From owner-bridge-laws Sat Feb 1 06:06:10 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA18005 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 1 Feb 1997 06:06:10 +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 GAA18000 for ; Sat, 1 Feb 1997 06:06:01 +1100 Received: from casewise.demon.co.uk ([158.152.187.206]) by relay-10.mail.demon.net id aa1028913; 31 Jan 97 18:55 GMT From: David Martin To: David Stevenson , newsr@blakjak.demon.co.uk, bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Fri, 31 Jan 1997 17:26:41 Subject: Re: Time for another easy one for Jens! X-Confirm-Reading-To: David Martin X-pmrqc: 1 Priority: normal X-mailer: Pegasus Mail v3.22 Message-ID: <854736950.1028913.0@casewise.demon.co.uk> Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Hi I'm David Martin but better known to my friends as HH (Hideous Hog) when playing and DM when directing. I agree with David Stevenson that, in Europe, L25 should be invoked and the oppportunity to accept the Double offered to LHO. If LHO does not accept the Double then L27 should be applied. Now if LHO does not then accept the insufficient bid, it seems odd to me that L27B3 should not be immediately applied to the first Double. After all, there is nothing in the Laws that says that only one law can be applied to an action and IMO a player should not be legally able to Double without penalty prior to the TD ruling but be prevented from doing so once the TD has ruled. If the first Double showed defensive values then would this really be AI for the offender's partner? I have always assumed that the only purpose of L27B3 was to prevent this information being given prior to correction to the lowest bid in the same denomination and then used later by the offender's partner, eg. when deciding whether to sacrifice or defend. Is there some other purpose? > 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 (_~^ ^~ > Regards. David M From owner-bridge-laws Sat Feb 1 06:26:01 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA18102 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 1 Feb 1997 06:26:01 +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 GAA18096 for ; Sat, 1 Feb 1997 06:25:55 +1100 Received: from Default by worldcom.ch (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id UAA06907; Fri, 31 Jan 1997 20:29:45 +0100 Date: Fri, 31 Jan 1997 20:29:45 +0100 Message-Id: <199701311929.UAA06907@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: Footnote to law 13 (Incorrect Number of Cards): Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Footnote to law 13 (Incorrect Number of Cards): "Where three hands are correct and one hand is deficient, Law 14, and not this law, applies." but the french translation of the laws reads "Where three hands are correct and one hand is incorrect, Law 14, and not this law, applies." As Law 14 is only about missing cards what do we do with 53 cards ? Yvan From owner-bridge-laws Sat Feb 1 09:49:13 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA18959 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 1 Feb 1997 09:49:13 +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 JAA18954 for ; Sat, 1 Feb 1997 09:49:06 +1100 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by relay-9.mail.demon.net id aa904293; 31 Jan 97 22:43 GMT Message-ID: <9vl+byDnvl8yEwkr@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Fri, 31 Jan 1997 20:53:59 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Bidding counterclockwise In-Reply-To: <199701280256.SAA16699@boole.msri.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Grabiner wrote: >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. > Be careful: condoning is by LHO bidding, not RHO. David suggests average-minus to both sides though his reason seems strange: Chris suggests let them carry on [not for the play] on humanitarian grounds. The interest for BLML is often what is *correct*. It is helpful to know that. It does not always mean, especially at the lower levels of the game, that we will not seek a practical solution. -- 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 Feb 1 10:08:13 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA19034 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 1 Feb 1997 10:08:13 +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 KAA19029 for ; Sat, 1 Feb 1997 10:08:07 +1100 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by relay-10.mail.demon.net id aa1001086; 31 Jan 97 22:43 GMT Message-ID: <6vY$LtDTvl8yEwlT@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Fri, 31 Jan 1997 20:53:39 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Bidding counterclockwise In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Chris Pisarra wrote: > I'm sure the lawyers and hair-splitters will hate this, but in a >club game the only ruling I would ever consider is to continue the auction >counterclockwise---and to get my name right when they re-told the story >for the rest of their lives. Don't flatter yourself. When they get to your bit, they will say ".... and the stupid director said ....". Hehehe! Now if you give a ruling they disagree with, then they will say ".... and Chris Pisserea [sic] said ....". -- David Stevenson Bridge Cats Railways Logic /\_/\ Liverpool, England, UK http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk =( ^*^ )= bridge@blakjak.demon.co.uk Emails welcome bluejak on OKB ( | | ) Tel: +44 (0)151 677 7412 Phone before Fax please RTFLB (_~^ ^~ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Feb 1 10:11:50 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA19058 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 1 Feb 1997 10:11:50 +1100 Received: from relay-7.mail.demon.net (relay-7.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.9]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id KAA19053 for ; Sat, 1 Feb 1997 10:11:43 +1100 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by relay-5.mail.demon.net id aa514051; 31 Jan 97 22:43 GMT Message-ID: <7vM$LoDDvl8yEwlX@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Fri, 31 Jan 1997 20:53:23 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Agreement over insufficient bids In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Labeo wrote: >Robin Barker writes: >>Eric writes: >>> 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. >>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: > 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.) No, agreed it is not a "condition of the deal". It is a call. The definition of call applies to both legal and illegal calls. So an agreement over the meaning of: 1S 1D 1H is permitted by L75A. > Disclosure to opponents is to explain the significance of >partner's call or play - Law 75C. Thus it applies to the meaning of 1H in the sequence above. > The ACBL 'regulation' appears to be no more than a reminder >as to the law. No, the ACBL regulation [as has been suggested a couple of times] is just illegal. The ACBL have a right to control conventional bids [L40D]. Thus they can legitimately stop a pair from playing 1H in the above sequence as a value raise to 1S [1S itself presumably being a pre-emptive raise to 1S!]. However, they do not have a right to control natural bids, so they cannot stop you ascribing a point range to 1H, assuming it is natural. The fact that they may have been caused by the opponents' infraction is irrelevant. ********************************************************************** I hope no-one will think that it follows from this that you can have any agreement over the insufficient bid itself. That would be a clear contravention of L72B1. ********************************************************************** -- 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 Feb 1 10:30:14 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA19166 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 1 Feb 1997 10:30:14 +1100 Received: from msri.org (msri.org [198.129.64.224]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id KAA19161 for ; Sat, 1 Feb 1997 10:30:08 +1100 Received: (from smap@localhost) by msri.org (8.8.2/8.7.2) id PAA04158; Fri, 31 Jan 1997 15:30:05 -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 sma004153; Fri Jan 31 15:29:07 1997 Received: by euclid.msri.org (8.7/MSRI) id PAA03707; Fri, 31 Jan 1997 15:28:42 -0800 (PST) Date: Fri, 31 Jan 1997 15:28:42 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <199701312328.PAA03707@euclid.msri.org> From: David Grabiner To: newsr@blakjak.demon.co.uk CC: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au In-reply-to: <9vl+byDnvl8yEwkr@blakjak.demon.co.uk> (message from David Stevenson on Fri, 31 Jan 1997 20:53:59 +0000) Subject: Re: Bidding counterclockwise Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Stevenson writes: > David Grabiner wrote: >> 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. > David suggests average-minus to both sides though his reason seems > strange. My justification is that the situation has become an offense not specifically covered by the Laws, or an offense which has made normal play impossible, rather than seven bids out of turn. Given that this offense has created an unplayable board, it should be penalized just as any similar offense creating an unplayable board (say, players looking over an unplayed board thinking they were looking over a played board); this justifies average-minus for the offenders, both sides in this case. There was a similar case in the ACBL Bulletin a few years ago. South doubled East's 2H for penalty, but all four players thought it was South's bid, and West made the opening lead. South went down three for -500, and this was the score reported. The error wasn't caught until after the event, but how would you rule it if the error had been caught at the end of the board? Would you adjust to -470, which is the score that South would have made if he had taken five tricks aginst 2Hx on defense? -- David Grabiner, grabiner@msri.org, http://baseball.berkeley.edu/~grabiner I speak of MSRI and by MSRI but not for MSRI. Shop at the Mobius Strip Mall: Always on the same side of the street! Klein Glassworks, Torus Coffee and Donuts, Projective Airlines, etc. From owner-bridge-laws Sat Feb 1 10:58:55 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA19384 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 1 Feb 1997 10:58:55 +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 KAA19379 for ; Sat, 1 Feb 1997 10:58:49 +1100 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by relay-6.mail.demon.net id aa616564; 31 Jan 97 22:43 GMT Message-ID: Date: Fri, 31 Jan 1997 20:56:59 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Bidding counterclockwise In-Reply-To: <32EDD470.29F4@mail.telepac.pt> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk 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?) Rui has sent me an email containing his answer [he obviously didn't trust me to work it out!]. I was coming to roughly the same conclusions - and then didn't! Let us work through it. N E S W 1D 1S Out of turn: East's turn to call P Out of turn: ????'s turn to call 1NT Out of turn: ????'s turn to call Whose turn to bid is it when East bids 1NT? L28B says: A call is considered to be in rotation when made by a player whose turn it was to call, before a penalty has been assessed for a call out of rotation by an opponent; making such a call forfeits the right to penalize the call out of rotation, and the auction proceeds as though the opponent had not called at that turn. You could argue that this is what East has done. If you agree he has made it at his turn to call, then that cancels South's pass [but *not* West's 1S]. Let us assume this and proceed: N E S W 1D 1S Out of turn: East's turn to call 1NT South's call deleted: East's legal P Out of turn: South's turn to call 2C Out of turn: ????'s turn to call 2D Given the same argument as earlier, this is legal after East's call, and an opponent's [West's] call out of turn, cancelling West's call. Let us assume this and proceed: N E S W 1D 1S Out of turn: East's turn to call 1NT South's call deleted: East's legal P Out of turn: South's turn to call 2D West's call deleted: South's legal 2S Given the same argument as earlier, whoops!!!!!!!!!! 2D is legal!!!!!!!!!!! So L28B does not legalise 2S. So, Rui, you dealt with West's 1S, East's 2S and North's pass, the only calls out of turn, yes? If the bidding had stopped in 2D, then there were the same out of turn calls, West's 1S and North's pass, so the ruling is no different [apart from East's 2S, of course], yes? If you do not accept this reading of L28B, then you need to treat each out of turn call in order. None of them are condoned, since only LHO can do that, not RHO. With at least three out of turn calls in either case, I would accept that the board might be considered unplayable! -- 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 Feb 1 13:47:29 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id NAA19931 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 1 Feb 1997 13:47:29 +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 NAA19926 for ; Sat, 1 Feb 1997 13:47:21 +1100 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by relay-5.mail.demon.net id ab519080; 1 Feb 97 2:43 GMT Message-ID: Date: Sat, 1 Feb 1997 02:12:57 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Footnote to law 13 (Incorrect Number of Cards): In-Reply-To: <199701311929.UAA06907@worldcom.ch> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Y. Calame wrote: >Footnote to law 13 (Incorrect Number of Cards): >"Where three hands are correct and one hand is deficient, Law 14, and not >this law, applies." > >but the french translation of the laws reads >"Where three hands are correct and one hand is incorrect, Law 14, and not >this law, applies." > >As Law 14 is only about missing cards what do we do with 53 cards ? It seems that you must assume that the French translation is wrong and correct it. The footnote is unchanged in the 1997 Laws so most important seems to be to make sure the translation is corrected for 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 =( ^*^ )= 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 Feb 1 23:49:33 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA21371 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 1 Feb 1997 23:49:33 +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 XAA21366 for ; Sat, 1 Feb 1997 23:49:25 +1100 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by relay-6.mail.demon.net id aa603705; 1 Feb 97 12:44 GMT Message-ID: Date: Sat, 1 Feb 1997 12:37:48 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Bidding counterclockwise In-Reply-To: <199701312328.PAA03707@euclid.msri.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Grabiner wrote: >David Stevenson writes: > >> David Grabiner wrote: > >>> 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. > >> David suggests average-minus to both sides though his reason seems >> strange. > >My justification is that the situation has become an offense not >specifically covered by the Laws, or an offense which has made normal >play impossible, rather than seven bids out of turn. Given that this >offense has created an unplayable board, it should be penalized just as >any similar offense creating an unplayable board (say, players looking >over an unplayed board thinking they were looking over a played board); >this justifies average-minus for the offenders, both sides in this case. I agree with that reason, but it looks IMO totally different from the first reason. It is still valuable to go through the actual rules, because it is not necessarily obvious until one has checked that it is unplayable. >There was a similar case in the ACBL Bulletin a few years ago. South >doubled East's 2H for penalty, but all four players thought it was >South's bid, and West made the opening lead. South went down three for >-500, and this was the score reported. The error wasn't caught until >after the event, but how would you rule it if the error had been caught >at the end of the board? Would you adjust to -470, which is the score >that South would have made if he had taken five tricks aginst 2Hx on >defense? Sounds another good case for cancellation. -- 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 Feb 1 23:52:16 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA21388 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 1 Feb 1997 23:52:16 +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 XAA21383 for ; Sat, 1 Feb 1997 23:52:10 +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 MAA18001 for ; Sat, 1 Feb 1997 12:50:37 GMT Received: from LOCALNAME (pal1_p2.telepac.pt [194.65.16.242]) by mail.telepac.pt (8.8.4/0.0) with SMTP id MAA21711 for ; Sat, 1 Feb 1997 12:50:33 GMT Message-ID: <32F3ABE9.4F55@mail.telepac.pt> Date: Sat, 01 Feb 1997 12:47:38 -0800 From: "Rui M. Lopes Marques" Reply-To: rui.marques@mail.telepac.pt Organization: Portuguese Bridge Federation X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0 (Win16; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: [Fwd: Re: Bidding counterclockwise] Content-Type: message/rfc822 Content-Disposition: inline Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Message-ID: <32F3AB9D.2220@mail.telepac.pt> Date: Sat, 01 Feb 1997 12:46:21 -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: rui.marques@mail.telepac.pt Subject: Re: Bidding counterclockwise References: <32EDD470.29F4@mail.telepac.pt> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-MIME-Autoconverted: from 8bit to quoted-printable by mail.telepac.pt id MAA21711 * This is a repost, with my first solution. It seems that the first one reached only David Stevenson* Rui M. Lopes Marques wrote: >=20 > A funny odd thing happened last Thursday at my club. The bidding was > something like >=20 > N W S E > 1D 1S - 1NT > - 2C 2D 2S >=20 > 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?) >=20 At the table I didn=B4t get it 100% right, but close. After a good night sleep, I came to this: Let=B4s think about 1D 1S - . West could accept the pass. If so, then the bidding would proceed. Easy one. Now about 1D 1S - 1NT. From L28B, 1NT *is in rotation* (made by a player which turn it was to call, before a penalty is assessed (...) for a call out of turn by an opp.) 1NT cancelled South=B4s pass. So, the global question is just like N E S W 1D 1NT -(oot) 2C(oot) 2D 2S(oot) 2D by South is in rotation! Therefore, the problem reduces to N E S W 1D 1NT 2D =20 2S(oot) and we all know how to treat this one. If the confusion stops at the last South bid (2D) then everything is OK (sort of...) and West is the next player to call. Rui Lopes Marques From owner-bridge-laws Mon Feb 3 09:19:51 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA11246 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 3 Feb 1997 09:19:51 +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 JAA11241 for ; Mon, 3 Feb 1997 09:19:43 +1100 Received: from coruncanius.demon.co.uk ([194.222.115.176]) by relay-10.mail.demon.net id aa1002393; 2 Feb 97 22:09 GMT Message-ID: Date: Sun, 2 Feb 1997 10:46:51 +0000 To: ac342@freenet.carleton.ca Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Labeo 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 In message <199701271456.JAA08025@freenet6.carleton.ca>, "A. L. Edwards" writes > >> (....cut....) >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". Labeo comments: Sometimes we must lie on the bed we make for ourselves. I find one or two things about your anecdote quite interesting. First, as an ignorant Brit, I had believed that the preemptive meaning was by far the majority explanation in USA - and so would not be an alertable meaning - nor one that needed a question; second, to be clear about it, presumably it was East who asked the meaning or did East have possible UI maybe too? But we have to face the fact that an AC considered whether South had an LA and ruled 'yes', so that it did not stand out inexorably from the cards that you had done as you argued. (The moral is only to do this kind of thing on hands that leave no margin for doubt that your bid is 'four' and even then you will have a hard time with most committees! - especially if you grow a reputation for taking weak cases to committees). That leaves the matter of the disciplinary penalty. The AC was putting down a marker that there was something about your case that they simply did not believe. Not having the cards and not hearing the evidence, one is in no position to comment on this; it is something to which you no doubt have given some thought. Labeo From owner-bridge-laws Mon Feb 3 11:12:15 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id LAA11612 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 3 Feb 1997 11:12:15 +1100 Received: from relay-11.mail.demon.net (relay-11.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.137]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id LAA11606 for ; Mon, 3 Feb 1997 11:12:06 +1100 Received: from coruncanius.demon.co.uk ([194.222.115.176]) by relay-10.mail.demon.net id aa1009848; 3 Feb 97 0:10 GMT Message-ID: Date: Mon, 3 Feb 1997 00:08:52 +0000 To: David Stevenson Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Labeo Subject: Re: Agreement over insufficient bids In-Reply-To: <7vM$LoDDvl8yEwlX@blakjak.demon.co.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In message <7vM$LoDDvl8yEwlX@blakjak.demon.co.uk>, David Stevenson writes >Labeo wrote: >>Robin Barker writes: >>>Eric writes: > >>>> 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. > > >> Labeo remarks: >> 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.) > > No, agreed it is not a "condition of the deal". It is a call. The >definition of call applies to both legal and illegal calls. So an >agreement over the meaning of: > > 1S 1D 1H > > is permitted by L75A. > >> Disclosure to opponents is to explain the significance of >>partner's call or play - Law 75C. > > Thus it applies to the meaning of 1H in the sequence above. > >> The ACBL 'regulation' appears to be no more than a reminder >>as to the law. > > No, the ACBL regulation [as has been suggested a couple of times] is >just illegal. > > The ACBL have a right to control conventional bids [L40D]. Thus they >can legitimately stop a pair from playing 1H in the above sequence as a >value raise to 1S [1S itself presumably being a pre-emptive raise to >1S!]. However, they do not have a right to control natural bids, so >they cannot stop you ascribing a point range to 1H, assuming it is >natural. The fact that they may have been caused by the opponents' >infraction is irrelevant. > >********************************************************************** > I hope no-one will think that it follows from this that you can have >any agreement over the insufficient bid itself. That would be a clear >contravention of L72B1. >********************************************************************** Labeo again: Leaving aside David's remark on the 'illegality' of the ACBL position, I do not think i have a problem superficially with what he says. But much is left unsaid. If the agreement as to the meaning of a simple bid provides for a certain min value, or gives the value some kind of limit, the door is open to know what is done with other hands. The ACBL can regulate conventional uses of 'Pass' and 'Double', for example; if accepting the insufficient bid and then passing told partner something positive about the hand, that agreement could be prohibited, as could any agreement which said that Pass would only be made on a hand of specified values or better. If the Pass could be *any* hand below an agreed value (on which a bid would be made) the problem goes away again, as I see it. Without knowing the precise terms of the ACBL regulation, or more particularly how it operates (which I may have misunderstood), it may be unwise to condemn or justify it. From what I had read it appeared the ACBL was saying that you could not agree specific information conveyed to partner by the actual choice of option; e.g. "I will refuse to accept the insufficient bid only when I have no defensive values". Labeo From owner-bridge-laws Mon Feb 3 11:39:51 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id LAA11696 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 3 Feb 1997 11:39:51 +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 LAA11691 for ; Mon, 3 Feb 1997 11:39:45 +1100 Received: from coruncanius.demon.co.uk ([194.222.115.176]) by relay-5.mail.demon.net id aa503509; 2 Feb 97 22:09 GMT Message-ID: Date: Sun, 2 Feb 1997 11:30:01 +0000 To: David Stevenson Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Labeo Subject: Re: Time for another easy one for Jens! In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In message , David Stevenson writes >David Stevenson wrote: > > .........{CUT}........ - in the 1997 Code - > 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. Labeo: IMO it is a *very* bad principle to have a situation where the knowing player can jump in with an "attempted substitution of call" in order to deny opponent acceptance of a call that he would otherwise be able to accept. However, reference to Law 27 is clearly reference to the whole law, and L27A is part of L27 so no abuser should be getting away with it. And there is no footnote to the new law as agreed. Repeating David Stevenson's caveat: >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 Labeo From owner-bridge-laws Mon Feb 3 19:53:55 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id TAA14052 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 3 Feb 1997 19:53:55 +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 TAA14047 for ; Mon, 3 Feb 1997 19:53:48 +1100 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by relay-9.mail.demon.net id aa920524; 3 Feb 97 8:42 GMT Message-ID: Date: Mon, 3 Feb 1997 08:17:14 +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: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Labeo wrote: >>David Stevenson wrote: >> >> .........{CUT}........ > > - in the 1997 Code - >> 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. > >Labeo: > IMO it is a *very* bad principle to have a situation where the >knowing player can jump in with an "attempted substitution of call" >in order to deny opponent acceptance of a call that he would otherwise >be able to accept. However, reference to Law 27 is clearly reference >to the whole law, and L27A is part of L27 so no abuser should be >getting away with it. And there is no footnote to the new law as >agreed. My question is not whether the 1997 Laws will allow the original insufficient bid to be accepted, the 3S bid in the original example. It would be very bad if a change to double would not allow the 3S bid to be accepted, but fortunately there is no question of that. My worry is that the way the 1997 Law is expressed the opponents will not be able to accept the double. >Repeating David Stevenson's caveat: >>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 -- 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 Mon Feb 3 20:01:33 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id UAA14095 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 3 Feb 1997 20:01:33 +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 UAA14085 for ; Mon, 3 Feb 1997 20:01:23 +1100 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by relay-10.mail.demon.net id aa1015549; 3 Feb 97 8:42 GMT Message-ID: Date: Mon, 3 Feb 1997 08:17:02 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Agreement over insufficient bids In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Labeo wrote: >David Stevenson writes >>Labeo wrote: >>>>Eric writes: >>>>> 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. >>> Labeo remarks: >>> 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.) >> No, agreed it is not a "condition of the deal". It is a call. The >>definition of call applies to both legal and illegal calls. So an >>agreement over the meaning of: >> >> 1S 1D 1H >> >> is permitted by L75A. >>> Disclosure to opponents is to explain the significance of >>>partner's call or play - Law 75C. >> Thus it applies to the meaning of 1H in the sequence above. >>> The ACBL 'regulation' appears to be no more than a reminder >>>as to the law. >> No, the ACBL regulation [as has been suggested a couple of times] is >>just illegal. >> >> The ACBL have a right to control conventional bids [L40D]. Thus they >>can legitimately stop a pair from playing 1H in the above sequence as a >>value raise to 1S [1S itself presumably being a pre-emptive raise to >>1S!]. However, they do not have a right to control natural bids, so >>they cannot stop you ascribing a point range to 1H, assuming it is >>natural. The fact that they may have been caused by the opponents' >>infraction is irrelevant. >Labeo again: > Leaving aside David's remark on the 'illegality' of the >ACBL position, I do not think i have a problem superficially with what >he says. But much is left unsaid. If the agreement as to the meaning >of a simple bid provides for a certain min value, or gives the value >some kind of limit, the door is open to know what is done with other >hands. The ACBL can regulate conventional uses of 'Pass' and 'Double', >for example; if accepting the insufficient bid and then passing told >partner something positive about the hand, that agreement could be >prohibited, as could any agreement which said that Pass would only be >made on a hand of specified values or better. If the Pass could be >*any* hand below an agreed value (on which a bid would be made) the >problem goes away again, as I see it. > Without knowing the precise terms of the ACBL regulation, or more >particularly how it operates (which I may have misunderstood), it may >be unwise to condemn or justify it. From what I had read it appeared >the ACBL was saying that you could not agree specific information >conveyed to partner by the actual choice of option; e.g. "I will >refuse to accept the insufficient bid only when I have no defensive >values". The ACBL regulation is: ******************************************************************** 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. ******************************************************************** While the wording of this appears to lean heavily on conventional agreements, which the ACBL has every right to control under L40D, the implementation of this regulation has been extended to perfectly natural bids. Suppose I say to my partner: "If there is an insufficient bid, and in the one special situation where I am now able to raise you at the one- level, then we shall play that as showing 4card support and 2-5HCP. We shall have *no* other agreements where opponents' insufficient bids are concerned." In my view that is [a] not permitted by the first two sentences of the ACBL regulation, ignoring the second two sentences which refer solely to conventional bidding and [b] not allowed to be regulated by the ACBL, since the only natural bids they are allowed to regulate are very weak openings as described in L40D. Thus it is my contention that this regulation will, on occasion, be contrary to the Laws, which is what I meant by the term illegal. I am prepared to accept that very few players would have any agreements at all and that they should only concern natural bidding, but in those rare cases I am not convinced that the ACBL regulation is acceptable. When I say "my contention" I am merely expanding a worry that has been expressed by others, mainly on RGB. The most sensible worry that I have seen expressed is where people have got implicit understandings from general discussion amongst friends, as was described earlier in this thread. -- 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 Tue Feb 4 21:45:41 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id VAA01833 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 4 Feb 1997 21:45:41 +1100 Received: from dns0.ccn.ac.uk (dns0.ccn.ac.uk [194.66.185.34]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id VAA01828 for ; Tue, 4 Feb 1997 21:45:30 +1100 Received: from [194.66.185.35] by dns0.ccn.ac.uk (NTMail 3.01.03) id ea124674; Tue, 4 Feb 1997 10:46:28 +0100 Received: by mailgate.ccn.ac.uk with Microsoft Mail id <32F78356@mailgate.ccn.ac.uk>; Tue, 04 Feb 97 10:43:34 PST From: "Bolster, Mike" To: Bridge Laws Subject: RE: Agreement over insufficient bids Date: Tue, 04 Feb 97 10:45:00 PST Message-ID: <32F78356@mailgate.ccn.ac.uk> Encoding: 43 TEXT X-Mailer: Microsoft Mail V3.0 X-Info: City College Norwich - SMTP server Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Re this thread, David Stevenson said: >The ACBL regulation is: > >******************************************************************** >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. >******************************************************************** > > While the wording of this appears to lean heavily on conventional >SNIP > > I am prepared to accept that very few players would have any >agreements at all and that they should only concern natural bidding, but >in those rare cases I am not convinced that the ACBL regulation is >acceptable. > When I say "my contention" I am merely expanding a worry that has been >SNIP -------------- David I have been (trying) to follow this thread with some interest, as partner and I have the following agreement re insufficient bids in EBULand. Accept insufficient bid with Double = Negative (our usual meaning) Refuse insufficient bid, Double of correction to sufficient bid of same denomination = Penalties. Is this OK? --------------------------------------------- Mike Bolster E-Mail: mbolster@ccn.ac.uk Tel: (01603) 773034 Fax: (01603) 773122 --------------------------------------------- From owner-bridge-laws Tue Feb 4 22:06:45 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id WAA01946 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 4 Feb 1997 22:06:45 +1100 Received: from u3.farm.idt.net (root@u3.farm.idt.net [169.132.8.12]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id WAA01941 for ; Tue, 4 Feb 1997 22:06:40 +1100 Received: from ppp-24.ts-5.la.idt.net (ppp-24.ts-5.la.idt.net [204.235.93.43]) by u3.farm.idt.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id GAA00827; Tue, 4 Feb 1997 06:06:31 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <32F71935.C51@mail.idt.net> Date: Tue, 04 Feb 1997 03:10:45 -0800 From: Irwin Kostal Reply-To: bigfoot@idt.net X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0Gold (Win95; I; 16bit) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: bridge-laws CC: Jim Munday at home Subject: Ethical Problem, or no? Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I received this letter from my friend about an incident that occurred at a recent Swiss Teams, in which his team (and of course his opponents) were essentially out of the event. A lot of emotion was stirred up, and I wonder who was really out of line here. I have removed all names, etc, so that even the guilty are protected. "Playing 2h after 2d p 2h with AK8x 97x xxxx Q9x ATxx Qx X KQJxx The opening lead was the club 9. I asked RHO what type of leads out of habit (seeing the 9 and curious about top from 3 etc.) and heard 3rd and 5th best, totally oblivious to his reaction, thinking he must know it was top of nothing (not thinking about 3rd from KJ9 etc.) He won the ace and they drew all the trumps (5 tricks). played a spade and I put RHO in with a spade. Rather than break another suit he played a club and went nuts when my jack won. They beat the hand one anyway and i tried to explain but they weren't listening. I offered them the extra trick (would only have been one) they could have gotten (though who knows what he would have done if I hadn't said anything). The more I think about it the less in the wrong I feel; I have a right to know what their xxx leads are, and I just phrased the question badly. I sometimes look at peoples convention cards so that I dont advertise info either way but people seem to glare at me when i do that. I think if i wished to cheat him i would not want to show weak clubs and elicit a trump return, which i certainly didn't want (tho it is a fairly obvious return), and would have picked a different hand other than a 2h contract which figured to go down, and a different event in which i was at least in contention." I don't know if the directors were called, and if they were, what their rulings were, but I wondered what BLML would think of it. When my friend says he phrased the question badly, it makes me wonder what would have been correct. Should he have asked, "What do you lead from three small?" How responsible are we for any inferences the opponents might take from questions we ask? Are there parameters here? I'm sure we'd all frown on the question, "What do you lead from AK?" if the Ace were led, and we were looking at the king, and yet I can imagine needing to know the answer to that question, just to get a reading on what RHO is going to be thinking when he sees the ace. Incidents like this are part of what I think is dragging down the game, here in the USA. Irv Kostal From owner-bridge-laws Tue Feb 4 22:58:05 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id WAA02158 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 4 Feb 1997 22:58:05 +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 WAA02147 for ; Tue, 4 Feb 1997 22:55:40 +1100 Received: from innet.innet.be (pool03-47.innet.be [194.7.10.47]) by mail.be.innet.net (8.7.6/8.7.3) with SMTP id MAA16534 for ; Tue, 4 Feb 1997 12:54:58 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: <32F72FDA.653@innet.be> Date: Tue, 04 Feb 1997 12:47:22 +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: Ethical Problem, or no? References: <32F71935.C51@mail.idt.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Irwin Kostal wrote: > (we've all read it) This is exactly the kind of question like the 5H (no queen of trumps ?) thing I asked recently. Law 20 states clearly that you are allowed to ask questions. Law 73 states that you are allowed to mislead Law 73f states that you are not allowed to mislead when violating proprieties. IMO, asking questions (any questions) cannot be 'violating proprieties'. IMO, even doing this deliberately should be allowed. Opponents should be told that they draw inferences at own risk. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.club.innet.be/~pub02163/index.htm From owner-bridge-laws Tue Feb 4 23:56:06 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA02385 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 4 Feb 1997 23:56:06 +1100 Received: from adm.sci-nnov.ru (adm.sci-nnov.ru [193.125.71.2]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id XAA02380 for ; Tue, 4 Feb 1997 23:55:57 +1100 Received: from pent.sci-nnov.ru (pent [193.125.71.4]) by adm.sci-nnov.ru (8.8.5/Dmiter-4.0.0) with ESMTP id PAA00558 for ; Tue, 4 Feb 1997 15:53:08 +0300 (MSK) Received: (from fox@localhost) by pent.sci-nnov.ru (8.8.5/Dmiter-4.0.0) id PAA09702; Tue, 4 Feb 1997 15:53:06 +0300 (MSK) Message-Id: <199702041253.PAA09702@pent.sci-nnov.ru> From: "Sergei Litvak" To: "BLML" Date: Tue, 04 Feb 97 15:54:32 +0300 Reply-To: "Sergei Litvak" Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Sergei Litvak's Registered PMMail 1.53 For OS/2 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Strange Claim Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk This board is from tournament where the level of players was over average (it' not a joke). E is playing 6NT. The whole hand: Jx Axx Jxxx 8642 AQTxx Kx xx KJxxx AKQ2 xx KQ AJ97 9xxx Qxx xxx T53 Diamond lead taken by Ace, Spade to King and back to Ace. When Jack of Spades fall down declarer claimed for 5 spades, 3 diamonds and 4 clubs. North called for TD. What is the ruling? Sergei Litvak ------------------- Voice: 7(8312)384255 FAX: 7(8312(362061 ------------------- From owner-bridge-laws Wed Feb 5 02:37:33 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA06210 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 5 Feb 1997 02:37:33 +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 CAA06205 for ; Wed, 5 Feb 1997 02:37:26 +1100 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by relay-10.mail.demon.net id aa1012203; 4 Feb 97 15:25 GMT Message-ID: Date: Tue, 4 Feb 1997 15:22:09 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Agreement over insufficient bids In-Reply-To: <32F78356@mailgate.ccn.ac.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Bolster, Mike wrote: >Re this thread, David Stevenson said: > >>The ACBL regulation is: >> >>******************************************************************** >>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. >>******************************************************************** >> >> While the wording of this appears to lean heavily on conventional >>SNIP >> >> I am prepared to accept that very few players would have any >>agreements at all and that they should only concern natural bidding, but >>in those rare cases I am not convinced that the ACBL regulation is >>acceptable. > >> When I say "my contention" I am merely expanding a worry that has been >>SNIP > -------------- >David > >I have been (trying) to follow this thread with some interest, as partner >and I have the following agreement re insufficient bids in EBULand. > > Accept insufficient bid with Double = Negative (our usual meaning) > Refuse insufficient bid, Double of correction to sufficient bid of same >denomination = Penalties. > >Is this OK? It certainly would be illegal in the ACBL. The regulation allows no agreements in this area. Even with my worries about the regulation your double being conventional means the ACBL can certainly forbid that, and do. In the EBU I have a vague memory of a similar regulation, but if it still applies then I do not know where to find it. -- 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 Feb 5 02:42:54 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA06251 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 5 Feb 1997 02:42:54 +1100 Received: from ivy.tc.pw.com (ivy.tc.pw.com [131.209.1.4]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id CAA06245 for ; Wed, 5 Feb 1997 02:42:48 +1100 From: Stephen_Barnfield@europe.notes.pw.com Received: by ivy.tc.pw.com; id IAA29383; Tue, 4 Feb 1997 08:10:44 -0800 (PST) Received: from cactus.tc.pw.com(131.209.7.48) by ivy.tc.pw.com via smap (3.2) id xma029275; Tue, 4 Feb 97 08:10:24 -0800 Received: (from root@localhost) by cactus.tc.pw.com (8.8.4/8.7.3) id HAA21045 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Tue, 4 Feb 1997 07:50:22 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <199702041550.HAA21045@cactus.tc.pw.com> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Tue, 4 Feb 97 15:36:15 GMT Subject: Re: Agreement over insufficient bids Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Stevenson said, in relation to the ACBL's regulation on bids following insufficient bids: >While the wording of this appears to lean heavily on conventional >agreements, which the ACBL has every right to control under L40D, the >implementation of this regulation has been extended to perfectly natural >bids. > Suppose I say to my partner: "If there is an insufficient bid, and in >the one special situation where I am now able to raise you at the one- >level, then we shall play that as showing 4card support and 2-5HCP. We >shall have *no* other agreements where opponents' insufficient bids are >concerned." In my view that is [a] not permitted by the first two >sentences of the ACBL regulation, ignoring the second two sentences >which refer solely to conventional bidding and [b] not allowed to be >regulated by the ACBL, since the only natural bids they are allowed to >regulate are very weak openings as described in L40D. Thus it is my >contention that this regulation will, on occasion, be contrary to the >Laws, which is what I meant by the term illegal. I agree. I think the ACBL have confused their power to regulate *conventions* with their powers over *partnership agreements*. Their Law40D powers over conventions would permit them to regulate conventional bids following an insufficient bid. These powers do not extend to partnership agreements concerning *natural* calls (except, as David notes, the partnership's initial actions at the one-level to be made with a hand of a king or more below average strength). Of course the ACBL could prevent use of any conventions after the natural calls after the insufficient bid, but that is a different matter. Interestingly the final sentence of the ante-penultimate para raises a separate point. Everyone (that I have heard of) has assumed that the final sentence of Law40D permits Zonal Organisations (ZOs) to regulate "weak" one-level *openings*, even if natural. Why is the ability to regulate restricted to openings? Why not one-level natural overcalls? Perhaps ZOs don't want this power. A separate but related matter is whether the first actionS (ie one by each member of the partnership), even if natural (but "weak"), can be regulated by a ZO. I think not: I think it is just the *first* action by *one member of a partnership* which can be regulated in this way. This look to me to be arguable, however. Perhaps to ACBL could argue along these lines. Yet another related matter arises from the choice of the word *action* rather than *bid* or *call*. In colloquial bridge terminology I would argue an action is usually a call other than a pass. This being so it is arguable that a ZO could also regulate a "weak" natural one-level overcall following an initial pass. From owner-bridge-laws Wed Feb 5 03:08:33 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA06359 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 5 Feb 1997 03:08:33 +1100 Received: from ivy.tc.pw.com (ivy.tc.pw.com [131.209.1.4]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id DAA06354 for ; Wed, 5 Feb 1997 03:08:28 +1100 From: Stephen_Barnfield@europe.notes.pw.com Received: by ivy.tc.pw.com; id IAA04976; Tue, 4 Feb 1997 08:36:23 -0800 (PST) Received: from cactus.tc.pw.com(131.209.7.48) by ivy.tc.pw.com via smap (3.2) id xma004920; Tue, 4 Feb 97 08:36:17 -0800 Received: (from root@localhost) by cactus.tc.pw.com (8.8.4/8.7.3) id IAA26028 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Tue, 4 Feb 1997 08:16:14 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <199702041616.IAA26028@cactus.tc.pw.com> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Tue, 4 Feb 97 16:03:13 GMT Subject: Re: Ethical Problem, or no? Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Herman DE WAEL said: >Law 20 states clearly that you are allowed to ask questions. >Law 73 states that you are allowed to mislead >Law 73f states that you are not allowed to mislead when violating >proprieties. >IMO, asking questions (any questions) cannot be 'violating proprieties'. >IMO, even doing this deliberately should be allowed. >Opponents should be told that they draw inferences at own risk. Law 73 does *not* state you are allowed to mislead. Law 73E states it is proper to attempt to deceive an opponent through a call or play, and then qualifies that in some ways. Law 73E is not relevant in Irv Kostal's friend's case. Presumably the opponent was concerned that there might have been a breach of Law 73D2, leading to an adjustment under Law 73F2. On the facts as set out in Irv Kostal's e-mail, there do not seem to be any grounds for an adjustment, but there are two sides (at least) to every story. I can see nothing wrong with the question asked by Irv Kostal's friend. Turning to the wider question raised, I do not recall considering whether a question asked under Law 20 can be within Law 73D2 or 73F2. I had always assumed such a question could be, but that usually there was some acceptable reason for the question, so that in practice it wasn't. Looking afresh at the laws concerned I can see Herman DE WAAL's point, but would not like to go quite as far as he does to say a question under Law 20 *cannot* be "violating proprieties". As David Stevenson (I think) has said elsewhere, under the proposed new laws this problem is likely to arise more often, under the new wording of Law 73F ("deceptive" is removed and "has no demonstrable reason for the action" inserted thus replacing a subjective test with an objective test). From owner-bridge-laws Wed Feb 5 04:57:40 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA09983 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 5 Feb 1997 04:57:40 +1100 Received: from emout10.mail.aol.com (emout10.mx.aol.com [198.81.11.25]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id EAA09978 for ; Wed, 5 Feb 1997 04:57:33 +1100 From: AlLeBendig@aol.com Received: (from root@localhost) by emout10.mail.aol.com (8.7.6/8.7.3/AOL-2.0.0) id MAA07255 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Tue, 4 Feb 1997 12:57:01 -0500 (EST) Date: Tue, 4 Feb 1997 12:57:01 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <970204114952_-1643698773@emout10.mail.aol.com> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Ethical Problem, or no? Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In a message dated 97-02-04 06:08:55 EST, you write: > The opening lead was the club 9. I asked RHO what type of leads out of > habit (seeing the 9 and curious about top from 3 etc.) and heard 3rd and > 5th best, totally oblivious to his reaction, thinking he must know it > was top of nothing (not thinking about 3rd from KJ9 etc.) [s] > The more I think about it the less in the wrong I feel; I have a right > to > know what their xxx leads are, and I just phrased the question badly. I > sometimes look at peoples convention cards so that I dont advertise info > either way but people seem to glare at me when i do that. Irv finally presents an easy problem compared with what he gives me at the table. There is no doubt that the question is legitimate within the Laws. UNLESS for some reason we feel the inquiry was meant to decieve. In most cases I would have a great deal of difficulty believing that. Unlike Hermann. I do not think that is or should be any part of the game. I have found it a good practice to routinely ask about leads before I ever see the dummy. That will often protect me from having asked a question I no longer need the answer to. Sometimes we know what the lead is from but need to know what our RHO knows. Any question is still totally legitimate. If RHO draws an inference from the question, that's their problem. I remember one incident from an NABC where we took action against a player because of some questions after the lead. His LHO (known pro) led a 10. After seeing the dummy (he held AKQJ between the two) he started asking questions of LOL on his right. Would he lead the 10 from this holding - would he lead it from that holding, etc. After several questions of this nature he won the lead on dummy, drew trumps and took a finesse into RHO. She returned the led suit instead of a necessary switch. The pro brought this to a committee and it was felt that this player had gone out of his way to intentionally try to deceive his RHO. The board was adjusted and the player in question was given a PP. The pro had a 45% game but was willing to take the time because of what had happened. I always have admired him because he was willing to take the time to pursue that when it made no difference to him. I feel many of these problems would cease to exist if players would ask their questions prior to seeing the dummy. I firmly believe this is a good habit. Alan LeBendig From owner-bridge-laws Wed Feb 5 06:30:25 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA15459 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 5 Feb 1997 06:30:25 +1100 Received: from relay-7.mail.demon.net (relay-7.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.9]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id GAA15454 for ; Wed, 5 Feb 1997 06:30:19 +1100 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by relay-5.mail.demon.net id aa504559; 4 Feb 97 18:06 GMT Message-ID: Date: Tue, 4 Feb 1997 17:54:15 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Strange Claim In-Reply-To: <199702041253.PAA09702@pent.sci-nnov.ru> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Sergei Litvak wrote: >This board is from tournament where the level of players was over average >(it' not a joke). > >E is playing 6NT. The whole hand: > Jx > Axx > Jxxx > 8642 >AQTxx Kx >xx KJxxx >AKQ2 xx >KQ AJ97 > 9xxx > Qxx > xxx > T53 > >Diamond lead taken by Ace, Spade to King and back to Ace. When Jack of >Spades fall down declarer claimed for 5 spades, 3 diamonds and 4 clubs. >North called for TD. >What is the ruling? 12 tricks. Perfectly good claim. It only makes sense if he is assuming that the second round of clubs is overtaken, otherwise the claim is meaningless. Mind you, if he had been a bit more on the ball, he would have claimed 13 tricks [squeezing North in the red suits]. -- 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 Feb 5 07:27:14 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA15693 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 5 Feb 1997 07:27:14 +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 HAA15688 for ; Wed, 5 Feb 1997 07:27:04 +1100 Received: from default (cph55.ppp.dknet.dk [194.192.100.55]) by pip.dknet.dk (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id VAA10958 for ; Tue, 4 Feb 1997 21:26:52 +0100 Message-Id: <199702042026.VAA10958@pip.dknet.dk> Comments: Authenticated sender is From: "Jens & Bodil" Organization: Alesia Software To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Tue, 4 Feb 1997 21:26:45 +0100 Subject: Punishment for hesitation and other tidbits. Priority: normal X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v2.42a) Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk This is longish, but that cannot be helped. I would like BLML to help me understand a ruling made by a World-Level AC recently. At the 1996 World Bridge Team Olympiad on Rhodes, the appeals committee punished a player because he hesitated. Let me give a reduced account from the bulletin: Game All, dealer West, N and E on the same side of the screen. N: 92, KJ82, T7, AK972 W: AKT654, AT764, -, Q5 E: QJ8, 53, 953, JT643 S: 73, Q9, AKQJ8642, 8 W N E S S makes 6 tricks for -300 1S - - 3D 3H x 3S - - x* - 3NT - - - East called the TD, indicating that N's second double was slow; N did not dispute this fact. The TD let the score stand (no rationale for this ruling available). EW appealed on the grounds that S should have chosen to pass 3Sx, since this is a logical alternative and S has UI from N's break in tempo. The committee ruled that the score should stand, but NS were fined 1VP according to L90 "to reduce N/S's equity in the match result". The AC chairman took great pains to explain that the fine was given because N failed to plan what to do when 3S would come round to him, and, realizing his failure, did not choose his action without a break in tempo. Further, the AC chairman emphasizes that South was "under special ethical obligation to pass his partner's slow double". Finally he implies that South should not have created the situation for himself and his partner by bidding 3D in the first round rather than 3S (asking for a stopper in S) or 3NT. --------------- I have the following comments to this ruling: 1. Screens are in use, so it is not immediately obvious to S that N was calling slowly. On the other hand, it seems unlikely that E would have a problem here, so I will concede that S has UI from his partner that could affect his further actions. 2. I don't play at the Olympic level, and with my modest playing abilities, I find it hard to believe that any significant number of Olympic players would leave 3Sx in. But I am willing to trust the high level of bridge knowledge represented in a committee at this level and take their judgement at face value. If taking out in 3NT is subject to a procedural penalty, it must be because the AC has ruled that staying in 3Sx is a logical alternative. 3. I see no prescription of procedure in the laws that is violated by N when he fails to make his 3rd call in normal tempo. I therefore do not believe that the AC is authorized to fine NS according to L90 for this break in tempo. My opinion put more bluntly: The fine for N's action is in contempt of the Laws. 4. Now that the AC apparently has found S "guilty" of an infraction according to L73F1, it is harsh but possible to fine NS for that break in procedure. I don't like it, but I can respect it. 5. In 3Sx I cannot envisage that W will lose more than two heart tricks and two club tricks, leaving him with a score that is higher than 300 (but less than 800). The committe might let EW keep their score because they failed to double 3NT (although I would not have voted for it, and they do not give any reason for not adjusting), but how can give NS anything better than -670? If further appeal were possible, I would expect EW to lament that it was ruled that S should have passed, and if he had done so he would have obtained -670 or worse; now the AC seems to have condoned his mistake and let him keep -300 at the price of 1VP. I still don't like it, and I have trouble respecting the AC's decision not to adjust NS to -670. 6. The AC may have anticipated this criticism; the chairman states that the situation was "impossible to adjudicate fairly and equitably", and that the AC eventually arrived at a slight adjustment. Such a ruling does seem to be authorized in the footnote to L12, but it surprises me if the AC really felt that they could use the footnote in to authorize this ruling. -- Jens Brix Christiansen, Denmark From owner-bridge-laws Wed Feb 5 07:29:12 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA15733 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 5 Feb 1997 07:29:12 +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 HAA15722 for ; Wed, 5 Feb 1997 07:29:05 +1100 Received: from localhost by flash.irvine.com id aa14332; 4 Feb 97 12:28 PST To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au CC: adam@flash.irvine.com Subject: Re: Strange Claim In-reply-to: Your message of "Tue, 04 Feb 1997 17:54:15 PST." Date: Tue, 04 Feb 1997 12:28:19 PST From: Adam Beneschan Message-ID: <9702041228.aa14332@flash.irvine.com> Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > > Sergei Litvak wrote: > > >This board is from tournament where the level of players was over average > >(it' not a joke). > > > >E is playing 6NT. The whole hand: > > Jx > > Axx > > Jxxx > > 8642 > >AQTxx Kx > >xx KJxxx > >AKQ2 xx > >KQ AJ97 > > 9xxx > > Qxx > > xxx > > T53 > > > >Diamond lead taken by Ace, Spade to King and back to Ace. When Jack of > >Spades fall down declarer claimed for 5 spades, 3 diamonds and 4 clubs. > >North called for TD. > >What is the ruling? > > 12 tricks. Perfectly good claim. It only makes sense if he is > assuming that the second round of clubs is overtaken, otherwise the > claim is meaningless. But the claim is meaningless even in that case, because he has no way of knowing that the ten is going to drop. East didn't really "state a line of play"; he simply asserted that he was going to take four clubs. If he had said something like "I'm going to run four clubs and make 6 if the 10 drops and go down if it doesn't", or words to that effect, then I'd certainly allow the claim. But East didn't say that. He assumed that he had four club tricks, which argues against his intent to hope for a club drop. I think we have to assume that East simply forgot that he had no certain hand entry. Thus, Law 70D should apply: 70D. Claimer Proposes New Line of Play The Director shall not accept from claimer any successful line of play not embraced in the original clarification statement if there is an alternative normal* line of play that would be less successful. IMHO, overtaking the club can be counted as a "successful line of play not embraced in the original clarification statement". An alternative normal line of play would be to unblock clubs and hope to guess hearts. And, of course, the director has to assume that he'd guess hearts wrong. (Or are you assuming that this is an "irrational" line "for the class of player involved"???) Law 70E, "Unstated Line of Play (Finesse or Drop)", might apply also, although I'm not as certain about this one. David, I hope you were being facetious about this being a "perfectly good claim." > Mind you, if he had been a bit more on the ball, he would have claimed > 13 tricks [squeezing North in the red suits]. Or, perhaps, you were assuming that +1440 was going to be a bottom anyway since everyone else would be +1470? -- Adam From owner-bridge-laws Wed Feb 5 08:13:56 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA15939 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 5 Feb 1997 08:13:56 +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 IAA15934 for ; Wed, 5 Feb 1997 08:13:48 +1100 Received: from default (cph26.ppp.dknet.dk [194.192.100.26]) by pip.dknet.dk (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id WAA12551 for ; Tue, 4 Feb 1997 22:13:35 +0100 Message-Id: <199702042113.WAA12551@pip.dknet.dk> Comments: Authenticated sender is From: "Jens & Bodil" Organization: Alesia Software To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Tue, 4 Feb 1997 22:09:57 +0100 Subject: Re: Strange Claim Priority: normal X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v2.42a) Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: David Stevenson > Sergei Litvak wrote: > > >This board is from tournament where the level of players was over average > >(it' not a joke). > > > >E is playing 6NT. The whole hand: > > Jx > > Axx > > Jxxx > > 8642 > >AQTxx Kx > >xx KJxxx > >AKQ2 xx > >KQ AJ97 > > 9xxx > > Qxx > > xxx > > T53 > > > >Diamond lead taken by Ace, Spade to King and back to Ace. When Jack of > >Spades fall down declarer claimed for 5 spades, 3 diamonds and 4 clubs. > >North called for TD. > >What is the ruling? > > 12 tricks. I agree. 12 tricks. > Perfectly good claim. It only makes sense if he is > assuming that the second round of clubs is overtaken, otherwise the > claim is meaningless. I disagree. It also makes sense if declarer has overlooked his blocking clubs. One of my favorite quotes is from Victor Mollo's Walrus, who unwittingly handles such a situation with a flourish: "I shall not waste your time, gentlemen ..." Let us see what the ruling would be if we assume that W had indeed overlooked the blocking clubs: He could take all his spade and diamond tricks before touching clubs. It would then be irrational not to overtake the second club and pray, since there would otherwise be two red tricks out. Or he could attack clubs first and discover his predicament early. It could then be rational to unblock the clubs and play N for the Heart Ace. Either way, still 12 tricks. > Mind you, if he had been a bit more on the ball, he would have claimed > 13 tricks [squeezing North in the red suits]. How about a procedural penalty for putting himself in this predicament by not cashing his clubs in time? That might be how they would have ruled it at the Olympics last year :-) -- Jens Brix Christiansen, Denmark From owner-bridge-laws Wed Feb 5 08:34:39 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA16102 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 5 Feb 1997 08:34:39 +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 IAA16097 for ; Wed, 5 Feb 1997 08:34:32 +1100 Received: from mail1.isys.net[193.96.224.33] by mail.hamburg.netsurf.de with smtp (Smail 3.2 #2 -iSYS-); id m0vrsVD-000HEaC; Tue, 4 Feb 1997 22:34:07 +0100 (MET) Received: from meckwell [194.195.202.121] by mail1.isys.net with smtp (Smail 3.2 #3 -iSYS-); id m0vrtZ7-001LB2C; Tue, 4 Feb 1997 23:42:13 +0100 (MET) Date: Tue, 4 Feb 1997 22:36:24 +0100 (CET) From: Henk Uijterwaal X-Sender: henk@meckwell Reply-To: Henk Uijterwaal To: Adam Beneschan cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Strange Claim In-Reply-To: <9702041228.aa14332@flash.irvine.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Adam Beneschan wrote: > > Sergei Litvak wrote: > > >E is playing 6NT. The whole hand: > > > Jx > > > Axx > > > Jxxx > > > 8642 > > >AQTxx Kx > > >xx KJxxx > > >AKQ2 xx > > >KQ AJ97 > > > 9xxx > > > Qxx > > > xxx > > > T53 > > >Diamond lead taken by Ace, Spade to King and back to Ace. When Jack of > > >Spades fall down declarer claimed for 5 spades, 3 diamonds and 4 clubs. > > >What is the ruling? > David: > > 12 tricks. Perfectly good claim. It only makes sense if he is > > assuming that the second round of clubs is overtaken, otherwise the > > claim is meaningless. You forgot a couple of smiley's, David. This is the worst claim of the month. > He assumed that he had four club tricks, which argues against his > intent to hope for a club drop. I think we have to assume that East > simply forgot that he had no certain hand entry. It sounds to me as if east is simply going to cash pointed suit winners, thus coming down to: -- Ax J xx -- -- xx K x -- KQ AJ97 -- Qx -- Txx where his only chance is to overtake the second club, to force east to keep --/KJ/--/AJ9 isn't consistent with his claim to make 4 clubs. Henk ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Henk Uijterwaal Email: henk.uijterwaal@hamburg.netsurf.de (home) henk@desy.de (work) WWW: http://www-zeus.desy.de/~uijter ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Feb 5 08:37:18 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA16250 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 5 Feb 1997 08:37:18 +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 IAA16245 for ; Wed, 5 Feb 1997 08:37:10 +1100 Received: from default (cph49.ppp.dknet.dk [194.192.100.49]) by pip.dknet.dk (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id WAA13335 for ; Tue, 4 Feb 1997 22:36:54 +0100 Message-Id: <199702042136.WAA13335@pip.dknet.dk> Comments: Authenticated sender is From: "Jens & Bodil" Organization: Alesia Software To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Tue, 4 Feb 1997 22:36:54 +0100 Subject: Re: Strange Claim Priority: normal X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v2.42a) Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: Adam Beneschan > > Sergei Litvak wrote: > > > > >This board is from tournament where the level of players was over average > > >(it' not a joke). > > > > > >E is playing 6NT. The whole hand: > > > Jx > > > Axx > > > Jxxx > > > 8642 > > >AQTxx Kx > > >xx KJxxx > > >AKQ2 xx > > >KQ AJ97 > > > 9xxx > > > Qxx > > > xxx > > > T53 > > > > > >Diamond lead taken by Ace, Spade to King and back to Ace. When Jack of > > >Spades fall down declarer claimed for 5 spades, 3 diamonds and 4 clubs. > > >North called for TD. > > >What is the ruling? > IMHO, overtaking the club can be counted as a "successful line of play > not embraced in the original clarification statement". An alternative > normal line of play would be to unblock clubs and hope to guess > hearts. And, of course, the director has to assume that he'd guess > hearts wrong. (Or are you assuming that this is an "irrational" line > "for the class of player involved"???) Oops. Adam is right. I overlooked that heart Jack. We have to determine the number of tricks based on declarer's not guessing the hearts. That makes 10 tricks. 5 spades, 3 diamonds, 2 clubs, and the defenders take the rest of the tricks with the HQ, HA, and DJ. Sorry to make so much noise. -- Jens Brix Christiansen, Denmark From owner-bridge-laws Wed Feb 5 09:18:49 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA16578 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 5 Feb 1997 09:18:49 +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 JAA16571 for ; Wed, 5 Feb 1997 09:18:37 +1100 Received: from localhost by flash.irvine.com id aa19713; 4 Feb 97 14:17 PST To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au CC: adam@flash.irvine.com Subject: Re: Strange Claim In-reply-to: Your message of "Tue, 04 Feb 1997 22:36:24 PST." Date: Tue, 04 Feb 1997 14:17:55 PST From: Adam Beneschan Message-ID: <9702041417.aa19713@flash.irvine.com> Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > > Adam Beneschan wrote: > > > Sergei Litvak wrote: > > > > >E is playing 6NT. The whole hand: > > > > Jx > > > > Axx > > > > Jxxx > > > > 8642 > > > >AQTxx Kx > > > >xx KJxxx > > > >AKQ2 xx > > > >KQ AJ97 > > > > 9xxx > > > > Qxx > > > > xxx > > > > T53 > > > > >Diamond lead taken by Ace, Spade to King and back to Ace. When Jack of > > > >Spades fall down declarer claimed for 5 spades, 3 diamonds and 4 clubs. > > > >What is the ruling? > > > David: > > > 12 tricks. Perfectly good claim. It only makes sense if he is > > > assuming that the second round of clubs is overtaken, otherwise the > > > claim is meaningless. > > You forgot a couple of smiley's, David. This is the worst claim of the > month. > > > He assumed that he had four club tricks, which argues against his > > intent to hope for a club drop. I think we have to assume that East > > simply forgot that he had no certain hand entry. > > It sounds to me as if east is simply going to cash pointed suit winners, > thus coming down to: > > -- > Ax > J > xx > -- -- > xx K > x -- > KQ AJ97 > -- > Qx > -- > Txx > > where his only chance is to overtake the second club, to force east to > keep --/KJ/--/AJ9 isn't consistent with his claim to make 4 clubs. But can we assume that East is going to cash out the diamonds? The story said he "claimed for 5 spades, 3 diamonds, and 4 clubs", but that kind of statement doesn't, to me, indicating anything about the *order* in which he is going to cash the tricks. Yes, if he cashed diamonds first he'd be trapping himself into running clubs with an overtake. But I can't see anything in Law 70 that would indicate that the director should allow for this possibility. I'm sorry, but I'm finding this discussion to be out of the Twilight Zone (assuming no facetiousness on anyone's part and that David's entry wasn't actually composed by Quango). East made a bad claim. East claimed 4 tricks in a blocked suit with no entry. East made no indication that he was hoping for the 10 to drop. If someone pointed out (before calling the director) that East couldn't take his club tricks, and that he'd have to find a different line of play, would East decide to overtake the clubs anyway? Maybe he'd think that was still the best line, maybe he'd decide it was better to try to guess hearts instead for the 12th trick, maybe he'd run spades and diamonds and try for a squeeze. Who knows? The point here is that East made a careless claim, and for the director to somehow interpret the Laws to mandate the play that happens to work, in a way that East obviously didn't intend, when other normal plays are available that cost the contract, seems ludicrous to me. Sorry, this isn't bridge. East should *not* be rewarded for a bad claim (unless there's only one reasonable play and it happens to work--not the case here). If I'm the director, the score is down 1. No question about it. A number of years ago, in _Bridge in the Menagerie_, Mollo gave us a hand in which thirteen tricks appeared to be there, but couldn't be taken because of blockage in all suits. Everyone got to 7NT and went down, except for Vera the Vixen and (of course) the Hideous Hog. The Hog managed to find some sort of spectacular squeeze to make the hand (of course). Vera studied the hand for a minute--then laid down her hand, apologizing for her daffiness in not being able to count to thirteen tricks, and claimed much in the manner of our hero East, specifying how many tricks she would take in each suit without indicating how she'd overcome the blockage. The opponents weren't very good (Dolly the Dove?) and didn't notice the problem, so Vera scored up her 2220. (I wish I remembered the hand, but it would take me too long to go home and dig through old Bulletins.) Of course, they should have called the director. Suppose the director had heard the claim statement, and then reasoned that "Vera said she'd take five spade tricks before she said three diamond tricks, so that's an indication that she plans to run spades before diamonds, and the fact that she said four club tricks indicates that she plans to keep all four of her clubs in dummy, so given those parameters, the double squeeze will fall into place and she will make her contract, so we'll give her 2220"? Puhleeze, no. When a player makes a claim like that, whether out of carelessness or guile, they should not be rewarded. My apologies if I misunderstood what anyone was trying to say, or took anyone too seriously. :) -- Adam From owner-bridge-laws Wed Feb 5 09:29:43 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA16676 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 5 Feb 1997 09:29:43 +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 JAA16670 for ; Wed, 5 Feb 1997 09:29:24 +1100 Received: from localhost by flash.irvine.com id aa20169; 4 Feb 97 14:28 PST To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au CC: adam@flash.irvine.com Subject: Re: Strange Claim In-reply-to: Your message of "Tue, 04 Feb 1997 22:36:24 PST." Date: Tue, 04 Feb 1997 14:28:35 PST From: Adam Beneschan Message-ID: <9702041428.aa20169@flash.irvine.com> Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Henk wrote: > > It sounds to me as if east is simply going to cash pointed suit winners, > thus coming down to: > > -- > Ax > J > xx > -- -- > xx K > x -- > KQ AJ97 > -- > Qx > -- > Txx > > where his only chance is to overtake the second club, to force east to > keep --/KJ/--/AJ9 isn't consistent with his claim to make 4 clubs. Actually, that isn't his only chance. He could play South for the heart ace and four clubs, in which case he's stepping-stone squeezed (did I get the term right?) He could read the end position as -- Qxx J x -- -- xx K x -- KQ AJ97 -- A -- Txxx in which case he cashes two clubs and plays a heart. I'd also call this a "normal" (i.e. not irrational) play under Law 70, so it would have to be considered in determining the score on the board. -- Adam From owner-bridge-laws Wed Feb 5 12:33:28 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id MAA18063 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 5 Feb 1997 12:33:28 +1100 Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id MAA18058 for ; Wed, 5 Feb 1997 12:33:20 +1100 Received: from cfa183.harvard.edu (cfa183.harvard.edu [131.142.12.59]) by cfa.harvard.edu (8.8.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id UAA03534 for ; Tue, 4 Feb 1997 20:33:09 -0500 (EST) Received: by cfa183.harvard.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id UAA23143; Tue, 4 Feb 1997 20:33:21 -0500 Date: Tue, 4 Feb 1997 20:33:21 -0500 From: willner@cfa183.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Message-Id: <199702050133.UAA23143@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Agreement over insufficient bids X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: Stephen_Barnfield@europe.notes.pw.com > Everyone (that I have heard of) has assumed that the final sentence of > Law40D permits Zonal Organisations (ZOs) to regulate "weak" one-level > *openings*, even if natural. Why is the ability to regulate restricted to > openings? Why not one-level natural overcalls? I didn't think there was any doubt that ZO's may regulate weak one-level overcalls. I believe they can also regulate weak doubles of one-level openings. > Perhaps ZOs don't want this power. I'm not aware of any ZO that has chosen to regulate either overcalls or doubles. > A separate but related matter is whether the first actionS (ie one by each > member of the partnership), even if natural (but "weak"), can be regulated by a > ZO. I think not: I think it is just the *first* action by *one member of a > partnership* which can be regulated in this way. Good job I looked this up! The phrase is "partnership's initial actions." Note plural in last word; I had remembered it as being singular. So I think the Law indeed allows regulation of _each_ partner's first action, as long as it is at the one level. At the very least, a ZO might easily claim such authority, though again I'm not aware of any having established such regulations. > Yet another related matter arises from the choice of the word *action* rather > than *bid* or *call*. In colloquial bridge terminology I would argue an action > is usually a call other than a pass. This being so it is arguable that a ZO > could also regulate a "weak" natural one-level overcall following an initial > pass. I think this is right, though I suspect the word "action" was chosen to allow regulation of weak doubles. This is just speculation on my part. From owner-bridge-laws Thu Feb 6 03:23:43 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA26212 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 6 Feb 1997 03:23:43 +1100 Received: from freya.van.hookup.net (freya.van.hookup.net [207.102.129.2]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id DAA26205 for ; Thu, 6 Feb 1997 03:23:32 +1100 From: bc@mail.netshop.net Received: from mail.netshop.net ([205.233.191.17]) by freya.van.hookup.net (8.8.5/1.18) with SMTP id IAA17223 for ; Wed, 5 Feb 1997 08:23:16 -0800 (PST) Date: Wed, 5 Feb 1997 08:23:16 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <199702051623.IAA17223@freya.van.hookup.net> X-Sender: bc@mail.netshop.net X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Version 1.4.3 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: alert ruling Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I suspect some people will think I've lost my mind in this, but I have to post it anyway. This didn't happen at my table but it got a lot of discussion, and I spoke to a number of people including a member of the appeal committee. I played in a Calcutta last weekend, supposedly governed by A.C.B.L. alert rules. It was a Flight "A" event and the players involved were all experienced and knowledgable. An auction went; 1D-P -1H-1S X -2H-all pass The 2 heart bidder had 3 hearts, his partner 2 hearts, and they ended up playing a 3-2 fit down several. I didn't write down the hands. When it was discovered that the double of 1S was for penalty instead of something else ( I suppose it might have been a support double) the director was called, he ruled (I believe-I know the side that played the 3-2 fit appealed and know the appeal decision but am assuming the director's decision) that there was a failure to alert but no damage. The decision of the appeal committee was that the penalty double should have been alerted and the score was changed to +3 imps for the declaring side (which had been down several tricks) and -3 imps for the other side. I didn't check the alert chart to see if the double really needs to be alerted (it wouldn't have ocurred to me to alert it) but even if it should have been, I don't see the damage. It appeared to me that the side that appealed had created their own bad result by playing in a cue bid. The result moved the pair that won the appeal from 6th to 5th in the event. Comments, anyone? bc From owner-bridge-laws Thu Feb 6 03:48:39 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA26450 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 6 Feb 1997 03:48:39 +1100 Received: from mail.be.innet.net (mail.be.innet.net [194.7.1.8]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id DAA26444 for ; Thu, 6 Feb 1997 03:48:30 +1100 Received: from innet.innet.be (pool03-17.innet.be [194.7.10.17]) by mail.be.innet.net (8.7.6/8.7.3) with SMTP id RAA06967 for ; Wed, 5 Feb 1997 17:48:24 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: <32F88AA1.3A69@innet.be> Date: Wed, 05 Feb 1997 13:26:57 +0000 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01 (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Ethical Problem, or no? References: <970204114952_-1643698773@emout10.mail.aol.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk AlLeBendig@aol.com wrote: > > In a message dated 97-02-04 06:08:55 EST, you write: > > > Irv finally presents an easy problem compared with what he gives me at the > table. There is no doubt that the question is legitimate within the Laws. > UNLESS for some reason we feel the inquiry was meant to decieve. I might agree with you on this statement, were it not for the fact that this is so totally unworkable. I may ask some questions, not especially with the intent to decieve, but rather to not reveal my holding. On a 10 lead (see your example below), I might just ask what the leads are, because it would be logical for me to want to know this. By not asking the obvious question, I might be giving opponents the info that I already know the answer, hence that I see all honours. I cannot be obliged to give them this information. (but see my remarks on the next case there). > In most > cases I would have a great deal of difficulty believing that. Unlike > Hermann. I do not think that is or should be any part of the game. Herman (the second N is far too German for my liking - sorry to have to say this) thinks : Either a deception is allowed or it isn't. If it isn't, it should be punished. If it's allowed, it should be applauded, like Zia dropping a queen under the king only to show up later with the ace. If we say that the legitimate asking of questions, when misleading, is not allowed, then we are limiting the powers that a player has received under Law 20F. I think it is far better for the game to allow these types of misleadings. > I have > found it a good practice to routinely ask about leads before I ever see the > dummy. That will often protect me from having asked a question I no longer > need the answer to. Sometimes we know what the lead is from but need to know > what our RHO knows. Any question is still totally legitimate. If RHO draws > an inference from the question, that's their problem. > exactly, but asking the same question after dummy tables should not change this point of view. > I remember one incident from an NABC where we took action against a player > because of some questions after the lead. His LHO (known pro) led a 10. > After seeing the dummy (he held AKQJ between the two) he started asking > questions of LOL on his right. Would he lead the 10 from this holding - > would he lead it from that holding, etc. After several questions of this > nature he won the lead on dummy, drew trumps and took a finesse into RHO. > She returned the led suit instead of a necessary switch. The pro brought > this to a committee and it was felt that this player had gone out of his way > to intentionally try to deceive his RHO. The board was adjusted and the > player in question was given a PP. The pro had a 45% game but was willing to > take the time because of what had happened. I always have admired him > because he was willing to take the time to pursue that when it made no > difference to him. > I completely agree with your decision, but on another ground. The deception is here not in the asking of the question, but in the manner that the question has been asked. A neutral question : 'how are the leads ?' is not the same as the barrage of intrest this player seems to have shown in this case. This case can easily be dealt with by Law 73D2 'mislead an opponent by means of remark or gesture'. Manner, haste, hesitance and all that = illegal deception. Neutral asking of a normal question = legal deception. > I feel many of these problems would cease to exist if players would ask their > questions prior to seeing the dummy. I firmly believe this is a good habit. > I agree, but if you set this as a practice, then you will have even more cases on your books 'director, he asked the question after dummy came down ...' -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.club.innet.be/~pub02163/index.htm From owner-bridge-laws Thu Feb 6 04:18:49 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA26659 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 6 Feb 1997 04:18:49 +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 EAA26654 for ; Thu, 6 Feb 1997 04:18:40 +1100 Received: from localhost by flash.irvine.com id aa08128; 5 Feb 97 9:18 PST To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au CC: adam@flash.irvine.com Subject: Re: alert ruling In-reply-to: Your message of "Wed, 05 Feb 1997 08:23:16 PST." <199702051623.IAA17223@freya.van.hookup.net> Date: Wed, 05 Feb 1997 09:17:56 PST From: Adam Beneschan Message-ID: <9702050918.aa08128@flash.irvine.com> Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > > 1D-P -1H-1S > X -2H-all pass > > . . . . . > I didn't check the alert chart to see if the double really needs to be > alerted (it wouldn't have ocurred to me to alert it) but even if it should > have been, I don't see the damage. It appeared to me that the side that > appealed had created their own bad result by playing in a cue bid. > > The result moved the pair that won the appeal from 6th to 5th in the event. The double does not need to be alerted. (I assume you're in ACBL territory.) The only penalty doubles that need to be alerted, if I have my facts straight, are: (1) penalty doubles after a suit opening bid and an overcall through 3S, since negative doubles are now considered standard; (2) penalty doubles of opening suit bids through 4H, since takeout doubles are standard. There may be other situations, such as 1S-pass-2S-X, where a non-penalty meaning is so standard that a penalty double should be alerted. But in the case you describe, support doubles are *not* considered standard (they are definitely alertable), and penalty doubles are in no way alertable. As for your second point: if the "standard" meaning of double here were a support double, I still don't think there's a case. The "misinformation" argument would be that E-W were misled to believe that double was a support double, and this misinformation caused their busted auction. This argument doesn't make sense here, though. If E-W really believed that double was a support double, there's no way they'd play in the opponent's 7+ card fit. It seems to me that if you're running a game where there are monetary rewards, you'd better have a damn good appeal committee that knows the rules. This one falls short. I don't know what the best course of action might be. But if you can get an opinion from someone with authority, like maybe a top national director, that double is not alertable in this auction; then if you inform the committee members that they made a bad decision and screwed someone out of some money (more diplomatically than that, of course); then . . . well, I don't know what would happen. Hopefully some good would come out of it. -- Adam From owner-bridge-laws Thu Feb 6 04:38:56 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA28229 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 6 Feb 1997 04:38:56 +1100 Received: from emout20.mail.aol.com (emout20.mx.aol.com [198.81.11.46]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id EAA28208 for ; Thu, 6 Feb 1997 04:38:48 +1100 From: AlLeBendig@aol.com Received: (from root@localhost) by emout20.mail.aol.com (8.7.6/8.7.3/AOL-2.0.0) id MAA07237 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Wed, 5 Feb 1997 12:38:07 -0500 (EST) Date: Wed, 5 Feb 1997 12:38:07 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <970205115512_473598459@emout20.mail.aol.com> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: alert ruling Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In a message dated 97-02-05 11:27:21 EST, you write: > I played in a Calcutta last weekend, supposedly governed by A.C.B.L. alert > rules. It was a Flight "A" event and the players involved were all > experienced and knowledgable. An auction went; > > 1D-P -1H-1S > X -2H-all pass > > The 2 heart bidder had 3 hearts, his partner 2 hearts, and they ended up > playing a 3-2 fit down several. I didn't write down the hands. > > When it was discovered that the double of 1S was for penalty instead of > something else ( I suppose it might have been a support double) the director > was called, he ruled (I believe-I know the side that played the 3-2 fit > appealed and know the appeal decision but am assuming the director's > decision) that there was a failure to alert but no damage. > > The decision of the appeal committee was that the penalty double should have > been alerted and the score was changed to +3 imps for the declaring side > (which had been down several tricks) and -3 imps for the other side. > > I didn't check the alert chart to see if the double really needs to be > alerted Penalty doubles are alertable here. However, it is well worth noting that a support double is also alertable! The fact that there was no alert and has not given the opponents a free shot at doing something stupid. They're still obligated to protect themselves. They knew it meant something and didn't ask. > (it wouldn't have ocurred to me to alert it) but even if it should > have been, I don't see the damage. It appeared to me that the side that > appealed had created their own bad result by playing in a cue bid. I agree totally. The resulting damage could in no way be tied to the failure to alert the double. A simple example of subsequent damage as opposed to consequent damage. I think the director got it right and this committee found some excuse to give a pair something for nothing. What they deserved was a penalty for filing this appeal. Absurd! The doubling side should have been informed that penalty doubles at this level are alertable. Hopefully the Board of Directors will eliminate some alerts for doubles during the Dallas meetings. IMO, this area is much too confusing now. Alan LeBendig From owner-bridge-laws Thu Feb 6 05:13:48 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA01629 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 6 Feb 1997 05:13:48 +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 FAA01599 for ; Thu, 6 Feb 1997 05:13:39 +1100 Received: from casewise.demon.co.uk ([158.152.187.206]) by relay-10.mail.demon.net id aa1007947; 5 Feb 97 18:01 GMT From: David Martin To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Wed, 5 Feb 1997 17:18:45 Subject: Re: Time for another easy one for Jens! X-Confirm-Reading-To: David Martin X-pmrqc: 1 Priority: normal X-mailer: Pegasus Mail v3.22 Message-ID: <855165687.107947.0@casewise.demon.co.uk> Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Hi! I'm David Martin but better known to my friends as HH (Hideous Hog) when playing and DM (don't ask) when directing. > 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. > > 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. Thus far, I agree with David Stevenson that, in Europe, L25 should be invoked first and the opportunity to accept the Double offered to LHO. Afterall, IMO if LHO had bid before the TD was called then the double would be legally condoned (Law 11B) and the arrival at the table of the TD cannot take away that right (Law 9B1(c)). But this is an old arguement and not my main point. > David Stevenson continues: > > 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 agree that if LHO does not accept the Double then L27 should be applied. However, if LHO does not accept the insufficient bid, **then it seems odd to me that L27B3 should not be immediately applied to the first Double** (my main point). After all, there is nothing in the Laws to support the suggestion above that only one law can be applied to an action and in plenty of other situations several laws are used. IMO a player should not be legally able to Double without penalty prior to the TD ruling but be prevented from doing so once the TD has ruled, ie. the same principle as above (Law 9B1(b)). If the double after a ruling is illegal and will be penalised then IMO so should one made before the TD has ruled. If we accept the proposal above that the offender can correct to 4S *without penalty* and if the first Double showed defensive values then would this really be AI for the offender's partner under Law 16C2 ("information arising from its own withdrawn actions is authorised, after the payment of any penalty imposed by law.")