judgement on behalf of the player. So my inclination is NS 60% EW 40% in application of Law 12A2. However, the other question to look at is whether the claim constitutes a play within the meaning of Law 62C so that declarer would be allowed to play the hand out; not very convenient that if the cards have been tabled (see Law 70B2). Labeo From owner-bridge-laws Fri Dec 20 00:23:35 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA06971 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 20 Dec 1996 00:23:35 +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 AAA06966 for ; Fri, 20 Dec 1996 00:23:29 +1100 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by relay-5.mail.demon.net id ab511100; 19 Dec 96 13:22 GMT Message-ID: Date: Thu, 19 Dec 1996 13:17:49 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Revoke then claim In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Labeo wrote: >So my inclination is NS 60% EW 40% in application of Law 12A2. Suppose that NS will get at least 70% whether you give him two tricks or four? Does the Law really reduce his score to 60%? -- 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 Dec 20 00:53:05 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA07750 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 20 Dec 1996 00:53:05 +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 AAA07745 for ; Fri, 20 Dec 1996 00:52:59 +1100 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by relay-10.mail.demon.net id aa1012059; 19 Dec 96 13:22 GMT Message-ID: <0u$s7oBEAUuyEwFd@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Thu, 19 Dec 1996 13:15:48 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Revoke then claim In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk >From Mark Brader: Barry Wolk: >>> The following constructed ending is based on something similar that >>> happened at the club. >>> >>> North: K4 void void 863 >>> West: East: >>> 63 Q72 >>> 4 52 >> void void >>> 97 void >>> South: AJ85 void void K >>> >>> Playing NT, S cashed the club K, and both E and W discarded hearts. >>> Declarer then claimed, saying "2 spades and 2 clubs" Naturally West >>> objected. How do you rule? David Stevenson: > All right, let me ask you another question. You are casually playing > a hand. Both opponents show out of a suit. How many of you now count > the suit to see if anyone has revoked? What, none? > ... > To say that the problem was not caused by the revoke is totally > unreasonable and untrue. How do you determine whether something is the > cause of something? Try removing it and seeing what happens. If there > had been no revoke do we believe there would still have been a faulty > claim? No! So the revoke *is* the cause of the faulty claim and thus > of the problem. It seems to me that David is exactly right here, and that equity requires the declaring side to get as many spade tricks as they would have done if the revoke had not occurred. But if either defender's hand has been exposed, as it should have been when the claim was disputed, then there is no way to determine how spades would have been played. Even if only the clubs in West's hand were exposed, it would still be impossible to ask declarer to play out the hand or to state a corrected line of play, since such actions are prohibited by Laws 68 and 70. I think Laws 12A1 and 12A2 apply. The Director can judge that the laws do not provide suitable indemnity for the type of violation committed (i.e. a non-established revoke so timed as to provoke a premature claim) and that no rectification can be made that will permit normal play. Average-Plus for NS, Average-Minus for EW, then? -- Mark Brader "I always pass on good advice. It's the only thing msb@sq.com to do with it. It is never any use to oneself." SoftQuad Inc., Toronto -- Lord Goring (Oscar Wilde: An Ideal Husband) My text in this article is in the public domain. From owner-bridge-laws Fri Dec 20 00:56:59 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA07768 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 20 Dec 1996 00:56:59 +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 AAA07763 for ; Fri, 20 Dec 1996 00:56:53 +1100 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by relay-6.mail.demon.net id aa611894; 19 Dec 96 13:24 GMT Message-ID: Date: Thu, 19 Dec 1996 13:23:35 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Misinformation and Zia! MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Ercan Kuru wrote: >Excuse me I coudnt see any ethic problem about the stratagy Zia >offered. It is a tactical bid. Your pd also believes that you have a H >suit, ... Does your pd believe it? Specifically, having read about Zia and his methods, the *first* time Zia bids 4H with you, do you really believe that Zia has long hearts? >... ok I agree next time he will alert and explain that "I may be >short in Hearts" but in that case I can have fit for both majors. >Also there can be many different tactical bids, even tactical >openings, I can open 1D with shorter D then C "when I feel " (not >systematically) to protect D lead. And does my PD need to alert this? Well, does your little group normally do this? --------- Forget about rules and regulations for a moment. Whether we play OKB or RLB, we are playing a game that involves many elements, such as techniques in dummy play, partnership co-operation in defence and so on. But it is a game based on a coded set of meanings between a partnership, and each and every one of those coded agreements must be fully and freely available to the opponents. You should not say to yourself, "Do the regulations require me to tell the opponents about this particular part of my methods?" That is for inexperienced players, kids, little old ladies and the like. Proper bridge players are not trying to win at any cost, but are trying to win fairly and ethically, and **you** should be worrying about your fairness and ethics, rather than having to worry about your opponents' fairness and ethics. So you should say to yourself "Is there some agreement that I have with partner that the opponents should know about?" And this applies whether that agreement is achieved by discussion, by experience, or by both reading the same book, or belonging to the same bridge club or sewing circle or small group of friends. If you want to try out the Zia method out of the blue without any possible agreement before, fine. And I do not think that only once matters as a previous poster suggests: so long as the next time is different enough not to seem similar, also fine; or if you leave it long enough, also fine. But *if* when you bid 4H, your partner thinks one of the following: 1] I wonder if he has hearts: he didn't last time! 2] I wonder if he has hearts: he has been talking about Zia and his bids all week! 3] I wonder if he has hearts: we had that discussion in the pub last week, and agreed it was an excellent psyching position! 4] I wonder if he has hearts: the ****** never has anything he bids! then I wonder whether there is something that the opponents should know. --------- Note: I have copied this to RGB and BLML since I think that each will have different ideas on this! It originates with RGBO. --------- In the original article [somewhat snipped], Ercan Kuru wrote: >Jxxxx >x >KQTxxx >x > >The bidding went as most of the tables (I think so) : >Pass 1C 2C* Dbl ? * Michals (Majors 5-5) > >Zia, at his book , says that bid 4H first and escape to 4S when they >Dbl, of course you have to do this when you dont want your opponents >to bid over 4S. Your opponents may think that they have more defensive >tricks and choose to double rather than bidding. > >I did it and it worked. I bid 4H first , opps dbled and then I bid 4S >opps dbled again and 4S is cold. (Also 5C is cold for opps) Carl Hudecek replied: >> The problem, of course, is that you cannot do this again >>with the same partner, without announcing to opps >>"I could have a singleton H and long spades". >> You know have an implied convention with this pard. >> And with a STRANGER for a pard you may find yourself playing SEVEN >>spades as the doubling starts and he repeatedly "corrects" to H >>on xxxxx KQ9xxxx x void David Stevenson also replied: > Quite frankly, the ethics are dubious when Zia does it. Even if you >have never played with him, because you have read about him, you have >"implicit" understandings from the moment you sit down. > > Suppose you play in a group of eight or ten people at University, >who >regularly play together, talk about bridge, and discuss it in depth. >Now you sit down opposite the only one of the group with whom you >haven't played before. You already have some implicit agreements, and >opponents have a right to know about them. -- 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 Dec 20 01:12:30 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA07847 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 20 Dec 1996 01:12:30 +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 BAA07842 for ; Fri, 20 Dec 1996 01:12:21 +1100 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by relay-9.mail.demon.net id aa924767; 19 Dec 96 13:22 GMT Message-ID: <1OjszvB2AUuyEwHz@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Thu, 19 Dec 1996 13:16:38 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Revoke then claim In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk >From Jens Brix Christiansen: David Stevenson wrote: > > A. L. Edwards wrote: > > >Barry Wolk (wolk@ccm.umanitoba.ca) writes: > >> The following constructed ending is based on something similar that > >> happened at the club. > >> > >> North: K4 void void 863 > >> West: East: > >> 63 Q72 > >> 4 52 > >> void void > >> 97 void > >> South: AJ85 void void K > >> > >> Playing NT, S cashed the club K, and both E and W discarded hearts. > >> Declarer then claimed, saying "2 spades and 2 clubs" Naturally West > >> objected. How do you rule? > >> > >> Ruling on the revoke is easy -- it was caught in time to let it be > >> corrected. Then how do you rule on the claim? And would the ruling be > >> the same if the EW cards were > >> West: Q3 4 void 97 Easr: 762 52 void void > >> > >> I would like to cancel the claim and let play continue, with declarer > >> allowed to make his own decision on how to play the spade suit. However, > >> this is contrary to the Laws. [large snip] > > I have not given an answer to the problem because, > uncharacteristically, I am not sure what the answer is, and I wished to > see others' answers before commenting. Perhaps, however, I can put the > argument back on track. > > There has been a revoke. It was not established, because the revoking > side did not play to the next trick, claim, acquiesce in a claim nor [in > Europe] did the defenders ask each other "Having none?". > > Once the revoke is made, play ceases. There cannot be any more play > by the players under any circumstances whatever. [OK Jens, (Confused? Well, David meant "claim" here, not "revoke"). You provoke me, David. Totally irrelevant to this thread, play could possibly continue when a _defender_ claims some but not all of the remaining tricks, and his partner objects to the implicit concession of the tricks not claimed. > Herman, > Steve et al, I think that is too strong a statement by the thickness of > a hair!] It is now a matter for the TD to decide. He will decide as > equitably as possible to both sides, because the Law tells him to, but > any doubtful points go against the claimer. There are some situations > where the Law goes on to make specific comments. > > There you are: now, how do you rule? Play ceases. The revoke is not established and is to be corrected. (end of easy part). Let us first treat the two irregularities as individual occurrences. The revoke is then over and done with as soon as the H4 is taken back (and made a major penalty card) and the C7 is played instead. If instead of claiming S had led a low spade and W had discovered by himself that he had revoked, S would be allowed to take his lead back after the revoke was corrected. In an analogy, S should be allowed to take his statement back, which means that the TD should not restrict his determination of the number of tricks made to S's original statement; furthermore, the TD should evaluate the outcome under consideration of the H4 as a major penalty card (strictly academic here, I think). The possible non-exotic lines of play seem to be: A. Spade A, spade K, club (declarer thinks clubs are good after all). 2 tricks. B. Spade K, spade A (trying to drop the Q). 2 tricks. C. Spade K, spade finesse. 4 tricks. B is certainly within the limits of "normal, not irrational", so declarer is awarded only 2 tricks. Convinced? Not me. I do not think that the two irregularities can be separated like this, because it is almost certain that declarer would not have claimed if there had been no revoke. I therefore pick up my law book once more and look for the law headed "Erroneous claim caused by revoke by opponent". I find no such law. Fortunately the TD is empowered to award an adjusted score when an irregularity occurs which the Laws have not foreseen (Law 12). I treat declarer as non-offender [Pay attention now! You have just witnessed the crucial part of the ruling; the rest is mechanical], and give him the best score likely, had the irregularity not occurred (Law 12C2). This is 4 tricks in a pairs event in a normal contract, but if the method of scoring and the contract are such that declarer would be unlikely to risk scoring just 1 of the remaining tricks in order to have a shot at 4 tricks, then 2 tricks is a better verdict. I treat the defenders as an offending side and therefore give them the worst result at all probable (still Law 12C2): all 4 remaining tricks to declarer, regardless of the method of scoring and the contract. Awarding different scores to the two sides is, of course, perfectly normal. Artificial adjusted scores (average plus/minus, see Law 12B) are not suitable here. They do not restore equity if one of the sides already has an excellent board no matter what happens to the last 4 tricks. This might be appealed, and the committee might be less generous to declarer than I was (and David also was), so they might ask me to redo the mechanics, this time treating both the defenders and declarer as an offending side, in effect punishing him for his erroneous claim. This is somewhat easier: declarer's score is based on 2 of the last 4 tricks, and the opponents' score is based on none of the last 4 tricks. A committee (but not the TD) could also award declarer a more elaborately calculated adjusted score, say 50% of the score for 2 of the remaining 4 tricks and 50% of the score for all of the remaining 4 tricks; they would do so if they found it more equitable, and they are authorized to do so by the footnote to Law 12C2. This posting is much too long, for which I apologize (thus making it longer). This discussion should probably have been moved to the Bridge Laws Mailing List by now. From owner-bridge-laws Fri Dec 20 01:19:08 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA07869 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 20 Dec 1996 01:19:08 +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 BAA07864 for ; Fri, 20 Dec 1996 01:19:03 +1100 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by relay-6.mail.demon.net id ab611443; 19 Dec 96 13:22 GMT Message-ID: Date: Thu, 19 Dec 1996 13:17:37 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Revoke then claim In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Copy of the original article The following constructed ending is based on something similar that happened at the club. North: K4 void void 863 West: East: 63 Q72 4 52 void void 97 void South: AJ85 void void K Playing NT, S cashed the club K, and both E and W discarded hearts. Declarer then claimed, saying "2 spades and 2 clubs" Naturally West objected. How do you rule? Ruling on the revoke is easy -- it was caught in time to let it be corrected. Then how do you rule on the claim? And would the ruling be the same if the EW cards were West: Q3 4 void 97 Easr: 762 52 void void I would like to cancel the claim and let play continue, with declarer allowed to make his own decision on how to play the spade suit. However, this is contrary to the Laws. Barry Wolk Dept of Mathematics University of Manitoba Winnipeg Manitoba Canada From owner-bridge-laws Fri Dec 20 03:49:14 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA08561 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 20 Dec 1996 03:49:14 +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 DAA08556 for ; Fri, 20 Dec 1996 03:48:55 +1100 Received: from catullus.agw.bt.co.uk by mailhub.axion.bt.co.uk with SMTP (PP); Thu, 19 Dec 1996 15:35:45 +0000 Received: from ah4gate.agw.bt.co.uk (ah4gate.agw.bt.co.uk [147.150.119.60]) by catullus.agw.bt.co.uk (8.8.3/8.8.3) with SMTP id PAA10937 for ; Thu, 19 Dec 1996 15:35:30 GMT Received: by ah4gate.agw.bt.co.uk with Microsoft Mail id <32B96125@ah4gate.agw.bt.co.uk>; Thu, 19 Dec 96 15:37:09 GMT From: "Burn, David" To: "'Bridge Laws'" Subject: RE: Revoke then claim Date: Thu, 19 Dec 96 15:34:00 GMT Message-ID: <32B96125@ah4gate.agw.bt.co.uk> Encoding: 50 TEXT X-Mailer: Microsoft Mail V3.0 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk >From David Burn My 0.6 Euros' worth: L63A3 should be amended to include the case where the revoker objects to a claim or concession. Since this is obviously consistent with the rest of L63, and was pretty clearly the intent of the lawmakers, I would have no difficulty in ruling that there had been an established revoke. South follows the line stated in his claim, and ends up with the CK, the SAK, and two tricks by virtue of the revoke penalty, making the lot. Since South is a non-offender, and since he might well have ended up with the lot in any case had West not committed an infraction, this appears to me an entirely equitable outcome. If you do not accept this interpretation of L63 (and there are good reasons why you might not), then the problem is difficult indeed. There is something to be said for allowing the interpretation of L62C1 that permits declarer to withdraw his claim, but I do not believe that this holds water. A claim does not involve the play of cards - indeed, this is precisely what it does not involve - so I do not see that a Law which concerns the playing and withdrawing of cards can apply to a claim. Resorting to L12A2 and deeming "normal play" of the board impossible is not the answer either (it very rarely is, but this Law is unfortunately far too often a refuge for incompetent officials). South's claim has been made, may not be withdrawn, so must be adjudicated. This is on the face of it simple enough - South gets the CK and SAK, and the defenders get the last two tricks. Is this equitable? No, it is not. So the Director may apply L12A1, since South has not been indemnified by the Laws against the particular type of infraction committed by West. (Of course, if the Director decides that West's action was intentional, then he may apply L72B1.) As a Director, I would probably rule that South gets the lot anyway, then leave it to an Appeals Committee to decide how many tricks a South who believed the deck to contain 11 clubs would actually succeed in taking left to his own devices. Merry Holidays to the Americans, Merry Christmas to the rest of you! From owner-bridge-laws Fri Dec 20 09:03:37 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA17978 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 20 Dec 1996 09:03:37 +1100 Received: from msri.org (msri.org [198.129.64.224]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id JAA17973 for ; Fri, 20 Dec 1996 09:03:31 +1100 Received: (from smap@localhost) by msri.org (8.8.2/8.7.2) id OAA21165; Thu, 19 Dec 1996 14:03:29 -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 sma021137; Thu Dec 19 14:03:03 1996 Received: by euclid.msri.org (8.7/MSRI) id NAA02183; Thu, 19 Dec 1996 13:56:48 -0800 (PST) Date: Thu, 19 Dec 1996 13:56:48 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <199612192156.NAA02183@euclid.msri.org> From: David Grabiner To: DBURN@lnhdent.agw.bt.co.uk CC: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au In-reply-to: <32B96125@ah4gate.agw.bt.co.uk> (DBURN@lnhdent.agw.bt.co.uk) Subject: Re: Revoke then claim Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk You write: >> From David Burn > My 0.6 Euros' worth: > L63A3 should be amended to include the case where > the revoker objects to a claim or concession. > Since this is obviously consistent with the rest of L63, and > was pretty clearly the intent of the lawmakers, > I would have no difficulty in ruling that there had been > an established revoke. Suppose that South claimed, and said, "I'll take AK of spades, and the clubs are good since you showed out last trick." Now, if West says, "No, I have a club," this seems to be catching the revoke at the proper time. If West had acquiesced in the claim, this would implicitly constitute playing to the next trick, so this should establish the revoke, but the objection because he realizes his revoke does not constitute a 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 Fri Dec 20 10:57:50 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA18583 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 20 Dec 1996 10:57:50 +1100 Received: from cs.bu.edu (root@CS.BU.EDU [128.197.13.2]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id KAA18572 for ; Fri, 20 Dec 1996 10:57:43 +1100 Received: from csa.bu.edu by cs.bu.edu (8.6.10/Spike-2.1) id SAA00835; Thu, 19 Dec 1996 18:57:36 -0500 From: metcalf@cs.bu.edu (David Metcalf) Received: by csa.bu.edu (8.8.3/Spike-2.1) id SAA24153; Thu, 19 Dec 1996 18:57:32 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <199612192357.SAA24153@csa.bu.edu> Subject: Re: revoke then claim To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Thu, 19 Dec 1996 18:57:32 -0500 (EST) Cc: metcalf@cs.bu.edu (david metcalf) X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL23] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > >Barry Wolk (wolk@ccm.umanitoba.ca) writes: > >> The following constructed ending is based on something similar that > >> happened at the club. > >> > >> North: K4 void void 863 > >> West: East: > >> 63 Q72 > >> 4 52 > >> void void > >> 97 void > >> South: AJ85 void void K > >> > >> Playing NT, S cashed the club K, and both E and W discarded hearts. > >> Declarer then claimed, saying "2 spades and 2 clubs" Naturally West > >> objected. How do you rule? > >> Jens Brix Christiansen wrote (I think, apologies if I got the attribution wrong): > The possible non-exotic lines of play seem to be: > A. Spade A, spade K, club (declarer thinks clubs are good after all). 2 > tricks. David Burn wrote: > South's claim has been made, may > not be withdrawn, so must be adjudicated. This is on the > face of it simple enough - South gets the CK and SAK, > and the defenders get the last two tricks. [and then claimed director adjustment due to inequity under L12A1] I think that the people who are claiming that S blundered because he miscounted the clubs are being a bit harsh. It is posible that he thought there *were* 2 more clubs out there, and when neither opponent followed to the club, decided that he had been in error. I think it is quite reasonable to decide that one must have made a counting error when presented with direct evidence of the fact, and to claim based on the physical evidence (clearly the last clubs were good - neither opponent had any more clubs!) I would always trust the physical evidence over my own count. I concur with Mr Christiansen when he writes that the declarer should be treated as nonoffender, and should be given the best score likely had the revoke not occurred (L12C2). In a pairs event, once the clubs don't split, a declarer could easily take the spade finesse and end up with the balance of the tricks. David Metcalf From owner-bridge-laws Fri Dec 20 11:29:36 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id LAA18719 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 20 Dec 1996 11:29:36 +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 LAA18714 for ; Fri, 20 Dec 1996 11:29:30 +1100 Received: from coruncanius.demon.co.uk ([194.222.115.176]) by relay-9.mail.demon.net id aa921096; 20 Dec 96 0:12 GMT Message-ID: Date: Thu, 19 Dec 1996 22:54:13 +0000 To: mule@ids2.idsonline.com Cc: Bridge Laws , Steve Willner From: Labeo Subject: Re: Revoke then claim In-Reply-To: <32B8E45E.2482@ids2.idsonline.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In message <32B8E45E.2482@ids2.idsonline.com>, "Larry E. Goode" writes >Steve Willner wrote: > >> I prefer a broad interpretation of L62C1 myself, but I'll concede that >> the language is very far from mandating that interpretation. Still, >> a broad interpretation seems consistent with the spirit and intent of >> the Laws, and it's reasonable to suppose the lawmakers never considered >> a claim after a non-established revoke. I think most players would >> readily accept such a ruling. David S. may not. :-) >> > > Without meaning to single out Steve (I've lost the original post for >this thread, but I can be silent no longer), since I'm mostly agreeing >with him, I see this as much more black and white. I don't see it as a >broad interpretation of L62C1 at all. > >C. Subsequent Cards Played to Trick > 1. By Non-offending Side > Each member of the non-offending side may, without penalty, withdraw >any card he may have played after the revoke but before attention was >drawn to it (see Law 47F). > > If they they can withdraw any card without penalty, how could they not >be able to withdraw a sequence of cards (ie., a claim) without penalty? > >> From: Laurence Kelso1 >> > Even if we can cancel the claim, since it occured after the revoke, there >> > may still be too much UI to permit play to continue. The Director may >> > still have to adjudicate, however applying the guidelines of L70 in >> > resolving any doubtful points in favour of the non-claimer seems >> > inappropriate here, since (as you rightly point out) he is really the >> > non-offender in this mess. >> > > > This is a non-sequitor. If we cancel the claim (certainly my view), >we can not then apply L70 which deals with contested claims. Claiming >is like pregancy in this respect... you can't claim a little bit. > >> > Wouldn't rulling under L12A1 be a better option? > > > >> I certainly think so, for whatever that's worth. In assigning an >> adjusted score, I'd consider the revoking side offenders and declarer's >> side non-offenders. > > How did L12A1 get to be an option? > >A. Right to Award an Adjusted Score > The Director may award an adjusted score (or scores), either on >his own initiative or on the application of any player, but only when >these Laws empower him to do so, or: > 1. Laws Provide No Indemnity > The Director may award an assigned adjusted score when he >judges that these Laws do not provide indemnity to the non-offending >contestant for the particular type of violation of law committed by an >opponent. > > As best as I can tell, declarer has commited no offense by claiming >after a revoke. As the non-offending contestant I'm not sure exactly >what indemity he would be looking for by playing the hand out. As I >say, I lost the original post, but if all the information he received >came from the defenders after the revoke, none of it is unauthorized or >in any way tainted by an ethical cloud. If the defenders received any >UI from the revoke so as to require adjusting the result shouldn't we >use L12C? > Further thoughts (Labeo second helping): I do take the view that declarer can withdraw his statement of play and be allowed to state a fresh line - but NOT if in dealing with the claim the Director has required the hands to be faced. In that event I consider the best option is 12A2. But it is certainly arguable that the Director assign a score under 12A1 giving declarer the margin of doubt in finding the missing Q; this seems to lack a balance of equity between the two sides and although I agree only EW are 'offending' I am unenthusiastic about going OTT. Labeo From owner-bridge-laws Fri Dec 20 14:22:46 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id OAA19568 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 20 Dec 1996 14:22:46 +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 OAA19563 for ; Fri, 20 Dec 1996 14:22:36 +1100 Received: from coruncanius.demon.co.uk ([194.222.115.176]) by relay-9.mail.demon.net id aa929762; 20 Dec 96 3:04 GMT Message-ID: <8SPFuAA49fuyEwWn@coruncanius.demon.co.uk> Date: Fri, 20 Dec 1996 02:52:40 +0000 To: "Burn, David" Cc: "'Bridge Laws'" From: Labeo Subject: Re: Revoke then claim In-Reply-To: <32B96125@ah4gate.agw.bt.co.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In message <32B96125@ah4gate.agw.bt.co.uk>, "Burn, David" writes > >From David Burn > >My 0.6 Euros' worth: > >L63A3 should be amended to include the case where >the revoker objects to a claim or concession. > >Since this is obviously consistent with the rest of L63, and >was pretty clearly the intent of the lawmakers, >I would have no difficulty in ruling that there had been >an established revoke. South follows the line stated >in his claim, and ends up with the CK, the SAK, and >two tricks by virtue of the revoke penalty, making >the lot. Since South is a non-offender, and since he >might well have ended up with the lot in any case >had West not committed an infraction, this >appears to me an entirely equitable outcome. > >If you do not accept this interpretation of L63 (and >there are good reasons why you might not), then the >problem is difficult indeed. There is something to be >said for allowing the interpretation of L62C1 that permits >declarer to withdraw his claim, but I do not believe that >this holds water. A claim does not involve the play of >cards - indeed, this is precisely what it does not >involve - so I do not see that a Law which concerns >the playing and withdrawing of cards can apply to a claim. > >Resorting to L12A2 and deeming "normal play" of the >board impossible is not the answer either (it very rarely >is, but this Law is unfortunately far too often a refuge for >incompetent officials). South's claim has been made, may >not be withdrawn, so must be adjudicated. This is on the >face of it simple enough - South gets the CK and SAK, >and the defenders get the last two tricks. > >Is this equitable? No, it is not. So the Director may apply >L12A1, since South has not been indemnified by the Laws >against the particular type of infraction committed by >West. (Of course, if the Director decides that West's >action was intentional, then he may apply L72B1.) As a >Director, I would probably rule that South gets the lot >anyway, then leave it to an Appeals Committee to decide >how many tricks a South who believed the deck to contain >11 clubs would actually succeed in taking left to his own >devices. > >Merry Holidays to the Americans, Merry Christmas to the >rest of you! Labeo writes: In David Burn's splendid essay I am having some slight difficulty with the phrase "particular type of infraction". As I understood the previous material West had committed a fairly simple revoke which had not become established; South had claimed but EW had not acquiesced. West had the right to rectify his revoke and the Director was then left with South's claim to rule upon. Is it somewhere in the laws that a revoke is a different kind of revoke if it happens to lead that well-known free agent, declarer, into making a false claim? = are the voluntary actions of declarer after the revoke to stand part of West's infraction? Such a doctrine would be a most useful precedent in some other situations. And re-reading L70 I do see that the Director is required to make his L70 ruling as equitably as possible to both sides, but I have not found anywhere in it references to offending players or offending sides; it seems to concern itself only with the director's treatment of "the claimer" and does not appear to say that inequity for this person provides grounds for a score adjustment; what is more it says that any matter in doubt "shall be resolved against the claimer" - it does not say "in favour of the non-offending side" or anything like that. I would hesitate to ask Directors to read the laws so as to include words that must accidentally have been left out. All of which means I find it rather a long leap to Law 12A1. It might be useful to have a law which says that if the Director applies the laws as they are and does not like the result he should do something else. But that apart if the Director goes down the path of adjudicating the claim according to L70 I think he must end up with a declarer very hot under the collar. Either the Director should say 'this is out of hand' (or if you prefer it, "this needs to be fudged") and give an artificial adjusted score, or he should avoid exposing defenders' cards and allow declarer to withdraw his statement of the play and substitute another if he so wishes. From a reading of L68 it does appear very arguable that the L68C statement is a nomination of play of the cards. Labeo From owner-bridge-laws Fri Dec 20 14:26:15 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id OAA19594 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 20 Dec 1996 14:26:15 +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 OAA19588 for ; Fri, 20 Dec 1996 14:26:09 +1100 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by relay-5.mail.demon.net id ab509060; 20 Dec 96 3:23 GMT Message-ID: Date: Fri, 20 Dec 1996 03:20:39 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Revoke then claim In-Reply-To: <32B96125@ah4gate.agw.bt.co.