From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jan 1 14:12:59 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id OAA15519 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 1 Jan 1997 14:12:59 +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 OAA15514 for ; Wed, 1 Jan 1997 14:12:52 +1100 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by relay-10.mail.demon.net id ab1016709; 1 Jan 97 2:22 GMT Message-ID: Date: Wed, 1 Jan 1997 01:40:55 +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: [s] > 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. Exactly. Some people are surprised to find that the current L16C2 authorises information in such cases. However, it is currently ethical to use information that is covered thereby. > 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. That basic principle is not being overturned. The suggestion is that one reading of the new L50D authorises the use of this knowledge, ie that it might be considered a specific exception to the general principle of not using information from partner's infraction. In support of that, it probably is in agreement with a player's thinking, if he is ethical by intention but not knowledgeable about the Laws. If such a player sees his partner's 3H bid replaced for some reason with 3S he probably instinctively feels it would be unethical to use the information of his partner's withdrawn 3H: he would probably think similarly about any card of partner's that is put back into partner's hand: but the basic requirement of a penalty card, namely that it is left face up on the table, probably would make such a player instinctively reason that he can use the knowledge that it is part of partner's hand. 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 Jan 3 03:25:04 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA05982 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 3 Jan 1997 03:25:04 +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 DAA05977 for ; Fri, 3 Jan 1997 03:24:54 +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 IAA21920 for <@mipl7.JPL.NASA.GOV:bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au>; Thu, 2 Jan 1997 08:23:58 -0800 Received: by tintin.JPL.NASA.GOV (940816.SGI.8.6.9/930416.SGI.MIPS) for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au id IAA21551; Thu, 2 Jan 1997 08:24:58 -0800 Date: Thu, 2 Jan 1997 08:24:58 -0800 From: jeff@tintin.JPL.NASA.GOV (Jeff Goldsmith) Message-Id: <199701021624.IAA21551@tintin.JPL.NASA.GOV> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: 1997 Laws [General] Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk |From: Chris Pisarra |To: bridge laws list |Subject: Re: 1997 Laws [General] | |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.) Chris Pisarra wrote: | 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. In fact, most of the American TDs (as opposed to club directors) are or have been very good players. In California (where Chris lives) even most of the worst directors used to play a lot and were quite good. (Yes, even RH.) There are a few exceptions. Once a TD is in a regular rotation, he tends to stop playing seriously, because his work schedule interferes with keeping up his game. If you had to work during every ACBL national and local tournament, how much bridge would you play? As far as club directors go, bridge ability and directing ability has very little to do with the job. The top two valued skills among club directors are (1) being able to make decent coffee, and (2) being able to control upset players. Don't bother to ask for or expect real rulings at club games. Indeed, I have a rule that I never call the director for anything other than a blatant irregularity except against players who ought to know better. The reason club directors don't know the laws is that they don't need to, and that there aren't enough people who do who want to be club directors. Again, there are exceptions. (Alan LeBendig now runs a club, for example.) --Jeff # Start spreadin' the news! Go Yankees! # --- # http://muggy.gg.caltech.edu/~jeff From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jan 3 03:34:16 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA06053 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 3 Jan 1997 03:34:16 +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 DAA06048 for ; Fri, 3 Jan 1997 03:34:09 +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 IAA21946 for <@mipl7.JPL.NASA.GOV:bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au>; Thu, 2 Jan 1997 08:33:34 -0800 Received: by tintin.JPL.NASA.GOV (940816.SGI.8.6.9/930416.SGI.MIPS) for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au id IAA21563; Thu, 2 Jan 1997 08:34:44 -0800 Date: Thu, 2 Jan 1997 08:34:44 -0800 From: jeff@tintin.JPL.NASA.GOV (Jeff Goldsmith) Message-Id: <199701021634.IAA21563@tintin.JPL.NASA.GOV> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: 1997 Laws Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Stevenson sayeth: |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. What's a "Tournament committee?" In ACBL District 23, the "Tournament committee" is the group (including me, btw) who organizes the tournament. Doesn't a director already have the power to suggest (at least) Conduct & Ethics hearings? In any case, isn't C&E procedure part of NCBO bylaws in general? I am not sure those procedures ought to be mandated by world-wide laws; what passes for a reasonable judiciary system varies by nation. | 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. So a lazy director will rule "result stands, go to committee, I don't want to figure this out." Blech. I guess it's better than "result stands, don't bother me." "What about an appeal?" "Don't bother me." --Jeff # Start spreadin' the news! Go Yankees! # --- # http://muggy.gg.caltech.edu/~jeff From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jan 3 03:37:12 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA06080 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 3 Jan 1997 03:37:12 +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 DAA06075 for ; Fri, 3 Jan 1997 03:37:06 +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 IAA21969 for <@mipl7.JPL.NASA.GOV:bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au>; Thu, 2 Jan 1997 08:36:31 -0800 Received: by tintin.JPL.NASA.GOV (940816.SGI.8.6.9/930416.SGI.MIPS) for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au id IAA21569; Thu, 2 Jan 1997 08:37:42 -0800 Date: Thu, 2 Jan 1997 08:37:42 -0800 From: jeff@tintin.JPL.NASA.GOV (Jeff Goldsmith) Message-Id: <199701021637.IAA21569@tintin.JPL.NASA.GOV> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: 1997 Laws (penalty cards) Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Eric Landau said: |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) Wouldn't "play" be more appropriate than "face", or have I missed a few steps in this discussion? After all, there is no information generated by accidentally played cards, and "play" includes intent, whereas "face" does not. Indeed, what is the UI is the intent itself. --Jeff # Start spreadin' the news! Go Yankees! # --- # http://muggy.gg.caltech.edu/~jeff From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jan 3 05:02:20 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA10313 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 3 Jan 1997 05:02:20 +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 FAA10276 for ; Fri, 3 Jan 1997 05:02:12 +1100 Received: from coruncanius.demon.co.uk ([194.222.115.176]) by relay-5.mail.demon.net id aa505242; 2 Jan 97 17:54 GMT Message-ID: <8DPVqIAL$+yyEwne@coruncanius.demon.co.uk> Date: Thu, 2 Jan 1997 17:26:35 +0000 To: Jens & Bodil Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Labeo Subject: Re: New Laws: AI/UI from penalty card In-Reply-To: <199612292125.WAA15949@pip.dknet.dk> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In message <199612292125.WAA15949@pip.dknet.dk>, Jens & Bodil writes >>> >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? Reply from Labeo: Not at all; I have no difficulty with that. The problem springs from the change of principle in the 1997 draft laws (and the inadequacy of my word-power to bring the message home). Law 72A5 will begin: "Subject to Law 16C2 after the offending side has..." And in 16C2 an offending player will no longer be allowed to use information from any withdrawn card - his side's or the other's. Labeo From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jan 3 05:15:09 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA11606 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 3 Jan 1997 05:15:09 +1100 Received: from relay-7.mail.demon.net (relay-7.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.9]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id FAA11601 for ; Fri, 3 Jan 1997 05:15:03 +1100 Received: from coruncanius.demon.co.uk ([194.222.115.176]) by relay-6.mail.demon.net id aa622428; 2 Jan 97 17:54 GMT Message-ID: Date: Thu, 2 Jan 1997 17:51:35 +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 writes >Labeo wrote: > [s] > 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. > David said: > That basic principle is not being overturned. The suggestion is that >one reading of the new L50D authorises the use of this knowledge, ie >that it might be considered a specific exception to the general >principle of not using information from partner's infraction. > > In support of that, it probably is in agreement with a player's >thinking, if he is ethical by intention but not knowledgeable about the >Laws. If such a player sees his partner's 3H bid replaced for some >reason with 3S he probably instinctively feels it would be unethical to >use the information of his partner's withdrawn 3H: he would probably >think similarly about any card of partner's that is put back into >partner's hand: but the basic requirement of a penalty card, namely that >it is left face up on the table, probably would make such a player >instinctively reason that he can use the knowledge that it is part of >partner's hand. > >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. > Labeo: I think we have no argument that where the laws state expressly that information is authorized it is normal and proper for the player to use it. But it does require to be stated explicitly that it is authorized and here no such statement is made except in regard to knowledge of the requirement on the player with the penalty card. If an explicit statement is not made extraneous information is subject to the generality of Law 16. The most significant change in Law 16 is to remove the right of the offending side for a player to use information which comes to him from partner's withdrawn card. For the avoidance of doubt Law 50D pumps this prohibition home, is consistent with the newly adopted principle, and does not place a limit on the extent of its application to information derived because the card is faced as Law 50A requires (having been exposed). Just to keep the fire warm let me also point out that in the auction and play 'extraneous' information is knowledge obtained other than from the legal calls and plays and mannerisms of opponents, which is to say that information authorized by the general statement at the beginning of law 16. See also my reply to Jens and Bodil. Labeo From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jan 3 11:41:47 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id LAA16082 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 3 Jan 1997 11:41:47 +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 LAA16077 for ; Fri, 3 Jan 1997 11:41:39 +1100 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by relay-9.mail.demon.net id ab900944; 3 Jan 97 0:25 GMT Message-ID: Date: Fri, 3 Jan 1997 00:24:32 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: 1997 Laws In-Reply-To: <199701021634.IAA21563@tintin.JPL.NASA.GOV> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Jeff Goldsmith wrote: >David Stevenson sayeth: >| 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. >What's a "Tournament committee?" In ACBL District 23, >the "Tournament committee" is the group (including me, >btw) who organizes the tournament. In a large EBU tournament someone played without entering. He said something along the lines of "I haven't any spare cash at the moment: I'll give you a cheque later". Eventually he reached the final of the event but had not paid an entry fee: the organisers came to him, and he said "The entry fee is less than the guaranteed prize for all finalists, so I shall not pay you." I am not terribly interested in whether any action should have been taken, but if you assume it should, how do you deal with it? You are the Chief TD: what are you going to do? >Doesn't a director already have the power to suggest >(at least) Conduct & Ethics hearings? In any case, >isn't C&E procedure part of NCBO bylaws in general? >I am not sure those procedures ought to be >mandated by world-wide laws; what passes for a >reasonable judiciary system varies by nation. Maybe. But we are talking of a change in the Laws, and TDs now do have the right whatever their NCBOs think. I have also heard of a case in the last year which IMO should have been dealt with in committee where the reason given that it was not dealt with concerns the procedures of the NCBO concerned. >| 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. > >So a lazy director will rule "result stands, go to >committee, I don't want to figure this out." Blech. >I guess it's better than "result stands, don't bother >me." "What about an appeal?" "Don't bother me." I do not see any reason to change the Laws to allow for a Director who should not be doing the job. Bone idle and incompetent TDs should be eliminated, not protected from their actions by the Laws. 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 Jan 3 12:08:22 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id MAA16197 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 3 Jan 1997 12:08:22 +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 MAA16192 for ; Fri, 3 Jan 1997 12:08:17 +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 RAA24896 for <@mipl7.JPL.NASA.GOV:bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au>; Thu, 2 Jan 1997 17:07:36 -0800 Received: by tintin.JPL.NASA.GOV (940816.SGI.8.6.9/930416.SGI.MIPS) for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au id RAA22697; Thu, 2 Jan 1997 17:08:48 -0800 Date: Thu, 2 Jan 1997 17:08:48 -0800 From: jeff@tintin.JPL.NASA.GOV (Jeff Goldsmith) Message-Id: <199701030108.RAA22697@tintin.JPL.NASA.GOV> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: 1997 Laws Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Quoth David Stevenson: |Jeff Goldsmith wrote: |>David Stevenson sayeth: | |>| 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. | |>What's a "Tournament committee?" In ACBL District 23, |>the "Tournament committee" is the group (including me, |>btw) who organizes the tournament. | | In a large EBU tournament someone played without entering. He said |something along the lines of "I haven't any spare cash at the moment: |I'll give you a cheque later". Eventually he reached the final of the |event but had not paid an entry fee: the organisers came to him, and he |said "The entry fee is less than the guaranteed prize for all finalists, |so I shall not pay you." | | I am not terribly interested in whether any action should have been |taken, but if you assume it should, how do you deal with it? You are |the Chief TD: what are you going to do? Let him play, but give him no award. Tell him, "the first overall prize is 400% of the entry fee. Your award is 400% (or whatever) of your entry fee." Give the remainder of the award to charity or whatever. In practice, he ought not have been allowed to play at all unless someone was willing to cover for him. "I'm sorry, but I am not willing to loan you the money for this event. Please find someone who will." This does remind me of a story that still bothers me. Someone with whom I'm acquainted entered the Life Masters Pairs in Miami. He reached the front of the entry-selling line and informed the director, "it's Junior Day. Juniors don't have to pay today." The director said, "ummm...I didn't know that. Really?" "Really." "OK." I checked. No such deal. Said junior never paid. What would you do about it? (FWIW, said junior really believed what he was saying and was just wrong, not intentionally trying to scam a free entry. ... I think.) --Jeff # Start spreadin' the news! Go Yankees! # --- # http://muggy.gg.caltech.edu/~jeff From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jan 4 01:41:56 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA21530 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 4 Jan 1997 01:41:56 +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 BAA21514 for ; Sat, 4 Jan 1997 01:35:42 +1100 Received: from innet.innet.be (pool03-238.innet.be [194.7.10.238]) by mail.be.innet.net (8.7.6/8.7.3) with SMTP id PAA04047 for ; Fri, 3 Jan 1997 15:34:52 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: <32CD267B.D26@innet.be> Date: Fri, 03 Jan 1997 15:32:11 +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 (penalty cards) References: <199701021637.IAA21569@tintin.JPL.NASA.GOV> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Jeff Goldsmith wrote: > > > Wouldn't "play" be more appropriate than "face", > or have I missed a few steps in this discussion? > After all, there is no information generated by > accidentally played cards, and "play" includes > intent, whereas "face" does not. Indeed, what > is the UI is the intent itself. This is the best analysis yet. I do not like the change of Law as we might read it, and as Labeo seems to interpret it. I do like the interpretation that says that the accidentally 'faced' card does not hold any more UI, whereas the act of playing would contain still some UI. Perhaps we should indeed suggest a small change : playing iso facing. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.club.innet.be/~pub02163/index.htm From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jan 4 02:03:44 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA21784 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 4 Jan 1997 02:03:44 +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 CAA21779 for ; Sat, 4 Jan 1997 02:03:39 +1100 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by relay-6.mail.demon.net id aa610298; 3 Jan 97 14:08 GMT Message-ID: Date: Fri, 3 Jan 1997 14:05:17 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: 1997 Laws In-Reply-To: <199701030108.RAA22697@tintin.JPL.NASA.GOV> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Jeff Goldsmith wrote: >Quoth David Stevenson: >| In a large EBU tournament someone played without entering. He said >|something along the lines of "I haven't any spare cash at the moment: >|I'll give you a cheque later". Eventually he reached the final of the >|event but had not paid an entry fee: the organisers came to him, and he >|said "The entry fee is less than the guaranteed prize for all finalists, >|so I shall not pay you." >| >| I am not terribly interested in whether any action should have been >|taken, but if you assume it should, how do you deal with it? You are >|the Chief TD: what are you going to do? >Let him play, but give him no award. Tell him, >"the first overall prize is 400% of the entry fee. >Your award is 400% (or whatever) of your entry fee." >Give the remainder of the award to charity or whatever. How can you change the awards? They are published. Are you making a ruling, or what? I am not trying to be difficult, but the point I was trying to make is one of authority, not the actual decision. Has a Chief TD [DIC] got the right to alter a published award? If you think he has a right, what is his authority and is it appealable? -- 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 Sat Jan 4 03:46:41 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA22072 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 4 Jan 1997 03:46:41 +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 DAA22067 for ; Sat, 4 Jan 1997 03:46:33 +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 IAA26821 for <@mipl7.JPL.NASA.GOV:bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au>; Fri, 3 Jan 1997 08:45:43 -0800 Received: by tintin.JPL.NASA.GOV (940816.SGI.8.6.9/930416.SGI.MIPS) for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au id IAA23133; Fri, 3 Jan 1997 08:46:56 -0800 Date: Fri, 3 Jan 1997 08:46:56 -0800 From: jeff@tintin.JPL.NASA.GOV (Jeff Goldsmith) Message-Id: <199701031646.IAA23133@tintin.JPL.NASA.GOV> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Directors/Committees/Sponsoring Organizations Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Stevenson wrote: |Jeff Goldsmith wrote: | |>Quoth David Stevenson: | |>| In a large EBU tournament someone played without entering. He said |>|something along the lines of "I haven't any spare cash at the moment: |>|I'll give you a cheque later". Eventually he reached the final of the |>|event but had not paid an entry fee: the organisers came to him, and he |>|said "The entry fee is less than the guaranteed prize for all finalists, |>|so I shall not pay you." |>| |>| I am not terribly interested in whether any action should have been |>|taken, but if you assume it should, how do you deal with it? You are |>|the Chief TD: what are you going to do? | |>Let him play, but give him no award. Tell him, |>"the first overall prize is 400% of the entry fee. |>Your award is 400% (or whatever) of your entry fee." |>Give the remainder of the award to charity or whatever. | | How can you change the awards? They are published. Are you making a |ruling, or what? I am not trying to be difficult, but the point I was |trying to make is one of authority, not the actual decision. Has a |Chief TD [DIC] got the right to alter a published award? I understand the theoretical problem, but the practical one is simply that the contract was breached by the player. He failed to pay his entry fee. If he doesn't fulfill his part of the contract, it's void for him and thus the organization doesn't have to fulfill its end. >From a theoretical standpoint, however, who has the authority to allow the player not to pay his entry? The sponsoring organization is the holder of the contract, and in this case, gives authority to whomever is selling entries to enter into contracts with players. It's not clear that they authorized this particular contract violation, but since they have no proxy there other than the directors hired, whom else ought to be asked to make sensible judgments? | If you think he has a right, what is his authority and is it |appealable? His authority is the proxy given to him by the sponsoring organization of the tournament. His decision is clearly appealable to the sponsoring organization. If they choose to uphold the director's decision (they probably won't) then their decision is appealable to the civil courts system of the nation in which the event takes place. If there is some other fiscal judiciary system in place, that's probably more appropriate (appeal to arbitration, whatever). In practice, the SO ought probably pay the poor slob and tell him never to do this again unless he has a history as a deadbeat. Back to the theory: SOs run tournaments. They hire directors and give them certain authority. I do not know where that is spelled out, but I hope it is somewhere. (Indeed, we have had some problems with that---our directors have contravened the Conditions of Contest a fair number of times, even after being confronted with it and being ordered in no uncertain terms to stop. I have to admit that the problem isn't as bad now as it was a year ago. Here's a big rub: in the ACBL hierarchy, there appears to be no way to deal with this effectively.) The Tournament Manager is the on-site representative of the SO in our tournaments and can make decisions for the SO. The directors, however, are often forced by circumstance to make decisions for the SO, are employees of the SO, and are often the only representatives of the SO around. What's the problem? --Jeff # Start spreadin' the news! Go Yankees! # --- # http://muggy.gg.caltech.edu/~jeff From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jan 4 07:09:27 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA23155 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 4 Jan 1997 07:09:27 +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 HAA23139 for ; Sat, 4 Jan 1997 07:09:20 +1100 Received: from mail.isys.net by mail.hamburg.netsurf.de with smtp (/\==/\ Smail3.1.28.1 #28.1); id m0vgFvQ-000H2HC; Fri, 3 Jan 97 21:09 MET Received: from meckwell by mail.isys.net with smtp (/\oo/\ Smail3.1.29.1 #29.6); id ; Fri, 3 Jan 97 21:09 MEZ Date: Fri, 3 Jan 1997 21:16:18 +0100 (CET) From: Henk Uijterwaal X-Sender: henk@meckwell Reply-To: Henk Uijterwaal To: David Stevenson cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: 1997 Laws In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Fri, 3 Jan 1997, David Stevenson wrote: > In a large EBU tournament someone played without entering. He said > something along the lines of "I haven't any spare cash at the moment: > I'll give you a cheque later". Eventually he reached the final of the > event but had not paid an entry fee: the organisers came to him, and he > said "The entry fee is less than the guaranteed prize for all finalists, > so I shall not pay you." > I am not terribly interested in whether any action should have been > taken, but if you assume it should, how do you deal with it? You are > the Chief TD: what are you going to do? Sorry, but what IS the problem here? If the Organizing Committee has asked the TD's to collect the entry fee from the players, then he has to collect the money one way or another. If they don't do this, then they are simply not doing their job. And for the players, if you want to play, you have to pay your entry fee. In this particular case, I'd give the player a chance to get his checkbook or walk over to the ATM at some time during the first day of the event, but if the entry fee had not been paid by the time that I had to make the list of qualifiers for the next round, then this player would not be on the list. And, yes, I'd report it to the committee and NCBO if the player disappeared without paying if he didn't qualify. If I didn't do that, then soon half the room would play without paying. Henk ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Henk Uijterwaal Email: henk.uijterwaal@hamburg.netsurf.de (home) henk@desy.de (work) WWW: http://www-zeus.desy.de/~uijter ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ %DCL-E-NOCFFE, unable to locate coffee - keyboard input suspended. From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jan 4 11:23:35 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id LAA24040 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 4 Jan 1997 11:23:35 +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 LAA24035 for ; Sat, 4 Jan 1997 11:23:29 +1100 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by relay-5.mail.demon.net id aa524897; 3 Jan 97 23:56 GMT Message-ID: Date: Fri, 3 Jan 1997 21:56:07 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Directors/Committees/Sponsoring Organizations In-Reply-To: <199701031646.IAA23133@tintin.JPL.NASA.GOV> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Jeff Goldsmith wrote: >David Stevenson wrote: >| How can you change the awards? They are published. Are you making a >|ruling, or what? I am not trying to be difficult, but the point I was >|trying to make is one of authority, not the actual decision. Has a >|Chief TD [DIC] got the right to alter a published award? >I understand the theoretical problem, but the practical >one is simply that the contract was breached by the player. >He failed to pay his entry fee. If he doesn't fulfill his >part of the contract, it's void for him and thus the >organization doesn't have to fulfill its end. > >From a theoretical standpoint, however, who has the authority >to allow the player not to pay his entry? The sponsoring >organization is the holder of the contract, and in this case, >gives authority to whomever is selling entries to enter into >contracts with players. It's not clear that they authorized >this particular contract violation, but since they have no >proxy there other than the directors hired, whom else ought >to be asked to make sensible judgments? >| If you think he has a right, what is his authority and is it >|appealable? >His authority is the proxy given to him by the sponsoring >organization of the tournament. His decision is clearly >appealable to the sponsoring organization. If they choose >to uphold the director's decision (they probably won't) then >their decision is appealable to the civil courts system of >the nation in which the event takes place. If there is some >other fiscal judiciary system in place, that's probably more >appropriate (appeal to arbitration, whatever). In practice, >the SO ought probably pay the poor slob and tell him never >to do this again unless he has a history as a deadbeat. > >Back to the theory: SOs run tournaments. They hire directors >and give them certain authority. I do not know where that >is spelled out, but I hope it is somewhere. (Indeed, we have >had some problems with that---our directors have contravened >the Conditions of Contest a fair number of times, even after >being confronted with it and being ordered in no uncertain >terms to stop. I have to admit that the problem isn't as >bad now as it was a year ago. Here's a big rub: in the >ACBL hierarchy, there appears to be no way to deal with this >effectively.) The Tournament Manager is the on-site representative >of the SO in our tournaments and can make decisions for the >SO. The directors, however, are often forced by circumstance >to make decisions for the SO, are employees of the SO, and are >often the only representatives of the SO around. What's >the problem? I think I agree with all of this. The authority is certainly there for the SO in L80 [unchanged in the 1997 Laws except for the addition of L80G about appeals]. As Jeff notes the decision over the entry must be appealable. I have gone about this in a very heavy-handed fashion, but my main point is that certain parts of the TD's work are on behalf of the SO and not concerned with individual hands. Even so, there must be appeal processes and so on. In the actual case quoted the Chief TD [DIC] made a decision and it was appealed. The appeal was heard by a senior member of the sponsoring organisation, a senior organiser, as a one-man committee. [Before you ask, no I do not know either the TD's nor the final decision: sorry.] There has been another case here where there were problems that arose over who had won a competition where there had been a scoring error, found some time later. This was considered in various committees and similar bodies, and it was felt there were problems in procedures. Even the case quoted by Jeff above seems relevant. L80A gives the SO the right to appoint the TDs, and L80D the right to establish conditions of entry. If the TDs do not follow the conditions, what is the Appeal process? We need some procedures, for appeal and organisation in events, that are not concerned with the normal happenings like the play of hands and the conduct of players. Some sort of "Tournament" committee must be available [not necessarily at the time] even if it is rare that they actually have anything to deal with, and the new Law that started this set of articles makes it clear that the TD can send a matter to them on his own initiative. 