? I have always assumed that the specific purpose of L27B3 was to prevent this information being given prior to correction to the lowest bid in the same denomination and then used later by the offender's partner, eg. when deciding whether to sacrifice or defend. Is there some other purpose? I believe that in the new Laws (usual caveats) all information from offenders' withdrawn actions will be unauthorised for them in which case should L27B3 be changed merely to cancel a double if it is not condoned? Regards. David M From owner-bridge-laws Thu Feb 6 05:39:20 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA04050 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 6 Feb 1997 05:39:20 +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 FAA04012 for ; Thu, 6 Feb 1997 05:39:11 +1100 Received: from localhost by flash.irvine.com id aa10808; 5 Feb 97 10:38 PST To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au CC: adam@flash.irvine.com Subject: Re: alert ruling In-reply-to: Your message of "Wed, 05 Feb 1997 12:38:07 PST." <970205115512_473598459@emout20.mail.aol.com> Date: Wed, 05 Feb 1997 10:38:23 PST From: Adam Beneschan Message-ID: <9702051038.aa10808@flash.irvine.com> Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Al LeBendig writes: > > 1D-P -1H-1S > > X -2H-all pass > > Penalty doubles are alertable here. However, it is well worth noting that a > support double is also alertable! The fact that there was no alert and has > not given the opponents a free shot at doing something stupid. They're still > obligated to protect themselves. They knew it meant something and didn't > ask. After reading this, I had to check the Alert chart to see whether my foot was ensconced in my mouth when I made my previous contribution saying the penalty double was not alertable. I'm now looking at the Alert chart, and I still don't see why a penalty double is alertable here. A "Type One" double is defined as: IF TAKEOUT: 1. a. Early Doubles with suit(s) bid thru 4H with partner inactive. b. The Double in the following auction: (one of a suit) - (overcall in suit through 3S) - Double, when the double is not penalty and shows at least 4 cards in an unbid major or is for takeout when there is no unbid major. c. Low-level balancing This is under the Not Alertable column. The double in the above auction doesn't fall under 1(a), since partner isn't inactive; it doesn't fall under 1(b) since 1(b) names a specific auction; it doesn't fall under 1(c) since it's not a balancing double. Also under Not Alertable is 2. Doubles in auctions other than the ones described in Type One above that are penalty(ish), including lead directors of suit named. Since the double isn't a Type One double and it's for penalties, it should fall under heading (2) and should therefore be Not Alertable. What am I missing? -- thanks, Adam From owner-bridge-laws Thu Feb 6 06:11:58 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA05596 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 6 Feb 1997 06:11:58 +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 GAA05591 for ; Thu, 6 Feb 1997 06:11:52 +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 OAA24500 for ; Wed, 5 Feb 1997 14:11:44 -0500 (EST) Date: Wed, 5 Feb 1997 14:11:44 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <199702051911.OAA24500@andrew.cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@cais.com (Unverified) X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Version 1.4.4 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: elandau@cais.com (Eric Landau) Subject: Re: alert ruling Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk >I suspect some people will think I've lost my mind in this, but I have to >post it anyway. This didn't happen at my table but it got a lot of >discussion, and I spoke to a number of people including a member of the >appeal committee. > >I played in a Calcutta last weekend, supposedly governed by A.C.B.L. alert >rules. It was a Flight "A" event and the players involved were all >experienced and knowledgable. An auction went; > >1D-P -1H-1S >X -2H-all pass > >The 2 heart bidder had 3 hearts, his partner 2 hearts, and they ended up >playing a 3-2 fit down several. I didn't write down the hands. > >When it was discovered that the double of 1S was for penalty instead of >something else ( I suppose it might have been a support double) the director >was called, he ruled (I believe-I know the side that played the 3-2 fit >appealed and know the appeal decision but am assuming the director's >decision) that there was a failure to alert but no damage. > >The decision of the appeal committee was that the penalty double should have >been alerted and the score was changed to +3 imps for the declaring side >(which had been down several tricks) and -3 imps for the other side. > >I didn't check the alert chart to see if the double really needs to be >alerted (it wouldn't have ocurred to me to alert it) but even if it should >have been, I don't see the damage. It appeared to me that the side that >appealed had created their own bad result by playing in a cue bid. > >The result moved the pair that won the appeal from 6th to 5th in the event. > >Comments, anyone? It's the director (if indeed he ruled a failure to alert, damage or not) and the AC that have lost their minds. The ACBL regulations (June 1996 ACBL Bulletin, p. 67) are quite clear. This double is assumed to be penalty; any OTHER meaning would require an alert. Direct doubles are assumed to be for takeout, and require an alert if for penalty, in only two positions: (1) Ordinary takeout double (opening bid by RHO) through 4H; (2) Ordinary negative double (opening bid by partner, overcall by RHO), promising the (only) unbid major if there is one, through 3S. In all other positions penalty doubles should not be alerted, and any non-penalty double must be. Eric Landau APL Solutions, Inc. elandau@cais.com 1107 Dale Drive (301) 589-4621 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 USA From owner-bridge-laws Thu Feb 6 08:45:59 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA06458 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 6 Feb 1997 08:45:59 +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 IAA06453 for ; Thu, 6 Feb 1997 08:45:48 +1100 Received: (from smap@localhost) by msri.org (8.8.2/8.7.2) id NAA27887; Wed, 5 Feb 1997 13:45:49 -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 sma027879; Wed Feb 5 13:45:35 1997 Received: by boole.msri.org (8.7/DW.6) id NAA19070; Wed, 5 Feb 1997 13:45:14 -0800 (PST) Date: Wed, 5 Feb 1997 13:45:14 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <199702052145.NAA19070@boole.msri.org> From: David Grabiner To: AlLeBendig@aol.com CC: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au In-reply-to: <970205115512_473598459@emout20.mail.aol.com> (AlLeBendig@aol.com) Subject: Re: alert ruling Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Alan LeBendig writes: > In a message dated 97-02-05 11:27:21 EST, you write: >> I played in a Calcutta last weekend, supposedly governed by A.C.B.L. alert >> rules. It was a Flight "A" event and the players involved were all >> experienced and knowledgable. An auction went; >> >> 1D-P -1H-1S >> X -2H-all pass >> When it was discovered that the double of 1S was for penalty instead >> of something else ( I suppose it might have been a support double) >> the director was called, he ruled (I believe-I know the side that >> played the 3-2 fit appealed and know the appeal decision but am >> assuming the director's decision) that there was a failure to alert >> but no damage. > Penalty doubles are alertable here. However, it is well worth noting that a > support double is also alertable! The ACBL Alert Chart doesn't seem to agree with the alertability of penalty doubles. Here's the relevant quote from the ACBL Alert Chart pamphlet: Any kind of non-penalty doubles of the opponents overcalls in auctions other than the one described above [1 of a suit-overcall through 3C-X] are Alertable. Doubles for penalty in those cases require no Alert. It also doesn't make sense to have a bid which is Alertable no matter what it means, as this removes any message from the Alert >> (it wouldn't have ocurred to me to alert it) but even if it should >> have been, I don't see the damage. It appeared to me that the side that >> appealed had created their own bad result by playing in a cue bid. > I agree totally. The resulting damage could in no way be tied to the failure > to alert the double. A simple example of subsequent damage as opposed to > consequent damage. I think the director got it right and this committee > found some excuse to give a pair something for nothing. What they deserved > was a penalty for filing this appeal. I will assume, for the purpose of this argument, that there was a failure to alert; clearly, if the bid was not alertable, there was no infraction and the appeal is frivolous. The only case for adjustment would be that the 2H bidder took the double as support and made a cue-bid, and the overcaller took it as penalty and passed an apparent rescue. An adjustment is possible only if the misinformation could have suggested this interpretation. Thus, if both support and penalty doubles are alertable, I don't see the misinformation suggesting one over the other; what would a non-alerted double mean? At this level, the opponents shouldn't assume a particular meaning of a non-alerted double which would imply a failure to alert; therefore, no adjustment. If only penalty doubles are alertable, we need to look at the facts. Since the overcaller believes that the double should have been alerted, he couldn't have known the meaning without asking or checking the convention card. Did he? If he asked and this exposed a failure to Alert, it was exposed in time for 2H to be retracted. If he checked the card (or had checked it before), he has a potential case. This raises another question: what are you supposed to do when you become aware of an inconsistency between the opponents' convention card and their alerts or announced agreements? I believe that I have read somewhere that you should call the director at that point if you want any redress for misinformation. -- 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 Feb 6 08:53:53 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA06530 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 6 Feb 1997 08:53:53 +1100 Received: from emout01.mail.aol.com (emout01.mx.aol.com [198.81.11.92]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id IAA06525 for ; Thu, 6 Feb 1997 08:53:47 +1100 From: AlLeBendig@aol.com Received: (from root@localhost) by emout01.mail.aol.com (8.7.6/8.7.3/AOL-2.0.0) id QAA20751 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Wed, 5 Feb 1997 16:53:04 -0500 (EST) Date: Wed, 5 Feb 1997 16:53:04 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <970205164300_-1677096591@emout01.mail.aol.com> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: alert ruling Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In a message dated 97-02-05 13:40:56 EST, I wrote: > Al LeBendig writes: > > > > 1D-P -1H-1S > > > X -2H-all pass > > > > Penalty doubles are alertable here. However, it is well worth noting that > a > > support double is also alertable! The fact that there was no alert and > has > > not given the opponents a free shot at doing something stupid. They're > still > > obligated to protect themselves. They knew it meant something and didn't > > ask. Adam then wrote: > After reading this, I had to check the Alert chart to see whether my > foot was ensconced in my mouth when I made my previous contribution > saying the penalty double was not alertable. No, Adam. Your foot is fine. I'm the one with the problem. The penalty double here is DEFINITELY not alertable. Someday you'll be my age and understand how these things can happen. Let the record reflect that I WAS WRONG!! (I hate when that happens.) In the meantime, directors and committees must understand that even if there was a technical error as far as the alert procedure is concerned, that does not automatically entitle someone to redress. The better the skill level, the more a player is expected to protect themself. We must remain strong on penalizing those that are looking for something for nothing (as in this case). Alan LeBendig From owner-bridge-laws Thu Feb 6 12:29:35 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id MAA08108 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 6 Feb 1997 12:29:35 +1100 Received: from emout07.mail.aol.com (emout07.mx.aol.com [198.81.11.22]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id MAA08103 for ; Thu, 6 Feb 1997 12:29:28 +1100 From: AlLeBendig@aol.com Received: (from root@localhost) by emout07.mail.aol.com (8.7.6/8.7.3/AOL-2.0.0) id UAA24097 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Wed, 5 Feb 1997 20:28:52 -0500 (EST) Date: Wed, 5 Feb 1997 20:28:52 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <970205194526_242859225@emout07.mail.aol.com> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Quick Opinions Needed Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I want some opinions before making a final ruling. Sitting S you hold: AQx T98xx x Kxxx. Both red, matchpoints. Auction: E S W N P P 1D DBL 4D 4H P* P 5D ? * Clear Hesitation S is aggressive player but not great. Fairly experienced. What I want to know is how bad a bid would you rate 5H. Is it a reasonable call? If it is wrong, would you expect a player to live with the result? It will be interesting to see if those non-ACBLers feel differently than those here. Thanks for the time. Alan LeBendig From owner-bridge-laws Thu Feb 6 13:14:39 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id NAA08467 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 6 Feb 1997 13:14:39 +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 NAA08462 for ; Thu, 6 Feb 1997 13:14:31 +1100 Received: from localhost by flash.irvine.com id aa00963; 5 Feb 97 18:13 PST To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au CC: adam@flash.irvine.com Subject: Re: Quick Opinions Needed In-reply-to: Your message of "Wed, 05 Feb 1997 20:28:52 PST." <970205194526_242859225@emout07.mail.aol.com> Date: Wed, 05 Feb 1997 18:13:36 PST From: Adam Beneschan Message-ID: <9702051813.aa00963@flash.irvine.com> Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > > I want some opinions before making a final ruling. Sitting S you hold: > > AQx T98xx x Kxxx. Both red, matchpoints. Auction: > > E S W N > P P 1D DBL > 4D 4H P* P > 5D ? > > * Clear Hesitation > > S is aggressive player but not great. Fairly experienced. > > What I want to know is how bad a bid would you rate 5H. Is it a reasonable > call? If it is wrong, would you expect a player to live with the result? I probably would pass, with double my second choice. Partner could be 4=3=2=4. Give him KJxx Axx xx AQxx or KJxx AQx xx QJxx, e.g. My quick opinion is that bidding 5H here is marginal at best, particularly since partner has another chance to bid (and can probably tell that you have a stiff diamond). So since there are two other options, I wouldn't call 5H "reasonable", but it's close. As for whether I'd expect a player to live with the result: I assume the issue is that East took advantage of partner's hesitation, and South bid 5H, and that the question is whether the bad result by N-S was due to South's action or not. Since my choice is to pass here, I think the answer depends on North's hand--would he carry on to 5H over my pass? If so, then the bad result was *not* consequent to South's action, since they would have gotten to a bad contract anyway; but if North clearly would not have bid on, I'm not sure what to think, since 5H is borderline. I guess that for this purpose, I'd consider 5H a bad call and let N-S keep the result. If North has a hand where it's not clear whether he'd bid on or not, I'd give N-S the benefit of the doubt. Hope this helps despite the fuzzy answers. -- Adam From owner-bridge-laws Thu Feb 6 13:21:03 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id NAA08530 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 6 Feb 1997 13:21:03 +1100 Received: from smtp3.erols.com (smtp3.erols.com [205.252.116.103]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id NAA08525 for ; Thu, 6 Feb 1997 13:20:48 +1100 Received: from hdavis.erols.com (spg-as45s77.erols.com [207.172.113.161]) by smtp3.erols.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id VAA04633; Wed, 5 Feb 1997 21:20:28 -0500 Message-Id: <3.0.32.19970205212109.00692eb4@pop.erols.com> X-Sender: hdavis@pop.erols.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0 (32) Date: Wed, 05 Feb 1997 21:21:11 -0500 To: AlLeBendig@aol.com, bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Hirsch Davis Subject: Re: Quick Opinions Needed Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 08:28 PM 2/5/97 -0500, you wrote: >I want some opinions before making a final ruling. Sitting S you hold: > >AQx T98xx x Kxxx. Both red, matchpoints. Auction: > >E S W N >P P 1D DBL >4D 4H P* P >5D ? > >* Clear Hesitation > >S is aggressive player but not great. Fairly experienced. > >What I want to know is how bad a bid would you rate 5H. Is it a reasonable >call? If it is wrong, would you expect a player to live with the result? > >It will be interesting to see if those non-ACBLers feel differently than >those here. > >Thanks for the time. > >Alan LeBendig > > If wrong, S certainly should live with the result. Inference from opponents' hesistations is at S's own risk. IMO 5H is terrible. The hand has nothing extra after 4H, either SQ, CK or both may be positioned badly, and the stiff D appears to be a duplicated value. N heard the 4H call, and is better placed to make a decision than S. If S bids 5H, and it doesn't work, s/he should be reminded that partner still had a bid, and made to live with the result. Question: is pass forcing after 4H is bid red? If so, 5H is even less attractive. Hirsch From owner-bridge-laws Thu Feb 6 13:39:04 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id NAA08584 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 6 Feb 1997 13:39:04 +1100 Received: from lsbsdi1.lightspeed.net (root@lsbsdi1.lightspeed.net [204.216.65.99]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id NAA08579 for ; Thu, 6 Feb 1997 13:38:57 +1100 Received: from LOCALNAME (bak-brks2-ppp037.lightspeed.net [207.113.248.56]) by lsbsdi1.lightspeed.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id SAA06079; Wed, 5 Feb 1997 18:37:27 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <32F80439.5698@lightspeed.net> Date: Tue, 04 Feb 1997 19:53:29 -0800 From: "John R. Mayne" X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.01KIT (Win16; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: AlLeBendig@aol.com CC: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Quick Opinions Needed References: <970205194526_242859225@emout07.mail.aol.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk AlLeBendig@aol.com wrote: > > I want some opinions before making a final ruling. Sitting S you hold: > > AQx T98xx x Kxxx. Both red, matchpoints. Auction: > > E S W N > P P 1D DBL > 4D 4H P* P > 5D ? > > * Clear Hesitation > > S is aggressive player but not great. Fairly experienced. > > What I want to know is how bad a bid would you rate 5H. Is it a reasonable > call? If it is wrong, would you expect a player to live with the result? > > It will be interesting to see if those non-ACBLers feel differently than > those here. > The first question is whether pass is forcing. I doubt this partnership has a firm agreement, and I'd guess in the BW's MSC there would be a split (I think I'd be in the majority and call it forcing.) But I think in a non-high level game, South's real choices are double and 5H. I'd double, unhappily. But at matchpoints, with the expectation against 5D insufficient, I think 5H is very reasonable. Catch a normalish dummy: KJxx KQxx xx AQx and you may be turning +500 into +650. (With my double, I am hoping for +800 and partner to have a diamond or two, or for 10 tricks to be our limit) I bet the hesitator was thinking about doubling and partner wasn't picking up the right vibe. You didn't ask, but bidding 4D then 5D on this type of auction is a total violation of captaincy, and reeks. JRM From owner-bridge-laws Thu Feb 6 14:43:06 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id OAA08798 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 6 Feb 1997 14:43:06 +1100 Received: from smtp1.erols.com (smtp1.erols.com [205.252.116.101]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id OAA08793 for ; Thu, 6 Feb 1997 14:42:58 +1100 Received: from hdavis.erols.com (spg-as45s77.erols.com [207.172.113.161]) by smtp1.erols.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id WAA26660 for ; Wed, 5 Feb 1997 22:44:08 -0500 Message-Id: <3.0.32.19970205224207.00695400@pop.erols.com> X-Sender: hdavis@pop.erols.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0 (32) Date: Wed, 05 Feb 1997 22:43:35 -0500 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Hirsch Davis Subject: Re: Quick Opinions Needed Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 09:21 PM 2/5/97 -0500, you wrote: >At 08:28 PM 2/5/97 -0500, you wrote: >>I want some opinions before making a final ruling. Sitting S you hold: >> >>AQx T98xx x Kxxx. Both red, matchpoints. Auction: >> >>E S W N >>P P 1D DBL >>4D 4H P* P >>5D ? >> >>* Clear Hesitation >> >>S is aggressive player but not great. Fairly experienced. >> >>What I want to know is how bad a bid would you rate 5H. Is it a reasonable >>call? If it is wrong, would you expect a player to live with the result? >> >>It will be interesting to see if those non-ACBLers feel differently than >>those here. >> >>Thanks for the time. >> >>Alan LeBendig >> >> >If wrong, S certainly should live with the result. Inference from >opponents' hesistations is at S's own risk. IMO 5H is terrible. The hand >has nothing extra after 4H, either SQ, CK or both may be positioned badly, >and the stiff D appears to be a duplicated value. N heard the 4H call, and >is better placed to make a decision than S. If S bids 5H, and it doesn't >work, s/he should be reminded that partner still had a bid, and made to >live with the result. > >Question: is pass forcing after 4H is bid red? If so, 5H is even less >attractive. > >Hirsch > > Hmmmm....I answered too quickly. The unasked question was whether or not E-W should live with their result. Unless 5D is marked, the EW score should be rolled back to 4H NS, whatever that result would be. The question then is if the N-S score should also be rolled back, particularly if there is a 5H bid by S that contributed to a bad result. It's tempting to say that the score should be rolled back for both sides, however, there is a good chance that 5DX could be excellent for N-S, and the damage was not caused by the 5D bid, but by S bidding in front of partner (I still hate that 5H bid). So, how I would rule might depend on whether or not the 5D bid pinned N-S. If the bid after the hesitation, gave N-S no chance for a good result, then N-S were clearly damaged by the 5D bid and should get an adjustment. If, however, 5DX was a good score, then the damage was not caused by 5D, but by the 5H bid by S. In that case, S has to live with it, IMHO. Hirsch From owner-bridge-laws Thu Feb 6 19:47:22 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id TAA09924 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 6 Feb 1997 19:47:22 +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 TAA09919 for ; Thu, 6 Feb 1997 19:47:16 +1100 Received: from localhost (pisarra@localhost) by ccnet3.ccnet.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id AAA26086 for ; Thu, 6 Feb 1997 00:45:59 -0800 X-Authentication-Warning: ccnet3.ccnet.com: pisarra owned process doing -bs Date: Thu, 6 Feb 1997 00:45:59 -0800 (PST) From: Chris Pisarra X-Sender: pisarra@ccnet3 To: bridge laws list Subject: Quick Opinions Needed In-Reply-To: <970205194526_242859225@emout07.mail.aol.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Wed, 5 Feb 1997 AlLeBendig@aol.com wrote: We've all seen the hand. > > What I want to know is how bad a bid would you rate 5H. Is it a reasonable > call? If it is wrong, would you expect a player to live with the result? I don't like 5H at all. I think South bid his values the first time and doesn't need to do so again. I also think he is taking a double shot here, figuring that the AC will give him the hand back if he has guessed wrong in the auction. I don't have any sympathy, and won't be giving any adjustments. Chris Chris Pisarra pisarra@ccnet.com From owner-bridge-laws Thu Feb 6 21:23:01 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id VAA10244 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 6 Feb 1997 21:23:01 +1100 Received: from uranus.bgr.de (uranus.bgr.de [193.174.160.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id VAA10239 for ; Thu, 6 Feb 1997 21:22:46 +1100 From: thomas.dehn@bgr.de Received: by uranus.bgr.de; (5.65v3.2/1.3/10May95) id AA26940; Thu, 6 Feb 1997 11:21:04 +0100 Received: by mailhub.bgr.de id AA22016; Thu, 6 Feb 1997 11:22:42 GMT Received: from localhost by b2ax02.nlfb.bgr.de; (5.65v3.2/1.1.8.2/04Dec96-0333PM) id AA03805; Thu, 6 Feb 1997 11:23:09 GMT Message-Id: <9702061123.AA03805@b2ax02.nlfb.bgr.de> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Quick Opinions Needed Date: Thu, 06 Feb 97 11:23:09 +0000 X-Mts: smtp Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Alan (AlLeBendig@aol.com) wrote: >AQx T98xx x Kxxx. Both red, matchpoints. Auction: >E S W N >P P 1D DBL >4D 4H P* P >5D ? I think we have to distinguish two cases here: Case 1) Pass is forcing: Then a forcing pass is perfect. Case 2) Pass is not forcing: It is very hard to imagine that 5D undoubled will yield a good score. Hence a pass is very risky. X with a singleton when they might have 11 trumps does not look too attractive, either, especially at MPs. I think I'd double now, anyway, because of all that outside strength, but it is very close. Thomas From owner-bridge-laws Thu Feb 6 22:37:37 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id WAA10424 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 6 Feb 1997 22:37:37 +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 WAA10419 for ; Thu, 6 Feb 1997 22:37:30 +1100 Received: (from root@localhost) by tom.compulink.co.uk (8.8.4/8.6.9) id LAA18737 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Thu, 6 Feb 1997 11:37:02 GMT Date: Thu, 6 Feb 97 11:36 GMT0 From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: Quick Opinions Needed 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: <970205194526_242859225@emout07.mail.aol.com> Al LeBendig wrote: > I want some opinions before making a final ruling. Sitting S you hold: > > AQx T98xx x Kxxx. Both red, matchpoints. Auction: > > E S W N > P P 1D DBL > 4D 4H P* P > 5D ? > > * Clear Hesitation > > S is aggressive player but not great. Fairly experienced. > > What I want to know is how bad a bid would you rate 5H. Is it a reasonable > call? If it is wrong, would you expect a player to live with the result? > > It will be interesting to see if those non-ACBLers feel differently than > those here. > > Thanks for the time. 5H would not be my choice, but it becomes more reasonable if South is unsure whether pass would be forcing. So it seems to me that 5H is probably poor, but not unreasonable. Surely South is entitled to think "East, as an ethical player, must consider 5D to be the clear percentage action or he wouldn't bid it - in which case 5H is more likely to be right so i'll bid it." without 5H being a double-shot? Tim West-Meads (outside ACBL-Land) From owner-bridge-laws Fri Feb 7 00:29:37 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA13000 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 7 Feb 1997 00:29:37 +1100 Received: from mail.be.innet.net (mail.be.innet.net [194.7.1.8]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id AAA12995 for ; Fri, 7 Feb 1997 00:29:30 +1100 Received: from innet.innet.be (pool03-84.innet.be [194.7.10.84]) by mail.be.innet.net (8.7.6/8.7.3) with SMTP id OAA20054 for ; Thu, 6 Feb 1997 14:29:23 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: <32F9E9DB.62D@innet.be> Date: Thu, 06 Feb 1997 14:25:31 +0000 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01 (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Quick Opinions Needed References: <970205194526_242859225@emout07.mail.aol.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk AlLeBendig@aol.com wrote: > > I want some opinions before making a final ruling. Sitting S you hold: > I was wondering how long it would take. The title of this mailing list is LAWS, not Rulings. Although I am not contrary to this kind of polling, I do not think this is the place. I would favour a new mailing list, or maybe even a newsgroup, to do this kind of polling. Meanwhile, I do not want to shoot Alan, nor would I object to others using the same medium. I want to congratulate Alan for putting the question neutrally, and not revealing that partner north has probably hesitated too. But then, he would, wouldn't he ? What I would like to tell you is that I'm not really interested in your replies. Nobody is, I can imagine. So if this Opinions wanted is ever repeated, please e-mail your answers. Since I don't see David's reply, and knowing he can't keep silent, I do suppose he has replied by mail. FWIW, I pass with the south hand. I think I've described my near maximum. BTW, this makes me think of another objection. If I simply reply and you don't know what a lousy player I am, how can you put any weight on my opinion. So any reply should include the level of play of the replier. (For me : that's fourth division Belgian - go figure that out). -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.club.innet.be/~pub02163/index.htm From owner-bridge-laws Fri Feb 7 00:38:27 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA13666 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 7 Feb 1997 00:38:27 +1100 Received: from relay-7.mail.demon.net (relay-7.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.9]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id AAA13658 for ; Fri, 7 Feb 1997 00:38:21 +1100 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by relay-6.mail.demon.net id aa629983; 6 Feb 97 13:29 GMT Message-ID: <3nC8pjCwxd+yEw0r@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Thu, 6 Feb 1997 13:28:16 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Quick Opinions Needed In-Reply-To: <970205194526_242859225@emout07.mail.aol.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Alan LeBendig wrote: >I want some opinions before making a final ruling. Sitting S you hold: > >AQx T98xx x Kxxx. Both red, matchpoints. Auction: > >E S W N >P P 1D DBL >4D 4H P* P >5D ? > >* Clear Hesitation > >S is aggressive player but not great. Fairly experienced. > >What I want to know is how bad a bid would you rate 5H. Is it a reasonable >call? If it is wrong, would you expect a player to live with the result? > >It will be interesting to see if those non-ACBLers feel differently than >those here. John R. Mayne wrote: >But I think >in a non-high level game, South's real choices are double and 5H. > >I'd double, unhappily. But at matchpoints, with the expectation against >5D insufficient, I think 5H is very reasonable. Hirsch Davis wrote: >IMO 5H is terrible. >Question: is pass forcing after 4H is bid red? If so, 5H is even less >attractive. Hirsch Davis wrote: >So, how I would rule might depend on whether or not the 5D bid pinned N-S. >If the bid after the hesitation, gave N-S no chance for a good result, then >N-S were clearly damaged by the 5D bid and should get an adjustment. Thomas Dehn wrote: >I think we have to distinguish two cases here: >Case 1) Pass is forcing: Then a forcing pass is perfect. > >Case 2) Pass is not forcing: It is very hard to imagine > that 5D undoubled will yield a good score. > Hence a pass is very risky. X with a singleton > when they might have 11 trumps does not > look too attractive, either, especially at MPs. > I think I'd double now, anyway, because of all that outside > strength, but it is very close. Tim West-meads wrote: >5H would not be my choice, but it becomes more reasonable if South is unsure >whether pass would be forcing. So it seems to me that 5H is probably poor, but >not unreasonable. Adam Beneschan wrote: >My >quick opinion is that bidding 5H here is marginal at best, >particularly since partner has another chance to bid (and can probably >tell that you have a stiff diamond). So since there are two other >options, I wouldn't call 5H "reasonable", but it's close. >I guess that for this purpose, I'd consider 5H a >bad call and let N-S keep the result. Chris Pisarra wrote: > I don't like 5H at all. I think South bid his values the first >time and doesn't need to do so again. So we have six people here, none of whom make 5H their first choice of call [and it isn't mine either]. 5H is very reasonable at matchpoints; terrible [or even less attractive]; probably poor, but not unreasonable; not "reasonable", but it's close [a bad call]; don't like 5H at all. It is incumbent on us to have every sympathy for N/S who should *never* have been faced with this decision. Discussions on this type of position, especially ACBL discussions, seem to forget this principle. Is 5H so bad a bid that we know that he was trying a double shot? No! There is too much support in the answers. Is 5H a logical alternative? Certainly in ACBL-land! What has that got to do with anything? A little consistency in the approach would be fair. If this is a logical alternative for one type of ruling how can you say it is an unfair action in another case? 5H is *not* a bad enough call to snap the causal link. 5H was consequent on the infraction. 5H was not "wild or gambling". Let us be careful not to penalise NOs. Hirsch Davis wrote: >If wrong, S certainly should live with the result. Inference from >opponents' hesistations is at S's own risk. What has this got to do with anything? -- 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 Feb 7 01:57:24 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA14140 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 7 Feb 1997 01:57:24 +1100 Received: from Amnesix.UQSS.UQuebec.ca (Amnesix.UQSS.UQuebec.CA [192.77.51.5]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id BAA14135 for ; Fri, 7 Feb 1997 01:57:15 +1100 From: Laval_DuBreuil@UQSS.UQuebec.CA Received: from Panoramix.UQSS.UQuebec.CA by Amnesix.UQSS.UQuebec.ca with SMTP (1.37.109.8/15.6) id AA25602; Thu, 6 Feb 1997 09:57:09 -0500 Received: from localhost by Panoramix.UQSS.UQuebec.ca with SMTP (1.39.111.2/15.6) id AA095231027; Thu, 6 Feb 1997 09:57:08 -0500 X-Openmail-Hops: 1 Date: Thu, 6 Feb 97 09:56:56 -0500 Message-Id: Subject: ACBL Alert chart interpretation To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Item Subject: Texte du message Hi everybody, Having join the list recently, I have seen some messages concerning interpretation of ACBL alert chart. I am happy to see that it seems to be as complicated for others than for me... (alertability of doubles at the low level is a recent example...). Let me ask for your help on this sequence: 1NT - P - 2C - P (2C is Stayman asking for a four-card major) 2X - P - 2N My interpretation of the ACBL alert chart and June Bulletin is that 2C is not alertable, but 2N should be if this bid does not promise a four-card major (preventing oppns from a bad lead...). I received 2 answers from ACBL headquarter...an electronic mail saying YES (it is alertable) and a letter to my fax saying NO. I raised this question on rec.games.bridge news. Most answers said YES. Would like to know the true truhth..... I wrote in a local french bridge journal that this sequence should be alerted. I dont know if I am older or younger than Al LeBendig, but hate too to be wrong.... Laval Du Breuil Quebec City From owner-bridge-laws Fri Feb 7 03:24:42 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA14584 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 7 Feb 1997 03:24:42 +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 DAA14572 for ; Fri, 7 Feb 1997 03:24:26 +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 LAA27873 for ; Thu, 6 Feb 1997 11:24:06 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <1.5.4.32.19970206162402.00683448@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, 06 Feb 1997 11:24:02 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: ACBL Alert chart interpretation Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 09:56 AM 2/6/97 -0500, Laval_DuBreuil wrote: >Having join the list recently, I have seen some messages concerning >interpretation of ACBL alert chart. I am happy to see that it seems to >be as complicated for others than for me... (alertability of doubles at >the low level is a recent example...). > >Let me ask for your help on this sequence: > >1NT - P - 2C - P (2C is Stayman asking for a four-card major) >2X - P - 2N > >My interpretation of the ACBL alert chart and June Bulletin is that 2C >is not alertable, but 2N should be if this bid does not promise a >four-card major (preventing oppns from a bad lead...). > >I received 2 answers from ACBL headquarter...an electronic mail saying >YES (it is alertable) and a letter to my fax saying NO. I raised this >question on rec.games.bridge news. Most answers said YES. Would like to >know the true truhth..... I think we must assume that the June Bulletin is the authoritative source, since it's the most recent officially published word on the matter from the ACBL to its players. It says, "When it becomes evident that the 2C bidder does not promise a four-card major, an Alert [sic] is required at that time," and goes on to cite the exact auction given above as an example. 