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Burn, David wrote: > >From David Burn > >My 0.6 Euros' worth: > >L63A3 should be amended to include the case where >the revoker objects to a claim or concession. Good idea, unfortunately unlikely to happen before 2009. >Resorting to L12A2 and deeming "normal play" of the >board impossible is not the answer either (it very rarely >is, but this Law is unfortunately far too often a refuge for >incompetent officials). South's claim has been made, may >not be withdrawn, so must be adjudicated. This is on the >face of it simple enough - South gets the CK and SAK, >and the defenders get the last two tricks. > >Is this equitable? No, it is not. So the Director may apply >L12A1, since South has not been indemnified by the Laws >against the particular type of infraction committed by >West. (Of course, if the Director decides that West's >action was intentional, then he may apply L72B1.) As a >Director, I would probably rule that South gets the lot >anyway, then leave it to an Appeals Committee to decide >how many tricks a South who believed the deck to contain >11 clubs would actually succeed in taking left to his own >devices. While I agree with David and others that the solution lies in L12A1, perhaps I could say a little more about the distinction between L12A1 and L12A2. One poster suggested the answer lay in one of those Laws, but did not specify which: since he then suggested an ArtAS he presumably used L12A2. Another has stated L12A2 as a reason for an ArtAS. Then there was a poster who suggested L12A1, and David who not only suggested L12A1 but was somewhat scathing [see above] about the over-use of L12A2. I believe that even at the level of readers of this list there is some confusion about the awarding of adjusted scores. I believe that when the law-makers saw fit to use two such similar terms as Artificial Adjusted Score and Assigned Adjusted Score they added to the confusion. I regret that even I [pause for cries of Nooooo, not you, David ] have managed recently to mix the blasted things up on a technical point and David Burn was there to correct me. There are two basic situations to consider. If a board is played out to a finish then any adjustment is assigned under L12C2, that is the TD/AC gives a particular score on the board. For example, if a pair bid 4S after a hesitation and make it, then the TD may rule it back to 3S+1, ie he may assign a score of +170 instead of the score of +420 actually obtained at the time. If the infraction is a totally abnormal one and not covered otherwise, then L12A1 says that "The Director may award an assigned adjusted score ...", which means dealing with it in a similar fashion. Despite what seems to be the practice around the world, neither L12A1 nor L12C2 gives the TD/AC any right to award a score of the 60/40 type, once a result has been obtained. If a board cannot be played at all, because of slow play, misboarding, UI from outside sources, playing the wrong board and all sorts of other causes, then L12C1 comes into play and the TD/AC awards an artificial score, 60/40, 3imps, etc. The generality is covered by L12A2 which says he may award such a score if normal play of the board is impossible. [Note for the present problem: normal play is possible: there was a claim which needed adjudication: that is normal play: L12A2 does not apply.] So L12A2 leads you to the ArtAS in L12C1. A lot of rulings have been made over the years on the basis of let's give 60/40 because it is too hard to assign a score. I find this totally unimpressive because [a] it is normal to be able to assign: in at least 95% of cases this is pure laziness IMO and [b] it is illegal. An interesting thread was developed by Herman recently based on how to calculate ArtAS, possibly as a suggestion for future Laws. While his arguments about using results from the other room seemed fair and sensible, he also wanted to use [in part] what happened in the room of the infraction. Now this seems totally against the split between assigning scores where there is a result and awarding artificial ones where there has not. There is a type of infraction under EBU regulations where an ArtAS is given per regulation even though the board is played out. While the letter of the Law might not be seen to support this I believe this to be a much more reasonable misuse of L12C1, if it is a misuse. I do not particularly object to sensible regulations like this as a practical matter. However, in the case being considered here the misuse of applying L12A2 and thus L12C1 is clear if you consider what would happen if declarer has already got a 70% board if he only makes two tricks [and a 100% board if he makes four]. The L12A1 people would reduce him to 60%: this hardly seems fair! Some of you might wonder whether all this will change in the 1997 Laws. I have now received limited permission to quote items and start discussions [see disclaimer below]. L12 is very little changed in the new Laws: in fact L12A, L12B and L12C2 not at all! The changes in L12C1 seem cosmetic, except that average minus becomes *at most* 40% [previously it was 40%]. The infamous footnote to L12C2 that appeared in some Law books [!] is now a Zonal option, and appears as L12C3. In other words, for what we are discussing, there is no effective change whatever. I have mentioned in passing my view on the actual hand. Some of you have skated over the problems of different AssASs [that looks pretty!] dependent on where the SQ is. My own view is that the revoke is not established since the revoking side did not play to the next trick, make a claim, acquiesce in a claim or [in Europe] ask "Having none, partner?". I do not believe that there is any reason to be hard on a declarer who thinks that when both opponents show out of a suit that there are no more out. Under L12A1 an AssAS should be given. This is a perfect example of why split scores are a good idea, as giving declarer a percentage of two tricks, and a percentage of four, would be an acceptable ruling to most players. Regrettably TDs may not give such a ruling. The wording of L12C2 leaves no doubt IMO that declarer should be given four tricks wherever the SQ is ["most favourable result that was likely"], and the reverse to the defence. A European AC will then split the score under L12C2. Having read some of the ACBL appeals decisions, some ACBL ACs will do the same, though with dubious legality, since they have no footnote to L12C2. I have little doubt that many TD/ACs will rule 60/40, with no legality, but this ruling might be practical, depending on what score is obtained otherwise. NOTE: All quotations from, comments on or digests of the 1997 Laws are based on a "final draft copy" in the writer's possession. At the time of writing this draft copy has not been approved by all the regulatory bodies involved so no guarantee is given that it is in fact the same as the Law book will be when it is officially published. -- 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 Dec 20 22:34:22 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id WAA21412 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 20 Dec 1996 22:34:22 +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 WAA21407 for ; Fri, 20 Dec 1996 22:34:07 +1100 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by relay-10.mail.demon.net id aa1024793; 20 Dec 96 11:20 GMT Message-ID: Date: Fri, 20 Dec 1996 11:19:14 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Revoke then claim In-Reply-To: <8SPFuAA49fuyEwWn@coruncanius.demon.co.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Labeo wrote: >Labeo writes: In David Burn's splendid essay I am having some slight >difficulty with the phrase "particular type of infraction". As I >understood the previous material West had committed a fairly simple >revoke which had not become established; South had claimed but EW had >not acquiesced. West had the right to rectify his revoke and the >Director was then left with South's claim to rule upon. Is it somewhere >in the laws that a revoke is a different kind of revoke if it happens to >lead that well-known free agent, declarer, into making a false claim? = >are the voluntary actions of declarer after the revoke to stand part of >West's infraction? It is not a question of whether the claim is part of the infraction. There is an infraction: a revoke is an infraction, whether established or not, whether corrected or not. At the moment of the revoke the player who later claimed was the non-offending side for the purposes of that infraction. Law 12 - Director's Discretionary Powers A. Right to Award an Adjusted Score 1. Laws Provide No Indemnity The Director may award an assigned adjusted score when he judges that these Laws do not provide indemnity to the non offending contestant for the particular type of violation of law committed by an opponent. Now the particular type of violation of law was a revoke, and a correction of it after an unaccepted claim. I do not believe that this is in effect the same violation of law as other revokes. Do the Laws provide indemnity to the non-offending side [the claimer]? Not in my view. Therefore L12A1 applies. >Such a doctrine would be a most useful precedent in some other >situations. I do not believe that unusual situations such as these should be considered as providing precedents, except of course to the same position recurring. >And re-reading L70 I do see that the Director is required to make his >L70 ruling as equitably as possible to both sides, but I have not found >anywhere in it references to offending players or offending sides; it >seems to concern itself only with the director's treatment of "the >claimer" and does not appear to say that inequity for this person >provides grounds for a score adjustment; what is more it says that any >matter in doubt "shall be resolved against the claimer" - it does not >say "in favour of the non-offending side" or anything like that. Exactly: that is why we can infer that the Laws do not provide an indemnity against the side that happens to be non-offending as far as the revoke is concerned. >I would hesitate to ask Directors to read the laws so as to include >words that must accidentally have been left out. Agreed: that is why we need L12A1 for when the Laws do not fit the case. >All of which means I find it rather a long leap to Law 12A1. It might be >useful to have a law which says that if the Director applies the laws as >they are and does not like the result he should do something else. But >that apart if the Director goes down the path of adjudicating the claim >according to L70 I think he must end up with a declarer very hot under >the collar. Either the Director should say 'this is out of hand' (or if >you prefer it, "this needs to be fudged") and give an artificial >adjusted score, or he should avoid exposing defenders' cards and allow >declarer to withdraw his statement of the play and substitute another if >he so wishes. From a reading of L68 it does appear very arguable that >the L68C statement is a nomination of play of the cards. We have a Law that says: Do this if the Laws do not cover the situation. We have a situation that is not covered. It seems to fit nicely IMO! -- 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 Dec 20 23:31:38 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA21707 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 20 Dec 1996 23:31:38 +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 XAA21701 for ; Fri, 20 Dec 1996 23:31:21 +1100 Received: from innet.innet.be (pool03-80.innet.be [194.7.10.80]) by mail.be.innet.net (8.7.6/8.7.3) with SMTP id NAA10955 for ; Fri, 20 Dec 1996 13:30:49 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: <32BA92EB.1113@innet.be> Date: Fri, 20 Dec 1996 13:21:47 +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: Revoke then claim References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Stevenson wrote: > > > A lot of rulings have been made over the years on the basis of let's > give 60/40 because it is too hard to assign a score. I find this > totally unimpressive because [a] it is normal to be able to assign: in > at least 95% of cases this is pure laziness IMO and [b] it is illegal. I agree in part. > An interesting thread was developed by Herman recently based on how to > calculate ArtAS, possibly as a suggestion for future Laws. While his > arguments about using results from the other room seemed fair and > sensible, he also wanted to use [in part] what happened in the room of > the infraction. Now this seems totally against the split between > assigning scores where there is a result and awarding artificial ones > where there has not. > I do not believe there is such a split. I think these types of rulings gradually move from black to white, with several shades of gray in between. > There is a type of infraction under EBU regulations where an ArtAS is > given per regulation even though the board is played out. While the > letter of the Law might not be seen to support this I believe this to be > a much more reasonable misuse of L12C1, if it is a misuse. I do not > particularly object to sensible regulations like this as a practical > matter. However, in the case being considered here the misuse of > applying L12A2 and thus L12C1 is clear if you consider what would happen > if declarer has already got a 70% board if he only makes two tricks [and > a 100% board if he makes four]. The L12A1 people would reduce him to > 60%: this hardly seems fair! > > This is a > perfect example of why split scores are a good idea, as giving declarer > a percentage of two tricks, and a percentage of four, would be an > acceptable ruling to most players. Regrettably TDs may not give such a > ruling. The wording of L12C2 leaves no doubt IMO that declarer should > be given four tricks wherever the SQ is ["most favourable result that > was likely"], and the reverse to the defence. A European AC will then > split the score under L12C2. > This again is a case where it is impossible to give declarer 100% of the result for four tricks, since opponents have not commited a (real) infraction. So why not award him 60% of the four tricks and 40% of two tricks ? No, I don't mean award him 3.2 tricks :-) I still have one chapter of my book to write : fancy arbitral scores. I will work further on it. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.club.innet.be/~pub02163/index.htm From owner-bridge-laws Sat Dec 21 03:34:09 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA25534 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 21 Dec 1996 03:34:09 +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 DAA25524 for ; Sat, 21 Dec 1996 03:33:57 +1100 Received: from catullus.agw.bt.co.uk by mailhub.axion.bt.co.uk with SMTP (PP); Fri, 20 Dec 1996 14:22:42 +0000 Received: from ah4gate.agw.bt.co.uk (ah4gate.agw.bt.co.uk [147.150.119.60]) by catullus.agw.bt.co.uk (8.8.3/8.8.3) with SMTP id OAA13776; Fri, 20 Dec 1996 14:22:39 GMT Received: by ah4gate.agw.bt.co.uk with Microsoft Mail id <32BAA192@ah4gate.agw.bt.co.uk>; Fri, 20 Dec 96 14:24:18 GMT From: "Burn, David" To: David Grabiner Cc: "'Bridge Laws'" Subject: RE: Revoke then claim Date: Fri, 20 Dec 96 14:22:00 GMT Message-ID: <32BAA192@ah4gate.agw.bt.co.uk> Encoding: 46 TEXT X-Mailer: Microsoft Mail V3.0 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk You wrote: >You write: >> From David Burn >> My 0.6 Euros' worth: >> L63A3 should be amended to include the case where >> the revoker objects to a claim or concession. >> Since this is obviously consistent with the rest of L63, and >> was pretty clearly the intent of the lawmakers, >> I would have no difficulty in ruling that there had been >> an established revoke. >Suppose that South claimed, and said, "I'll take AK of spades, >and the clubs are good since you showed out last trick." Now, >if West says, "No, I have a club," this seems to be catching the >revoke at the proper time. >If West had acquiesced in the claim, this would implicitly >constitute playing to the next trick, so this should establish the >revoke, but the objection because he realizes his revoke does >not constitute a play. I mentioned in my post that one might find good reasons for rejecting the notion that an objection to a claim established a revoke under L68. What you say appears to be one such reason, and I do not disagree with it. In order to resolve this case under the laws governing revokes and claims, I would wish to know the exact wording of South's claim and West's objection. It may be that, as you say, West made some statement about his remaining clubs that could fall within the scope of L68. But it appears to me that the situation can be dealt with equitably enough by interpreting L68 strictly [so that South ends up with three tricks] then adjusting under L12A [so that he ends up with five, unless an Appeals Committee decides otherwise]. I have not therefore gone deeply into the question of whether West's objection was couched in terms that would constitute a play under L68. I merely observe that L68 appears to me to be deficient in that I believe that acquiescence in or objection to a claim should both constitute plays for the purpose of establishing a revoke. From owner-bridge-laws Sat Dec 21 03:34:09 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA25535 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 21 Dec 1996 03:34:09 +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 DAA25525 for ; Sat, 21 Dec 1996 03:33:59 +1100 Received: from catullus.agw.bt.co.uk by mailhub.axion.bt.co.uk with SMTP (PP); Fri, 20 Dec 1996 14:12:55 +0000 Received: from ah4gate.agw.bt.co.uk (ah4gate.agw.bt.co.uk [147.150.119.60]) by catullus.agw.bt.co.uk (8.8.3/8.8.3) with SMTP id OAA13243; Fri, 20 Dec 1996 14:12:52 GMT Received: by ah4gate.agw.bt.co.uk with Microsoft Mail id <32BA9F46@ah4gate.agw.bt.co.uk>; Fri, 20 Dec 96 14:14:30 GMT From: "Burn, David" To: Labeo Cc: "'Bridge Laws'" Subject: RE: Revoke then claim Date: Fri, 20 Dec 96 14:12:00 GMT Message-ID: <32BA9F46@ah4gate.agw.bt.co.uk> Encoding: 41 TEXT X-Mailer: Microsoft Mail V3.0 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk >From David Burn I wrote what Labeo was kind enough to call a "splendid essay", here snipped lest its splendour should blind those with high-resolution screens. In reply, he wrote: >In David Burn's splendid essay I am having some slight >difficulty with the phrase "particular type of infraction". As I >understood the previous material West had committed a fairly >simple revoke which had not become established; South had >claimed but EW had not acquiesced. West had the right to >rectify his revoke and the Director was then left with South's >claim to rule upon. Is it somewhere in the laws that a revoke is >a different kind of revoke if it happens to lead that well-known >free agent, declarer, into making a false claim? Not a "different kind of revoke". A revoke is a failure to follow suit, and may be established or not established. There is no other kind, as far as I am aware. But the revoke laws do not provide South with sufficient indemnity in the case where a revoke leads him to make a false claim. My reading of L12A is: the particular type of infraction that West has committed is a revoke; the laws governing revokes do not in this case provide the non-offending side with adequate indemnity; this Law [12A] may therefore be used to restore equity. >Are the voluntary actions of declarer after the revoke to stand >part of West's infraction? No. But the damage that West's revoke caused to South cannot be redressed by recourse to the revoke laws, and South must therefore be given "security from damage" [part of my dictionary's definition of "indemnity"] under L12A. >All of which means I find it rather a long leap to Law 12A1. I hope that it now appears shorter. From owner-bridge-laws Sat Dec 21 12:14:34 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id MAA27360 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 21 Dec 1996 12:14:34 +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 MAA27355 for ; Sat, 21 Dec 1996 12:14:27 +1100 Received: from coruncanius.demon.co.uk ([194.222.115.176]) by relay-5.mail.demon.net id aa522277; 21 Dec 96 0:42 GMT Message-ID: Date: Sat, 21 Dec 1996 00:40:42 +0000 To: David Stevenson Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Labeo Subject: Re: Misinformation and Zia! In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In message , David Stevenson writes >Ercan Kuru wrote: > >>Excuse me I coudnt see any ethic problem about the stratagy Zia >>offered. It is a tactical bid. Your pd also believes that you have a H >>suit, ... > > Does your pd believe it? Specifically, having read about Zia and his >methods, the *first* time Zia bids 4H with you, do you really believe >that Zia has long hearts? > >>... ok I agree next time he will alert and explain that "I may be >>short in Hearts" but in that case I can have fit for both majors. > > > >>Also there can be many different tactical bids, even tactical >>openings, I can open 1D with shorter D then C "when I feel " (not >>systematically) to protect D lead. And does my PD need to alert this? > > Well, does your little group normally do this? > > --------- > > Forget about rules and regulations for a moment. Whether we play OKB >or RLB, we are playing a game that involves many elements, such as >techniques in dummy play, partnership co-operation in defence and so on. >But it is a game based on a coded set of meanings between a partnership, >and each and every one of those coded agreements must be fully and >freely available to the opponents. You should not say to yourself, "Do >the regulations require me to tell the opponents about this particular >part of my methods?" That is for inexperienced players, kids, little >old ladies and the like. > > Proper bridge players are not trying to win at any cost, but are >trying to win fairly and ethically, and **you** should be worrying >about your fairness and ethics, rather than having to worry about your >opponents' fairness and ethics. So you should say to yourself "Is there >some agreement that I have with partner that the opponents should know >about?" And this applies whether that agreement is achieved by >discussion, by experience, or by both reading the same book, or >belonging to the same bridge club or sewing circle or small group of >friends. > > If you want to try out the Zia method out of the blue without any >possible agreement before, fine. And I do not think that only once >matters as a previous poster suggests: so long as the next time is >different enough not to seem similar, also fine; or if you leave it long >enough, also fine. But *if* when you bid 4H, your partner thinks one of >the following: >1] I wonder if he has hearts: he didn't last time! >2] I wonder if he has hearts: he has been talking about Zia and his bids > all week! >3] I wonder if he has hearts: we had that discussion in the pub last > week, and agreed it was an excellent psyching position! >4] I wonder if he has hearts: the ****** never has anything he bids! > >then I wonder whether there is something that the opponents should know. > > --------- > > Note: I have copied this to RGB and BLML since I think that each will >have different ideas on this! It originates with RGBO. > > --------- > >In the original article [somewhat snipped], Ercan Kuru wrote: > >>Jxxxx >>x >>KQTxxx >>x >> >>The bidding went as most of the tables (I think so) : >>Pass 1C 2C* Dbl ? * Michals (Majors 5-5) >> >>Zia, at his book , says that bid 4H first and escape to 4S when they >>Dbl, of course you have to do this when you dont want your opponents >>to bid over 4S. Your opponents may think that they have more defensive >>tricks and choose to double rather than bidding. >> >>I did it and it worked. I bid 4H first , opps dbled and then I bid 4S >>opps dbled again and 4S is cold. (Also 5C is cold for opps) > >Carl Hudecek replied: > >>> The problem, of course, is that you cannot do this again >>>with the same partner, without announcing to opps >>>"I could have a singleton H and long spades". >>> You know have an implied convention with this pard. >>> And with a STRANGER for a pard you may find yourself playing SEVEN >>>spades as the doubling starts and he repeatedly "corrects" to H >>>on xxxxx KQ9xxxx x void > >David Stevenson also replied: > >> Quite frankly, the ethics are dubious when Zia does it. Even if you >>have never played with him, because you have read about him, you have >>"implicit" understandings from the moment you sit down. >> >> Suppose you play in a group of eight or ten people at University, >>who >>regularly play together, talk about bridge, and discuss it in depth. >>Now you sit down opposite the only one of the group with whom you >>haven't played before. You already have some implicit agreements, and >>opponents have a right to know about them. > > Labeo writes: agree 100% David Stevenson except maybe not "because you have read about him" but "if one has read about him" - and as to "I wonder whether there is something that opponents should know" - STOP WONDERING - there certainly is. Labeo From owner-bridge-laws Sat Dec 21 15:55:48 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id PAA27768 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 21 Dec 1996 15:55:48 +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 PAA27763 for ; Sat, 21 Dec 1996 15:55:41 +1100 Received: from coruncanius.demon.co.uk ([194.222.115.176]) by relay-10.mail.demon.net id aa1027087; 21 Dec 96 4:30 GMT Message-ID: Date: Sat, 21 Dec 1996 03:10:56 +0000 To: "Burn, David" Cc: "'Bridge Laws'" From: Labeo Subject: Re: Revoke then claim In-Reply-To: <32BA9F46@ah4gate.agw.bt.co.