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 Sun Jan 5 01:06:14 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA29133 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 5 Jan 1997 01:06:14 +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 BAA29122 for ; Sun, 5 Jan 1997 01:05:54 +1100 Received: (from root@localhost) by tom.compulink.co.uk (8.8.4/8.6.9) id OAA05612 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Sat, 4 Jan 1997 14:04:51 GMT Date: Sat, 4 Jan 97 14:04 GMT0 From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: 1997 Laws (penalty cards) To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Cc: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Reply-To: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Message-Id: Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In-Reply-To: <32CD267B.D26@innet.be> Herman wrote: > > I do like the interpretation that says that the accidentally 'faced' > card does not hold any more UI, whereas the act of playing would contain > still some UI. Except that when you pull two cards (stuck together) to the same trick eg S5,DA on a diamond it stongly implies that the S5 is your lowest spade and this should be UI. I could see arguments where it was claimed that the S5 was accidentally faced rather than played. Tim West-Meads From owner-bridge-laws Sun Jan 5 07:38:20 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA00505 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 5 Jan 1997 07:38:20 +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 HAA00500 for ; Sun, 5 Jan 1997 07:38:12 +1100 Received: from coruncanius.demon.co.uk ([194.222.115.176]) by relay-9.mail.demon.net id aa909027; 4 Jan 97 20:33 GMT Message-ID: Date: Sat, 4 Jan 1997 19:36:49 +0000 To: David Stevenson Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Labeo Subject: Re: Directors/Committees/Sponsoring Organizations In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > >From Labeo: In messages between Jeff Goldsmith and David Stevenson I read (sorry, can't quite make out who said which):- >>| If you think he has a right, what is his authority and is it >>|appealable? > >>His authority is the proxy given to him by the sponsoring >>organization of the tournament. His decision is clearly >>appealable to the sponsoring organization. If they choose >>to uphold the director's decision (they probably won't) then >>their decision is appealable to the civil courts system of >>the nation in which the event takes place. > >Labeo:- The first thing that strikes me is that the rights of other players in the event are affected. They are not required, I would think, to compete with a player who has failed to comply with the conditions of entry in such a significant way. If, whether acting by the DIC or whatever, the spons. org. has permitted the player to take part it seems to me that notionally the SO has paid the player's entry fee for him and a debt lies between them which is recoverable in civil law. It might be helpful if it were spelt out that pending production of the payment the entry fee would be paid for him, if only in some obscure regulation. Once you have reached the stage described in the original question it looks to invite trouble if anyone starts bending the terms of the competition, by altering the awards or the like. The "proxy of the sponsoring organization" is given to the Director by the laws (81A); is the Sponsoring Organization not then bound by the act of its agent? It appears to me that the SO is obliged to accept that the player has been allowed to play and may win the announced prize, acting only to ensure the debt owed to it is paid. I do not think the player can be accused of a misdemeanour when the SO's agent has accepted him to play with full knowledge of the facts. On another front, I do not read the new law 81C9 as absolving the Director of his duty to administer the laws generally and to make rulings as they provide. Directors who do not (or who duck responsibility by giving a token ruling) are presumably weeded out? [Howls from all over that it doesn't happen?! - ah, well! That's your problem - do you have elections?] As David keeps saying:- >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 Labeo From owner-bridge-laws Sun Jan 5 07:50:39 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA00561 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 5 Jan 1997 07:50:39 +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 HAA00556 for ; Sun, 5 Jan 1997 07:50:32 +1100 Received: from coruncanius.demon.co.uk ([194.222.115.176]) by relay-10.mail.demon.net id aa1014223; 4 Jan 97 20:33 GMT Message-ID: Date: Sat, 4 Jan 1997 19:40:01 +0000 To: Herman De Wael Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Labeo Subject: Re: 1997 Laws (penalty cards) In-Reply-To: <32CD267B.D26@innet.be> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In message <32CD267B.D26@innet.be>, Herman De Wael writes >Jeff Goldsmith wrote: >> >> >> Wouldn't "play" be more appropriate than "face", >> or have I missed a few steps in this discussion? >> After all, there is no information generated by >> accidentally played cards, and "play" includes >> intent, whereas "face" does not. Indeed, what >> is the UI is the intent itself. and H De W then said: > >This is the best analysis yet. > >I do not like the change of Law as we might read it, and as Labeo seems >to interpret it. > >I do like the interpretation that says that the accidentally 'faced' >card does not hold any more UI, whereas the act of playing would contain >still some UI. > >Perhaps we should indeed suggest a small change : playing iso facing. > Labeo: You will have noticed that I have not commented on what is desirable, straining my sinews only to obtain recognition of the actuality of the proposed law. I am unconvinced either way as to what is better for the game; an accidentally exposed card can convey significant information, to repeat the example of the case when from seeing it partner is enabled to place honour cards; that information does not come from the legal calls or plays etc. and so it is 'extraneous'. The jurist seeks to arm the Director with powers to counter the obvious opportunity for abuse and to balance this against the comfort of the game for the players. It is now well established that the law is best equipped if it has a form of words that will allow the Director to take remedial action without being obliged to accuse the accident=prone player of cheating. But there is also a question as to whether it is in keeping with the moral ethos of the game to allow players to profit from partner's exposure of a card, whether this is purposeful, accidental or 'accidental'; there are evidently numbers who would be at ease with such arrangements: for the present I am uneasy and think the matter debatable. It has been suggested more than once that it is undesirable to allow a pair to profit from its own irregularity even when a penalty has been paid. The Director will find life less burdensome, of course, if he does not have to judge whether a player may have selected a play that can demonstrably have been suggested over a logical alternative by information gained from seeing the card. However, the only way to achieve this is to re-instate, at least for the purposes of Law 50D, wording such as is currently contained in 72A5. It is insufficient merely to alter "face" to "play" since absence of a statement then consigns extraneous information gained from sight of the exposed card to be dealt with under Law 16. But is the Director not appointed to shoulder such burdens? Labeo From owner-bridge-laws Sun Jan 5 15:18:54 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id PAA01834 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 5 Jan 1997 15:18:54 +1100 Received: from tom.compulink.co.uk (tom.compulink.co.uk [194.153.0.51]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id PAA01829 for ; Sun, 5 Jan 1997 15:18:48 +1100 Received: (from root@localhost) by tom.compulink.co.uk (8.8.4/8.6.9) id EAA06310 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Sun, 5 Jan 1997 04:18:36 GMT Date: Sun, 5 Jan 97 04:17 GMT0 From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: 1997 Laws (penalty cards) To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Cc: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Reply-To: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Message-Id: Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In-Reply-To: Labeo wrote: > You will have noticed that I have not commented on what is > desirable, straining my sinews only to obtain recognition of the > actuality of the proposed law. If we get on to what is desirable wouldn't it be better to do away with penalty cards altogether? Ie a (current) penalty card is replaced in the hand without penalty but all info relating to it is UI under L16. Surely this would be better than the double punishment of having to play the card at a specific time but barring partner, who knows you must play it, from basing his strategy on that knowledge. After all 999/1000 the infraction is inadvertent. Tim West-Meads (who sees no reason to make a director's life easy at the expense of playability). From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jan 6 04:02:48 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA06452 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 6 Jan 1997 04:02:48 +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 EAA06447 for ; Mon, 6 Jan 1997 04:02:41 +1100 Received: from cph15.ppp.dknet.dk (cph15.ppp.dknet.dk [194.192.100.15]) by pip.dknet.dk (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id SAA10870 for ; Sun, 5 Jan 1997 18:02:32 +0100 From: Jesper Dybdal To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: 1997 Laws (penalty cards) Date: Sun, 05 Jan 1997 18:02:20 +0100 Organization: at home Message-ID: <32d1ddf6.514129@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 Sun, 5 Jan 97 04:17 GMT0, twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) wrote: >If we get on to what is desirable wouldn't it be better to do away with = penalty=20 >cards altogether? Ie a (current) penalty card is replaced in the hand = without=20 >penalty but all info relating to it is UI under L16. This is exactly the point. The concept of a penalty card is a (supposedly simpler) _alternative_ to considering the card UI. If the card is UI, there is no reason whatsoever to also have penalty card rules. (Other than a desire for revenge, of course, but the laws do claim to not penalize out of a desire for revenge.) --=20 Jesper Dybdal, Denmark From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jan 6 12:48:45 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id MAA16368 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 6 Jan 1997 12:48:45 +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 MAA16363 for ; Mon, 6 Jan 1997 12:48:37 +1100 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by relay-6.mail.demon.net id aa602081; 6 Jan 97 1:41 GMT Message-ID: Date: Mon, 6 Jan 1997 01:09:53 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: 1997 Laws (penalty cards) In-Reply-To: <32d1ddf6.514129@pipmail.dknet.dk> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Jesper Dybdal wrote: >On Sun, 5 Jan 97 04:17 GMT0, twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) >wrote: >>If we get on to what is desirable wouldn't it be better to do away with >penalty >>cards altogether? Ie a (current) penalty card is replaced in the hand without >>penalty but all info relating to it is UI under L16. > >This is exactly the point. The concept of a penalty card is a >(supposedly simpler) _alternative_ to considering the card UI. If the >card is UI, there is no reason whatsoever to also have penalty card >rules. (Other than a desire for revenge, of course, but the laws do >claim to not penalize out of a desire for revenge.) I don't think that you can ignore history or players' feelings. A new Law book is one thing, and players will grumble over some things. But I believe that a change of this type and magnitude will be too upsetting for the majority of players, even if it is technically correct. As a result, there are still certain revenge elements in the 1987 and 1997 Laws. 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 Mon Jan 6 23:27:00 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA18885 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 6 Jan 1997 23:27:00 +1100 Received: from mail.be.innet.net (mail.be.innet.net [194.7.1.8]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id XAA18876 for ; Mon, 6 Jan 1997 23:26:25 +1100 Received: from innet.innet.be (pool03-62.innet.be [194.7.10.62]) by mail.be.innet.net (8.7.6/8.7.3) with SMTP id NAA10717 for ; Mon, 6 Jan 1997 13:25:29 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: <32D0FCF5.6B6F@innet.be> Date: Mon, 06 Jan 1997 13:24:05 +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 (penalty cards) References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Stevenson wrote: > > Jesper Dybdal wrote: > > > > >This is exactly the point. The concept of a penalty card is a > >(supposedly simpler) _alternative_ to considering the card UI. If the > >card is UI, there is no reason whatsoever to also have penalty card > >rules. (Other than a desire for revenge, of course, but the laws do > >claim to not penalize out of a desire for revenge.) > > I don't think that you can ignore history or players' feelings. A new > Law book is one thing, and players will grumble over some things. But I > believe that a change of this type and magnitude will be too upsetting > for the majority of players, even if it is technically correct. > > As a result, there are still certain revenge elements in the 1987 and > 1997 Laws. > I prefer not to regard the technical penalties such as penalty card and revokes as "revenge". Rather they are a technical means by which the possible advantage arising from the infraction is turned into a disadvantage. When the advantage is bigger than the disadvantage, there are still laws to take away the extra advantage (L64C for the revoke - L50A for the penalty card, with a 'could have known'). In any case the object is to return us at least to the equitable score, without the infraction. The technical penalties assure us that this is done, without too much work for the director. I agree that there might be cases where the penalty card is not punished severely enough, without possible recourse to L50A. So a change in the Laws might be necessary. Indeed, the leading of a King denies the Ace, ... Now this could have been resolved by a general article such as 64C. 'If the director determines that the penalty card provided such an amount of information that the non-offending side is insufficiently compensated, he shall assign an adjusted score'. I am certainly not against such a Law change. But to refer to L16 opens a totally new can of worms. L16 imposes on the partner an ethical obligation : he may not choose from among logical alternatives one that could have been suggested by the UI. In practice, this will become totally impossible to judge. Consider a case we come accross on about one eighth of the deals we play: We are on opening lead and we do not find a logical lead. You have just rejected all four suits for the second time and are starting to try and find the lead least likely to damage your side, when partner leads out of turn (face-up, of course, how often have you told him to lead face down !!) Declarer selects to let you lead and leaves the penalty card. How many logical alternatives do you have ? I should guess 13. Which of these might be suggested by the UI ? I wouldn't dare to guess. Whatever you now lead, the declarer will, if it turns out to be not the best lead in his play, certainly find a way to suggest to the director that this lead was suggested by the UI. That is why I agree with several posters (and even more strongly than some) that it is not a good idea to deem this info UI. Penalty cards are far too common to have difficult laws governing them. If the redress comes too close to a 'revenge' penalty, so be it. But as a director, I don't want to be burdened with this amount of extra work. And don't think it will not be extra work. Bridge lawyers (and we all know some of those) will no doubt discover fairly soon how to gain some more advantage. I strongly suggest the Laws committee of the WBF to take another look at this Law change. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.club.innet.be/~pub02163/index.htm From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jan 7 02:50:45 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA23043 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 7 Jan 1997 02:50:45 +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 CAA23038 for ; Tue, 7 Jan 1997 02:50:37 +1100 Received: (from root@localhost) by tom.compulink.co.uk (8.8.4/8.6.9) id PAA10821 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Mon, 6 Jan 1997 15:50:27 GMT Date: Mon, 6 Jan 97 15:49 GMT0 From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: 1997 Laws (penalty cards) To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Cc: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Reply-To: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Message-Id: Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In-Reply-To: <32D0FCF5.6B6F@innet.be> Herman wrote: > > I strongly suggest the Laws committee of the WBF to take another look at > this Law change. > > -- Should they consider all four of the options so far discussed? 1. Retain existing penalty card rules but in addition impose full UI restrictions on all information (the "Labeo" interpretation) 2. Retain existing penalty card rules but in addition consider any information arising from the "facing/play" to be UI (the "Eric") 3. Retain the existing law where minor penalty cards give UI and major ones apparently don't (L50D/E) 4. Abolish penalty card restrictions and just use UI rulings. IMO option 1 will be the least popular with players and option 4 would also be unpopular with a fair number of players and directors. Tim West-Meads From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jan 7 04:20:29 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA23419 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 7 Jan 1997 04:20:29 +1100 Received: from cyberus.ca (mail.cyberus.ca [207.216.2.4]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id EAA23414 for ; Tue, 7 Jan 1997 04:20:21 +1100 Received: from max-port21.cyberus.ca (max-port185.cyberus.ca [207.134.177.185]) by cyberus.ca (8.8.4/Cyberus Online Inc) with SMTP id MAA25202 for ; Mon, 6 Jan 1997 12:21:13 -0500 (EST) Date: Mon, 6 Jan 1997 12:21:13 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <199701061721.MAA25202@cyberus.ca> X-Sender: jrig@mail.cyberus.ca X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.2 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Ian Gibson Subject: Subscribing Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I have just heard of your internet bridge-law service, and have been advised to become a subscriber. I have been a certified director for twenty-six years and would appreciate being kept abreast of the latest changes. Thank-You Ian Gibson From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jan 7 06:06:57 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA02176 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 7 Jan 1997 06:06:57 +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 GAA02159 for ; Tue, 7 Jan 1997 06:06:50 +1100 Received: from cph60.ppp.dknet.dk (cph60.ppp.dknet.dk [194.192.100.60]) by pip.dknet.dk (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id UAA16075 for ; Mon, 6 Jan 1997 20:06:39 +0100 From: Jesper Dybdal To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: 1997 Laws (penalty cards) Date: Mon, 06 Jan 1997 20:06:28 +0100 Organization: at home Message-ID: <32e24193.5009112@pipmail.dknet.dk> References: <32D0FCF5.6B6F@innet.be> In-Reply-To: <32D0FCF5.6B6F@innet.be> 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, 06 Jan 1997 13:24:05 +0000, Herman De Wael wrote: >I prefer not to regard the technical penalties such as penalty card and >revokes as "revenge". >Rather they are a technical means by which the possible advantage >arising from the infraction is turned into a disadvantage. I agree completely. What I was trying to say was only that _if_ we interpret the new L50 to mean that any information at all relating to a penalty card is UI, _then_ it does not make sense to also have the technical penalty. The problem to be solved by this law is that a player has seen (or may have seen) his partner's card. The "best" solution would be to make the information UI. If this is considered too complicated a treatment for such a common irregularity, then a technical penalty can be prescribed _instead_. I certainly would not use the word "revenge" about a technical penalty that was prescribed for the good reason of making ruling practically possible. I have no problem with the fact that technical penalties are often unnecessarily hard on the offending side - this is the price we pay for simplicity. But it makes no sense at all to use the complicated best solution (UI) and _also_ have a technical penalty. If the law is interpreted in that way, the technical penalty part of it seems to me to be pure revenge, since the UI part protects the non-offenders. This is one of the reasons to not interpret the new law that way. I agree with Herman that ruling UI for a shown card would be very complicated in many situations, and that this situation is therefore a good candidate for a technical penalty. However, our current penalty card rules are in my opinion also far too complicated; very few players understand them. What I'd really like (but obviously won't get) is a simple and blunt rule, perhaps modelled on the revoke laws from before they also became too complicated. Something like: a major penalty card is AI; it must be played at the first opportunity; one trick won after the irregularity is transferred to the non-offenders; the TD adjusts if this does not compensate the non-offenders sufficiently. I don't think that would be significantly less fair than the existing rules, and it certainly would be much easier to explain to the players. --=20 Jesper Dybdal, Denmark From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jan 7 09:16:56 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA02436 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 7 Jan 1997 09:16:56 +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 JAA02431 for ; Tue, 7 Jan 1997 09:16:44 +1100 Received: from default (cph38.ppp.dknet.dk [194.192.100.38]) by pip.dknet.dk (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id VAA18932 for ; Mon, 6 Jan 1997 21:46:23 +0100 Message-Id: <199701062046.VAA18932@pip.dknet.dk> Comments: Authenticated sender is From: "Jens & Bodil" Organization: Alesia Software To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Mon, 6 Jan 1997 21:47:15 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Ruling based on L11A Priority: normal X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v2.42a) Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk We have just made a ruling based on L11A in the Danish NCBO "supreme" appeals committee. We were wondering whether such a ruling has been seen elsewhere in the world, so I invite your comments on the case in point as well as on the use of L11A in general. Teams, Danish 3rd division, W dealer, all vulnerable. N holds KQT8, K952, 9, KT84. N sees the opposition bid as follows: W E 1S 1NT(forcing for one round) 2H 2S (explained as 10-11, 3-card support) 4D (short suit, slam try) 4S end. Before the opening lead, E corrects the explanation of 2S; it shows 6-9 points, simple preference (Behold: he later tables 6 points, with 2 cards in each major suit). North does not call the TD. EW make 6 tricks (which is fairly normal for the contract). After the play, N calls the TD and claims damage, since he would have doubled with the correct explanation. The TD explains that according to L21B1, there was still time to correct N's final pass after W had corrected the explanation, but establishes as a fact that N was not aware of this possibility, and assesses N's claim for damages regardless (actual ruling withheld). Eventually, this ruling is appealed, and the National AC rules that the L11A applies here, so that the right to penalize the irregularity is forfeited. The AC argues that although the players cannot be held responsible for knowing the intricacies of the laws (here L17E as combined with L21B), the players should know enough to call the TD when they discover that they could have been damaged. Do you agree that L11A applies? Have you seen similar rulings based on L11A in your neck of the woods? -- Jens Brix Christiansen, Denmark From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jan 7 09:18:28 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA02463 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 7 Jan 1997 09:18:28 +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 JAA02458 for ; Tue, 7 Jan 1997 09:18:16 +1100 Received: from cph60.ppp.dknet.dk (cph60.ppp.dknet.dk [194.192.100.60]) by pip.dknet.dk (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id UAA16254; Mon, 6 Jan 1997 20:11:19 +0100 From: Jesper Dybdal To: Ian Gibson Cc: Bridge Laws List Subject: Re: Subscribing Date: Mon, 06 Jan 1997 20:11:08 +0100 Organization: at home Message-ID: <32e54d73.8049724@pipmail.dknet.dk> References: <199701061721.MAA25202@cyberus.ca> In-Reply-To: <199701061721.MAA25202@cyberus.ca> 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, 6 Jan 1997 12:21:13 -0500 (EST), Ian Gibson wrote: >I have just heard of your internet bridge-law service, and have been = advised >to become a subscriber. I have been a certified director for twenty-six >years and would appreciate being kept abreast of the latest changes. The way to subscribe is to send an e-mail message to majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with a message body containing just the two lines subscribe bridge-laws end Shortly afterwards you will get a reply acknowledging your subscription. Welcome to BLML. --=20 Jesper Dybdal, Denmark From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jan 7 14:34:55 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id OAA04299 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 7 Jan 1997 14:34:55 +1100 Received: from emout08.mail.aol.com (emout08.mx.aol.com [198.81.11.23]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id OAA04294 for ; Tue, 7 Jan 1997 14:34:49 +1100 From: AlLeBendig@aol.com Received: by emout08.mail.aol.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) id WAA27903 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Mon, 6 Jan 1997 22:33:59 -0500 Date: Mon, 6 Jan 1997 22:33:59 -0500 Message-ID: <970106201859_70942744@emout08.mail.aol.com> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Ruling based on L11A Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In a message dated 97-01-06 17:23:18 EST, Jens writes: > Before the opening lead, E corrects the explanation of 2S; it shows > 6-9 points, simple preference (Behold: he later tables 6 points, > with 2 cards in each major suit). North does not call the TD. EW > make 6 tricks (which is fairly normal for the contract). > > After the play, N calls the TD and claims damage, since he would have > doubled with the correct explanation. The TD explains that according > to L21B1, there was still time to correct N's final pass after W had > corrected the explanation, but establishes as a fact that N was not > aware of this possibility, and assesses N's claim for damages > regardless (actual ruling withheld). Eventually, this ruling is > appealed, and the National AC rules that the L11A applies here, so > that the right to penalize the irregularity is forfeited. The AC > argues that although the players cannot be held responsible for > knowing the intricacies of the laws (here L17E as combined with > L21B), the players should know enough to call the TD when they > discover that they could have been damaged. > > Do you agree that L11A applies? Have you seen similar rulings based > on L11A in your neck of the woods? I totally agree. While it is reasonable that N may not have been aware of his rights in the given situation, he must be aware that there has been an irregularity and the Director must be summoned (L9B1). While it is clear that E/W should also have summoned the Director, they used a common method of informing the opponents at the appropriate time that there had been misinformation. I would want it explained to them that they are also responsible for summoning the Director but I would not penalize them for their failure to do so unless I felt they knew they were playing against Novces. If N did not know at the time about Law 9B1, he won't forget it in the future. A good learning experience. Alan LeBendig From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jan 7 14:59:16 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id OAA04405 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 7 Jan 1997 14:59:16 +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 OAA04386 for ; Tue, 7 Jan 1997 14:58:54 +1100 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by relay-6.mail.demon.net id ab606241; 7 Jan 97 3:44 GMT Message-ID: Date: Tue, 7 Jan 1997 03:41:40 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Ruling based on L11A In-Reply-To: <199701062046.VAA18932@pip.dknet.dk> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Jens & Bodil wrote: >We have just made a ruling based on L11A in the Danish NCBO "supreme" >appeals committee. We were wondering whether such a ruling has been >seen elsewhere in the world, so I invite your comments on the case in >point as well as on the use of L11A in general. > >Teams, Danish 3rd division, W dealer, all vulnerable. >N holds KQT8, K952, 9, KT84. N sees the opposition bid as follows: > > W E > 1S 1NT(forcing for one round) > 2H 2S (explained as 10-11, 3-card support) > 4D (short suit, slam try) 4S > end. > >Before the opening lead, E corrects the explanation of 2S; it shows >6-9 points, simple preference (Behold: he later tables 6 points, >with 2 cards in each major suit). North does not call the TD. EW >make 6 tricks (which is fairly normal for the contract). > >After the play, N calls the TD and claims damage, since he would have >doubled with the correct explanation. The TD explains that according >to L21B1, there was still time to correct N's final pass after W had >corrected the explanation, but establishes as a fact that N was not >aware of this possibility, and assesses N's claim for damages >regardless (actual ruling withheld). Eventually, this ruling is >appealed, and the National AC rules that the L11A applies here, so >that the right to penalize the irregularity is forfeited. The AC >argues that although the players cannot be held responsible for >knowing the intricacies of the laws (here L17E as combined with >L21B), the players should know enough to call the TD when they >discover that they could have been damaged. > >Do you agree that L11A applies? Definitely. > Have you seen similar rulings based >on L11A in your neck of the woods? I was the player: a similar thing happened in trials for the English team. The TD ruled to adjust the score afterwards, but the AC [actually a one-man committee, ie a Referee] overturned him. When I appealed, I suggested that I should have been fined, but no adjustment was suitable. I was in absolutely no doubt since it was an International trial. A player at such a level knows that he should call the TD. On the other hand, I am not convinced that I would rule against a beginner under this Law. There is absolutely no point in having a perfectly good procedure following on from a Law and not using it. I see no reason not to rule under L11A in most cases. I can imagine some of you saying "What's the harm in giving an adjustment anyway?". Suppose in the above case that the Danish authorities ruled the other way, allowing the adjustment, and creating a precedent. Now I play a hand in Denmark, and at the end of the auction dummy corrects an explanation. I have a borderline double: am I going to call the TD? Certainly not! I shall see whether it goes off first: if it does I shall seek and presumably get an adjustment. If it makes we shall play the next board! **** It cannot be right for people who call the TD to be at a disadvantage over those that do not in a situation where the Laws require the TD to be called. **** ----------- For information: L11A and L21 are unchanged in the 1997 Laws, except for the deletion of the word "substantial" in L21B2: so any discussion of this point is likely to be useful under the new law book. 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 Tue Jan 7 17:20:17 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id RAA05279 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 7 Jan 1997 17:20:17 +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 RAA05274 for ; Tue, 7 Jan 1997 17:20:10 +1100 Received: from coruncanius.demon.co.uk ([194.222.115.176]) by relay-9.mail.demon.net id aa909196; 7 Jan 97 6:14 GMT Message-ID: Date: Tue, 7 Jan 1997 06:09:56 +0000 To: Jens & Bodil Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Labeo Subject: Re: Ruling based on L11A In-Reply-To: <199701062046.VAA18932@pip.dknet.dk> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In message <199701062046.VAA18932@pip.dknet.dk>, Jens & Bodil writes >We have just made a ruling based on L11A in the Danish NCBO "supreme" >appeals committee. We were wondering whether such a ruling has been >seen elsewhere in the world, so I invite your comments on the case in >point as well as on the use of L11A in general. > ...(S)... >After the play, N calls the TD and claims damage, since he would have >doubled with the correct explanation. The TD explains that according >to L21B1, there was still time to correct N's final pass after W had >corrected the explanation, but establishes as a fact that N was not >aware of this possibility, and assesses N's claim for damages >regardless (actual ruling withheld). Eventually, this ruling is >appealed, and the National AC rules that the L11A applies here, so >that the right to penalize the irregularity is forfeited. The AC >argues that although the players cannot be held responsible for >knowing the intricacies of the laws (here L17E as combined with >L21B), the players should know enough to call the TD when they >discover that they could have been damaged. > >Do you agree that L11A applies? Have you seen similar rulings based >on L11A in your neck of the woods? >-- Labeo expresses this view: I believe the Danish Supreme has arrived at the right place but I think the route should be somewhat different. North cannot be damaged after he has received the correct explanation. Since he was in time to make his double when the explanation was corrected the 'damage' occurs after he knows the true meaning of the auction. The wrong explanation is not the cause of his inferior result. North's desire to double would sound more convincing if he had demonstrated that he knew he wanted to double immediately he heard the explanation and not after he had gathered in all those tricks. The Danish Third Division sounds as though it plays bridge regularly and could be expected to want the Director as soon as it is unhappy. Failure to call him is a big mistake. Was the Director inexperienced? If not, what in the name of good fortune is he doing? He should be told he is there to apply the laws, not to rule on the basis of the player's ignorance of them. Players may not be required to know every intricacy of the laws, but the Director is. Labeo From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jan 7 17:30:30 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id RAA05300 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 7 Jan 1997 17:30:30 +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 RAA05295 for ; Tue, 7 Jan 1997 17:30:25 +1100 Received: from coruncanius.demon.co.uk ([194.222.115.176]) by relay-5.mail.demon.net id aa516610; 7 Jan 97 6:14 GMT Message-ID: Date: Tue, 7 Jan 1997 04:00:37 +0000 To: David Stevenson Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Labeo Subject: Re: 1997 Laws (penalty cards) 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 don't think that you can ignore history or players' feelings. A new >Law book is one thing, and players will grumble over some things. But I >believe that a change of this type and magnitude will be too upsetting >for the majority of players, even if it is technically correct. > > As a result, there are still certain revenge elements in the 1987 and >1997 Laws. > Labeo comments: I think we should also recognize that the group discussing this is made up of persons with a special interest. We are not in a good position to make assertions as to how the disinterested(?) masses will react. As seems to have been the experience of the ACBL with the revoke law in 1987, this is something that is only known for sure when the silent many have something to react to ...... for the present we are largely guessing. > >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. > > Labeo From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jan 7 18:15:11 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id SAA05404 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 7 Jan 1997 18:15:11 +1100 Received: from mx01.erols.com (mx01.erols.com [205.252.116.65]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id SAA05399 for ; Tue, 7 Jan 1997 18:15:04 +1100 Received: from hdavis.erols.com (dam-as2s38.erols.com [206.161.191.102]) by mx01.erols.com (8.8.4/8.7.3/970106.001cmo) with SMTP id CAA23753 for ; Tue, 7 Jan 1997 02:14:56 -0500 Message-Id: <3.0.32.19970107021505.006985f4@pop.erols.com> X-Sender: hdavis@pop.erols.