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 Feb 7 04:08:43 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA14863 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 7 Feb 1997 04:08:43 +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 EAA14858 for ; Fri, 7 Feb 1997 04:08:37 +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 JAA26809 for <@mipl7.JPL.NASA.GOV:bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au>; Thu, 6 Feb 1997 09:07:58 -0800 Received: by tintin.JPL.NASA.GOV (940816.SGI.8.6.9/930416.SGI.MIPS) for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au id JAA20923; Thu, 6 Feb 1997 09:09:42 -0800 Date: Thu, 6 Feb 1997 09:09:42 -0800 From: jeff@tintin.JPL.NASA.GOV (Jeff Goldsmith) Message-Id: <199702061709.JAA20923@tintin.JPL.NASA.GOV> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Quick Opinions Needed References: <970205194526_242859225@emout07.mail.aol.com> Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Herman says: |AlLeBendig@aol.com wrote: |> |> I want some opinions before making a final ruling. Sitting S you hold: |> | |I was wondering how long it would take. |The title of this mailing list is LAWS, not Rulings. |Although I am not contrary to this kind of polling, I do not think this |is the place. I'm not convinced that it's not, and I don't see any reason not to have a bunch of folks who know the laws pretty well help one of the regulars with what's probably a column hand :) |I would favour a new mailing list, or maybe even a newsgroup, to do this |kind of polling. |Meanwhile, I do not want to shoot Alan, nor would I object to others |using the same medium. I propose a compromise. If the poster really just wants a ruling, he can say, "please reply via email." If he is going to have technical points raised and wants a discussion first, then he can suggest either email replies, which he can summarize, or open forum replies if he thinks that will work better. Does that sound sensible? If the groupthink is that email replies are preferable in general, then let that be the default if the poster doesn't say, but my guess is that we're all argumentative cusses and thus would be happy to hear other opinions. (I won't say why :)) |I want to congratulate Alan for putting the question neutrally, and not |revealing that partner north has probably hesitated too. But then, he |would, wouldn't he ? I don't think that's the issue. It looks to me to be a "consequent vs. subsequent" problem. --Jeff # "I'm a blonde; I'm a blonde: B-L-A-N-D!" # --- # http://muggy.gg.caltech.edu/~jeff From owner-bridge-laws Fri Feb 7 05:09:17 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA19338 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 7 Feb 1997 05:09:17 +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 FAA19333 for ; Fri, 7 Feb 1997 05:09:09 +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 NAA02359 for ; Thu, 6 Feb 1997 13:08:53 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <1.5.4.32.19970206180849.0067a4e4@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, 06 Feb 1997 13:08:49 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: Quick Opinions Needed Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 09:09 AM 2/6/97 -0800, Jeff wrote: >Herman says: > >|AlLeBendig@aol.com wrote: >|> >|> I want some opinions before making a final ruling. Sitting S you hold: >|> >| >|I was wondering how long it would take. >|The title of this mailing list is LAWS, not Rulings. >|Although I am not contrary to this kind of polling, I do not think this >|is the place. > >I'm not convinced that it's not, and I don't >see any reason not to have a bunch of folks >who know the laws pretty well help one of the >regulars with what's probably a column hand :) > >|I would favour a new mailing list, or maybe even a newsgroup, to do this >|kind of polling. >|Meanwhile, I do not want to shoot Alan, nor would I object to others >|using the same medium. > >I propose a compromise. If the poster really >just wants a ruling, he can say, "please reply >via email." If he is going to have technical >points raised and wants a discussion first, then >he can suggest either email replies, which he can >summarize, or open forum replies if he thinks that >will work better. Does that sound sensible? If >the groupthink is that email replies are preferable >in general, then let that be the default if the poster >doesn't say, but my guess is that we're all argumentative >cusses and thus would be happy to hear other opinions. >(I won't say why :)) C'mon, guys, this is getting a bit heavy. We're a relatively small and friendly group. If one of our "regulars" wants to solicit our help with a ruling issue, I, for one, am happy to respond if I think I have anything to contribute, and would in any case be interested in hearing what the group has to say. Where are we to find a better-qualified group to which to come with such matters? I also see no point in giving the whole burden of deciding in advance whether such an issue will or will not raise points of interest and discussion that fall into the "proper" category for us to the person raising the issue. 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 Feb 7 05:20:41 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA20408 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 7 Feb 1997 05:20:41 +1100 Received: from emout17.mail.aol.com (emout17.mx.aol.com [198.81.11.43]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id FAA20403 for ; Fri, 7 Feb 1997 05:20:35 +1100 From: AlLeBendig@aol.com Received: (from root@localhost) by emout17.mail.aol.com (8.7.6/8.7.3/AOL-2.0.0) id NAA04733 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Thu, 6 Feb 1997 13:19:43 -0500 (EST) Date: Thu, 6 Feb 1997 13:19:43 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <970206102215_205313586@emout17.mail.aol.com> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: ACBL Alert chart interpretation Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In a message dated 97-02-06 10:05:03 EST, Laval Du Breuil writes: > I wrote in a local french bridge journal that this sequence should be > alerted. I dont know if I am older or younger than Al LeBendig, but hate > too to be wrong.... Cute, Laval. It is an alertable bid the minute it becomes possible that the responder does not have a 4 card major. Also when it denies. 1NT - 2C - 2H - 2NT for some denies 4 spades. This is actually one of the things I hope to see changed in Dallas. I really consider this a silly alert. Alan LeBendig From owner-bridge-laws Fri Feb 7 05:43:19 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA22569 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 7 Feb 1997 05:43:19 +1100 Received: from ivy.tc.pw.com (ivy.tc.pw.com [131.209.1.4]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id FAA22564 for ; Fri, 7 Feb 1997 05:43:13 +1100 From: Stephen_Barnfield@europe.notes.pw.com Received: by ivy.tc.pw.com; id LAA23265; Thu, 6 Feb 1997 11:11:41 -0800 (PST) Received: from cactus.tc.pw.com(131.209.7.48) by ivy.tc.pw.com via smap (3.2) id xma023142; Thu, 6 Feb 97 11:11:08 -0800 Received: (from root@localhost) by cactus.tc.pw.com (8.8.4/8.7.3) id KAA27614 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Thu, 6 Feb 1997 10:51:03 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <199702061851.KAA27614@cactus.tc.pw.com> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Thu, 6 Feb 97 15:48:19 GMT Subject: Re: Quick Opinions Needed Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Re Alan LeBendig's hand. David Stevenson said > So we have six people here, none of whom make 5H their first choice of >all [and it isn't mine either]. 5H is very reasonable at matchpoints; >terrible [or even less attractive]; probably poor, but not unreasonable; >not "reasonable", but it's close [a bad call]; don't like 5H at all.> > > It is incumbent on us to have every sympathy for N/S who should >*never* have been faced with this decision. Discussions on this type of >position, especially ACBL discussions, seem to forget this principle. > > Is 5H so bad a bid that we know that he was trying a double shot? No! >There is too much support in the answers. Is 5H a logical alternative? >Certainly in ACBL-land! What has that got to do with anything? A >little consistency in the approach would be fair. If this is a logical >alternative for one type of ruling how can you say it is an unfair >action in another case? > > 5H is *not* a bad enough call to snap the causal link. 5H was >consequent on the infraction. 5H was not "wild or gambling". Let us be >careful not to penalise NOs. I agree completely with David Stevenson. In England we take the view that the action must be "wild and gambling" before it breaks the causal link between the infraction and the damage. I know that in the USA they think differently, and I think this hand is an example of why the US view of the law can lead to an unfair result for the non-offenders. From owner-bridge-laws Fri Feb 7 05:56:31 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA23679 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 7 Feb 1997 05:56:31 +1100 Received: from dfw-ix6.ix.netcom.com (dfw-ix6.ix.netcom.com [206.214.98.6]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id FAA23674 for ; Fri, 7 Feb 1997 05:56:24 +1100 Received: from jcb-s-zeos (sbo-ca1-24.ix.netcom.com [205.184.185.56]) by dfw-ix6.ix.netcom.com (8.6.13/8.6.12) with SMTP id KAA03416; Thu, 6 Feb 1997 10:53:45 -0800 Message-ID: <32FA27ED.4A75@popd.ix.netcom.com> Date: Thu, 06 Feb 1997 10:50:22 -0800 From: B&S Reply-To: jonbriss@ix23.ix.netcom.com Organization: Brissman & Schlueter X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0Gold (Win95; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: AlLeBendig@aol.com CC: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Quick Opinions Needed References: <970205194526_242859225@emout07.mail.aol.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk AlLeBendig@aol.com wrote: > > I want some opinions before making a final ruling. Sitting S you hold: > > AQx T98xx x Kxxx. Both red, matchpoints. Auction: > > E S W N > P P 1D DBL > 4D 4H P* P > 5D ? > > * Clear Hesitation > > S is aggressive player but not great. Fairly experienced. > > What I want to know is how bad a bid would you rate 5H. Is it a reasonable > call? If it is wrong, would you expect a player to live with the result? > > It will be interesting to see if those non-ACBLers feel differently than > those here. > > Thanks for the time. > > Alan LeBendig I'd rate 5H as inferior to pass or double. However, I might allow the call despite the break in tempo because the hesitation does not necessarily suggest that bidding 5H is more likely to be successful than another action (maybe partner was debating making a marginal double). In any case, any deleterious N/S result should stand. Jon From owner-bridge-laws Fri Feb 7 06:15:42 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA23749 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 7 Feb 1997 06:15:42 +1100 Received: from cs.bu.edu (root@CS.BU.EDU [128.197.13.2]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id GAA23744 for ; Fri, 7 Feb 1997 06:15:36 +1100 Received: from csb.bu.edu (metcalf@CSB.BU.EDU [128.197.10.4]) by cs.bu.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5/(BU-S-01/27/97-fc1)) with ESMTP id OAA01310; Thu, 6 Feb 1997 14:15:27 -0500 (EST) From: David Metcalf Received: by csb.bu.edu (8.8.5/Spike-2.1) id OAA01553; Thu, 6 Feb 1997 14:15:23 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <199702061915.OAA01553@csb.bu.edu> Subject: Re: ACBL Alert chart interpretation To: AlLeBendig@aol.com Date: Thu, 6 Feb 1997 14:15:22 -0500 (EST) Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au In-Reply-To: <970206102215_205313586@emout17.mail.aol.com> from "AlLeBendig@aol.com" at Feb 6, 97 01:19:43 pm X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL23] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Discussing when/whether to alert the sequence 1NT-2C-2H-2NT: Alan LeBendig writes: >> It is an alertable bid the minute it becomes possible that the >> responder does not have a 4 card major. Also when it denies. 1NT - 2C - 2H >> - 2NT for some denies 4 spades. This is actually one of the things I hope to >> see changed in Dallas. I really consider this a silly alert. >> Alan LeBendig When did it "become possible" that partner not have a 4 card major? It was *always* possible, assuming that the 2NT bid does not deny 4S. David Metcalf From owner-bridge-laws Fri Feb 7 09:46:57 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA25195 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 7 Feb 1997 09:46:57 +1100 Received: from u2.farm.idt.net (root@u2.farm.idt.net [169.132.8.11]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id JAA25190 for ; Fri, 7 Feb 1997 09:46:48 +1100 Received: from ppp-1.ts-5.la.idt.net (ppp-1.ts-5.la.idt.net [204.235.93.20]) by u2.farm.idt.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id RAA02155; Thu, 6 Feb 1997 17:46:36 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <32FA6051.E98@mail.idt.net> Date: Thu, 06 Feb 1997 14:50:57 -0800 From: Irwin Kostal Reply-To: bigfoot@idt.net X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0Gold (Win95; I; 16bit) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: AlLeBendig@aol.com CC: bridge-laws Subject: Re: ACBL Alert chart interpretation References: <970206102215_205313586@emout17.mail.aol.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk AlLeBendig@aol.com wrote: > > In a message dated 97-02-06 10:05:03 EST, Laval Du Breuil writes: > > > I wrote in a local french bridge journal that this sequence should be > > alerted. I dont know if I am older or younger than Al LeBendig, but hate > > too to be wrong.... > > Cute, Laval. It is an alertable bid the minute it becomes possible that the > responder does not have a 4 card major. Also when it denies. 1NT - 2C - 2H > - 2NT for some denies 4 spades. This is actually one of the things I hope to > see changed in Dallas. I really consider this a silly alert. > > Alan LeBendig I'm sorry, Allan, but I don't know quite what you are saying here. When I hear 1N-2C-2H-2N, I tend to think the responder has 4 spades, for the obvious reasons. If he doesn't, isn't this something I should know? I don't mind the 2NT bid being alerted, rather than the 2C bid, in fact I'd prefer it. Are you saying something different? Irv From owner-bridge-laws Fri Feb 7 11:01:35 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id LAA25749 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 7 Feb 1997 11:01:35 +1100 Received: from ids2.idsonline.com (reclaimed.agis.net [204.157.204.5]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id LAA25733 for ; Fri, 7 Feb 1997 11:01:25 +1100 Received: from asc210.idsonline.com (asc232.idsonline.com [207.176.21.232]) by ids2.idsonline.com (8.6.13/8.6.12) with SMTP id TAA00699; Thu, 6 Feb 1997 19:54:07 -0500 Message-ID: <32FA70D1.6DF7@ids2.idsonline.com> Date: Thu, 06 Feb 1997 19:01:21 -0500 From: "Larry E. Goode" Reply-To: mule@ids2.idsonline.com X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0Gold (Win16; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Alan LeBendig CC: Bridge Laws Subject: Stayman alerts Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At some point in your life you said: > Cute, Laval. It is an alertable bid the minute it becomes possible that the >responder does not have a 4 card major. Also when it denies. 1NT - 2C - 2H >- 2NT for some denies 4 spades. This is actually one of the things I hope to >see changed in Dallas. I really consider this a silly alert. My as I hate to put myself in the position of disagreeing with Alan, I'd ask him to reconsider this. This exact auction came up last Sunday nite as I was playing/directing (I know... I know... but what the hell else was I to do with 5 1/2 tables?). I led the spade 3 from JT932 and was surprised when dummy hit with Qx of spades. On the particular hand it didn't matter (declarer held AKx and 3NT went down 2). Suppose we consider this a silly alert to be removed. Since many (me included) will promise 4 spades as responder on this auction, the only way a defender can know it to ask. As a defender I can take one of two broad approaches here: 1) When my spade holding is such that I care, I can ask... ergo, if I don't ask, I'm not interested in spades (UI to pard) 2) I can always ask. Aside from the fact that bridge is a timed event and we need as little questioning as we can get away with, I think we can all imagine what this will generate on bridge-laws. "You asked about majors even though you were 2-2... hmmm, we have to decide if you INTENDED to decieve." Wouldn't a simple "Alert - denies a 4 card major" be easier? Larry From owner-bridge-laws Fri Feb 7 11:32:01 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id LAA25931 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 7 Feb 1997 11:32:01 +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 LAA25925 for ; Fri, 7 Feb 1997 11:31:51 +1100 Received: (from smap@localhost) by msri.org (8.8.2/8.7.2) id QAA22036; Thu, 6 Feb 1997 16:31:59 -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 sma022017; Thu Feb 6 16:31:29 1997 Received: by boole.msri.org (8.7/DW.6) id QAA19454; Thu, 6 Feb 1997 16:31:09 -0800 (PST) Date: Thu, 6 Feb 1997 16:31:09 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <199702070031.QAA19454@boole.msri.org> From: David Grabiner To: mule@ids2.idsonline.com Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au In-reply-to: <32FA70D1.6DF7@ids2.idsonline.com> (mule@ids2.idsonline.com) Subject: Re: Stayman alerts Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk You write: > At some point in your life you said: >> Cute, Laval. It is an alertable bid the minute it becomes possible that the >> responder does not have a 4 card major. Also when it denies. 1NT - 2C - 2H >> - 2NT for some denies 4 spades. This is actually one of the things I hope to >> see changed in Dallas. I really consider this a silly alert. > My as I hate to put myself in the position of disagreeing with Alan, > I'd ask him to reconsider this. This exact auction came up last Sunday > nite as I was playing/directing (I know... I know... but what the hell > else was I to do with 5 1/2 tables?). I led the spade 3 from JT932 and > was surprised when dummy hit with Qx of spades. On the particular hand > it didn't matter (declarer held AKx and 3NT went down 2). Another possible problem is whether to lead from, say, QT83 of clubs or QT74 of spades; obviously, you lead the club if dummy has four spades and the spade if he doesn't. And this is a serious UI (and AI) situation. If you ask after the everyday auction 1NT-2C-2H-2NT-3NT and are told that dummy has four spades, and you then lead the C3, declarer and partner will both know that you have a leadable spade holding, probably four of them. This is UI for partner, and may be useful AI to declarer; it's an advantage that declarer gains by forcing you to ask a revealing question. This is one of the situations which the alert procedure is supposed to prevent. -- 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 Feb 7 12:09:17 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id MAA26043 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 7 Feb 1997 12:09:17 +1100 Received: from emout01.mail.aol.com (emout01.mx.aol.com [198.81.11.92]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id MAA26038 for ; Fri, 7 Feb 1997 12:09:11 +1100 From: AlLeBendig@aol.com Received: (from root@localhost) by emout01.mail.aol.com (8.7.6/8.7.3/AOL-2.0.0) id UAA28786 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Thu, 6 Feb 1997 20:08:31 -0500 (EST) Date: Thu, 6 Feb 1997 20:08:31 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <970206195408_-1342151654@emout01.mail.aol.com> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Quick Opinions Needed Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In a message dated 97-02-06 08:36:43 EST, Herman writes: > I was wondering how long it would take. > The title of this mailing list is LAWS, not Rulings. > Although I am not contrary to this kind of polling, I do not think this > is the place. > I would favour a new mailing list, or maybe even a newsgroup, to do this > kind of polling. > Meanwhile, I do not want to shoot Alan, nor would I object to others > using the same medium. And to what end do we discuss the Laws, Herman? The wording of these Laws and the interpretation has no interest whatsoever to me except for the application of these same Laws. I am relieved that you're not proposing I be shot. > I want to congratulate Alan for putting the question neutrally, and not > revealing that partner north has probably hesitated too. But then, he > would, wouldn't he ? He did not. You're right that had that been the case, I would not have included it. > What I would like to tell you is that I'm not really interested in your > replies. Nobody is, I can imagine. So if this Opinions wanted is ever > repeated, please e-mail your answers. I in no way expected to get "bridge opinions" except as they applied to your opinion of the ruling. I see no way to separate the two in a problem of this nature. I never wanted to start a discussion of the merits of one call over another. > Since I don't see David's reply, and knowing he can't keep silent, I do > suppose he has replied by mail. > > FWIW, I pass with the south hand. I think I've described my near > maximum. > > BTW, this makes me think of another objection. If I simply reply and you > don't know what a lousy player I am, how can you put any weight on my > opinion. So any reply should include the level of play of the replier. > (For me : that's fourth division Belgian - go figure that out). I could care less about your level of play, Herman. I do respect yours and others opinions (in this group) as to the application of the Laws that we all abide by. Those were the only opinions that I was seeking. Alan LeBendig > From owner-bridge-laws Fri Feb 7 12:29:35 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id MAA26152 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 7 Feb 1997 12:29:35 +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 MAA26144 for ; Fri, 7 Feb 1997 12:29:29 +1100 Received: from cph57.ppp.dknet.dk (cph57.ppp.dknet.dk [194.192.100.57]) by pip.dknet.dk (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id CAA08989 for ; Fri, 7 Feb 1997 02:29:20 +0100 From: Jesper Dybdal To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Quick Opinions Needed Date: Fri, 07 Feb 1997 02:29:17 +0100 Organization: at home Message-ID: <32fc84d6.4705135@pipmail.dknet.dk> References: <970205194526_242859225@emout07.mail.aol.com> <32F9E9DB.62D@innet.be> In-Reply-To: <32F9E9DB.62D@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 David Stevenson wrote: > Is 5H so bad a bid that we know that he was trying a double shot? No!= =20 [...] > 5H is *not* a bad enough call to snap the causal link. 5H was=20 >consequent on the infraction. 5H was not "wild or gambling". Let us be= =20 >careful not to penalise NOs. I agree completely. I'd rule "wild or gambling" only if I considered the bid so strange that it was obviously an attempt at a double shot rather than an attempt to play bridge. Even though there seems to be general agreement that this 5H is a bad bid, there is no reason to believe that it is not an honest attempt to play bridge. Herman De Wael wrote: >The title of this mailing list is LAWS, not Rulings. >Although I am not contrary to this kind of polling, I do not think this >is the place. Two comments: (a) Differences in the way we interpret the laws are interesting and IMO obviously suitable for BLML. In the current case, some of us require a very suspicious act in order to consider not adjusting for the non-offenders, while others seem to require only that the bid is bad bridge; this is actually a matter of law interpretation. (b) I do not mind discussions of specific rulings, including those with bridge judgements involved, on BLML. I like to read them. Such discussions will often have higher quality on BLML than on rgb, since they are not disturbed by lots of contributors who have very little idea of what the laws say. --=20 Jesper Dybdal, Denmark From owner-bridge-laws Fri Feb 7 12:40:29 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id MAA26200 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 7 Feb 1997 12:40:29 +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 MAA26195 for ; Fri, 7 Feb 1997 12:40:23 +1100 From: AlLeBendig@aol.com Received: (from root@localhost) by emout16.mail.aol.com (8.7.6/8.7.3/AOL-2.0.0) id UAA17281 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Thu, 6 Feb 1997 20:39:31 -0500 (EST) Date: Thu, 6 Feb 1997 20:39:31 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <970206202526_-2111492790@emout16.mail.aol.com> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: ACBL Alert chart interpretation Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I wrote: > >> It is an alertable bid the minute it becomes possible that the > >> responder does not have a 4 card major. Also when it denies. 1NT - 2C - > 2H > >> - 2NT for some denies 4 spades. This is actually one of the things I > hope to > >> see changed in Dallas. I really consider this a silly alert. > >> Alan LeBendig David Metcalf wrote: > When did it "become possible" that partner not have a 4 card major? > It was *always* possible, assuming that the 2NT bid does not deny 4S. I perceive a semantics problem here: 1) There are those that never bid 2C without a 4 card major (nearly extinct). They never need to alert any continuation after Stayman. 2) Most play "does not promise". Their auction becomes alertable the moment an inviitational bid is made which does not promise or deny a four card major. 2NT/2D, 2NT/2S or 2NT/2H IF the possibility of 4S still exists. Not all bid 2S here to show the suit with invitational values. It is this group of alerts that I feel should be eliminated. They are not "known" situations, merely possibilities. And furthermore, these are situations that are very standard (at least in ACBLland). 3) 2NT/2H denying 4 spades is alertable and should clearly remain so. 2S/2H seems like it should not be alertable if invitational (the norm). That way, if it is alerted, you know it is something else. Barry Crane's methods still have this as a weak hand with 4 spades and a long minor. Therefore an alert here would actually mean something. I truly was not trying to confuse this simple issue raised by Laval. Alan LeBendig From owner-bridge-laws Fri Feb 7 13:27:10 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id NAA26414 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 7 Feb 1997 13:27:10 +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 NAA26408 for ; Fri, 7 Feb 1997 13:27:03 +1100 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by relay-9.mail.demon.net id aa923814; 7 Feb 97 2:26 GMT Message-ID: Date: Fri, 7 Feb 1997 02:02:51 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Quick Opinions Needed In-Reply-To: <32F9E9DB.62D@innet.be> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Herman De Wael wrote: >AlLeBendig@aol.com wrote: >> >> I want some opinions before making a final ruling. Sitting S you hold: >> > >I was wondering how long it would take. >The title of this mailing list is LAWS, not Rulings. >Although I am not contrary to this kind of polling, I do not think this >is the place. >I would favour a new mailing list, or maybe even a newsgroup, to do this >kind of polling. >Meanwhile, I do not want to shoot Alan, nor would I object to others >using the same medium. > >I want to congratulate Alan for putting the question neutrally, and not >revealing that partner north has probably hesitated too. But then, he >would, wouldn't he ? > >What I would like to tell you is that I'm not really interested in your >replies. Nobody is, I can imagine. So if this Opinions wanted is ever >repeated, please e-mail your answers. I do not think that saying nobody is interested is fair *at all*. I am interested, and my guess is others are interested, based on the number of replies. Please do *not* email your answers because then how do we compare? There are laws matters of interest here, which is the case in many rulings. If when someone wants an answer then all the answers are sent by email then not only do we frustrate curious people like myself but we miss any interest in the Laws that comes out of the replies. In all the newsgroups and mailing lists I read, there are always some threads that do not interest me, so I just mark them uninteresting and ignore them. Even if you do not have that facility, you can rely on the subject line and duly kill unread any posts on things that do not interest you. If this particular thread has no interest for you, could you not just kill it and leave it to the rest of us to consider causal links and wild and gambling action? Please? >Since I don't see David's reply, and knowing he can't keep silent, I do >suppose he has replied by mail. I never reply solely by email to postings unless either [a] they request it [and then I am doubtful] or [b] it is a delicate matter like a bereavement -- 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 Feb 7 13:57:28 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id NAA26497 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 7 Feb 1997 13:57:28 +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 NAA26492 for ; Fri, 7 Feb 1997 13:57:22 +1100 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by relay-6.mail.demon.net id aa606976; 7 Feb 97 2:26 GMT Message-ID: Date: Fri, 7 Feb 1997 02:03:18 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Deliberate hesitation? MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk The following situation has occurred and I have been asked my opinion. I have given it. I thought that others might like to comment before I gave you my opinion. The person who sent me the problem sat West, and the game was a high-standard one. South held: Qx AJT ATxxx xxx at Green [E/W vul] The bidding was: E S W N 1S 2D 2S 3C 3S Dbl P 4D P P* P * 10 second huddle [agreed] The huddle kept me from doubling, the contract was down 2 and I called the director. He would not adjust the score, and I appealed. The committee also turned it down, not because they disagreed with me, but because they said that adjusting the score was tantamount to accusing South of cheating, which they did not want to do. I think that there is a weakness in the rules here. The huddle could be caused by South being absent-minded or sleepy, and I think that any unwarranted huddle (which did or could have affected the result) should be ground enough for an adjusted score, without necessarily being accompanied by an accusation of cheating. If a player then accumulates too many of those, you can start discussing whether it is a case of deliberately hesitating to mislead the opponents, and take disciplinary action against him. I would like your opinion, both on the current case, and on the situation in general. BTW, the full hand was xx Kx Qxx KQTxxx xxx AKJxxx xxx Qxxxx K9xx J AJx x Qx AJT ATxxx xxx ---------- I did ask what reason the TD gave for his ruling, and my correspondent wrote: BTW, the decision of the director (who is not a good player) was that South had bid reasonably and was entitled to consider bidding 5C, and that I could have doubled 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 Fri Feb 7 20:10:19 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id UAA27897 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 7 Feb 1997 20:10:19 +1100 Received: from ivy.tc.pw.com (ivy.tc.pw.com [131.209.1.4]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id UAA27892 for ; Fri, 7 Feb 1997 20:10:13 +1100 From: Stephen_Barnfield@europe.notes.pw.com Received: by ivy.tc.pw.com; id BAA09566; Fri, 7 Feb 1997 01:38:47 -0800 (PST) Received: from cactus.tc.pw.com(131.209.7.48) by ivy.tc.pw.com via smap (3.2) id xma009534; Fri, 7 Feb 97 01:38:18 -0800 Received: (from root@localhost) by cactus.tc.pw.com (8.8.4/8.7.3) id BAA23267 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Fri, 7 Feb 1997 01:18:12 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <199702070918.BAA23267@cactus.tc.pw.com> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Fri, 7 Feb 97 08:45:58 GMT Subject: Deliberate hesitation? Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Stevenson reported > The following situation has occurred and I have been asked my opinion. >I have given it. I thought that others might like to comment before I >gave you my opinion. The person who sent me the problem sat West, and >the game was a high-standard one. > > > South held: > Qx > AJT > ATxxx > xxx > at Green [E/W vul] > > The bidding was: > > E S W N > 1S 2D 2S 3C > 3S Dbl P 4D > P P* P > >* 10 second huddle [agreed] > > The huddle kept me from doubling, the contract was down 2 and I called >the director. He would not adjust the score, and I appealed. The >committee also turned it down, not because they disagreed with me, but >because they said that adjusting the score was tantamount to accusing >South of cheating, which they did not want to do. > > I think that there is a weakness in the rules here. The huddle could >be caused by South being absent-minded or sleepy, and I think that any >unwarranted huddle (which did or could have affected the result) should >be ground enough for an adjusted score, without necessarily being >accompanied by an accusation of cheating. If a player then accumulates >too many of those, you can start discussing whether it is a case of >deliberately hesitating to mislead the opponents, and take disciplinary >action against him. I would like your opinion, both on the current >case, and on the situation in general. The question is whether S has breached Law 73D1 (first para), and, if so, whether an adjusted score under Law 73F2 should be awarded. In principle the 73D1 test is an objective test. Even so, to give a ruling I would want to hear, preferably straight after the play of the hand, what S was thinking about before passing. It might also be useful to hear the NS system: for example they may play that 3C was forcing (or perhaps stronger than a 2NT relay to 3C). Alternatively they may play 4D as forcing, and S was wondering whether, given that he was some way short of his 2D overcall, he should comply with the forcing nature of the 4D. Having said that, I doubt if S's explanation would make any difference. Certainly without a satisfactory explanation I would rule that the score be adjusted, presumably to 4DX-2. From owner-bridge-laws Fri Feb 7 23:36:09 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA28710 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 7 Feb 1997 23:36:09 +1100 Received: from emout18.mail.aol.com (emout18.mx.aol.com [198.81.11.44]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id XAA28705 for ; Fri, 7 Feb 1997 23:36:03 +1100 From: AlLeBendig@aol.com Received: (from root@localhost) by emout18.mail.aol.com (8.7.6/8.7.3/AOL-2.0.0) id HAA24717 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Fri, 7 Feb 1997 07:35:24 -0500 (EST) Date: Fri, 7 Feb 1997 07:35:24 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <970206125327_41713969@emout18.mail.aol.com> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Quick Opinions Needed Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In a message dated 97-02-06 08:36:43 EST, Herman writes: > I was wondering how long it would take. > The title of this mailing list is LAWS, not Rulings. > Although I am not contrary to this kind of polling, I do not think this > is the place. > I would favour a new mailing list, or maybe even a newsgroup, to do this > kind of polling. > Meanwhile, I do not want to shoot Alan, nor would I object to others > using the same medium. And to what end do we discuss the Laws, Herman? The wording of these Laws and the interpretation has no interest whatsoever to me except for the application of these same Laws. I am relieved that you're not proposing I be shot. > I want to congratulate Alan for putting the question neutrally, and not > revealing that partner north has probably hesitated too. But then, he > would, wouldn't he ? He did not. You're right that had that been the case, I would not have included it. > What I would like to tell you is that I'm not really interested in your > replies. Nobody is, I can imagine. So if this Opinions wanted is ever > repeated, please e-mail your answers. I in no way expected to get "bridge opinions" except as they applied to your opinion of the ruling. I see no way to separate the two in a problem of this nature. I never wanted to start a discussion of the merits of one call over another. > Since I don't see David's reply, and knowing he can't keep silent, I do > suppose he has replied by mail. > > FWIW, I pass with the south hand. I think I've described my near > maximum. > > BTW, this makes me think of another objection. If I simply reply and you > don't know what a lousy player I am, how can you put any weight on my > opinion. So any reply should include the level of play of the replier. > (For me : that's fourth division Belgian - go figure that out). I could care less about your level of play, Herman. I do respect yours and others opinions (in this group) as to the application of the Laws that we all abide by. Those were the only opinions that I was seeking. Alan LeBendig > From owner-bridge-laws Sat Feb 8 02:17:59 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA02819 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 8 Feb 1997 02:17:59 +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 CAA02812 for ; Sat, 8 Feb 1997 02:17:44 +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 KAA27185 for ; Fri, 7 Feb 1997 10:17:07 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <1.5.4.32.19970207151700.00681b40@cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.4 (32) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Fri, 07 Feb 1997 10:17:00 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: ACBL Alert chart interpretation Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 02:50 PM 2/6/97 -0800, bigfoot wrote: >I'm sorry, Allan, but I don't know quite what you are saying here. When >I hear 1N-2C-2H-2N, I tend to think the responder has 4 spades, for the >obvious reasons. If he doesn't, isn't this something I should know? I >don't mind the 2NT bid being alerted, rather than the 2C bid, in fact >I'd prefer it. Are you saying something different? But if bigfoot lived in Washington, then when he heard 1NT-2C-2H-2N, he would tend to think that the responder does not have 4 spades, since that's the way 90% of the players in the Washington area treat that sequence. The question for the ACBL is whether or not the "Washington" treatment is sufficiently "unusual and unexpected" to require an alert. Obviously, if that treatment is essentially peculiar to the Washington area, it should, whereas if it were common throughout North America it would not. And if it were common throughout North America, then bigfoot would be expected to know that responder might not have 4 spades on this auction without needing an alert. (I've sneakily switched gears here, from the Washington treatment, where 2NT denies 4 spades -- clearly unusual -- to the more common treatment that Alan believes should be non-alertable, where 2NT retains the ambiguity of the original 2C bid. The Washington treatment, we all agree, should remain alertable.) I do hope and trust that we, in this group, have gotten beyond the ludicrous (although not uncommon) belief that any auction must have only one non-alertable meaning, and recognize that it is possible, and quite common, for an auction to have more than one treatment that does not fall into the category of "unusual and unexpected". Eric Landau elandau@cais.com APL Solutions, Inc. elandau@acm.org 1107 Dale Drive (301) 589-4621 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 From owner-bridge-laws Sat Feb 8 02:38:14 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA02980 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 8 Feb 1997 02:38:14 +1100 Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id CAA02975 for ; Sat, 8 Feb 1997 02:38:08 +1100 Received: from cfa183.harvard.edu (cfa183.harvard.edu [131.142.12.59]) by cfa.harvard.edu (8.8.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id KAA24619; Fri, 7 Feb 1997 10:37:45 -0500 (EST) Received: by cfa183.harvard.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id KAA24617; Fri, 7 Feb 1997 10:38:04 -0500 Date: Fri, 7 Feb 1997 10:38:04 -0500 From: willner@cfa183.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Message-Id: <199702071538.KAA24617@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au, newsr@blakjak.demon.co.uk Subject: Re: Deliberate hesitation? X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: David Stevenson > because they said that adjusting the score was tantamount to accusing > South of cheating, which they did not want to do. I suppose this is only worth discussion because a committee got it so wrong. L73F2 is based on "could have known" even in the 1987 Laws. Awarding an adjusted score is mandatory ("shall") if the facts are found. There is no hint whatever of a finding of cheating. I understand the 1997 Laws will make this clearer, but nothing I've seen suggests there is any change in intent. > BTW, the decision of the director (who is not a good player) was that > South had bid reasonably and was entitled to consider bidding 5C, and > that I could have doubled anyway. What was South's explanation for his hesitation? If there is a logical bridge reason to hesitate, then there is no adjustment. If the player says that he just "went to sleep," then as Kaplan has written, that concedes the case for adjustment. If South says he was considering 5C, and if that is a reasonable bridge action (bridge judgment needed here), then of course there is no adjustment. Personally, I think South's bidding was silly, and I can't imagine even thinking about 5C, but maybe my opinion would change if I heard South's story. Whether West could have doubled anyway is perhaps an issue for adjusting the EW score but not the offender's. Was the failure to double so bad as to "snap the causal link?" I don't think so, but perhaps someone could make a case for it based on the EW methods. At any rate, this too is a normal question of bridge judgment. The committee should have considered the relevant questions of bridge judgment and decided accordingly. Cheating doesn't come into the score adjustment. This hesitation seems so strange -- on the facts presented -- that I do think a recorder report is proper. (Do you have that system in the UK?) If repeated frequently, conduct charges would seem to be in order. I'll be fairly surprised if even David disagrees with the above. I'd have thought it completely standard interpretation. From owner-bridge-laws Sat Feb 8 04:57:49 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA03766 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 8 Feb 1997 04:57:49 +1100 Received: from emout07.mail.aol.com (emout07.mx.aol.com [198.81.11.22]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id EAA03761 for ; Sat, 8 Feb 1997 04:57:43 +1100 From: AlLeBendig@aol.com Received: (from root@localhost) by emout07.mail.aol.com (8.7.6/8.7.3/AOL-2.0.0) id MAA19011 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Fri, 7 Feb 1997 12:57:07 -0500 (EST) Date: Fri, 7 Feb 1997 12:57:07 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <970206203447_1422219480@emout07.mail.aol.com> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: ACBL Alert chart interpretation Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In a message dated 97-02-06 18:15:02 EST, Irv writes: > I'm sorry, Allan, but I don't know quite what you are saying here. When > I hear 1N-2C-2H-2N, I tend to think the responder has 4 spades, for the > obvious reasons. If he doesn't, isn't this something I should know? I > don't mind the 2NT bid being alerted, rather than the 2C bid, in fact > I'd prefer it. Are you saying something different? The "norm" is that 2NT/2H denies 4S and is definitely alertable. I would never suggest eliminating that alert. It is also alertable if it is still possible that the responder has 4S. That is the alert which I believe to be silly. Alan LeBendig From owner-bridge-laws Sat Feb 8 06:03:05 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA04001 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 8 Feb 1997 06:03:05 +1100 Received: from emout13.mail.aol.com (emout13.mx.aol.com [198.81.11.39]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id GAA03996 for ; Sat, 8 Feb 1997 06:02:59 +1100 From: AlLeBendig@aol.com Received: (from root@localhost) by emout13.mail.aol.com (8.7.6/8.7.3/AOL-2.0.0) id OAA17833 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Fri, 7 Feb 1997 14:02:22 -0500 (EST) Date: Fri, 7 Feb 1997 14:02:22 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <970206221436_2026064752@emout13.mail.aol.com> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Quick Opinions Needed Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In a message dated 97-02-06 08:54:39 EST, David S. writes: > So we have six people here, none of whom make 5H their first choice of > call [and it isn't mine either]. 5H is very reasonable at matchpoints; > terrible [or even less attractive]; probably poor, but not unreasonable; > not "reasonable", but it's close [a bad call]; don't like 5H at all. Since only one rates it as reasonable, it is clear to me (and obviously some others) that most consider it a *poor* bid. > It is incumbent on us to have every sympathy for N/S who should > *never* have been faced with this decision. Discussions on this type of > position, especially ACBL discussions, seem to forget this principle. This is an unfair characterization. We don't "forget" that a pair should have never been faced with this decision if an infraction has occured. We feel it is incumbent on us to not let a competent pair get a result that we feel is unearned because of their bridge actions. In the given case, all knew there had been a hesitation. It was likely (but not a certainty) that the 5D bid would be judged an infraction. Based on European values, every player could bid 5H with the knowledge that it would never be judged a "wild and gambling" action. Yet the vast majority of good players everywhere would recognize that it wasn't the best action available. If indeed there has been an infraction, they "know" that they will always be protected by European standards. In the ACBL. we recognize that if we choose what we should recognize as a "poor" action, we may be forced to live with that decision even if there has been an infraction. Since players are forced to make bridge decisions throughout an event, we expect them to continue to make these bridge decisions even when faced with what may be judged to be an infraction. You are willing to give them permission to make what will usually be the wrong decision and we won't protect them to that point. That doesn't mean we are forgetting that they don't belong in the position to begin with. > Is 5H so bad a bid that we know that he was trying a double shot? No! > There is too much support in the answers. Is 5H a logical alternative? > Certainly in ACBL-land! What has that got to do with anything? Absolutely nothing, David. We only discuss logical alternatives when there is UI which suggests one action over another. 