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In message <32BA9F46@ah4gate.agw.bt.co.uk>, "Burn, David" writes > >From David Burn > >I wrote what Labeo was kind enough to call a "splendid essay", >here snipped lest its splendour should blind those with >high-resolution screens. > >In reply, he wrote: > >>In David Burn's splendid essay I am having some slight >>difficulty with the phrase "particular type of infraction". As I >>understood the previous material West had committed a fairly >simple >revoke which had not become established; South had >claimed but EW had >not acquiesced. West had the right to >rectify his revoke and the >Director was then left with South's >claim to rule upon. Is it somewhere >in the laws that a revoke is >a different kind of revoke if it happens to >lead that well-known >free agent, declarer, into making a false claim? > >Not a "different kind of revoke". A revoke is a failure to follow >suit, and may be established or not established. There is no >other kind, as far as I am aware. > >But the revoke laws do not provide South with sufficient >indemnity in the case where a revoke leads him to make a >false claim. My reading of L12A is: the particular type of >infraction that West has committed is a revoke; the laws >governing revokes do not in this case provide the non-offending >side with adequate indemnity; this Law [12A] may therefore >be used to restore equity. > >>Are the voluntary actions of declarer after the revoke to stand >part of >West's infraction? > >No. But the damage that West's revoke caused to South >cannot be redressed by recourse to the revoke laws, and >South must therefore be given "security from damage" [part >of my dictionary's definition of "indemnity"] under L12A. > >>All of which means I find it rather a long leap to Law 12A1. > >I hope that it now appears shorter. If I were persuaded that the damage were a consequence of West's action I could go along with that; but I think it is subsequent to and is self -inflicted by a player who fails to count a suit. I agree that to 'do equity' a Euro AC can be expected to change whatever the Director does with HIS powers. I am not convinced that the 12A1 'play' that most seem keen to see happen can be called 'normal'. I see it as too much distorted by the revoke. I can be persuaded that the L68C 'clarification' constitutes a play of the cards which may be withdrawn and substituted. Otherwise and whatever your distaste I believe a shrewd Director would use his discretion and law 12A2, deeming 'normal play' of the board impossible, as certainly lies within his power to do. And let the AC get on with it. By the way, do we know who did what with the originating incident? (And were the players happy?) Labeo From owner-bridge-laws Sat Dec 21 16:25:25 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id QAA27824 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 21 Dec 1996 16:25:25 +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 QAA27819 for ; Sat, 21 Dec 1996 16:25:20 +1100 Received: from coruncanius.demon.co.uk ([194.222.115.176]) by relay-6.mail.demon.net id aa606653; 21 Dec 96 4:30 GMT Message-ID: Date: Sat, 21 Dec 1996 04:20:03 +0000 To: Herman De Wael Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Labeo Subject: Re: Revoke then claim In-Reply-To: <32BA92EB.1113@innet.be> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In message <32BA92EB.1113@innet.be>, Herman De Wael writes >David Stevenson wrote: >> >> >> A lot of rulings have been made over the years on the basis of let's >> give 60/40 because it is too hard to assign a score. I find this >> totally unimpressive because [a] it is normal to be able to assign: in >> at least 95% of cases this is pure laziness IMO and [b] it is illegal. Most of the time I am against them too. This does not mean the Director can never use his power (and it is HIS) to decide normal play is out of the question (for any reason HE deems good enough). To do so is not illegal and the S.O. can not take the power away by regulation. We are dealing with law not regulation. (The AC can moan at him.) Split scores are a good device in suitable cases. If South scores 70% as it is, what damage do you have in mind to adjust? Labeo From owner-bridge-laws Sun Dec 22 02:50:49 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA02093 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 22 Dec 1996 02:50:49 +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 CAA02088 for ; Sun, 22 Dec 1996 02:50:41 +1100 Received: from cph14.ppp.dknet.dk (cph14.ppp.dknet.dk [194.192.100.14]) by pip.dknet.dk (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id QAA12035 for ; Sat, 21 Dec 1996 16:50:33 +0100 From: Jesper Dybdal To: Bridge Laws List Subject: Re: Revoke then claim Date: Sat, 21 Dec 1996 16:50:29 +0100 Organization: at home Message-ID: <32c30656.5920913@pipmail.dknet.dk> References: In-Reply-To: X-Mailer: Forte Agent .99g/32.339 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Sat, 21 Dec 1996 04:20:03 +0000, Labeo wrote: >If South scores 70% as it is, what damage do you have in mind to adjust? He might score 70% when damaged and 100% without the damage. By the way, I don't quite understand the discussion of whether S should have counted. It seems to me quite absurd to even consider blaming S for not counting when he has seen both opponents show out. -- Jesper Dybdal, Denmark From owner-bridge-laws Sun Dec 22 03:27:53 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA02158 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 22 Dec 1996 03:27:53 +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 DAA02153 for ; Sun, 22 Dec 1996 03:27:39 +1100 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by relay-5.mail.demon.net id ab509290; 21 Dec 96 16:14 GMT Message-ID: Date: Sat, 21 Dec 1996 13:19:22 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Revoke then claim In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Labeo wrote: >>David Stevenson wrote: >>> A lot of rulings have been made over the years on the basis of let's >>> give 60/40 because it is too hard to assign a score. I find this >>> totally unimpressive because [a] it is normal to be able to assign: in >>> at least 95% of cases this is pure laziness IMO and [b] it is illegal. > > Most of the time I am against them too. This does not mean the >Director can never use his power (and it is HIS) to decide normal play >is out of the question (for any reason HE deems good enough). To do so >is not illegal and the S.O. can not take the power away by regulation. >We are dealing with law not regulation. (The AC can moan at him.) True: but I am not aware of saying otherwise. I have merely said that the Law does not allow L12A2 being used because life is too difficult for the Director otherwise. Perhaps we have a new regulation there: I must suggest it for the EBU's new Orange book: If life is too hard for the TD he may do what he likes! >If South scores 70% as it is, what damage do you have in mind to adjust? This is the nub of the problem: no-one has been talking about damage. We have been called to the table over a disputed claim: we have to resolve a disputed claim: we are not adjusting for damage. If we follow your line of L12A1 as a method of deciding the claim then IMO we have *both* gone against the Law *and* in some cases produced an inequitable result thereby. No, L12A2 does *not* stand up to examination in this case. -- 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 Dec 22 05:39:28 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA02646 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 22 Dec 1996 05:39:28 +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 FAA02641 for ; Sun, 22 Dec 1996 05:39:22 +1100 Received: from coruncanius.demon.co.uk ([194.222.115.176]) by relay-5.mail.demon.net id aa517991; 21 Dec 96 18:30 GMT Message-ID: Date: Sat, 21 Dec 1996 16:56:06 +0000 To: Jesper Dybdal Cc: Bridge Laws List From: Labeo Subject: Re: Revoke then claim In-Reply-To: <32c30656.5920913@pipmail.dknet.dk> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In message <32c30656.5920913@pipmail.dknet.dk>, Jesper Dybdal writes > Jesper D wrote:-By the way, I don't quite understand the discussion of whether S >should have counted. It seems to me quite absurd to even consider >blaming S for not counting when he has seen both opponents show out. Labeo replies: Not blame. But the action of South in claiming is a voluntary action, is inattentive, and is not a consequence of the revoke. I refuse to believe that West revoked deliberately or could have foreseen South's action in claiming; West is responsible for the direct consequences of his revoke but not for the voluntary subsequent actions of other players. South impresses this lady as being a space-case. Were it not for all the sympathy South is getting one wonders whether he is not stuck with the result. Sir Walter may have spread his cloak, but the Queen did not have to walk on it and turn it into History. Labeo From owner-bridge-laws Sun Dec 22 05:41:59 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA02663 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 22 Dec 1996 05:41:59 +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 FAA02658 for ; Sun, 22 Dec 1996 05:41:53 +1100 Received: from coruncanius.demon.co.uk ([194.222.115.176]) by relay-9.mail.demon.net id aa921900; 21 Dec 96 18:30 GMT Message-ID: Date: Sat, 21 Dec 1996 18:27:52 +0000 To: David Stevenson Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Labeo Subject: Re: Revoke then claim In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In message , David Stevenson writes >Labeo wrote: > >>>David Stevenson wrote: >> >> >David writes: > > True: but I am not aware of saying otherwise. I have merely said that >the Law does not allow L12A2 being used because life is too difficult >for the Director otherwise. > > and > '" No, L12A2 does *not* stand up to examination in this case.'" > ' On this last we disagree. So be it. For the remainder if you "assign an adjusted score" where there is no damage it will be the score obtained at the table. But you are confusing the issue; you say we are not ruling on the revoke but adjudicating a contested claim. If that is what you are doing your solution is to apply the law - L70 that is. Significantly you will resolve any doubtful points *against the claimer* which is exactly what all you sympathetic people are trying not to do. You want to resolve them against *the offender* which Law 70 does not recognize, so you import your sympathies accordingly and invent a law 70 to fit. But in truth what you are doing when you run to 12A1 is to rule on the revoke and to treat the claim as a consequence of the revoke. It is not a consequence, it is a voluntary action of declarer which declarer was entirely free to avoid. It is true that when I award a 12A2 score I am also ruling on the revoke but I am allowing that no consequential link to the claim exists. What I do with the claim is to use it as evidence that no *normal* play can be achieved. To this sundry worthies counter that a director's adjudication is 'normal play' and, yes, so it is provided you make use of the law (as it is written - see above) in assessing the result of the board. Which, returning to the beginning, sets out my case that I am not basing the action on 'life is too difficult otherwise' (a basis I too refute) but simply on the English meaning of the law as it is. Labeo From owner-bridge-laws Sun Dec 22 13:03:43 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id NAA03440 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 22 Dec 1996 13:03:43 +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 NAA03435 for ; Sun, 22 Dec 1996 13:03:37 +1100 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by relay-10.mail.demon.net id aa1018121; 22 Dec 96 1:55 GMT Message-ID: <0R2ckeJmNJvyEw+u@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Sun, 22 Dec 1996 01:48:22 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: 1997 Laws [Technical] MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Before reading this article, I strongly advise you to read the article 1997 Laws in a separate thread in the same group/list. These are the changes that are technical ones IMO. All other changes, apart from changes that merely clean up the wording or are trivial, are in 1997 Laws [General] in a separate thread. The definition of session, which has been discussed extensively recently in BLML, has become a number of boards, specified by the sponsoring organisation, which probably solves the problems we discussed. Shuffling and dealing has changed somewhat: nothing that really matters, unless you count the fact that dealing clockwise becomes "recommended" [L6]. There was a section, namely L11B, which never quite did what was intended, since it said that any call or play by the other side meant no penalty could be imposed. It was regularly ignored, because there are many situations where it clearly could not apply. This section has been deleted. In L13, where the bidding has started with the wrong number of cards the TD will be empowered to let it continue in cases where it clearly does not matter to do so. L17D dealt with playing with the cards from the wrong board. It is still in the wrong place [it has nothing to do with the rest of L17] but a totally confusing Law has been cleaned up and made easier for the TD. L18E is a new one that appears to legalise bidding boxes [and written bidding] for bids, but not for passes or doubles or redoubles! Actually, it is just in the wrong place, and it is a technical Law only. The infamous L23B [Damaging Pass at Partner's Turn] has disappeared. while L23A [Damaging Enforced Pass] is still there, both of these are really covered by the new L72B1 discussed in 1997 Laws [General]. L40E2 now has a footnote allowing defences to unusual methods to be referred to at the table: this legalises what is happening when HUMs are played. L50 now makes it clear that a Major Penalty card is unauthorised information for partner, except for the fact that partner has to play it. A face-up opening lead out of turn is treated as the lead even if there is a face-down one in turn [L54]. The revoke Law for trick 12 sometimes gave declarer a lucky advantage: this has now been taken away [L62D2]. L70E disallows finesses and so on after claims, but there is a new bit allowing finesses if the play would be irrational otherwise. L73 has a few small but significant changes: the list of ways partner can give unauthorised information in L73C is not exhaustive: this is made clear. L73D1 accepts that variations in tempo do occur. L73E adds the words "or experience" after concealed partnership understanding to disallow deception based thereon. L73F2 no longer refers to a "deceptive" remark or whatever, but a remark for which there is no demonstrable bridge reason. These technical differences probably make this Law easier to apply. It has even become illegal to address a Director in a discourteous way [L74B5]: sorry fellas! Breaches of Propriety have now become Violations of Procedure [L74C]. A new L80G makes the sponsoring organisation responsible for arranging appeals. L83 gives the TD the right to refer matters to "the appropriate committee" on his own initiative. L92 now allows for the correction period for appeals and rulings to be different from that for errors of score in L79C, and allows for penalties for appeals without merit, thus legalising things that happen now. Note L81C6 refers to the TD taking action on events within the L79C correction period not the L92 one. L93 has a special Zonal option for different appeal methods. The new Law book has two Appendices, one of which is Special Conditions Pertaining to the Use of Screens, the other WBF Bidding Box Procedures for use without screens. I understand that these are highly recommended but not required. Certainly the Bidding Box procedures are at variance with current EBU/WBU procedures in that a call is made when the cards are removed from the box with apparent intent. NOTE: All quotations from, comments on or digests of the 1997 Laws are based on a "final draft copy" in the writer's possession. At the time of writing this draft copy has not been approved by all the regulatory bodies involved so no guarantee is given that it is in fact the same as the Law book will be when it is officially published. -- David Stevenson david@blakjak.demon.co.uk Xmas on my Homepage at http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk. From owner-bridge-laws Sun Dec 22 13:05:27 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id NAA03457 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 22 Dec 1996 13:05:27 +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 NAA03452 for ; Sun, 22 Dec 1996 13:05:21 +1100 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by relay-5.mail.demon.net id aa518027; 22 Dec 96 1:55 GMT Message-ID: <7RDf0vJyOJvyEwev@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Sun, 22 Dec 1996 01:49:38 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: 1997 Laws MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In 1997 a new Law book will come into use, probably sometime between March and September. How will this affect you? In many ways, not as much as you might think. Play will still go clockwise, and Bridge will still be a game for four players. :))) The Laws of Bridge are produced by the World Bridge Federation [WBF] and are used throughout the world. Over the last few months, I have seen a number of references to the ACBL Laws [or some term that means the same] but this is a misapprehension. These are international Laws. There are a few Laws [very few] that allow Zonal options, and interpretation is not quite the same throughout the world, and the Laws are translated into other countries, but there is only one set of Laws worldwide. These are the Laws of Duplicate Bridge. Rubber Bridge has its own Law book, also world-wide, and it tends to be revised in between Duplicate Laws revisions, so the next Rubber Law book should appear in about 2002. The first thing to note about these new Laws is that a majority are the same. In fact the Law numbers are the same, Law 25 remaining as Law 25, except occasionally a new section has been added or one deleted. A quick glance at the new Law book would probably lead one to think it was unchanged, but this is far from the truth. There are a lot of minor revisions, and I shall not mention them much, because there is little interest in attempts to clean up wording. I shall try to bring to your attention the changes that seem most important. Below I list the most important changes. For many of you this will be sufficient. However, I have produced two other documents. One is called 1997 Laws [General] and lists all the other changes that I believe will interest RGBers. It expands the list below and gives a few other non-technical changes. The other is called 1997 Laws [Technical] and I do not believe it will be of general interest. I have copied this document to RGBO, RGB and BLML. 1997 Laws [General] I have copied to RGB and BLML, but I do not think it would interest members of RGBO. 1997 Laws [Technical] I have only sent to BLML. If you think that I should have posted elsewhere then tell me. If you want a copy of any of them then tell me and I shall send you one. If you want to subscribe to any of the groups/lists either let me know, and I shall explain how to subscribe, or look at my Homepage http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk which explains how to subscribe and what the groups/lists are. The most important changes are: Unauthorised Information: when a call or play is withdrawn by the offending side the information of that call or play is and remains unauthorised [not so under the current Laws]. You can ask questions about individual calls in the auction, and about other relevant calls that could have been made but were not. If you change an inadvertent call without pause for thought, that is OK, so long as partner has not called. But if you attempt to change it otherwise, a dreadfully complicated Law comes into effect, and you may find yourself playing for a maximum on the board of 40%! Insufficient bids cannot be corrected without penalty if the corrected bid would normally be conventional. One for the Europeans: if you establish a revoke by a defender asking "Having none?" the card is corrected, but the penalty still applies; in the ACBL this is not illegal at the moment. If an offender could have known it was to his advantage then a TD can adjust in any situation: he does not need to accuse anyone of cheating: he just adjusts. NOTE: All quotations from, comments on or digests of the 1997 Laws are based on a "final draft copy" in the writer's possession. At the time of writing this draft copy has not been approved by all the regulatory bodies involved so no guarantee is given that it is in fact the same as the Law book will be when it is officially published. -- David Stevenson david@blakjak.demon.co.uk Xmas on my Homepage at http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk. From owner-bridge-laws Sun Dec 22 13:06:16 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id NAA03473 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 22 Dec 1996 13:06:16 +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 NAA03468 for ; Sun, 22 Dec 1996 13:06:10 +1100 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by relay-5.mail.demon.net id aa518031; 22 Dec 96 1:55 GMT Message-ID: Date: Sun, 22 Dec 1996 01:45:59 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: 1997 Laws [General] MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Before reading this article, I strongly advise you to read the article 1997 Laws in a separate thread in the same group/list. These are the changes that are not technical ones IMO, so they may affect you. The technical ones are in 1997 Laws [Technical] on BLML. The definition of Convention is strange: it seems to define a natural call as one willing to play there or showing length [at least three cards] or strength in the denomination [even though it does not use the word "natural"], then define a convention as any other call. Perhaps I might quote the actual wording in a future document, but I have been asked to hold back on this while a further clarification of this is sought. There have been a few arguments about "the footnote to L12C2", which gave Appeals Committees but not Tournament Directors the right to adjust an assigned adjusted score to do equity. Since this did not appear in American Law books, nor in several others around the world, its existence was doubted. It will now appear as a new section, L12C3, but it is a Zonal option. People like myself will be extremely disappointed that it has not been extended to Tournament Directors. There is no other change to adjusted scores, except that an average minus can be less than 40%. The first major change concerns Unauthorised Information. When a player on the offending side withdraws a call or play, previously his partner was allowed to use such information, after any penalty. In the new Laws, he is not allowed to. Suppose your partner leads out of turn when it is declarer's lead, and before anything else happens, declarer leads himself. Your partner's card can be withdrawn without penalty [L53C]. At the moment you are allowed to use the knowledge that he wanted to make that lead: in the new Laws it is forbidden [L16C2]. Have you ever asked a question about a bid not made? RHO opens 4C, showing hearts, and you ask what a 4H bid would have shown. Bloody- minded players have always tried to avoid answering, because you are not asking about the actual sequence. It has long been a bone of contention. Now you are allowed to ask such a question: it specifically says so in the new L20F1. Incidentally, has anyone ever said that you are not allowed to ask questions about individual bids? Many read L20F1 as saying so, though there has been no attempt to enforce this: the new Law makes it clear that individual questions are permitted. If you try to change an inadvertent call without pause for thought, the advent of bidding boxes has complicated the time factor. What happens if you only realise you have made the wrong call some time afterwards, when you look down and see it [yes, I have passed my partner's Precision club before now!]? What happens if LHO has called? CHO? RHO? Dummy has appeared? Discussions earlier this year on BLML discovered that some allow no changes after LHO has called, and in one case a change was allowed after dummy had appeared! The discussion concluded that until partner called seemed fair, and the new L25A has legalised this. Unfortunately if you try to change your call too late, or deliberately because you have changed your mind, you use L25B. The same time problems occur: however the Lawmakers have made no provision for this, so a Director who is asked to change a call in this way has no stated time limit. Different countries have had different views as to what the TD should do if someone asks whether they can change their call: the new Laws clearly permits this change. Much of this very complex Law is unchanged: as previously, a player offers his new call: the next player can accept it. If he doesn't, the player can choose whether to go back to the original call and silence partner, or pick another call [yes, it can be a third call!] This section is unchanged: so far. Now for the new bit: if this last occurs, then the player who changed his call is now playing for a maximum of 40% on the board, although his opponents can get whatever they get. Directors [and Scorers] are going to love this one! If someone attempts to change an insufficient bid under L25B some countries allow either the insufficient bid or the substituted bid to be accepted: some do not. The ACBL added their own footnote, not in European Law books, so that the insufficient bid could not be accepted. In the new L25B1 the footnote appears but has been altered so that either bid may be accepted. A simple change to insufficient bids: currently you cannot correct an insufficient conventional bid without incurring a penalty: in future you will not be allowed to correct an insufficient natural bid without incurring a penalty either, *if* the correction would be to a bid that would normally be conventional. If this is not clear: you bid 1D over 1NT. Currently you may bid 2D without penalty if the 1D is natural: in future you will only be allowed to if both the 1D and the 2D are both natural [L27B1A]. Another one for the bloody-minded: if three cards have been played to a trick and declarer calls for a card from dummy by saying "High" or something, then the defence can no longer insist he wastes a big card: it is assumed that he means the smallest winning card [L46B1]. L47E had a couple of anomalies: if an opponent had given you misinformation you could change your play even if it did not affect you! This is no longer the case. Occasionally you could retract your opening lead after seeing dummy: this also no longer applies. Also if you tell an opponent that it is his lead when it is not he has always been allowed to retract it: it has been noted that you should not accept it! If the Zonal authority does not allow defenders to ask each other "Having none?" [currently the case in Europe but not North America: L61B has a Zonal option] then the question establishes the revoke through L63A4, a Law that does not appear in ACBL Law books. In the new Laws it becomes L63B: the revoke is not established, ie the player must substitute a legal card, but the penalty is applied as though the revoke is established. New L72B1 Proprieties: Infraction of Law: Adjusted Score Whenever the Director deems that an offender could have known at the time of his irregularity that the irregularity would be likely to damage the non-offending side, he shall require the auction and play to continue, afterwards awarding an adjusted score if he considers that the offending side gained an advantage through the irregularity. One of the great changes in the 1987 Laws was to introduce the concept of "could have known" so that a Director who suspected some malpractice did not have to produce proof positive that there was no other explanation before giving an adjusted score. He no longer had to say "You are cheating so I am adjusting the score": in some circumstances he could say "You have made a call/play that could have been based on ..., so I am required to adjust, even though you may not have done anything untoward." It appeared in various places such as L23. In the new Laws this above generalised Law now means that the principle applies in *every* situation. NOTE: All quotations from, comments on or digests of the 1997 Laws are based on a "final draft copy" in the writer's possession. At the time of writing this draft copy has not been approved by all the regulatory bodies involved so no guarantee is given that it is in fact the same as the Law book will be when it is officially published. -- David Stevenson david@blakjak.demon.co.uk Xmas on my Homepage at http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk. From owner-bridge-laws Sun Dec 22 13:11:25 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id NAA03492 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 22 Dec 1996 13:11:25 +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 NAA03487 for ; Sun, 22 Dec 1996 13:11:19 +1100 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by relay-9.mail.demon.net id aa904606; 22 Dec 96 1:55 GMT Message-ID: <4x7f8hJQOJvyEwd1@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Sun, 22 Dec 1996 01:49:04 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Revoke then claim In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Labeo wrote: >In message <32c30656.5920913@pipmail.dknet.dk>, Jesper Dybdal > writes >> > >Jesper D wrote:-By the way, I don't quite understand the discussion of >whether S >>should have counted. It seems to me quite absurd to even consider >>blaming S for not counting when he has seen both opponents show out. > >Labeo replies: >Not blame. But the action of South in claiming is a voluntary action, >is inattentive, and is not a consequence of the revoke. I refuse to >believe that West revoked deliberately or could have foreseen South's >action in claiming; West is responsible for the direct consequences of >his revoke but not for the voluntary subsequent actions of other >players. A consequence is a thing that happens as a result of the previous happening. Would there have been a false claim if there had been no revoke? Probably not. So it is a consequence. I do not know why you are considering deliberate actions: that is irrelevant. If you shoot someone, then his death is a consequence of your actions. If you drive without attending, and kill someone accidentally, then his death is a consequence of your actions. Intent has nothing to do with whether something is consequent. West is responsible for other people's actions that he caused, which he clearly did in this case. -- David Stevenson david@blakjak.demon.co.uk Xmas on my Homepage at http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk. From owner-bridge-laws Sun Dec 22 23:43:46 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA04665 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 22 Dec 1996 23:43:46 +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 XAA04660 for ; Sun, 22 Dec 1996 23:43:39 +1100 Received: from coruncanius.demon.co.uk ([194.222.115.176]) by relay-9.mail.demon.net id aa926704; 22 Dec 96 12:38 GMT Message-ID: Date: Sun, 22 Dec 1996 12:37:05 +0000 To: David Stevenson Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Labeo Subject: Re: Revoke then claim In-Reply-To: <4x7f8hJQOJvyEwd1@blakjak.demon.co.