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0 (32) Date: Tue, 07 Jan 1997 02:15:06 -0500 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Hirsch Davis Subject: Re: Ruling based on L11A Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 09:47 PM 1/6/97 +0100, you wrote: >We have just made a ruling based on L11A in the Danish NCBO "supreme" >appeals committee. We were wondering whether such a ruling has been >seen elsewhere in the world, so I invite your comments on the case in >point as well as on the use of L11A in general. > >Teams, Danish 3rd division, W dealer, all vulnerable. >N holds KQT8, K952, 9, KT84. N sees the opposition bid as follows: > > W E > 1S 1NT(forcing for one round) > 2H 2S (explained as 10-11, 3-card support) > 4D (short suit, slam try) 4S > end. > >Before the opening lead, E corrects the explanation of 2S; it shows >6-9 points, simple preference (Behold: he later tables 6 points, >with 2 cards in each major suit). North does not call the TD. EW >make 6 tricks (which is fairly normal for the contract). > >After the play, N calls the TD and claims damage, since he would have >doubled with the correct explanation. The TD explains that according >to L21B1, there was still time to correct N's final pass after W had >corrected the explanation, but establishes as a fact that N was not >aware of this possibility, and assesses N's claim for damages >regardless (actual ruling withheld). Eventually, this ruling is >appealed, and the National AC rules that the L11A applies here, so >that the right to penalize the irregularity is forfeited. The AC >argues that although the players cannot be held responsible for >knowing the intricacies of the laws (here L17E as combined with >L21B), the players should know enough to call the TD when they >discover that they could have been damaged. > >Do you agree that L11A applies? Have you seen similar rulings based >on L11A in your neck of the woods? >-- >Jens Brix Christiansen, Denmark > > I agree with the ruling, but am bothered by the use of L11A. The second sentence of that Law reads "The Director so rules when the non-offending side may have gained through subsequent action taken by an opponent in ignorance of the penalty". This apparently does not apply here, as the non-offending side appears to have gained nothing through opponents' actions. IMO, this rules out the use of this Law. Another possible citation would have been L11B, which clearly states that "The right to penalize is forfeited if offender's LHO calls or plays after the irregularity, and before a legal penalty has been stated or imposed". However, the irregularity occurred at the time of the misinformation, so that by the time the misinformation was corrected, offender's LHO had several opporunities to call. I would be happier with this Law if the phrase "after the irregularity" was changed to "after attention has been drawn to the irregularity", which would make it clearly applicable in situations of this type. So, neither 11A nor 11B is worded in such a way that it is clearly applicable to this case. Nevertheless, the ruling must stand. This is the classic "double shot" situation. The defenders must make the double based on their cards at the time the explanation was corrected. Perhaps this should be treated as a UI situation, in which the knowledge that the hand is going down, obtained from the play after the Director _should_ have been summoned, is UI. Thus, when the Director is finally called too late, the defender is prohibited from changing his call to one suggested by the UI. In this case, down 4 clearly suggests double, so that is prohibited. Weird way of thinking about it, but it gets around the awkward wordings in L11. I bet they call the Director next time. Hirsch Davis From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jan 7 22:36:36 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id WAA06508 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 7 Jan 1997 22:36:36 +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 WAA06503 for ; Tue, 7 Jan 1997 22:36:30 +1100 Received: (from root@localhost) by tom.compulink.co.uk (8.8.4/8.6.9) id LAA00306 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Tue, 7 Jan 1997 11:35:33 GMT Date: Tue, 7 Jan 97 11:34 GMT0 From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: Ruling based on L11A 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: <199701062046.VAA18932@pip.dknet.dk> I assume North didn't have a hand worth a heart cue after partner slam tries opposite a simple preference (eg T9,Kx,xxxxxxx,Kx) so there is not a UI situation. In which case the ruling under L11A seems absolutely correct. Given that West was worth a slam try opposite 10-11 with 3 card support (the fact that he obviously wasn't is only revealed by the play) a double looks like a pretty poor bid if dummy turns up with SJxx and CA. Sounds like a double shot by North (unless he is a complete novice and at least he'll know next time). Tim West-Meads From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jan 8 00:15:33 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA08760 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 8 Jan 1997 00:15:33 +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 AAA08684 for ; Wed, 8 Jan 1997 00:15:20 +1100 Received: from catullus.agw.bt.co.uk by mailhub.axion.bt.co.uk with SMTP (PP); Tue, 7 Jan 1997 13:14:26 +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 NAA02302 for ; Tue, 7 Jan 1997 13:14:22 GMT Received: by ah4gate.agw.bt.co.uk with Microsoft Mail id <32D24CA0@ah4gate.agw.bt.co.uk>; Tue, 07 Jan 97 13:16:16 GMT From: "Burn, David" To: "'Bridge Laws'" Subject: RE: Ruling based on L11A Date: Tue, 07 Jan 97 13:13:00 GMT Message-ID: <32D24CA0@ah4gate.agw.bt.co.uk> Encoding: 100 TEXT X-Mailer: Microsoft Mail V3.0 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk >From David Burn Jesper Dybdal wrote: >We have just made a ruling based on L11A in the Danish NCBO "supreme" >appeals committee. We were wondering whether such a ruling has been >seen elsewhere in the world, so I invite your comments on the case in >point as well as on the use of L11A in general. [details of incident were, in essence: EW reached 4S after West explained East's bidding as strong. After the final pass but before the opening lead, East corrected the explanation, informing North that East's actions were in fact weak. North, who might have doubled had he known this before making his final pass, did not elect to change his final call because he did not know that he had this option. The contract went four down. North now called the TD and asked for a ruling. The TD based his ruling on the view that North was entitled to some redress for damage even though he had not followed correct procedure under L9B1, which would have allowed him to double under L17E and 21B. This ruling was appealed. All I can deduce about this is that L11A was used by the Danish supreme appeals committee to deny North-South whatever they had been given as a result of the TD's ruling.] This is Law 11A: "The right to penalize an irregularity may be forfeited if either member of the non-offending side takes any action before summoning the Director. The Director so rules when the non-offending side may have gained through subsequent action taken by an opponent in ignorance of the penalty." My interpretation of L11A is that it is to be used when *and only when* the non-offending side gains [from the opponents' actions in ignorance of a due penalty] more than they would have gained had the TD been summoned at the correct time and the penalty paid. For example, West has a heart as a penalty card; East is on lead; South (the declarer) requires a *spade* lead; East, believing South to be within his rights, leads a spade and lets the contract make (South could not make the contract either by requiring or forbidding a heart lead). The Law is there, in short, to prevent players from taking the law into their own hands. (Note that "action" in L11A does *not* refer to calls or plays; those are covered by L11B at the moment.) The question is whether the second sentence of L11A means: "The Director so rules when and only when [...]" or: "The Director so rules when [...] and may so rule in other circumstances also." I do not believe the second interpretation is at all tenable; the purpose of L11A appears clear enough to me, and it would not occur to me to use it in the Danish case. What would I do, then? Well, without knowing what the TD did it is difficult to comment on what the Danish governing body did. A couple of observations: This is *not*, as one commentator observed, the classic double shot situation for North. The point is that as a direct result of his opponent's infraction, North has been placed in an invidious position. If he had had the correct explanation of the bidding, he may very well have doubled - and now West would have needed to work out whether North's double was cast-iron or marginal. When North passes, then doubles based on the corrected explanation, West knows that the double is not cast-iron and may play accordingly [obiter: since the information that North has a marginal double is presumably UI for West, must he play as if the double was cast-iron anyway?] North has lost equity as a result of West's misexplanation, and may be entitled to redress. It appears to me that in using L11A to [in effect] deny North any redress, the Danes are [in effect] penalizing North for not knowing L9B1 while failing to penalize East-West for the same thing. I am slightly surprised that Alan LeBendig endorses this approach; he says that North will know L9B1 next time! I'm sure he will, but he didn't know it this time *and neither did his opponents* [or if they did, they chose to act as if they did not, which for my money is at least questionable]. Does L9B1 really mean: "The Director must be summoned at once *by a member of the non- offending side* when attention is drawn to an irregularity *otherwise the non-offenders will lose the right to redress for damage arising from the irregularity*."? I don't think so, and I hope that Alan and the Danes don't think so either! From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jan 8 02:36:48 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA10922 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 8 Jan 1997 02:36:48 +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 CAA10917 for ; Wed, 8 Jan 1997 02:36:41 +1100 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by relay-6.mail.demon.net id aa622634; 7 Jan 97 15:03 GMT Message-ID: Date: Tue, 7 Jan 1997 14:58:42 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Ruling based on L11A In-Reply-To: <3.0.32.19970107021505.006985f4@pop.erols.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Hirsch Davis wrote: >I agree with the ruling, but am bothered by the use of L11A. The second >sentence of that Law reads "The Director so rules when the non-offending >side may have gained through subsequent action taken by an opponent in >ignorance of the penalty". This apparently does not apply here, as the >non-offending side appears to have gained nothing through opponents' >actions. IMO, this rules out the use of this Law. > >Another possible citation would have been L11B, which clearly states that >"The right to penalize is forfeited if offender's LHO calls or plays after >the irregularity, and before a legal penalty has been stated or imposed". >However, the irregularity occurred at the time of the misinformation, so >that by the time the misinformation was corrected, offender's LHO had >several opporunities to call. I would be happier with this Law if the >phrase "after the irregularity" was changed to "after attention has been >drawn to the irregularity", which would make it clearly applicable in >situations of this type. > >So, neither 11A nor 11B is worded in such a way that it is clearly >applicable to this case. Nevertheless, the ruling must stand. This is the >classic "double shot" situation. The defenders must make the double based >on their cards at the time the explanation was corrected. Perhaps this >should be treated as a UI situation, in which the knowledge that the hand >is going down, obtained from the play after the Director _should_ have been >summoned, is UI. Thus, when the Director is finally called too late, the >defender is prohibited from changing his call to one suggested by the UI. >In this case, down 4 clearly suggests double, so that is prohibited. Weird >way of thinking about it, but it gets around the awkward wordings in L11. You are quite right, and I was not thinking straight when I agreed with the use of L11A. L11B is effectively not worth worrying about. If you take L11B literally then you do not give any adjustment for revokes, hesitations and other matters: TDs and ACs have long ignored that Law, or not taken it in its literal sense, and it will not reappear in the 1997 Laws. 1987 Laws Law 21 - Call Based on Misinformation B. Call Based on Misinformation from an Opponent 1. Change of Call Until the end of the auction period (see Law 17E), a player may, without penalty, change a call when it is probable that he made the call as a result of misinformation given to him by an opponent (failure to alert promptly to a conventional call or special understanding, where such alert is required by the sponsoring organization, is deemed misinformation), provided that his partner has not subsequently called. 3. Too Late to Change Call When it is too late to change a call, the Director may award an adjusted score (Law 40C may apply). L21B3 gives the TD the right to adjust the score "When it is too late to change a call". It was not too late to adjust this call, therefore L21B3 does not apply and no adjustment is legal. [The above wording is unchanged in the 1997 Laws.] 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 Wed Jan 8 02:50:42 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA10997 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 8 Jan 1997 02:50:42 +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 CAA10992 for ; Wed, 8 Jan 1997 02:50:36 +1100 Received: (from root@localhost) by tom.compulink.co.uk (8.8.4/8.6.9) id PAA01040 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Tue, 7 Jan 1997 15:49:57 GMT Date: Tue, 7 Jan 97 15:49 GMT0 From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: RE: Ruling based on L11A 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: <32D24CA0@ah4gate.agw.bt.co.uk> David Burn wrote: > This is Law 11A: > > "The right to penalize an irregularity may be forfeited if either member > of > the non-offending side takes any action before summoning the Director. > The Director so rules when the non-offending side may have gained > through subsequent action taken by an opponent in ignorance of the > penalty." > > My interpretation of L11A is that it is to be used when *and only when* > the non-offending side gains [from the opponents' actions in ignorance > of a due penalty] more than they would have gained had the TD been > summoned at the correct time and the penalty paid. For example, > West has a heart as a penalty card; East is on lead; South (the > declarer) requires a *spade* lead; East, believing South to be within > his rights, leads a spade and lets the contract make (South could not > make the contract either by requiring or forbidding a heart lead). The > Law is there, in short, to prevent players from taking the law into > their own hands. (Note that "action" in L11A does *not* refer to > calls or plays; those are covered by L11B at the moment.) > > The question is whether the second sentence of L11A means: > > "The Director so rules when and only when [...]" > > or: > > "The Director so rules when [...] and may so rule in other > circumstances also." > > I do not believe the second interpretation is at all tenable; the > purpose of L11A appears clear enough to me, and it would not occur > to me to use it in the Danish case. I would take 11A to mean "Circumstances may exist in which the right to a penalty is not forfeited *but* this can never be the case if the non-offenders have 'imposed' a penalty without calling the director (even if that is the penalty that the director would have imposed)". In other words the right to a penalty is almost always forfeited unless the director is called immediately, I believe this is fully in line with the spirit of the laws (esp L9b1a). An exception to forfeiture might be when the director is elsewhere and one of the offenders says, "Just reserve your rights and we'll call the director at the end of the hand.", to a relative novice. Nor do I believe that action excludes bids/plays in 11A - it is a very broad word that covers both these and any attempts at self-rule. It seems that 11B should come into play after a director call but before the penalty (eg where director starts explaining the options and Non-O bids immediately after the first choice is offered he loses the right to opt for a subsequent choice.) Advice on safe bridge: always use a director. Tim West-Meads From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jan 8 03:25:54 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA11187 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 8 Jan 1997 03:25:54 +1100 Received: from emout16.mail.aol.com (emout16.mx.aol.com [198.81.11.42]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id DAA11182 for ; Wed, 8 Jan 1997 03:25:44 +1100 From: AlLeBendig@aol.com Received: by emout16.mail.aol.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) id LAA15066 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Tue, 7 Jan 1997 11:25:09 -0500 Date: Tue, 7 Jan 1997 11:25:09 -0500 Message-ID: <970107101958_1391964041@emout16.mail.aol.com> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Ruling based on L11A Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In a message dated 97-01-07 08:18:02 EST, David Burn writes: > It appears to me that in using L11A to [in effect] deny North any > redress, > the Danes are [in effect] penalizing North for not knowing L9B1 while > failing to penalize East-West for the same thing. I am slightly > surprised that Alan LeBendig endorses this approach; he says that > North will know L9B1 next time! I'm sure he will, but he didn't know it > this time *and neither did his opponents* [or if they did, they chose to > act as if they did not, which for my money is at least questionable]. We have no evidence whatsoever that N was not aware of the basic premise of L9B1. Wherever one is playing bridge at whatever level, they are aware that there is a director there for any problems that arise. If I were stopped for a traffic violation in your country David, I don't need to know your Laws to realize that I must be entitled to some form of review before I am convicted. Filing a complaint a year later on the basis that I didn't know that there was an appeal process would be laughed at. As to his opponents, my statement was: >>"While it is clear that E/W should also have summoned the Director, they used a >>common method of informing the opponents at the appropriate time that there had >>been misinformation. I would want it explained to them that they are also >>responsible for summoning the Director but I would not penalize them for their >>failure to do so unless I felt they knew they were playing against Novices." > Does L9B1 really mean: > > "The Director must be summoned at once *by a member of the non- > offending side* when attention is drawn to an irregularity *otherwise > the non-offenders will lose the right to redress for damage arising > from the irregularity*."? I hope I made it clear that I don't feel that way at all. Both sides were responsible for summoning the Director. However, E/W made it perfectly clear that there was a problem. N, for whatever reason, took all this in and did nothing. After the hand he wants help and I'm not inclined to want to give it to him. I'm not saying there may not be some circumstance where I may not feel differently, but this is not such a case. I am definitely prejudiced against a player that is aware of a problem and does not summon the Director at the appropriate time as specified in the Laws. I remember a board against a top US player in which my partner and I were having a terrible misunderstanding (I knew this from my partner's explanations). I continued the auction from what I believed was happening and we arrived at a heart Grand. My expert opponent doubled. After the third pass, I told them what had been going on from my point of view. With both explanations it was clear that this was probably not a hopeless Grand. I asked this opponent if he wanted the Director. His response was "We'll see later." I told him he better get the Director now if he felt like he may want to retract the double. "Later" was not going to do him any good. My belief at the time was that he was still hoping for the double shot. I have no evidence to suggest this subject was in any way thinking along those lines. I only know that, regardless of experience level (unless total beginner) he *knew* there was a problem and questioned it later. I think the Danes ruled correctly based on his inaction. I am curious as to how "3rd division" translates into what level of player we're dealing with here. Perhaps Jens could clarify. > I don't think so, and I hope that Alan and the Danes don't think so > either! At least we don't disagree as to the intent of L9B1, David! Alan LeBendig From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jan 8 04:29:26 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA11787 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 8 Jan 1997 04:29:26 +1100 Received: from worldcom.ch (ns.worldcom.ch [194.51.96.111]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id EAA11781 for ; Wed, 8 Jan 1997 04:29:18 +1100 Received: from Default by worldcom.ch (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id SAA00348; Tue, 7 Jan 1997 18:32:45 +0100 Date: Tue, 7 Jan 1997 18:32:45 +0100 Message-Id: <199701071732.SAA00348@worldcom.ch> X-Sender: fsb@worldcom.ch X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.2 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: "Y. Calame" Subject: Re: Ruling based on L11A Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Hirsch Davis wrote [s] >I agree with the ruling, but am bothered by the use of L11A. The second >sentence of that Law reads "The Director so rules when the non-offending >side may have gained through subsequent action taken by an opponent in >ignorance of the penalty". This apparently does not apply here, as the >non-offending side appears to have gained nothing through opponents' >actions. IMO, this rules out the use of this Law. > >Another possible citation would have been L11B, which clearly states that >"The right to penalize is forfeited if offender's LHO calls or plays after >the irregularity, and before a legal penalty has been stated or imposed". >However, the irregularity occurred at the time of the misinformation, so >that by the time the misinformation was corrected, offender's LHO had >several opporunities to call. I would be happier with this Law if the >phrase "after the irregularity" was changed to "after attention has been >drawn to the irregularity", which would make it clearly applicable in >situations of this type. Right, and, following law 11B, why penalize a revoke as "offender's LHO played after the irregularity, and before a legal penalty has been stated or imposed" Yvan Calame From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jan 8 05:50:00 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA20320 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 8 Jan 1997 05:50:00 +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 FAA20315 for ; Wed, 8 Jan 1997 05:49:53 +1100 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by relay-9.mail.demon.net id aa923785; 7 Jan 97 18:26 GMT Message-ID: Date: Tue, 7 Jan 1997 16:31:57 +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 NBB Nederlandse Bridge Bond [Dutch Bridge League] NBO National Bridge organisation NCBO National Contract Bridge organisation NG Newsgroup NIBU Northern Ireland Bridge Union NO Non-offender NP No problem OKB OKBridge OKBD OKBridge discussion group 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 Emails only: FFTQFTE Feel free to quote from this email -- 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 Jan 8 05:57:24 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA20384 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 8 Jan 1997 05:57:24 +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 FAA20379 for ; Wed, 8 Jan 1997 05:57:05 +1100 Received: from cph35.ppp.dknet.dk (cph35.ppp.dknet.dk [194.192.100.35]) by pip.dknet.dk (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id TAA22541 for ; Tue, 7 Jan 1997 19:55:17 +0100 From: Jesper Dybdal To: "'Bridge Laws'" Subject: Re: Ruling based on L11A Date: Tue, 07 Jan 1997 19:55:05 +0100 Organization: at home Message-ID: <32f49b1f.13740928@pipmail.dknet.dk> References: <32D24CA0@ah4gate.agw.bt.co.uk> In-Reply-To: <32D24CA0@ah4gate.agw.bt.co.uk> 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 Tue, 07 Jan 97 13:13:00 GMT, "Burn, David" wrote: >Jesper Dybdal wrote: Well, actually I didn't - Jens did. David Burn: >My interpretation of L11A is that it is to be used when *and only when* >the non-offending side gains [from the opponents' actions in ignorance >of a due penalty] more than they would have gained had the TD been >summoned at the correct time and the penalty paid. This is interesting - if I understand this correctly, my interpretation is different. Let me define: A =3D the non-offender score that would have been the result of calling the TD and having the penalty applied at the correct time, B =3D the non-offender score that was achieved at the table without calling the TD, C =3D the non-offender score that would be the result of applying the penalty afterwards (when the offenders have acted in ignorance of the penalty). I read your interpretation of L11A as "No penalty should be enforced afterwards if B >=3D A" - i.e., if the non-offenders have got at least the same compensation from the opponents' actions that they would get from the penalty. My own interpretation is "No penalty should be enforced afterwards if C > A" - i.e., if the late penalty would damage the offenders compared to a penalty at the correct time. This can be the case even in situations where B < A; in such situations, the non-offenders will get a worse score than they would if they had called the TD in time. L11A is thus a law whose purpose is to protect the (original) offenders against being damaged by the non-offenders' failure to call the TD. But even with that interpretation, I would not consider Jens' case a matter for L11A. The problem with the late TD call here is not that the offenders (EW) have acted in ignorance of the penalty and thereby damaged their position - the problem is that it is impossible to apply the same penalty (allowing N to change his call) afterwards. I wouldn't use L11B either: it is a terrible law which, if read literally, allows TDs and ACs to refuse to penalize just about anything they want to avoid penalizing. If I remember David S's articles correctly, it disappears in the new laws - good. So what to do in the actual case? We have a total of three irregularities here: (a) W's incorrect explanation, (b) E's failure to call the TD when he corrects the explanation, (c) N's failure to call the TD when he hears the correction. If just one of these three irregularities had not occurred, there would have been no problem at all. Both sides are offenders in some irregularity. I believe that in such situations the TD and AC are allowed to decide that the primary problem is one of the irregularities and rule accordingly. As for (a), it should not be a problem at all when E corrects the explanation. As for (b), L75D2 says that E "... must inform the opponents, after calling the Director, that his partner's explanation was erroneous, ...". So E has a duty to call the TD. On the other hand, it is my impression that among experienced players nobody ever calls the TD in that situation; they tell the opponents, and let them call the TD if necessary. As a TD, I tolerate this way of saving time; as a player, I use it myself. Of course this makes sense only when it is obvious to E that N is an experienced player who knows that he must call the TD if he could have been damaged by the incorrect explanation; in the third division, N should certainly know that, and I cannot really blame E for assuming that N is able to protect himself. As for (c), this is the irregularity on which I would put the emphasis. N is the one who knows that he might have doubled, and therefore that he may be damaged by an irregularity. That should be ample reason to not ignore L9B1. He probably had no idea that if he called the TD he would be allowed to change his call, and he therefore probably believed that it made no real difference whether he called immediately or afterwards. However, I do not find it important to protect players who neglect to call the TD because they incorrectly believe they know the laws. So I would rule that the primary cause of any possible damage to N was his own failure to call the TD, and I would therefore not adjust the score. This also satisfies David S's very good point: > **** It cannot be right for people who call the TD to be at a >disadvantage over those that do not in a situation where the Laws >require the TD to be called. **** My ruling might be different if N was a novice. --=20 Jesper Dybdal, Denmark From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jan 8 07:02:33 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA20757 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 8 Jan 1997 07:02:33 +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 HAA20740 for ; Wed, 8 Jan 1997 07:01:58 +1100 Received: from default (cph61.ppp.dknet.dk [194.192.100.61]) by pip.dknet.dk (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id VAA24575 for ; Tue, 7 Jan 1997 21:01:37 +0100 Message-Id: <199701072001.VAA24575@pip.dknet.dk> Comments: Authenticated sender is From: "Jens & Bodil" Organization: Alesia Software To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Tue, 7 Jan 1997 21:01:07 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Re: Ruling based on L11A Priority: normal X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v2.42a) Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: AlLeBendig@aol.com > Date: Tue, 7 Jan 1997 11:25:09 -0500 > I am curious as to how "3rd division" translates into what level of player > we're dealing with here. Perhaps Jens could clarify. These are some of the best players in the country. Our national teams league is organized with 12 teams in a first division, 12 teams in a second division, and 10 teams in each of two third divisions. Qualification is rigorous via a regional system. Thus we are talking about the bottom half of the 44 best teams that have the stamina to compete for the national championships over three or four weekends. The North in question has represented Denmark on the Ladies' team in international events. We are, without a doubt, at a level were no special latitude is to be given because the players might be inexperienced. Let me shed some light on details that have (more or less intentionally) not been made clear earlier: 1. It is customary in Denmark at the serious level not to involve the director when correcting partner's mistaken explanation. I would go so far as to say that we as directors do not discourage this approach (I hear your cries of dismay: RTFL75D2). It would therefore be inconsistent with Danish case law to question the behavior of EW in this case. 2. The TD ruled that L81C6 applied; that the "for" part of L92B applied; that there was an irregularity; that when he was asked for a ruling, it was too late to change any call, so only L21B3, not L21B1, could apply. Endicott and Hansen have a comment on L92B (their comment is called 92.1(ii)), where they recommend that the TD should shut the player up with L9B1 in such cases unless there is justification for not calling the director until that point. The TD was convinced that the player was genuinely not going for any double shot, and therefore did not decline to assess whether North was damaged. The TD eventually let the score stand anyway, explaining that the late call did not enter into the evaluation, even though the problem could have been avoided if the TD had been summoned immediately (this is, IMO, not a very pretty ruling; at best, it is a meek attempt to do justice with reference to the wrong law). North appealed, and the AC (unanimously) used L11A to shut North up, as we all know now. 3. The TD was not at all inexperienced, but rather one with some reputation as a competent international director. He now agrees with the AC (and quite a few of the BLML'ers, apparently) that he should have used L11A immediately; the TD was definitely fully aware of L11A at the time. It seems that even TDs are human and make less than perfect rulings now and then. 4. The AC was curious whether there was any international precedence for this type of ruling; hence this thread. -- Jens Brix Christiansen, Denmark From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jan 8 13:30:03 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id NAA23066 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 8 Jan 1997 13:30:03 +1100 Received: from relay-7.mail.demon.net (relay-7.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.9]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id NAA23060 for ; Wed, 8 Jan 1997 13:29:48 +1100 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by relay-5.mail.demon.net id aa506295; 8 Jan 97 1:45 GMT Message-ID: <8VxeV$DUtv0yEwHe@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Wed, 8 Jan 1997 01:41:40 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Ruling based on L11A In-Reply-To: <199701072001.VAA24575@pip.dknet.dk> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Jesper Dybdal wrote: >So I would rule that the primary cause of any possible damage to N was >his own failure to call the TD, and I would therefore not adjust the >score. > >This also satisfies David S's very good point: >> **** It cannot be right for people who call the TD to be at a >>disadvantage over those that do not in a situation where the Laws >>require the TD to be called. **** > >My ruling might be different if N was a novice. Jens & Bodil wrote: >Let me shed some light on details that have (more or less >intentionally) not been made clear earlier: > >1. It is customary in Denmark at the serious level not to involve >the director when correcting partner's mistaken explanation. I >would go so far as to say that we as directors do not discourage >this approach (I hear your cries of dismay: RTFL75D2). It would >therefore be inconsistent with Danish case law to question the >behavior of EW in this case. I have already expressed the view that failure to call the TD makes L21B3 inoperative because of the wording of L21B1. Furthermore, as this last paragraph reminds us, the method for correction according to L75D2, is "... the player must inform the opponents, after calling the Director, that ...": note the word "must". Of course, this is the other side, the offending side, that is required to call the TD, but it is clear that he must be involved. The trouble is that it appears that one of the main reasons that NS did not require EW to follow the Laws of the game is Danish case law, and the approach of the TDs, which have suggested to the players that L75D2 be not obeyed. I should be *very* unhappy if I was NS and felt that following custom and practice, case law and the approach of the TDs had robbed me of a possible adjustment. However, if the final ruling had gone the other way, I should be extremely unhappy if I was EW and felt that my side had followed the Laws of the game, and the opponents had not: despite this an adjustment had gone in their favour. I feel that the Danish authorities should review their position and that of their Directors: my advice is to put out some statement reminding players and directors of the contents of L75D2, since the danger of not following it has now become apparent. My apologies to my Danish friends for the critical nature of this response, but I feel you would want to know what I really believe. >3. The TD was not at all inexperienced, but rather one with some >reputation as a competent international director. He now agrees with >the AC (and quite a few of the BLML'ers, apparently) that he should >have used L11A immediately; the TD was definitely fully aware of L11A >at the time. It seems that even TDs are human and make less than >perfect rulings now and then. As I explained in response to Hirsch Davies, I no longer believe this to be a L11A problem, but I believe that L21B1 and L21B3 make the position quite clear. --------- I have previously mentioned that I believe this to be a worthwhile discussion for the future since L11A, L21B1 and L21B3 are unchanged in the 1997 Laws. L75D2 has been re-written. It seems to me that it is [a] meant to give greater clarity [b] the only change of meaning seems to be that a player should correct if he *believes* his partner's explanation to be erroneous. However, the phrase "After calling the Director" is still in the new Law, so I think that any discussion now will be useful in the future since the results will remain the same [except for proposals to use L11B, which will disappear!]