5H is merely one of three possible choices. Obviously most feel that is the least rational choice. When given a bidding problem, neither of us breaks the answers down into "logical alternatives". > A > little consistency in the approach would be fair. If this is a logical > alternative for one type of ruling how can you say it is an unfair > action in another case? A good try, David. I've given my reasons why I feel this arguement carries no weight. > 5H is *not* a bad enough call to snap the causal link. 5H was > consequent on the infraction. 5H was not "wild or gambling". Let us be > careful not to penalise NOs. We feel it is a bad enough call to be judged subsequent. I feel that is just as bad to reward the NOs. I'm not trying to penalise them. Just asking that they be aware that *bad* bridge judgement will not routinely be overlooked because an infraction has occured. Stephen_Barnfield writes: >I know that in the USA they think differently, and I think this hand is an example of >why the US view of the law can lead to an unfair result for the non-offenders. Surely you must be able to at least consider the possibility that the European view may lead to an unfair bonus for the non-offenders...A 5H bid here can never leave them in a losing position if indeed there has been an infraction. How can that ever be right? Alan LeBendig From owner-bridge-laws Sat Feb 8 07:36:14 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA04662 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 8 Feb 1997 07:36:14 +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 HAA04655 for ; Sat, 8 Feb 1997 07:36:01 +1100 Received: from localhost by flash.irvine.com id aa28477; 7 Feb 97 12:35 PST To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au CC: adam@flash.irvine.com Subject: Re: Quick Opinions Needed In-reply-to: Your message of "Fri, 07 Feb 1997 14:02:22 PST." <970206221436_2026064752@emout13.mail.aol.com> Date: Fri, 07 Feb 1997 12:35:18 PST From: Adam Beneschan Message-ID: <9702071235.aa28477@flash.irvine.com> Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I've been doing some thinking since I gave my quick opinion. (If I had done my thinking before, it wouldn't have been a "quick opinion"! :-) :-)) Clearly, we don't want to reward players who attempt double shots in hesitation situations. I think Al is right that bad bridge judgement shouldn't be overlooked either. And there's a consensus that a 5H call is poor bridge judgement. That said, what determines whether a bad call was the *cause* of a bad result, i.e. the damage was subsequent to the infraction rather than consequent? Is the fact that the call was a bad call enough? Or . . . A couple of possible scenarios disturb me: (1) Suppose that 5D was a bad enough call that no one else in the room would make it, but that it turns out to be a good save because of a lucky lie of the cards (a suit blocks and someone gets endplayed, e.g.). Thus, allowing them to play in 5DX would result in a zero matchpoint score. Assuming that 5H goes down one, the 5H call, while technically a poor call, actually doesn't do any damage, since it turns a zero into a zero. So although we don't want to reward poor bridge, it seems that in this case, the 5H call should be overlooked since it had no effect (unless we believe South was taking a double shot). Is this how the ruling would actually go? If not, what if South had a reason for 5H that was something like "5DX is going to be a zero, and I don't know how my partner would interpret a pass, so I'd better bid 5H and try to salvage some matchpoints"? Apparently most of us don't think that this is a great reason, since 5H wasn't our first choice. However poor this logic was, however, it turns out to be correct logic in this instance, since 5DX was indeed a zero. So do we punish South for the 5H call? (2) Suppose now that 4H making would have gotten 8.5 matchpoints; 5DX would have netted a 2; 5H going down one is a zero. We've decided that 5H was a poor bid that shouldn't be rewarded; but was it the cause of the damage, or the cause of PART of the damage? It seems to me one could argue that the total damage was a loss of 8.5 matchpoints, but 6.5 of that was caused by the infraction and 2 was caused by South's poor bid. So there's a case for awarding N-S a score of 6.5, compensating for the damage done by East's unethical bid but not for South's poor judgement. Are scores ever assigned in this manner? Does this seem like a fair approach? It seems fairer to me than letting N-S live with their zero. Once East committed the infraction, he took a good result away from N-S that could only be restored by the TD or AC. Are we saying that in order to get this result restored, N-S aren't allowed to commit any judgement errors? -- Adam From owner-bridge-laws Sat Feb 8 09:42:17 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA05466 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 8 Feb 1997 09:42:17 +1100 Received: from internauts.ca (ODIN.INTERNAUTS.CA [205.236.185.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id JAA05461 for ; Sat, 8 Feb 1997 09:42:08 +1100 Received: from mail.internauts.ca by internauts.ca (8.6.11/SMI-SVR4) id RAA23957; Fri, 7 Feb 1997 17:38:27 -0500 Date: Fri, 7 Feb 1997 17:38:27 -0500 Message-Id: <199702072238.RAA23957@internauts.ca> X-Sender: ddobridge@mail.internauts.ca X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Version 1.4.4 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: ddobridge@odin.internauts.ca (bob scruton) Subject: Re: Quick Opinions Needed Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk >Return-Path: >To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au >CC: adam@flash.irvine.com >Subject: Re: Quick Opinions Needed >Date: Fri, 07 Feb 1997 12:35:18 PST >From: Adam Beneschan >Sender: owner-bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au >Precedence: bulk > > Adam writes: >A couple of possible scenarios disturb me: > >(2) Suppose now that 4H making would have gotten 8.5 matchpoints; 5DX > would have netted a 2; 5H going down one is a zero. We've decided > that 5H was a poor bid that shouldn't be rewarded; but was it the > cause of the damage, or the cause of PART of the damage? It seems > to me one could argue that the total damage was a loss of 8.5 > matchpoints, but 6.5 of that was caused by the infraction and 2 > was caused by South's poor bid. So there's a case for awarding > N-S a score of 6.5, compensating for the damage done by East's > unethical bid but not for South's poor judgement. Are scores ever > assigned in this manner? Does this seem like a fair approach? It > seems fairer to me than letting N-S live with their zero. Once > East committed the infraction, he took a good result away from N-S > that could only be restored by the TD or AC. Are we saying that > in order to get this result restored, N-S aren't allowed to commit > any judgement errors? > I like the idea of assigning scores this way. It seams to restore equity which after all, is the reason for our existance. Bob Scruton From owner-bridge-laws Sat Feb 8 09:44:10 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA05505 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 8 Feb 1997 09:44:10 +1100 Received: from emout17.mail.aol.com (emout17.mx.aol.com [198.81.11.43]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id JAA05489 for ; Sat, 8 Feb 1997 09:44:01 +1100 From: AlLeBendig@aol.com Received: (from root@localhost) by emout17.mail.aol.com (8.7.6/8.7.3/AOL-2.0.0) id RAA02023 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Fri, 7 Feb 1997 17:43:26 -0500 (EST) Date: Fri, 7 Feb 1997 17:43:26 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <970207110702_882339155@emout17.mail.aol.com> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Quick Opinions Needed Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In a message dated 97-02-06 08:54:39 EST, David S. writes: > So we have six people here, none of whom make 5H their first choice >of > call [and it isn't mine either]. 5H is very reasonable at matchpoints; > terrible [or even less attractive]; probably poor, but not unreasonable; > not "reasonable", but it's close [a bad call]; don't like 5H at all. Since only one rates it as reasonable, it is clear to me (and obviously some others) that most consider it a *poor* bid. > It is incumbent on us to have every sympathy for N/S who should > *never* have been faced with this decision. Discussions on this type of > position, especially ACBL discussions, seem to forget this principle. This is an unfair characterization. We don't "forget" that a pair should have never been faced with this decision if an infraction has occured. We feel it is incumbent on us to not let a competent pair get a result that we feel is unearned because of their bridge actions. In the given case, all knew there had been a hesitation. It was likely (but not a certainty) that the 5D bid would be judged an infraction. Based on European values, every player could bid 5H with the knowledge that it would never be judged a "wild and gambling" action. Yet the vast majority of good players everywhere would recognize that it wasn't the best action available. If indeed there has been an infraction, they "know" that they will always be protected by European standards. In the ACBL. we recognize that if we choose what we should recognize as a "poor" action, we may be forced to live with that decision even if there has been an infraction. Since players are forced to make bridge decisions throughout an event, we expect them to continue to make these bridge decisions even when faced with what may be judged to be an infraction. You are willing to give them permission to make what will usually be the wrong decision and we won't protect them to that point. That doesn't mean we are forgetting that they don't belong in the position to begin with. > Is 5H so bad a bid that we know that he was trying a double shot? >No! > There is too much support in the answers. Is 5H a logical alternative? > Certainly in ACBL-land! What has that got to do with anything? Absolutely nothing, David. We only discuss logical alternatives when there is UI which suggests one action over another. 5H is merely one of three possible choices. Obviously most feel that is the least rational choice. When given a bidding problem, neither of us breaks the answers down into "logical alternatives". > A > little consistency in the approach would be fair. If this is a logical > alternative for one type of ruling how can you say it is an unfair > action in another case? A good try, David. I've given my reasons why I feel this arguement carries no weight. > 5H is *not* a bad enough call to snap the causal link. 5H was > consequent on the infraction. 5H was not "wild or gambling". Let us >be careful not to penalise NOs. We feel it is a bad enough call to be judged subsequent. I feel that is just as bad to reward the NOs. I'm not trying to penalise them. Just asking that they be aware that *bad* bridge judgement will not routinely be overlooked because an infraction has occured. Stephen_Barnfield writes: >I know that in the USA they think differently, and I think this hand is an >example of why the US view of the law can lead to an unfair result for >the non-offenders. Surely you must be able to at least consider the possibility that the European view may lead to an unfair bonus for the non-offenders...A 5H bid here can never leave them in a losing position if indeed there has been an infraction. How can that ever be right? Alan LeBendig From owner-bridge-laws Sat Feb 8 10:08:32 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA05652 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 8 Feb 1997 10:08:32 +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 KAA05647 for ; Sat, 8 Feb 1997 10:08:22 +1100 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by relay-9.mail.demon.net id aa917753; 7 Feb 97 23:06 GMT Message-ID: Date: Fri, 7 Feb 1997 22:40:48 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Ethical Problem, or no? In-Reply-To: <32F71935.C51@mail.idt.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Irwin Kostal wrote: >I received this letter from my friend about an incident that occurred at >a recent Swiss Teams, in which his team (and of course his opponents) >were essentially out of the event. A lot of emotion was stirred up, and >I wonder who was really out of line here. I have removed all names, etc, >so that even the guilty are protected. > >"Playing 2h after 2d p 2h with > > AK8x 97x > xxxx Q9x > ATxx Qx > X KQJxx > >The opening lead was the club 9. I asked RHO what type of leads out of >habit (seeing the 9 and curious about top from 3 etc.) and heard 3rd and >5th best, totally oblivious to his reaction, thinking he must know it >was top of nothing (not thinking about 3rd from KJ9 etc.) > >He won the ace and they drew all the trumps (5 tricks). played a spade >and I put RHO in with a spade. Rather than break another suit he played >a club and went nuts when my jack won. They beat the hand one anyway and >i tried to explain but they weren't listening. I offered them the extra >trick (would only have been one) they could have gotten (though who >knows what he would have done if I hadn't said anything). I think he is crazy to offer anything to an opponent who is trying to browbeat him because [whether the trick matters or not] it indicates he feels he has done something wrong. This was, of course, a matter for the Director. >The more I think about it the less in the wrong I feel; I have a right >to >know what their xxx leads are, and I just phrased the question badly. I >sometimes look at peoples convention cards so that I dont advertise info >either way but people seem to glare at me when i do that. He says he phrased the question badly, but how *exactly* did he phrase the question? He says "I asked RHO what type of leads out of habit": if that means that he said "What are your leads?" then he clearly and without question has done nothing wrong. >I think if i wished to cheat him i would not want to show weak clubs and >elicit a trump return, which i certainly didn't want (tho it is a fairly >obvious return), and would have picked a different hand other than a 2h >contract which figured to go down, and a different event in which i was >at least in contention." The trouble with using the term "cheating" is that I hear it more often cited by the accusee: if RHO accused him of cheating, then RHO requires a lecture from someone on what this implies: often declarer is just saying it himself and it is irrelevant to the discussion. There is no question of cheating in practices that might or might not be improper. >I don't know if the directors were called, and if they were, what their >rulings were, but I wondered what BLML would think of it. When my friend >says he phrased the question badly, it makes me wonder what would have >been correct. Should he have asked, "What do you lead from three >small?" How responsible are we for any inferences the opponents might >take from questions we ask? Are there parameters here? I'm sure we'd >all frown on the question, "What do you lead from AK?" if the Ace were >led, and we were looking at the king, and yet I can imagine needing to >know the answer to that question, just to get a reading on what RHO is >going to be thinking when he sees the ace. The correct way to phrase the question is "What are your leads, please?". This has no inference and can cause no problem. >Incidents like this are part of what I think is dragging down the game, >here in the USA. When I hear of incidents in the USA, I often think "There is too much suspicion" and "There are too many Bridge lawyers". This type of query regrettably reinforces both of these points. If all declarer said was "What are your leads?" then RHO appears to be a Bridge lawyer who is unnecessarily suspicious. I think the breed needs stamping out but the current approach in the ACBL does not seem to work enough in that direction. -- 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 Feb 8 10:16:21 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA05724 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 8 Feb 1997 10:16:21 +1100 Received: from relay-11.mail.demon.net (relay-11.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.137]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id KAA05718 for ; Sat, 8 Feb 1997 10:16:13 +1100 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by relay-10.mail.demon.net id aa1012155; 7 Feb 97 23:06 GMT Message-ID: Date: Fri, 7 Feb 1997 22:39:33 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Strange Claim In-Reply-To: <199702041253.PAA09702@pent.sci-nnov.ru> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Sergei Litvak wrote: >This board is from tournament where the level of players was over average >(it' not a joke). > >E is playing 6NT. The whole hand: > Jx > Axx > Jxxx > 8642 >AQTxx Kx >xx KJxxx >AKQ2 xx >KQ AJ97 > 9xxx > Qxx > xxx > T53 > >Diamond lead taken by Ace, Spade to King and back to Ace. When Jack of >Spades fall down declarer claimed for 5 spades, 3 diamonds and 4 clubs. >North called for TD. >What is the ruling? This is an interesting hand because it shows the sort of ruling that TDs and ACs are required to make by following the law, and then have to sell to the players. At least one of the answers posted to this problem said it isn't Bridge to allow 12 tricks here. Well, I am sorry, but that is where you are wrong. To allow TDs and ACs to make rulings based on whether people deserve things is not the way the law is applied. Now, I responded, saying "12 tricks. Perfectly good claim.". It was suggested that I was being facetious. I was, of course. It is a lousy claim, based on carelessness, and therefore has to be adjudicated by the TD. The adjudication is that declarer takes 12 tricks. How do you go about adjudicating a claim? I shall not requote all the laws but the basis is that you follow the original statement as completely as possible, and **do not** follow a different line. Since the claim was: >declarer claimed for 5 spades, 3 diamonds and 4 clubs. then there is *no question* of the line including playing a heart and guessing [or not guessing] where the ace of hearts is. [En passant, may I comment that the precise and actual wording of the claim is important, and I am assuming here declarer said something like "I have 5 spades, 3 diamonds and 4 clubs".] If we follow the actual wording, then it is clear that declarer means that he will take the 12 tricks in top cards. Of course he has overlooked the blockage, but that does not mean that we do not follow the line as far as is sensible. If, for argument's sake, West had a small club instead of a small red card [when the claim would be valid], we would assume that he would play something along the lines of: Finish cashing the spades discarding red cards from the dummy Cash three diamonds discarding red cards from the dummy Cash four clubs finishing in the dummy So we follow this as far as possible: Finish cashing the spades discarding red cards from the dummy Cash three diamonds discarding red cards from the dummy Cash king of clubs This leaves: -- A J 86 -- -- xx K 2 -- Q AJ9 -- Qx -- T5 Now when declarer leads the queen of clubs the only possibility consistent with the original claim is to overtake and pray. It would not be logical not to overtake. How about a possible stepping stone position? But that is not consistent with the claim, which we have to follow as closely as possible. So, 12 tricks. I can understand the annoyance of some posters who believe that declarer should not get 12 tricks. You get my sympathy, but that is all. The one thing you ***must not do*** is to say he does not deserve 12 tricks ***therefore*** you will not give him 12 tricks: that is illegal, unfair, unjust and will create different problems: in fact that is "not Bridge". -- 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 Feb 8 10:16:32 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA05739 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 8 Feb 1997 10:16:32 +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 KAA05725 for ; Sat, 8 Feb 1997 10:16:24 +1100 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by relay-6.mail.demon.net id ab622303; 7 Feb 97 23:06 GMT Message-ID: Date: Fri, 7 Feb 1997 22:43:21 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Punishment for hesitation and other tidbits. In-Reply-To: <199702042026.VAA10958@pip.dknet.dk> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Jens & Bodil wrote: >The committee ruled that the score should stand, but NS were fined >1VP according to L90 "to reduce N/S's equity in the match result". >The AC chairman took great pains to explain that the fine was given >because N failed to plan what to do when 3S would come round to him, >and, realizing his failure, did not choose his action without a >break in tempo. Further, the AC chairman emphasizes that South was >"under special ethical obligation to pass his partner's slow >double". Finally he implies that South should not have created the >situation for himself and his partner by bidding 3D in the first >round rather than 3S (asking for a stopper in S) or 3NT. My only conclusions from this posting are a] The members of this AC should not be used again. b] ACs should be required to quote law numbers in rulings. -- 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 Feb 8 10:24:25 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA05801 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 8 Feb 1997 10:24:25 +1100 Received: from relay-7.mail.demon.net (relay-7.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.9]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id KAA05796 for ; Sat, 8 Feb 1997 10:24:18 +1100 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by relay-5.mail.demon.net id aa509155; 7 Feb 97 23:06 GMT Message-ID: Date: Fri, 7 Feb 1997 22:37:44 +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: <855165687.107947.0@casewise.demon.co.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Martin wrote: > 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. >> >> [s] >> >> 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. >Thus far, I agree with David Stevenson that, in Europe, L25 should >be invoked first and the opportunity to accept the Double offered to >LHO. Afterall, IMO if LHO had bid before the TD was called then the >double would be legally condoned (Law 11B) and the arrival at the >table of the TD cannot take away that right (Law 9B1(c)). But this >is an old arguement and not my main point. It is generally accepted that L11B is not used as a catchall in this way. If it were then we would give no adjustments at the ends of the hand for revokes, using UI, and so on. I think it is clear that the Lawmakers slipped with this one. They seem to have accepted this by deleting this Law in the 1997 Laws. >> 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 agree that if LHO does not accept the Double then L27 should be >applied. However, if LHO does not accept the insufficient bid, >**then it seems odd to me that L27B3 should not be immediately applied >to the first Double** (my main point). But you have already applied L25B2, which includes the wording: "If the substituted call is not accepted, it is cancelled; and:" Now, I am sorry, but that is the Law. You cannot apply it and not apply it simultaneously. Either you have cancelled it under L25B with all that that entails, or you have not. When you say that "L25 should be invoked first" then you have included the above line so the double is cancelled. >After all, there is nothing in the Laws to support the suggestion >above that only one law can be applied to an action and in plenty of >other situations several laws are used. IMO a player should not be >legally able to Double without penalty prior to the TD ruling but be >prevented from doing so once the TD has ruled, ie. the same principle >as above (Law 9B1(b)). If the double after a ruling is illegal and >will be penalised then IMO so should one made before the TD has >ruled. This paragraph seems confused to me. However, if I have understood it correctly then it is time the writer read the Law again, well actually L9B1C, not L9B1B. That basically says nothing changes by calling the TD. We already know that this Law is flawed as well, since you can only accept a bid, double or redouble by a player required by law to pass under L35B, ie by doing it without calling the TD first. L37 makes it clear that this does not apply once the TD is called. There is another well-known position where L9B1C does not apply, but I cannot remember it at this moment. The 1997 Laws do not change L35B, L37 nor L9B1C at all. Furthermore you do not apply conflicting laws to the same situation. When you apply more than one Law it is to cover different parts of the situation, such as L26 for Lead penalties. L25 *unambiguously* deals with the double and that is an end of it. L9B1C says that NOs lose nothing by calling the TD. While it does not always apply [see above] it does apply here. If you just accept the double then it becomes legal, whether you call the TD first or not. That is what L9B1C says. It has nothing to do with the argument here, which is what happens at a later time, always after the TD has been called: that is *clearly* nothing to do with L9B1C. >If we accept the proposal above that the offender can correct to 4S >*without penalty* and if the first Double showed defensive values >then would this really be AI for the offender's partner under Law >16C2 ("information arising from its own withdrawn actions is >authorised, after the payment of any penalty imposed by law.")? I >have always assumed that the specific purpose of L27B3 was to prevent >this information being given prior to correction to the lowest bid in >the same denomination and then used later by the offender's partner, >eg. when deciding whether to sacrifice or defend. Is there some other >purpose? I find your reason for the presence of L27B3 incredible. You tell the player he may not do something and he does it so you drop a large penalty on his head. Nothing more subtle than that IMO. >I believe that in the new Laws (usual caveats) all information from >offenders' withdrawn actions will be unauthorised for them in which >case should L27B3 be changed merely to cancel a double if it is not >condoned? L27B3 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 =( ^*^ )= 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 Feb 8 10:39:55 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA05857 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 8 Feb 1997 10:39:55 +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 KAA05851 for ; Sat, 8 Feb 1997 10:39:49 +1100 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by relay-6.mail.demon.net id aa622302; 7 Feb 97 23:06 GMT Message-ID: Date: Fri, 7 Feb 1997 22:43:10 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Ethical Problem, or no? In-Reply-To: <199702041616.IAA26028@cactus.tc.pw.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Stephen Barnfield wrote: >Herman DE WAEL said: >>Law 20 states clearly that you are allowed to ask questions. >>Law 73 states that you are allowed to mislead >>Law 73f states that you are not allowed to mislead when violating >>proprieties. >> >>IMO, asking questions (any questions) cannot be 'violating proprieties'. >>IMO, even doing this deliberately should be allowed. >>Opponents should be told that they draw inferences at own risk. While your opinion is valued in a situation like this initially it is not as important whether you think that deliberately asking misleading questions should be allowed as whether you think that they are allowed under the Laws. We have a problem here. >Law 73 does *not* state you are allowed to mislead. Law 73E states it is >proper to attempt to deceive an opponent through a call or play, and then >qualifies that in some ways. Law 73E is not relevant in Irv Kostal's friend's >case. Certainly true. It is difficult to imagine that the Laws tell you how you may mislead, and then you claim that there are other ways, because of other Laws. >Presumably the opponent was concerned that there might have been a breach of >Law 73D2, leading to an adjustment under Law 73F2. On the facts as set out in >Irv Kostal's e-mail, there do not seem to be any grounds for an adjustment, >but there are two sides (at least) to every story. I have discussed separately the actual hand. >I can see nothing wrong with the question asked by Irv Kostal's friend. > >Turning to the wider question raised, I do not recall considering whether a >question asked under Law 20 can be within Law 73D2 or 73F2. I had always >assumed such a question could be, but that usually there was some acceptable >reason for the question, so that in practice it wasn't. Looking afresh at the >laws concerned I can see Herman DE WAAL's point, but would not like to go quite >as far as he does to say a question under Law 20 *cannot* be "violating >proprieties". I do not believe that the right to ask a question under L41B or L20F2 supersedes anything written in L73 concerning ethics. If an inappropriate question is covered by L73D2 and thus L73F2 then I think that such questions are not permissible. The problem is that neither Law mentions a question: the closest is a "remark". At first reading then, L73D2 and L73F2 do not stop inappropriate questions. But there is a problem with that: if they don't stop inappropriate questions, then L73E should allow it, and it is not even as close. How close to a question is a "call or play"? Not very. So we have reached a position where there seems no solution. How about what we believe the Law should say? We have used this test before in positions where the Law does not seem to answer the question. Unfortunately here we do not seem of one accord. Consider Alan's case of a player with AKQJ between the two hands who spends some considerable time eliciting what a ten lead means: I believe that this feels unethical: Herman believes we should allow it. Admittedly, part of Herman's reason is apparently the difficulty of implementation but I do not believe that to be relevant to what is right. [Note: I have now read a further posting from Herman and it is fair to say that I am now confused as to what Herman thinks: if I have misrepresented his views, then I am sorry, but if so, then it probably supports my view.] I am going to stick my neck out here and make an assertion [Quango said OK ] and that is that in the case with the AKQ and J the vast majority of Bridge players would believe it to be unethical and against the Laws. Based on this I believe we should come to an agreement that the interpretation of L73D2 is that "remark" includes "an inappropriate question". Given that, then we may make an adjustment under L73F2 when declarer asks an inappropriate question. What about Herman's worry about implementation? With the problem in the wording of the Laws, I believe that any doubt whatever should always be decided in declarer's favour, ie that the defenders conclude things at their own risk and we should only adjust the score in the very rare cases where it is *clearly* inappropriate. If declarer says "What are your leads?" then there should *never* be any problem, but if he asks specific questions then we could apply L73F2. If declarer says "What do you lead from QT9x?" then for him to be looking at the queen would suggest that an adjustment might be in order. >As David Stevenson (I think) has said elsewhere, under the proposed new laws >this problem is likely to arise more often, under the new wording of Law 73F >("deceptive" is removed and "has no demonstrable reason for the action" >inserted thus replacing a subjective test with an objective test). I believe that this Law makes it easier to apply, not more frequent. I believe the wording is far better, while in effect covering the same things. 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 (_~^ ^~ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Feb 8 11:16:38 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id LAA06102 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 8 Feb 1997 11:16:38 +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 LAA06097 for ; Sat, 8 Feb 1997 11:16:31 +1100 From: AlLeBendig@aol.com Received: (from root@localhost) by emout08.mail.aol.com (8.7.6/8.7.3/AOL-2.0.0) id TAA23555 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Fri, 7 Feb 1997 19:15:55 -0500 (EST) Date: Fri, 7 Feb 1997 19:15:55 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <970207103711_1928400950@emout08.mail.aol.com> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Deliberate hesitation? Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In a message dated 97-02-06 22:01:09 EST, you write: > South held: > Qx > AJT > ATxxx > xxx > at Green [E/W vul] > > The bidding was: > > E S W N > 1S 2D 2S 3C > 3S Dbl P 4D > P P* P > > * 10 second huddle [agreed] > > The huddle kept me from doubling, the contract was down 2 and I called > the director. He would not adjust the score, and I appealed. The > committee also turned it down, not because they disagreed with me, but > because they said that adjusting the score was tantamount to accusing > South of cheating, which they did not want to do. > > I think that there is a weakness in the rules here. The huddle could > be caused by South being absent-minded or sleepy, and I think that any > unwarranted huddle (which did or could have affected the result) should > be ground enough for an adjusted score, without necessarily being > accompanied by an accusation of cheating. If a player then accumulates > too many of those, you can start discussing whether it is a case of > deliberately hesitating to mislead the opponents, and take disciplinary > action against him. I would like your opinion, both on the current > case, and on the situation in general. > > BTW, the full hand was > > xx > Kx > Qxx > KQTxxx > xxx AKJxxx > xxx Qxxxx > K9xx J > AJx x > Qx > AJT > ATxxx > xxx To start with, I would have several questions of S as to what he might have possibly been thinking of. I would hope that he might be able to shed some light on what was happening in his mind. It is certainly difficult at best to imagine that he was actually considering another call. HOWEVER, he did double 3S (could it have been 3H?) with this hand which does demonstrate a rather incredibly aggressive viewpoint with these cards. My tendency would be to apply Law 73D1 based on the fact that this player "could have known" that thought here could work to his benefit. So I might adjust his score (or issue a PP to accomplish the same thing). I can do so without accusing him of cheating. I don't think I would apply 73F2 but it is a very fine line in my mind. I guess I feel that W either does or doesn't have a double. Now I'll anxiously await David's opinion to see what I missed... Alan LeBendig From owner-bridge-laws Sat Feb 8 11:35:00 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id LAA06156 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 8 Feb 1997 11:35:00 +1100 Received: from lsbsdi1.lightspeed.net (root@lsbsdi1.lightspeed.net [204.216.65.99]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id LAA06150 for ; Sat, 8 Feb 1997 11:34:53 +1100 Received: from LOCALNAME (bak-brks2-ppp005.lightspeed.net [207.113.248.24]) by lsbsdi1.lightspeed.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id QAA00415 for ; Fri, 7 Feb 1997 16:33:17 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <32FA8A29.2CD8@lightspeed.net> Date: Thu, 06 Feb 1997 17:49:29 -0800 From: "John R. Mayne" X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.01KIT (Win16; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Quick Opinions Needed References: <970206221436_2026064752@emout13.mail.aol.com> <32FA895B.2C70@lightspeed.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk John R. Mayne wrote: > > AlLeBendig@aol.com wrote: > >] > [Big snip; about the pass/Double/5H hand] > > > Surely you must be able to at least consider the possibility that the > > European view may lead to an unfair bonus for the non-offenders...A 5H bid > > here can never leave them in a losing position if indeed there has been an > > infraction. How can that ever be right? > > > Uh, I think it clear that 5H can be a losing bid. Suppose 5H is a maker and 5D is -1100. That is part of the analysis of most of us who prefer double to 5H, given that a forcing pass is unavailable. I think *no one* here would argue that the NOs still have a shot at their 1100. Doubling could be viewed as a double shot, since you'll get to play or defend, as is best. On this hand, if a forcing pass is available, you can make that argument. (I wouldn't agree, but it's there and I might be convinced if the NOs had sharp, expert agreements that double denies a stiff.) But 5H gives you a losing option. I can't see this as a shot at all. -- I think that from what I've read here, the European view of punishing only wild actions is the stronger. JRM From owner-bridge-laws Sat Feb 8 11:40:24 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id LAA06232 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 8 Feb 1997 11:40:24 +1100 Received: from u1.farm.idt.net (root@u1.farm.idt.net [169.132.8.10]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id LAA06227 for ; Sat, 8 Feb 1997 11:40:18 +1100 Received: from ppp-27.ts-5.la.idt.net (ppp-27.ts-5.la.idt.net [204.235.93.46]) by u1.farm.idt.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id TAA04470; Fri, 7 Feb 1997 19:39:56 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <32FBCC5C.E97@mail.idt.net> Date: Fri, 07 Feb 1997 16:44:12 -0800 From: Irwin Kostal Reply-To: bigfoot@idt.net X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0Gold (Win95; I; 16bit) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Eric Landau CC: bridge-laws Subject: Re: ACBL Alert chart interpretation References: <1.5.4.32.19970207151700.00681b40@cais.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk It's all well and good, Eric, that I be expected to know that it might or might not contain four spades, but now I have to ask, everytime it comes up, or risk inflicting UI on my partner when I do ask. Why does it seem simple and straightforward to me to adopt a 'standard' meaning, relating back to the original use of the Stayman convention, and not to other uses of it? In a certain sense, I want the opponents to alert the auction, more than any particular call. After all, the auction (in Washington) shows invitational values, without a four card major. I find myself rather content with the 'announcements' of transfers and forcing NT. I think it's working well. Perhaps this should be an announcement, rather than an alert. Perhaps the use of announcements could be extended into other areas as well. Irv Eric Landau wrote: > > At 02:50 PM 2/6/97 -0800, bigfoot wrote: > > >I'm sorry, Allan, but I don't know quite what you are saying here. When > >I hear 1N-2C-2H-2N, I tend to think the responder has 4 spades, for the > >obvious reasons. If he doesn't, isn't this something I should know? I > >don't mind the 2NT bid being alerted, rather than the 2C bid, in fact > >I'd prefer it. Are you saying something different? > > But if bigfoot lived in Washington, then when he heard 1NT-2C-2H-2N, he > would tend to think that the responder does not have 4 spades, since that's > the way 90% of the players in the Washington area treat that sequence. The > question for the ACBL is whether or not the "Washington" treatment is > sufficiently "unusual and unexpected" to require an alert. Obviously, if > that treatment is essentially peculiar to the Washington area, it should, > whereas if it were common throughout North America it would not. > > And if it were common throughout North America, then bigfoot would be > expected to know that responder might not have 4 spades on this auction > without needing an alert. (I've sneakily switched gears here, from the > Washington treatment, where 2NT denies 4 spades -- clearly unusual -- to the > more common treatment that Alan believes should be non-alertable, where 2NT > retains the ambiguity of the original 2C bid. The Washington treatment, we > all agree, should remain alertable.) > > I do hope and trust that we, in this group, have gotten beyond the ludicrous > (although not uncommon) belief that any auction must have only one > non-alertable meaning, and recognize that it is possible, and quite common, > for an auction to have more than one treatment that does not fall into the > category of "unusual and unexpected". > > Eric Landau elandau@cais.com > APL Solutions, Inc. elandau@acm.org > 1107 Dale Drive (301) 589-4621 > Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 From owner-bridge-laws Sat Feb 8 12:26:07 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id MAA06414 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 8 Feb 1997 12:26:07 +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 MAA06409 for ; Sat, 8 Feb 1997 12:25:49 +1100 Received: from localhost by flash.irvine.com id aa10849; 7 Feb 97 17:24 PST To: David Stevenson cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au, adam@flash.irvine.com Subject: Re: Strange Claim In-reply-to: Your message of "Fri, 07 Feb 1997 22:39:33 PST." Date: Fri, 07 Feb 1997 17:24:16 PST From: Adam Beneschan Message-ID: <9702071724.aa10849@flash.irvine.com> Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > Sergei Litvak wrote: > > >This board is from tournament where the level of players was over average > >(it' not a joke). > > > >E is playing 6NT. The whole hand: > > Jx > > Axx > > Jxxx > > 8642 > >AQTxx Kx > >xx KJxxx > >AKQ2 xx > >KQ AJ97 > > 9xxx > > Qxx > > xxx > > T53 > > . . . > This is an interesting hand because it shows the sort of ruling that > TDs and ACs are required to make by following the law, and then have to > sell to the players. At least one of the answers posted to this problem > said it isn't Bridge to allow 12 tricks here. Well, I am sorry, but > that is where you are wrong. To allow TDs and ACs to make rulings based > on whether people deserve things is not the way the law is applied. If this is really the case, then the Law is busted and needs to be fixed so that atrocities like this don't happen. However, I'm still not convinced that the Laws currently require East to be awarded 12 tricks. . . . > How do you go about adjudicating a claim? I shall not requote all the > laws but the basis is that you follow the original statement as > completely as possible, and **do not** follow a different line. Since > the claim was: > > >declarer claimed for 5 spades, 3 diamonds and 4 clubs. > > then there is *no question* of the line including playing a heart and > guessing [or not guessing] where the ace of hearts is. [En passant, may > I comment that the precise and actual wording of the claim is important, > and I am assuming here declarer said something like "I have 5 spades, 3 > diamonds and 4 clubs".] > > If we follow the actual wording, then it is clear that declarer means > that he will take the 12 tricks in top cards. Of course he has > overlooked the blockage, but that does not mean that we do not follow > the line as far as is sensible. This argument assumes that we need to follow the originally stated line of play as closely as possible. The problem with this argument is that THERE WAS NO STATED LINE. When you simply claim a number of top tricks, you're not saying anything about the order. If I reach 7NT on these cards: AJ54 AK3 AQ6 842 KQ Q72 KJ42 AK73 I lay down my hand after the opening lead, saying "I'll take 4 spades, 3 hearts, 4 diamonds, and 2 clubs." Is this a statement that I plan to try to take my 4 spades first, before any of the other tricks? Do you disallow the claim if someone has the 10xxx of spades? No, of course not. We assume that I'm a good enough player to know what order in which to take my tricks. The point here is that a simple statement of what top tricks I'm going to take does *not* constitute a "line of play", and therefore assumptions that "5 spades, 3 diamonds and 4 clubs" must mean declarer must play five rounds of spades, three rounds of diamonds, and four rounds of clubs, are fallacious. To me, this means that a "Top Tricks" claim is a different animal from a claim that states a "line" of play. The term "line", used in Laws 68C, 70D, and 70E, is not defined in the Laws, but I take it to be akin to a "plan", which involves the order in which I do things. A Top Tricks claim, however, says nothing about order; it simply states which tricks I'm going to take. (Of course, a claim can have both elements. Often, I'll say something like "Draw trumps and claim", meaning that first I draw all the trumps--the "ordered" part of the claim--and then I have a bunch of top tricks that I won't bother to specify the order of taking.) I realize I'm inventing terminology here that isn't in the Laws; but I think my term "Top Tricks claim" does denote something that we see almost every time we play bridge. Also, I can find nothing in the Laws that says that when someone makes a claim statement like this, the statement should be interpreted as a statement of a "line" or of the order in which the tricks are to be taken. So, repeating David's statement: > How do you go about adjudicating a claim? I shall not requote all the > laws but the basis is that you follow the original statement as > completely as possible, and **do not** follow a different line. . . . Again, my opinion is that there's no "line" here. So we're charged with trying to "follow the original statement as completely as possible". The original statement is that "I'm going to take the A, K, Q, and J of clubs." No, East didn't specifically use those words, but it's clear that's what he meant, since he didn't say anything about overtaking or hoping for the 10 to drop. So treating this as a Top Tricks claim, I contend that the club overtake is NOT following the original statement. East said he would take the four top club honors; however, those who would allow the claim are giving him the A, K, J, and 9. This is not what East intended, and therefore, I contend, does not follow the original statement. This is why I'm arguing so strenously that this line of play should *not* be allowed to fulfill the claim. Based on all this, I do not believe that there's anything in the Laws that requires that East be given 12 tricks. My points about misguessing the heart suit for an entry and about the steppingstone squeeze were simply to point out that there are alternative "normal" plays to be considered in case Law 70D applies. Suppose that, after East makes the claim and it's contested, the hands are faced as required by 70B. East notices the unguarded 10 and now says "I planned on taking four club tricks by overtaking the club and hoping the 10 would drop." East is proposing a new line of play, and therefore Law 70D applies: D. Claimer Proposes New Line of Play The Director shall not accept from claimer any successful line of play not embraced in the original clarification statement if there is an alternative normal* line of play that would be less successful. East's new line is successful, clearly. East's new line is not embraced in the original clarification statement, since, as I've argued above, his original statement said he'd take the top four club honors while his new statement says he'd take the K, A, J, 9. So, if there is an alternative normal line of play that would go down, East's new line is not allowed. Since the unblock-clubs-then-try-to-guess- hearts and run-pointed-tricks-and-try-for-steppingstone-squeeze lines are both normal lines of play, the club overtake isn't allowed, and East is awarded down 1 or 2. -- Adam From owner-bridge-laws Sat Feb 8 14:10:30 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id OAA06776 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 8 Feb 1997 14:10:30 +1100 Received: from relay-11.mail.demon.net (relay-11.