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In message <4x7f8hJQOJvyEwd1@blakjak.demon.co.uk>, David Stevenson >>> >> >>Jesper D wrote:>> It seems to me quite absurd to even consider >>>blaming S for not counting when he has seen both opponents show out. >> >>Labeo replies: >>Not blame. But the action of South in claiming is a voluntary action, >>is inattentive, and is not a consequence of the revoke. > West is responsible for the direct consequences of >>his revoke but not for the voluntary subsequent actions of other >>players. >David Stevenson wrote: > A consequence is a thing that happens as a result of the previous >happening. Would there have been a false claim if there had been no >revoke? Probably not. So it is a consequence. I do not know why you >are considering deliberate actions: that is irrelevant. > > If you shoot someone, then his death is a consequence of your actions. >If you drive without attending, and kill someone accidentally, then his >death is a consequence of your actions. Intent has nothing to do with >whether something is consequent. > > West is responsible for other people's actions that he caused, which >he clearly did in this case. > Labeo (Labeo@coruncanius.demon.uk) responds: To create an opportunity is not to cause. The shooting and driving examples are irrelevant; in neither instance did the victim choose to move deliberately into danger. West did NOT *cause* South to claim. West inadvertently opened a fifth storey window and South jumped through it. Intent is not the factor; it is whether South did something from choice. David said it himself: (a) "happens as a result of" and later (b) "probably not". If the claim had been a *result* of West's revoke (b) would read "certainly not"; South found an opportunity to commit unpremeditated suicide. (Looking at it with cold disinterest I have pondered all along whether South is actually entitled to redress. Adults must be responsible for their own actions even when they cease to think.) We all have sympathy for South because in our hearts we all think we too would have very likely taken our eye off the ball. And there are ways to save South from the full consequences of h/is/er own folly or inattention if that is what is to be done. But the way not to do it is by a subjective interpretation of the law. My views are plain; I'll leave the last rites to someone else. Labeo From owner-bridge-laws Mon Dec 23 03:24:19 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA08378 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 23 Dec 1996 03:24:19 +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 DAA08373 for ; Mon, 23 Dec 1996 03:24:09 +1100 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by relay-9.mail.demon.net id ab913666; 22 Dec 96 16:12 GMT Message-ID: <1fg8H$B$EVvyEwe4@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Sun, 22 Dec 1996 15:18:23 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Xmas CARD MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk + / To /\ //\\ MERRY XMAS everyone *//O\\\* ////\\\\ and a */////\\\O\ ////O/\\\\\\* HAPPY NEW YEAR *///////\\\O\\\ O////O///\\\\\\\\* from /////////\\\\O\\\\ *///////O//\\\\\\\O\\* DAVID ___ ___ || |___|___| || | | | || --- --- -- David Stevenson david@blakjak.demon.co.uk Xmas on my Homepage at http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk. From owner-bridge-laws Mon Dec 23 03:24:34 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA08385 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 23 Dec 1996 03:24:34 +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 DAA08380 for ; Mon, 23 Dec 1996 03:24:26 +1100 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by relay-10.mail.demon.net id ae1025438; 22 Dec 96 16:12 GMT Message-ID: Date: Sun, 22 Dec 1996 16:00:28 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Revoke then claim In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Labeo wrote: >In message <4x7f8hJQOJvyEwd1@blakjak.demon.co.uk>, David Stevenson >>> >>> >>>Jesper D wrote:>> It seems to me quite absurd to even consider >>>>blaming S for not counting when he has seen both opponents show out. >>> >>>Labeo replies: >>>Not blame. But the action of South in claiming is a voluntary action, >>>is inattentive, and is not a consequence of the revoke. >> West is responsible for the direct consequences of >>>his revoke but not for the voluntary subsequent actions of other >>>players. >>David Stevenson wrote: >> A consequence is a thing that happens as a result of the previous >>happening. Would there have been a false claim if there had been no >>revoke? Probably not. So it is a consequence. I do not know why you >>are considering deliberate actions: that is irrelevant. >> >> If you shoot someone, then his death is a consequence of your actions. >>If you drive without attending, and kill someone accidentally, then his >>death is a consequence of your actions. Intent has nothing to do with >>whether something is consequent. >> >> West is responsible for other people's actions that he caused, which >>he clearly did in this case. >> >Labeo (Labeo@coruncanius.demon.uk) responds: > >To create an opportunity is not to cause. > >The shooting and driving examples are irrelevant; in neither instance >did the victim choose to move deliberately into danger. > >West did NOT *cause* South to claim. West inadvertently opened a fifth >storey window and South jumped through it. Intent is not the factor; it >is whether South did something from choice. David said it himself: (a) >"happens as a result of" and later (b) "probably not". If the claim had >been a *result* of West's revoke (b) would read "certainly not"; South >found an opportunity to commit unpremeditated suicide. (Looking at it >with cold disinterest I have pondered all along whether South is >actually entitled to redress. Adults must be responsible for their own >actions even when they cease to think.) Indeed no. I wrote "probably not" because I think it highly likely that the revoke caused the claim and *therefore* highly likely that the claim was consequent on the revoke. While I am not certain [after all, I got no chance to speak to the players] TDs often act on probabilities not certainties. >We all have sympathy for South because in our hearts we all think we too >would have very likely taken our eye off the ball. And there are ways to >save South from the full consequences of h/is/er own folly or >inattention if that is what is to be done. But the way not to do it is >by a subjective interpretation of the law. We have sympathy for South because an opponent caused his error by an illegal act [probably :) ]. If ever we lose sympathy for someone who suffers in such a way then the game will have taken a giant step backwards. -- David Stevenson david@blakjak.demon.co.uk Xmas on my Homepage at http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk. From owner-bridge-laws Mon Dec 23 04:05:15 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA08555 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 23 Dec 1996 04:05:15 +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 EAA08542 for ; Mon, 23 Dec 1996 04:05:08 +1100 Received: from cph51.ppp.dknet.dk (cph51.ppp.dknet.dk [194.192.100.51]) by pip.dknet.dk (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id SAA00888 for ; Sun, 22 Dec 1996 18:04:59 +0100 From: Jesper Dybdal To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: 1997 Laws [General] Date: Sun, 22 Dec 1996 18:04:54 +0100 Organization: at home Message-ID: <32c468c7.9339138@pipmail.dknet.dk> References: In-Reply-To: X-Mailer: Forte Agent .99g/32.339 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Sun, 22 Dec 1996 01:45:59 +0000, David Stevenson wrote: > There have been a few arguments about "the footnote to L12C2", which >gave Appeals Committees but not Tournament Directors the right to adjust >an assigned adjusted score to do equity. Since this did not appear in >American Law books, nor in several others around the world, its >existence was doubted. It will now appear as a new section, L12C3, but >it is a Zonal option. People like myself will be extremely disappointed >that it has not been extended to Tournament Directors. I'd prefer it to be removed altogether - but if it is to be there at all, it should certainly also be there for the TD. The reason I would prefer it removed is that with it, the laws actually say "L12C2 is a specific procedure to be followed when assigning adjusted scores; you have to follow that procedure, unless you find it unfair, in which case you use L12C3 instead and do whatever you like". This is not a very helpful rule - whether or not it is for the TD or only for the AC. -- Jesper Dybdal, Denmark From owner-bridge-laws Mon Dec 23 04:05:13 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA08551 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 23 Dec 1996 04:05:13 +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 EAA08540 for ; Mon, 23 Dec 1996 04:05:06 +1100 Received: from cph51.ppp.dknet.dk (cph51.ppp.dknet.dk [194.192.100.51]) by pip.dknet.dk (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id SAA00885 for ; Sun, 22 Dec 1996 18:04:57 +0100 From: Jesper Dybdal To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: 1997 Laws Date: Sun, 22 Dec 1996 18:04:51 +0100 Organization: at home Message-ID: <32c669f1.9637307@pipmail.dknet.dk> References: <7RDf0vJyOJvyEwev@blakjak.demon.co.uk> In-Reply-To: <7RDf0vJyOJvyEwev@blakjak.demon.co.uk> X-Mailer: Forte Agent .99g/32.339 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Sun, 22 Dec 1996 01:49:38 +0000, David Stevenson wrote: >Unauthorised Information: when a call or play is withdrawn by the >offending side the information of that call or play is and remains >unauthorised [not so under the current Laws]. Are there corresponding relaxations in the penalties? Quite a few penalties (e.g., "pass throughout") are imposed to avoid players taking advantage of partner's withdrawn actions; it would be quite unreasonable to still impose such penalties when the withdrawn actions become unauthorized. >You can ask questions about individual calls in the auction, and about >other relevant calls that could have been made but were not. Very good to get that in the laws. >If you change an inadvertent call without pause for thought, that is OK, >so long as partner has not called. But if you attempt to change it >otherwise, a dreadfully complicated Law comes into effect, and you may >find yourself playing for a maximum on the board of 40%! Argh! >Insufficient bids cannot be corrected without penalty if the corrected >bid would normally be conventional. > >One for the Europeans: if you establish a revoke by a defender asking >"Having none?" the card is corrected, but the penalty still applies; in >the ACBL this is not illegal at the moment. > >If an offender could have known it was to his advantage then a TD can >adjust in any situation: he does not need to accuse anyone of cheating: >he just adjusts. Good. >NOTE: All quotations from, comments on or digests of the 1997 Laws are >based on a "final draft copy" in the writer's possession. At the time >of writing this draft copy has not been approved by all the regulatory >bodies involved so no guarantee is given that it is in fact the same as >the Law book will be when it is officially published. Thank you very much for posting this. (I hope it won't be too long before information arrives through more official channels, though.) -- Jesper Dybdal, Denmark From owner-bridge-laws Mon Dec 23 04:05:17 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA08557 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 23 Dec 1996 04:05:17 +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 EAA08546 for ; Mon, 23 Dec 1996 04:05:10 +1100 Received: from cph51.ppp.dknet.dk (cph51.ppp.dknet.dk [194.192.100.51]) by pip.dknet.dk (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id SAA00893 for ; Sun, 22 Dec 1996 18:05:03 +0100 From: Jesper Dybdal To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: 1997 Laws [Technical] Date: Sun, 22 Dec 1996 18:04:57 +0100 Organization: at home Message-ID: <32c568e0.9364034@pipmail.dknet.dk> References: <0R2ckeJmNJvyEw+u@blakjak.demon.co.uk> In-Reply-To: <0R2ckeJmNJvyEw+u@blakjak.demon.co.uk> X-Mailer: Forte Agent .99g/32.339 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Sun, 22 Dec 1996 01:48:22 +0000, David Stevenson wrote: > There was a section, namely L11B, which never quite did what was >intended, since it said that any call or play by the other side meant no >penalty could be imposed. It was regularly ignored, because there are >many situations where it clearly could not apply. This section has been >deleted. Great. L11B has been one of my pet aversions for a long time - ever since the Danish National AC long ago used it as an excuse to give a ruling that was (IMO) simply wrong and quite unreasonably hard on the non-offenders. L11A, on the other hand, deals with exactly the same situation in a very sensible way. [Yes, I know that rulings by the National Authority are by definition not "wrong", but rather "setting an unexpected precedent for interpretation" - but I'm sure you understood what I meant above anyway.] > L50 now makes it clear that a Major Penalty card is unauthorised >information for partner, except for the fact that partner has to play >it. I don't think I understand that. Are you saying that if my partner has the SA as a penalty card, then I am not allowed to base my play on the fact that he _has_ the SA, but I am allowed to base my play on the fact that if I lead a spade, he'll play the ace? If this is the case, it sounds ridiculous. Besides, if a penalty card was UI, there would be no logical reason for its being a penalty card at all - the whole purpose of the concept of penalty cards is to solve the problem of partner having seen it in a simpler way than making it UI. > L70E disallows finesses and so on after claims, but there is a new bit >allowing finesses if the play would be irrational otherwise. I would prefer L70C and L70E to be removed - they are just confusing words about specific cases that are covered quite well by the rest of L70. And not very well worded, either: try L70C on "I claim the rest of the tricks; I know there is an outstanding master trump, but I do not intend to give up a trick to it." > It has even become illegal to address a Director in a discourteous way >[L74B5]: sorry fellas! I've always been of the opinion that it doesn't really matter if players are angry with and (within reason) discourteous to the TD, as long as it doesn't disturb the play too much. The pleasure of the rest of the game is ruined if players are discourteous to each other, but not necessarily if the TD is the target. > L83 gives the TD the right to refer matters to "the appropriate >committee" on his own initiative. This is good. Some decisions belong in committees and they should be able to get there even when no player wants to appeal. > The new Law book has two Appendices, one of which is Special >Conditions Pertaining to the Use of Screens, the other WBF Bidding Box >Procedures for use without screens. I understand that these are highly >recommended but not required. Certainly the Bidding Box procedures are >at variance with current EBU/WBU procedures in that a call is made when >the cards are removed from the box with apparent intent. That sounds as if we might be able to use them in Denmark, though. -- Jesper Dybdal, Denmark From owner-bridge-laws Mon Dec 23 14:52:57 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id OAA18166 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 23 Dec 1996 14:52:57 +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 OAA18160 for ; Mon, 23 Dec 1996 14:52:47 +1100 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by relay-10.mail.demon.net id ab1022208; 23 Dec 96 3:48 GMT Message-ID: <$kGOpaGk3fvyEwdy@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Mon, 23 Dec 1996 03:35:00 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: 1997 Laws In-Reply-To: <32c669f1.9637307@pipmail.dknet.dk> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Jesper Dybdal wrote: >David Stevenson wrote: >>Unauthorised Information: when a call or play is withdrawn by the >>offending side the information of that call or play is and remains >>unauthorised [not so under the current Laws]. >Are there corresponding relaxations in the penalties? Quite a few >penalties (e.g., "pass throughout") are imposed to avoid players >taking advantage of partner's withdrawn actions; it would be quite >unreasonable to still impose such penalties when the withdrawn actions >become unauthorized. No, there are no such relaxations. As a result, when I tried to think of an example where it made a difference, I realised that it makes a major difference only rarely. NOTE: All quotations from, comments on or digests of the 1997 Laws are based on a "final draft copy" in the writer's possession. At the time of writing this draft copy has not been approved by all the regulatory bodies involved so no guarantee is given that it is in fact the same as the Law book will be when it is officially published. -- David Stevenson david@blakjak.demon.co.uk Xmas on my Homepage at http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk. From owner-bridge-laws Mon Dec 23 15:02:36 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id PAA18207 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 23 Dec 1996 15:02:36 +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 PAA18202 for ; Mon, 23 Dec 1996 15:02:29 +1100 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by relay-10.mail.demon.net id aa1024018; 23 Dec 96 3:58 GMT Message-ID: Date: Mon, 23 Dec 1996 03:50:01 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: 1997 Laws [General] In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Stevenson wrote: I have had some discussions over the laws with The Bridge World, and they have given me their permissions to quote from their emails on BLML. > There have been a few arguments about "the footnote to L12C2", which >gave Appeals Committees but not Tournament Directors the right to adjust >an assigned adjusted score to do equity. Since this did not appear in >American Law books, nor in several others around the world, its >existence was doubted. It will now appear as a new section, L12C3, but >it is a Zonal option. People like myself will be extremely disappointed >that it has not been extended to Tournament Directors. There is no >other change to adjusted scores, except that an average minus can be >less than 40%. The Bridge World writes: The "split-score" arrangement that you favor, which we interpret to mean asssigning on the basis of probabilities, can give an "edge" to someone taking a doubtful action. Suppose there is unauthorized information, suggesting a bid of 6S to South. Under the current rules, if South bids six spades he keeps his score if it is bad and gets his bid cancelled if it is good. Under split scoring, what can happen is that a committee judges that it was, say, 50-50 whether South would have bid six spades in the absence of the unauthorized information, and it adjusts the score as though the slam were bid half the time. We consider that very bad. (It would not look so bad if the need to arrange a special result were caused by outside agents, such as someone coming by and spilling coffee on a player, but that is an uncomon case.) I wrote: I think you have misunderstood the European approach to split scores. We disallow the actual bid that was dependent on the unauthorised information, but would like to split amongst the rest. At any rate, that is the English/Welsh approach. In the example you gave we would not give any part of 6S. However, if you disallow the 6S bid, and now there are possibilities of either 4S or doubling the opponents in 4H, we should like to split between the two. We do understand and agree with the worries you have quoted, since we know that at WBF level an event was decided not so long ago on an Appeals Committee's splitting of a score in a way that would be considered illegal in England. The Bridge World replied: Whether a Director or committee has a particular power is, except in the decision over whether something is a matter of fact or of law, secondary to the search for equity. It may or may not deal with practcality. your comment suggests that experience wit European tournament directors is more satisfactory than experience with Americans. > If you try to change an inadvertent call without pause for thought, >the advent of bidding boxes has complicated the time factor. What >happens if you only realise you have made the wrong call some time >afterwards, when you look down and see it [yes, I have passed my >partner's Precision club before now!]? What happens if LHO has called? >CHO? RHO? Dummy has appeared? Discussions earlier this year on BLML >discovered that some allow no changes after LHO has called, and in one >case a change was allowed after dummy had appeared! The discussion >concluded that until partner called seemed fair, and the new L25A has >legalised this. > > Unfortunately if you try to change your call too late, or deliberately >because you have changed your mind, you use L25B. The same time >problems occur: however the Lawmakers have made no provision for this, >so a Director who is asked to change a call in this way has no stated >time limit. Different countries have had different views as to what the >TD should do if someone asks whether they can change their call: the new >Laws clearly permits this change. The Bridge World writes: In general [barring opponent's irregularity], LHO's call (or some other definitive action such as an opening lead) limits the opportunity of a player to call. This provides an implicit answer to your query about limitaitons. I wrote: Unfortunately while this would be an answer, Directors and other people who have an interest in such things throughout the world do not see this limitation. I believe an explicit answer would have been helpful, rather than implicit. Most countries have agreed by regulation that partner's call ends the period of time that L25B can be invoked, since they feel it is not covered by Law. The Bridge World replied: If LHO had called, would not substitutor's call be out of turn, rather than a change? > Much of this very complex Law is unchanged: as previously, a player >offers his new call: the next player can accept it. If he doesn't, the >player can choose whether to go back to the original call and silence >partner, or pick another call [yes, it can be a third call!] This >section is unchanged: so far. Now for the new bit: if this last occurs, >then the player who changed his call is now playing for a maximum of 40% >on the board, although his opponents can get whatever they get. >Directors [and Scorers] are going to love this one! The Bridge World writes: We think your evaluation of the change in the law about "fast" changing of call, limited to average minus, is silly. The number of times all good players together changes a call at all can probably be counted on the fingers of one hand for each decade. > If someone attempts to change an insufficient bid under L25B some >countries allow either the insufficient bid or the substituted bid to be >accepted: some do not. The ACBL added their own footnote, not in >European Law books, so that the insufficient bid could not be accepted. >In the new L25B1 the footnote appears but has been altered so that >either bid may be accepted. --------- > If the Zonal authority does not allow defenders to ask each other >"Having none?" [currently the case in Europe but not North America: L61B >has a Zonal option] then the question establishes the revoke through >L63A4, a Law that does not appear in ACBL Law books. In the new Laws it >becomes L63B: the revoke is not established, ie the player must >substitute a legal card, but the penalty is applied as though the revoke >is established. In my view the only excuse for this change is that the lawmakers do not have the first idea what establishing a revoke means and have no idea why the revoke penalty is the way it is! NOTE: All quotations from, comments on or digests of the 1997 Laws are based on a "final draft copy" in the writer's possession. At the time of writing this draft copy has not been approved by all the regulatory bodies involved so no guarantee is given that it is in fact the same as the Law book will be when it is officially published. -- David Stevenson david@blakjak.demon.co.uk Xmas on my Homepage at http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk. From owner-bridge-laws Mon Dec 23 15:11:55 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id PAA18257 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 23 Dec 1996 15:11:55 +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 PAA18251 for ; Mon, 23 Dec 1996 15:11:47 +1100 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by relay-9.mail.demon.net id aa909128; 23 Dec 96 3:48 GMT Message-ID: <6USPlDG30fvyEw+0@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Mon, 23 Dec 1996 03:32:07 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: 1997 Laws [Technical] In-Reply-To: <32c568e0.9364034@pipmail.dknet.dk> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Jesper Dybdal wrote: >David Stevenson wrote: >> L50 now makes it clear that a Major Penalty card is unauthorised >>information for partner, except for the fact that partner has to play >>it. >I don't think I understand that. Are you saying that if my partner >has the SA as a penalty card, then I am not allowed to base my play on >the fact that he _has_ the SA, but I am allowed to base my play on the >fact that if I lead a spade, he'll play the ace? > >If this is the case, it sounds ridiculous. Besides, if a penalty card >was UI, there would be no logical reason for its being a penalty card >at all - the whole purpose of the concept of penalty cards is to solve >the problem of partner having seen it in a simpler way than making it >UI. The whole text of the new bit follows: "... (the requirement that offender must play the card is authorized information for his partner; however, other information arising from the facing of the penalty card is unauthorized for partner)." How do you interpret this? At first sight it looks ambiguous to me. NOTE: All quotations from, comments on or digests of the 1997 Laws are based on a "final draft copy" in the writer's possession. At the time of writing this draft copy has not been approved by all the regulatory bodies involved so no guarantee is given that it is in fact the same as the Law book will be when it is officially published. -- David Stevenson david@blakjak.demon.co.uk Xmas on my Homepage at http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk. From owner-bridge-laws Mon Dec 23 15:16:24 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id PAA18291 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 23 Dec 1996 15:16:24 +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 PAA18286 for ; Mon, 23 Dec 1996 15:16:14 +1100 Message-ID: <32BE030A.7AB1@toronto-bridge.com> Date: Sun, 22 Dec 1996 22:56:59 -0500 From: "David G. Bryce" Reply-To: dgbryce@toronto-bridge.com Organization: David G. Bryce, Barrister & Solicitor X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01Gold (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: David Stevenson CC: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: 1997 Laws References: <7RDf0vJyOJvyEwev@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Stevenson's articles have been stolen shamelessly and put on the Toronto Bridge Today web site, http://www.toronto-bridge.com Merry Christmas dgb From owner-bridge-laws Mon Dec 23 18:25:27 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id SAA18667 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 23 Dec 1996 18:25:27 +1100 Received: from messenger.koc-unisys.com.tr (messenger.koc-bilisim.com.tr [193.243.217.3]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id SAA18662 for ; Mon, 23 Dec 1996 18:25:00 +1100 Received: by messenger.koc-unisys.com.tr with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Server Internet Mail Connector Version 4.0.994.63) id <01BBF0B3.5084BFF0@messenger.koc-unisys.com.tr>; Mon, 23 Dec 1996 09:26:02 +0200 Message-ID: From: Ercan Kuru To: "'David Stevenson'" , "'Labeo'" Cc: "'bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au'" Subject: RE: Misinformation and Zia! and now COHEN Date: Mon, 23 Dec 1996 09:25:56 +0200 X-Mailer: Microsoft Exchange Server Internet Mail Connector Version 4.0.994.63 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Hi, Just as a note, I found that Mr Larry Cohen at his book "Following The=20 Law" writes that you can bid 1NT(Forcing) over partner's 1H openning=20 with the following hand : xx T9x Qxxx Jxxx Is he explaining 1NT as 3-12 HP or just saying "forcing" ? Also he=20 says that this will stop opponents bidding over 2H becouse they will=20 think that we have the hand OK, are these experts kidding with us? Or are we trying to be ethical=20 while they are trying to win? Ercan Kuru ---------- From: Labeo[SMTP:Labeo@coruncanius.demon.co.uk] Sent: Cumartesi, Aral=FDk 21, 1996 02:41 To: David Stevenson Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Misinformation and Zia! In message , David Stevenson writes >Ercan Kuru wrote: > >>Excuse me I coudnt see any ethic problem about the stratagy Zia >>offered. It is a tactical bid. Your pd also believes that you have a=20 H >>suit, ... > > Does your pd believe it? Specifically, having read about Zia and=20 his >methods, the *first* time Zia bids 4H with you, do you really=20 believe >that Zia has long hearts? > >>... ok I agree next time he will alert and explain that "I may be >>short in Hearts" but in that case I can have fit for both majors. > > > >>Also there can be many different tactical bids, even tactical >>openings, I can open 1D with shorter D then C "when I feel " (not >>systematically) to protect D lead. And does my PD need to alert=20 this? > > Well, does your little group normally do this? > > --------- > > Forget about rules and regulations for a moment. Whether we play=20 OKB >or RLB, we are playing a game that involves many elements, such as >techniques in dummy play, partnership co-operation in defence and so=20 on. >But it is a game based on a coded set of meanings between a=20 partnership, >and each and every one of those coded agreements must be fully and >freely available to the opponents. You should not say to yourself,=20 "Do >the regulations require me to tell the opponents about this=20 particular >part of my methods?" That is for inexperienced players, kids, little=20 >old ladies and the like. > > Proper bridge players are not trying to win at any cost, but are >trying to win fairly and ethically, and **you** should be worrying >about your fairness and ethics, rather than having to worry about=20 your >opponents' fairness and ethics. So you should say to yourself "Is=20 there >some agreement that I have with partner that the opponents should=20 know >about?" And this applies whether that agreement is achieved by >discussion, by experience, or by both reading the same book, or >belonging to the same bridge club or sewing circle or small group of=20 >friends. > > If you want to try out the Zia method out of the blue without any >possible agreement before, fine. And I do not think that only once >matters as a previous poster suggests: so long as the next time is >different enough not to seem similar, also fine; or if you leave it=20 long >enough, also fine. But *if* when you bid 4H, your partner thinks one=20 of >the following: >1] I wonder if he has hearts: he didn't last time! >2] I wonder if he has hearts: he has been talking about Zia and his=20 bids > all week! >3] I wonder if he has hearts: we had that discussion in the pub last > week, and agreed it was an excellent psyching position! >4] I wonder if he has hearts: the ****** never has anything he bids! > >then I wonder whether there is something that the opponents should=20 know. > > --------- > > Note: I have copied this to RGB and BLML since I think that each=20 will >have different ideas on this! It originates with RGBO. > > --------- > >In the original article [somewhat snipped], Ercan Kuru wrote: > >>Jxxxx >>x >>KQTxxx >>x >> >>The bidding went as most of the tables (I think so) : >>Pass 1C 2C* Dbl ? * Michals (Majors 5-5) >> >>Zia, at his book , says that bid 4H first and escape to 4S when they=20 >>Dbl, of course you have to do this when you dont want your opponents=20 >>to bid over 4S. Your opponents may think that they have more=20 defensive >>tricks and choose to double rather than bidding. >> >>I did it and it worked. I bid 4H first , opps dbled and then I bid=20 4S >>opps dbled again and 4S is cold. (Also 5C is cold for opps) > >Carl Hudecek replied: > >>> The problem, of course, is that you cannot do this again >>>with the same partner, without announcing to opps >>>"I could have a singleton H and long spades". >>> You know have an implied convention with this pard. >>> And with a STRANGER for a pard you may find yourself playing=20 SEVEN >>>spades as the doubling starts and he repeatedly "corrects" to H >>>on xxxxx KQ9xxxx x void > >David Stevenson also replied: > >> Quite frankly, the ethics are dubious when Zia does it. Even if=20 you >>have never played with him, because you have read about him, you=20 have >>"implicit" understandings from the moment you sit down. >> >> Suppose you play in a group of eight or ten people at University, >>who >>regularly play together, talk about bridge, and discuss it in=20 depth. >>Now you sit down opposite the only one of the group with whom you >>haven't played before. You already have some implicit agreements,=20 and >>opponents have a right to know about them. > > Labeo writes: agree 100% David Stevenson except maybe not "because=20 you have read about him" but "if one has read about him" - and as to "I wonder whether there is something that opponents should know" - STOP WONDERING - there certainly is. Labeo From owner-bridge-laws Mon Dec 23 21:39:38 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id VAA18938 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 23 Dec 1996 21:39:38 +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 VAA18933 for ; Mon, 23 Dec 1996 21:39:32 +1100 Received: (from root@localhost) by tom.compulink.co.uk (8.8.4/8.6.9) id KAA26664 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Mon, 23 Dec 1996 10:39:15 GMT Date: Mon, 23 Dec 96 10:38 GMT0 From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: 1997 Laws [Technical] 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: <6USPlDG30fvyEw+0@blakjak.demon.co.uk> David Stevenson wrote: (re L50) > The whole text of the new bit follows: > > "... (the requirement that offender must play the card is authorized > information for his partner; however, other information arising from the > facing of the penalty card is unauthorized for partner)." > > How do you interpret this? At first sight it looks ambiguous to me. > Assuming the SA is the penalty card after partner has opened 1NT. I would take it to mean that although you know that partner must play the SA at first opportunity you may not deduct 4 points from partner's known point-count when trying to reconstruct his hand. Ie if you were faced with a choice that involved partner holding either red king or specifically the SA then playing for the latter would be based on UI! This seems slightly warped to me but I couldn't find any other meaning in the actual text. Tim West-Meads From owner-bridge-laws Mon Dec 23 22:07:20 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id WAA19023 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 23 Dec 1996 22:07:20 +1100 Received: from wsinfm04.win.tue.nl (engels@wsinfm04.win.tue.nl [131.155.70.115]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id WAA19018 for ; Mon, 23 Dec 1996 22:07:14 +1100 Received: by wsinfm04.win.tue.nl (8.7.1/1.45) id MAA24842; Mon, 23 Dec 1996 12:07:04 +0100 (MET) From: engels@win.tue.nl (Andre Engels) Message-Id: <199612231107.MAA24842@wsinfm04.win.tue.nl> Subject: Re: 1997 Laws [Technical] To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au (bridge laws list) Date: Mon, 23 Dec 1996 12:07:03 +0100 (MET) In-Reply-To: from "Tim West-meads" at Dec 23, 96 10:38:00 am X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL23] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Tim West-meads: > >In-Reply-To: <6USPlDG30fvyEw+0@blakjak.demon.co.uk> >David Stevenson wrote: (re L50) >> The whole text of the new bit follows: >> >> "... (the requirement that offender must play the card is authorized >> information for his partner; however, other information arising from the >> facing of the penalty card is unauthorized for partner)." >> >> How do you interpret this? At first sight it looks ambiguous to me. >> >Assuming the SA is the penalty card after partner has opened 1NT. > >I would take it to mean that although you know that partner must play the SA at >first opportunity you may not deduct 4 points from partner's known point-count >when trying to reconstruct his hand. Ie if you were faced with a choice that >involved partner holding either red king or specifically the SA then playing >for the latter would be based on UI! > >This seems slightly warped to me but I couldn't find any other meaning in the >actual text. > >Tim West-Meads > > I have another reading: You may use the fact that partner must play the SA, but you may not use the fact that partner intended to play it, nor anything else resulting from the infraction (for example, a shown card from leader (although I think there is already another rule regulating that?)). Andre Engels From owner-bridge-laws Mon Dec 23 22:51:18 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id WAA19155 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 23 Dec 1996 22:51:18 +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 WAA19150 for ; Mon, 23 Dec 1996 22:50:52 +1100 Received: from catullus.agw.bt.co.uk by mailhub.axion.bt.co.uk with SMTP (PP); Mon, 23 Dec 1996 11:39:44 +0000 Received: from ah4gate.agw.bt.co.uk (ah4gate.agw.bt.co.uk [147.150.119.60]) by catullus.agw.bt.co.uk (8.8.3/8.8.3) with SMTP id LAA24544; Mon, 23 Dec 1996 11:39:40 GMT Received: by ah4gate.agw.bt.co.uk with Microsoft Mail id <32BE6FE1@ah4gate.agw.bt.co.uk>; Mon, 23 Dec 96 11:41:21 GMT From: "Burn, David" To: Labeo Cc: "'Bridge Laws'" Subject: RE: Revoke then claim Date: Mon, 23 Dec 96 11:39:00 GMT Message-ID: <32BE6FE1@ah4gate.agw.bt.co.uk> Encoding: 64 TEXT X-Mailer: Microsoft Mail V3.0 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk >From David Burn Labeo wrote: [previous correspondence snipped for lack of splendour] > If I were persuaded that the damage were a consequence of West's action > I could go along with that; but I think it is subsequent to and is self >-inflicted by a player who fails to count a suit. I agree that to 'do > equity' a Euro AC can be expected to change whatever the Director does > with HIS powers. I am not convinced that the 12A1 'play' that most seem > keen to see happen can be called 'normal'. I see it as too much > distorted by the revoke. I can be persuaded that the L68C >'clarification' constitutes a play of the cards which may be withdrawn > and substituted. Otherwise and whatever your distaste I believe a > shrewd Director would use his discretion and law 12A2, deeming 'normal > play' of the board impossible, as certainly lies within his power to > do. And let the AC get on with it. Jesper Dybdal and David Stevenson have both expressed themselves eloquently on the subject of whether West's revoke "caused" South's false claim to the extent that South is entitled to redress. I agree with them, as it happens, but I do not believe that it matters whether I agree with them or not - just as well, because if I ever start agreeing with DWS about anything that matters, people in the vicinity of Hell will be getting their ice-skates out of the cupboard :) The point is this: I believe that the Laws should allow players of whatever degree of experience and skill the same level of protection. This South appears to be an indifferent player, who may very well have believed it more likely that he has miscounted clubs than that the enemy had revoked. In a commendable effort to speed up play, he claimed the tricks that the evidence of his eyes told him were his. He should certainly not be penalised for so doing. Labeo will claim that he is being penalised only for miscounting the clubs, which was his own fault. Are we then to permit players to show out of suits, then show back in again (before establishing a revoke) solely in order to confuse and bewilder innumerate opponents? An experienced South, as knowledgeable about the Laws as Labeo, would of course have cashed the spade ace as soon as both opponents showed out of clubs, since by playing SA, SK and a club from dummy he would be guaranteed the rest of the tricks whether he had miscounted clubs or not. But bridge players should not have to know the Law in order to fall under its protection. The great jurist from whom Labeo takes his name would turn in his grave at the very thought! From owner-bridge-laws Tue Dec 24 02:00:09 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA22705 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 24 Dec 1996 02:00:09 +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 CAA22671 for ; Tue, 24 Dec 1996 02:00:00 +1100 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by relay-10.mail.demon.net id aa1028100; 23 Dec 96 14:50 GMT Message-ID: Date: Mon, 23 Dec 1996 14:46:32 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Revoke then claim In-Reply-To: <32BE6FE1@ah4gate.agw.bt.co.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Burn, David wrote: >I agree with them, as it >happens, but I do >not believe that it matters whether I agree with them or not - just as >well, because if >I ever start agreeing with DWS about anything that matters, people in the >vicinity >of Hell will be getting their ice-skates out of the cupboard :) ... and merry Xmas to you too, David !!! :)))))))) -- David Stevenson david@blakjak.demon.co.uk Xmas on my Homepage at http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk. From owner-bridge-laws Tue Dec 24 02:12:34 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA22958 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 24 Dec 1996 02:12:34 +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 CAA22953 for ; Tue, 24 Dec 1996 02:12:29 +1100 Received: from elandau.cais.com.cais.com (elandau.cais.com [204.157.58.181]) by ns-prime.cais.com (8.7.5/8.7.5-CAIS) with SMTP id JAA21421 for ; Mon, 23 Dec 1996 09:46:03 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <1.5.4.32.19961223151306.006916dc@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: Mon, 23 Dec 1996 10:13:06 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: RE: Misinformation and Zia! and now COHEN Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 09:25 AM 12/23/96 +0200, Ercan wrote: >Just as a note, I found that Mr Larry Cohen at his book "Following The >Law" writes that you can bid 1NT(Forcing) over partner's 1H openning >with the following hand : > >xx >T9x >Qxxx >Jxxx > >Is he explaining 1NT as 3-12 HP or just saying "forcing" ? Also he >says that this will stop opponents bidding over 2H becouse they will >think that we have the hand > >OK, are these experts kidding with us? Or are we trying to be ethical >while they are trying to win? There are two common ways to play the forcing NT. In some pairs' methods, you can bid 1NT with support for partner's opening bid in a hand too weak for a direct raise. In others' you cannot. Neither method is particularly uncommon or unusual. Tournament players should be expected to be aware of the existence of these alternative treatments, and can, of course, always ask. In the method Cohen advocates, the auction 1H-1NT-2C-2H can be either Kxx/xx/Kxxx/Kxxx or xx/xxxx/Jxxx/Kxx. An opponent who doesn't bid "because they will think that we have the hand" doesn't understand the method, and may get a bad result due to his own lack of bridge knowledge; this is a blunder. On the other hand, an opponent who doesn't bid because he thinks we MIGHT have "the hand" (i.e. the balance of strength with only a seven-card heart fit) is making a rational decision; this is the advantage to this method. Its disadvantage, of course, is that partner must deal with the same ambiguity. I'm confident that Cohen advocates this method because he believes that the introduction of this ambiguity, fully disclosed, will work more often to the bidder's advantage than to the opponents', not because he expects the opponents to be "fooled" into not realizing that it exists. Eric Landau elandau@cais.com APL Solutions, Inc. elandau@acm.org 1107 Dale Drive (301) 589-4621 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 From owner-bridge-laws Tue Dec 24 02:21:08 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA23052 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 24 Dec 1996 02:21:08 +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 CAA23047 for ; Tue, 24 Dec 1996 02:21:01 +1100 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by relay-9.mail.demon.net id aa916970; 23 Dec 96 14:50 GMT Message-ID: Date: Mon, 23 Dec 1996 14:47:03 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: 1997 Laws [Technical] In-Reply-To: <199612231107.MAA24842@wsinfm04.win.tue.nl> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Andre Engels wrote: >Tim West-meads: >>David Stevenson wrote: (re L50) >>> The whole text of the new bit follows: >>> >>> "... (the requirement that offender must play the card is authorized >>> information for his partner; however, other information arising from the >>> facing of the penalty card is unauthorized for partner)." >>> >>> How do you interpret this? At first sight it looks ambiguous to me. >>Assuming the SA is the penalty card after partner has opened 1NT. >> >>I would take it to mean that although you know that partner must play the SA >at >>first opportunity you may not deduct 4 points from partner's known point-count >>when trying to reconstruct his hand. Ie if you were faced with a choice that >>involved partner holding either red king or specifically the SA then playing >>for the latter would be based on UI! >> >>This seems slightly warped to me but I couldn't find any other meaning in the >>actual text. >I have another reading: You may use the fact that partner must play the >SA, but you may not use the fact that partner intended to play it, nor >anything else resulting from the infraction (for example, a shown card >from leader (although I think there is already another rule regulating >that?)). There is no doubt that it is AI that partner must play it. Since that info comes from the TD that is hardly surprising. The new bit makes it clear that it is UI that partner intended to play it, which seems fair. It is partner's possesion of the card that is the problem. I believe this to be AI since it is part of the penalty that it is face-up on the table. I wish, however, that this new bit of Law said so! NOTE: All quotations from, comments on or digests of the 1997 Laws are based on a "final draft copy" in the writer's possession. At the time of writing this draft copy has not been approved by all the regulatory bodies involved so no guarantee is given that it is in fact the same as the Law book will be when it is officially published. -- David Stevenson david@blakjak.demon.co.uk Xmas on my Homepage at http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk. From owner-bridge-laws Tue Dec 24 02:36:37 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA23091 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 24 Dec 1996 02:36:37 +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 CAA23086 for ; Tue, 24 Dec 1996 02:36:31 +1100 Received: from elandau.cais.com.cais.com (elandau.cais.com [204.157.58.181]) by ns-prime.cais.com (8.7.5/8.7.5-CAIS) with SMTP id KAA21714 for ; Mon, 23 Dec 1996 10:10:10 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <1.5.4.32.19961223153709.006838b4@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: Mon, 23 Dec 1996 10:37:09 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: 1997 Laws [Technical] Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 03:32 AM 12/23/96 +0000, David wrote: > "... (the requirement that offender must play the card is authorized >information for his partner; however, other information arising from the >facing of the penalty card is unauthorized for partner)." > > How do you interpret this? At first sight it looks ambiguous to me. Declarer leads a spade, you win, dummy follows, and partner discards the D2, which, in your carding methods, suggests that you now shift to a club. Now partner finds his hidden spade, which is played to the trick, and the D2 becomes a penalty card. It's your lead. You may base your choice of lead on the knowledge that if you now lead a diamond partner will be required to play the 2. You may not, however, base your choice of lead on the knowledge that partner desires a club shift. Under the old Laws, you were permitted to do so. This, IMO, was a loophole that needed closing. I'd have preferred some more specific wording; the wording above leaves a very large grey area that will lead to adjudication problems. Suppose the D2 carries no explicit message, but declarer claims that your club shift was suggested by the knowledge that partner's diamond holding was such that he thought he could afford to discard one? I wouldn't want to be on that commitee. Eric Landau elandau@cais.com APL Solutions, Inc. elandau@acm.org 1107 Dale Drive (301) 589-4621 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 From owner-bridge-laws Tue Dec 24 03:01:26 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA23188 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 24 Dec 1996 03:01:26 +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 DAA23183 for ; Tue, 24 Dec 1996 03:01:21 +1100 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by relay-6.mail.demon.net id ab605652; 23 Dec 96 15:47 GMT Message-ID: <1AnMwiDhjqvyEwPS@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Mon, 23 Dec 1996 15:44:33 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: 1997 Laws In-Reply-To: <32BE030A.7AB1@toronto-bridge.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David G. Bryce wrote: >David Stevenson's articles have been stolen shamelessly and put on the >Toronto Bridge Today web site, http://www.toronto-bridge.com Damn me, so they have! I better retaliate! I've now got a link to Toronto Bridge Today on my Homepage: that should teach them a lesson! -- David Stevenson david@blakjak.demon.co.uk Xmas on my Homepage at http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk. From owner-bridge-laws Tue Dec 24 03:04:25 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA23208 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 24 Dec 1996 03:04:25 +1100 Received: from messenger.koc-unisys.com.tr (messenger.koc-bilisim.com.tr [193.243.217.3]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id DAA23203 for ; Tue, 24 Dec 1996 03:04:07 +1100 Received: by messenger.koc-unisys.com.tr with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Server Internet Mail Connector Version 4.0.994.63) id <01BBF0FB.D1B9C190@messenger.koc-unisys.com.tr>; Mon, 23 Dec 1996 18:05:02 +0200 Message-ID: From: Ercan Kuru To: "'Eric Landau'" , "'Bridge Laws Discussion List'" Subject: RE: Misinformation and Zia! and now COHEN Date: Mon, 23 Dec 1996 18:04:58 +0200 X-Mailer: Microsoft Exchange Server Internet Mail Connector Version 4.0.994.63 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Hi, I agree %100 what you wrote, the only thing I wanted to ask how Mr=20 Cohen explain forcing NT to his opponents? Does he mention to the=20 opponents that his partner may have as less as 3HP? Now , if I play=20 that style I have to iform opponents about the "unusal HP limit" about=20 my partners bid, or is it enough to say "1NT is forcing for 1 round" Best Regards Ercan Kuru -----Original Message----- From: Eric Landau [SMTP:elandau@cais.com] Sent: Pazartesi, Aral=FDk 23, 1996 05:13 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List Subject: RE: Misinformation and Zia! and now COHEN At 09:25 AM 12/23/96 +0200, Ercan wrote: >Just as a note, I found that Mr Larry Cohen at his book "Following=20 The >Law" writes that you can bid 1NT(Forcing) over partner's 1H=20 openning >with the following hand : > >xx >T9x >Qxxx >Jxxx > >Is he explaining 1NT as 3-12 HP or just saying "forcing" ? Also he >says that this will stop opponents bidding over 2H becouse they will=20 >think that we have the hand > >OK, are these experts kidding with us? Or are we trying to be ethical=20 >while they are trying to win? There are two common ways to play the forcing NT. In some pairs'=20 methods, you can bid 1NT with support for partner's opening bid in a=20 hand too weak for a direct raise. In others' you cannot. Neither=20 method is particularly uncommon or unusual. Tournament players should=20 be expected to be aware of the existence of these alternative=20 treatments, and can, of course, always ask. In the method Cohen advocates, the auction 1H-1NT-2C-2H can be either=20 Kxx/xx/Kxxx/Kxxx or xx/xxxx/Jxxx/Kxx. An opponent who doesn't bid=20 "because they will think that we have the hand" doesn't understand the=20 method, and may get a bad result due to his own lack of bridge=20 knowledge; this is a blunder. On the other hand, an opponent who=20 doesn't bid because he thinks we MIGHT have "the hand" (i.e. the=20 balance of strength with only a seven-card heart fit) is making a=20 rational decision; this is the advantage to this method. Its=20 disadvantage, of course, is that partner must deal with the same=20 ambiguity. I'm confident that Cohen advocates this method because he believes=20 that the introduction of this ambiguity, fully disclosed, will work=20 more often to the bidder's advantage than to the opponents', not=20 because he expects the opponents to be "fooled" into not realizing=20 that it exists. Eric Landau elandau@cais.com APL Solutions, Inc. elandau@acm.org 1107 Dale Drive (301) 589-4621 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 From owner-bridge-laws Tue Dec 24 05:28:36 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA00382 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 24 Dec 1996 05:28:36 +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 FAA00377 for ; Tue, 24 Dec 1996 05:28:28 +1100 Received: from cph48.ppp.dknet.dk (cph48.ppp.dknet.dk [194.192.100.48]) by pip.dknet.dk (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id TAA28522 for ; Mon, 23 Dec 1996 19:28:18 +0100 From: jd@pip.dknet.dk (Jesper Dybdal) To: Bridge Laws Discussion List Subject: Re: 1997 Laws [Technical] Date: Mon, 23 Dec 1996 19:28:09 +0100 Organization: at home Message-ID: <32d9cef0.2704178@pipmail.dknet.dk> References: <1.5.4.32.19961223153709.006838b4@cais.com> In-Reply-To: <1.5.4.32.19961223153709.006838b4@cais.com> X-Mailer: Forte Agent .99g/32.339 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Mon, 23 Dec 1996 10:37:09 -0500, Eric Landau wrote: >You may base your choice of lead on the knowledge that if you now lead a >diamond partner will be required to play the 2. You may not, however, = base >your choice of lead on the knowledge that partner desires a club shift. >Under the old Laws, you were permitted to do so. Yes, this must be what they mean - partner's possesion of the card is AI, but the circumstances of it becoming a penalty card is UI. I certainly agree that it could have been worded better. --=20 Jesper Dybdal, Denmark From owner-bridge-laws Tue Dec 24 06:33:25 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA02194 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 24 Dec 1996 06:33:25 +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 GAA02189 for ; Tue, 24 Dec 1996 06:33:19 +1100 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by relay-6.mail.demon.net id aa611933; 23 Dec 96 19:23 GMT Message-ID: <3HJ8RpEZTsvyEwuZ@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Mon, 23 Dec 1996 17:43:53 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Misinformation and Zia! and now COHEN In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Ercan Kuru wrote: >I agree %100 what you wrote, the only thing I wanted to ask how Mr >Cohen explain forcing NT to his opponents? Does he mention to the >opponents that his partner may have as less as 3HP? Now , if I play >that style I have to iform opponents about the "unusal HP limit" about >my partners bid, or is it enough to say "1NT is forcing for 1 round" Ask your conscience. You are playing a game where you do not hide things from opponents, so let your conscience and practicality tell you what needs to be told to opponents. Putting it another way, would you think he had informed you sufficiently if an opponent in a similar situation described the bid as "1NT is forcing for 1 round"? -- David Stevenson david@blakjak.demon.co.uk Xmas on my Homepage at http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk. From owner-bridge-laws Tue Dec 24 06:58:51 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA02264 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 24 Dec 1996 06:58:51 +1100 Received: from msri.org (msri.org [198.129.64.224]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id GAA02259 for ; Tue, 24 Dec 1996 06:58:46 +1100 Received: (from smap@localhost) by msri.org (8.8.2/8.7.2) id LAA15079; Mon, 23 Dec 1996 11:58:48 -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 sma015074; Mon Dec 23 11:58:10 1996 Received: by euclid.msri.org (8.7/MSRI) id LAA05222; Mon, 23 Dec 1996 11:50:00 -0800 (PST) Date: Mon, 23 Dec 1996 11:50:00 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <199612231950.LAA05222@euclid.msri.org> From: David Grabiner To: newsr@blakjak.demon.co.uk CC: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au In-reply-to: <6USPlDG30fvyEw+0@blakjak.demon.co.uk> (message from David Stevenson on Mon, 23 Dec 1996 03:32:07 +0000) Subject: Re: 1997 Laws [Technical] Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Stevenson writes: > Jesper Dybdal wrote: >> David Stevenson wrote: >>> L50 now makes it clear that a Major Penalty card is unauthorised >>> information for partner, except for the fact that partner has to play >>> it. >> I don't think I understand that. Are you saying that if my partner >> has the SA as a penalty card, then I am not allowed to base my play on >> the fact that he _has_ the SA, but I am allowed to base my play on the >> fact that if I lead a spade, he'll play the ace? >> >> If this is the case, it sounds ridiculous. Besides, if a penalty card >> was UI, there would be no logical reason for its being a penalty card >> at all - the whole purpose of the concept of penalty cards is to solve >> the problem of partner having seen it in a simpler way than making it >> UI. > The whole text of the new bit follows: > "... (the requirement that offender must play the card is authorized > information for his partner; however, other information arising from the > facing of the penalty card is unauthorized for partner)." > How do you interpret this? At first sight it looks ambiguous to me. Say that partner leads the SK out of turn against a suit contract, and when you make your correct lead, you see QJxx in dummy. The fact that partner has a doubleton spade is unauthorized information. Thus, if declarer requires or allows you to lead a spade from your Axxx, you may lead low, but when partner returns the suit, you may not give him a third-round ruff if there is another logical play. Or say that he leads the SQ out of turn against no-trump, and the king isn't visible. The fact that he has the jack and not the king is UI, so you should defend on the assumption that he holds KQx, Qxx, or KQJ rather than QJ. -- 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 Dec 24 08:05:00 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA02525 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 24 Dec 1996 08:05:00 +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 IAA02520 for ; Tue, 24 Dec 1996 08:04:53 +1100 Received: from elandau.cais.com.cais.com (elandau.cais.com [204.157.58.181]) by ns-prime.cais.com (8.7.5/8.7.5-CAIS) with SMTP id PAA26067 for ; Mon, 23 Dec 1996 15:38:32 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <1.5.4.32.19961223210531.0068d718@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: Mon, 23 Dec 1996 16:05:31 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: New Laws: AI/UI from penalty card Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > The whole text of the new bit follows: > "... (the requirement that offender must play the card is authorized > information for his partner; however, other information arising from the > facing of the penalty card is unauthorized for partner)." > How do you interpret this? At first sight it looks ambiguous to me. We seem to be closing in on a consensus: The fact that partner holds the penalty card is AI (it is, after all, as David S. pointed out, face up on the table!) The circumstances under which he faced it, making it a penalty card, is UI. Another way to put this would be: If partner dropped the card from his hand accidentally, you are not constrained in your use of the information. But if partner showed the card intentionally, such as in incorrectly failing to follow suit (my example) or leading out of turn (David G.'s example), you may not take any inference that would not be available to you if he had simply dropped it face up on the table by accident. So in my example, the knowledge that partner's D2 was suit preference for clubs is UI. Indeed, the knowledge that partner's hand is such that he thought it was safe to discard a diamond is UI. In David's example, the knowledge that partner's (attempted out-of-turn) lead of a king showed the queen or shortness, or that his lead of a queen denied the king, is UI. None of these inferences would be available if the penalty card had simply fallen out of partner's hand. In Tim's example, OTOH, the knowledge that partner, who is known from the bidding to hold at most 5 HCP, and who has exposed the SK (the penalty card), holds no other aces or kings is AI. Eric Landau elandau@cais.com APL Solutions, Inc. elandau@acm.org 1107 Dale Drive (301) 589-4621 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 From owner-bridge-laws Tue Dec 24 22:09:47 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id WAA04960 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 24 Dec 1996 22:09:47 +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 WAA04955 for ; Tue, 24 Dec 1996 22:09:30 +1100 Received: from innet.innet.be (pool03-221.innet.be [194.7.10.221]) by mail.be.innet.net (8.7.6/8.7.3) with SMTP id MAA08453 for ; Tue, 24 Dec 1996 12:08:32 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: <32BE7D19.3B3E@innet.be> Date: Mon, 23 Dec 1996 12:37:45 +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: 1997 Laws [Technical] References: <6USPlDG30fvyEw+0@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Stevenson wrote: > > Jesper Dybdal wrote: > > >David Stevenson wrote: > > >> L50 now makes it clear that a Major Penalty card is unauthorised > >>information for partner, except for the fact that partner has to play > >>it. > > > The whole text of the new bit follows: > > "... (the requirement that offender must play the card is authorized > information for his partner; however, other information arising from the > facing of the penalty card is unauthorized for partner)." > > How do you interpret this? At first sight it looks ambiguous to me. > I think it means this : If I count partner's hand, and subtract the ace of spades, and conclude he does not have the king of hearts, this is UI. I think this is far too difficult to judge on. I was under the impression that the Law on penalty cards was there simply to insure that the incurred penalty was greater than the possible gain of showing the card. Now they are changing that ? I don't like it. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.club.innet.be/~pub02163/index.htm From owner-bridge-laws Wed Dec 25 11:54:40 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id LAA17690 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 25 Dec 1996 11:54:40 +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 LAA17684 for ; Wed, 25 Dec 1996 11:54:32 +1100 Received: from coruncanius.demon.co.uk ([194.222.115.176]) by relay-10.mail.demon.net id aa1008665; 25 Dec 96 0:51 GMT Message-ID: Date: Wed, 25 Dec 1996 00:10:05 +0000 To: Jesper Dybdal Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Labeo Subject: Re: 1997 Laws [General] In-Reply-To: <32c468c7.9339138@pipmail.dknet.dk> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In message <32c468c7.9339138@pipmail.dknet.dk>, Jesper Dybdal writes >On Sun, 22 Dec 1996 01:45:59 +0000, David Stevenson > wrote: > >> There have been a few arguments about "the footnote to L12C2", which >>gave Appeals Committees but not Tournament Directors the right to adjust >>an assigned adjusted score to do equity. Since this did not appear in >>American Law books, nor in several others around the world, its >>existence was doubted. Labeo comments: the actual words were devised, if memory serves me, by Denis Howard and the minute recording the decision was certainly signed by E. Kaplan. It was not explained why the authorized footnote did not appear in the ACBL version of the laws; other editions would not have it if they copied from the ACBL text and if no-one happened to say "this has been left out of our version of the laws". Jesper wrote: >The reason I would prefer it removed is that with it, the laws >actually say "L12C2 is a specific procedure to be followed when >assigning adjusted scores; you have to follow that procedure, unless >you find it unfair, in which case you use L12C3 instead and do >whatever you like". This is not a very helpful rule - whether or not >it is for the TD or only for the AC. Labeo: The Europeans wanted the possibility of split and moderated scores and had a recent experience of a grand slam situation which did not commend itself as equitable if there were only extreme solutions available. As always there were those who argued that if you were intending to follow a procedure the laws should provide for it. So there was a concession on the part of those elements who only wanted a hard yes/no law; and as part of the deal a compromise was negotiated to restrict the power to ACs (or perhaps more nodded through than negotiated). The world situation is gradually developing along European lines in having confidence in the bridge judgements of directors; there is still reluctance in some parts to give rein to directors, especially at club level; it is not altogether clear whether the clubs in question tend to have lots of good players (able to form committees or argue cases with high intellectual sophistication) and shaky directors, so that they want all the real decisions taken in committees ? Labeo From owner-bridge-laws Wed Dec 25 11:58:26 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id LAA17712 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 25 Dec 1996 11:58:26 +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 LAA17707 for ; Wed, 25 Dec 1996 11:58:21 +1100 Received: from coruncanius.demon.co.uk ([194.222.115.176]) by relay-6.mail.demon.net id aa610904; 25 Dec 96 0:51 GMT Message-ID: Date: Tue, 24 Dec 1996 03:17:12 +0000 To: David Stevenson Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Labeo Subject: Re: Revoke then claim In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In message , David Stevenson writes >Burn, David wrote: > >>I agree with them, as it >>happens, but I do >>not believe that it matters whether I agree with them or not - just as >>well, because if >>I ever start agreeing with DWS about anything that matters, people in the >>vicinity >>of Hell will be getting their ice-skates out of the cupboard :) > > ... and merry Xmas to you too, David !!! :)))))))) > King David and King Solomon led merry, merry lives.... Labeo From owner-bridge-laws Wed Dec 25 15:35:21 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id PAA18065 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 25 Dec 1996 15:35:21 +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 PAA18057 for ; Wed, 25 Dec 1996 15:35:14 +1100 Received: from coruncanius.demon.co.uk ([194.222.115.176]) by relay-5.mail.demon.net id aa509721; 25 Dec 96 4:33 GMT Message-ID: <8EIlbFAc8JwyEwnZ@coruncanius.demon.co.uk> Date: Wed, 25 Dec 1996 03:27:24 +0000 To: Bridge Laws From: Labeo Subject: Failed mail (msg.aa511518) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk ------- Forwarded message follows ------- -----------------------------(+GQ.WF(9nE)----------------------------- Return-Path: Received: from relay-6.mail.demon.net ([194.217.242.5]) by coruncanius.demon.co.uk with SMTP id for ; Wed, 25 Dec 1996 00:52:09 +0000 Received: from relay-6.mail.demon.net by mailstore for Labeo@coruncanius.demon.co.uk id 851397119:6:20214:0; Tue, 24 Dec 96 03:11:59 GMT Date: Tue, 24 Dec 96 3:11:33 GMT From: relay-7.mail.demon.net Mail System (MMDF) Sender: mmdf@relay-7.mail.demon.net Subject: Failed mail (msg.aa511518) To: Labeo@coruncanius.demon.co.uk Message-ID: <851397093.716986.26@relay-7.mail.demon.net> Your message could not be delivered to 'bridgelaws@octavia.anu.edu.au (host: octavia.anu.edu.au) (queue: smtpns)' for the following reason: ' ... User unknown' Your message follows: Received: from coruncanius.demon.co.uk ([194.222.115.176]) by relay-5.mail.demon.net id aa511518; 24 Dec 96 3:06 GMT Message-ID: Date: Tue, 24 Dec 1996 03:03:03 +0000 To: David Stevenson Cc: jd@pip.dknet.dk From: Labeo Subject: The philosophy of compromise MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.01 "All government, indeed every human benefit and enjoyment, every virtue, and every prudent act, is founded on compromise and barter." (Edmund Burke, Speech on conciliation with America, 1775.) I was reading jd commenting on your exposure of the draft new (1997?) laws. It is worth remarking that in the places where you find options, in some of the places where you find footnotes, and in an occasional place where the law sits astride the fence, you have the sure signs of compromise. In Europe we know only too well what gulfs separate the attitudes of some of our NBO's on some subjects; it is no surprise then if in feeling our way forward towards a universal commonwealth of bridge, we meet occasions when Zones are hard put to agree and where we have to recognize the difficulties that face Zone spokesmen if they go home with something which they are unable to sell. Where agreement is not reached a world-wide submission to a rule imposed is something neither to be attained nor to be desired. As I have said somewhere else, it is the players who must be served, and this can - does - mean at times that the players of one Zone must have the opportunity to differ in their customs from those of another - which in turn prescribes flexibility in the construction of a common Code of Laws. The inflexible would simply break. Put another way, we do not want any Zone to be so put out with some prescription of the Law that it simply turns away. Yet it is plain on occasion that to leave no tolerance between opposite and strongly argued stances would have that effect. We encounter, as it were, 'le pouvoir eclairant du cadet'. If a compromise is not found no solution is to be had. To fail in negotiation when one or more parties is at loggerheads with the existing text would be the brand of inadequacy. To return to Burke: 'Your representative owes you, not his industry only, but his judgement; and he betrays instead of serving you if he sacrifices it to your opinion'. Ton Kooijman currently speaks for Europe and he puts European opinions firmly. Having done so he concedes what is necessary for the Peace. He merits your understanding as do those from other Zones who also bend when they should. The Laws may be a cocktail of harmony and compromise but they make room for all that we do, and do not, have in common. Labeo -----------------------------(+GQ.WF(9nE)----------------------------- Labeo From owner-bridge-laws Wed Dec 25 15:49:24 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id PAA18097 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 25 Dec 1996 15:49:24 +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 PAA18091 for ; Wed, 25 Dec 1996 15:49:18 +1100 Received: from coruncanius.demon.co.uk ([194.222.115.176]) by relay-6.mail.demon.net id aa604104; 25 Dec 96 4:33 GMT Message-ID: <1kfnjAAC0JwyEwkX@coruncanius.demon.co.uk> Date: Wed, 25 Dec 1996 03:18:26 +0000 To: Jesper Dybdal Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Labeo Subject: Re: 1997 Laws [Technical] In-Reply-To: <32c568e0.9364034@pipmail.dknet.dk> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In message <32c568e0.9364034@pipmail.dknet.dk>, Jesper Dybdal writes >On Sun, 22 Dec 1996 01:48:22 +0000, David Stevenson > wrote > >> It has even become illegal to address a Director in a discourteous way >>[L74B5]: sorry fellas! > Jesper D replied: >I've always been of the opinion that it doesn't really matter if >players are angry with and (within reason) discourteous to the TD, as >long as it doesn't disturb the play too much. The pleasure of the >rest of the game is ruined if players are discourteous to each other, >but not necessarily if the TD is the target. > Labeo: well, at least we know now that the authorities want us to treat directors courteously. Perhaps we had better take the hint. Of course, it was the law last year, too; the 1987 laws just did not make such a special point of it, so not everyone realized. David: >> L83 gives the TD the right to refer matters to "the appropriate >>committee" on his own initiative. Jesper: This is good. Some decisions belong in committees and they should be >able to get there even when no player wants to appeal. > Labeo: And as the law book - footnote Law 92 - gains the previously missing authority to regulate for penalties (lost deposits, penalties in the scores) for 'appeals without merit', a channel is thus simultaneously introduced to allow consideration of matters under conditions where no such penalties are appropriate. David: >> The new Law book has two Appendices, one of which is Special >>Conditions Pertaining to the Use of Screens, the other WBF Bidding Box >>Procedures for use without screens. I understand that these are highly >>recommended but not required. Certainly the Bidding Box procedures are >>at variance with current EBU/WBU procedures in that a call is made when >>the cards are removed from the box with apparent intent. > Jesper: >That sounds as if we might be able to use them in Denmark, though. Labeo: observe that the bidding box regulation is clearly marked as a "recommendation"; the regulations for the Use of Screens are presented more ambivalently. Those who devised them would like them to be adopted universally. It has not been fully clarified whether they are to be considered part of the laws. I think we will find that there is no sound basis for challenge where these regulations are not adopted (Law 80E still applies) and no intention anyway to pursue the question. On the other hand one can anticipate, maybe, that through international usage these regulations (? adjusted after experience) will become generally normal. Labeo From owner-bridge-laws Wed Dec 25 23:51:59 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA19122 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 25 Dec 1996 23:51:59 +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 XAA19117 for ; Wed, 25 Dec 1996 23:51:53 +1100 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by relay-10.mail.demon.net id aa1007813; 25 Dec 96 12:48 GMT Message-ID: Date: Wed, 25 Dec 1996 12:47:04 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: 1997 Laws [Technical] In-Reply-To: <1kfnjAAC0JwyEwkX@coruncanius.demon.co.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Labeo wrote: >In message <32c568e0.9364034@pipmail.dknet.dk>, Jesper Dybdal > writes >>On Sun, 22 Dec 1996 01:48:22 +0000, David Stevenson >> wrote > David: >>> The new Law book has two Appendices, one of which is Special >>>Conditions Pertaining to the Use of Screens, the other WBF Bidding Box >>>Procedures for use without screens. I understand that these are highly >>>recommended but not required. Certainly the Bidding Box procedures are >>>at variance with current EBU/WBU procedures in that a call is made when >>>the cards are removed from the box with apparent intent. >> > Jesper: >>That sounds as if we might be able to use them in Denmark, though. > > Labeo: observe that the bidding box regulation is clearly marked as a > "recommendation"; The thing that I would like to know is this: when the EBU changed its regulation for a call being made *from* `taken out of the bidding box [apparently intentionally]' *to* `placed on the table' one of the reasons given was that this would be more in line with international practice. Was this just wrong? The Danes, the North Americans and the new Law book all seem to go for the first regulation: did the EBU get it wrong? Does anywhere else have a similar regulation to the EBU [apart from the WBU]? -- David Stevenson david@blakjak.demon.co.uk Xmas on my Homepage at http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk. From owner-bridge-laws Thu Dec 26 09:02:01 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA02057 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 26 Dec 1996 09:02:01 +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 JAA02052 for ; Thu, 26 Dec 1996 09:01:53 +1100 Received: from coruncanius.demon.co.uk ([194.222.115.176]) by relay-6.mail.demon.net id aa602909; 25 Dec 96 21:53 GMT Message-ID: Date: Wed, 25 Dec 1996 21:48:43 +0000 To: David Stevenson Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Labeo Subject: Re: 1997 Laws [General] In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In message , David Stevenson writes > I have had some discussions over the laws with The Bridge World, and >they have given me their permissions to quote from their emails on BLML. > >The Bridge World wrote: > Whether a Director or committee has a particular power is, except >in the decision over whether something is a matter of fact or of law, >secondary to the search for equity. It may or may not deal with >practicality. Your comment suggests that experience with European >tournament directors is more satisfactory than experience with >Americans. Labeo comments: This points up the difference between the ACBL evaluation of the capabilities of its TDs and the European view of their counterparts this side of the Atlantic. I am a little lost as to why a bad ruling in ACBL events cannot be rectified by an AC, and a good one serve quite often to avoid the need for an AC. Otherwise how is the ACBL to develop the talents of its TDs ? (One suspects that many of them, given scope, would demonstrate that they were no less able to judge a bridge situation than their Euro colleagues.) > > The Bridge World also said: > > If someone attempts to change an insufficient bid under L25B some >>countries allow either the insufficient bid or the substituted bid to be accepted: some do not. The ACBL added their own footnote, not in >>European Law books, so that the insufficient bid could not be accepted. In the new L25B1 the footnote appears but has been altered so that either bid may be accepted. > > Labeo: To allow acceptance of either bid means that the same solutions are available whether or not offender seeks to change his call. This is desirable (IMO) because it avoids offering to the knowledgeable player an opportunity to affect opponents' rights by getting his blow in. >>> Finally someone added, concerning 63B: "In my view the only excuse for this change is that the lawmakers do not have the first idea what establishing a revoke means and have no idea why the revoke penalty is the way it is!" > Labeo suggests: Rather patronising considering the make-up of the drafting committee and of the WBF Laws Committee. Will time perhaps show they knew what they were doing ? Labeo From owner-bridge-laws Thu Dec 26 09:34:29 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA02146 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 26 Dec 1996 09:34:29 +1100 Received: from ccnet3.ccnet.com (pisarra@ccnet3.ccnet.com [192.215.96.11]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id JAA02141 for ; Thu, 26 Dec 1996 09:34:24 +1100 Received: from localhost (pisarra@localhost) by ccnet3.ccnet.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id OAA10336 for ; Wed, 25 Dec 1996 14:33:34 -0800 X-Authentication-Warning: ccnet3.ccnet.com: pisarra owned process doing -bs Date: Wed, 25 Dec 1996 14:33:34 -0800 (PST) From: Chris Pisarra X-Sender: pisarra@ccnet3 To: bridge laws list Subject: Re: 1997 Laws [General] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Wed, 25 Dec 1996, Labeo wrote: > Labeo comments: This points up the difference between the ACBL > evaluation of the capabilities of its TDs and the European view of their > counterparts this side of the Atlantic. I am a little lost as to why a > bad ruling in ACBL events cannot be rectified by an AC, and a good one > serve quite often to avoid the need for an AC. Otherwise how is the ACBL > to develop the talents of its TDs ? > (One suspects that many of them, given scope, would demonstrate > that they were no less able to judge a bridge situation than their Euro > colleagues.) This makes me wonder: do many of the European TD's actually play bridge? There was an article recently about a retiring director who admitted to not playing in a sectional or higher rated tournament since she began directing 20 years ago. I know many TD's who virtually never play the game, and only 1 or 2 who could be considered good players by any stretch of the imagination. It is my impression that the average ABCL TD has relatively limited masterpoints or top-level experience. We certainly don't expect them to play, or even to be able to play above a fairly basic level. They may well know the laws and mechanics of directing, but they simply don't have a level of bridge experience or judgement comparable to average Flight A players, much less the top ranks of serious competitors. At the club level, the situation is much worse. MOST of the club directors have limited playing skills, to go along with their *very* limited directing skills. It is often the case that after calling the director, I have to tell him the ruling and where to find it in the book. There is no chance that a director this poor can consistently make good rulings in matters of bridge judgement. Merry Christmas to all. Chris Chris Pisarra pisarra@ccnet.com From owner-bridge-laws Thu Dec 26 11:01:22 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id LAA02400 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 26 Dec 1996 11:01:22 +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 LAA02395 for ; Thu, 26 Dec 1996 11:01:15 +1100 Received: from coruncanius.demon.co.uk ([194.222.115.176]) by relay-10.mail.demon.net id ab1008774; 25 Dec 96 23:45 GMT Message-ID: Date: Wed, 25 Dec 1996 23:40:45 +0000 To: David Stevenson Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Labeo Subject: Re: 1997 Laws [Technical] In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > > >> >>>> >> David Stevenson aske > The thing that I would like to know is this: when the EBU changed its >regulation for a call being made *from* `taken out of the bidding box >[apparently intentionally]' *to* `placed on the table' one of the >reasons given was that this would be more in line with international >practice. Was this just wrong? The Danes, the North Americans and the >new Law book all seem to go for the first regulation: did the EBU get it wrong? Does anywhere else have a similar regulation to the EBU [apart from the WBU]? > Labeo: I think 'international' is what they followed, as distinct from 'what happens in many other countries'. It would seem best at the time. But, significantly, there is now an effort to achieve common world-wide practices, and rightly the WBF is taking the lead. It matters not too much which is adopted, but to have common procedures universally (hey, are you there in space ?) must be for the good of players, who know what is required wherever they are playing. Labeo From owner-bridge-laws Thu Dec 26 15:50:54 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id PAA03107 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 26 Dec 1996 15:50:54 +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 PAA03101 for ; Thu, 26 Dec 1996 15:50:45 +1100 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by relay-9.mail.demon.net id aa910599; 26 Dec 96 4:39 GMT Message-ID: Date: Thu, 26 Dec 1996 04:07:50 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: 1997 Laws [General] In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Chris Pisarra wrote: >On Wed, 25 Dec 1996, Labeo wrote: > >> Labeo comments: This points up the difference between the ACBL >> evaluation of the capabilities of its TDs and the European view of their >> counterparts this side of the Atlantic. I am a little lost as to why a >> bad ruling in ACBL events cannot be rectified by an AC, and a good one >> serve quite often to avoid the need for an AC. Otherwise how is the ACBL >> to develop the talents of its TDs ? >> (One suspects that many of them, given scope, would demonstrate >> that they were no less able to judge a bridge situation than their Euro >> colleagues.) > > This makes me wonder: do many of the European TD's actually play >bridge? > > There was an article recently about a retiring director who >admitted to not playing in a sectional or higher rated tournament since >she began directing 20 years ago. I know many TD's who virtually never >play the game, and only 1 or 2 who could be considered good players by any >stretch of the imagination. It is my impression that the average ABCL TD >has relatively limited masterpoints or top-level experience. > > We certainly don't expect them to play, or even to be able to play >above a fairly basic level. They may well know the laws and mechanics of >directing, but they simply don't have a level of bridge experience or >judgement comparable to average Flight A players, much less the top >ranks of serious competitors. > > At the club level, the situation is much worse. MOST of the club >directors have limited playing skills, to go along with their *very* >limited directing skills. It is often the case that after calling the >director, I have to tell him the ruling and where to find it in the book. >There is no chance that a director this poor can consistently make good >rulings in matters of bridge judgement. It has been said that ability as a Bridge player is considered when promoting English TDs to the top level, but how much I would not know: I am not part of the promotion process. In Wales, where I am the promotion process [!!], at this moment there are no very good TDs: English TDs are imported to run top tournaments. I do not expect to ask people how good they are when considering ranking them. However, for the lower English and all Welsh levels, TDs are trained and then take exams, and the training and the exams include a number of judgement questions. I would not expect a very poor player [for the level] to progress very far. -- David Stevenson david@blakjak.demon.co.uk New on my Homepage at http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk: How to post on the Net [The Newbie FAQ], picture of a Deltic, more cat pictures, Woman - a Scientific study and other humour. Visit! From owner-bridge-laws Thu Dec 26 21:02:12 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id VAA03645 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 26 Dec 1996 21:02:12 +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 VAA03639 for ; Thu, 26 Dec 1996 21:02:06 +1100 Received: from coruncanius.demon.co.uk ([194.222.115.176]) by relay-9.mail.demon.net id aa904519; 26 Dec 96 9:33 GMT Message-ID: Date: Thu, 26 Dec 1996 09:31:07 +0000 To: Eric Landau Cc: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Labeo Subject: Re: 1997 Laws [Technical] In-Reply-To: <1.5.4.32.19961223153709.006838b4@cais.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In message <1.5.4.32.19961223153709.006838b4@cais.com>, Eric Landau writes >At 03:32 AM 12/23/96 +0000, David wrote: > >> "... (the requirement that offender must play the card is authorized >>information for his partner; however, other information arising from the >>facing of the penalty card is unauthorized for partner)." >> >> How do you interpret this? At first sight it looks ambiguous to me. > Eric Landau writes: >This, IMO, was a loophole that needed closing. I'd have preferred some more >specific wording; the wording above leaves a very large grey area that will >lead to adjudication problems. Suppose the D2 carries no explicit message, >but declarer claims that your club shift was suggested by the knowledge that >partner's diamond holding was such that he thought he could afford to >discard one? I wouldn't want to be on that commitee. Labeo writes: but hold on; bridge judgements have to be made somewhere in the process of applying the laws, and the justification for committees is that they bring together such bridge knowledge as is available for the judgements that are tough - or which the TD has not been allowed to make. We do have to trust somebody and there is no chance in a game like bridge that the rules can be wholly mechanical. The cumulative effect of committee decisions, if these are published in some way, is to develop an area of Common Law which amplifies the statutes in the Law Book. (We might have a computer programme some day to make committee judgements for us?) Labeo From owner-bridge-laws Thu Dec 26 23:17:22 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA03837 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 26 Dec 1996 23:17:22 +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 XAA03829 for ; Thu, 26 Dec 1996 23:15:56 +1100 Received: from innet.innet.be (pool03-88.innet.be [194.7.10.88]) by mail.be.innet.net (8.7.6/8.7.3) with SMTP id MAA06903 for ; Thu, 26 Dec 1996 12:59:22 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: <32BFD278.6190@innet.be> Date: Tue, 24 Dec 1996 12:54:16 +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: New Laws: AI/UI from penalty card References: <1.5.4.32.19961223210531.0068d718@cais.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Eric Landau wrote: > > We seem to be closing in on a consensus: The fact that partner holds the > penalty card is AI (it is, after all, as David S. pointed out, face up on > the table!) The circumstances under which he faced it, making it a penalty > card, is UI. > > Another way to put this would be: If partner dropped the card from his hand > accidentally, you are not constrained in your use of the information. But > if partner showed the card intentionally, such as in incorrectly failing to > follow suit (my example) or leading out of turn (David G.'s example), you > may not take any inference that would not be available to you if he had > simply dropped it face up on the table by accident. > Very good analysis, and a workable set of rules. However, could we not suggest a better wording of the text, so this becomes clearer ? The analysis you gave would be more consistent with a wording like : "... (the fact that offender has the card, and must play it, is authorized information for his partner; however, other information arising from his deliberate playing of the penalty card is unauthorized for partner)." (the text says in stead :) > "... (the requirement that offender must play the card is authorized > information for his partner; however, other information arising from the > facing of the penalty card is unauthorized for partner)." can we send this law back to the writers ? -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.club.innet.be/~pub02163/index.htm From owner-bridge-laws Fri Dec 27 03:11:00 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA07540 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 27 Dec 1996 03:11:00 +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 DAA07535 for ; Fri, 27 Dec 1996 03:10:54 +1100 Received: from coruncanius.demon.co.uk ([194.222.115.176]) by relay-6.mail.demon.net id aa624417; 26 Dec 96 15:59 GMT Message-ID: <5bSU8PA37mwyEw26@coruncanius.demon.co.uk> Date: Thu, 26 Dec 1996 12:26:31 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Labeo Subject: Failed mail (msg.aa511518) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk ------- Forwarded message follows ------- -----------------------------(+Df,YF(=f/)----------------------------- Return-Path: Received: from relay-6.mail.demon.net ([194.217.242.5]) by coruncanius.demon.co.uk with SMTP id for ; Wed, 25 Dec 1996 00:52:09 +0000 Received: from relay-6.mail.demon.net by mailstore for Labeo@coruncanius.demon.co.uk id 851397119:6:20214:0; Tue, 24 Dec 96 03:11:59 GMT Date: Tue, 24 Dec 96 3:11:33 GMT From: relay-7.mail.demon.net Mail System (MMDF) Sender: mmdf@relay-7.mail.demon.net Subject: Failed mail (msg.aa511518) To: Labeo@coruncanius.demon.co.uk Message-ID: <851397093.716986.26@relay-7.mail.demon.net> Your message could not be delivered to 'bridgelaws@octavia.anu.edu.au (host: octavia.anu.edu.au) (queue: smtpns)' for the following reason: ' ... User unknown' Your message follows: Received: from coruncanius.demon.co.uk ([194.222.115.176]) by relay-5.mail.demon.net id aa511518; 24 Dec 96 3:06 GMT Message-ID: Date: Tue, 24 Dec 1996 03:03:03 +0000 To: David Stevenson Cc: jd@pip.dknet.dk From: Labeo Subject: The philosophy of compromise MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.01 "All government, indeed every human benefit and enjoyment, every virtue, and every prudent act, is founded on compromise and barter." (Edmund Burke, Speech on conciliation with America, 1775.) I was reading jd commenting on your exposure of the draft new (1997?) laws. It is worth remarking that in the places where you find options, in some of the places where you find footnotes, and in an occasional place where the law sits astride the fence, you have the sure signs of compromise. In Europe we know only too well what gulfs separate the attitudes of some of our NBO's on some subjects; it is no surprise then if in feeling our way forward towards a universal commonwealth of bridge, we meet occasions when Zones are hard put to agree and where we have to recognize the difficulties that face Zone spokesmen if they go home with something which they are unable to sell. Where agreement is not reached a world-wide submission to a rule imposed is something neither to be attained nor to be desired. As I have said somewhere else, it is the players who must be served, and this can - does - mean at times that the players of one Zone must have the opportunity to differ in their customs from those of another - which in turn prescribes flexibility in the construction of a common Code of Laws. The inflexible would simply break. Put another way, we do not want any Zone to be so put out with some prescription of the Law that it simply turns away. Yet it is plain on occasion that to leave no tolerance between opposite and strongly argued stances would have that effect. We encounter, as it were, 'le pouvoir eclairant du cadet'. If a compromise is not found no solution is to be had. To fail in negotiation when one or more parties is at loggerheads with the existing text would be the brand of inadequacy. To return to Burke: 'Your representative owes you, not his industry only, but his judgement; and he betrays instead of serving you if he sacrifices it to your opinion'. Ton Kooijman currently speaks for Europe and he puts European opinions firmly. Having done so he concedes what is necessary for the Peace. He merits your understanding as do those from other Zones who also bend when they should. The Laws may be a cocktail of harmony and compromise but they make room for all that we do, and do not, have in common. Labeo -----------------------------(+Df,YF(=f/)----------------------------- Labeo From owner-bridge-laws Fri Dec 27 04:16:05 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA07809 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 27 Dec 1996 04:16:05 +1100 Received: from mipl7.jpl.nasa.gov (mipl7.jpl.nasa.gov [128.149.177.7]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id EAA07802 for ; Fri, 27 Dec 1996 04:15:57 +1100 Received: from tintin.JPL.NASA.GOV (tintin.jpl.nasa.gov [128.149.102.7]) by mipl7.jpl.nasa.gov (8.6.12/8.6.6) with ESMTP id JAA28634 for <@mipl7.JPL.NASA.GOV:bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au>; Thu, 26 Dec 1996 09:15:06 -0800 Received: by tintin.JPL.NASA.GOV (940816.SGI.8.6.9/930416.SGI.MIPS) for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au id OAA17118; Wed, 25 Dec 1996 14:41:39 -0800 Date: Wed, 25 Dec 1996 14:41:39 -0800 From: jeff@tintin.JPL.NASA.GOV (Jeff Goldsmith) Message-Id: <199612252241.OAA17118@tintin.JPL.NASA.GOV> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Subject: 1997 Laws Thank you, David. I appreciate your posting this information. When, by the way, will it likely become official? "Between March and September" is pretty wide, even for an official body. All in all, I like the changes made. | There have been a few arguments about "the footnote to L12C2", which |gave Appeals Committees but not Tournament Directors the right to adjust |an assigned adjusted score to do equity. Since this did not appear in |American Law books, nor in several others around the world, its |existence was doubted. It will now appear as a new section, L12C3, but |it is a Zonal option. People like myself will be extremely disappointed |that it has not been extended to Tournament Directors. There is no |other change to adjusted scores, except that an average minus can be |less than 40%. While I dislike there's being a difference in the options between TDs and ACs, in practice, at least in large American tournaments, TDs don't really have the time available to make intelligent rulings of the sort now legalized, so it won't matter much at all. | The first major change concerns Unauthorised Information. When a |player on the offending side withdraws a call or play, previously his |partner was allowed to use such information, after any penalty. In the |new Laws, he is not allowed to. Suppose your partner leads out of turn |when it is declarer's lead, and before anything else happens, declarer |leads himself. Your partner's card can be withdrawn without penalty |[L53C]. At the moment you are allowed to use the knowledge that he |wanted to make that lead: in the new Laws it is forbidden [L16C2]. This is quite good. My take on the argument as to exactly what this entails is that the LOOT/ exposed card penalty is paid for knowing that partner has that card. Any other information gained by the exposer's partner needs to be addressed separately, and thus is UI. I think I performed a bit of a tirade on this subject last year sometime :) | A simple change to insufficient bids: currently you cannot correct an |insufficient conventional bid without incurring a penalty: in future you |will not be allowed to correct an insufficient natural bid without |incurring a penalty either, *if* the correction would be to a bid that |would normally be conventional. If this is not clear: you bid 1D over |1NT. Currently you may bid 2D without penalty if the 1D is natural: in |future you will only be allowed to if both the 1D and the 2D are both |natural [L27B1A]. Finally. |New L72B1 Proprieties: Infraction of Law: Adjusted Score | Whenever the Director deems that an offender could have known at the |time of his irregularity that the irregularity would be likely to damage |the non-offending side, he shall require the auction and play to |continue, afterwards awarding an adjusted score if he considers that the |offending side gained an advantage through the irregularity. Good. This simplifies the whole question of inadequate redress from prescribed penalties. Indeed, I can think of several cases which would have been decided differently if this rule were in place. Yay! [Directors can now send cases directly to committee.] This is a reasonable thing in my opinion, in the abstract, but in reality, I think it won't work. If none of the players want to go to committee, they won't, so the ruling the AC makes is going to be done often without crucial information. As a result, the ruling will be pretty much random. I think the director ought still make a ruling at the table, even if he exercises this option. After all, why filter all the information detected through the director? That is bound to lead to inaccuracies. Come to think of it, if a TD makes a non-ruling and sends the case to an AC, what does the recap sheet show until the committee is done? Result stands? Average? Zero for each side? Beats me. --Jeff # Start spreadin' the news! Go Yankees! # --- # http://muggy.gg.caltech.edu/~jeff From owner-bridge-laws Fri Dec 27 04:18:45 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA07830 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 27 Dec 1996 04:18:45 +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 EAA07824 for ; Fri, 27 Dec 1996 04:18:38 +1100 Received: from coruncanius.demon.co.uk ([194.222.115.176]) by relay-5.mail.demon.net id aa511543; 26 Dec 96 17:04 GMT Message-ID: Date: Thu, 26 Dec 1996 16:47:11 +0000 To: Herman De Wael Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Labeo Subject: Re: New Laws: AI/UI from penalty card In-Reply-To: <32BFD278.6190@innet.be> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In message <32BFD278.6190@innet.be>, Herman De Wael writes > ........ >However, could we not suggest a better wording of the text, so this >becomes clearer ? > >The analysis you gave would be more consistent with a wording like : > > "... (the fact that offender has the card, and must play it, is >authorized information for his partner; however, other information >arising from his deliberate playing of the penalty card is unauthorized >for partner)." > >(the text says in stead :) >> "... (the requirement that offender must play the card is authorized >> information for his partner; however, other information arising from the >> facing of the penalty card is unauthorized for partner)." > > Labeo writes: following various exchanges I am left in doubt as to whether the full extent of the prohibition is recognised by some correspondents. Partner is not to gain information about the shape of the hand or the location of trick-taking cards for example. If a hand has an Ace as a penalty card, half way through the hand, and that player has opened 1NT for example, partner is not allowed to place the ace or other cards on the basis of the knowledge gained from the exposure of the penalty card; if challenged it must be demonstrable as a bridge matter that he had legitimate sources for the info he used. Labeo From owner-bridge-laws Fri Dec 27 04:18:58 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA07846 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 27 Dec 1996 04:18:58 +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 EAA07838 for ; Fri, 27 Dec 1996 04:18:49 +1100 Received: from cph31.ppp.dknet.dk (cph31.ppp.dknet.dk [194.192.100.31]) by pip.dknet.dk (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id SAA16483 for ; Thu, 26 Dec 1996 18:18:40 +0100 From: Jesper Dybdal To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: 1997 Laws [General] Date: Thu, 26 Dec 1996 18:18:31 +0100 Organization: at home Message-ID: <32d4b2dd.8172751@pipmail.dknet.dk> References: In-Reply-To: X-Mailer: Forte Agent .99g/32.339 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Thu, 26 Dec 1996 04:07:50 +0000, David Stevenson wrote: > It has been said that ability as a Bridge player is considered when=20 >promoting English TDs to the top level, but how much I would not know: I= =20 >am not part of the promotion process. > > In Wales, where I am the promotion process [!!], at this moment there=20 >are no very good TDs: English TDs are imported to run top tournaments. =20 >I do not expect to ask people how good they are when considering ranking= =20 >them. In Denmark, where I am the promotion process, we do not require TDs to be very good players. One reason for this is that if we did, we would have serious problems finding TDs for the events where all the best players are playing. A TD in a high-level event must not be a bridge beginner, of course. And, most important, the TD must know his limitations; he must not hesitate in recommending an appeal when he suspects that his decision might be influenced by his lack of bridge skills (with the coming laws, he will even be allowed appeal himself). And he must always explain carefully to the players what bridge judgment he has made, so that they have a good basis for a decision on whether to appeal or not. I myself am an example of TD who is not a particularly good player. I often direct events where the players are _very_ much better players than I am. I do not find it a problem in practice. Sometimes I make a bridge judgment ruling and the players I've ruled against say something like "Surely you can't mean that - everybody in the 1st division bids 3C on that hand!". It has even happened once in that situation that the opponents immediately agreed that my bridge judgment was wrong; it didn't take the four of them long to convince me to change my ruling. More often, the opponents have nothing whatever against my bridge judgment in their favour. I then tell the protesting side that my ruling stands, that I'll be the first to admit that they are better players than I am, that they are very welcome to appeal my decision, and that the AC contains better players than me. I believe there are several reasons why such situations are not really a problem: (1) Though I am not a particularly good player, my bridge judgment when I have heard the players' initial comments and then take the necessary time to study the hand is a lot better than it is when I'm playing a hand myself. (2) I can often find a good player among the kibitzers who is delighted to give his opinion. (3) When I do err in such a situation, it is typically in favour of the non-offending side. A top player with UI has made a call to which he claims that there are no logical alternatives for a top player, though the typical call at a lower level would be different. I now have to judge whether that is true, and often end up ruling against him and recommending appeal. (4) Most players understand that the TD may not be a top player and accept that an appeal can therefore be necessary in a few situations where it would not be necessary with a top player as TD. The words "typically" and "often" above are meant as relative terms - it is some time since I last encountered such a situation. I believe that the players do not find the lack of top players among our TDs a problem, either. I cannot remember a complaint where the problem was that a bridge judgment was made by a TD whose bridge skills were insufficient. (There are occasional complaints about totally incorrect rulings, but that is in situations where the TD has overlooked some important fact, not in situations where a better player would have helped.) --=20 Jesper Dybdal, Denmark From owner-bridge-laws Fri Dec 27 07:03:21 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA16321 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 27 Dec 1996 07:03:21 +1100 Received: from mail.hamburg.netsurf.de (root@trance.isys.net [194.64.236.33]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id HAA16316 for ; Fri, 27 Dec 1996 07:03:14 +1100 Received: from mail.isys.net by mail.hamburg.netsurf.de with smtp (/\==/\ Smail3.1.28.1 #28.1); id m0vdM16-000H1EC; Thu, 26 Dec 96 21:03 MET Received: from meckwell by mail.isys.net with smtp (/\oo/\ Smail3.1.29.1 #29.6); id ; Thu, 26 Dec 96 21:02 MEZ Date: Thu, 26 Dec 1996 21:09:56 +0100 (MET) From: Henk Uijterwaal X-Sender: henk@meckwell Reply-To: henk.uijterwaal@hamburg.netsurf.de To: Chris Pisarra cc: bridge laws list Subject: Re: 1997 Laws [General] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Wed, 25 Dec 1996, Chris Pisarra wrote: > This makes me wonder: do many of the European TD's actually play > bridge? Where I play (Holland, Germany) most directors play on a frequent basis, though not always at the highest level. To become a fully qualified director in Holland, one either has to play in one of the (about) 100 teams or (about 150) pairs that play in the top 3 flights (out of 8 or 9) of the national teams or pairs championship in the year that one takes the exam. If one doesn't play in any of these events, one has to take a 3 hour test where one has to solve some 40 bridge problems before one is admitted to the director's course. The problems should be fairly routine for a decent US flight A or top of flight B player. For "assistent TD" exam, there is no requirement on bridge playing ability but then "assistent TD"'s are only allowed to direct at tournaments if there is a fully qualified TD present. They may direct in club games though. The number of problems related to a lack of bridge judgement from the director is pretty small, so I think that this system works. Germany has a masterpoint requirement for TD's, one may not take the exams for the 4 ranks of TD before one has at least X masterpoints, where X varies on the rank. This system guarantees a basic knowledge of the game, though some of the "golden" TD's in Germany are still completely clueless. Henk ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Henk Uijterwaal Email: henk.uijterwaal@hamburg.netsurf.de (home) henk@desy.de (work) WWW: http://www-zeus.desy.de/~uijter ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ %DCL-E-NOCFFE, unable to locate coffee - keyboard input suspended. From owner-bridge-laws Fri Dec 27 07:08:59 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA16367 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 27 Dec 1996 07:08:59 +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 HAA16362 for ; Fri, 27 Dec 1996 07:08:53 +1100 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by relay-5.mail.demon.net id ab519252; 26 Dec 96 19:55 GMT Message-ID: <$nC+pfALWtwyEwla@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Thu, 26 Dec 1996 19:44:11 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: 1997 Laws [Technical] In-Reply-To: <199612252241.OAA17118@tintin.JPL.NASA.GOV> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Jeff Goldsmith wrote: >Subject: 1997 Laws > >[Directors can now send cases directly to committee.] I actually wrote: L83 gives the TD the right to refer matters to "the appropriate committee" on his own initiative. >This is a reasonable thing in my opinion, >in the abstract, but in reality, I think >it won't work. If none of the players want >to go to committee, they won't, so the ruling >the AC makes is going to be done often without >crucial information. As a result, the ruling >will be pretty much random. > >I think the director ought still make a ruling >at the table, even if he exercises this option. >After all, why filter all the information detected >through the director? That is bound to lead to >inaccuracies. > >Come to think of it, if a TD makes a non-ruling >and sends the case to an AC, what does the recap >sheet show until the committee is done? Result >stands? Average? Zero for each side? Beats me. My presumption is that this rarely refers to an AC. Of course, there will be situations where it does, but I was thinking more along lines of Tournament committees and Disciplinary committees. Anyway, a TD has no right to make a non-ruling. He must make a ruling, even if he then instructs that the case go to an AC. -- David Stevenson david@blakjak.demon.co.uk New on my Homepage at http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk: How to post on the Net [The Newbie FAQ], picture of a Deltic, more cat pictures, Woman - a Scientific study and other humour. Visit! From owner-bridge-laws Fri Dec 27 07:11:20 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA16389 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 27 Dec 1996 07:11:20 +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 HAA16384 for ; Fri, 27 Dec 1996 07:11:15 +1100 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by relay-10.mail.demon.net id aa1023839; 26 Dec 96 19:55 GMT Message-ID: Date: Thu, 26 Dec 1996 19:37:35 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: New Laws: AI/UI from penalty card In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Labeo wrote: >Labeo writes: following various exchanges I am left in doubt as to >whether the full extent of the prohibition is recognised by some >correspondents. >Partner is not to gain information about the shape of the hand or the >location of trick-taking cards for example. If a hand has an Ace as a >penalty card, half way through the hand, and that player has opened 1NT >for example, partner is not allowed to place the ace or other cards on >the basis of the knowledge gained from the exposure of the penalty card; >if challenged it must be demonstrable as a bridge matter that he had >legitimate sources for the info he used. As I read what Eric [and others] have written they think the opposite. There seems little doubt that if a king is on the table that the fact that the player must play it if the suit is led is AI for partner: if partner gets on lead declarer has additional options, and that is AI: the fact that he may have intended to lead it is UI: the fact that it might show possession of the queen and/or deny possession of the ace is UI. But we do not seem to be agreed about whether the fact of partner *having* the card [as distinct from any desire to play it] is UI or AI. Different posters have come up with different views over this, and I believe the actual wording to be ambiguous in this respect. I repeat the wording for everyone's information: > "... (the requirement that offender must play the card is authorized > information for his partner; however, other information arising from the > facing of the penalty card is unauthorized for partner)." NOTE: All quotations from, comments on or digests of the 1997 Laws are based on a "final draft copy" in the writer's possession. At the time of writing this draft copy has not been approved by all the regulatory bodies involved so no guarantee is given that it is in fact the same as the Law book will be when it is officially published. -- David Stevenson david@blakjak.demon.co.uk New on my Homepage at http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk: How to post on the Net [The Newbie FAQ], picture of a Deltic, more cat pictures, Woman - a Scientific study and other humour. Visit! From owner-bridge-laws Fri Dec 27 07:34:01 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA16512 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 27 Dec 1996 07:34:01 +1100 Received: from mail.hamburg.netsurf.de (root@trance.isys.net [194.64.236.33]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id HAA16507 for ; Fri, 27 Dec 1996 07:33:54 +1100 Received: from mail.isys.net by mail.hamburg.netsurf.de with smtp (/\==/\ Smail3.1.28.1 #28.1); id m0vdMUu-000H1FC; Thu, 26 Dec 96 21:33 MET Received: from meckwell by mail.isys.net with smtp (/\oo/\ Smail3.1.29.1 #29.6); id ; Thu, 26 Dec 96 21:33 MEZ Date: Thu, 26 Dec 1996 21:40:42 +0100 (MET) From: Henk Uijterwaal X-Sender: henk@meckwell Reply-To: henk.uijterwaal@hamburg.netsurf.de To: Jeff Goldsmith cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: your mail In-Reply-To: <199612252241.OAA17118@tintin.JPL.NASA.GOV> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Wed, 25 Dec 1996, Jeff Goldsmith wrote: > When, by the way, will it likely become official? > "Between March and September" is > pretty wide, even for an official body. I think that's up to the NCBO to decide. In Holland, the date of September 1st has been suggested (by Ton Kooijman, which means that it will be Sept 1st :-) as September 1st is the start of the new bridge season and traditionally the day that Convention chart or other rule changes go into effect. The ACBL has, I think, suggested June 27 or something like that. > [Directors can now send cases directly to committee.] I've suggested this 10 years ago and discussed it with Kooijman, Martel and others, so I'm going to believe that I'm responsible for this change :-) > This is a reasonable thing in my opinion, > in the abstract, but in reality, I think > it won't work. If none of the players want > to go to committee, they won't, so the ruling > the AC makes is going to be done often without > crucial information. As a result, the ruling > will be pretty much random. Yes, but now consider a typical case, which was also discussed in TBW some time ago: NS commit an infraction, EW are damaged by it and the director rules in favor of them as he should do, NS feel that some of the damage was self- inflicted, the director sort-of agrees but explains that that is something to be decided by the committee. After the event is over, it turns out that EW have won with a small margin but NS have scored well below average. Consequently, NS don't want to appeal. Edgar Kaplan wrote that NS have an obligation to appeal and left it at that but: Who wants to go to a committee to have 42% changed into 44% when it can cost you money or a few hours sleep? So, we have a decision that gives the director an uncomfortable feeling, affects the whole event, is not unlikely to be overruled by a committee but cannot be appealed by anyone. I think that giving the director an option to consult the committee is really useful here. > I think the director ought still make a ruling > at the table, even if he exercises this option. Yes, but I don't see a problem here: "I have to rule X under Law 16, but under Law 83, I'm going to consult the committee on this case". > After all, why filter all the information detected > through the director? That is bound to lead to > inaccuracies. I'm reasonably sure that the non-offenders will show up to protect themselves. They can correct the director. The committee can decide to contact the offenders if they consider that to be necessary. > Come to think of it, if a TD makes a non-ruling > and sends the case to an AC, what does the recap > sheet show until the committee is done? Result > stands? Average? Zero for each side? Beats me. How about the director's decision with "pending appeal on board N" written next to the score. Henk ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Henk Uijterwaal Email: henk.uijterwaal@hamburg.netsurf.de (home) henk@desy.de (work) WWW: http://www-zeus.desy.de/~uijter ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ %DCL-E-NOCFFE, unable to locate coffee - keyboard input suspended. From owner-bridge-laws Fri Dec 27 07:49:19 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA16584 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 27 Dec 1996 07:49:19 +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 HAA16579 for ; Fri, 27 Dec 1996 07:49:13 +1100 Received: from elandau.cais.com.cais.com (elandau.cais.com [204.157.58.181]) by ns-prime.cais.com (8.7.5/8.7.5-CAIS) with SMTP id PAA08448 for ; Thu, 26 Dec 1996 15:22:47 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <1.5.4.32.19961226205015.0068e13c@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, 26 Dec 1996 15:50:15 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: New Laws: AI/UI from penalty card Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 07:37 PM 12/26/96 +0000, you wrote: >Labeo wrote: > >>Labeo writes: following various exchanges I am left in doubt as to >>whether the full extent of the prohibition is recognised by some >>correspondents. >>Partner is not to gain information about the shape of the hand or the >>location of trick-taking cards for example. If a hand has an Ace as a >>penalty card, half way through the hand, and that player has opened 1NT >>for example, partner is not allowed to place the ace or other cards on >>the basis of the knowledge gained from the exposure of the penalty card; >>if challenged it must be demonstrable as a bridge matter that he had >>legitimate sources for the info he used. > > As I read what Eric [and others] have written they think the opposite. > > There seems little doubt that if a king is on the table that the fact >that the player must play it if the suit is led is AI for partner: if >partner gets on lead declarer has additional options, and that is AI: >the fact that he may have intended to lead it is UI: the fact that it >might show possession of the queen and/or deny possession of the ace is >UI. > > But we do not seem to be agreed about whether the fact of partner >*having* the card [as distinct from any desire to play it] is UI or AI. >Different posters have come up with different views over this, and I >believe the actual wording to be ambiguous in this respect. > > I repeat the wording for everyone's information: > >> "... (the requirement that offender must play the card is authorized >> information for his partner; however, other information arising from the >> facing of the penalty card is unauthorized for partner)." David's analysis is spot on. The problem is that, on close analysis, the English quoted above doesn't make sense. This is due to the odd inclusion of the word "other", which is what I believe is causing the confusion. A "requirement" is not "information"; this causes us to get hung up on the juxtaposition of "the requirement" and "other information". To get it to make sense on its face, strike out the word "other". I read "the requirement that offender must play the card" as equivalent to "the fact that the card is a penalty card". I read "information arising from the facing of the penalty card" as meaning "information arising from the circumstances or manner of the facing of the penalty card". Eric Landau elandau@cais.com APL Solutions, Inc. elandau@acm.org 1107 Dale Drive (301) 589-4621 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 From owner-bridge-laws Fri Dec 27 12:51:58 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id MAA17279 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 27 Dec 1996 12:51:58 +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 MAA17274 for ; Fri, 27 Dec 1996 12:51:51 +1100 Received: from coruncanius.demon.co.uk ([194.222.115.176]) by relay-10.mail.demon.net id aa1027413; 27 Dec 96 1:47 GMT Message-ID: Date: Fri, 27 Dec 1996 01:18:20 +0000 To: David Stevenson Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Labeo Subject: Re: New Laws: AI/UI from penalty card In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In message , David Stevenson wrote - >Labeo wrote: > ....for example. If a hand has an Ace as a penalty card, half way through the hand, and that player has opened 1NT for example, partner is not allowed to place the ace or other cards on the basis of the knowledge gained from the exposure of the penalty card; if challenged it must be demonstrable as a bridge matter that he had legitimate sources for the info he used. David Stevenson wrote > As I read what Eric [and others] have written they think the opposite. > > There seems little doubt that if a king is on the table that the fact >that the player must play it if the suit is led is AI for partner: if >partner gets on lead declarer has additional options, and that is AI: >the fact that he may have intended to lead it is UI: the fact that it >might show possession of the queen and/or deny possession of the ace is >UI. > > But we do not seem to be agreed about whether the fact of partner >*having* the card [as distinct from any desire to play it] is UI or AI. >Different posters have come up with different views over this, and I >believe the actual wording to be ambiguous in this respect. > > I repeat the wording for everyone's information: > >> "... (the requirement that offender must play the card is authorized >> information for his partner; however, other information arising from the >> facing of the penalty card is unauthorized for partner)." Labeo replies: It is not credible to suggest that there is here an intention to change the basis of the game as set out in the intro to Law 16. The last 14 words of law quoted above are *not in the least* ambiguous. Partner is entitled to know that the penalty card must be played; partner may use no other knowledge whatsoever that has only come to his notice from seeing the exposed card and not from the legal auction and play. If possession of the exposed card means, say, that the declarer must have another given card, that information may only be used if it can be shown that it is available from the legal auction/play. ('Arise' = 'come into existence or notice' - Shorter Oxford) Labeo From owner-bridge-laws Fri Dec 27 21:04:25 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id VAA18347 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 27 Dec 1996 21:04:25 +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 VAA18342 for ; Fri, 27 Dec 1996 21:04:18 +1100 Received: from coruncanius.demon.co.uk ([194.222.115.176]) by relay-6.mail.demon.net id aa606188; 27 Dec 96 9:55 GMT Message-ID: Date: Fri, 27 Dec 1996 09:49:18 +0000 To: David Stevenson Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Labeo Subject: New Laws:Law 50D MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Labeo writes: Please add the following to my earlier comments of 27th Dec on the unambiguity of this new text. In interpreting Law 50D note that it is all knowledge which comes to the partner's notice because of the *facing* of the card that is subject to the prohibition. It is the exposure to view of the face of the card rather than the manner in which it came to be exposed that is the key, and anything learnt from seeing the face is UI. The wording is comprehensive, all-embracing. Bearing in mind that 72B1 deals with purposeful acts of irregularity, it is in Law 50 itself that one caters for accidental exposure of defender's card, or were it ever to happen for purported "accidental" facing of the card - in such a case the director is not even to consider the degree to which exposure of the face of the card is adventitious. Labeo From owner-bridge-laws Fri Dec 27 21:28:52 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id VAA18407 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 27 Dec 1996 21:28:52 +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 VAA18401 for ; Fri, 27 Dec 1996 21:28:46 +1100 Received: (from root@localhost) by tom.compulink.co.uk (8.8.4/8.6.9) id KAA25700 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Fri, 27 Dec 1996 10:28:31 GMT Date: Fri, 27 Dec 96 10:27 GMT0 From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: New Laws: AI/UI from penalty card 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: DS: I repeat the wording for everyone's information: > >> "... (the requirement that offender must play the card is authorized > >> information for his partner; however, other information arising from the > >> facing of the penalty card is unauthorized for partner)." > > Labeo replies: > It is not credible to suggest that there is here an intention to > change the basis of the game as set out in the intro to Law 16. I believe that after the director has ruled on it the penalty card itself does become a legal play (IMO this is implied by 72A5) thus we are not at odds with the philosophy established by L16. > The last > 14 words of law quoted above are *not in the least* ambiguous. Partner > is entitled to know that the penalty card