. 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 Jan 9 00:46:21 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA28432 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 9 Jan 1997 00:46:21 +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 AAA28426 for ; Thu, 9 Jan 1997 00:46:09 +1100 Received: from catullus.agw.bt.co.uk by mailhub.axion.bt.co.uk with SMTP (PP); Tue, 7 Jan 1997 17:32:15 +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 RAA23099 for ; Tue, 7 Jan 1997 17:32:11 GMT Received: by ah4gate.agw.bt.co.uk with Microsoft Mail id <32D2890D@ah4gate.agw.bt.co.uk>; Tue, 07 Jan 97 17:34:05 GMT From: "Burn, David" To: "'Bridge Laws'" Subject: RE: Ruling based on L11A Date: Tue, 07 Jan 97 17:31:00 GMT Message-ID: <32D2890D@ah4gate.agw.bt.co.uk> Encoding: 95 TEXT X-Mailer: Microsoft Mail V3.0 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk >From David Burn Tim West Meads wrote: >David Burn wrote: [DALB] >> This is Law 11A: >> >> "The right to penalize an irregularity may be forfeited if either member >> of the non-offending side takes any action before summoning the Director. >> The Director so rules when the non-offending side may have gained >> through subsequent action taken by an opponent in ignorance of the >> penalty." >> >> My interpretation of L11A is that it is to be used when *and only when* >> the non-offending side gains [from the opponents' actions in ignorance >> of a due penalty] more than they would have gained had the TD been >> summoned at the correct time and the penalty paid. For example, >> West has a heart as a penalty card; East is on lead; South (the >> declarer) requires a *spade* lead; East, believing South to be within >> his rights, leads a spade and lets the contract make (South could not >> make the contract either by requiring or forbidding a heart lead). The >> Law is there, in short, to prevent players from taking the law into >> their own hands. (Note that "action" in L11A does *not* refer to >> calls or plays; those are covered by L11B at the moment.) Note: as DWS has pointed out, L11B in its present form will cease to exist in the 1997 Laws. [TWM] >I would take 11A to mean "Circumstances may exist in which the right to a >penalty is not forfeited *but* this can never be the case if the non-offenders >have 'imposed' a penalty without calling the director (even if that is the >penalty that the director would have imposed)". In other words the right to >a penalty is almost always forfeited unless the director is called immediately, >I believe this is fully in line with the spirit of the laws (esp L9b1a). This isn't what I think the Law means, nor do I think it is what the Law says. L11A says only that the right to penalize "may be", not "must be" or "is" forfeited if action is taken before summoning the Director. Consider the following: Jesper, DWS, Alan and I are playing in a local duplicate (objections on the grounds that no duplicate can be local to all of us will be regarded as frivolous). Jesper arrives in 3NT and I lead the H3 out of turn. "Lead a heart", says Jesper to Stevenson, my partner owing to the dearth of long straws in the vicinity. DWS leads a heart, I pick up the H3, and the hand progresses without incident. Now consider this variation: As soon as Jesper asks DWS to lead a heart, I summon the Director, one Tim West Meads. This individual consults Law 11A and rules that DWS may lead what he likes and I may pick up the H3, since the right to penalize has been forfeited. The unusual sight of a Director heading rapidly for the exit in a shower of rotten vegetables will be a topic of conversation at the club for many weeks. I am firmly of the opinion that L11A exists solely to prevent players from gaining unfairly from the imposition of incorrect penalties, and to a certain extent to punish those who seek to browbeat and bully uninformed opponents. It is very rarely used - I can recall only one case in my experience, and even that was questionable. [TWM] >Advice on safe bridge: always use a director. Advice on safe directing: if the players happen by some miracle to have done your job for you, and done it right, be grateful! From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jan 9 11:44:06 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id LAA10558 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 9 Jan 1997 11:44:06 +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 LAA10551 for ; Thu, 9 Jan 1997 11:43:58 +1100 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by relay-10.mail.demon.net id ab1009491; 9 Jan 97 0:38 GMT Message-ID: Date: Thu, 9 Jan 1997 00:33:39 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Ruling based on L11A In-Reply-To: <32D2890D@ah4gate.agw.bt.co.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Burn, David wrote: [s] >Jesper, DWS, Alan and I are playing in a local duplicate (objections on >the >grounds that no duplicate can be local to all of us will be regarded as >frivolous). >Jesper arrives in 3NT and I lead the H3 out of turn. "Lead a heart", says >Jesper >to Stevenson, my partner owing to the dearth of long straws in the >vicinity. I would like to make it clear that *I* lost by drawing a short straw, not David. :))) [s] >I am firmly of the opinion that L11A exists solely to prevent players >from gaining >unfairly from the imposition of incorrect penalties, and to a certain >extent to >punish those who seek to browbeat and bully uninformed opponents. It is >very >rarely used - I can recall only one case in my experience, and even that >was >questionable. Absolutely correct: can we put this argument to bed: it was Hirsch who put us right [see other articles]: this is not a L11A problem. As it [very nearly] says in the Law book: (the subjects are for convenience of reference only; subjects are not considered to be part of BLML articles). >>Advice on safe bridge: always use a director. > >Advice on safe directing: if the players happen by some miracle to have >done your >job for you, and done it right, be grateful! ... but surprised. ------ Do you believe in **The Law**? What does Larry Cohen mean to you? Have you got a sense of humour? Try reading David Burn's article on my Homepage: but be warned: it is *not* for those with no sense of humour! If you follow BLoTT, the Rule of Eight, and Burn's Third law, then your Bridge **will** improve: I guarantee it. -- David Stevenson Bridge Cats Railways Logic /\_/\ Liverpool, England, UK http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk =( ^*^ )= david@blakjak.demon.co.uk Emails welcome bluejak on OKB ( | | ) Tel: +44 (0)151 677 7412 Phone before Fax please RTFLB (_~^ ^~ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jan 9 14:38:10 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id OAA11738 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 9 Jan 1997 14:38:10 +1100 Received: from tom.compulink.co.uk (tom.compulink.co.uk [194.153.0.51]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id OAA11722 for ; Thu, 9 Jan 1997 14:37:58 +1100 Received: (from root@localhost) by tom.compulink.co.uk (8.8.4/8.6.9) id DAA10572 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Thu, 9 Jan 1997 03:37:19 GMT Date: Thu, 9 Jan 97 03:36 GMT0 From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: RE: Ruling based on L11A 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: <32D2890D@ah4gate.agw.bt.co.uk> David Burn Wrote: > Jesper, DWS, Alan and I are playing in a local duplicate (objections on > the > grounds that no duplicate can be local to all of us will be regarded as > frivolous). > Jesper arrives in 3NT and I lead the H3 out of turn. "Lead a heart", says > Jesper > to Stevenson, my partner owing to the dearth of long straws in the > vicinity. DWS > leads a heart, I pick up the H3, and the hand progresses without > incident. > Tim, who could not resist watching such a fascinating table, now approaches (with some trepidation), opens his law-book at L9B1a and fines you each a top for a gross breach thereof (72A6,72B1)- ignorance can not be an excuse and what sort of example does it set to others if four leading experts on the law suddenly decide that it is okay to give eachother rulings at the table. I really don't care if such "self-ruling" is custom and practice in this locality it is *not* the law and "must", unlike "may" is not open to interpretation. Tim is also highly surprised that when you pick up (rather than play) the H3 that the hand has proceeded "without incident" as this is far from the normal treatment for a major penalty card (L54D-L56-L50E). > Now consider this variation: > > As soon as Jesper asks DWS to lead a heart, I summon the Director, one > Tim West Meads. Had everyone had a chance to call the director after noticing the infraction and failed to do so then we are back at fines all round (though I would allow the lead penalty to stand in this case). If neither you or DWS has noticed the infraction when Jesper makes his comment then only he is out of line (Alan was trying to think through whether he was within his rights to draw attention to the irregularity/alert partner to who was dummy so as to prevent an irregularity/spread his hand without comment). DWS is entitled to a full explanation of the penalty involved (L9B2), perhaps he has forgotten in a fit of depression at having to partner DBurn! And while we're reading L9B2 we may want to consider whether "action" does exclude bids or plays. >This individual consults Law 11A and rules that DWS may lead > what he likes and I may pick up the H3, since the right to penalize has > been forfeited. But adds that the H3 is UI - what cat, what pigeons? > The unusual sight of a Director heading rapidly for the exit > in a shower > of rotten vegetables will be a topic of conversation at the club for many > weeks. Though not for the players involved, since this rather novel approach to the appeals process earns you a six-month ban from the club (overly harsh perhaps but I happen to have a phobia/allergy with regard to tomatoes). My opinions are probably full of holes so feel free to include your favourite recipe for humble pie with any responses. Tim West-Meads (PS do you guys take rotten vegetables to the club even when I'm not directing?) From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jan 9 15:18:57 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id PAA11808 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 9 Jan 1997 15:18:57 +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 PAA11803 for ; Thu, 9 Jan 1997 15:18:47 +1100 Received: (from root@localhost) by tom.compulink.co.uk (8.8.4/8.6.9) id EAA15796 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Thu, 9 Jan 1997 04:18:07 GMT Date: Thu, 9 Jan 97 04:17 GMT0 From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: RE: Ruling based on L11A 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: I wrote: > Tim is also highly surprised that when you pick up (rather than play) the H3 > that the hand has proceeded "without incident" as this is far from the normal > treatment for a major penalty card (L54D-L56-L50E). Which was rather stupid as I'd forgotten that declarer had required a heart lead at the beginning of the paragraph. TWM From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jan 10 01:55:12 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA17121 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 10 Jan 1997 01:55:12 +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 BAA17116 for ; Fri, 10 Jan 1997 01:55:05 +1100 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by relay-6.mail.demon.net id aa626477; 9 Jan 97 14:06 GMT Message-ID: Date: Thu, 9 Jan 1997 12:29:11 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Ruling based on L11A In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Tim West-meads wrote: >David Burn Wrote: >> Jesper, DWS, Alan and I are playing in a local duplicate (objections on >> the >> grounds that no duplicate can be local to all of us will be regarded as >> frivolous). >> Jesper arrives in 3NT and I lead the H3 out of turn. "Lead a heart", says >> Jesper >> to Stevenson, my partner owing to the dearth of long straws in the >> vicinity. DWS >> leads a heart, I pick up the H3, and the hand progresses without >> incident. >> >Tim, who could not resist watching such a fascinating table, now approaches >(with some trepidation), opens his law-book at L9B1a and fines you each a top >for a gross breach thereof (72A6,72B1)- ignorance can not be an excuse and what >sort of example does it set to others if four leading experts on the law >suddenly decide that it is okay to give eachother rulings at the table. I >really don't care if such "self-ruling" is custom and practice in this locality >it is *not* the law and "must", unlike "may" is not open to interpretation. Your roller-coaster approach to common sense in postings does not appear to be on an upswing. Anyone who fines a top in this situation is a bridge-lawyer pretending to be a Director. I might warn you [considering the rest of your reply, which I have snipped to protect the rest of BLML] that here you *automatically* fail to become a Club TD if you cannot get an opening LOOT correct. >(PS do you guys take rotten vegetables to the club even when I'm not >directing?) No. -- David Stevenson Bridge Cats Railways Logic /\_/\ Liverpool, England, UK http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk =( ^*^ )= david@blakjak.demon.co.uk Emails welcome bluejak on OKB ( | | ) Tel: +44 (0)151 677 7412 Phone before Fax please RTFLB (_~^ ^~ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Jan 12 09:40:19 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA13527 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 12 Jan 1997 09:40:19 +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 JAA13522 for ; Sun, 12 Jan 1997 09:40:06 +1100 Received: from coruncanius.demon.co.uk ([194.222.115.176]) by relay-10.mail.demon.net id aa1025657; 11 Jan 97 22:38 GMT Message-ID: Date: Sat, 11 Jan 1997 22:37:15 +0000 To: "Burn, David" Cc: "'Bridge Laws'" From: Labeo Subject: Re: Ruling based on L11A In-Reply-To: <32D2890D@ah4gate.agw.bt.co.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In message <32D2890D@ah4gate.agw.bt.co.uk>, "Burn, David" writes > >From David Burn ...[cut]... >This isn't what I think the Law means, nor do I think it is what >the Law says. >L11A says only that the right to penalize "may be", not "must be" or >"is" forfeited if action is taken before summoning the Director. >I am firmly of the opinion that L11A exists solely to prevent >players from gaining unfairly from the imposition of incorrect >penalties, and to a certain extent to >punish those who seek to browbeat and bully uninformed opponents. It >is very rarely used - I can recall only one case in my experience, and >even that was questionable. > [TW-M] > >>Advice on safe bridge: always use a director. > [DB] >Advice on safe directing: if the players happen by some miracle to have >done your >job for you, and done it right, be grateful! Labeo considers: On the whole safest bridge can be had by avoiding errors of procedure and clubs with rotten veg strewn about the floor. However, as to Law 9 and to the principle of it, not the case discussed): I almost share DB's opinion of the way to use L11. In fact I was going along with him pretty well until I came to the word 'solely', where I would have said 'chiefly', or perhaps 'almost invariably'. It does seem to me that L11A is written deliberately to allow that the Director could maybe find, infrequently, another reason to apply it. Until the contrary is wholly manifest I retain this strange suspicion that the legislation could perhaps be intended as written. Here in 11A we have two statements neither of which is qualified or conditional. On what grounds can we assume they do not have equal force? And why suggest that 'action' in the first statement is different from 'action' in the second? The 'action' of a player can surely include a call or play; so here one should perhaps be saying that in assessing penalty (under L81C7) the Director may determine that the right to the penalty is forfeited, and is required by law to do so if the non- offending has taken any action before the Director is called *and* either (a) that action is a call or play, or (b) the offending side has then done, in ignorance of the law, something which gives rise to a gain for its opponent which the law does not envisage. [Offending players also have rights and a significant one is contained in L9B2. They are not to be led into worsening their positions by premature actions.] The removal of old 11B from the 1997 draft is held to be an improvement largely because it does away with (a) above and, given no kibitzerous intervention, leaves (b) as the only curb upon the Director's judgement of the equity under 11A. This deals, but not yet, with what I take to be DB's dissatisfaction with the presence of that element in the law. The other place to visit is L10B. From experience the laws do recognize that, outwith the law, players will sometimes arrange their own affairs and fail to summon the Director. When they do so the law avoids the trap of assuming they will always do it badly; the Director in making his decision is actually told that if he thinks it appropriate he may confirm an assessment made by the players that is legally supportable and equitable. In that event the (unquestionable) discretion of the Director to apply a procedural penalty [L11D and L90A] would seem a vengeful madness if used, unless there were some aggravation of the matter beyond all that has been discussed. Observation: 'ignorance of the law' does not excuse a player's own incorrect procedure or vary application of the law to him, but shall not be the circumstance of an inappropriate gain to opponent where 11A applies. Labeo From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jan 13 00:39:46 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA18001 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 13 Jan 1997 00:39:46 +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 AAA17996 for ; Mon, 13 Jan 1997 00:39:38 +1100 Received: from cph28.ppp.dknet.dk (cph28.ppp.dknet.dk [194.192.100.28]) by pip.dknet.dk (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id OAA28457 for ; Sun, 12 Jan 1997 14:39:27 +0100 From: Jesper Dybdal To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Ruling based on L11A Date: Sun, 12 Jan 1997 14:39:14 +0100 Organization: at home Message-ID: <32d9e83a.547667@pipmail.dknet.dk> References: <8VxeV$DUtv0yEwHe@blakjak.demon.co.uk> In-Reply-To: <8VxeV$DUtv0yEwHe@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: quoted-printable Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Wed, 8 Jan 1997 01:41:40 +0000, David Stevenson wrote: >I feel that the Danish=20 >authorities should review their position and that of their Directors: my= =20 >advice is to put out some statement reminding players and directors of=20 >the contents of L75D2, since the danger of not following it has now=20 >become apparent. This is certainly a good occasion to consider our attitude to L72D. I'm curious as to whether it is only in Denmark that players in practice do not follow the "call the TD" part of L75D2. Do experienced players in other countries routinely call the TD when their partner has given an incorrect explanation or an incorrect/missing alert? --=20 Jesper Dybdal, Denmark From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jan 13 02:23:02 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA18516 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 13 Jan 1997 02:23:02 +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 CAA18511 for ; Mon, 13 Jan 1997 02:22:55 +1100 Received: from cph47.ppp.dknet.dk (cph47.ppp.dknet.dk [194.192.100.47]) by pip.dknet.dk (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id QAA00995 for ; Sun, 12 Jan 1997 16:22:46 +0100 From: Jesper Dybdal To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Ruling based on L11A Date: Sun, 12 Jan 1997 16:22:33 +0100 Organization: at home Message-ID: <32e0017e.7015828@pipmail.dknet.dk> References: <8VxeV$DUtv0yEwHe@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <32d9e83a.547667@pipmail.dknet.dk> In-Reply-To: <32d9e83a.547667@pipmail.dknet.dk> 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 Sun, 12 Jan 1997 14:39:14 +0100, I wrote: >This is certainly a good occasion to consider our attitude to L72D. Oops - I meant L75D, of course. --=20 Jesper Dybdal, Denmark From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jan 13 15:13:30 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id PAA29510 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 13 Jan 1997 15:13:30 +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 PAA29505 for ; Mon, 13 Jan 1997 15:13:23 +1100 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by relay-5.mail.demon.net id aa511568; 13 Jan 97 4:11 GMT Message-ID: Date: Mon, 13 Jan 1997 04:09:22 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Ruling based on L11A In-Reply-To: <32d9e83a.547667@pipmail.dknet.dk> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Jesper Dybdal wrote: >On Wed, 8 Jan 1997 01:41:40 +0000, David Stevenson > wrote: >>I feel that the Danish >>authorities should review their position and that of their Directors: my >>advice is to put out some statement reminding players and directors of >>the contents of L75D2, since the danger of not following it has now >>become apparent. > >This is certainly a good occasion to consider our attitude to L72D. >I'm curious as to whether it is only in Denmark that players in >practice do not follow the "call the TD" part of L75D2. Do >experienced players in other countries routinely call the TD when >their partner has given an incorrect explanation or an >incorrect/missing alert? No! The reason for my suggestion was the comment by Jens which said [roughly paraphrased] that TDs had not discouraged this practice. The difference in England is not that players follow this Law - they certainly don't - but they get *no* encouragement from the TDs not to follow it. -- David Stevenson Bridge Cats Railways Logic /\_/\ Liverpool, England, UK http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk =( ^*^ )= david@blakjak.demon.co.uk Emails welcome bluejak on OKB ( | | ) Tel: +44 (0)151 677 7412 Phone before Fax please RTFLB (_~^ ^~ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jan 14 04:22:45 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA05376 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 14 Jan 1997 04:22:45 +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 EAA05371 for ; Tue, 14 Jan 1997 04:22:38 +1100 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by relay-9.mail.demon.net id aa919244; 13 Jan 97 17:22 GMT Message-ID: Date: Mon, 13 Jan 1997 15:58:11 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: UI or AI? MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk You and your regular partner have a good knowledge of the laws, and always try to be as ethical as possible in any 'situations' that may arise. An auction occurs, (probably a competitive one), where you hesitate before passing, and partner subsequently bids again. Can your future actions be based on the knowledge that partner thinks s/he's got a 70% bid? [This is an English question, so please translate the 70% into whatever applies in your jurisdiction.] -- 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 Jan 14 05:19:59 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA11183 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 14 Jan 1997 05:19:59 +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 FAA11171 for ; Tue, 14 Jan 1997 05:19:51 +1100 Received: (from uucp@localhost) by micros-bh.micros.com (8.6.12/8.6.11) id NAA05101 for ; Mon, 13 Jan 1997 13:20:37 -0500 Received: from micros.micros.com by micros-bh.micros.com via smap (V1.3) id sma005073; Mon Jan 13 13:20:18 1997 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 NAA02994 for ; Mon, 13 Jan 1997 13:18:07 -0500 From: Chris Miller To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: UI or AI? X-Mailer: ScoMail 3.0.Bd MIME-Version: 1.0 Date: Mon, 13 Jan 1997 13:17:11 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <9701131317.aa09637@rna.micros.com> Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > You and your regular partner have a good knowledge of the laws, and > always try to be as ethical as possible in any 'situations' that may > arise. An auction occurs, (probably a competitive one), where you > hesitate before passing, and partner subsequently bids again. Can your > future actions be based on the knowledge that partner thinks s/he's got > a 70% bid? > > [This is an English question, so please translate the 70% into > whatever applies in your jurisdiction.] 75D. ... inferences from such variation may appropriately be drawn only by an opponent, and at his own risk. This seems to prevent you drawing inferences from your own hesitation just as much as from your partner's. ---- 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 Jan 14 05:59:56 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA13889 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 14 Jan 1997 05:59:56 +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 FAA13884 for ; Tue, 14 Jan 1997 05:59:48 +1100 Received: (from uucp@localhost) by micros-bh.micros.com (8.6.12/8.6.11) id OAA07085 for ; Mon, 13 Jan 1997 14:00:38 -0500 Received: from micros.micros.com by micros-bh.micros.com via smap (V1.3) id sma007064; Mon Jan 13 14:00:19 1997 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 NAA03385 for ; Mon, 13 Jan 1997 13:58:07 -0500 From: Chris Miller To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: UI or AI? X-Mailer: ScoMail 3.0.Bd MIME-Version: 1.0 Date: Mon, 13 Jan 1997 13:48:16 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <9701131348.aa09711@rna.micros.com> Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > 75D. ... inferences from such variation may appropriately be drawn only > by an opponent, and at his own risk. Typo, please undo:) I refer, of course, to 73D. Is this error correctable at this stage of the discussion, or am I now subject to unspecified penalties for illegal attempt to withdraw or correct a Laws reference? ---- 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 Jan 14 06:38:47 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA14076 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 14 Jan 1997 06:38:47 +1100 Received: from andrew.cais.com (andrew.cais.com [199.0.216.215]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id GAA14070 for ; Tue, 14 Jan 1997 06:38:39 +1100 Received: from elandau.cais.com.cais.com (elandau.cais.com [207.176.64.97]) by andrew.cais.com (8.8.4/8.8.4/cais-andrew-jdf) with SMTP id OAA12189 for ; Mon, 13 Jan 1997 14:38:26 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <1.5.4.32.19970113194050.0069ea5c@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, 13 Jan 1997 14:40:50 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: UI or AI? Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 03:58 PM 1/13/97 +0000, you wrote: > You and your regular partner have a good knowledge of the laws, and >always try to be as ethical as possible in any 'situations' that may >arise. An auction occurs, (probably a competitive one), where you >hesitate before passing, and partner subsequently bids again. Can your >future actions be based on the knowledge that partner thinks s/he's got >a 70% bid? > > [This is an English question, so please translate the 70% into >whatever applies in your jurisdiction.] Good question! To rephrase it, David asks "Is that knowlege that your partner is always strictly ethical UI for you?" I'm not sure of the answer, and very much look forward to hearing others' comments. But my first instinct is that if we say yes, it is UI, we get into infinite regress; if he can't take advantage of my hesitation, and I can't take advantage of the knowledge that he's not taking advantage of my hesitation, then he can't take advantage of the knowledge that I'm not taking advantage of the knowledge that he's not taking advantage of the hesitation, and I can't take advantage of knowing that he knows that I'm not taking advantage of knowing that he knows... that I know... that he knows... and so on. After three or four times around the spiral, it's going to be a little unrealistic to expect mere humans to adjudicate. 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 Jan 14 06:57:55 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA14209 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 14 Jan 1997 06:57:55 +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 GAA14204 for ; Tue, 14 Jan 1997 06:57:43 +1100 Received: from default (cph5.ppp.dknet.dk [194.192.100.5]) by pip.dknet.dk (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id UAA08653 for ; Mon, 13 Jan 1997 20:53:48 +0100 Message-Id: <199701131953.UAA08653@pip.dknet.dk> Comments: Authenticated sender is From: "Jens & Bodil" Organization: Alesia Software To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Mon, 13 Jan 1997 20:54:44 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Re: UI or AI? Priority: normal X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v2.42a) Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > Date: Mon, 13 Jan 1997 15:58:11 +0000 > From: David Stevenson > You and your regular partner have a good knowledge of the laws, and > always try to be as ethical as possible in any 'situations' that may > arise. An auction occurs, (probably a competitive one), where you > hesitate before passing, and partner subsequently bids again. Can your > future actions be based on the knowledge that partner thinks s/he's got > a 70% bid? > AI, IMHO. The main argument for AI is the first sentence in L16: [Players are authorized to base their actions on information from legal calls ...]. Well, a legal call has been made. The second argument is a bit longer. Imagine that instead of hesitating, you phrase an inappropriate question to the opponents "does 3H really show a heart suit?"; the director is called; he gives you a procedural penalty (a warning) for this irregularity; he tells partner all about the restriction governing his choice among logical alternatives. There has been an infraction, and the penalty (including the restriction on partner) has been paid. There has been no withdrawn action. L72A5 now tells you that you may base your further actions on the knowledge that partner has fulfilled the restriction about logical alternatives. Had the hesitation been an infraction of the laws (which it is not), L72A5 would be in effect. But it would seem harsh to classify the information that partner has a very clear cut bid as UI when there is a hesitation which is not an infraction, but as AI when there is an infraction leading to the same "penalty". -- Jens Brix Christiansen, Denmark From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jan 14 12:27:02 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id MAA16326 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 14 Jan 1997 12:27:02 +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 MAA16321 for ; Tue, 14 Jan 1997 12:26:56 +1100 Received: from rscmacl99.anu.edu.au by lionfish.jcu.edu.au with SMTP id AA07500 (5.65v3.2/IDA-1.5); Tue, 14 Jan 1997 11:26:43 +1000 X-Sender: sci-lsk@pop.jcu.edu.au Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Tue, 14 Jan 1997 12:26:50 +1100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Laurence.Kelso@jcu.edu.au (Laurence Kelso) Subject: Re: UI or AI? Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk >> Date: Mon, 13 Jan 1997 15:58:11 +0000 >> From: David Stevenson > >> You and your regular partner have a good knowledge of the laws, and >> always try to be as ethical as possible in any 'situations' that may >> arise. An auction occurs, (probably a competitive one), where you >> hesitate before passing, and partner subsequently bids again. Can your >> future actions be based on the knowledge that partner thinks s/he's got >> a 70% bid? >> >Jens Brix Christensen wrote: >AI, IMHO. I'm going for UI >The main argument for AI is the first sentence in L16: [Players are >authorized to base their actions on information from legal calls >...]