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.137]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id OAA06771 for ; Sat, 8 Feb 1997 14:10:23 +1100 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by relay-9.mail.demon.net id aa905851; 8 Feb 97 2:59 GMT Message-ID: Date: Sat, 8 Feb 1997 02:57:51 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Ethical Problem, or no? In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Stevenson wrote: > When I hear of incidents in the USA, I often think "There is too much >suspicion" and "There are too many Bridge lawyers". This type of query >regrettably reinforces both of these points. If all declarer said was >"What are your leads?" then RHO appears to be a Bridge lawyer who is >unnecessarily suspicious. I think the breed needs stamping out but the >current approach in the ACBL does not seem to work enough in that >direction. Having re-read this last sentence I can see that some people are going to feel upset by it, like our friends Alan LeBendig and Jon Brissman, because they are certainly doing their best in this direction. I do not mean to suggest that people like themselves are not working hard to send North American bridge in the correct direction: but I suggest that despite their best efforts the effect is less successful [so far] than they might hope. -- 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 Feb 8 18:31:09 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id SAA07499 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 8 Feb 1997 18:31:09 +1100 Received: from emout24.mail.aol.com (emout24.mx.aol.com [198.81.11.129]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id SAA07494 for ; Sat, 8 Feb 1997 18:31:03 +1100 From: AlLeBendig@aol.com Received: (from root@localhost) by emout24.mail.aol.com (8.7.6/8.7.3/AOL-2.0.0) id CAA27177 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Sat, 8 Feb 1997 02:30:22 -0500 (EST) Date: Sat, 8 Feb 1997 02:30:22 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <970207175525_41871097@emout13.mail.aol.com> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Follow-Up to Quick Opinions... Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Now for the complete hand: N S T9652 H AKJ D 5 C AJ83 W E S KJ8 S 74 H Q62 H 74 D KQJ3 D AT87642 C QT6 C 92 S S AQ3 H T9853 D 9 C K754 Both Vul - MPs E S W N P P 1D Dbl 4D 4H P* P 5D 5H AP *Clear Hesitation I don't think there will be any disagreement that the 5D bid is clear usage of UI. It is highly unlikely that partner was considering a double of 4H.. Given the vulnerability, I would never allow 5D since pass is a LA. Very few acknowledged that it was indeed possible that E could have a 5D bid. He may indeed have been "walking the dog" with the expectation there would be a bid by S or N. However, I don't accept that this was the hand. Now to 5H. Based on the responses, most agreed that 5H is a really *poor* bid. If a pass is forcing (I personnaly believe it must be in a theoretical sense), that is an option. I prefer a double to say I just bid all of my hand. That doesn't rule out partner bidding 5H. But I digress. Of the three choices, 5H appears to a distant third. In my mind (and obviously some others), that means the damage came as a result of the 5H bid, not because of the infraction by E. I would only feel this way if the S palyer was a rather experienced player. I could certainly understand why many lesser players would think they had been "forced" to take the push. I would hope that I would never judge this bid to be an error by a player of lesser skills. I ruled -100 for N-S and -620 for E-W. I told N-S that my ruling was not final until I discussed it further with all of you (an advantage of a club game). The next day I told them it was the ruling. I thank you for your input. I am pleased that this has once again opened up some communication on what I feel is a crucial issue. Alan LeBendig From owner-bridge-laws Sat Feb 8 21:37:52 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id VAA08037 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 8 Feb 1997 21:37:52 +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 VAA08032 for ; Sat, 8 Feb 1997 21:37:44 +1100 Received: from innet.innet.be (pool03-234.innet.be [194.7.10.234]) by mail.be.innet.net (8.7.6/8.7.3) with SMTP id LAA07561 for ; Sat, 8 Feb 1997 11:37:37 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: <32FB6CAE.3B90@innet.be> Date: Fri, 07 Feb 1997 17:55:58 +0000 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01 (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Apology (was : Quick Opinions Needed) References: <970206125327_41713969@emout18.mail.aol.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I believe an apology is in order. AlLeBendig@aol.com wrote: > > In a message dated 97-02-06 08:36:43 EST, Herman writes: > > > I was wondering how long it would take. > > The title of this mailing list is LAWS, not Rulings. > > Although I am not contrary to this kind of polling, I do not think this > > is the place. > > I would favour a new mailing list, or maybe even a newsgroup, to do this > > kind of polling. > > Meanwhile, I do not want to shoot Alan, nor would I object to others > > using the same medium. > > And to what end do we discuss the Laws, Herman? The wording of these Laws > and the interpretation has no interest whatsoever to me except for the > application of these same Laws. I am relieved that you're not proposing I be > shot. > > > I want to congratulate Alan for putting the question neutrally, and not > > revealing that partner north has probably hesitated too. But then, he > > would, wouldn't he ? > > He did not. You're right that had that been the case, I would not have > included it. > Here's where I went wrong. I did not look far enough. I thought it was the simple case of UI from North to South. It isn't - it's a case of consequent and subsequent. The rest of my comments stand. If somebody needs to poll 'players' to find out if one particular bid is a Logical Alternative or not, he may have to find a special kind of asking. I thought 'Quick Opinions needed' might be the best way of describing such a request. I agree with some posters that at least we have here a selected group that know the laws and that this is indeed a group that could reasonably be polled. In that case, asking for e-mail answer might seem appropriate. > > > Since I don't see David's reply, and knowing he can't keep silent, I do > > suppose he has replied by mail. > > Answered by David meanwhile. > > FWIW, I pass with the south hand. I think I've described my near > > maximum. > > > > BTW, this makes me think of another objection. If I simply reply and you > > don't know what a lousy player I am, how can you put any weight on my > > opinion. So any reply should include the level of play of the replier. > > (For me : that's fourth division Belgian - go figure that out). > > I could care less about your level of play, Herman. I do respect Thanks - will you play with me when we will meet someday ? > abide by. Those were the only opinions that I was seeking. > OK, so here goes. I would not bid 5H on normal bidding, but if opponents bid 5D after hesitation, this is likely to be a good bid. So 5H does have its merits. If 5D was an infraction of Law 16, I was placed in a position I should not have been in. It would require far greater 'bad judgement' to have me let 5H stand. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.club.innet.be/~pub02163/index.htm From owner-bridge-laws Sun Feb 9 03:36:54 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA11964 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 9 Feb 1997 03:36:54 +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 DAA11959 for ; Sun, 9 Feb 1997 03:36:44 +1100 Received: from cph27.ppp.dknet.dk (cph27.ppp.dknet.dk [194.192.100.27]) by pip.dknet.dk (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id RAA02708 for ; Sat, 8 Feb 1997 17:36:26 +0100 From: Jesper Dybdal To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Quick Opinions Needed Date: Sat, 08 Feb 1997 17:36:24 +0100 Organization: at home Message-ID: <3300ab5c.5514779@pipmail.dknet.dk> References: <970207110702_882339155@emout17.mail.aol.com> In-Reply-To: <970207110702_882339155@emout17.mail.aol.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 Fri, 7 Feb 1997 17:43:26 -0500 (EST), AlLeBendig@aol.com wrote: > Surely you must be able to at least consider the possibility that the=20 > European view may lead to an unfair bonus for the non-offenders...A 5H = bid=20 > here can never leave them in a losing position if indeed there has been= an=20 > infraction. How can that ever be right? I don't mind sometimes giving an unfair bonus to the non-offenders, if that is the price I have to pay to ensure that I do not take away a fair score adjustment. So unless I feel pretty sure that the non-offenders have deliberately tried a double shot by making a call that is "wild or gambling", I see no problem at all in giving them a good score. We should also remember that the 5H-bidder has no way of knowing whether there actually was an irregularity; going for the double shot sometimes make you lose simply because the hesitator's partner had no logical alternatives to the bid he made. Personally, I believe that such double shots ought to be legal (actually I believe they _are_ legal according to the wording of the laws, though not according to case law). They are a way of taking advantage of an error committed by the opponents. When NS forgets to draw trumps, we do not mind EW getting a good score; when NS violates the law, we should not mind EW getting a good score either. IMO, these two ways of getting a good score are exactly equivalent in regard to being "fair". --=20 Jesper Dybdal, Denmark From owner-bridge-laws Sun Feb 9 04:33:24 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA12115 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 9 Feb 1997 04:33:24 +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 EAA12110 for ; Sun, 9 Feb 1997 04:33:15 +1100 Received: from default (cph19.ppp.dknet.dk [194.192.100.19]) by pip.dknet.dk (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id SAA03769 for ; Sat, 8 Feb 1997 18:31:25 +0100 Message-Id: <199702081731.SAA03769@pip.dknet.dk> Comments: Authenticated sender is From: "Jens & Bodil" Organization: Alesia Software To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Sat, 8 Feb 1997 18:31:30 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Re: Strange Claim Priority: normal X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v2.42a) Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: David Stevenson > Sergei Litvak wrote: > [snipped. We know the hand by now] > > This is an interesting hand because it shows the sort of ruling that > TDs and ACs are required to make by following the law, and then have to > sell to the players. At least one of the answers posted to this problem > said it isn't Bridge to allow 12 tricks here. Well, I am sorry, but > that is where you are wrong. To allow TDs and ACs to make rulings based > on whether people deserve things is not the way the law is applied. > > Now, I responded, saying "12 tricks. Perfectly good claim.". It was > suggested that I was being facetious. I was, of course. It is a lousy > claim, based on carelessness, and therefore has to be adjudicated by the > TD. The adjudication is that declarer takes 12 tricks. > > How do you go about adjudicating a claim? I shall not requote all the > laws but the basis is that you follow the original statement as > completely as possible, and **do not** follow a different line. Since > the claim was: > > >declarer claimed for 5 spades, 3 diamonds and 4 clubs. > > then there is *no question* of the line including playing a heart and > guessing [or not guessing] where the ace of hearts is. [En passant, may > I comment that the precise and actual wording of the claim is important, > and I am assuming here declarer said something like "I have 5 spades, 3 > diamonds and 4 clubs".] I disagree. Let me share David's assumption about the statement: "I have 5 spades, 3 diamonds and 4 clubs". I do not adjudicate a claim based on a statement like this to the effect that declarer must cash his presumed winners in the order stated. If it is normal play to cash them in some other order, I choose the one that gives declarer the poorest result. In this case, I will let declarer start by cashing the diamonds, then the clubs. Obviously he will then discover that the clubs are blocked, and that his line of play is flawed. It is then normal play and faithful to this claim to reconsider his situation at this point, long before he has squeezed the hearts out of dummy. So we count tricks based on a heart to the jack; the opponents then score two hearts and a diamond, and declarer only gets 10 tricks. [more snippage] > I can understand the annoyance of some posters who believe that > declarer should not get 12 tricks. You get my sympathy, but that is > all. The one thing you ***must not do*** is to say he does not deserve > 12 tricks ***therefore*** you will not give him 12 tricks: that is > illegal, unfair, unjust and will create different problems: in fact that > is "not Bridge". I agree with David's statement, and I humbly submit that David is not describing my reasons for awarding fewer than 12 tricks. I am trying to follow L70A, which tells me to "adjudicate[] the result as equitably as possible to both sides, but any doubtful points shall be resolved against the claimer." In doing so, I ask myself what would have happened if declarer had played out the hand according to his statement. Endicott and Hansen have this comment (70.6): A claimer is not allowed to embellish or vary the claim which he originally made. Any amplification of his original words must have been indicated or clearly implied by the original statement, and it must not represent an adjustment of wording for the purpose of covering a factor that was not in his mind at the time of the original claim. In testing this question, the Director must consider whether there is an alternative and inferior line of _normal_ play that is consistent with the original statement and clarification of the claim. Obviously he was not aware that clubs are blocked. Obviously he is going to discover this problem sooner or later. If he discovers it sooner, we must not allow him to try to get at his good clubs by playing on hearts if that is a *superior* line of play (say N has the heart ace and queen, and the club ten does not fall), but we should choose it for him if it is normal, consistent with the original claim, and inferior. I believe that David and I agree that it is inferior, probably also that it is normal. So it would seem that I arrive at a different ruling from David's because we disagree whether switching to hearts is consistent with the original claim. I suggested to Jesper that we include this ruling in our TD test. Jesper said that we then ought to remove dummy's heart jack. Now I see how right Jesper was. With no HJ in dummy, 12 tricks is the right ruling, and a trap has been set for those that award fewer because they want to punish the claimer. Finally, let me thank Sergei for giving us this hand to discuss. I suspect that he hadn't expected this much controversy to arise. -- Jens Brix Christiansen, Denmark From owner-bridge-laws Sun Feb 9 05:22:17 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA12345 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 9 Feb 1997 05:22:17 +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 FAA12340 for ; Sun, 9 Feb 1997 05:22:06 +1100 Received: from Default by worldcom.ch (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id TAA00371; Sat, 8 Feb 1997 19:26:02 +0100 Date: Sat, 8 Feb 1997 19:26:02 +0100 Message-Id: <199702081826.TAA00371@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: Strange Claim Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Law 68C reads: "A claim should be accompanied at once by a statement of clarification as to the order in which cards will be played, the line of play or defence through which the claimer proposes to win the tricks claimed. " Why "should" and not "must" Yvan From owner-bridge-laws Sun Feb 9 06:12:30 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA12473 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 9 Feb 1997 06:12:30 +1100 Received: from relay-11.mail.demon.net (relay-11.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.137]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id GAA12468 for ; Sun, 9 Feb 1997 06:12:21 +1100 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by relay-9.mail.demon.net id ad906485; 8 Feb 97 19:04 GMT Message-ID: Date: Sat, 8 Feb 1997 18:58:07 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Quick Opinions Needed In-Reply-To: <970206221436_2026064752@emout13.mail.aol.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Alan LeBendig wrote: >> Is 5H so bad a bid that we know that he was trying a double shot? No! >> There is too much support in the answers. Is 5H a logical alternative? >> Certainly in ACBL-land! What has that got to do with anything? > >Absolutely nothing, David. We only discuss logical alternatives when there >is UI which suggests one action over another. 5H is merely one of three >possible choices. Obviously most feel that is the least rational choice. > When given a bidding problem, neither of us breaks the answers down into >"logical alternatives". Perhaps we might develop this a little more before it is dismissed. What is a Logical Alternative [LA]? It is a call that some players would consider reasonable, yes? Or Steve's: a call that is not clearly an error? So what is an LA? It is an action that you would expect some players to find, yes? Consider TBW's MSC [Master Solvers' Club]: you get an auction such as No No 1D x 4D 4H No No 5D ? and clearly no-one would bid 5H! It's not a totally stupid bid, but surely Pass and Double are better. You eagerly grab the next TBW, and check: Call Marks No of panellists No 100 18 Dbl 70 12 5H 20 1 Hehehe! Just out of interest, you look up to see which stupid panellist bids the crazy 5H! Meckstroth. Oh, shit! How many times has he been world champion? Let's have a look at Wolff's answer: WOLFF: Dbl: While Pass would be clearly right if it were forcing, I do not believe it is in this position. So we have to guess. I have a sneaking admiration for 5H, which might easily be the winning action, but I am sure that I would double at the table. What does all this mean? In UI situations, what constitutes a LA is no longer a 30% action as in England, nor a 25% action as some time ago in the ACBL, but it is down to [say] a 5% action. If you cannot find one person in twenty to make the bid, or perhaps fewer if there are people considering it as a possible action even if they eventually decide on something else, then it is no longer an LA. So you knew all this: so what? Now let us go back to the original ruling: No No 1D x 4D 4H No No 5D 5H No No No The side that bid 5D lose their score: no argument there. How about the other side? Let me fill in a couple more details: Charley Fred Meckstroth Rodwell No No 1D x 4D 4H No No 5D 5H No No No Are you sure that you are going to rule against Meckstroth? Knowing that he would have bid 5H without the infraction? But, sez you, how do you *know* that Meckstroth would have bid 5H without the infraction? You don't, of course: but isn't it worrying? Let's change it very slightly. The personnel are the same: the MSC results are the same, with one vote for 5H, and one person who considered 5H as a possibility: but you do not know whether it was Meckstroth who bid 5H or one of the 30 others. Are you sure that you are going to rule against Meckstroth? Knowing that he might have been the one who bid 5H without the infraction? The thing is, if 5H was not an LA, and someone makes the bid, then it is reasonable to say that making such a bid snaps the causal link. But if it is an LA, then you know that *this particular person* who bid 5H might have been a player who always would, and disallowing his right to an adjustment seems unfair. So, I propose that, if one side is having an adjustment made against their score, the other side should not receive the benefit if: either [a] they took an action so outlandish that it can *only* be explained as an attempt at a double shot or [b] they took an action that was not a Logical Alternative -- 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 Sun Feb 9 06:35:21 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA12519 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 9 Feb 1997 06:35:21 +1100 Received: from relay-7.mail.demon.net (relay-7.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.9]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id GAA12514 for ; Sun, 9 Feb 1997 06:35:15 +1100 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by relay-5.mail.demon.net id ab500387; 8 Feb 97 19:03 GMT Message-ID: <7mPv5kDBsM$yEwNe@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Sat, 8 Feb 1997 18:50:41 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Deliberate hesitation? In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Stevenson wrote: There seems less interest in this hand than I thought, since we seem to be generally in agreement. At the time I wrote the following to my correspondent: --------- Your AC has misread the Laws, and given a really terrible ruling. Law 73 - Communication between Partners D. Variations in Tempo 1. Inadvertent Variations Variations of tempo, manner, or the like may violate the Proprieties when the player could know, at the time of his action, that the variation could work to his benefit. Otherwise, inadvertently to vary the tempo or manner in which a call or play is made does not in itself constitute a violation of propriety, but inferences from such variation may appropriately be drawn only by an opponent, and at his own risk. 2. Intentional Variations It is grossly improper to attempt to mislead an opponent by means of remark or gesture, through the haste or hesitancy of a call or play (as in hesitating before playing a singleton), or by the manner in which the call or play is made. F. Violation of Proprieties When a violation of the Proprieties described in this Law results in damage to an innocent Opponent: 2. Player Injured by Illegal Deception If the Director determines that an innocent player has drawn a false inference from a deceptive remark, manner, tempo, or the like, of an opponent who could have known, at the time of the action, that the deception could work to his benefit, the Director shall award an adjusted score (see Law 12). They are saying that they are not prepared to say that there has been a violation of L73D2, because it is tantamount to cheating. There is more than one answer to this. Grossly improper is not the same as cheating: cheating involves [a] knowing something is grossly improper and [b] doing it deliberately knowing it is grossly improper. Your AC should not use the word cheating: they should be prepared to rule under L73D2 if required: they should not shy away from it. However, even if they are not prepared to rule under L73D2, what about L73D1? They could have ruled under that without even bothering about the level of impropriety. L73F2 makes it quite clear that in the given situation an adjusted score should have been given. When you referred to "absent-minded or sleepy", that is exactly what L73D1 and L73F2 cover. You have suggested there is a weakness in the Laws because you have realised that the ruling is completely wrong. There is no weakness in the Laws. The ruling given by the TD and the AC is clearly wrong. You have given no reason for the TD's ruling, but I am not impressed with his ruling. The reason given by the AC shows that they do not understand the Laws. --------- Apart from the other posts you have seen, I have received emails from Alan Miller and Tom Goodwin, who seem to think the adjustment is automatic, and Jac Fuchs who would adjust against the offending side, but let the NOs keep their score. I notice that one poster would issue a PP under L73D1 but not an adjustment under L73F2. That may be legal [L90 says effectively that a TD can issue a PP for anything he feels like] but I do not like the approach. L73F says "When a violation of the Proprieties described in this Law results in damage to an innocent opponent:" so if there is a violation of L73D1 then L73F applies: I do not believe that a PP is suitable, since the Law requires an adjusted score. -- 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 Sun Feb 9 07:06:53 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA12599 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 9 Feb 1997 07:06:53 +1100 Received: from relay-7.mail.demon.net (relay-7.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.9]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id HAA12594 for ; Sun, 9 Feb 1997 07:06:45 +1100 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by relay-6.mail.demon.net id aa627820; 8 Feb 97 19:04 GMT Message-ID: <8WwuFjD+qM$yEwPu@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Sat, 8 Feb 1997 18:49:34 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Deliberate hesitation? In-Reply-To: <199702071538.KAA24617@cfa183.harvard.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Steve Willner wrote: >The committee should have considered the relevant questions of bridge >judgment and decided accordingly. Cheating doesn't come into the score >adjustment. This hesitation seems so strange -- on the facts presented >-- that I do think a recorder report is proper. (Do you have that >system in the UK?) If repeated frequently, conduct charges would >seem to be in order. No we don't have a recorder system: perhaps we should It would not affect this hand, which was not from the UK. >I'll be fairly surprised if even David disagrees with the above. I'd >have thought it completely standard interpretation. Even? -- 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 Sun Feb 9 10:56:30 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA13069 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 9 Feb 1997 10:56:30 +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 KAA13064 for ; Sun, 9 Feb 1997 10:56:23 +1100 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by relay-5.mail.demon.net id aa524763; 8 Feb 97 23:48 GMT Message-ID: Date: Sat, 8 Feb 1997 23:42:31 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Strange Claim In-Reply-To: <199702081826.TAA00371@worldcom.ch> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Y. Calame wrote: >Law 68C reads: > >"A claim should be accompanied at once by a statement of clarification as to >the order in which cards will be played, the line of play or defence through >which the claimer proposes to win the tricks claimed. " > >Why "should" and not "must" Presumably because if you face your cards and say nothing it is still a valid claim if the opponents acquiesce, and a matter for the TD 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 Sun Feb 9 11:21:00 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id LAA13122 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 9 Feb 1997 11:21:00 +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 LAA13117 for ; Sun, 9 Feb 1997 11:20:53 +1100 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by relay-9.mail.demon.net id aa918749; 8 Feb 97 23:48 GMT Message-ID: Date: Sat, 8 Feb 1997 23:42:12 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Strange Claim In-Reply-To: <9702071724.aa10849@flash.irvine.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Adam Beneschan wrote: >> This is an interesting hand because it shows the sort of ruling that >> TDs and ACs are required to make by following the law, and then have to >> sell to the players. At least one of the answers posted to this problem >> said it isn't Bridge to allow 12 tricks here. Well, I am sorry, but >> that is where you are wrong. To allow TDs and ACs to make rulings based >> on whether people deserve things is not the way the law is applied. > >If this is really the case, then the Law is busted and needs to be >fixed so that atrocities like this don't happen. However, I'm still >not convinced that the Laws currently require East to be awarded 12 >tricks. You should not be looking for quick fixes because of an injustice or two. Only if a Law is likely to get consistently wrong results does it need altering. >I realize I'm inventing terminology here that isn't in the Laws; but I >think my term "Top Tricks claim" does denote something that we see >almost every time we play bridge. Also, I can find nothing in the >Laws that says that when someone makes a claim statement like this, >the statement should be interpreted as a statement of a "line" or of >the order in which the tricks are to be taken. Yes, this sounds reasonable. It doesn't affect the ruling though. >So, repeating David's statement: > >> How do you go about adjudicating a claim? I shall not requote all the >> laws but the basis is that you follow the original statement as >> completely as possible, and **do not** follow a different line. . . . > >Again, my opinion is that there's no "line" here. So we're charged >with trying to "follow the original statement as completely as >possible". The original statement is that "I'm going to take the A, >K, Q, and J of clubs." No, East didn't specifically use those words, >but it's clear that's what he meant, since he didn't say anything >about overtaking or hoping for the 10 to drop. So treating this as a >Top Tricks claim, I contend that the club overtake is NOT following >the original statement. East said he would take the four top club >honors; however, those who would allow the claim are giving him the A, >K, J, and 9. This is not what East intended, and therefore, I >contend, does not follow the original statement. This is why I'm >arguing so strenously that this line of play should *not* be allowed >to fulfill the claim. > >Based on all this, I do not believe that there's anything in the Laws >that requires that East be given 12 tricks. It is quite clear that the line was one of taking 12 top tricks. You have said so yourself. I only put things in the one order for simplicity. Any line that does not involve taking an apparent 12 top tricks is not to be considered. Thus the club overtake is required, even if played in a different order. >D. Claimer Proposes New Line of Play > > The Director shall not accept from claimer any successful line of > play not embraced in the original clarification statement if there > is an alternative normal* line of play that would be less > successful. That is what it is all about. No line that involves declarer playing a small red card from hand at any time is embraced in the original clarification statement. >East's new line is successful, clearly. East's new line is not >embraced in the original clarification statement, since, as I've >argued above, his original statement said he'd take the top four club >honors while his new statement says he'd take the K, A, J, 9. So, if >there is an alternative normal line of play that would go down, East's >new line is not allowed. Since the unblock-clubs-then-try-to-guess- >hearts and run-pointed-tricks-and-try-for-steppingstone-squeeze lines >are both normal lines of play, the club overtake isn't allowed, and >East is awarded down 1 or 2. Rubbish. :) :) :) If there is only one line consistent with the claim, declarer cannot lose his right to that line by trying to embellish the original statement. -- 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 Sun Feb 9 15:30:48 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id PAA13765 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 9 Feb 1997 15:30:48 +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 PAA13760 for ; Sun, 9 Feb 1997 15:30:20 +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 XAA04595 for ; Sat, 8 Feb 1997 23:30:05 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <1.5.4.32.19970209042951.0067a4b4@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: Sat, 08 Feb 1997 23:29:51 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: ACBL Alert chart interpretation Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 04:44 PM 2/7/97 -0800, Irv wrote: >It's all well and good, Eric, that I be expected to know that it might >or might not contain four spades, but now I have to ask, everytime it >comes up, or risk inflicting UI on my partner when I do ask. Why does >it seem simple and straightforward to me to adopt a 'standard' meaning, The first part of Irv's message is the crux of the debate. The theory sounds fine. You have to ask every time or risk giving UI. It seems simple and straightforward to adopt a standard meaning. But what this line of reasoning would lead to in practice is a proliferation of alerts beyond anything we've seen, at a time when the over-abundance of alerts is considered a "problem" that keeps bridge players from tournament play. It leads to the requirement to make close and difficult (and hence often arbitrary) decisions about just what is "standard", which has proven singularly difficult when it's been tried in the past. It leads to "silly alerts" -- alerting to practices that are overwhelmingly common where the tournament is being played, because some other geographical area's practice was selected as the arbitrary "standard". It leads to positions where the "obviously" standard treatment is different from that used by LOLs playing primitive 1950s/60s methods (not to even mention 30s/40s methods!), and the LOLs find themselves having to alert their "perfectly ordinary" bridge a la Goren. How is this issue all that different from what happens when the opponents open a major? You must either ask them whether they promise 5 cards in the suit (or check their CC, which may or may not be an equivalent action -- a whole other debate) or risk giving partner the UI that you don't care. It would be much more simple and straightforward to just adopt 5-card majors as the "'standard' meaning" and require the 4-card major players to alert. But nobody seriously suggests that we do that (well, perhaps some do). >relating back to the original use of the Stayman convention, and not to >other uses of it? In a certain sense, I want the opponents to alert the >auction, more than any particular call. After all, the auction (in >Washington) shows invitational values, without a four card major. The above said, I do somewhat sympathize with making this one an alert, since it does work to avoid more UI situations than most such alerts, due to the fact that sensitive decisions about whether to lead a particular major against a NT auction come up a lot. >I find myself rather content with the 'announcements' of transfers and >forcing NT. I think it's working well. Perhaps this should be an >announcement, rather than an alert. Perhaps the use of announcements >could be extended into other areas as well. That would actually be a very good idea (the announcement would come at the 2NT bid, and would be something like "only invitation"), but I think that's a bit too sophisticated for general practice. 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 Sun Feb 9 23:06:45 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA15073 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 9 Feb 1997 23:06:45 +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 XAA15055 for ; Sun, 9 Feb 1997 23:06:36 +1100 Received: from innet.innet.be (pool03-249.innet.be [194.7.10.249]) by mail.be.innet.net (8.7.6/8.7.3) with SMTP id NAA20070 for ; Sun, 9 Feb 1997 13:06:31 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: <32FDC5D6.2855@innet.be> Date: Sun, 09 Feb 1997 12:40:54 +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: Ethical Problem, or no? References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Stevenson wrote: > > Stephen Barnfield wrote: > >Herman DE WAEL said: > > >>Law 20 states clearly that you are allowed to ask questions. > >>Law 73 states that you are allowed to mislead > >>Law 73f states that you are not allowed to mislead when violating > >>proprieties. > >> > >>IMO, asking questions (any questions) cannot be 'violating proprieties'. > >>IMO, even doing this deliberately should be allowed. > >>Opponents should be told that they draw inferences at own risk. > > While your opinion is valued in a situation like this initially it is > not as important whether you think that deliberately asking misleading > questions should be allowed as whether you think that they are allowed > under the Laws. We have a problem here. > > >Law 73 does *not* state you are allowed to mislead. Law 73E states it is > >proper to attempt to deceive an opponent through a call or play, and then > >qualifies that in some ways. Law 73E is not relevant in Irv Kostal's friend's > >case. > > Certainly true. It is difficult to imagine that the Laws tell you how > you may mislead, and then you claim that there are other ways, because > of other Laws. > This is absolutely not difficult to imagine. Law 73E states that certain types of misleading are allowed. It does not state that these are the ONLY types of allowed misleading. OTOH, Law 73F states what types of misleading are not allowed. If I now have a type of misleading that is not mentioned, I have to conclude that since it is not disallowed because of 73F, it must be allowed. 