must be played; partner may > use no other knowledge whatsoever that has only come to his notice from > seeing the exposed card and not from the legal auction and play. If > possession of the exposed card means, say, that the declarer must have > another given card, that information may only be used if it can be shown > that it is available from the legal auction/play. > ('Arise' = 'come into existence or notice' - Shorter Oxford) Although I originally proposed an interpretation of the Law in the way embraced by Labeo and others I did not particularly like it, much prefering the alternative. After re-reading the law I believe my initial analysis was poor. I would now separate the "total information" into two categories. Information pertaining to the requirement (AI): Partner possesses the penalty card and must play it according to the Law. Thus if the card is an ace you may deduct 4 from the known point count, you can legitimately know that partner is not void in the given suit etc. This information does not come from "seeing" the card, but from being told by the director that partner must play that card. (I assume that the protection offered by L50A for when the gains outweigh the penalty are still in place). Information pertaining to (or arising from) the "facing" of the card (UI): The fact that, in the circumstances when the card was faced, an ace promised the king, or that a low diamond requested a club switch. Ie information which is a function not only of the rank/denomination of the card played but also the timing of that play. I do not believe that the wording of the law is sufficiently unambiguous to make either interpretation "right", and hopefully it will be clarified before going to press. Failing that, I hope we can achieve consensus here about which interpretation will be more appealing to ordinary players. Happy New Year Tim West-Meads. From owner-bridge-laws Sat Dec 28 01:24:52 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA21940 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 28 Dec 1996 01:24:52 +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 BAA21935 for ; Sat, 28 Dec 1996 01:24:46 +1100 Received: from coruncanius.demon.co.uk ([194.222.115.176]) by relay-5.mail.demon.net id aa512345; 27 Dec 96 14:21 GMT Message-ID: Date: Fri, 27 Dec 1996 14:12:55 +0000 To: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Labeo Subject: Re: New Laws: AI/UI from penalty card In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In message , Tim West-meads writes >In-Reply-To: >DS: I repeat the wording for everyone's information: >> >> "... (the requirement that offender must play the card is authorized >> >> information for his partner; however, other information arising from the >> >> facing of the penalty card is unauthorized for partner)." >> >> Labeo replies: >> It is not credible to suggest that there is here an intention to >> change the basis of the game as set out in the intro to Law 16. Tim West-mead writes: >I believe that after the director has ruled on it the penalty card itself does >become a legal play (IMO this is implied by 72A5) thus we are not at odds with >the philosophy established by L16. Labeo again: If one deems the occurrence an 'inadvertent infraction' per 72A5 one is also subject as a result of the new wording of this to Law 16C2. It also signifies that one is not dealing with a legal call or play (preamble to Law 16). For the rest, am I understanding that any player would *want* to take advantage of having learnt where the cards lie in consequence of partner having shown him one or more unplayed cards ? Labeo From owner-bridge-laws Sat Dec 28 01:30:55 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA21971 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 28 Dec 1996 01:30:55 +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 BAA21966 for ; Sat, 28 Dec 1996 01:30:48 +1100 Received: from elandau.cais.com.cais.com (elandau.cais.com [204.157.58.181]) by ns-prime.cais.com (8.7.5/8.7.5-CAIS) with SMTP id JAA11888 for ; Fri, 27 Dec 1996 09:04:08 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <1.5.4.32.19961227143138.00688d9c@cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.4 (32) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Fri, 27 Dec 1996 09:31:38 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: New Laws: AI/UI from penalty card Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 01:18 AM 12/27/96 +0000, Labeo wrote: > It is not credible to suggest that there is here an intention to >change the basis of the game as set out in the intro to Law 16. The last >14 words of law quoted above are *not in the least* ambiguous. Partner >is entitled to know that the penalty card must be played; partner may >use no other knowledge whatsoever that has only come to his notice from >seeing the exposed card and not from the legal auction and play. If >possession of the exposed card means, say, that the declarer must have >another given card, that information may only be used if it can be shown >that it is available from the legal auction/play. > ('Arise' = 'come into existence or notice' - Shorter Oxford) At this time, BLML is probably the foremost collection of perspicacious (or at least practiced) readers of bridge laws in existence. When this group subjects a passage of bridge law to extended discussion and doesn't reach a rapid and unanimous conclusion as to its meaning, it would seem rather arrogant and doctrinaire for anyone to declare out of hand that the passage in question is "*not in the least* ambiguous". Were that the case, we would not be having this discussion. The Laws of Duplicate Contract Bridge ARE the basis of the game. Thus, by definition, the only possible reason one could have for making substantive changes to those laws is precisely "an intention to change the basis of the game". I parse the phrase "information arising from the facing of the penalty card" as applying to "information arising from the facing" rather than "information arising from the card". I therefore conclude that information gained from partner's act of facing the card is UI, while information gained from the fact of partner's holding the card is AI. While I believe my interpretation to be correct, I would never, out of respect for my friends and colleagues on BLML, some of whom disagree with it, argue that the passage in question is "*not in the least* ambiguous", nor describe their alternative interpretations as "not credible". ("Face (v. tr.): To turn (a playing card) so that the face is up." -- American Heritage) Eric Landau elandau@cais.com APL Solutions, Inc. elandau@acm.org 1107 Dale Drive (301) 589-4621 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 From owner-bridge-laws Sat Dec 28 02:28:40 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA22291 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 28 Dec 1996 02:28:40 +1100 Received: from mwunix.mitre.org (mwunix.mitre.org [128.29.154.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id CAA22286 for ; Sat, 28 Dec 1996 02:28:33 +1100 Received: from mwmgate2.mitre.org (mwmgate2.mitre.org [128.29.155.13]) by mwunix.mitre.org (8.8.4/8.8.4/mitre.0) with SMTP id KAA08918; Fri, 27 Dec 1996 10:28:26 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <199612271528.KAA08918@mwunix.mitre.org> Date: Fri, 27 Dec 96 10:22:36 EST From: D_Hard%huac@MWMGATE1.mitre.org To: elandau@cais.com (Eric Landau), bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re[2]: New Laws: AI/UI from penalty card Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I normally only read this list; however, I feel obligated to make my comments. I agree that the fact that partner has a penalty card has to be AI; however, any information gained from the face of partner's penalty card should be UI since it is information gained by the facing of the card. How do you get information from the face of one of partner's cards if you can not see the face? If he illegally lets you see the face, how can legal information result from an illegal act? Assume the penalty card is the Ace of Spades. How do you know *with certainity* that partner had the Ace of Spades prior to its facing? Only if you can answer this question, should you be allowed to use information gained from the card due to its facing. At all other times, this information should be UI. _______________________________________________________________________________ Subject: Re: New Laws: AI/UI from penalty card From: elandau@cais.com (Eric Landau) at -smtp- Date: 12/27/96 9:31 AM At 01:18 AM 12/27/96 +0000, Labeo wrote: > It is not credible to suggest that there is here an intention to >change the basis of the game as set out in the intro to Law 16. The last >14 words of law quoted above are *not in the least* ambiguous. Partner >is entitled to know that the penalty card must be played; partner may >use no other knowledge whatsoever that has only come to his notice from >seeing the exposed card and not from the legal auction and play. If >possession of the exposed card means, say, that the declarer must have >another given card, that information may only be used if it can be shown >that it is available from the legal auction/play. > ('Arise' = 'come into existence or notice' - Shorter Oxford) At this time, BLML is probably the foremost collection of perspicacious (or at least practiced) readers of bridge laws in existence. When this group subjects a passage of bridge law to extended discussion and doesn't reach a rapid and unanimous conclusion as to its meaning, it would seem rather arrogant and doctrinaire for anyone to declare out of hand that the passage in question is "*not in the least* ambiguous". Were that the case, we would not be having this discussion. The Laws of Duplicate Contract Bridge ARE the basis of the game. Thus, by definition, the only possible reason one could have for making substantive changes to those laws is precisely "an intention to change the basis of the game". I parse the phrase "information arising from the facing of the penalty card" as applying to "information arising from the facing" rather than "information arising from the card". I therefore conclude that information gained from partner's act of facing the card is UI, while information gained from the fact of partner's holding the card is AI. While I believe my interpretation to be correct, I would never, out of respect for my friends and colleagues on BLML, some of whom disagree with it, argue that the passage in question is "*not in the least* ambiguous", nor describe their alternative interpretations as "not credible". ("Face (v. tr.): To turn (a playing card) so that the face is up." -- American Heritage) Eric Landau elandau@cais.com APL Solutions, Inc. elandau@acm.org 1107 Dale Drive (301) 589-4621 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 From owner-bridge-laws Sat Dec 28 02:58:46 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA22391 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 28 Dec 1996 02:58:46 +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 CAA22384 for ; Sat, 28 Dec 1996 02:58:36 +1100 Received: from cph39.ppp.dknet.dk (cph39.ppp.dknet.dk [194.192.100.39]) by pip.dknet.dk (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id QAA05517 for ; Fri, 27 Dec 1996 16:58:28 +0100 From: Jesper Dybdal To: Bridge Laws List Subject: Re: New Laws: AI/UI from penalty card Date: Fri, 27 Dec 1996 16:58:18 +0100 Organization: at home Message-ID: <32c9f1bb.3732697@pipmail.dknet.dk> References: In-Reply-To: X-Mailer: Forte Agent .99g/32.339 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Fri, 27 Dec 1996 01:18:20 +0000, Labeo wrote: >The last >14 words of law quoted above are *not in the least* ambiguous. Partner >is entitled to know that the penalty card must be played; partner may >use no other knowledge whatsoever that has only come to his notice from >seeing the exposed card and not from the legal auction and play. I find those words ambiguous. I agree that looking at the words alone and ignoring what makes sense in terms of bridge, Labeo's interpretation seems more natural. However, there are other considerations: (1) We know that this law has not been worded very carefully. If it had, it would not talk about "other information" as opposed to "this requirement" - as Eric pointed out, a requirement is not information. In addition, a carefully worded law would probably also be a clearly worded law and would not cause this discussion at all. (2) When interpreting an unclear law, we need to guess what is meant. In order to make that guess, it surely makes sense to consider which possible meaning make most bridge sense. It seems to me that Labeo's interpretation makes no bridge sense. Imagine a player who has opened a 12-14 NT and has the SA as a penalty card. Try telling his partner that he is welcome to use the fact that partner will play the SA if he leads a spade, but that if he should find himself with a choice between two plays of which one assumes that the opener has 12 points in the other three suits and one assumes the opener has only 9 points in the other suits, he is obliged to choose the first one - unless, of course, the SA has been played in the meanwhile. That is IMO an impossible and quite ridiculous position to put a player in; is he, for instance, allowed to play a spade with the single purpose of later being allowed to follow the line of defense that he already knows to be the right one? Or is the fact that his UI will become AI when a round of spades has been played also UI? Not to mention the (admittedly in principle not very relevant) fact that the penalty card rules are already much too complicated, and to complicate them further in this way would be terrible. I therefore believe that what the lawmakers meant here is the much more sensible meaning that Eric, David, and others have argued. --=20 Jesper Dybdal, Denmark From owner-bridge-laws Sat Dec 28 11:08:28 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id LAA23814 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 28 Dec 1996 11:08:28 +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 LAA23809 for ; Sat, 28 Dec 1996 11:08:22 +1100 Received: from coruncanius.demon.co.uk ([194.222.115.176]) by relay-9.mail.demon.net id aa910314; 27 Dec 96 23:08 GMT Message-ID: Date: Fri, 27 Dec 1996 23:05:18 +0000 To: Jeff Goldsmith Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Labeo Subject: 1997 Laws In-Reply-To: <199612252241.OAA17118@tintin.JPL.NASA.GOV> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In message <199612252241.OAA17118@tintin.JPL.NASA.GOV>, Jeff Goldsmith writes >Subject: 1997 Laws > >Thank you, David. I appreciate your >posting this information. When, by the >way, will it likely become official? > Labeo writes: in 1987 there was also a six-month implementation period and various authorities implemented at various times in the period. The object is to fit conveniently with the bridge calendar in each Zone - in Europe each NBO was left to settle its own date. David: [Directors can now send cases directly to committee.] > Jeff Goldsmith: >This is a reasonable thing in my opinion, >in the abstract, but in reality, I think >it won't work. If none of the players want >to go to committee, they won't, so the ruling >the AC makes is going to be done often without >crucial information. As a result, the ruling >will be pretty much random. > Labeo: It will probably depend on how committees handle the cases; one anticipates they will only change a Director's ruling with positive cause, and being satisfied they have sound information. But the matters taken to committees will not always concern rulings; the matters that may be referred 'to the appropriate committee' are not limited in the law. (True 81C9 is headed 'disputes' but "headings are for convenience of reference only; headings are not considered to be part of the Laws".) Jeff: >I think the director ought still make a ruling >at the table, even if he exercises this option. >After all, why filter all the information detected >through the director? That is bound to lead to >inaccuracies. > >Come to think of it, if a TD makes a non-ruling >and sends the case to an AC, what does the recap >sheet show until the committee is done? Result >stands? Average? Zero for each side? Beats me. Labeo: I think the new laws make it clear the Director is to give a ruling. If not, surely regulatory bodies will do so. Labeo From owner-bridge-laws Sat Dec 28 13:06:59 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id NAA24105 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 28 Dec 1996 13:06:59 +1100 Received: from tpone.telepac.pt (tpone.telepac.pt [194.65.3.20]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id NAA24100 for ; Sat, 28 Dec 1996 13:06:53 +1100 Received: from mail.telepac.pt (netpac.telepac.pt [194.65.3.35]) by tpone.telepac.pt (8.6.12/1.0) with ESMTP id CAA28654 for ; Sat, 28 Dec 1996 02:05:50 GMT Received: from LOCALNAME (pal1_p14.telepac.pt [194.65.16.254]) by mail.telepac.pt (8.8.4/0.0) with SMTP id CAA03511 for ; Sat, 28 Dec 1996 02:05:45 GMT Message-ID: <32C4F002.6A4@mail.telepac.pt> Date: Sat, 28 Dec 1996 02:01:38 -0800 From: "Rui M. Lopes Marques" Reply-To: rui.marques@mail.telepac.pt Organization: Portuguese Bridge Federation X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0 (Win16; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: What is a session? (another point to make) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-MIME-Autoconverted: from 8bit to quoted-printable by mail.telepac.pt id CAA03511 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I have been following this thread for a while, and from what I saw nobody raised this question: In many countries, on non-barometers, scoring sheets are of the type "one each board", and travel with the board for the duration of a "stanza". This means that, in some way, on the 2nd and subsequent rounds players are able to compare results with other contestants (those who have already played the board). So, from this point of view it would seem that the majority of the pairs tournaments around the world are "bending the rules a little". If comparison of scores is not allowed, then scoring sheets must always be of the type "one each round". I agree that it doesn=B4t make a big difference, but for the purpose of estimating percentages by the players the fact that each pair compares his scores in different sequences may be significant in the score that a pair thinks that he needs to be placed here or there in the final ranking, eventually conditioning in a different way his approach to the last boards. Rui L. Marques From owner-bridge-laws Sat Dec 28 20:46:26 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id UAA24883 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 28 Dec 1996 20:46:26 +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 UAA24878 for ; Sat, 28 Dec 1996 20:46:20 +1100 Received: from coruncanius.demon.co.uk ([194.222.115.176]) by relay-6.mail.demon.net id aa603528; 28 Dec 96 9:32 GMT Message-ID: Date: Sat, 28 Dec 1996 09:28:07 +0000 To: Eric Landau Cc: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Labeo Subject: Re: New Laws: AI/UI from penalty card In-Reply-To: <1.5.4.32.19961227143138.00688d9c@cais.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In message <1.5.4.32.19961227143138.00688d9c@cais.com>, Eric Landau writes >At 01:18 AM 12/27/96 +0000, Labeo wrote: > >> It is not credible to suggest that there is here an intention to >>change the basis of the game as set out in the intro to Law 16. The last 14 words of law quoted above are *not in the least* ambiguous. > Eric Landau writes: >At this time, BLML is probably the foremost collection of perspicacious (or >at least practiced) readers of bridge laws in existence. When this group >subjects a passage of bridge law to extended discussion and doesn't reach a >rapid and unanimous conclusion as to its meaning, it would seem rather >arrogant and doctrinaire for anyone to declare out of hand that the passage >in question is "*not in the least* ambiguous". Were that the case, we would >not be having this discussion. > Labeo: E pur si muove - "And yet it does move". If it is arrogant to present unshakeable convictions, then I accept the charge. I do not change my convictions: I say that the words are unambiguous and that the discussion springs not from the words and their meaning but from an argument seeking to impose a limit on the application of that meaning, when the law does not, by excluding certain kinds of information which are nevertheless only gained from the facing. Eric Landau: >The Laws of Duplicate Contract Bridge ARE the basis of the game. Thus, by >definition, the only possible reason one could have for making substantive >changes to those laws is precisely "an intention to change the basis of the >game". > Labeo: Yes, a flaw; I should have said "change the basis of the game between the intro to the *new* Law 16 and the new Law 50D". E.L. again: >I parse the phrase "information arising from the facing of the penalty card" >as applying to "information arising from the facing" rather than >"information arising from the card". I therefore conclude that information >gained from partner's act of facing the card is UI, while information gained >from the fact of partner's holding the card is AI. While I believe my >interpretation to be correct, I would never, out of respect for my friends >and colleagues on BLML, some of whom disagree with it, argue that the >passage in question is "*not in the least* ambiguous", nor describe their >alternative interpretations as "not credible". > >("Face (v. tr.): To turn (a playing card) so that the face is up." -- >American Heritage) Labeo: How is one to point to the sophistry of an interpretation ? The information from the card is only available because the card is faced. The undeniable fact is that, in the examples discussed, information as to the location of cards passes to partner and would not have done so had the card not been faced. It plainly 'arises' (comes to partner's notice) from the facing of the card. (In passing, the facing of the card may not be in the commission of the infraction; it may be in compliance with Law 50A following an infraction.) Also: I doubt that we should get hung up on the word 'other'. The new law states that one piece of information is authorized and then goes on to make a statement about other information. Please read it again with a different focus: "the requirement that offender must play the card is authorized information for his partner; however, other information .... ...... is unauthorized for partner." With commas, if they help, after 'information' and before 'is'. Labeo From owner-bridge-laws Sat Dec 28 21:52:01 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id VAA25015 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 28 Dec 1996 21:52:01 +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 VAA25010 for ; Sat, 28 Dec 1996 21:51:55 +1100 Received: from coruncanius.demon.co.uk ([194.222.115.176]) by relay-9.mail.demon.net id aa909692; 28 Dec 96 10:29 GMT Message-ID: Date: Sat, 28 Dec 1996 10:25:24 +0000 To: rui.marques@mail.telepac.pt Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Labeo Subject: Re: What is a session? (another point to make) In-Reply-To: <32C4F002.6A4@mail.telepac.pt> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In message <32C4F002.6A4@mail.telepac.pt>, "Rui M. Lopes Marques"=20 writes >I have been following this thread for a while, and from what I saw >nobody raised this question: >In many countries, on non-barometers, scoring sheets are of the type >"one each board", and travel with the board for the duration of a >"stanza". >This means that, in some way, on the 2nd and subsequent rounds players >are able to compare results with other contestants (those who have >already played the board). >So, from this point of view it would seem that the majority of the pairs >tournaments around the world are "bending the rules a little". If >comparison of scores is not allowed, then scoring sheets must always be >of the type "one each round". >I agree that it doesn=B4t make a big difference, but for the purpose of >estimating percentages by the players the fact that each pair compares >his scores in different sequences may be significant in the score that a >pair thinks that he needs to be placed here or there in the final >ranking, eventually conditioning in a different way his approach to the >last boards. > >Rui L. Marques Labeo writes:=20 In the final draft 1997 Laws modifications enable sponsoring=20 organizations to resolve such questions:- "Session: An extended period=20 of play during which a number of boards, specified by the sponsoring=20 organization, is scheduled to be played." And the list of offences=20 subject to penalty in Law90 is altered from: "4. any comparison of=20 scores with another contestant during a session" to "4.Unauthorized=20 comparison of scores with another contestant." (It leaves the=20 authorization to the regulations or to the reserve powers of the=20 Director). Labeo From owner-bridge-laws Sun Dec 29 12:59:45 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id MAA00510 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 29 Dec 1996 12:59:45 +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 MAA00503 for ; Sun, 29 Dec 1996 12:59:37 +1100 Received: from coruncanius.demon.co.uk ([194.222.115.176]) by relay-10.mail.demon.net id aa1006974; 29 Dec 96 1:30 GMT Message-ID: Date: Sun, 29 Dec 1996 01:23:39 +0000 To: Jesper Dybdal Cc: Bridge Laws List From: Labeo Subject: Re: New Laws: AI/UI from penalty card In-Reply-To: <32c9f1bb.3732697@pipmail.dknet.dk> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In message <32c9f1bb.3732697@pipmail.dknet.dk>, Jesper Dybdal writes >(1) We know that this law has not been worded very carefully. If it >had, it would not talk about "other information" as opposed to "this >requirement" - as Eric pointed out, a requirement is not information. Labeo writes: A requirement is not information. To know of a requirement is information. Jesper also writes: >Imagine a player who has opened a 12-14 NT and has the SA as a penalty >card. Try telling his partner that he is welcome to use the fact that >partner will play the SA if he leads a spade, but that if he should >find himself with a choice between two plays of which one assumes that >the opener has 12 points in the other three suits and one assumes the >opener has only 9 points in the other suits, he is obliged to choose >the first one - unless, of course, the SA has been played in the >meanwhile. > >That is IMO an impossible and quite ridiculous position to put a >player in Labeo writes: 1. "After a player makes available to his partner extraneous information that may suggest a call or play......the partner may not choose from among logical alternative actions one that could demonstrably have been suggested over another by the extraneous information" (Final Draft Law 16A) 2. My understanding of the game is that no player wishes to make use of information made available to him solely in consequence of some irregularity (or extraneous action) of partner and, no matter what it costs, will avoid doing so unless the laws expressly authorize it. I am at a loss to understand how anyone might think it could be the intention to overturn that basic principle here. But if it were intended in this matter that the information should be authorized the laws must say so expressly; all extraneous information is swept otherwise into the net of Law 16. From owner-bridge-laws Mon Dec 30 08:25:24 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA13546 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 30 Dec 1996 08:25:24 +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 IAA13541 for ; Mon, 30 Dec 1996 08:25:15 +1100 Received: from default (cph12.ppp.dknet.dk [194.192.100.12]) by pip.dknet.dk (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id WAA15949 for ; Sun, 29 Dec 1996 22:25:04 +0100 Message-Id: <199612292125.WAA15949@pip.dknet.dk> Comments: Authenticated sender is From: "Jens & Bodil" Organization: Alesia Software To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Sun, 29 Dec 1996 22:25:53 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Re: New Laws: AI/UI from penalty card Priority: normal X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v2.42a) Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > Date: Sun, 29 Dec 1996 01:23:39 +0000 > From: Labeo [Snip] > 2. My understanding of the game is that no player wishes to make > use of information made available to him solely in consequence of some > irregularity (or extraneous action) of partner and, no matter what it > costs, will avoid doing so unless the laws expressly authorize it. Can you blame a player (and director) like me who thinks that the current laws do authorize him to use any and all information pertaining to partner's penalty cards? Even when you reread L72A5? > I am at a loss to understand how anyone might think it could be > the intention to overturn that basic principle here. [Snip] L72A5 expresses an equally well-established basic principle of the game (look at the headings of Law 72 and Law 72A), which would be weakened somewhat, IMHO intolerably so, by the stricter interpretation of "penalty card info unauthorized to partner". I have not yet seen any evidence that the 1997 Laws in general wish to step back from the principle expressed here. ================================================================ Otherwise my opinion on the matter echoes Jesper's. Please do not give os penalty card rules that are so complicated that it takes a week or more of BLML time to understand them: we have to explain them to the players while they are waiting to get on with the play. -- Jens Brix Christiansen, Denmark From owner-bridge-laws Tue Dec 31 08:46:01 1996 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA28950 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 31 Dec 1996 08:46:01 +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 IAA28944 for ; Tue, 31 Dec 1996 08:45:46 +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 QAA13014 for ; Mon, 30 Dec 1996 16:45:33 -0500 (EST) Received: by cfa183.harvard.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id QAA09207; Mon, 30 Dec 1996 16:45:54 -0500 Date: Mon, 30 Dec 1996 16:45:54 -0500 From: willner@cfa183.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Message-Id: <199612302145.QAA09207@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: New Laws: AI/UI from penalty card X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: Labeo > Labeo: How is one to point to the sophistry of an interpretation ? ... > Also: I doubt that we should get hung up on the word 'other'. The new > law states that one piece of information is authorized and then goes on > to make a statement about other information. Please read it again with > a different focus: "the requirement that offender must play the card is > authorized information for his partner;... So the information that the offender must play the card is authorized, but the information that he has it is unauthorized? I'm afraid that makes no sense at all to me. I wish the language were clearer, but Eric L.'s is the only interpretation I've seen that makes sense.