. Well, a legal call has been made. Nothing wrong with basing actions on legal calls, but here the information due indirectly from the hesitation is another matter. >The second argument is a bit longer. > >Imagine that instead of hesitating, you phrase an inappropriate >question to the opponents "does 3H really show a heart suit?"; the >director is called; he gives you a procedural penalty (a warning) for >this irregularity; he tells partner all about the restriction >governing his choice among logical alternatives. There has been an >infraction, and the penalty (including the restriction on partner) >has been paid. There has been no withdrawn action. L72A5 now tells >you that you may base your further actions on the knowledge that >partner has fulfilled the restriction about logical alternatives. The decision by the director to impose a procedural penalty (for whatever procedural reason) has nothing to do with the possible transmission of unauthorised information in this scenario. If it did then one could argue that the partner of the hesitator/questioner wasn't restricted with respect to logical alternatives. >Had the hesitation been an infraction of the laws (which it is not), >L72A5 would be in effect. But it would seem harsh to classify the >information that partner has a very clear cut bid as UI when there >is a hesitation which is not an infraction, but as AI when there is >an infraction leading to the same "penalty". As indicated above I don't think it is authorised in either situation. However I do agree with Eric Landau when he says that the situation describe by DS would be almost impossible to adjudicate. Even if we agree with Jens, the 1997 Laws remove those parts of L16C and 72A, so how do we not treat it as UI in the future? Laurie Kelso From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jan 14 20:59:33 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id UAA18358 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 14 Jan 1997 20:59:33 +1100 Received: from barlaeus.ic.uva.nl (root@barlaeus.ic.uva.nl [145.18.68.50]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id UAA18353 for ; Tue, 14 Jan 1997 20:59:27 +1100 Received: from atlas.frw.uva.nl by barlaeus.ic.uva.nl with SMTP id AA23590 (5.67b/IDA-1.4.4 for ); Tue, 14 Jan 1997 10:59:19 +0100 Received: From STUD/WORKQUEUE by atlas.frw.uva.nl via Charon-4.0-VROOM with IPX id 100.970114105001.928; 14 Jan 97 11:00:55 -100 Message-Id: From: "J.P. Pals" To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Tue, 14 Jan 1997 10:52:18 MET-1 Subject: Re: UI or AI? Reply-To: Jan Peter Pals X-Confirm-Reading-To: Jan Peter Pals X-Pmrqc: 1 Priority: normal X-Mailer: Pegasus Mail v3.22 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Subject: UI or AI? > You and your regular partner have a good knowledge of the laws, and > always try to be as ethical as possible in any 'situations' that may > arise. An auction occurs, (probably a competitive one), where you > hesitate before passing, and partner subsequently bids again. Can your > future actions be based on the knowledge that partner thinks s/he's got > a 70% bid? Certainly not. Example from real life: Dealer: West Game all teams s KQT9863 h 9 r A876 k 7 s - s 54 h AKQ8542 h JT7 r - r KJ953 k AQJ432 k K85 s AJ72 h 63 r QT42 k T96 W N E S 1h 4s ....p p 6c p p 6s x p 7h end East may have thought: 'If he bids 6c after my slow pass, it must be ironclad, so my club king should be enough for the grand'. Therefore his 7h bid is not allowed. JP From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jan 14 22:09:45 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id WAA18733 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 14 Jan 1997 22:09:45 +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 WAA18728 for ; Tue, 14 Jan 1997 22:09:38 +1100 Message-Id: <199701141109.WAA18728@octavia.anu.edu.au> Received: from dl.e-mail.com by E-MAIL.COM (IBM VM SMTP V2R3) with BSMTP id 4009; Tue, 14 Jan 97 06:09:17 EST Date: Tue, 14 Jan 1997 06:08:41 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: UI OR AI? Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Stevenson asked: > You and your regular partner have a good knowledge of the laws, and > always try to be as ethical as possible in any 'situations' that may > arise. An auction occurs, (probably a competitive one), where you > hesitate before passing, and partner subsequently bids again. Can your > future actions be based on the knowledge that partner thinks s/he's got > a 70% bid? > > {This is an English question, so please translate the 70% into > whatever applies in your jurisdiction.} Just a short reply, because I cannot afford to write extensive replies here, at my office. The fact that partner did bid is AI. You may assume he has any hand that fits the partnership agreement on this bid. IMO his having a 70% action hand is UI, for this assumes knowledge I could not possibly have obtained from the bidding proper. Rude question: what if I alert, and (when asked) explain to the opponents that my partner is a very ethical player etc. ? Bye, Jac Fuchs From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jan 14 23:47:14 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA19229 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 14 Jan 1997 23:47:14 +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 XAA19211 for ; Tue, 14 Jan 1997 23:46:27 +1100 Received: from innet.innet.be (pool03-54.innet.be [194.7.10.54]) by mail.be.innet.net (8.7.6/8.7.3) with SMTP id NAA22066 for ; Tue, 14 Jan 1997 13:46:13 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: <32DB8A41.2C35@innet.be> Date: Tue, 14 Jan 1997 13:29:37 +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: UI or AI? References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Stevenson wrote: > > You and your regular partner have a good knowledge of the laws, and > always try to be as ethical as possible in any 'situations' that may > arise. An auction occurs, (probably a competitive one), where you > hesitate before passing, and partner subsequently bids again. Can your > future actions be based on the knowledge that partner thinks s/he's got > a 70% bid? > At first I'd say : AI. Every partner is supposed to be an ethical partner, so the extra information that you know your partner to be ethical can not be UI. However, it is a bit more complicated than that. If you would not have transmitted UI, your partner might have had two logical alternatives, and he has chosen to bid. Now that you have transmitted UI, the fact that he bids again shows that he (thinks) he does not have a logical alternative. In both cases, you know that he had the logical alternative of bidding on. In the second case, you also know that passing is not a logical alternative. That piece of information is only available to you as a result of UI and is therefor itself too UI. But the problem goes on. If you were playing with a less than actively ethical player, you would not be able to draw the conclusion that his bidding implied that passing was not a logical alternative. So the elimination of pass as a logical alternative arises also from your knowledge of partner's ethics. Which is of course AI (as long as it is also told to opponents). And it still goes on .. Now if you were playing with me (and I hope you will one day), you would know that I would rather kill myself than eliminate pass as a logical alternative, so if I bid on, you might conclude that I had a 99% bid. And so on ... I think that by arguing too far along these lines, bridge becomes in effect unplayable. To conclude, although it would in theory be UI, I would not rule against you. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.club.innet.be/~pub02163/index.htm From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jan 14 23:49:42 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA19246 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 14 Jan 1997 23:49:42 +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 XAA19240 for ; Tue, 14 Jan 1997 23:49:36 +1100 Received: (from root@localhost) by tom.compulink.co.uk (8.8.4/8.6.9) id MAA12766 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Tue, 14 Jan 1997 12:48:57 GMT Date: Tue, 14 Jan 97 12:48 GMT0 From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: UI or AI? 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: While I agree that the knowledge that partner has a 70% bid is UI (it's an inference available only from the tempo of your sides' auction) I have a minor quibble with JP's example. > East may have thought: 'If he bids 6c after my slow pass, it must be > ironclad, so my club king should be enough for the grand'. Therefore > his 7h bid is not allowed. The 7H bid should also be subject to the 70% rule (adjusted for location) rather than disallowed. Tim West-Meads From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jan 15 02:56:53 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA23102 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 15 Jan 1997 02:56:53 +1100 Received: from messenger.koc-unisys.com.tr (messenger.koc-unisys.com.tr [193.243.217.3]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id CAA23095 for ; Wed, 15 Jan 1997 02:56:04 +1100 Received: by messenger.koc-unisys.com.tr with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Server Internet Mail Connector Version 4.0.994.63) id <01BC0244.2946AAA0@messenger.koc-unisys.com.tr>; Tue, 14 Jan 1997 17:55:43 +0200 Message-ID: From: Ercan Kuru To: "'bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au'" Subject: How do you judge Date: Tue, 14 Jan 1997 15:58:49 +0200 X-Mailer: Microsoft Exchange Server Internet Mail Connector Version 4.0.994.63 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Hi, Here is a 2 problem : Playing with screens in a high level tourney , this situtaion occurs : 1. N E S W 1S P 2C P 2S P 3D* P 3S P 3NT Pass All N alerted to W that 3D can be 3 Card suit (Showing a stopper or values ) but S did not alerted to E. The game was easy 9 tricks, and no lead or defence can set it. Is there a penalty for NS at this situation? 2. From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jan 15 06:13:38 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA02134 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 15 Jan 1997 06:13:38 +1100 Received: from emout03.mail.aol.com (emout03.mx.aol.com [198.81.11.94]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id GAA02129 for ; Wed, 15 Jan 1997 06:13:31 +1100 From: AlLeBendig@aol.com Received: (from root@localhost) by emout03.mail.aol.com (8.7.6/8.7.3/AOL-2.0.0) id OAA08025 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Tue, 14 Jan 1997 14:12:57 -0500 (EST) Date: Tue, 14 Jan 1997 14:12:57 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <970114141256_912440998@emout03.mail.aol.com> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: How do you judge Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In a message dated 97-01-14 14:04:35 EST, Ercan Kuru writes: > N E S W > 1S P 2C P > 2S P 3D* P > 3S P 3NT Pass All > > N alerted to W that 3D can be 3 Card suit (Showing a stopper or values > ) but S did not alerted to E. The game was easy 9 tricks, and no lead > or defence can set it. Is there a penalty for NS at this situation? We have a clear infraction but I can't imagine why we would issue a penalty here. If there were automatic penalties for misinformation (a failure to alert qualifies as such) we would have every player becoming very picky about finding a way to penalize their opponents. Had there been no screen and nothing was said during the auction or prior to the opening lead, that failure to disclose may earn a penalty. Since the actual misinformation had no relevance to the hand, it is difficult to imagine giving any consideration to a procedural penalty. Alan LeBendig From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jan 15 12:34:16 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id MAA04594 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 15 Jan 1997 12:34:16 +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 MAA04586 for ; Wed, 15 Jan 1997 12:34:07 +1100 Received: from coruncanius.demon.co.uk ([194.222.115.176]) by relay-6.mail.demon.net id aa601983; 15 Jan 97 1:02 GMT Message-ID: Date: Wed, 15 Jan 1997 00:56:03 +0000 To: David Stevenson Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Labeo Subject: Re: UI or AI? In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In message , David Stevenson writes > You and your regular partner have a good knowledge of the laws, and >always try to be as ethical as possible in any 'situations' that may >arise. An auction occurs, (probably a competitive one), where you >hesitate before passing, and partner subsequently bids again. Can your >future actions be based on the knowledge that partner thinks s/he's got >a 70% bid? > > [This is an English question, so please translate the 70% into >whatever applies in your jurisdiction. From Labeo:- Confession time! Several years ago, playing with a person of repute but, as I discovered, constant indecision in the auction, I had raised partner's opening 1S to 2S; opponent came in, partner took four-and-a= half weeks to pass, and the auction returned like that to me. I weighed up my hand against his pause, and being satisfied I had a cast iron 3S = a fifth Spade and some shape amongst it - I bid it, but obviously not wholly in tempo. Mistake. Partner went into 4S without any thought and then had the lack of grace to make it. Opponents, a prominent British pair, were quite impassive - so much that they did not even pass a look; uncomfortably I debated with myself about calling the TD. Opponents put the next board on the table and the subject was closed, except in my mind. Ever since I crime myself for not having summoned the marines, cavalry, and fire brigade, even though partner's identity would have made public reaction unavoidable. We have not found an opportunity to play together a second time. So I do have a clear view on the question raised; it has been burnt into my soul. On the other hand, I resist the thought that 70% - or any percentage - is what matters; a logical alternative is one that a not inconsiderable number of players could be expected to adopt, and a '70%' call is one where no such alternative is judged to exist. One should use bridge sense not percentages to decide. Even in 'England'. In a separate posting Eric L. poses the question (for David) "Is knowledge that partner is always ethical UI for you?" This may not be the issue: is it not rather the question whether a player may only act upon the agreed meaning of the call according to system and purged of any inflections conditioned by a factor that is extraneous .... namely the original hesitation that required the player to restrict his choice of action as the law demands? Labeo From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jan 15 13:08:49 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id NAA04788 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 15 Jan 1997 13:08:49 +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 NAA04783 for ; Wed, 15 Jan 1997 13:08:42 +1100 Received: from coruncanius.demon.co.uk ([194.222.115.176]) by relay-6.mail.demon.net id aa610170; 15 Jan 97 1:46 GMT Message-ID: Date: Wed, 15 Jan 1997 01:45:52 +0000 To: AlLeBendig@aol.com Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Labeo Subject: Re: How do you judge In-Reply-To: <970114141256_912440998@emout03.mail.aol.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In message <970114141256_912440998@emout03.mail.aol.com>, AlLeBendig@aol.com writes >In a message dated 97-01-14 14:04:35 EST, Ercan Kuru writes: [words omitted] > > N E S W > > 1S P 2C P > > 2S P 3D* P > > 3S P 3NT Pass All > > > > N alerted to W that 3D can be 3 Card suit (Showing a stopper or values > > ) but S did not alerted to E. The game was easy 9 tricks, and no lead > > or defence can set it. Is there a penalty for NS at this situation? > To which AlLeB. responds: > We have a clear infraction but I can't imagine why we would issue a penalty > here. Labeo: In an international forum perhaps we should say 'may have a clear infraction': it is not automatic that everywhere the alerting regs will require this to be alerted. I would add that it seems always likely this could be three cards; with no damage what kind of "high level" (sic) player would even think of calling the Director in the circs of this report? [and note: with the draft 1997 Laws the player would no doubt cover it with a blanket statement on his conv card; it would not be a bid definable as a 'convention' so it would only be alertable if the SO had a specific regulation to require it.] [balance of AlLeB's comment omitted] Al is on target (IMO) and this kind of thing tends only to get highlighted when there is different alerting either side of the screen, which is wrong procedure and worth avoiding for the obvious reason that it lets sea lawyers make cases. Meanwhile let us go on preaching that penalties in such cases are not normally desirable unless there *is* a breach of law or regulation *and* opponents have been damaged. Oh, yes; and I did see that N and W were screenmates. Would that be south of the equator? Labeo From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jan 15 14:28:43 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id OAA05103 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 15 Jan 1997 14:28:43 +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 OAA05098 for ; Wed, 15 Jan 1997 14:28:36 +1100 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by relay-10.mail.demon.net id ab1002286; 15 Jan 97 3:27 GMT Message-ID: Date: Wed, 15 Jan 1997 03:20:54 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: UI or AI? In-Reply-To: <9701131348.aa09711@rna.micros.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Chris Miller wrote: >> 75D. ... inferences from such variation may appropriately be drawn only >> by an opponent, and at his own risk. > >Typo, please undo:) >I refer, of course, to 73D. Is this error correctable at this stage >of the discussion, or am I now subject to unspecified penalties >for illegal attempt to withdraw or correct a Laws reference? I received your correction before the next post: that is, of course, in time. -- David Stevenson Bridge Cats Railways Logic /\_/\ Liverpool, England, UK http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk =( ^*^ )= bridge@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 Jan 15 14:51:28 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id OAA05229 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 15 Jan 1997 14:51:28 +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 OAA05224 for ; Wed, 15 Jan 1997 14:51:22 +1100 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by relay-6.mail.demon.net id aa624890; 15 Jan 97 3:27 GMT Message-ID: Date: Wed, 15 Jan 1997 03:20:13 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: How do you judge In-Reply-To: <970114141256_912440998@emout03.mail.aol.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Alan LeBendig wrote: >In a message dated 97-01-14 14:04:35 EST, Ercan Kuru writes: > > > N E S W > > 1S P 2C P > > 2S P 3D* P > > 3S P 3NT Pass All > > > > N alerted to W that 3D can be 3 Card suit (Showing a stopper or values > > ) but S did not alerted to E. The game was easy 9 tricks, and no lead > > or defence can set it. Is there a penalty for NS at this situation? > > We have a clear infraction but I can't imagine why we would issue a penalty > > here. If there were automatic penalties for misinformation (a failure to > alert qualifies as such) we would have every player becoming very picky >about > finding a way to penalize their opponents. Had there been no screen and > nothing was said during the auction or prior to the opening lead, that > failure to disclose may earn a penalty. Since the actual misinformation > had no relevance to the hand, it is difficult to imagine giving any > consideration to a procedural penalty. What's the infraction? So one player alerted a basically natural bid, and one didn't. Whoopee! If there had been an infraction then it is my firm belief that the first penalty should always be a warning. This may not be true at top level, *if* there is *obviously* an infraction. Even at top level, if some people might believe a call to be non-alertable, and some alertable, then a fine would be most unsuitable. In the cited case, I cannot believe there is any reason to alert. If there were strong regulations that made it quite clear that it should be alerted, then it would never be suitable for a fine because few players would realise that simple natural bidding is alertable. -- David Stevenson Bridge Cats Railways Logic /\_/\ Liverpool, England, UK http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk =( ^*^ )= bridge@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 Jan 15 22:56:30 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id WAA06596 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 15 Jan 1997 22:56:30 +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 WAA06591 for ; Wed, 15 Jan 1997 22:56:11 +1100 Received: from catullus.agw.bt.co.uk by mailhub.axion.bt.co.uk with SMTP (PP); Wed, 15 Jan 1997 11:47:27 +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 LAA18191; Wed, 15 Jan 1997 11:47:24 GMT Received: by ah4gate.agw.bt.co.uk with Microsoft Mail id <32DCC446@ah4gate.agw.bt.co.uk>; Wed, 15 Jan 97 11:49:26 GMT From: "Burn, David" To: "'Bridge Laws'" Cc: AlLeBendig Subject: RE: Ruling based on L11A Date: Wed, 15 Jan 97 11:27:00 GMT Message-ID: <32DCC446@ah4gate.agw.bt.co.uk> Encoding: 146 TEXT X-Mailer: Microsoft Mail V3.0 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk >From David Burn Alan LeBendig writes: >In a message dated 97-01-07 08:18:02 EST, David Burn writes: [DALB] >> It appears to me that in using L11A to [in effect] deny North any redress, >> the Danes are [in effect] penalizing North for not knowing L9B1 while >> failing to penalize East-West for the same thing. I am slightly >> surprised that Alan LeBendig endorses this approach; he says that >> North will know L9B1 next time! I'm sure he will, but he didn't know it >> this time *and neither did his opponents* [or if they did, they chose to >> act as if they did not, which for my money is at least questionable]. [AleB] >We have no evidence whatsoever that N was not aware of the basic premise of >L9B1. Wherever one is playing bridge at whatever level, they are aware that >there is a director there for any problems that arise. If I were stopped for >a traffic violation in your country David, I don't need to know your Laws to >realize that I must be entitled to some form of review before I am convicted. >Filing a complaint a year later on the basis that I didn't know that there >was an appeal process would be laughed at. [DALB - this post] If you ever come to this country, as I hope you will - don't drive! Or if you do, drive very carefully, for you may find British justice a little more summary than you anticipate. I am not certain whether the penalty for driving in a bus lane is decapitation or merely thirty years in the Tower, but of this I am sure - the words "appeal process" are meaningless in this context. >As to his opponents, my statement was: [AleB in earlier post] >>>"While it is clear that E/W should also have summoned the Director, they used a >>>common method of informing the opponents at the appropriate time that there had >>>been misinformation. I would want it explained to them that they are also >>>responsible for summoning the Director but I would not penalize them for their >>>failure to do so unless I felt they knew they were playing against Novices." [DALB] >> Does L9B1 really mean: >> >> "The Director must be summoned at once *by a member of the non- >> offending side* when attention is drawn to an irregularity *otherwise >> the non-offenders will lose the right to redress for damage arising >> from the irregularity*."? [AleB] >I hope I made it clear that I don't feel that way at all. Both sides were >responsible for summoning the Director. However, E/W made it perfectly clear >that there was a problem. N, for whatever reason, took all this in and did >nothing. After the hand he wants help and I'm not inclined to want to give >it to him. I'm not saying there may not be some circumstance where I may not >feel differently, but this is not such a case. I am definitely prejudiced >against a player that is aware of a problem and does not summon the Director >at the appropriate time as specified in the Laws. [DALB - this post] This, as far as I can tell, means: "East-West should have called the Director. But so should North, and because he was the one with the problem, he is the one I am going to penalise for not calling the Director." Other contributors to this thread have argued along much the same lines. I am a little disturbed by this: surely if all four players at the table have committed the same infraction, it cannot make sense to penalise only two of them. My concern extends further than this. Suppose we follow the route that Jens and Jesper inform us is common in Denmark (and I should say that it is also common in Britain and in every other country where I have seen the game played). East corrects West's explanation and, if North wants his bid back, *he and he alone* must now call the TD otherwise Alan and the Danish ruling body won't give him any redress when he later complains. Whatever North does, he is in an impossible position. If he declines to call the TD, he is in effect telling his partner and his opponents that he has no wish to change his call (is this authorised information for his partner?) To an extent, he is in the same position if he calls the TD and then does not change his call when given the option (if he hesitates before electing not to change his call, is that authorised information for his partner?) It simply cannot be right for the Laws of the game to be interpreted in a way which places those who try to follow them at a disadvantage. Law 9B1 allocates a collective responsibility to all four players at the table, but L75D2 places the responsibility in this type of situation squarely on the shoulders of East and West. Whether or not they were, or were playing against, novices; what the current practice in the Danish third division may be; whatever North's status or sex or brand of nail varnish - it does not seem to me equitable or in accordance with the Laws of the game that the side who committed two clear infractions (East-West) should escape the consequences of both of them while the side who colluded in only one (North-South) should not at least have had their case for redress considered. From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jan 16 02:54:05 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA10701 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 16 Jan 1997 02:54:05 +1100 Received: from dfw-ix8.ix.netcom.com (dfw-ix8.ix.netcom.com [206.214.98.8]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id CAA10696 for ; Thu, 16 Jan 1997 02:53:59 +1100 Received: from jcb-s-zeos (sbo-ca1-13.ix.netcom.com [205.184.185.45]) by dfw-ix8.ix.netcom.com (8.6.13/8.6.12) with SMTP id HAA14084 for ; Wed, 15 Jan 1997 07:53:23 -0800 Message-ID: <32DCFCC9.5E9@popd.ix.netcom.com> Date: Wed, 15 Jan 1997 07:50:33 -0800 From: B&S Reply-To: jonbriss@ix2.ix.netcom.com Organization: Brissman & Schlueter X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0Gold (Win95; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: [Fwd: Re: UI or AI?] Content-Type: message/rfc822 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Message-ID: <32DC0F54.7188@popd.ix.netcom.com> Date: Tue, 14 Jan 1997 14:57:24 -0800 From: B&S Reply-To: jonbriss@popd.ix.netcom.com Organization: Brissman & Schlueter X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0Gold (Win95; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Jan Peter Pals CC: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: UI or AI? References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit J.P. Pals wrote, in response to David's query regarding future actions based on the knowledge that partner thinks s/he's got a 70% bid: > > > Certainly not. > Example from real life: > > Dealer: West > Game all > teams > s KQT9863 > h 9 > r A876 > k 7 > s - s 54 > h AKQ8542 h JT7 > r - r KJ953 > k AQJ432 k K85 > s AJ72 > h 63 > r QT42 > k T96 > > W N E S > 1h 4s ....p p > 6c p p 6s > x p 7h end > > East may have thought: 'If he bids 6c after my slow pass, it must be > ironclad, so my club king should be enough for the grand'. Therefore > his 7h bid is not allowed. > Not a good example to illustrate this point. Any East who does not bid 7H on this hand is not a bridge player. Regardless of tempo, mannerisms, or other extraneous information, 7H is clear-cut based solely on East's cards. Of course, I'm basing my decision on the knowledge that my partners are not speculating when they jump to a slam (which is AI, IMO). Regarding the triggering question, I vote AI. Players bring to the table a wealth of information and experience about their partners' tendencies, foibles, idiosyncracies, pecadillos and predilections. Their approaches and styles are shaped and tempered by this knowledge, and it's all AI. To conclude otherwise would make the game unplayable. Jon Brissman From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jan 16 10:28:55 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA20620 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 16 Jan 1997 10:28:55 +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 KAA20615 for ; Thu, 16 Jan 1997 10:28:40 +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 SAA04901 for ; Wed, 15 Jan 1997 18:28:22 -0500 (EST) Received: by cfa183.harvard.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id SAA14632; Wed, 15 Jan 1997 18:28:36 -0500 Date: Wed, 15 Jan 1997 18:28:36 -0500 From: willner@cfa183.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Message-Id: <199701152328.SAA14632@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: UI or AI? X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk From: David Stevenson [rearranged for convenience] > An auction occurs, (probably a competitive one), where you > hesitate before passing, and partner subsequently bids again. Can your > future actions be based on the knowledge that partner thinks s/he's got [no LA to the action taken] This is an amazingly good question, and I don't think the answer is at all clear. (The auction has to be competitive; else your pass would end it.) > You and your regular partner have a good knowledge of the laws, and > always try to be as ethical as possible in any 'situations' that may > arise. This, at least, seems irrelevant. Even if partner is unknown, you might as well assume there is no LA. If partner's action is illegal, you will be getting a bad score (after the inevitable adjustment) anyway. The question, then, is whether the restriction on partner's action, consequent on your hesitation, is AI or UI. The case for AI: in general, restrictions of Law are AI. You are allowed to know that partner has revoked and that tricks will be transferred, or that partner must play a penalty card, or that some other penalty has been or will be applied. In principle, the director might have spelled out all restrictions under L16A1. How could the director's instructions be UI? The case for UI: the whole problem comes from one's own hesitation. This is not among the categories of AI listed in the preface to L16. One seems to have gained an advantage from having hesitated. The rebuttal to the case for UI: no equity advantage is gained in general. Partner is under restriction and will in general have to take an unfavorable view. In the cases where that doesn't occur, one indeed gains an advantage, but those cases are rare and the advantage small. This is analogous to other cases where an enforced penalty happens to be lucky for the offending side (L72A5). At the moment, I think I'd vote for AI, but this still "feels" wrong. Can someone come up with a more persuasive argument? I don't think L73D1 is clear; we are not drawing inferences from the hesitation but rather from the consequent legal restrictions. Are these nevertheless included in L73D1? From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jan 16 11:20:42 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id LAA21015 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 16 Jan 1997 11:20:42 +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 LAA21010 for ; Thu, 16 Jan 1997 11:20:36 +1100 Received: (from smap@localhost) by msri.org (8.8.2/8.7.2) id QAA26945; Wed, 15 Jan 1997 16:20:37 -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 sma026935; Wed Jan 15 16:19:55 1997 Received: by euclid.msri.org (8.7/MSRI) id QAA23118; Wed, 15 Jan 1997 16:23:58 -0800 (PST) Date: Wed, 15 Jan 1997 16:23:58 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <199701160023.QAA23118@euclid.msri.org> From: David Grabiner To: willner@cfa183.harvard.edu CC: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au In-reply-to: <199701152328.SAA14632@cfa183.harvard.edu> (willner@cfa183.harvard.edu) Subject: Re: UI or AI? Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Steve Willner writes: > From: David Stevenson > [rearranged for convenience] >> An auction occurs, (probably a competitive one), where you >> hesitate before passing, and partner subsequently bids again. Can your >> future actions be based on the knowledge that partner thinks s/he's got [no LA/a 70% action/whatever your NCBO rule is] > This is an amazingly good question, and I don't think the answer is at > all clear. (The auction has to be competitive; else your pass would > end it.) > The rebuttal to the case for UI: no equity advantage is gained in > general. Partner is under restriction and will in general have to take > an unfavorable view. In the cases where that doesn't occur, one indeed > gains an advantage, but those cases are rare and the advantage small. > This is analogous to other cases where an enforced penalty happens to > be lucky for the offending side (L72A5). This is a case for the direct versus indirect consequence rule. You can gain as an indirect consequence of an infraction; the standard example (from an old Law book footnote) is when you have bid diamonds out of turn, declarer requires a diamond lead, partner doesn't lead one, and you therefore know that you can give him a diamond ruff. With this as an analogy, it does seem that a penalty is AI. In the lead example, you committed an infraction which required partner to lead a diamond if he held one, and he didn't lead a diamond; therefore, you are allowed to know that he was void. In the slow-pass case, you committed an infraction which required partner to pass if pass was a LA, and he didn't pass; therefore, you are allowed to know that pass is not an LA. -- 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 Jan 16 21:34:28 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id VAA23814 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 16 Jan 1997 21:34:28 +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 VAA23809 for ; Thu, 16 Jan 1997 21:34:14 +1100 Received: from innet.innet.be (pool03-217.innet.be [194.7.10.217]) by mail.be.innet.net (8.7.6/8.7.3) with SMTP id LAA16482 for ; Thu, 16 Jan 1997 11:33:31 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: <32DCD54C.758@innet.be> Date: Wed, 15 Jan 1997 13:02:04 +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: How do you judge References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Ercan Kuru wrote: > > Hi, > > Here is a 2 problem : > [s] > N alerted to W that 3D can be 3 Card suit (Showing a stopper or values > ) but S did not alerted to E. The game was easy 9 tricks, and no lead > or defence can set it. Is there a penalty for NS at this situation? > I agree with posters that there should not be a penalty. It is furthermore nice to see that it is partner who remembers that this might be a three-card suit. Probably the bidder had a four card suit, and did not alert because it was not so strange to him. Which leads to the usual comment : if a player alerts his own bidding and says, this could be a three card, he usually has one ! > 2. We are all in eager anticipation for number two ... -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.club.innet.be/~pub02163/index.htm From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jan 16 23:09:47 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA24142 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 16 Jan 1997 23:09:47 +1100 Received: from messenger.koc-unisys.com.tr (messenger.koc-unisys.com.tr [193.243.217.3]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id XAA24136 for ; Thu, 16 Jan 1997 23:09:12 +1100 Received: by messenger.koc-unisys.com.tr with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Server Internet Mail Connector Version 4.0.994.63) id <01BC03B6.C6BB0DD0@messenger.koc-unisys.com.tr>; Thu, 16 Jan 1997 14:08:41 +0200 Message-ID: From: Ercan Kuru To: "'Herman De Wael'" , "'bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au'" Subject: RE: How do you judge Date: Thu, 16 Jan 1997 14:08:38 +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, In the origanal message altough I mentioned that I had two question,=20 iohly wrote one. Becouse I pressed the send button accidentally before=20 writing the second question. (Sorry for that). Thanks to everyone who=20 answered to my first question. Here is the second question. 