73E has nothing to say about this type of misleading. (next problem answered in a different post) -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.club.innet.be/~pub02163/index.htm From owner-bridge-laws Sun Feb 9 23:06:41 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA15067 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 9 Feb 1997 23:06:41 +1100 Received: from mail.be.innet.net (mail.be.innet.net [194.7.1.8]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id XAA15049 for ; Sun, 9 Feb 1997 23:06:32 +1100 Received: from innet.innet.be (pool03-249.innet.be [194.7.10.249]) by mail.be.innet.net (8.7.6/8.7.3) with SMTP id NAA20058 for ; Sun, 9 Feb 1997 13:06:25 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: <32FDC1A4.13E@innet.be> Date: Sun, 09 Feb 1997 12:23:00 +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: Strange Claim References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Stevenson wrote: > > > > >E is playing 6NT. The whole hand: > > Jx > > Axx > > Jxxx > > 8642 > >AQTxx Kx > >xx KJxxx > >AKQ2 xx > >KQ AJ97 > > 9xxx > > Qxx > > xxx > > T53 > > > >Diamond lead taken by Ace, Spade to King and back to Ace. When Jack of > >Spades fall down declarer claimed for 5 spades, 3 diamonds and 4 clubs. > >North called for TD. > >What is the ruling? > > This is an interesting hand because it shows the sort of ruling that > TDs and ACs are required to make by following the law, and then have to > sell to the players. At least one of the answers posted to this problem > said it isn't Bridge to allow 12 tricks here. Well, I am sorry, but > that is where you are wrong. To allow TDs and ACs to make rulings based > on whether people deserve things is not the way the law is applied. > > Now, I responded, saying "12 tricks. Perfectly good claim.". It was > suggested that I was being facetious. I was, of course. It is a lousy > claim, based on carelessness, and therefore has to be adjudicated by the > TD. The adjudication is that declarer takes 12 tricks. > > How do you go about adjudicating a claim? I shall not requote all the > laws but the basis is that you follow the original statement as > completely as possible, and **do not** follow a different line. Since > the claim was: > > >declarer claimed for 5 spades, 3 diamonds and 4 clubs. > > then there is *no question* of the line including playing a heart and > guessing [or not guessing] where the ace of hearts is. [En passant, may > I comment that the precise and actual wording of the claim is important, > and I am assuming here declarer said something like "I have 5 spades, 3 > diamonds and 4 clubs".] > > If we follow the actual wording, then it is clear that declarer means > that he will take the 12 tricks in top cards. Of course he has > overlooked the blockage, but that does not mean that we do not follow > the line as far as is sensible. If, for argument's sake, West had a > small club instead of a small red card [when the claim would be valid], > we would assume that he would play something along the lines of: > > Finish cashing the spades discarding red cards from the dummy > Cash three diamonds discarding red cards from the dummy > Cash four clubs finishing in the dummy > > So we follow this as far as possible: > > Finish cashing the spades discarding red cards from the dummy > Cash three diamonds discarding red cards from the dummy > Cash king of clubs > > This leaves: > > -- > A > J > 86 > -- -- > xx K > 2 -- > Q AJ9 > -- > Qx > -- > T5 > > Now when declarer leads the queen of clubs the only possibility > consistent with the original claim is to overtake and pray. It would > not be logical not to overtake. How about a possible stepping stone > position? But that is not consistent with the claim, which we have to > follow as closely as possible. So, 12 tricks. > > I can understand the annoyance of some posters who believe that > declarer should not get 12 tricks. You get my sympathy, but that is > all. The one thing you ***must not do*** is to say he does not deserve > 12 tricks ***therefore*** you will not give him 12 tricks: that is > illegal, unfair, unjust and will create different problems: in fact that > is "not Bridge". > No David, you are wrong. A claim is intended to speed up play. A player will often claim without having examined all possibilities. He 'feels' that he can make all his tricks, and most often, he is right. When asked to really make his tricks, he will usually have to think for some while longer to plan his play. We allow this, as directors. For example, if I claim 4 tricks from KJx opposite AQxx, I 'feel' that I will make four tricks, and whereas a beginner might play these cards from the top, I do know to cash KJ first. You will allow my claim, even if I have not stated the exact order that I play the cards in. The same applies if the play is a little more intricate and requires some more thought. Sometimes the original 'feel' is wrong, and there is no easy line to the tricks required. That's where the TD comes in. Suppose the above player holds the ace of hearts and states that he will win so many spades, hearts, diamonds and clubs (stated in that order, but no order mentioned in the claim). Surely you will not oblige him to play them in that order and then to block the clubs. You will allow him to think for two seconds more and come up with the exact order in which to unblock all suits. Of course, if there should be two possible logical orders to play them in, and one of these fails, then you might have to rule against him. And there's where you go wrong : you say that the player has to go with his original line of play. You say that he should blindly follow his original plan and notice the blocking clubs when it is too late to do anything but pray. And that's not right : when he has to think about his final line of play, he will certainly notice the blocking clubs and try to do something about it. He would have more than one solution. Playing to overtake the club queen and drop the ten is one possibility, but using hearts as an entry is another. If he would not have had the heart jack, he would have only two 'normal' lines of play, and both would work. So the TD would indeed award the claim. But since he does have the jack, he has three possible lines of play. One of these (heart to the jack) does not work, so the claim is not correct. Do remark that if he would not have had the heart king (and 6NT would have been a very bad contract indeed), he would have only one possible line, and since this works, he would again get his contract. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.club.innet.be/~pub02163/index.htm From owner-bridge-laws Sun Feb 9 23:06:46 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA15074 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 9 Feb 1997 23:06:46 +1100 Received: from mail.be.innet.net (mail.be.innet.net [194.7.1.8]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id XAA15062 for ; Sun, 9 Feb 1997 23:06:39 +1100 Received: from innet.innet.be (pool03-249.innet.be [194.7.10.249]) by mail.be.innet.net (8.7.6/8.7.3) with SMTP id NAA20074 for ; Sun, 9 Feb 1997 13:06:32 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: <32FDC7A8.6686@innet.be> Date: Sun, 09 Feb 1997 12:48:40 +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: Ethical Problem, or no? References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Stevenson wrote: > (first problem answered in a different post) > > How about what we believe the Law should say? We have used this test > before in positions where the Law does not seem to answer the question. > Unfortunately here we do not seem of one accord. Consider Alan's case > of a player with AKQJ between the two hands who spends some considerable > time eliciting what a ten lead means: I believe that this feels > unethical: Herman believes we should allow it. Admittedly, part of > Herman's reason is apparently the difficulty of implementation but I do > not believe that to be relevant to what is right. [Note: I have now > read a further posting from Herman and it is fair to say that I am now > confused as to what Herman thinks: if I have misrepresented his views, > then I am sorry, but if so, then it probably supports my view.] > My view is that asking about the ten lead is allowed, even if misleading. Asking twenty secen different questions about the lead is not allowed, by 73D2 (means of remark or gesture). The question itself is allowed, the manner in which it is posed can lead to illegal deception. I wish not to be drawn into an argument about where to draw the line, and I would be completely willing to go along with directors that would say that even the most neutral asking about the ten lead in the above case would already cross the line. But I hope my views are clearer now. > I am going to stick my neck out here and make an assertion [Quango > said OK ] and that is that in the case with the AKQ and J the vast > majority of Bridge players would believe it to be unethical and against > the Laws. Based on this I believe we should come to an agreement that > the interpretation of L73D2 is that "remark" includes "an inappropriate > question". Given that, then we may make an adjustment under L73F2 when > declarer asks an inappropriate question. > I agree, if you adjust to an 'inappropriately asked question'. No question can in itself be inappropriate, since Law 20 specifically allows any question. > What about Herman's worry about implementation? With the problem in > the wording of the Laws, I believe that any doubt whatever should always > be decided in declarer's favour, ie that the defenders conclude things > at their own risk and we should only adjust the score in the very rare > cases where it is *clearly* inappropriate. If declarer says "What are > your leads?" then there should *never* be any problem, but if he asks > specific questions then we could apply L73F2. If declarer says "What do > you lead from QT9x?" then for him to be looking at the queen would > suggest that an adjustment might be in order. > I agree. (wow - again) -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.club.innet.be/~pub02163/index.htm From owner-bridge-laws Sun Feb 9 23:06:43 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA15071 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 9 Feb 1997 23:06:43 +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 XAA15051 for ; Sun, 9 Feb 1997 23:06:34 +1100 Received: from innet.innet.be (pool03-249.innet.be [194.7.10.249]) by mail.be.innet.net (8.7.6/8.7.3) with SMTP id NAA20064 for ; Sun, 9 Feb 1997 13:06:28 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: <32FDC4B6.314F@innet.be> Date: Sun, 09 Feb 1997 12:36:06 +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: Strange Claim References: <9702071724.aa10849@flash.irvine.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Adam Beneschan wrote some comments on the Claim, most of which I agree with, as you can no doubt conclud from my posting in answer to David's approach. However ther is this : > > AJ54 > AK3 > AQ6 > 842 > > KQ > Q72 > KJ42 > AK73 > > I lay down my hand after the opening lead, saying "I'll take 4 spades, > 3 hearts, 4 diamonds, and 2 clubs." Is this a statement that I plan > to try to take my 4 spades first, before any of the other tricks? Do > you disallow the claim if someone has the 10xxx of spades? > > No, of course not. We assume that I'm a good enough player to know > what order in which to take my tricks. > Obvious, and a good example of what I also wanted to say. > The point here is that a simple statement of what top tricks I'm going > to take does *not* constitute a "line of play", and therefore > assumptions that "5 spades, 3 diamonds and 4 clubs" must mean declarer > must play five rounds of spades, three rounds of diamonds, and four > rounds of clubs, are fallacious. > Yes > To me, this means that a "Top Tricks" claim is a different animal from > a claim that states a "line" of play. The term "line", used in Laws > 68C, 70D, and 70E, is not defined in the Laws, but I take it to be > akin to a "plan", which involves the order in which I do things. A > Top Tricks claim, however, says nothing about order; it simply states > which tricks I'm going to take. (Of course, a claim can have both > elements. Often, I'll say something like "Draw trumps and claim", > meaning that first I draw all the trumps--the "ordered" part of the > claim--and then I have a bunch of top tricks that I won't bother to > specify the order of taking.) > > I realize I'm inventing terminology here that isn't in the Laws; but I > think my term "Top Tricks claim" does denote something that we see > almost every time we play bridge. Also, I can find nothing in the > Laws that says that when someone makes a claim statement like this, > the statement should be interpreted as a statement of a "line" or of > the order in which the tricks are to be taken. > > So, repeating David's statement: > > > How do you go about adjudicating a claim? I shall not requote all the > > laws but the basis is that you follow the original statement as > > completely as possible, and **do not** follow a different line. . . . > > Again, my opinion is that there's no "line" here. So we're charged > with trying to "follow the original statement as completely as > possible". The original statement is that "I'm going to take the A, > K, Q, and J of clubs." No, East didn't specifically use those words, > but it's clear that's what he meant, since he didn't say anything > about overtaking or hoping for the 10 to drop. So treating this as a > Top Tricks claim, I contend that the club overtake is NOT following > the original statement. East said he would take the four top club > honors; however, those who would allow the claim are giving him the A, > K, J, and 9. This is not what East intended, and therefore, I > contend, does not follow the original statement. This is why I'm > arguing so strenously that this line of play should *not* be allowed > to fulfill the claim. And here you missed a turn. If I hold KQ opposite AJTx, saying 4 tricks is a Top Tricks claim, but it does not mean that I will make A,K,Q and J. K,A,J and T are also top tricks. So on clubs alone, David is right. When he has to actually play the club suit, overtaking the queen and hoping for the ten to drop is indeed a valid execution of the statement that he will make four club tricks. Of course, in the actual layout, there is an alternative, namely using hearts as an entry after unblocking KQ of clubs. Since there is one way this fails, the claim is incorrect, but not for the reason that Adam says. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.club.innet.be/~pub02163/index.htm From owner-bridge-laws Mon Feb 10 02:21:31 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA18751 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 10 Feb 1997 02:21:31 +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 CAA18746 for ; Mon, 10 Feb 1997 02:21:21 +1100 Received: from coruncanius.demon.co.uk ([194.222.115.176]) by relay-6.mail.demon.net id aa625150; 9 Feb 97 15:18 GMT Message-ID: Date: Sun, 9 Feb 1997 14:52:57 +0000 To: David Stevenson Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Labeo Subject: Re: Strange Claim In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In message , David Stevenson writes >Sergei Litvak wrote: > >>This board is from tournament where the level of players was over average >>(it' not a joke). >> >>E is playing 6NT. The whole hand: >> Jx >> Axx >> Jxxx >> 8642 >>AQTxx Kx >>xx KJxxx >>AKQ2 xx >>KQ AJ97 >> 9xxx >> Qxx >> xxx >> T53 >> >>What is the ruling? >........................(Some pages cut away)...... David Stevenson ends his erudite reply with: > . > Now when declarer leads the queen of clubs the only possibility >12 tricks ***therefore*** you will not give him 12 tricks: that is >illegal, unfair, unjust and will create different problems: in fact that is "not Bridge". Labeo: Could we just add something about what is "bridge"? A player whose actions are all contained within the laws of the game obtains the result by methods which *are* "bridge". He/she is entitled to point to L72A1 and to L72A4 and A5. One may hold that 'the law is a ass - a idiot'; one may view the outcome as wholly unjust; but as David rightly asserts these convictions are not grounds for denying the player his proper "bridge result" in accordance with the (f)Laws of the Game. There are not many games where justice is an objective of the game; in bridge a wholly 'unfair' result where the ball bounces kindly for the player is part of the game. (We do have a ball, don't we? :-) Labeo From owner-bridge-laws Mon Feb 10 02:23:42 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA18768 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 10 Feb 1997 02:23:42 +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 CAA18763 for ; Mon, 10 Feb 1997 02:23:32 +1100 Received: from coruncanius.demon.co.uk ([194.222.115.176]) by relay-9.mail.demon.net id aa911149; 9 Feb 97 15:18 GMT Message-ID: Date: Sun, 9 Feb 1997 15:14:31 +0000 To: Stephen_Barnfield@europe.notes.pw.com Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Labeo Subject: Re: Agreement over insufficient bids In-Reply-To: <199702041550.HAA21045@cactus.tc.pw.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In message <199702041550.HAA21045@cactus.tc.pw.com>, Stephen_Barnfield@e urope.notes.pw.com writes >David Stevenson said, in relation to the ACBL's regulation on bids following >insufficient bids: etc etc etc (cut)> On which Stephen Barnfield then commented: >I agree. I think the ACBL have confused their power to regulate *conventions* >with their powers over *partnership agreements*. Their Law40D powers over >conventions would permit them to regulate conventional bids following an >insufficient bid. These powers do not extend to partnership agreements >concerning *natural* calls (except, as David notes, the partnership's initial >actions at the one-level to be made with a hand of a king or more below average >strength). > Labeo: If David interprets the ACBL 'regulation' correctly, or the way in which it has operated, then yes. Reading it, I suspect it may have been set up to deal with a situation at the time in which the conventional uses of Pass and Double were needed for the method, and in its wording there was no anticipation of what might develop next. Stephen: >Of course the ACBL could prevent use of any conventions after the natural calls after the insufficient bid, but that is a different matter. Labeo: They can, and whether to be desired or not, the method to which you allude was agreed some years ago at WBF level to be legitimate. One should be conscious that where the laws delegate powers to regulate they usually do so in an unrestricted fashion; this is very much the case in respect of regulating the use of conventions, to paraphrase Edgar Kaplan - "if the SO wishes to require that a player using a given convention must wear a conical hat, it has power to do so". Stephen: >Interestingly the final sentence of the ante-penultimate para raises a separate >point. Everyone (that I have heard of) has assumed that the final sentence of >Law40D permits Zonal Organisations (ZOs) to regulate "weak" one-level >*openings*, even if natural. Why is the ability to regulate restricted to >openings? Why not one-level natural overcalls? Perhaps ZOs don't want this >power. Labeo: This is not something I had 'assumed'; a test case never seems to have arisen so there has been no reason to start a hare. My belief is that when devised the words were meant to apply to Opener's action but not Responder's. Whether in a Court of Law with a $100,000 first prize (or someone's even more valuable reputation) at stake they would be so interpreted is an interesting question. The argument would be whether "actions" is plural to refer to the variety of actions available to the Opener or whether it refers to a plural encompassing Opener's action and Opener's partner's action. In the absence of an official definition in the laws it can be argued that each view is equally tenable, and we might be down to a court's opinion of what is the most reasonable interpretation. I do hold to the view that the equity of the situation requires that one must interpret the words as applying equally to the first actions of the Defending side, and in the same sense that applies to the Opener's action. Stephen Barnfield: >A separate but related matter is whether the first actionS (ie one by each member of the partnership), even if natural (but "weak"), can be regulated by a ZO. I think not: I think it is just the *first* action by *one member of a >partnership* which can be regulated in this way. This look to me to be arguable, however. Perhaps to ACBL could argue along these lines. > Labeo: However, if it is deemed that the "first actions" do include a call by Responder, and if the terms in any event are applicable to a one level overcall by Defenders, the scope of the potential regulation is vastly enlarged - simply because of the frequency with which agreements on such calls entail action with a King or more less than an average hand. Stephen again: >Yet another related matter arises from the choice of the word *action* rather >than *bid* or *call*. In colloquial bridge terminology I would argue an action >is usually a call other than a pass. This being so it is arguable that a ZO >could also regulate a "weak" natural one-level overcall following an initial >pass. Labeo: I think the ordinary dictionary meaning (" a thing done ") is to be understood; I see no reason why we should seek to give 'action' some special bridge definition. A Pass is something done, and elsewhere in the laws 'action' may refer to doing what is neither a call nor a bid. {See for example L74A2.} The natural meaning of Pass is that the player has not elected to make a bid, Double or Redouble; it does not necessarily convey information that the player did not have the values for such other action - we all know, for example, that a player may judge not to open a standard value Weak Two because holding four cards in the other major. The 1997 Laws provide another example of unlimited delegation of powers in the designation of 'unusual methods'. Observe that there is nothing to limit what may be included, even if natural; so it would be wholly within the capacities and entirely reasonable of the French, say - or many other NBOs, to designate the 12-14 No Trump as 'unusual': modifications of natural method following an infraction could also be designated 'unusual'. What I next ask myself is what happens if the SO (or the NBO) then creates a Condition of Contest which says, let us suppose, 'in this competition with its two-board rounds methods that may call for written defences at the table may not be played'? Bearing in mind the Geneva ruling that L80E stands in its own right and is not subordinate to L80F, could this not be a 'special condition for bidding'? (By extension, other powers to regulate given elsewhere in the laws must also stand in their own right and are not subject to L80F which is a 'catch-all' clause to cover regulations not erected under other specific provisions of the laws.) Labeo From owner-bridge-laws Mon Feb 10 02:28:33 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA18789 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 10 Feb 1997 02:28:33 +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 CAA18783 for ; Mon, 10 Feb 1997 02:28:25 +1100 Received: from coruncanius.demon.co.uk ([194.222.115.176]) by relay-10.mail.demon.net id aa1004163; 9 Feb 97 15:18 GMT Message-ID: Date: Sun, 9 Feb 1997 14:58:29 +0000 To: AlLeBendig@aol.com Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Labeo Subject: Re: Deliberate hesitation? In-Reply-To: <970207103711_1928400950@emout08.mail.aol.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In message <970207103711_1928400950@emout08.mail.aol.com>, AlLeBendig@aol.com writes >In a message dated 97-02-06 22:01:09 EST, you write: > >> South held: >> Qx >> AJT >> ATxxx >> xxx >> at Green [E/W vul] >> >> and so on........(cut)... >> >> Alan LeB said: >My tendency would be to apply Law 73D1 based on the fact that this player >"could have known" that thought here could work to his benefit. So I might >adjust his score (or issue a PP to accomplish the same thing). I can do so >without accusing him of cheating. I don't think I would apply 73F2 but it is >a very fine line in my mind. I guess I feel that W either does or doesn't >have a double Labeo: Well yes, absolutely. It is rather frustrating to have got this form of words into the laws only to find that TDs and ACs hesitate to use it. The whole point is that it removes from the scenario the allegation that the player is cheating - and since a player consents# to the Conditions of Contest when entering a competition it also removes the basis for any action for defamation. This is a good reason to fight hard to keep the SO's regulations within the laws on which they depend. [# It is best if the conditions of entry say so, but not I think requisite.] The player would have to justify his hesitation. If he failed to to do so then I am sure he should not keep his score; whether the other side should get the benefit might be open to consideration if it were strongly felt that failure to double is a gambling action and the appeal simply a device to get back the costs of the player's own misjudgement. Labeo From owner-bridge-laws Mon Feb 10 02:31:43 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA18821 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 10 Feb 1997 02:31:43 +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 CAA18816 for ; Mon, 10 Feb 1997 02:31:36 +1100 Received: from coruncanius.demon.co.uk ([194.222.115.176]) by relay-5.mail.demon.net id aa517369; 9 Feb 97 15:18 GMT Message-ID: <8nIVTNAj+a$yEwtC@coruncanius.demon.co.uk> Date: Sun, 9 Feb 1997 11:06:11 +0000 To: Herman De Wael Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Labeo Subject: Re: Ethical Problem, or no? In-Reply-To: <32F72FDA.653@innet.be> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In message <32F72FDA.653@innet.be>, Herman De Wael writes >Irwin Kostal wrote: >> >(we've all read it) > >Herman de Wael then wrote: >Law 20 states clearly that you are allowed to ask questions. >Law 73 states that you are allowed to mislead >Law 73f states that you are not allowed to mislead when violating >proprieties. > IMO, asking questions (any questions) cannot be 'violating proprieties'. >IMO, even doing this deliberately should be allowed. >Opponents should be told that they draw inferences at own risk. Labeo writes: > Most of what I might say has been said by Stephen Barnfield. It should be noted that the words 'or the like' in L73F2 have been held to include a question asked where it appears the questioner already knew the answer and s/he was unable to provide a convincing bridge reason to justify asking. (In such circumstances the TD is entitled to conclude that the purpose in the question could possibly be to raise doubts in the mind of an opponent.) The style of the question is worth considering; bearing in mind how Law 20 is worded, it would seem right to ask first of all "Tell me about your leads, please". Then, if the reply does not cover leads from suits made up only of small cards, the player could say - do you have an agreement about leads from holdings of small cards? = to learn perhaps that they lead 9 from 10.9. doubleton! Opponent has little to learn from this form of question and cannot claim to have been misled. Of course it would be even better if the answer was clear from the CC and the player found no need to ask. Labeo From owner-bridge-laws Mon Feb 10 06:10:03 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA27004 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 10 Feb 1997 06:10:03 +1100 Received: from emout04.mail.aol.com (emout04.mx.aol.com [198.81.11.95]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id GAA26993 for ; Mon, 10 Feb 1997 06:09:54 +1100 From: AlLeBendig@aol.com Received: (from root@localhost) by emout04.mail.aol.com (8.7.6/8.7.3/AOL-2.0.0) id OAA10213 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Sun, 9 Feb 1997 14:09:18 -0500 (EST) Date: Sun, 9 Feb 1997 14:09:18 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <970209140918_-1575977712@emout04.mail.aol.com> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Quick Opinions Needed Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In a message dated 97-02-07 15:39:41 EST, Adam writes: > (1) Suppose that 5D was a bad enough call that no one else in the room > would make it, but that it turns out to be a good save because of > a lucky lie of the cards (a suit blocks and someone gets > endplayed, e.g.). Thus, allowing them to play in 5DX would result > in a zero matchpoint score. Assuming that 5H goes down one, the > 5H call, while technically a poor call, actually doesn't do any > damage, since it turns a zero into a zero. So although we don't > want to reward poor bridge, it seems that in this case, the 5H > call should be overlooked since it had no effect (unless we > believe South was taking a double shot). Is this how the ruling > would actually go? > > If not, what if South had a reason for 5H that was something like > "5DX is going to be a zero, and I don't know how my partner would > interpret a pass, so I'd better bid 5H and try to salvage some > matchpoints"? Apparently most of us don't think that this is a > great reason, since 5H wasn't our first choice. However poor this > logic was, however, it turns out to be correct logic in this > instance, since 5DX was indeed a zero. So do we punish South for > the 5H call? > > (2) Suppose now that 4H making would have gotten 8.5 matchpoints; 5DX > would have netted a 2; 5H going down one is a zero. We've decided > that 5H was a poor bid that shouldn't be rewarded; but was it the > cause of the damage, or the cause of PART of the damage? It seems > to me one could argue that the total damage was a loss of 8.5 > matchpoints, but 6.5 of that was caused by the infraction and 2 > was caused by South's poor bid. So there's a case for awarding > N-S a score of 6.5, compensating for the damage done by East's > unethical bid but not for South's poor judgement. Are scores ever > assigned in this manner? Does this seem like a fair approach? It > seems fairer to me than letting N-S live with their zero. Once > East committed the infraction, he took a good result away from N-S > that could only be restored by the TD or AC. Your suggested method really does sound very equitable, Adam. But you forget one key point. If the 5D bid is judged to be an infraction (as it was on the given hand) we don't need to worry about N-S getting a bad result if it is a good save because they will never have to live with that result. So none of your "averaging" would ever be necessary. We merely return to 4H. If there was no UI and it is a bad bid that noone else would make, TOUGH! So we don't ever need to worry about the result being bad for N-S if there was an infraction. The adjustment is simple. And any score adjustment can only be performed by the TD or an AC. This is true whether we use your method or the current practice. I'm only saying it doesn't need to be made any more complex. I think it works fine now. > Are we saying that > in order to get this result restored, N-S aren't allowed to commit > any judgement errors? I hope noone thinks I was suggesting that. I think there is a big difference between a judgement error and a "bad" bid. Using this case as an example, suppose S thought they were in a forcing pass situation and passed 5D to give his partner the option of double or 5H. It comes around to N and who doesn't think this is a forcing pass and the auction ends. 5D goes down 3 and N-S get a poor score given that they were slated for 620. I would never suggest they used poor bridge judgement and should have known to double and collect their 800. On a personal level, I have explained that I think a forcing pass applies here. But there is certainly no unanimity on this issue. So their failure to collect their best result was not caused by having done something really poor. I would have no problem adjusting to +/-620. On the other hand, we seem to have almost no disagreement about the 5H bid. It was poor. That makes a big difference in my feeling that it was subsequent damage. It is also crucial to clarify that I would never have felt this way if the player was at a lower level. Upper Flight B players often make mistakes like this of biiding once more under pressure and I would always want to adjust for them. Alan LeBendig From owner-bridge-laws Mon Feb 10 06:10:21 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA27010 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 10 Feb 1997 06:10:21 +1100 Received: from emout05.mail.aol.com (emout05.mx.aol.com [198.81.11.96]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id GAA27005 for ; Mon, 10 Feb 1997 06:10:13 +1100 From: AlLeBendig@aol.com Received: (from root@localhost) by emout05.mail.aol.com (8.7.6/8.7.3/AOL-2.0.0) id OAA11314; Sun, 9 Feb 1997 14:09:34 -0500 (EST) Date: Sun, 9 Feb 1997 14:09:34 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <970209140921_-1375414384@emout05.mail.aol.com> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au cc: david@blakjak.demon.co.uk Subject: Re: Quick Opinions Needed Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In a message dated 97-02-08 14:17:40 EST, David S. writes [great fiction deleted] > So, I propose that, if one side is having an adjustment made against > their score, the other side should not receive the benefit if: > > either [a] they took an action so outlandish that it can *only* be > explained as an attempt at a double shot > or [b] they took an action that was not a Logical Alternative I admire your efforts, David. Your suggestion of a method to judge such problems has definite merit. Using this method AND European standards, 5H would not be a LA. Yet all of you seem to be willing to adjust for N-S. Are you suggesting that perhaps our viewpoint is too harsh and yours is too lax as it pertains to judging subsequent and consequent? We have finally gotten many players to understand when we examine whether an action qualifies as a LA and I fear that expanding the usage to another area will only lead to more confusion. That is why I originally raised objections to the application. Alan LeBendig From owner-bridge-laws Mon Feb 10 09:51:33 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA28704 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 10 Feb 1997 09:51:33 +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 JAA28699 for ; Mon, 10 Feb 1997 09:51:23 +1100 Received: from cph37.ppp.dknet.dk (cph37.ppp.dknet.dk [194.192.100.37]) by pip.dknet.dk (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id XAA01533 for ; Sun, 9 Feb 1997 23:51:14 +0100 From: Jesper Dybdal To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Strange Claim Date: Sun, 09 Feb 1997 23:51:10 +0100 Organization: at home Message-ID: <32ff5098.1474470@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 Sat, 8 Feb 1997 23:42:12 +0000, David Stevenson wrote: > That is what it is all about. No line that involves declarer playing=20 >a small red card from hand at any time is embraced in the original=20 >clarification statement. Correct. However, no line that depends on the club 10 dropping was embraced either. Take a quite different example; spades are trumps: 9,AKQ,-,- -,-,xx,xx 7,x,x,x J,-,xxx,- N (dummy) to lead. S claims the rest of the tricks, announcing specifically that he intends to first take three heart tricks discarding diamonds, and then enjoy his master trump. Obviously, he has forgotten that the S7 is still out. If this is played out, E will ruff some heart. I expect that we agree that S cannot avoid then realizing that his claim was based on an incorrect belief that there were no trumps out, and that he will, at that point, reconsider his intended line of play. The result of this reconsideration can only be that S will overruff and dummy will be good. We therefore allow him the rest of the tricks, even though overruffing was not embraced in his stated line of play. In this situation, we let the TD's determination of the result include the claimer's reconsideration of his line of play when the originally stated line of play will be shown to be meaningless. In this case, we do so to the advantage of the claimer. In our "Strange Claim" case, we also have a claimer that states a line of play that is meaningless; it is obvious that he has not noticed the club blockage. If the board was actually played out, he would undoubtedly at some time realize that the clubs were blocked. He would then reconsider his line of play. The result of this reconsideration will be either to overtake a club or to lead towards the hearts, possibly depending on whether or not he has taken the diamonds before discovering the blocking club. The TD "adjucates the result of the board as quitably as possible to both sides, but any doubtful points shall be resolved against the claimer" (L70A). We are concerned with claims where the claimer has overlooked something about the hand that he would inevitably discover if he played out the rest of the tricks. Surely it cannot be right to allow the claimer to reconsider his line of play when it is to his advantage (as in the example above), but not when it is to the advantage of the opponents (as in the "Strange Claim" case)? IMO, when a claimer's stated line of play shows that he has overlooked something that would clearly be discovered in the play and which would (if the cards were played out) make him forget his original plan and make a new plan, the TD should follow the original plan only to the point where the claimer will discover that that plan makes no sense; in this case, to the point where E discovers that the clubs block. After that point, there is no stated line of play that it makes sense to follow, and the TD should adjudicate the rest of the tricks as if there were no stated plan. E should definitely not be allowed 12 tricks in this case. --=20 Jesper Dybdal, Denmark From owner-bridge-laws Mon Feb 10 12:54:09 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id MAA00469 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 10 Feb 1997 12:54:09 +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 MAA00463 for ; Mon, 10 Feb 1997 12:53:58 +1100 Received: from coruncanius.demon.co.uk ([194.222.115.176]) by relay-5.mail.demon.net id aa518575; 10 Feb 97 1:39 GMT Message-ID: <$t$1hEA8$g$yEwsH@coruncanius.demon.co.uk> Date: Sun, 9 Feb 1997 17:57:16 +0000 To: Stephen_Barnfield@europe.notes.pw.com Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Labeo Subject: Re: Quick Opinions Needed In-Reply-To: <199702061851.KAA27614@cactus.tc.pw.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In message <199702061851.KAA27614@cactus.tc.pw.com>, Stephen_Barnfield@e urope.notes.pw.com writes >Re Alan LeBendig's hand. > >David Stevenson said > >> So we have six people here, none of whom make 5H their first choice of >>all [and it isn't mine either].>not "reasonable", ..and so on (cut)... >>Then we arrive with Stephen Barnfield who writes, amongst other things: >> >I agree completely with David Stevenson. In England we take the view that the action must be "wild and gambling" before it breaks the causal link between the infraction and the damage. I know that in the USA they think differently, and I think this hand is an example of why the US view of the law can lead to an unfair result for the non-offenders. Labeo: We should perhaps acknowledge that the 'wild or gambling' concept came to us from the advice of Edgar Kaplan. A prophet in his own country? - or do the folk in ACBL actually share the same creed but spell the words differently? Labeo From owner-bridge-laws Mon Feb 10 12:55:38 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id MAA00490 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 10 Feb 1997 12:55:38 +1100 Received: from relay-11.mail.demon.net (relay-11.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.137]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id MAA00475 for ; Mon, 10 Feb 1997 12:55:28 +1100 Received: from coruncanius.demon.co.uk ([194.222.115.176]) by relay-10.mail.demon.net id ab1001076; 10 Feb 97 1:39 GMT Message-ID: <95X1kOAd$k$yEwsn@coruncanius.demon.co.uk> Date: Sun, 9 Feb 1997 22:29:49 +0000 To: David Stevenson Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Labeo Subject: Re: Quick Opinions Needed In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In message , David Stevenson writes >Herman De Wael wrote: > >>AlLeBendig@aol.com wrote: (cut) Someone did not seem very happy with the subject..... David Stephenson answered: > There are laws matters of interest here, which is the case in many >rulings. If when someone wants an answer then all the answers are sent >by email then not only do we frustrate curious people like myself but we >miss any interest in the Laws that comes out of the replies. > and (further down): > If this particular thread has no interest for you, could >you not just kill it and leave it to the rest of us to consider causal >links and wild and gambling action? Please? Back to our unhappy contributor: > >>Since I don't see David's reply, and knowing he can't keep silent, I do >>suppose he has replied by mail. > David: > I never reply solely by email to postings unless >either [a] they request it [and then I am doubtful] > or [b] it is a delicate matter like a bereavement > > Labeo: or (c) potentially defamatory..... I am with David; members of the contributing group have a variety of ways in which they come to the laws. Many of them are TDs, some of them are evidently good TDs; some are idle watchers and browsers, but interested; some of them play the game - and strangely want to know its rules; as is apparent, my own interest is juristical - I want to hear of the practitioners' difficulties and what might improve the state of the law. Practical examples provide a textbook: no-one does as well as the player in exposing what is ineffectual. We should read and learn. Labeo From owner-bridge-laws Mon Feb 10 12:57:36 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id MAA00513 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 10 Feb 1997 12:57:36 +1100 Received: from relay-7.mail.demon.net (relay-7.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.9]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id MAA00506 for ; Mon, 10 Feb 1997 12:57:25 +1100 Received: from coruncanius.demon.co.uk ([194.222.115.176]) by relay-5.mail.demon.net id aa518576; 10 Feb 97 1:39 GMT Message-ID: Date: Sun, 9 Feb 1997 22:15:51 +0000 To: Herman De Wael Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Labeo Subject: Re: Ethical Problem, or no? In-Reply-To: <32F88AA1.3A69@innet.be> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In message <32F88AA1.3A69@innet.be>, Herman De Wael writes >AlLeBendig@aol.com wrote: > In this thread .... cut ... I find Herman de Wael writing this:- >Herman (the second N is far too German for my liking - sorry to have to >say this) thinks : >Either a deception is allowed or it isn't. If it isn't, it should be >punished. If it's allowed, it should be applauded, like Zia dropping a >queen under the king only to show up later with the ace. >If we say that the legitimate asking of questions, when misleading, is >not allowed, then we are limiting the powers that a player has received >under Law 20F. >I think it is far better for the game to allow these types of >misleadings. > Labeo: Oh, dear! There is a total misreading of the law in this. Law 20 does not deal with deception; it deals with enquiry about the meaning of calls or plays. Deception is dealt with in Laws 73D2, 73E, and 73F2. In 73E deception is authorized in making a call or play, so long as it is not the subject of an undisclosed partnership understanding. 73E does *not* authorize deception in other ways. 73D2 and 73F2 say very clearly that intentional deception by means of remarks, gestures, breaches of tempo, *or the like*, is illegal and, Herman should understand, despicably unethical. The words I have starred have been held to cover deception by asking a question without a bridge reason for requiring to know the answer. To make the point more acutely the 1997 Laws add words in 73F2 so that it will read: ".... or the like, of an opponent who has no demonstrable bridge reason for the action and who could have known ....." Labeo From owner-bridge-laws Mon Feb 10 13:03:34 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id NAA00558 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 10 Feb 1997 13:03:34 +1100 Received: from relay-11.mail.demon.net (relay-11.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.137]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id NAA00553 for ; Mon, 10 Feb 1997 13:03:24 +1100 Received: from coruncanius.demon.co.uk ([194.222.115.176]) by relay-9.mail.demon.net id aa907726; 10 Feb 97 1:39 GMT Message-ID: Date: Sun, 9 Feb 1997 18:49:06 +0000 To: David Stevenson Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Labeo Subject: Re: Deliberate hesitation? In-Reply-To: <8WwuFjD+qM$yEwPu@blakjak.demon.co.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In message <8WwuFjD+qM$yEwPu@blakjak.demon.co.uk>, David Stevenson writes >Steve Willner wrote: (cut) > >>I'll be fairly surprised if even David disagrees with the above. I'd >>have thought it completely standard interpretation. > David: > Even? > Labeo: No - odd! Labeo From owner-bridge-laws Mon Feb 10 14:40:49 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id OAA01208 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 10 Feb 1997 14:40:49 +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 OAA01203 for ; Mon, 10 Feb 1997 14:40:39 +1100 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by relay-6.mail.demon.net id aa616368; 10 Feb 97 3:18 GMT Message-ID: Date: Mon, 10 Feb 1997 02:15:19 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Quick Opinions Needed In-Reply-To: <970209140921_-1375414384@emout05.