2. Again, playing with screens, (N sees E and S sees W as you know) I am sitting S and the bidding goes : Screen N E ! S W Pass Pass ! 1D Pass But sefore the bidding board goes to the other side I relized that my=20 opening is wrong. I pull the wrong cards from bidding box. I just=20 wanted to bid 1H. What is the penalty if I changed my bid to 1H. Can I=20 do that altough west made his bid ? Best Regards Ercan Kuru -----Original Message----- From: Herman De Wael [SMTP:hermandw@innet.be] Sent: =C7artamba, Ocak 15, 1997 03:02 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: How do you judge Ercan Kuru wrote: > > Hi, > > Here is a 2 problem : > [s] > N alerted to W that 3D can be 3 Card suit (Showing a stopper or=20 values > ) but S did not alerted to E. The game was easy 9 tricks, and no=20 lead > or defence can set it. Is there a penalty for NS at this situation? > I agree with posters that there should not be a penalty. It is furthermore nice to see that it is partner who remembers that=20 this might be a three-card suit. Probably the bidder had a four card suit, and did not alert because it was not so strange to him. Which leads to the usual comment : if a player alerts his own bidding and says, this could be a three card, he usually has one ! > 2. We are all in eager anticipation for number two ... -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.club.innet.be/~pub02163/index.htm From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jan 17 01:22:20 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA27522 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 17 Jan 1997 01:22:20 +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 BAA27517 for ; Fri, 17 Jan 1997 01:22:11 +1100 Received: from andrew.cais.com (andrew.cais.com [199.0.216.215]) by ns-prime.cais.com (8.7.5/8.7.5-CAIS) with ESMTP id IAA02612 for ; Thu, 16 Jan 1997 08:55:47 -0500 (EST) Received: from elandau.cais.com.cais.com (elandau.cais.com [207.176.64.97]) by andrew.cais.com (8.8.4/8.8.4/cais-andrew-jdf) with SMTP id JAA08051 for ; Thu, 16 Jan 1997 09:16:53 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <1.5.4.32.19970116141622.00699d40@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, 16 Jan 1997 09:16:22 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: UI or AI: Another view Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Last night I put David's question to a local expert who is active in bridge administration in the U.S. and a frequent AC member (and happens to be my wife). I phrased it thus: You huddle in a competitive auction in a position where, loosely speaking, we would say that your huddle "bars partner". Partner bids on nevertheless. You know with certainty that partner is 100% ethical, and that, therefore, his bid is absolutely clear, with no LAs. Are you ethically permitted to make use of that knowledge in choosing your subsequent actions, or is it UI? Her rather surprising answer: Not only are you permitted to do so, you are required to! To be 100% ethical you must, at all times, act as though your partner is always 100% ethical. Consider the opposite case. Suppose, in this position, you knew that partner doesn't always bend over backwards to be 100% ethical, and that he might not have an absolutely clear bid. You would certainly not be allowed to take this into account by choosing a subsequent action that made allowance for the possibility of partner being less than 100% ethical; you would be ethically obligated to take the same action you wanted to in the original case. So the "extra information" you have in the original case is not merely AI, it is more than that; it is information you must assume you have even if you don't. I'd call that an interesting and fairly persuasive viewpoint. 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 Jan 17 11:40:48 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id LAA08958 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 17 Jan 1997 11:40:48 +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 LAA08953 for ; Fri, 17 Jan 1997 11:40:41 +1100 Received: from coruncanius.demon.co.uk ([194.222.115.176]) by relay-9.mail.demon.net id aa922575; 17 Jan 97 0:30 GMT Message-ID: Date: Fri, 17 Jan 1997 00:19:27 +0000 To: Eric Landau Cc: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Labeo Subject: Re: UI or AI: Another view In-Reply-To: <1.5.4.32.19970116141622.00699d40@cais.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In message <1.5.4.32.19970116141622.00699d40@cais.com>, Eric Landau writes >Last night I put David's question to a local expert who is active in bridge >administration in the U.S. and a frequent AC member (and happens to be my >wife). > > [part omitted] >Her rather surprising answer: > >Not only are you permitted to do so, you are required to! To be 100% >ethical you must, at all times, act as though your partner is always 100% >ethical. Consider the opposite case. Suppose, in this position, you knew >that partner doesn't always bend over backwards to be 100% ethical, and that >he might not have an absolutely clear bid. You would certainly not be >allowed to take this into account by choosing a subsequent action that made >allowance for the possibility of partner being less than 100% ethical; you >would be ethically obligated to take the same action you wanted to in the >original case. So the "extra information" you have in the original case is >not merely AI, it is more than that; it is information you must assume you >have even if you don't. > >I'd call that an interesting and fairly persuasive viewpoint. > Labeo in response: Interesting certainly. But is the lady saying that because I have hesitated (and placed a restriction on partner) it is now legitimate for me to take further action that can only be appropriate if partner is near the top of his potential range? and 2. is it the suggestion that since partner is 100% ethical I can use any information that he happens to pass to me inadvertently or otherwise? *any*? Is it the proposition that only players who are not 100% ethical can ever pass unauthorized info. to partner? Labeo From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jan 18 02:50:27 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA15843 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 18 Jan 1997 02:50:27 +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 CAA15837 for ; Sat, 18 Jan 1997 02:49:59 +1100 Received: from cfa183.harvard.edu (cfa183.harvard.edu [131.142.12.59]) by cfa.harvard.edu (8.7.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id KAA11258 for ; Sat, 18 Jan 1997 10:48:51 -0500 (EST) Received: by cfa183.harvard.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id KAA15447; Fri, 17 Jan 1997 10:50:04 -0500 Date: Fri, 17 Jan 1997 10:50:04 -0500 From: willner@cfa183.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Message-Id: <199701171550.KAA15447@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: UI or AI? X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: David Grabiner > the standard example > (from an old Law book footnote) is when you have bid diamonds out of > turn, declarer requires a diamond lead, partner doesn't lead one, and > you therefore know that you can give him a diamond ruff. > > With this as an analogy, it does seem that a penalty is AI. ... > In the slow-pass case, you committed > an infraction which required partner to pass if pass was a LA, and he > didn't pass; therefore, you are allowed to know that pass is not an LA. I find this quite convincing. At any rate, it accords with the general rule that legal restrictions are AI. Let us consider a related problem. Suppose I have a difficult competitive decision and take a while to consider. Finally, I decide my best technical action would have been an in-tempo double, which partner would often remove. Because that is no longer available, and partner will too often be obliged to pass my now slow double, I decide to bid instead. Is this illegal? I have based my final decision on my own tempo. Yet doing so seems very common, at least if one reads comments in bidding panel articles. (I think it is fairly common in real life, too.) I would argue that the above practice is legal under the general rule that any legal restrictions, however arising, are AI. I certainly have no objection if an opponent bids this way. If one agrees, one is obliged to read narrowly the phrase "inferences from such variations" in L73D1. From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jan 18 03:57:25 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA16191 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 18 Jan 1997 03:57:25 +1100 Received: from sirene.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de (sirene.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de [134.99.128.2]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id DAA16186 for ; Sat, 18 Jan 1997 03:57:17 +1100 Received: from rechner16.jura.uni-duesseldorf.de by sirene.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de with SMTP (PP) id <26900-0@sirene.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de>; Thu, 16 Jan 1997 12:33:57 +0000 Message-Id: <1.5.4.16.19970116123156.1caf6fda@mail.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de> X-Sender: bley@mail.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.4 (16) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable To: willner@cfa183.harvard.edu (Steve Willner), bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Richard Bley Subject: Re: UI or AI? Date: Thu, 16 Jan 1997 11:34:13 +0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Hello Folks, David had a very good question: >> An auction occurs, (probably a competitive one), where you >> hesitate before passing, and partner subsequently bids again. Can your >> future actions be based on the knowledge that partner thinks s/he's got >[no LA to the action taken] >> You and your regular partner have a good knowledge of the laws, and >> always try to be as ethical as possible in any 'situations' that may >> arise. =20 > >This, at least, seems irrelevant. Even if partner is unknown, you >might as well assume there is no LA. If partner's action is illegal, >you will be getting a bad score (after the inevitable adjustment) >anyway. Good idea Steve. But if u are not ethical... > >The question, then, is whether the restriction on partner's action, >consequent on your hesitation, is AI or UI. > >The case for AI: in general, restrictions of Law are AI. You are >allowed to know that partner has revoked and that tricks will be >transferred, or that partner must play a penalty card, or that >some other penalty has been or will be applied. In principle, >the director might have spelled out all restrictions under L16A1. >How could the director's instructions be UI? > >The case for UI: the whole problem comes from one's own hesitation. >This is not among the categories of AI listed in the preface to >L16. One seems to have gained an advantage from having hesitated. > >The rebuttal to the case for UI: no equity advantage is gained in >general. Partner is under restriction and will in general have to take >an unfavorable view. In the cases where that doesn't occur, one indeed >gains an advantage, but those cases are rare and the advantage small. >This is analogous to other cases where an enforced penalty happens to >be lucky for the offending side (L72A5). I think it has to be some sort of UI: Let=B4s imagine you would play with screens. Then you would use only the= bids on the table and perhaps the behaviour of one of your opp to make a decision. There should be no big difference without screens (just another behaviour of another opp...).=20 You are not allowed to use anything different than the play and the bids of your partner to make a decision (I think there is a rule somewhere, but my ruling book is fare away... (70+ something I think) On the other side Alan was quite right in stating some sort of spiral in this case. I asked these question to myself before, and came to the conclusion that I just not use the information in this special case instead of this 70% rule. So some sort of 50% rule instead. I know that this is an invention of myself, but I think the only practical way to be an ethical pair. Greeting Richard NEW e-mail adress! From owner-bridge-laws Sun Jan 19 21:26:22 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id VAA27055 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 19 Jan 1997 21:26:22 +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 VAA27050 for ; Sun, 19 Jan 1997 21:26:15 +1100 Received: from default (cph35.ppp.dknet.dk [194.192.100.35]) by pip.dknet.dk (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id LAA21243 for ; Sun, 19 Jan 1997 11:26:03 +0100 Message-Id: <199701191026.LAA21243@pip.dknet.dk> Comments: Authenticated sender is From: "Jens & Bodil" Organization: Alesia Software To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Sat, 18 Jan 1997 16:04:19 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: RE: How do you judge Priority: normal X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v2.42a) Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: Ercan Kuru > Subject: RE: How do you judge > > 2. Again, playing with screens, (N sees E and S sees W as you know) > > I am sitting S and the bidding goes : > Screen > N E ! S W > Pass Pass ! 1D Pass > > But sefore the bidding board goes to the other side I relized that my > opening is wrong. I pull the wrong cards from bidding box. I just > wanted to bid 1H. What is the penalty if I changed my bid to 1H. Can I > do that altough west made his bid ? Even with screens, L25A still holds. So you have made a mechanical error (let us assume that this is an incontrovertible fact), and you have (no doubt) made some move towards correcting it as soon as you have discovered it. L25A says that you may correct it. As we have discussed earlier, there has to be some time limit after which it is impractical to apply L25A. Regulating bodies vary on the accuracy with which they fix this time limit, as well as on the actual time limit. However, the WBF screen regulations (and hence also e.g. the EBL and Danish ones) fix this limit to when the bidding tray is passed to the other side. So, yes, you may correct it. West may also change his bid, and the information you have received about West's pass over 1D is UI (L16C2). Ha! New thread looming on the horizon: L16C2 clearly states that if West changes his action (say he doubles 1H), then the pass over 1D was withdrawn, and it is UI to you. But if West passes over 1H, L16C2 does not really say very explicitly that the information that West would have passed over 1D is UI to you. My gut feeling is that this should be UI, and I would certainly rule this way in practice, but I fear that the laws do not support such a ruling fully. Opinions, anyone? -- Jens Brix Christiansen, Denmark From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jan 20 00:11:21 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA27739 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 20 Jan 1997 00:11:21 +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 AAA27508 for ; Mon, 20 Jan 1997 00:06:36 +1100 Received: from innet.innet.be (pool03-224.innet.be [194.7.10.224]) by mail.be.innet.net (8.7.6/8.7.3) with SMTP id OAA29583; Sun, 19 Jan 1997 14:03:28 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: <32E228BB.711E@innet.be> Date: Sun, 19 Jan 1997 13:59:23 +0000 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01 (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge To: jvcleeff@xs4all.nl, 100430.2021@CompuServe.COM, 100525.1225@CompuServe.COM, bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: bridge font Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk BRIDGE FONT In several areas, it is quite clear that the bridge world needs a special font to deal with it's special needs. Every computer, every software, has its own way of dealing with the card symbols. Whenever they need to communicate, transfer problems occur. So in every large-scale enviroment, such as the newsgroups, letters are used. This problem can only be resolved by agreeing on a common base for a font that includes the symbols we need. Developping such a font is not really a hard task, but it must be started on good bases right from the start. I've been communicating with a 'font'expert for some time now and we have developped the following ideas : We would introduce 9 new symbols and place them at the following positions in the Windows fonts : 0170 10 currently =AA small upper a 0171 Clubs =AB opening quotes 0172 Diamonds =AC a hook (logical negation) 0173 Hearts =AD a small stripe (not a minus) 0174 Spades =AE registered 0175 No trumps =AF a top stripe 0185 Pass =B9 small upper 1 0186 Double =BA small upper 0 (not degree) 0187 Redouble =BB closing quotes We would like to check with users all over the world to see if these current symbols do not have meanings in their environments that would make them unusable in a new font. Any comments ? --=20 Herman DE WAEL =20 Antwerpen Belgium http://www.club.innet.be/~pub02163/index.htm From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jan 20 07:28:39 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA10058 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 20 Jan 1997 07:28:39 +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 HAA10052 for ; Mon, 20 Jan 1997 07:28:31 +1100 Received: from mail.isys.net[193.96.224.33] by mail.hamburg.netsurf.de with smtp (Smail 3.2 #2 -iSYS-); id m0vm3qP-000H7cC; Sun, 19 Jan 1997 21:27:57 +0100 (MET) Received: from meckwell by mail.isys.net with smtp (/\oo/\ Smail3.1.29.1 #29.6); id ; Sun, 19 Jan 97 21:12 MEZ Date: Sun, 19 Jan 1997 21:20:09 +0100 (CET) From: Henk Uijterwaal X-Sender: henk@meckwell Reply-To: Henk Uijterwaal To: Herman De Wael cc: jvcleeff@xs4all.nl, 100430.2021@CompuServe.COM, 100525.1225@CompuServe.COM, bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: bridge font In-Reply-To: <32E228BB.711E@innet.be> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Sun, 19 Jan 1997, Herman De Wael wrote: > BRIDGE FONT > I've been communicating with a 'font'expert for some time now and we > have developped the following ideas : We would introduce 9 new symbols > and place them at the following positions in the Windows fonts : Windows? X-Windows of Windows95? A X-Windows solution doesn't=20 necessarily work on a Windows95 machine, if one isn't really careful here, suddenly half the world cannot read text produced by the other half.=20 > 0171 Clubs =AB opening quotes But doesn't one need opening quotes? In most languages, including Dutch though I'm not sure about Flemish, the opening quotes look slightly different from the closing quotes.=20 > 0186 Double =BA small upper 0 (not degree) On my Unix box, this character looks like a "small upper 2". Anyway, don't we need the "1" and "2" for footnotes? I'm also not sure why I'd need a symbol for Double. I've always just typed "double" (doublet, kontra, ...) and that worked fine. (Actually, I have a macro \double which figures out in which language I'm writing and replaces it by double in that language. Henk ---------------------------------------------------------------------------= --- Henk Uijterwaal Email: henk.uijterwaal@hamburg.netsurf.de (hom= e) 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 Tue Jan 21 01:27:30 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA16641 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 21 Jan 1997 01:27:30 +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 BAA16636 for ; Tue, 21 Jan 1997 01:27:24 +1100 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by relay-6.mail.demon.net id aa617800; 20 Jan 97 13:24 GMT Message-ID: Date: Mon, 20 Jan 1997 13:19:46 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: How do you judge In-Reply-To: <199701191026.LAA21243@pip.dknet.dk> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Jens & Bodil wrote: >Ha! New thread looming on the horizon: L16C2 clearly states that >if West changes his action (say he doubles 1H), then the pass over >1D was withdrawn, and it is UI to you. But if West passes over 1H, >L16C2 does not really say very explicitly that the information that >West would have passed over 1D is UI to you. My gut feeling is that >this should be UI, and I would certainly rule this way in practice, >but I fear that the laws do not support such a ruling fully. >Opinions, anyone? New thread indeed! I seem to remember your opinion about six months ago! It seemed to be generally accepted that in such cases you have withdrawn a pass and substituted a pass. Well, that's my view anyway. -- David Stevenson Bridge Cats Railways Logic /\_/\ Liverpool, England, UK http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk =( ^*^ )= bridge@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 Jan 22 13:15:48 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id NAA17369 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 22 Jan 1997 13:15:48 +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 NAA17364 for ; Wed, 22 Jan 1997 13:15:38 +1100 Received: from coruncanius.demon.co.uk ([194.222.115.176]) by relay-6.mail.demon.net id aa624805; 22 Jan 97 0:37 GMT Message-ID: Date: Tue, 21 Jan 1997 22:58:12 +0000 To: David Stevenson Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Labeo Subject: Re: How do you judge In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In message , David Stevenson writes >Jens & Bodil wrote: > >>Ha! New thread looming on the horizon: L16C2 clearly states that >>if West changes his action (say he doubles 1H), then the pass over >>1D was withdrawn, and it is UI to you. But if West passes over 1H, >>L16C2 does not really say very explicitly that the information that >>West would have passed over 1D is UI to you. > etc etc David S. then said: > New thread indeed! I seem to remember your opinion about six months >ago! It seemed to be generally accepted that in such cases you have >withdrawn a pass and substituted a pass. Well, that's my view anyway. > Labeo:... I would have thought that Pass gives no information to any other player at the table; it adds nothing to the sum of the auction. Pass may well not be weak; all we know is that the player has not opted to make any other call: we do *not* know that he did not have one to make. Whether to make a call is a matter of bridge judgement: in an untroubled auction, even when the pundits consider an alternative obviously and overwhelmingly 'right', any player is fully entitled to pass. Labeo Early history reviewed: Lot lost his woman because of a twisted head; The Baptist lost his head because of a twisted woman. From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jan 23 10:07:47 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA04493 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 23 Jan 1997 10:07:47 +1100 Received: from server3.syd.mail.ozemail.net (server3.syd.mail.ozemail.net [203.108.7.41]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id KAA04488 for ; Thu, 23 Jan 1997 10:07:42 +1100 Received: from oznet02.ozemail.com.au (oznet02.ozemail.com.au [203.2.192.124]) by server3.syd.mail.ozemail.net (8.8.4/8.6.12) with ESMTP id KAA09205 for ; Thu, 23 Jan 1997 10:07:37 +1100 (EST) Received: from rbusch.ozemail.com.au (slbri2p15.ozemail.com.au [203.108.199.167]) by oznet02.ozemail.com.au (8.8.4/8.6.12) with SMTP id KAA00235 for ; Thu, 23 Jan 1997 10:03:08 +1100 (EST) Message-Id: <1.5.4.32.19970122215806.0066ca18@ozemail.com.au> X-Sender: rbusch@ozemail.com.au (Unverified) X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.4 (32) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Thu, 23 Jan 1997 08:58:06 +1100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Reg Busch Subject: dummy's revoke Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Declarer is in a heart contract. Early in the play, he plays S Ace from hand, then another spade instructing dummy to ruff. There are still two spades on the table. Does dummy have the right to say 'But you must follow suit. There are spades on the table', or should he simply do what he has been instructed by declarer? My own view (disputed by others) is that he should ruff as instructed. Whilst dummy has the right to *prevent* an infraction by declarer, the infraction has already occurred once declarer has named the card from dummy. Dummy's right to question declarer about a possible revoke refers, it seems to me, only to a revoke from declarer's own hand. Law 43 makes it clear that dummy may not call attention to an infraction during play, nor participate in, nor make any comment on, the play. The opposite view is that Law 44C overrides the above. 'In playing to a trick, each player must follow suit if possible. This obligation takes precedence over all other requirements of these Laws.' The argument is largely academic, because any revoke by dummy will be subject to an adjusted score by the TD to restore equity when the defenders have been damaged. But what about the rare situation where the defenders would have been advantaged if the revoke had proceeded? For example, by promotion of a trump trick which they could not otherwise have won? If dummy's remark was an infraction, then the TD should adjust the score to allow for this. Opinions please. From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jan 23 12:51:12 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id MAA05249 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 23 Jan 1997 12:51:12 +1100 Received: from gatekeeper2.svl.trw.com (gatekeeper2.svl.trw.com [129.193.147.133]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id MAA05244 for ; Thu, 23 Jan 1997 12:51:05 +1100 Received: from smtp.svl.trw.com (smtpout.svl.trw.com [129.193.145.172]) by gatekeeper2.svl.trw.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id RAA01821 for ; Wed, 22 Jan 1997 17:50:52 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: Date: 22 Jan 1997 17:46:22 -0800 From: "Jeff Hack" Subject: Bridge Law To: "Bridge Laws" X-Mailer: Mail*Link SMTP-QM 4.0.0 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk The bidding went P by partner 2NT - P - 2H. The director was called and explained that partner had the choice of accepting the bid and preceeding naturally or not accepting the bid and baring the opener from bidding again. Partner accepted the bid. Is it AI to consider what type of hand partner would have needed to accept the bid? From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jan 23 13:29:54 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id NAA05544 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 23 Jan 1997 13:29:54 +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 NAA05539 for ; Thu, 23 Jan 1997 13:29:45 +1100 Received: from localhost by flash.irvine.com id aa19117; 22 Jan 97 18:29 PST To: Jeff Hack cc: Bridge Laws , adam@flash.irvine.com Subject: Re: Bridge Law In-reply-to: Your message of "22 Jan 1997 17:46:22 PST." Date: Wed, 22 Jan 1997 18:29:07 PST From: Adam Beneschan Message-ID: <9701221829.aa19117@flash.irvine.com> Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > > The bidding went P by partner > 2NT - P - 2H. The director was called and explained that partner had the > choice of accepting the bid and preceeding naturally or not accepting the > bid and baring the opener from bidding again. > > Partner accepted the bid. > > Is it AI to consider what type of hand partner would have needed to accept > the bid? Should be, IMHO. The Law doesn't appear to be explicit about this case, but (a) L16A lists a number of types of information considered unauthorized, and this example isn't among them; and (b) L16C1 indicates that when one side commits an infraction, the non-offending side is supposed to be able to take advantage of whatever information is passed in the process of applying the rules and restoring order, so it seems to me that this principle should apply in this case also. -- Adam From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jan 23 20:34:53 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id UAA06876 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 23 Jan 1997 20:34:53 +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 UAA06871 for ; Thu, 23 Jan 1997 20:34:46 +1100 Received: by wsinfm04.win.tue.nl (8.7.1/1.45) id KAA21343; Thu, 23 Jan 1997 10:34:37 +0100 (MET) From: engels@win.tue.nl (Andre Engels) Message-Id: <199701230934.KAA21343@wsinfm04.win.tue.nl> Subject: Re: dummy's revoke To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au (bridge laws list) Date: Thu, 23 Jan 1997 10:34:36 +0100 (MET) In-Reply-To: <1.5.4.32.19970122215806.0066ca18@ozemail.com.au> from "Reg Busch" at Jan 23, 97 08:58:06 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 Reg Busch: > >Declarer is in a heart contract. Early in the play, he plays S Ace from >hand, then another spade instructing dummy to ruff. There are still two >spades on the table. Does dummy have the right to say 'But you must follow >suit. There are spades on the table', or should he simply do what he has >been instructed by declarer? > >My own view (disputed by others) is that he should ruff as instructed. >Whilst dummy has the right to *prevent* an infraction by declarer, the >infraction has already occurred once declarer has named the card from dummy. >Dummy's right to question declarer about a possible revoke refers, it seems >to me, only to a revoke from declarer's own hand. Law 43 makes it clear that >dummy may not call attention to an infraction during play, nor participate >in, nor make any comment on, the play. > However Rule 61B says: B. Right to Inquire about a Possible Revoke Declarer may ask a defender who has failed to follow suit whether he has a card of the suit led (but a claim of revoke does not automatically warrant inspection of quitted tricks - see Law 66C). Dummy may ask declarer. Defenders may ask declarer but, unless the ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ zonal organization so authorizes (see Appendix A), not one another. So Dummy may ask Declarer whether Declarer's last play was a Revoke. Logically, this would include any Cards played by Declarer from Dummy. The difference between asking whether a Card from Dummy is a Revoke and stating that it is, seems minor enough not to make a substantial difference. So in my opinion Dummy is allowed to to ask Declarer to correct a Revoke made in Dummy. Andre Engels From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jan 24 01:49:38 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA11028 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 24 Jan 1997 01:49:38 +1100 Received: from andrew.cais.com (andrew.cais.com [199.0.216.215]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id BAA11022 for ; Fri, 24 Jan 1997 01:49:21 +1100 Received: from elandau.cais.com.cais.com (elandau.cais.com [207.176.64.97]) by andrew.cais.com (8.8.4/8.8.4/cais-andrew-jdf) with SMTP id JAA02971 for ; Thu, 23 Jan 1997 09:47:58 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <1.5.4.32.19970123144657.0069de50@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, 23 Jan 1997 09:46:57 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: Bridge Law Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 05:46 PM 1/22/97 -0800, Jeff Hack wrote: >The bidding went P by partner >2NT - P - 2H. The director was called and explained that partner had the >choice of accepting the bid and preceeding naturally or not accepting the >bid and baring the opener from bidding again. > >Partner accepted the bid. > >Is it AI to consider what type of hand partner would have needed to accept >the bid? I think so. The Laws don't address this directly, but it would seem to fall within the "penumbra" of L72A4: "When these Laws provide the innocent side with an option after an irregularity committed by an opponent, it is appropriate to select that action most advantageous." There's nothing to suggest that the "selecter's" partner isn't allowed to "know" that that's what he's doing. The ACBL, however, has an explicit regulation which prohibits partnerships from having any agreement, explicit or implicit, regarding the meaning of the exercise of an available option after an irregularity. This regulation is problematic, and may, IMO, be meaningless. I would be interested in the group's views on an incident I was involved in some time back: At home one night with one of my regular bridge partners, the subject of insufficient bids arose in conversation. What type of hand, we speculated, would we, or should we in theory, hold for each of the following: Suppose the auction goes (I don't recall what our specific example was, so I'll use Jeff's) 2NT-P-2H (and here we assume that 2H is "natural" -- although IIRC this group has already decided that this is meaningless -- so that, if not accepted, 3H may be substituted without penalty). (1) Accept 2H and bid 2S; (2) Accept 2H and bid 3S; (3) Do not accept 2H, then bid 3S over the almost-certain correction to 3H. We weren't talking about, or thinking about, ACBL competition in particular; we were just discussing bridge. A few weeks later, of course, we were playing in a local sectional when someone made an insufficient bid. Pard accepted it and bid something. I alerted and, on inquiry, summarized for the opponents the conclusion we had come to in our earlier conversation. We were told that we were employing a blatantly illegal agreement, and wound up in front of a committee. The opponents argued that we had an illegal agreement, had employed that agreement to successful effect in reaching a good contract, and they were therefore entitled to redress. I countered that we hadn't made any explicit agreement, but had indeed had this conversation, which was an immutable fact, and that the ACBL surely didn't have a regulation which prohibited people from idly discussing any particular aspect of bridge theory in the privacy of their own homes. Therefore, at the table, I had had only two choices: either inform the opponents of what I knew, in the spirit of full disclosure, or keep my knowledge a secret. Which, did the committee believe, was the appropriate course of action? After deliberating, the committee solemnly informed us that we had indeed broken the rules, that since our intentions were pure they would allow us to "get away with it this time", but that we were "never to do it again." To this day I remain confused; just what was it that I was never supposed to do again? Have conversations about bridge with my actual or potential partners in ACBL competition? Sit down against opponents who made insufficient bids? Exercise any of our options when an insufficient bid was made against us? Disclose our "implicit agreement" to our opponents when it came up? Were we supposed to have frontal lobotomies so we wouldn't recall our earlier conversation if the situation ever arose again? Does the ACBL regulation really mean that if one has an idle conversation about the possible meanings of various actions over an irregularity with another person, one is barred from ever playing as that person's partner in ACBL competition? Or that, as a result of having such a conversation, one must expect to be penalized any time the opponents commit such an irregularity, regardless of what one then does? Comments? 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 Jan 24 02:59:01 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA11477 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 24 Jan 1997 02:59:01 +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 CAA11472 for ; Fri, 24 Jan 1997 02:58:53 +1100 Received: by wsinfm04.win.tue.nl (8.7.1/1.45) id QAA22327; Thu, 23 Jan 1997 16:58:38 +0100 (MET) From: engels@win.tue.nl (Andre Engels) Message-Id: <199701231558.QAA22327@wsinfm04.win.tue.nl> Subject: Re: How do you judge To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au (bridge laws list) Date: Thu, 23 Jan 1997 16:58:37 +0100 (MET) In-Reply-To: from "Labeo" at Jan 21, 97 10:58:12 pm 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 Labeo: > >In message , David Stevenson > writes >>Jens & Bodil wrote: >> >>>Ha! New thread looming on the horizon: L16C2 clearly states that >>>if West changes his action (say he doubles 1H), then the pass over >>>1D was withdrawn, and it is UI to you. But if West passes over 1H, >>>L16C2 does not really say very explicitly that the information that >>>West would have passed over 1D is UI to you. > etc etc > >David S. then said: >> New thread indeed! I seem to remember your opinion about six months >>ago! It seemed to be generally accepted that in such cases you have >>withdrawn a pass and substituted a pass. Well, that's my view anyway. >> >Labeo:... I would have thought that Pass gives no information to > any other player at the table; it adds nothing to the sum >of the auction. Pass may well not be weak; all we know is that the >player has not opted to make any other call: we do *not* know that he >did not have one to make. Whether to make a call is a matter of bridge >judgement: in an untroubled auction, even when the pundits consider an >alternative obviously and overwhelmingly 'right', any player is fully >entitled to pass. > You claim that doesn't give any information? Of course the player COULD have a hand that rates not to be passed even if he/she passes. But the chances are far lower. And that is information. Andre From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jan 24 09:40:54 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA21599 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 24 Jan 1997 09:40:54 +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 JAA21593 for ; Fri, 24 Jan 1997 09:40:48 +1100 Received: (from smap@localhost) by msri.org (8.8.2/8.7.2) id OAA06756 for ; Thu, 23 Jan 1997 14:40:54 -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 sma006742; Thu Jan 23 14:40:10 1997 Received: by boole.msri.org (8.7/DW.6) id OAA15410; Thu, 23 Jan 1997 14:39:43 -0800 (PST) To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: What to do when you know of failure to alert? From: David Grabiner Date: 23 Jan 1997 14:39:40 -0800 Message-ID: Lines: 21 X-Mailer: Gnus v5.3/Emacs 19.34 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk The auction began 1D-P-3D, not alerted. The opponents' convention card was visible, and I saw that 3D was preemptive and should have been alerted. (It was face up, so the opponents didn't know that I had checked it.) What are my rights and responsibilities? I assumed that I should bid under the assumption that 3D was preemptive. I could get no redress for misinformation if this was the correct agreement because I had checked the convention card. However, partner could be misinformed. Later in the auction, I had to guess whether opener had failed to alert or had taken 3D as strong. I decided that this guess was made entirely at my own risk, and that I should not ask opener about the bid when I already knew the agreement. (I guessed wrong.) -- 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 Jan 24 21:12:07 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id VAA25118 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 24 Jan 1997 21:12:07 +1100 Received: from waffle.cise.npl.co.uk (waffle.cise.npl.co.uk [139.143.18.92]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id VAA25113 for ; Fri, 24 Jan 1997 21:11:46 +1100 Received: from tempest.cise.npl.co.uk by waffle.cise.npl.co.uk; Fri, 24 Jan 1997 10:11:03 GMT Date: Fri, 24 Jan 97 10:11:01 GMT Message-Id: <28565.9701241011@tempest.cise.npl.co.uk> From: Robin Barker To: elandau@cais.com Subject: Agreement over insufficient bids; was [Re: Bridge Law] Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Eric > The ACBL, however, has an explicit regulation which prohibits partnerships > from having any agreement, explicit or implicit, regarding the meaning of > the exercise of an available option after an irregularity. This regulation > is problematic, and may, IMO, be meaningless. I would be interested in the > group's views on an incident I was involved in some time back: [snip] > Comments? Not much really to add, this ACBL regulation has always struck me as 'unworkable' (that's a polite word). You can not regulate pairs from having implicit agreements: partners talk to one another, they don't disagree on some things, so they have an implicit (perhaps even explicit) agreement. In other aspects of partnership understandings, players are always being told that partnership will develop understandings just from playing together (e.g. opening a 12-14 1NT on an 11 count) and that they must reflect these understanding on their convention card and in answer to opponent's questions. How come a partnership is expected to be blind to these understandings which arise in the context of an insufficient bid? The ACBL regulation seems at odds (another polite phrase) with 'full disclosure' and L72A4. Robin Robin Barker, \ Email: Robin.Barker@npl.co.uk Information Systems Engineering, \ Tel: +44 (0) 181 943 7090 B10, National Physical Laboratory, \ Fax: +44 (0) 181 977 7091 Teddington, Middlesex, UK. TW11 0LW \ WWW: http://www.npl.co.uk From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jan 24 23:12:08 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA25626 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 24 Jan 1997 23:12:08 +1100 Received: from styx.ios.com (lighton@styx.ios.com [198.4.75.44]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id XAA25619 for ; Fri, 24 Jan 1997 23:12:01 +1100 Received: (from lighton@localhost) by styx.ios.com (8.8.3/8.6.9) id HAA07052 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Fri, 24 Jan 1997 07:11:55 -0500 (EST) Date: Fri, 24 Jan 1997 07:11:55 -0500 (EST) From: Richard Lighton Message-Id: <199701241211.HAA07052@styx.ios.com> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Bridge Law Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Eric Landau wrote: > At 05:46 PM 1/22/97 -0800, Jeff Hack wrote: > > >The bidding went P by partner > >2NT - P - 2H. The director was called and explained that partner had the > >choice of accepting the bid and preceeding naturally or not accepting the > >bid and baring the opener from bidding again. > > > >Partner accepted the bid. > > > >Is it AI to consider what type of hand partner would have needed to accept > >the bid? > > I think so. The Laws don't address this directly, but it would seem to fall > within the "penumbra" of L72A4: "When these Laws provide the innocent side > with an option after an irregularity committed by an opponent, it is > appropriate to select that action most advantageous." There's nothing to > suggest that the "selecter's" partner isn't allowed to "know" that that's > what he's doing. > > The ACBL, however, has an explicit regulation which prohibits partnerships > from having any agreement, explicit or implicit, regarding the meaning of > the exercise of an available option after an irregularity. What the ACBL regulation says is: " ACBL Regulations on Conventional Bids and Carding [snip] " Defenses Against Opponent's Infractions " " Some players have come up with systems to deal with opponent's " infractions. Every effort should be made to make players aware of the " fact that these are not allowed. If a pass over an opponent's call out " of rotation shows some agreed-on point range, it is conventional. " Obviously no conventional call for taking advantage of a call out of " rotation has been approved. " This regulation, as I read it, governs conventions specifically designed for use against infractions. I do not believe that it covers matters of bridge discussion about what is logical in the case of an infraction. A case came up in a Bridge World years ago, when someone chose to psych a 1H opener in front of a 1H opener out of turn. The pair had not discussed the matter before and nothing happened except that a director later asked them if they had an agreement about this. Whether they had discussed this or not, opening 1H in front of a hand that is known to hold opening values and 5 or more hearts (Standard American) makes no sense. The logic of the situation says that opener is experimenting. This is Authorized Information regardless of what has been discussed in bars or who has read old Bridge Worlds. I think that the Committee that ruled against Eric was misguided as to what ACBL regulations say. Flame away! Richard Lighton | Drink! for you know not whence you came, nor why: (lighton@ios.com) | Drink! for you no not why you go, nor where. Wood-Ridge NJ | --Fitzgerald USA | "The Rubiyatt of Omar Khayyam" From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jan 25 04:32:38 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA00776 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 25 Jan 1997 04:32:38 +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 EAA00771 for ; Sat, 25 Jan 1997 04:32:30 +1100 Received: (from root@localhost) by tom.compulink.co.uk (8.8.4/8.6.9) id RAA21454 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Fri, 24 Jan 1997 17:31:58 GMT Date: Fri, 24 Jan 97 17:30 GMT0 From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: How do you judge 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: Labeo wrote: >David S. then said: >> New thread indeed! I seem to remember your opinion about six months >>ago! It seemed to be generally accepted that in such cases you have >>withdrawn a pass and substituted a pass. Well, that's my view anyway. >I would have thought that Pass gives no information to any other player at >the table; Suppose the 1D was a conventional strong diamond and the defensive system requires a bid on any hand with fewer than 10 points - the combined meaning of passing both 1D and 1H is pretty specific. Tim West-Meads From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jan 25 08:57:57 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA02487 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 25 Jan 1997 08:57:57 +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 IAA02482 for ; Sat, 25 Jan 1997 08:57:50 +1100 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by relay-9.mail.demon.net id aa910116; 24 Jan 97 21:48 GMT Message-ID: Date: Fri, 24 Jan 1997 19:45:28 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Time for another easy one for Jens! MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Partner bids 1S, RHO bids 3H, you bid 3S, and LHO says "You can't!" You eventually discover that RHO actually bid 4H not 3H. "Damn" says you, and you double. "I think we ought to call the Director" says LHO, sheepishly. What did he tell us when he arrived? -- David Stevenson Bridge Cats Railways Logic /\_/\ Liverpool, England, UK http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk =( ^*^ )= bridge@blakjak.demon.co.uk Emails welcome bluejak on OKB ( | | ) Tel: +44 (0)151 677 7412 Phone before Fax please RTFLB (_~^ ^~ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jan 25 09:14:02 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA02575 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 25 Jan 1997 09:14:02 +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 JAA02570 for ; Sat, 25 Jan 1997 09:13:56 +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 OAA07889 for <@mipl7.JPL.NASA.GOV:bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au>; Fri, 24 Jan 1997 14:13:17 -0800 Received: by tintin.JPL.NASA.GOV (940816.SGI.8.6.9/930416.SGI.MIPS) for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au id OAA02997; Fri, 24 Jan 1997 14:14:50 -0800 Date: Fri, 24 Jan 1997 14:14:50 -0800 From: jeff@tintin.JPL.NASA.GOV (Jeff Goldsmith) Message-Id: <199701242214.OAA02997@tintin.JPL.NASA.GOV> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: "You can't!" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au David Stevenson said: | Partner bids 1S, RHO bids 3H, you bid 3S, and LHO says "You can't!" | | You eventually discover that RHO actually bid 4H not 3H. "Damn" says |you, and you double. | | "I think we ought to call the Director" says LHO, sheepishly. | | What did he tell us when he arrived? He said, "why did you fail to call me earlier?" unless he was a bit of a curmudgeon, in which case he said, "why the hell didn't you call me before, you pinheads!" My guess is that the foregoing exchange does not qualify as a self-ruling infraction, so the director should simply apply 27B3. --Jeff # "I'm a blonde; I'm a blonde: B-L-A-N-D!" # --- # http://muggy.gg.caltech.edu/~jeff From owner-bridge-laws Sun Jan 26 01:46:21 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA09751 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 26 Jan 1997 01:46:21 +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 BAA09746 for ; Sun, 26 Jan 1997 01:46:13 +1100 Received: from default (cph54.ppp.dknet.dk [194.192.100.54]) by pip.dknet.dk (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id PAA09817 for ; Sat, 25 Jan 1997 15:46:02 +0100 Message-Id: <199701251446.PAA09817@pip.dknet.dk> Comments: Authenticated sender is From: "Jens & Bodil" Organization: Alesia Software To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Sat, 25 Jan 1997 15:40:47 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-transfer-encoding: 8BIT Comments: Sender has elected to use 8-bit data in this message. If problems arise, refer to postmaster at sender's site. Subject: L27B1a: another twist Priority: normal X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v2.42a) Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk The HCØ Bridge Club, Thursday. Jesper, whom readers of BLML know well, partners Bodil, who appears in the sending address of this message. I direct (and play at a different table). Auction proceeds Henning Jesper Allan Bodil 1S Pass Pass 1D I am called. Bodil informs me discreetly that she had not seen the 1H bid, and she was opening 1D (Acol, 12-14 NT). I rule that I have found the 1D bid to be not conventional, that this is AI for the entire table, and I lay out the options according to L27A, L27B1-2, etc. Henning elects to accept the 1D bid and passes (and if you want to discuss the difference between passing and repeating 1S, make that a different thread, please). Jesper now has 4-card diamond support and about 11 points. He is in doubt whether to evaluate Bodils 1D as an attempt to overcall 1D or as a 1D opener (which leads to two different bids in their system). He makes his choice and bids 3D, which Bodil now also does not know how to interpret. Too bad, don't you agree? Reviewing this ruling this morning, Bodil now thinks that I ought to make it clear not only that it is authorized information that the 1D bid was natural, but also that it has not been disclosed and is not authorized to anyone what Bodil was actually trying to do. I find this interesting, but debatable, hence this message to BLML. Henning and Allan did find it peculiar that I asked Bodil to whisper in my ear; would I have done that with anyone else? -- Jens Brix Christiansen, Denmark From owner-bridge-laws Sun Jan 26 06:12:10 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA10735 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 26 Jan 1997 06:12:10 +1100 Received: from pip.dknet.dk (root@pip.dknet.dk [193.88.44.48]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id GAA10730 for ; Sun, 26 Jan 1997 06:11:59 +1100 Received: from cph28.ppp.dknet.dk (cph28.ppp.dknet.dk [194.192.100.28]) by pip.dknet.dk (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id UAA14545 for ; Sat, 25 Jan 1997 20:11:45 +0100 From: Jesper Dybdal To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Time for another easy one for Jens! Date: Sat, 25 Jan 1997 20:11:30 +0100 Organization: at home Message-ID: <32fd5a90.11788911@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, 24 Jan 1997 19:45:28 +0000, David Stevenson wrote: > Partner bids 1S, RHO bids 3H, you bid 3S, and LHO says "You can't!" > > You eventually discover that RHO actually bid 4H not 3H. "Damn" says >you, and you double. One approach is to turn to L25, since you've changed your call. This is obviously not a legal L25A change, so LHO may accept the double if he wants to (L25B1). If he does not want to accept it, L25B2 says that is must be cancelled and: "L25B2a First Call Illegal If the first call was illegal, the offender is subject to the applicable law (and the lead penalties of L26 may apply to the second call)." So we get to L27. LHO is allowed to accept the 3S call. If he does not want to do that, 3S is cancelled, and you must change it to a sufficient bid or pass, with corresponding penalties. However, L27B also has the following parenthesis: "... (the offender is entitled to select his final call at that turn after the applicable penalties have been stated, and any call he has previously attempted to substitute is cancelled, but the lead penalties of Law 26 may apply)." This is not much different from L25B2a, but it is different from L25B1: what happened to LHO's right to accept the double? L25 was obviously written under the assumption that it would be applied before other laws such as L27. The author of L27, on the other hand, seems not to have been aware that L25 was intended to take care of changes of illegal calls. Having to choose between a general law (such as L25) and a more specific law (such as L27) when they disagree, I believe it would normally make sense to choose the specific one: i.e., not allow your LHO to accept the double, but simply cancel it. On the other hand, L27A says nothing about attempted corrections, so L27B should logically apply only to corrections made after LHO has refused to accept the insufficient 3S bid. Assuming LHO accepted the 3S bid, which L27A clearly allows him to do, we must of course cancel the double - but the only possibly applicable law that allows us to do that is L25 (since L27B is irrelevant when 3S is accepted). I therefore believe that we must apply L25 to your change of 3S to double. Endicott and Hansen's "Commentary on the Laws of Duplicate Contract Bridge" says: "The players need to be told that the insufficient bid has to be corrected and that any call the offending player may have tried to substitute for the insufficient bid is cancelled, but that lead penalties may apply under Law 26 in respect of any such cancelled call if he becomes a defender. Substitute calls to be cancelled include any made after the irregularity and before the Director has fully set out the options." But this is still not logical - if we need to follow L25 when the insufficient bid is accepted, then we must do it always, since it is then L25 that refers us to L27. So my ruling would be the one that begins with L25, initially allowing LHO to accept the double. This also has the advantage of being the interpretation that is most favorable for the non-offenders. Another possible complication could be L27B3: "Attempt to Correct by a Double or Redouble If the offender attempts to substitute a double or redouble for his insufficient bid, the attempted call is cancelled; and (penalty) his partner must pass whenever it is his turn to call (see Law 23A when the pass damages the non-offending side; and the lead penalties of Law 26 may apply)." However, since I've just convinced myself that we need to start with L25, the double has already been cancelled before we get to L27, so this is irrelevant here. (Even without L25, the parenthesis from L27B also seems to cancel the double before getting to L27B3; it seems to me that L27B3 should be used only when the player corrects to double/redouble after the TD has set out the options.) My analysis above unfortunately does not succeed in assigning a logical meaning to all the involved law sections. My argument for using L25 instead of the parenthesis in L27B is just as good for all changes up to the time where LHO makes his L27A choice, and since he does that after the TD has explained all the options, this covers _all_ changes that might seem to be covered by the parenthesis in L27B - which then has no purpose at all. Conclusion: these laws are not consistent; I choose L25 over the parenthesis in L27B. --=20 Jesper Dybdal, Denmark From owner-bridge-laws Sun Jan 26 07:09:48 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA10932 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 26 Jan 1997 07:09:48 +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 HAA10927 for ; Sun, 26 Jan 1997 07:09:42 +1100 Received: from mail.isys.net[193.96.224.33] by mail.hamburg.netsurf.de with smtp (Smail 3.2 #2 -iSYS-); id m0voEPa-000HBPC; Sat, 25 Jan 1997 21:09:14 +0100 (MET) Received: from meckwell by mail.isys.net with smtp (/\oo/\ Smail3.1.29.1 #29.6); id ; Sat, 25 Jan 97 21:09 MEZ Date: Sat, 25 Jan 1997 21:16:34 +0100 (CET) From: Henk Uijterwaal X-Sender: henk@meckwell Reply-To: Henk Uijterwaal To: Jens & Bodil cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: L27B1a: another twist In-Reply-To: <199701251446.PAA09817@pip.dknet.dk> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Sat, 25 Jan 1997, Jens wrote: > Henning and Allan did find it peculiar that I asked Bodil to whisper > in my ear; would I have done that with anyone else? Well, I cannot answer that question but I do think that it is a bit strange. Why not simply ask her to step away from the table? When you return, you say something along the lines of "I asked Bodil to step away from the table, so that I could determine if 1D was conventional, which is relevant for this ruling" Henning and Allan now know what is going on and we can continue with Law 27. Unless you where the only director in the event, why were you directing at the table of your SO in the first place? 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 Sun Jan 26 20:48:22 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id UAA13468 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 26 Jan 1997 20:48:22 +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 UAA13463 for ; Sun, 26 Jan 1997 20:48:14 +1100 Received: from default (cph44.ppp.dknet.dk [194.192.100.44]) by pip.dknet.dk (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id KAA26693 for ; Sun, 26 Jan 1997 10:48:03 +0100 Message-Id: <199701260948.KAA26693@pip.dknet.dk> Comments: Authenticated sender is From: "Jens & Bodil" Organization: Alesia Software To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Sun, 26 Jan 1997 10:47:55 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Re: Time for another easy one for Jens! Priority: normal X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v2.42a) Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk From: David Stevenson All right, let me bite. > Partner bids 1S, RHO bids 3H, you bid 3S, and LHO says "You > can't!" > > You eventually discover that RHO actually bid 4H not 3H. "Damn" > says > you, and you double. > > "I think we ought to call the Director" says LHO, sheepishly. > > What did he tell us when he arrived? Assume we are in Denmark. The director then says effectively: L25B1, L25B2a, L27B3, (L23A, L26&L9C). Also a surly L9B1a. But if we are in ACBL-land, the director heeds the ACBL-special footnote to L25 and says: L25footnote, L27, L27B3, (L23A, L26&L9C). Surly L9B1a. What is the prognosis on this footnote in the 1997 Laws? The typical bottom line is that "you" choose your call (double not allowed), partner is barred for the duration of the auction, and there might be a lead penalty (see below). In Denmark, but not in ACBL-land, LHO is initially given the right to accept the double, with no further penalty. (Obviously, L35A does not apply for this double) The lead penalty is somewhat complicated. Assuming that the opponents buy the contract, there is a lead penalty. If "you" actually show your spades (say by bidding 4S), but the opppnents soldier on (say to 5H, which you may and no doubt will double) lead penalties only apply because of your withdrawn double (L26B). But if you choose to pass (say 4H becomes the final contract), then both the withdrawn 3S and the withdrawn double trigger the lead penalty, and I have to make a ruling when two potentially different lead penalties apply. The law book is (understandably) silent here, so we must apply L81C5 and L83. My ruling would be to allow only one lead penalty, but the one which is most favorable to the non-offender (L26B). Seems wrong to allow lead penalties at other times than "first turn to lead". -- Jens Brix Christiansen, Denmark From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jan 27 03:10:36 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA17869 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 27 Jan 1997 03:10:36 +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 DAA17864 for ; Mon, 27 Jan 1997 03:10:28 +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 RAA03501 for ; Sun, 26 Jan 1997 17:10:13 +0100 From: Jesper Dybdal To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Time for another easy one for Jens! Date: Sun, 26 Jan 1997 17:10:13 +0100 Organization: at home Message-ID: <32ec7395.1908634@pipmail.dknet.dk> References: <199701260948.KAA26693@pip.dknet.dk> In-Reply-To: <199701260948.KAA26693@pip.dknet.dk> 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 Sun, 26 Jan 1997 10:47:55 +0100, "Jens & Bodil" wrote: >Assume we are in Denmark. The director then says effectively: > > L25B1, L25B2a, L27B3, (L23A, L26&L9C). Also a surly L9B1a. I miss a L27A reference after L25B2a - I expect that we agree that LHO's right to accept 3S does not disappear because of the change to double. (And I still don't believe that L27B3 is relevant for a change that has already been cancelled by L25B2a.) >But if we are in ACBL-land, the director heeds the ACBL-special >footnote to L25 and says: ... I had forgotten that footnote. It means that the "cancel attempted changes" part of L27B actually makes sense in ACBL-land. > I >have to make a ruling when two potentially different lead penalties >apply. The law book is (understandably) silent here, so we must apply >L81C5 and L83. =20 >My ruling would be to allow only one lead penalty, but the one which >is most favorable to the non-offender (L26B). Seems wrong to allow >lead penalties at other times than "first turn to lead".=20 I agree. If, for instance, there had been only one withdrawn call, but that call by system agreement showed everything that the combination of 3S and double showed here, it would obviously be a case for L26B. And the information given to partner in that situation is exactly the same as it is here. --=20 Jesper Dybdal, Denmark From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jan 27 10:20:32 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA27164 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 27 Jan 1997 10:20:32 +1100 Received: from pip.dknet.dk (root@pip.dknet.dk [193.88.44.48]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id KAA27158 for ; Mon, 27 Jan 1997 10:20:23 +1100 Received: from default (cph60.ppp.dknet.dk [194.192.100.60]) by pip.dknet.dk (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id AAA13878 for ; Mon, 27 Jan 1997 00:20:09 +0100 Message-Id: <199701262320.AAA13878@pip.dknet.dk> Comments: Authenticated sender is From: "Jens & Bodil" Organization: Alesia Software To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Mon, 27 Jan 1997 00:17:36 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Re: Time for another easy one for Jens! Priority: normal X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v2.42a) Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: Jesper Dybdal > Date: Sun, 26 Jan 1997 17:10:13 +0100 > On Sun, 26 Jan 1997 10:47:55 +0100, "Jens & Bodil" > wrote: > >Assume we are in Denmark. The director then says effectively: > > > > L25B1, L25B2a, L27B3, (L23A, L26&L9C). Also a surly L9B1a. > > I miss a L27A reference after L25B2a - I expect that we agree that > LHO's right to accept 3S does not disappear because of the change to > double. Yeah. L27A should have been mentioned here. L25B2a effectively says "since 3S is an insufficient bid, L27 should be used". I read this as an instruction to apply L27 in its entirety unless offender's LHO accepts the double. This includes L27A. > (And I still don't believe that L27B3 is relevant for a change that > has already been cancelled by L25B2a.) Nitpick warning: The cancellation is according to L25B2. But all in all, I don't see why L27B3 should not apply. There has been an attempt to change to a double. It is cancelled according to L25B2, and once more by L27B3. The two cancellations are as good as one. [snip] > If, for instance, there had been only one withdrawn call, > but that call by system agreement showed everything that the > combination of 3S and double showed here, it would obviously be a case > for L26B. And the information given to partner in that situation is > exactly the same as it is here. Good point. -- Jens Brix Christiansen, Denmark From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jan 27 22:10:44 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id WAA00993 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 27 Jan 1997 22:10:44 +1100 Received: from tom.compulink.co.uk (tom.compulink.co.uk [194.153.0.51]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id WAA00988 for ; Mon, 27 Jan 1997 22:10:36 +1100 Received: (from root@localhost) by tom.compulink.co.uk (8.8.4/8.6.9) id LAA20454 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Mon, 27 Jan 1997 11:10:00 GMT Date: Mon, 27 Jan 97 11:09 GMT0 From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: When is UI not UI? 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 While considering an article on RGB I came across a little twist I hadn't considered before and thought I'd try for some input. The original case was > S - K J x > H - A Q x > D - J x x x > C - T 9 x > > South West North East > Pass Pass 1H 1S > 3H* 4S Pass Pass > ? > > * Intended as Limit Raise, but correctly alerted as pre-emptive Can we, for the sake of the example only, accept that the UI from the alert makes a double more likely to be the winning action and that pass is an LA. The ruling is then easy. Now suppose that the 3H bid was a deliberate deception, shading the hand slightly in an attempt to lure opponents into 4Sx. South explains this, and the fact that he hasn't tried this before with his current partner. Can/should we give a ruling on any basis other than that we consider South to be lying? Tim West-Meads From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jan 27 22:12:43 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id WAA01018 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 27 Jan 1997 22:12:43 +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 WAA01013 for ; Mon, 27 Jan 1997 22:12:31 +1100 Received: from innet.innet.be (pool03-73.innet.be [194.7.10.73]) by mail.be.innet.net (8.7.6/8.7.3) with SMTP id MAA23394 for ; Mon, 27 Jan 1997 12:12:22 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: <32EB6A9B.160D@innet.be> Date: Sun, 26 Jan 1997 14:30:51 +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: Time for another easy one for Jens! References: <32fd5a90.11788911@pipmail.dknet.dk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Jesper Dybdal wrote: > > Having to choose between a general law (such as L25) and a more > specific law (such as L27) when they disagree, I believe it would > normally make sense to choose the specific one: i.e., not allow your > LHO to accept the double, but simply cancel it. > > On the other hand, L27A says nothing about attempted corrections, so > L27B should logically apply only to corrections made after LHO has > refused to accept the insufficient 3S bid. Assuming LHO accepted the > 3S bid, which L27A clearly allows him to do, we must of course cancel > the double - but the only possibly applicable law that allows us to do > that is L25 (since L27B is irrelevant when 3S is accepted). I > therefore believe that we must apply L25 to your change of 3S to > double. > > > But this is still not logical - if we need to follow L25 when the > insufficient bid is accepted, then we must do it always, since it is > then L25 that refers us to L27. > > So my ruling would be the one that begins with L25, initially allowing > LHO to accept the double. This also has the advantage of being the > interpretation that is most favorable for the non-offenders. > I agree completely with that interpretation. Since we are in a minority (as I have come to except) I just thought it would be nice to let Jesper know this. > Another possible complication could be L27B3: > > "Attempt to Correct by a Double or Redouble > If the offender attempts to substitute a double or redouble for his > insufficient bid, the attempted call is cancelled; and (penalty) his > partner must pass whenever it is his turn to call (see Law 23A when > the pass damages the non-offending side; and the lead penalties of Law > 26 may apply)." > > However, since I've just convinced myself that we need to start with > L25, the double has already been cancelled before we get to L27, so > this is irrelevant here. (Even without L25, the parenthesis from L27B > also seems to cancel the double before getting to L27B3; it seems to > me that L27B3 should be used only when the player corrects to > double/redouble after the TD has set out the options.) > Exactly. Since this Law gives a very harsh penalty, it can only be applicable in severe cases, not in one as described above (damn, then I double) > My analysis above unfortunately does not succeed in assigning a > logical meaning to all the involved law sections. My argument for > using L25 instead of the parenthesis in L27B is just as good for all > changes up to the time where LHO makes his L27A choice, and since he > does that after the TD has explained all the options, this covers > _all_ changes that might seem to be covered by the parenthesis in L27B > - which then has no purpose at all. > > Conclusion: these laws are not consistent; I choose L25 over the > parenthesis in L27B. Tell us David, how has this been changed in the new laws ? -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.club.innet.be/~pub02163/index.htm From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jan 28 01:56:37 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA05378 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 28 Jan 1997 01:56:37 +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 BAA05371 for ; Tue, 28 Jan 1997 01:56:29 +1100 Received: from freenet6.carleton.ca (ac342@freenet6.carleton.ca [134.117.136.26]) by freenet.carleton.ca (8.8.3/8.6.4) with ESMTP id JAA21176 for ; Mon, 27 Jan 1997 09:56:17 -0500 (EST) Received: (ac342@localhost) by freenet6.carleton.ca (8.8.4/NCF-Sun-Client) id JAA08025; Mon, 27 Jan 1997 09:56:09 -0500 (EST) Date: Mon, 27 Jan 1997 09:56:09 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <199701271456.JAA08025@freenet6.carleton.ca> From: ac342@freenet.carleton.ca (A. L. Edwards) To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: When is UI not UI? Reply-To: ac342@freenet.carleton.ca Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > >While considering an article on RGB I came across a little twist I hadn't >considered before and thought I'd try for some input. >The original case was >> S - K J x >> H - A Q x >> D - J x x x >> C - T 9 x >> >> South West North East >> Pass Pass 1H 1S >> 3H* 4S Pass Pass >> ? >> >> * Intended as Limit Raise, but correctly alerted as pre-emptive >Can we, for the sake of the example only, accept that the UI from the alert >makes a double more likely to be the winning action and that pass is an LA. The >ruling is then easy. > >Now suppose that the 3H bid was a deliberate deception, shading the hand >slightly in an attempt to lure opponents into 4Sx. South explains this, and the >fact that he hasn't tried this before with his current partner. > >Can/should we give a ruling on any basis other than that we consider South to >be lying? > >Tim West-Meads > I actually tried this at a regional: E S W N in a "related" auction: P P 1H 1S X(1) 3S(2) P P 4C 4S P P X P P P I was South. (1) was negative; (2) was asked, and explained as preemptive, as per our agreement and card. In fact, I was just short of a 2/1 opening bid, and was trying to "trap" West, a notorious 3rd seat psycher (I'm in 3rd? I have 13 cards? I bid...). The director ruled it back, as I expected (did I mention the trap worked?); I brought it to committee, where even West (who happens to be a friend of mine) told them he often psyched in 3rd, and that I was a standup guy. The committee supported the ruling, and threw in a disciplinary penalty to boot. :-) So, despite the fact that I had reason behind my madness, and even had my opponent agreeing that my trap was justified based on previous experience, the committee said I had UI (the explanation of 3S being preemptive) and that I was not allowed to "wake up". Tony (aka ac342) From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jan 28 02:12:36 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA05673 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 28 Jan 1997 02:12:36 +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 CAA05668 for ; Tue, 28 Jan 1997 02:12:30 +1100 Received: from freenet6.carleton.ca (ac342@freenet6.carleton.ca [134.117.136.26]) by freenet.carleton.ca (8.8.3/8.6.4) with ESMTP id KAA25039 for ; Mon, 27 Jan 1997 10:12:15 -0500 (EST) Received: (ac342@localhost) by freenet6.carleton.ca (8.8.4/NCF-Sun-Client) id KAA10170; Mon, 27 Jan 1997 10:12:09 -0500 (EST) Date: Mon, 27 Jan 1997 10:12:09 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <199701271512.KAA10170@freenet6.carleton.ca> From: ac342@freenet.carleton.ca (A. L. Edwards) To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: 27B1(b) Reply-To: ac342@freenet.carleton.ca Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk How do you handle this problem: N E S W 1D 1H 1H(1) (1) intended as hearts, did not see the 1H overcall To me, this seems like the bid conveys all sorts of information not related to the call, for example, that it shows hearts and is not support for diamonds. It would seem to fit 27B1(b) to a T: Award of Adjusted Score If the Director judges that the insufficient bid conveyed such substancial information as to damage the non-offending side, he shall assign an adjusted score. This seems to imply that I should let the auction proceed and correct if neccessary, but... How have others handled this problem? Thanks. Tony (aka ac342) From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jan 28 08:05:00 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA15900 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 28 Jan 1997 08:05:00 +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 IAA15895 for ; Tue, 28 Jan 1997 08:04:50 +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 NAA26593 for <@mipl7.JPL.NASA.GOV:bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au>; Mon, 27 Jan 1997 13:04:08 -0800 Received: by tintin.JPL.NASA.GOV (940816.SGI.8.6.9/930416.SGI.MIPS) for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au id NAA06911; Mon, 27 Jan 1997 13:05:44 -0800 Date: Mon, 27 Jan 1997 13:05:44 -0800 From: jeff@tintin.JPL.NASA.GOV (Jeff Goldsmith) Message-Id: <199701272105.NAA06911@tintin.JPL.NASA.GOV> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Time for another easy one for Jens! Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Jens Brix Christiansen, Denmark : | But all in all, I don't see why L27B3 should not apply. There has | been an attempt to change to a double. It is cancelled according to | L25B2, and once more by L27B3. The two cancellations are as good as | one. I don't see why L27B3 isn't pretty much it, either. It reads, "If the offender attempts to substitute a double or redouble for his insufficient bid...." It seems to me that the offender was trying to "substitute for his insufficient bid" rather than trying to "change his call." If so, L25 doesn't apply, and L27 does. Even if L25 were to apply, L25b2(a) would be in force; it just refers us to L27, so the general parts of L25 are not relevant to this case. --Jeff # "I'm a blonde; I'm a blonde: B-L-A-N-D!" # --- # http://muggy.gg.caltech.edu/~jeff From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jan 28 13:30:00 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id NAA17793 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 28 Jan 1997 13:30:00 +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 NAA17788 for ; Tue, 28 Jan 1997 13:29:49 +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 CAA00658 for ; Tue, 28 Jan 1997 02:28:19 GMT Received: from LOCALNAME (pal1_p9.telepac.pt [194.65.16.249]) by mail.telepac.pt (8.8.4/0.0) with SMTP id CAA03575 for ; Tue, 28 Jan 1997 02:28:15 GMT Message-ID: <32EDD470.29F4@mail.telepac.pt> Date: Tue, 28 Jan 1997 02:26:57 -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: Bidding counterclockwise Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk A funny odd thing happened last Thursday at my club. The bidding was something like N W S E 1D 1S - 1NT - 2C 2D 2S Now, everybody wakes up and notices that the bidding is going the wrong way... Counterclockwise!!! Will the ruling be different if confusion stops in 2D (before East bids a second time?) Rui Lopes Marques. From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jan 28 13:57:01 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id NAA17940 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 28 Jan 1997 13:57:01 +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 NAA17935 for ; Tue, 28 Jan 1997 13:56:53 +1100 Received: (from smap@localhost) by msri.org (8.8.2/8.7.2) id SAA20389; Mon, 27 Jan 1997 18:56:49 -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 sma020387; Mon Jan 27 18:56:28 1997 Received: by boole.msri.org (8.7/DW.6) id SAA16699; Mon, 27 Jan 1997 18:56:08 -0800 (PST) Date: Mon, 27 Jan 1997 18:56:08 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <199701280256.SAA16699@boole.msri.org> From: David Grabiner To: rui.marques@mail.telepac.pt CC: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au In-reply-to: <32EDD470.29F4@mail.telepac.pt> (rui.marques@mail.telepac.pt) Subject: Re: Bidding counterclockwise Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk You write: > A funny odd thing happened last Thursday at my club. The bidding was > something like > N W S E > 1D 1S - 1NT > - 2C 2D 2S > Now, everybody wakes up and notices that the bidding is going the wrong > way... Counterclockwise!!! I think this is average-minus to both sides; the errors by both sides have created sufficient information to render the board unplayable. The alternative ruling would be that every bid out of turn has been condoned by subsequent calles except for the last one, which should be penalized appropriately, but I think this shouldn't apply here. -- 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 Jan 28 14:38:21 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id OAA18211 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 28 Jan 1997 14:38:21 +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 OAA18206 for ; Tue, 28 Jan 1997 14:38:15 +1100 Received: from localhost (pisarra@localhost) by ccnet3.ccnet.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id TAA26003 for ; Mon, 27 Jan 1997 19:37:01 -0800 X-Authentication-Warning: ccnet3.ccnet.com: pisarra owned process doing -bs Date: Mon, 27 Jan 1997 19:37:00 -0800 (PST) From: Chris Pisarra X-Sender: pisarra@ccnet3 To: bridge laws list Subject: Re: Bidding counterclockwise In-Reply-To: <32EDD470.29F4@mail.telepac.pt> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Tue, 28 Jan 1997, Rui M. Lopes Marques wrote: > A funny odd thing happened last Thursday at my club. The bidding was > something like > > N W S E > 1D 1S - 1NT > - 2C 2D 2S > > Now, everybody wakes up and notices that the bidding is going the wrong > way... Counterclockwise!!! > Will the ruling be different if confusion stops in 2D (before East bids > a second time?) I'm sure the lawyers and hair-splitters will hate this, but in a club game the only ruling I would ever consider is to continue the auction counterclockwise---and to get my name right when they re-told the story for the rest of their lives. Chris Chris Pisarra pisarra@ccnet.com From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jan 29 08:25:03 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA04268 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 29 Jan 1997 08:25:03 +1100 Received: from Mail.Ottawa.iSTAR.net (Mail.Ottawa.iSTAR.net [204.191.213.2]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id IAA04263 for ; Wed, 29 Jan 1997 08:24:57 +1100 Received: from infoweb.magi.com ([204.191.213.20]) by mail.ottawa.istar.net with ESMTP id <847715-12431>; Tue, 28 Jan 1997 16:22:05 -0500 Received: from Default (ts17-04.ott.iSTAR.ca [204.191.146.124]) by infoweb.magi.com (8.8.5/8.8.4) with SMTP id QAA18169 for ; Tue, 28 Jan 1997 16:19:51 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <199701282119.QAA18169@infoweb.magi.com> X-Sender: tommy@magi.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Version 1.4.4 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Tue, 28 Jan 1997 16:21:13 -0500 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: tommy@magi.com (Tommy Ellis) Subject: TD list Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Hi! I heard through the grapevine that there is some kind of TD list where we can discuss various bridge rulings, laws, etc. If possible, I would like to be added to this list. Thanks! Tommy Tommy Ellis (tommy@magi.com) The Ottawa Bridge Centre http://www.magi.com/~tommy/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jan 30 04:59:49 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA15721 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 30 Jan 1997 04:59:49 +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 EAA15716 for ; Thu, 30 Jan 1997 04:59:42 +1100 Received: from cph23.ppp.dknet.dk (cph23.ppp.dknet.dk [194.192.100.23]) by pip.dknet.dk (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id SAA06660; Wed, 29 Jan 1997 18:59:17 +0100 From: Jesper Dybdal To: tommy@magi.com (Tommy Ellis) Cc: Bridge Laws List Subject: Re: TD list Date: Wed, 29 Jan 1997 18:59:15 +0100 Organization: at home Message-ID: <32ef8f96.296826@pipmail.dknet.dk> References: <199701282119.QAA18169@infoweb.magi.com> In-Reply-To: <199701282119.QAA18169@infoweb.magi.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 Tue, 28 Jan 1997 16:21:13 -0500, tommy@magi.com (Tommy Ellis) wrote: >I heard through the grapevine that there is some kind of TD list where = we >can discuss various bridge rulings, laws, etc. If possible, I would = like to >be added to this list. Thanks! The way to subscribe is to send an e-mail message to majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with a message body containing just the two lines subscribe bridge-laws end Shortly afterwards you will get a reply acknowledging your subscription. Welcome to BLML. --=20 Jesper Dybdal, Denmark From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jan 30 13:21:06 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id NAA22912 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 30 Jan 1997 13:21:06 +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 NAA22907 for ; Thu, 30 Jan 1997 13:20:57 +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 DAA20465 for ; Thu, 30 Jan 1997 03:20:48 +0100 From: Jesper Dybdal To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: L27B1a: another twist Date: Thu, 30 Jan 1997 03:20:46 +0100 Organization: at home Message-ID: <32fb0542.8477940@pipmail.dknet.dk> References: <199701251446.PAA09817@pip.dknet.dk> In-Reply-To: <199701251446.PAA09817@pip.dknet.dk> X-Mailer: Forte Agent .99g/32.339 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Sat, 25 Jan 1997 15:40:47 +0100, "Jens & Bodil" wrote: >The HC=D8 Bridge Club, Thursday. Jesper, whom readers of BLML know=20 >well, partners Bodil, who appears in the sending address of this=20 >message. I direct (and play at a different table). Auction proceeds=20 > > Henning Jesper Allan Bodil > 1S Pass Pass 1D > >I am called. Bodil informs me discreetly that she had not seen the >1H bid, and she was opening 1D (Acol, 12-14 NT). I rule that I have >found the 1D bid to be not conventional, that this is AI for the >entire table, and I lay out the options according to L27A, L27B1-2, >etc. Henning elects to accept the 1D bid and passes (and if you >want to discuss the difference between passing and repeating 1S, >make that a different thread, please). Jesper now has 4-card >diamond support and about 11 points. He is in doubt whether to >evaluate Bodils 1D as an attempt to overcall 1D or as a 1D opener >(which leads to two different bids in their system). He makes his=20 >choice and bids 3D, which Bodil now also does not know how to=20 >interpret. Too bad, don't you agree? > >Reviewing this ruling this morning, Bodil now thinks that I ought to=20 >make it clear not only that it is authorized information that the 1D=20 >bid was natural, but also that it has not been disclosed and is not=20 >authorized to anyone what Bodil was actually trying to do. I find=20 >this interesting, but debatable, hence this message to BLML. My reaction is - and my reaction at the table was - that of course I have no right to know why Bodil made an insufficient bid. I do have a right to know that it is natural, since I can deduce that from Jens's ruling anyway. Bodil should be aware that I do not know and (IMO) have no right to know whether her bid was intended as an overcall or an opening; if Jens suspected that she might not be aware of that, it would be considerate to make it clear to everybody at the table, but I would not consider it an error not to do so. Next question: what if Bodil had happened to say "Oops, I didn't see your opening!". This must be UI for me (if it wasn't, then the TD should give me the same information even in cases where it does not appear accidentally). Assume it is UI and that I have a hand which is a pre-emptive and non-constructive raise of a 1D overcall to 3D - say, a 4-card diamond suit, 6 HCP, and a singleton. I have two logical alternatives: treat the 1D call as an overcall and bid 3D or treat it as an opening and bid 2D. Having the UI that 1D was meant as an opening, I of course bid 3D. Now Bodil knows that I was obliged to treat her 1D call as an overcall. Is this UI? Does she really have to bid as though I'd shown a limit raise with about 11 HCP? So we're back to the situation discussed recently in the "UI or AI?" thread. And the thought of Bodil and myself bidding on, systematically and deliberately misinterpreting each other's calls, seems so silly that it has finally convinced me to vote for the "AI" side in that matter - i.e., I believe that in this hypothetical situation it should be AI for Bodil that my 3D bid was under the influence of UI. And in general, that it is AI that your partner's call was influenced by UI. (This is the argument that Eric offered - somehow it seemed particularly convincing after I almost experienced the situation myself.) --=20 Jesper Dybdal, Denmark From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jan 30 14:05:39 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id OAA23052 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 30 Jan 1997 14:05:39 +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 OAA23042 for ; Thu, 30 Jan 1997 14:05:33 +1100 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by relay-10.mail.demon.net id aa1027927; 30 Jan 97 3:04 GMT Message-ID: Date: Thu, 30 Jan 1997 03:02:53 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: L27B1a: another twist In-Reply-To: <199701251446.PAA09817@pip.dknet.dk> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Jens & Bodil wrote: >The HC Bridge Club, Thursday. Jesper, whom readers of BLML know >well, partners Bodil, who appears in the sending address of this >message. I direct (and play at a different table). Auction proceeds > > Henning Jesper Allan Bodil > 1S Pass Pass 1D > >I am called. Bodil informs me discreetly that she had not seen the >1H bid, and she was opening 1D (Acol, 12-14 NT). I rule that I have >found the 1D bid to be not conventional, that this is AI for the >entire table, and I lay out the options according to L27A, L27B1-2, >etc. Henning elects to accept the 1D bid and passes (and if you >want to discuss the difference between passing and repeating 1S, >make that a different thread, please). Jesper now has 4-card >diamond support and about 11 points. He is in doubt whether to >evaluate Bodils 1D as an attempt to overcall 1D or as a 1D opener >(which leads to two different bids in their system). He makes his >choice and bids 3D, which Bodil now also does not know how to >interpret. Too bad, don't you agree? > >Reviewing this ruling this morning, Bodil now thinks that I ought to >make it clear not only that it is authorized information that the 1D >bid was natural, but also that it has not been disclosed and is not >authorized to anyone what Bodil was actually trying to do. I find >this interesting, but debatable, hence this message to BLML. Our TD training sessions have made it clear that everyone makes their best guess at what Bodil is up to: therefore it seems reasonable that that should be part of the ruling. Henk Uijterwaal wrote: >On Sat, 25 Jan 1997, Jens wrote: > >> Henning and Allan did find it peculiar that I asked Bodil to whisper >> in my ear; would I have done that with anyone else? Taking her away from the table seems more normal. >Well, I cannot answer that question but I do think that it is a bit >strange. Why not simply ask her to step away from the table? When >you return, you say something along the lines of > > "I asked Bodil to step away from the table, so that I could determine > if 1D was conventional, which is relevant for this ruling" > >Henning and Allan now know what is going on and we can continue with >Law 27. > >Unless you where the only director in the event, why were you directing >at the table of your SO in the first place? Grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr. I loathe the term SO. As to why he was directing, in a European club I would have thought it was normal to be the director at the table. I am surprised that you think otherwise. -- David Stevenson Bridge Cats Railways Logic /\_/\ Liverpool, England, UK http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk =( ^*^ )= bridge@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 Jan 30 14:05:42 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id OAA23053 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 30 Jan 1997 14:05:42 +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 OAA23046 for ; Thu, 30 Jan 1997 14:05:36 +1100 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by relay-9.mail.demon.net id ab916098; 30 Jan 97 3:04 GMT Message-ID: Date: Thu, 30 Jan 1997 03:03:15 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: When is UI not UI? In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Tim West-meads wrote: >While considering an article on RGB I came across a little twist I hadn't >considered before and thought I'd try for some input. >The original case was >> S - K J x >> H - A Q x >> D - J x x x >> C - T 9 x >> >> South West North East >> Pass Pass 1H 1S >> 3H* 4S Pass Pass >> ? >> >> * Intended as Limit Raise, but correctly alerted as pre-emptive >Can we, for the sake of the example only, accept that the UI from the alert >makes a double more likely to be the winning action and that pass is an LA. The >ruling is then easy. > >Now suppose that the 3H bid was a deliberate deception, shading the hand >slightly in an attempt to lure opponents into 4Sx. South explains this, and the >fact that he hasn't tried this before with his current partner. > >Can/should we give a ruling on any basis other than that we consider South to >be lying? Yes. Why on earth would we assume South was lying? -- David Stevenson Bridge Cats Railways Logic /\_/\ Liverpool, England, UK http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk =( ^*^ )= bridge@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 Jan 30 14:06:55 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id OAA23079 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 30 Jan 1997 14:06:55 +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 OAA23074 for ; Thu, 30 Jan 1997 14:06:49 +1100 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by relay-10.mail.demon.net id ab1027930; 30 Jan 97 3:04 GMT Message-ID: Date: Thu, 30 Jan 1997 03:03:03 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: 27B1(b) In-Reply-To: <199701271512.KAA10170@freenet6.carleton.ca> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk A. L. Edwards wrote: >How do you handle this problem: N E S W > 1D 1H 1H(1) > >(1) intended as hearts, did not see the 1H overcall > >To me, this seems like the bid conveys all sorts of information >not related to the call, for example, that it shows hearts >and is not support for diamonds. It would seem to fit 27B1(b) >to a T: Award of Adjusted Score > If the Director judges that the insufficient bid > conveyed such substancial information as to > damage the non-offending side, he shall assign > an adjusted score. >This seems to imply that I should let the auction proceed >and correct if neccessary, but... >How have others handled this problem? As you say. -- David Stevenson Bridge Cats Railways Logic /\_/\ Liverpool, England, UK http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk =( ^*^ )= bridge@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 Jan 30 14:08:28 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id OAA23097 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 30 Jan 1997 14:08:28 +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 OAA23092 for ; Thu, 30 Jan 1997 14:08:23 +1100 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by relay-5.mail.demon.net id ab500801; 30 Jan 97 3:04 GMT Message-ID: Date: Thu, 30 Jan 1997 03:03:28 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: When is UI not UI? In-Reply-To: <199701271456.JAA08025@freenet6.carleton.ca> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk A. L. Edwards wrote: >I actually tried this at a regional: E S W N >in a "related" auction: P P 1H 1S > X(1) 3S(2) P P > 4C 4S P P > X P P P > I was South. (1) was negative; (2) was asked, >and explained as preemptive, as per our agreement and >card. In fact, I was just short of a 2/1 opening bid, and was >trying to "trap" West, a notorious 3rd seat psycher (I'm in >3rd? I have 13 cards? I bid...). The director ruled it >back, as I expected (did I mention the trap worked?); > I brought it to committee, where even West (who happens to >be a friend of mine) told them he often psyched in 3rd, >and that I was a standup guy. > The committee supported the ruling, and threw in a disciplinary >penalty to boot. :-) > So, despite the fact that I had reason behind my madness, >and even had my opponent agreeing that my trap was justified >based on previous experience, the committee said I had UI (the >explanation of 3S being preemptive) and that I was not allowed >to "wake up". We all get bad rulings once in a while. However, there are times when it is not easy for an AC to get it right. Perhaps this is one of them. -- David Stevenson Bridge Cats Railways Logic /\_/\ Liverpool, England, UK http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk =( ^*^ )= bridge@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 Jan 31 11:06:48 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id LAA09970 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 31 Jan 1997 11:06:48 +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 LAA09960 for ; Fri, 31 Jan 1997 11:06:35 +1100 Received: from coruncanius.demon.co.uk ([194.222.115.176]) by relay-10.mail.demon.net id aa1029549; 30 Jan 97 23:53 GMT Message-ID: Date: Mon, 27 Jan 1997 01:36:19 +0000 To: Robin Barker Cc: elandau@cais.com, bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Labeo Subject: Re: Agreement over insufficient bids; was [Re: Bridge Law] In-Reply-To: <28565.9701241011@tempest.cise.npl.co.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In message <28565.9701241011@tempest.cise.npl.co.uk>, Robin Barker writes >Eric > >> The ACBL, however, has an explicit regulation which prohibits partnerships >> from having any agreement, explicit or implicit, regarding the meaning of >> the exercise of an available option after an irregularity. This regulation >> is problematic, and may, IMO, be meaningless. I would be interested in the >> group's views on an incident I was involved in some time back: > >[snip] > >> Comments? Robin Barker writes: > >Not much really to add, this ACBL regulation has always struck me as >'unworkable' (that's a polite word). You can not regulate pairs from >having implicit agreements: partners talk to one another, they don't >disagree on some things, so they have an implicit (perhaps even >explicit) agreement. In other aspects of partnership understandings, players are always >being told that partnership will develop understandings just from >playing together (e.g. opening a 12-14 1NT on an 11 count) and that >they must reflect these understanding on their convention card and in >answer to opponent's questions. How come a partnership is expected to >be blind to these understandings which arise in the context of an >insufficient bid? > >The ACBL regulation seems at odds (another polite phrase) with >'full disclosure' and L72A4. > Labeo remarks: 'Full disclosure' refers to the meaning of calls and plays - as, for example, that the partnership may open a '12-14' NT on 11. The discussion is about meaning drawn from something that is not a call or play. Discussions on UI and AI do not always seem to hold clearly in view the fact that (Law 16) a player is only allowed to base his choice of call or play on (i) information from legal calls or plays, (ii) information drawn from the mannerisms of opponents, or (iii) other information which is specifically stated to be authorized elsewhere in the laws. It is illegal to convey information to partner by agreement if it does not arise from the calls, plays or conditions of the current deal. See Law 75A. (And no! the irregularity yielding the option is not a condition of the deal.) Disclosure to opponents is to explain the significance of partner's call or play - Law 75C. The ACBL 'regulation' appears to be no more than a reminder as to the law. Labeo From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jan 31 11:11:25 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id LAA10028 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 31 Jan 1997 11:11:25 +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 LAA10023 for ; Fri, 31 Jan 1997 11:11:19 +1100 Received: from coruncanius.demon.co.uk ([194.222.115.176]) by relay-9.mail.demon.net id aa903787; 30 Jan 97 23:53 GMT Message-ID: Date: Mon, 27 Jan 1997 00:35:04 +0000 To: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Labeo Subject: Re: How do you judge 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: >Labeo wrote: >>I would have thought that Pass gives no information to any other player at >>the table; Tim West-Meads said: >Suppose the 1D was a conventional strong diamond and the defensive system >requires a bid on any hand with fewer than 10 points - the combined meaning of >passing both 1D and 1H is pretty specific. > Labeo: Yes. I should have been specific in excluding a conventional pass - which does convey information. Labeo From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jan 31 12:00:31 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id MAA10531 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 31 Jan 1997 12:00:31 +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 MAA10526 for ; Fri, 31 Jan 1997 12:00:22 +1100 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by relay-10.mail.demon.net id aa1016565; 31 Jan 97 0:54 GMT Message-ID: Date: Fri, 31 Jan 1997 00:35:17 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Time for another easy one for Jens! In-Reply-To: <199701272105.NAA06911@tintin.JPL.NASA.GOV> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Stevenson wrote: > Partner bids 1S, RHO bids 3H, you bid 3S, and LHO says "You can't!" > > You eventually discover that RHO actually bid 4H not 3H. "Damn" says >you, and you double. Jeff Goldsmith wrote: >I don't see why L27B3 isn't pretty much it, either. It reads, >"If the offender attempts to substitute a double or >redouble for his insufficient bid...." >It seems to me that the offender was trying to "substitute >for his insufficient bid" rather than trying to "change >his call." I really believe that substituting for an insufficient bid is a specific case of changing a call. Are you suggesting that when you replace 3S with double you are not changing your call? Furthermore if you read L25 it does not refer to changes of call but "substituting a call": what are you substituting for the insufficient bid? Surely a call? There is no doubt IMO that L25 refers directly to the case we are considering. After bidding 3S the offender attempted [for whatever reason] to substitute another call, namely double. > If so, L25 doesn't apply, and L27 does. >Even if L25 were to apply, L25b2(a) would be in force; >it just refers us to L27, so the general parts of L25 >are not relevant to this case. L25B1 says inter alia "The substituted call may be accepted ...". No mention of it being accepted unless something. I cannot believe that the wording of L25B permits you to use L25B2 without L25B1. Without requoting the whole argument, I believe we had agreement [apart from the above] for part of the way. L25A does not apply: the original call [3S] was not inadvertent. Thus a call [double] was substituted under L25B. L25B1 applies, so LHO may accept the double. If he does not we move on to L25B2. The double is cancelled, and L25B2A directs us [with possible lead penalties on the double] to L27. We get to L27 and find L27A: the 3S bid may be accepted. Assuming the 3S bid isn't accepted, we move onto L27B, and problems arise. First, there is the bit in parentheses, which allows him to cancel any previous effort. If we follow the path we have this seems irrelevant since L25B cancelled the double anyway. What about L27B3? "If the offender attempts to substitute a double ..." Surely this cannot apply here? Yes, he did make one attempt, but **that attempt has been dealt with under L25B**, so it cannot be dealt with here. Does this make L27B3 meaningless? No, it is still required for the player who attempts such a substitution after being given his options, so it is a meaningful Law. Thus we now deal with it under L25B1 or L25B2, and if after hearing his options, the offender still calls double, L25B3!!! Lead penalties are referred to in L25B2A [the double] and L27B2 [the 3S bid]. Slightly messy, but I think the options in L26B [for the double] and L26A [for the 3S bid] should both be offered when first the partner has the lead. In Jens' and Jesper's articles there was a reference to L26B being the greater penalty, which I find strange. I do not see how you can compare in this way, and I would offer both. Who knows whether the denial of all four suits, or the possible acceptance of one, is a greater penalty? The above is my view of the European solution to the problem. Either double or 3S may be accepted: if neither is then the normal correction to 4S without penalty, or any other bid or pass with penalty applies. --------- I have more doubts over the ACBL interpretation. L25A does not apply, so move to L25B. Part way through L25B1 the ACBL-only footnote refers you to L27B, apparently [for insufficient bids only] instead of being allowed to accept the double. Why L27B? Why not L27? L27A starts by saying that "*Any* insufficient bid may be accepted ...". Custom and practice in the ACBL certainly assumes that L27A applies. As has been noted previously the bit in parentheses in L27B makes more sense when the double may not be accepted. Unlike in the European version, the parentheses and L27B3 do clash rather. However, I believe at the end they come to the same thing, except that the double may not be accepted. Even the bit about the double not being accepted is ambiguous: it depends solely on where the footnote is referenced: it does not say that the double cannot be accepted. Still, I believe this is what was meant, and I understand that some countries follow this approach even without the footnote [unjustifiably IMO: L25B without the footnote is perfectly clear]. --------- So we know what happens. In Europe only, the double may be accepted. If it isn't accepted, then the 3S bid may be accepted. If it isn't, then the normal insufficient bid rules apply, followed by lead penalties if suitable. What will change in the new Laws? L25B starts "A call may be substituted ..." so Delayed or Purposeful Correction becomes legal if it is not illegal [hehe!]. The ACBL footnote becomes part of the Law, slightly altered to say L27 not L27B, clearly better. As I have pointed out, by failing to reword this they have still left some ambiguity as to whether the double could be accepted in future. The bit in parentheses in L27B which caused so much trouble will be deleted [good], and as you have probably already heard, insufficient bids may be corrected without penalty only if *both* the bid made and the lowest legal bid in the same denomination are non-conventional. Slight rewording in L26 does not affect this ruling. This means that in future the ruling will only change in one way: can the double be accepted? Despite the ambiguity, I believe the answer will be No: the footnote is superfluous 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 =( ^*^ )= bridge@blakjak.demon.co.uk Emails welcome bluejak on OKB ( | | ) Tel: +44 (0)151 677 7412 Phone before Fax please RTFLB (_~^ ^~