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 97-02-08 14:17:40 EST, David S. writes > > [great fiction deleted] > >> So, I propose that, if one side is having an adjustment made against >> their score, the other side should not receive the benefit if: >> >> either [a] they took an action so outlandish that it can *only* be >> explained as an attempt at a double shot >> or [b] they took an action that was not a Logical Alternative > >I admire your efforts, David. Your suggestion of a method to judge such >problems has definite merit. Using this method AND European standards, 5H >would not be a LA. Yet all of you seem to be willing to adjust for N-S. Are >you suggesting that perhaps our viewpoint is too harsh and yours is too lax >as it pertains to judging subsequent and consequent? I am looking for a reasonable approach, not necessarily one I believe in personally. My own view , for what it is worth, is to give the NOs the converse unless there is clear evidence of a double shot. Personally, I would *not* require them to "play bridge" when in a situation they should not be in. I even like the suggestion made last time we discussed this, that we should even allow the double shot as a legitimate attempt to profit from an opponent's infraction [of course this accepts the risk that it will be ruled not to be an infraction]. My suggestion is that the outlined proposal will be reasonably fair based on others' ideas, not my own. >We have finally gotten many players to understand when we examine whether an >action qualifies as a LA and I fear that expanding the usage to another area >will only lead to more confusion. That is why I originally raised objections >to the application. Possibly: but the alternative way of looking at it is that it will be easier to explain to people who are beginning to really understand how you define an LA. -- 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 Mon Feb 10 19:01:46 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id TAA02349 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 10 Feb 1997 19:01:46 +1100 Received: from mail.be.innet.net (mail.be.innet.net [194.7.1.8]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id TAA02343 for ; Mon, 10 Feb 1997 19:01:38 +1100 Received: from innet.innet.be (pool03-211.innet.be [194.7.10.211]) by mail.be.innet.net (8.7.6/8.7.3) with SMTP id JAA21880 for ; Mon, 10 Feb 1997 09:01:30 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: <32FDD7A5.3A34@innet.be> Date: Sun, 09 Feb 1997 13:56:53 +0000 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01 (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: fwd:Re: Strange Claim Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="------------29AB69B46270" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------29AB69B46270 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Stupid of me - mailed to sender, not to list. Incidentally, I am currently suscribed to a mailing list (flags) that sends out about forty messages a day (!!). They have the mailing list as reply address. Has anyone recently looked into this problem ? -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.club.innet.be/~pub02163/index.htm --------------29AB69B46270 Content-Type: message/rfc822 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-ID: <32FDD5E4.324@innet.be> Date: Sun, 09 Feb 1997 13:49:24 +0000 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01 (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Jens & Bodil Subject: Re: Strange Claim References: <199702081731.SAA03769@pip.dknet.dk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Jens & Bodil wrote: > > > > [snipped. We know the hand by now] > > > > I disagree. Let me share David's assumption about the statement: "I > have 5 spades, 3 diamonds and 4 clubs". I do not adjudicate a claim > based on a statement like this to the effect that declarer must cash > his presumed winners in the order stated. If it is normal play to > cash them in some other order, I choose the one that gives declarer > the poorest result. > > In this case, I will let declarer start by cashing the diamonds, > then the clubs. Obviously he will then discover that the clubs are > blocked, and that his line of play is flawed. It is then normal play > and faithful to this claim to reconsider his situation at this point, > long before he has squeezed the hearts out of dummy. So we count > tricks based on a heart to the jack; the opponents then score two > hearts and a diamond, and declarer only gets 10 tricks. > While I agree with everything that is said, I do not agree with the ruling of two down. Declarer will discover that clubs are blocked even before playing diamonds, play hearts to the jack (since this is the worst of the three possible lines) and be down one (two heart tricks). I do not award a diamond trick. > [more snippage] > > > I can understand the annoyance of some posters who believe that > > declarer should not get 12 tricks. You get my sympathy, but that is > > all. The one thing you ***must not do*** is to say he does not deserve > > 12 tricks ***therefore*** you will not give him 12 tricks: that is > > illegal, unfair, unjust and will create different problems: in fact that > > is "not Bridge". > > I agree with David's statement, and I humbly submit that David is > not describing my reasons for awarding fewer than 12 tricks. I am > trying to follow L70A, which tells me to "adjudicate[] the result as > equitably as possible to both sides, but any doubtful points shall be > resolved against the claimer." In doing so, I ask myself what would > have happened if declarer had played out the hand according to his > statement. Endicott and Hansen have this comment (70.6): > > A claimer is not allowed to embellish or vary the claim which > he originally made. Any amplification of his original words > must have been indicated or clearly implied by the original > statement, and it must not represent an adjustment of wording > for the purpose of covering a factor that was not in his mind at > the time of the original claim. In testing this question, the > Director must consider whether there is an alternative and > inferior line of _normal_ play that is consistent with the > original statement and clarification of the claim. > > Obviously he was not aware that clubs are blocked. Obviously he is > going to discover this problem sooner or later. If he discovers it > sooner, we must not allow him to try to get at his good clubs by > playing on hearts if that is a *superior* line of play (say N has the > heart ace and queen, and the club ten does not fall), but we should > choose it for him if it is normal, consistent with the original > claim, and inferior. I believe that David and I agree that it is > inferior, probably also that it is normal. So it would seem that I > arrive at a different ruling from David's because we disagree whether > switching to hearts is consistent with the original claim. > > I suggested to Jesper that we include this ruling in our TD test. > Jesper said that we then ought to remove dummy's heart jack. Now I > see how right Jesper was. With no HJ in dummy, 12 tricks is the > right ruling, and a trap has been set for those that award fewer > because they want to punish the claimer. > > Finally, let me thank Sergei for giving us this hand to discuss. I > suspect that he hadn't expected this much controversy to arise. > -- > Jens Brix Christiansen, Denmark -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.club.innet.be/~pub02163/index.htm --------------29AB69B46270-- From owner-bridge-laws Mon Feb 10 19:01:42 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id TAA02345 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 10 Feb 1997 19:01:42 +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 TAA02338 for ; Mon, 10 Feb 1997 19:01:34 +1100 Received: from innet.innet.be (pool03-211.innet.be [194.7.10.211]) by mail.be.innet.net (8.7.6/8.7.3) with SMTP id JAA21873 for ; Mon, 10 Feb 1997 09:01:25 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: <32FDD728.43AD@innet.be> Date: Sun, 09 Feb 1997 13:54:48 +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: Strange Claim References: <199702081826.TAA00371@worldcom.ch> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Y. Calame wrote: > > Law 68C reads: > > "A claim should be accompanied at once by a statement of clarification as to > the order in which cards will be played, the line of play or defence through > which the claimer proposes to win the tricks claimed. " > > Why "should" and not "must" > > Yvan The english edition of the laws has a section on word use : "when a player "should" do something, his failure to do it is an infraction of law, which will jeopardize his rights, but which will incur a procedural penalty only seldom. ..." "the strongest word, "must" indicates that violation is regarded as serious indeed". I suspect you are more used to the french edition, which has (I know) paid much less attention to the details of translation. Aside : Yves, are you qualified to direct in more than two languages ? In Switzerland, this should be possible. I myself am indeed officially qualified in dutch, french (nationally) and english (EBL). -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.club.innet.be/~pub02163/index.htm From owner-bridge-laws Mon Feb 10 22:16:37 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id WAA02685 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 10 Feb 1997 22:16:37 +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 WAA02680 for ; Mon, 10 Feb 1997 22:16:30 +1100 Received: from coruncanius.demon.co.uk ([194.222.115.176]) by relay-5.mail.demon.net id aa510579; 10 Feb 97 10:00 GMT Message-ID: Date: Mon, 10 Feb 1997 09:57:26 +0000 To: Jesper Dybdal Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Labeo Subject: Re: Strange Claim In-Reply-To: <32ff5098.1474470@pipmail.dknet.dk> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In message <32ff5098.1474470@pipmail.dknet.dk>, Jesper Dybdal writes >On Sat, 8 Feb 1997 23:42:12 +0000, David Stevenson > wrote: >> That is what it is all about. No line that involves declarer playing >>a small red card from hand at any time is embraced in the original >>clarification statement. > >Jesper Dybdal then introduces an example which is a red herring not relevant to the situation here (see later comment), and goes on to say: > >In our "Strange Claim" case, we also have a claimer that states a line >of play that is meaningless; it is obvious that he has not noticed the >club blockage. If the board was actually played out, he would >undoubtedly at some time realize that the clubs were blocked. He >would then reconsider his line of play. The result of this >reconsideration will be either to overtake a club or to lead towards >the hearts, possibly depending on whether or not he has taken the >diamonds before discovering the blocking club. Labeo: In the red herring example declarer's attention was forced to his mistake by the appearance of the trump and he had only one rational line of play when that happened. Here there is nothing to force the possible flaw in his statement upon his attention. The play of the cards to the first eight tricks will not do it. Jesper wants to oblige him to find out before he comes down to his five card ending with four clubs and a heart in dummy; but why? We do not have the power to decree this must have happened. We know declarer is asleep and there is no reason even to think he would wake up sooner. Declarer is stuck with his statement of claim and because he has played on Spades there is now only the one way to play the hand to conform to the statement; it happens to work and he has 12 tricks. The TD must not start inventing lines of play for declarer. > >The TD "adjucates the result of the board as quitably as possible to >both sides, but any doubtful points shall be resolved against the >claimer" (L70A). Labeo: there are no doubtful points; declarer has told us his line of play and we can implement it. > >We are concerned with claims where the claimer has overlooked >something about the hand that he would inevitably discover if he >played out the rest of the tricks. Surely it cannot be right to allow >the claimer to reconsider his line of play when it is to his advantage >(as in the example above), but not when it is to the advantage of the >opponents (as in the "Strange Claim" case)? > >IMO, when a claimer's stated line of play shows that he has overlooked >something that would clearly be discovered in the play and which would >(if the cards were played out) make him forget his original plan and >make a new plan, the TD should follow the original plan only to the >point where the claimer will discover that that plan makes no sense; >in this case, to the point where E discovers that the clubs block. >After that point, there is no stated line of play that it makes sense >to follow, and the TD should adjudicate the rest of the tricks as if >there were no stated plan. Labeo: "clearly be discovered in the play" is wrong. And nothing is inevitable here until we come to cash the four claimed club tricks. > >E should definitely not be allowed 12 tricks in this case. Labeo: I do not understand why Jesper should say this. He is putting his sympathies before his duty to apply the line of play that declarer has stated. When the claimant has stated a clear line of play the director's task is to test it and see if it works; this one does and no matter how garbled the director judges declarer's thinking to have been it is not his job to intervene and say 'but if you had played it out you would actually have done something else'. The accident that the contract does not go down, because of the club position, is not a matter for the TD. We are not playing the hand out, we are ruling on a claim in which the player has stated his play; for the director the question is a factual one. Declarer has made his bed and must lie on it: it turns out to be very comfortable. The odds were it would not, but we are not here to see that justice is done if it is not in the cards. Labeo From owner-bridge-laws Tue Feb 11 01:36:01 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA06368 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 11 Feb 1997 01:36:01 +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 BAA06363 for ; Tue, 11 Feb 1997 01:35:53 +1100 Received: from freenet3.carleton.ca (ac342@freenet3.carleton.ca [134.117.136.23]) by freenet.carleton.ca (8.8.3/8.6.4) with ESMTP id JAA09332 for ; Mon, 10 Feb 1997 09:35:44 -0500 (EST) Received: (ac342@localhost) by freenet3.carleton.ca (8.8.4/NCF-Sun-Client) id JAA22451; Mon, 10 Feb 1997 09:35:36 -0500 (EST) Date: Mon, 10 Feb 1997 09:35:36 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <199702101435.JAA22451@freenet3.carleton.ca> From: ac342@freenet.carleton.ca (A. L. Edwards) To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Strange Claim Reply-To: ac342@freenet.carleton.ca Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I'm with those who think declarer must be awarded 12 tricks. His original statement said nothing about heart tricks; therefore, he can't suddenly ask, or be compelled to try, for them. As well, consider this: suppose, as one poster suggested, that the HK was not accompanied by the HJ; in this scenario, declarer would be awarded 12 tricks. Would the defenders not now be justified in complaining when the CT was *not* dropping? Would we not all be awarding 6H-1? Yes, the declarer made a bad claim, but sometimes the cards make us side not with St. Anthony, but with Loki. Tony (aka ac342) From owner-bridge-laws Tue Feb 11 02:45:58 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA06869 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 11 Feb 1997 02:45:58 +1100 Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id CAA06864 for ; Tue, 11 Feb 1997 02:45:47 +1100 Received: from cfa183.harvard.edu (cfa183.harvard.edu [131.142.12.59]) by cfa.harvard.edu (8.8.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id KAA28988 for ; Mon, 10 Feb 1997 10:45:36 -0500 (EST) Received: by cfa183.harvard.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id KAA26206; Mon, 10 Feb 1997 10:45:48 -0500 Date: Mon, 10 Feb 1997 10:45:48 -0500 From: willner@cfa183.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Message-Id: <199702101545.KAA26206@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Quick Opinions Needed X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From AlLeBendig@aol.com Sun Feb 9 14:12:05 1997 > I think there is a big difference > between a judgement error and a "bad" bid. One of the very first discussions we had on this list was the definition of an "egregious" error -- an error so serious that we would rule damage from a prior infraction as subsequent, not consequent. As I recall the discussion, most of the Europeans required a horrible blunder. "Like a revoke" was one phrase used. Most Americans tended to be a bit less sympathetic to the NO's, but there was still a feeling that the error had to be very clear indeed -- a failure to "play bridge" -- and not just a normal misjudgment. FWIW, my personal opinion is closer to the European view. How does this apply to the 5H bid in question? Most of us agree 5H was inferior, but I don't see that it comes anywhere near the level of awfulness that would preclude redress. We cannot even prove the bid is wrong! It's easy to construct hands where it would work, *especially* if the 5D bid is not an infraction after all. And a NO is certainly entitled to assume that the opponents' actions are not infractions and expect redress if they are. Sorry, Alan, but I think you were too hard on the NO's this time, though I don't think it was an "egregious" TD error. :-) > suppose S thought they were in a forcing pass situation and passed 5D to give > his partner the option of double or 5H. It comes around to N and who doesn't > think this is a forcing pass and the auction ends. Now _this_ is a situation where I might well consider the error egregious. If there is a clear agreement that pass is forcing, North has blundered by passing a forcing call. If not, South has blundered by failing to show sound values in an ambiguous auction. At least one of those actions is far worse than the 5H bid, at least in my perhaps poor bridge judgment. (If there is any doubt whether pass is forcing, I'd much rather bid 5H than pass.) Even in this situation, which I perceive as far worse than the actual one, I would vote for consequent and adjust for the NO's. The NO's are still playing bridge, even if badly. From owner-bridge-laws Tue Feb 11 03:42:09 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA07156 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 11 Feb 1997 03:42:09 +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 DAA07151 for ; Tue, 11 Feb 1997 03:42:00 +1100 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by relay-6.mail.demon.net id aa602705; 10 Feb 97 15:37 GMT Message-ID: Date: Mon, 10 Feb 1997 15:34:00 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Strange Claim In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Stevenson wrote: >Sergei Litvak wrote: > >>This board is from tournament where the level of players was over average >>(it' not a joke). >> >>E is playing 6NT. The whole hand: >> Jx >> Axx >> Jxxx >> 8642 >>AQTxx Kx >>xx KJxxx >>AKQ2 xx >>KQ AJ97 >> 9xxx >> Qxx >> xxx >> T53 >> >>Diamond lead taken by Ace, Spade to King and back to Ace. When Jack of >>Spades fall down declarer claimed for 5 spades, 3 diamonds and 4 clubs. >>North called for TD. >>What is the ruling? I shall not go through my reasoning again. I think you know it. Let me ask you a question, and please answer it to yourselves [yes, I know I can trust you!] *before* you read on: is your approach to your ruling based in any way on the defence's hands? Apart from posts agreeing with me [a minority], most posts seem to agree that the *line* is irrelevant to the defence's hands until you come to the heart guess: then they give the opponent's the benefit of the doubt. Happy, are you? It has been pointed out that their ruling is that the hand makes if the ace of hearts is onside if the jack of hearts is removed from dummy, because then there is no guess. Ok, everyone happy? Let's go for it! I am going to change the hand very slightly. >>E is playing 6NT. The whole hand: Jx Axx Jxxx T642 AQTxx Kx xx Kxxxx AKQ2 xx KQ AJ97 9xxx QJx xxx 853 No heart jack in the dummy. Your ruling: realise clubs are blocked, play heart to king and pray, twelve tricks. My ruling [opinion unchanged]: playing heart not part of claim, so attempt as best as possible to follow original line. This involves overtaking club queen, eleven tricks, one off. There was anger and feelings of it not being bridge in earlier posts. In this case your line gives declarer a fully undeserved 50% shot: mine gives him a fully deserved 40% shot. Are you sure that I am wrong? -- 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 Tue Feb 11 05:15:39 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA12111 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 11 Feb 1997 05:15:39 +1100 Received: from pip.dknet.dk (root@pip.dknet.dk [193.88.44.48]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id FAA12084 for ; Tue, 11 Feb 1997 05:15:29 +1100 Received: from cph11.ppp.dknet.dk (cph11.ppp.dknet.dk [194.192.100.11]) by pip.dknet.dk (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id TAA28840 for ; Mon, 10 Feb 1997 19:15:19 +0100 From: Jesper Dybdal To: Bridge Laws List Subject: Re: Strange Claim Date: Mon, 10 Feb 1997 19:15:15 +0100 Organization: at home Message-ID: <3303629c.3917422@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 Mon, 10 Feb 1997 09:57:26 +0000, Labeo wrote: >In message <32ff5098.1474470@pipmail.dknet.dk>, Jesper Dybdal > writes >Labeo: In the red herring example declarer's attention was forced=20 >to his mistake by the appearance of the trump and he had only one >rational line of play when that happened. Here there is nothing to=20 >force the possible flaw in his statement upon his attention. If I agreed with that, I'd also agree with the 12 tricks. But I don't agree; I believe that he will unavoidably discover the blocking clubs at the latest just before playing the last club from dummy. Don't you? >The play=20 >of the cards to the first eight tricks will not do it. Jesper wants=20 >to oblige him to find out before he comes down to his five card ending >with four clubs and a heart in dummy; but why? I want him to find out when he has played his first club. Whether or not he has taken his spade and diamond tricks at that point depends on what order he takes his tricks in. IMO his claim did not include a specification of a trick order (others have argued this point very well, so I won't do it here), and it is therefore part of the TD's job to assume the most unfavourable order for declarer in which to play the suits. > We do not have the power >to decree this must have happened. We know declarer is asleep and there >is no reason even to think he would wake up sooner.=20 As I said, I find it hard to believe that he will not wake up when dummy has just one club left. > Declarer is stuck with his statement of claim and because he >has played on Spades there is now only the one way to play the hand to >conform to the statement; it happens to work and he has 12 tricks. The >TD must not start inventing lines of play for declarer. If a claim is made with no stated line of play, the TD must invent lines of play. When we reach the point in a stated line of play where it becomes meaningless because an assumption it is based on (such as clubs not blocking or no more trumps out) turns out to be wrong, then we have no stated line of play for the rest of the hand. >>The TD "adjucates the result of the board as quitably as possible to >>both sides, but any doubtful points shall be resolved against the >>claimer" (L70A). > >Labeo: there are no doubtful points; declarer has told us his line of >play and we can implement it. He has in reality claimed tricks for the club K, Q, A, and J, since this is obviously what he imagined when he made the claim. Either he discovers the blocking clubs or he does not. If he does, leading a heart is not "irrational"; if he does not, he gets only two club tricks (K and Q - he won't overtake if hasn't discoved that they block). You're allowing him to discover the blocking clubs, too. In fact, you're allowing him to discover them at the only precise moment where it will get him 12 tricks: _after_ he has led the last of dummy's two clubs but _before_ he has played to it from hand. In the vocabulary of L70, I find it "normal", "careless", or "inferior" rather than "irrational" to discover it either earlier (and lead a heart) or later (and get only two club tricks). >And nothing is >inevitable here until we come to cash the four claimed club tricks. Quite correct. I do not believe I have said otherwise. >>E should definitely not be allowed 12 tricks in this case. > >Labeo: I do not understand why Jesper should say this. He is putting=20 >his sympathies before his duty to apply the line of play that declarer >has stated. When the claimant has stated a clear line of play the=20 >director's task is to test it and see if it works; this one does and=20 >no matter how garbled the director judges declarer's thinking to have >been it is not his job to intervene and say 'but if you had played it >out you would actually have done something else'. "Test it and see if it works", you say. But does testing a line of play not involve imagining how it would actually turn out if declarer started out with that plan but underway discovered that it is a bad plan? Otherwise I don't understand why we should give declarer the rest in what you call my "red herring"? In that case we're exactly saying 'but if you had played it out you would actually have done something else'. Declarer's stated plan in that case was to lead hearts and discard diamonds; this is a plan that we can easily follow literally, yet we seem to agree that he should be allowed to change it. If we agree that there is some significant chance that E would go down if he actually set out to play the hand with the initial intention of taking top tricks, then you're saying that the bridge error of overlooking the blocking problem might make him go down, but that claiming instead of playing out the hand allows him to win. This is IMO ridiculous. I believe that the intention of the rules for claims is that claims should save time, not that unclear claims should make the TD help declarers to make contracts that they would not win if they played them out. As for sympathy: I admit that I have a lot of sympathy for non-offending players whose opponents try to get the TD to win contracts which they quite possibly would not be able to win on their own. And what's more, I believe that sympathy to be prescribed in the laws. --=20 Jesper Dybdal, Denmark From owner-bridge-laws Tue Feb 11 05:15:40 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA12112 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 11 Feb 1997 05:15:40 +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 FAA12091 for ; Tue, 11 Feb 1997 05:15:31 +1100 Received: from cph11.ppp.dknet.dk (cph11.ppp.dknet.dk [194.192.100.11]) by pip.dknet.dk (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id TAA28843 for ; Mon, 10 Feb 1997 19:15:22 +0100 From: Jesper Dybdal To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Strange Claim Date: Mon, 10 Feb 1997 19:15:19 +0100 Organization: at home Message-ID: <33015fbf.3184869@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 Mon, 10 Feb 1997 15:34:00 +0000, David Stevenson wrote: > Ok, everyone happy? Let's go for it! I am going to change the hand=20 >very slightly. > >>>E is playing 6NT. The whole hand: > Jx > Axx > Jxxx > T642 >AQTxx Kx >xx Kxxxx >AKQ2 xx >KQ AJ97 > 9xxx > QJx > xxx > 853 > > No heart jack in the dummy. Your ruling: realise clubs are blocked,=20 >play heart to king and pray, twelve tricks. My ruling: Realize clubs are blocked. From the point declarer realizes that, I adjudicate as if there was no stated line for the rest of the play: Determine which possible ("normal", "careless", or "inferior", in the terms of L70) lines of play are available to recover from the blockage. There are two such lines of play: (1) Overtake a club and hope the 10 falls out; (2) Lead a heart towards the K. (For a statistician directing in a club of statisticians, one of these can probably be considered irrational; for the sake of the discussion of principles, please consider them both at worst "careless" or "inferior"). I choose the one that is least advantageous to declarer; in this case, this is to overtake the club and go down. --=20 Jesper Dybdal, Denmark From owner-bridge-laws Tue Feb 11 05:37:19 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA14023 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 11 Feb 1997 05:37:19 +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 FAA14008 for ; Tue, 11 Feb 1997 05:37:06 +1100 Received: from localhost by flash.irvine.com id aa20329; 10 Feb 97 10:36 PST To: David Stevenson cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au, adam@flash.irvine.com Subject: Re: Strange Claim In-reply-to: Your message of "Sat, 08 Feb 1997 23:42:12 PST." Date: Mon, 10 Feb 1997 10:36:13 PST From: Adam Beneschan Message-ID: <9702101036.aa20329@flash.irvine.com> Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > Adam Beneschan wrote: > > >> This is an interesting hand because it shows the sort of ruling that > >> TDs and ACs are required to make by following the law, and then have to > >> sell to the players. At least one of the answers posted to this problem > >> said it isn't Bridge to allow 12 tricks here. Well, I am sorry, but > >> that is where you are wrong. To allow TDs and ACs to make rulings based > >> on whether people deserve things is not the way the law is applied. > > > >If this is really the case, then the Law is busted and needs to be > >fixed so that atrocities like this don't happen. However, I'm still > >not convinced that the Laws currently require East to be awarded 12 > >tricks. > > You should not be looking for quick fixes because of an injustice or > two. Only if a Law is likely to get consistently wrong results does it > need altering. I didn't say the Law should be fixed quickly. Yes, this case is rare enough that it doesn't warrant any significant expense to fix it, like calling an emergency meeting of the Laws commission. On the other hand, my opinion is that allowing this kind of claim is *not* what was intended when the Law was written. So even if this case occurs only rarely, if there's a way to fix the Law to make sure it never happens, I don't see how a case could be made against fixing the Law, if it takes place at the same time other Law revisions are being discussed and considered. . . . > >So, repeating David's statement: > > > >> How do you go about adjudicating a claim? I shall not requote all the > >> laws but the basis is that you follow the original statement as > >> completely as possible, and **do not** follow a different line. . . . > > > >Again, my opinion is that there's no "line" here. So we're charged > >with trying to "follow the original statement as completely as > >possible". The original statement is that "I'm going to take the A, > >K, Q, and J of clubs." No, East didn't specifically use those words, > >but it's clear that's what he meant, since he didn't say anything > >about overtaking or hoping for the 10 to drop. So treating this as a > >Top Tricks claim, I contend that the club overtake is NOT following > >the original statement. East said he would take the four top club > >honors; however, those who would allow the claim are giving him the A, > >K, J, and 9. This is not what East intended, and therefore, I > >contend, does not follow the original statement. This is why I'm > >arguing so strenously that this line of play should *not* be allowed > >to fulfill the claim. > > > >Based on all this, I do not believe that there's anything in the Laws > >that requires that East be given 12 tricks. > > It is quite clear that the line was one of taking 12 top tricks. You > have said so yourself. I only put things in the one order for > simplicity. Any line that does not involve taking an apparent 12 top > tricks is not to be considered. Thus the club overtake is required, > even if played in a different order. I don't consider the 9 to be a top trick. After all, someone still has the 10, possibly guarded. The fact that it isn't guarded, on the actual layout (which East hasn't seen at the time he made the claim), doesn't make the 9 a top trick. Therefore, the club overtake does not involve taking an apparent 12 top tricks and should also not be considered. > >D. Claimer Proposes New Line of Play > > > > The Director shall not accept from claimer any successful line of > > play not embraced in the original clarification statement if there > > is an alternative normal* line of play that would be less > > successful. > > That is what it is all about. No line that involves declarer playing > a small red card from hand at any time is embraced in the original > clarification statement. My argument is that the club overtake is also not embraced in the original clarification statement. Once the proposed new line of play is determined NOT to be embraced by the original clarification, Law 70D applies. For the purposes of this Law, an alternative play must only be considered "normal"; it does not have to be embraced by the original clarification. That's where the lines that involve small red cards come in. > >East's new line is successful, clearly. East's new line is not > >embraced in the original clarification statement, since, as I've > >argued above, his original statement said he'd take the top four club > >honors while his new statement says he'd take the K, A, J, 9. So, if > >there is an alternative normal line of play that would go down, East's > >new line is not allowed. Since the unblock-clubs-then-try-to-guess- > >hearts and run-pointed-tricks-and-try-for-steppingstone-squeeze lines > >are both normal lines of play, the club overtake isn't allowed, and > >East is awarded down 1 or 2. > > Rubbish. :) :) :) > > If there is only one line consistent with the claim, > declarer cannot lose his right to that line by trying to embellish the > original statement. Once again, my opinion is that there is *no* line consistent with the claim. Maybe my previous response wasn't clear on this point. But it revolved around my belief that a club overtake line is NOT consistent with East's claim---or is not embraced by the original clarification, to use the language of 70D---and I don't think you've refuted me on this point. -- Adam From owner-bridge-laws Tue Feb 11 05:59:16 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA15758 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 11 Feb 1997 05:59:16 +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 FAA15753 for ; Tue, 11 Feb 1997 05:59:09 +1100 Received: (from lighton@localhost) by styx.ios.com (8.8.3/8.6.9) id NAA27024 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Mon, 10 Feb 1997 13:59:01 -0500 (EST) Date: Mon, 10 Feb 1997 13:59:01 -0500 (EST) From: Richard Lighton Message-Id: <199702101859.NAA27024@styx.ios.com> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Strange Claim Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Stevenson wrote: > > >Sergei Litvak wrote: > > > >>This board is from tournament where the level of players was over average > >>(it' not a joke). > >> > >>E is playing 6NT. The whole hand: > >> Jx > >> Axx > >> Jxxx > >> 8642 > >>AQTxx Kx > >>xx KJxxx > >>AKQ2 xx > >>KQ AJ97 > >> 9xxx > >> Qxx > >> xxx > >> T53 > >> > >>Diamond lead taken by Ace, Spade to King and back to Ace. When Jack of > >>Spades fall down declarer claimed for 5 spades, 3 diamonds and 4 clubs. > >>North called for TD. > >>What is the ruling? > > I shall not go through my reasoning again. I think you know it. Let > me ask you a question, and please answer it to yourselves [yes, I know I > can trust you!] *before* you read on: is your approach to your ruling > based in any way on the defence's hands? Apart from posts agreeing with > me [a minority], most posts seem to agree that the *line* is irrelevant > to the defence's hands until you come to the heart guess: then they give > the opponent's the benefit of the doubt. Happy, are you? > > It has been pointed out that their ruling is that the hand makes if > the ace of hearts is onside if the jack of hearts is removed from dummy, > because then there is no guess. > > Ok, everyone happy? Let's go for it! I am going to change the hand > very slightly. > > >>E is playing 6NT. The whole hand: > Jx > Axx > Jxxx > T642 > AQTxx Kx > xx Kxxxx > AKQ2 xx > KQ AJ97 > 9xxx > QJx > xxx > 853 > > No heart jack in the dummy. Your ruling: realise clubs are blocked, > play heart to king and pray, twelve tricks. > > My ruling [opinion unchanged]: playing heart not part of claim, so > attempt as best as possible to follow original line. This involves > overtaking club queen, eleven tricks, one off. > > There was anger and feelings of it not being bridge in earlier posts. > In this case your line gives declarer a fully undeserved 50% shot: mine > gives him a fully deserved 40% shot. Are you sure that I am wrong? I think this line of reasoning is wrong. It depends on when declarer notices the club block. The general opinion of those who do not agree with David is that if declarer notices it early enough, in the revised hand declarer has the option of playing up to the heart king as a better percentage play. However, if he does not see the block until after the 5 spades and 3 diamonds have been cashed, playing up to the heart king is not a viable option ;-) If declarer's initial statement (5 spades, 3 diamonds, and 4 clubs) is not deemed to be a line of play, the least favorable reasonable alternative will always have him going down (unless the heart ace is onside, with only 3 diamonds, and the Club 10 falling). If declarer's statement is taken to be a line of play, then the result depends on the fate of the club ten. I _think_ I am on the side of those who do not think declarer has actually made a full statement (sorry, David) and so will almost always go down. I believe we have to include in the ruling that declarer probably has not noticed the block _yet_ and will only notice it at the least favorable moment, given the actual layout. If he has to guess with the KJ in dummy, he will obviously guess wrong for the purposes of ruling. The reason for being on this side is akin to the situation where declarer has forgotten a trump. He is obviously not allowed a line of play to draw it early, but if it will naturally appear at a time he can overruff, he has to be allowed to. If, depending on the order in which he cashes the side suits, he might or might not find it, it has to be ruled that he will do the wrong thing. As an aside, am I the only declarer who, having forgotten about a stray trump and made a claim of the sort "They are all mine" has said in response to a question from the director, "Of course I forgot about the damned thing." I hope not. Richard Lighton | Ask your brain: it'll tell you. A logical alternative (lighton@ios.com) | is one that did not reduce your brain to tears. Wood-Ridge NJ | USA | -- David Stevenson, on rec.games.bridge From owner-bridge-laws Tue Feb 11 06:00:55 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA15925 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 11 Feb 1997 06:00:55 +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 GAA15920 for ; Tue, 11 Feb 1997 06:00:48 +1100 Received: (from root@localhost) by tom.compulink.co.uk (8.8.4/8.6.9) id TAA17946 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Mon, 10 Feb 1997 19:00:19 GMT Date: Mon, 10 Feb 97 18:58 GMT0 From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: Follow-Up to Quick Opinions... 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: <970207175525_41871097@emout13.mail.aol.com> > Now for the complete hand: > > N > S T9652 > H AKJ > D 5 > C AJ83 > > W E > S KJ8 S 74 > H Q62 H 74 > D KQJ3 D AT87642 > C QT6 C 92 > > S > S AQ3 > H T9853 > D 9 > C K754 > > Both Vul - MPs > E S W N > P P 1D Dbl > 4D 4H P* P > 5D 5H AP > *Clear Hesitation > > I don't think there will be any disagreement that the 5D bid is clear usage > of UI. It is highly unlikely that partner was considering a double of 4H.. > Given the vulnerability, I would never allow 5D since pass is a LA. Very few > acknowledged that it was indeed possible that E could have a 5D bid. He may > indeed have been "walking the dog" with the expectation there would be a bid > by S or N. However, I don't accept that this was the hand. I suspect that no-one here seriously considered that West had his 5D bid since that would have rendered the initial query meaningless. I believe that this made me consider the 5H as worse than it really was, albeit unconciously, but that is the danger of a quick opinion. Unfortunately that was not the position for South at the table, who was almost obliged to assume that West did indeed have a clear-cut 5D bid. If we change the West hand slightly (so that I, at least, might consider the 5D bid legitimate) by swapping a small club for one of North's small spades what happens now? 5H is possibly the only winning action (North may well double after a forcing pass, and leave in an immediate double). I still believe that 5H is technically the wrong bid (especially if pass is forcing) but South is forced to make a bid under pressure in a situation that he should not be in. Even an experienced player can misjudge in that situation, particulary if they are unsure whether the pass is forcing. I don't know if this has any relevance, but I also considered what would happen if South selected the "panel choice" of a forcing pass. 5H by North looks eminently reasonable (since he will probably place South and West with a bit more shape). Thus 5H could still be the final contract and the fact that South bid in front of partner was not inherently damaging. In arriving at the somewhat arbitary figure that the damage was 80% due to the infraction and 20% self-inflicted I am still unsure as to what ruling would best do equity. Tim West-Meads From owner-bridge-laws Tue Feb 11 06:21:09 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA16373 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 11 Feb 1997 06:21:09 +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 GAA16368 for ; Tue, 11 Feb 1997 06:20:59 +1100 Received: from localhost by flash.irvine.com id aa21885; 10 Feb 97 11:20 PST To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au CC: adam@flash.irvine.com Subject: Re: Strange Claim In-reply-to: Your message of "Sun, 09 Feb 1997 12:36:06 PST." <32FDC4B6.314F@innet.be> Date: Mon, 10 Feb 1997 11:20:13 PST From: Adam Beneschan Message-ID: <9702101120.aa21885@flash.irvine.com> Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Herman wrote: > > Again, my opinion is that there's no "line" here. So we're charged > > with trying to "follow the original statement as completely as > > possible". The original statement is that "I'm going to take the A, > > K, Q, and J of clubs." No, East didn't specifically use those words, > > but it's clear that's what he meant, since he didn't say anything > > about overtaking or hoping for the 10 to drop. So treating this as a > > Top Tricks claim, I contend that the club overtake is NOT following > > the original statement. East said he would take the four top club > > honors; however, those who would allow the claim are giving him the A, > > K, J, and 9. This is not what East intended, and therefore, I > > contend, does not follow the original statement. This is why I'm > > arguing so strenously that this line of play should *not* be allowed > > to fulfill the claim. > > And here you missed a turn. > > If I hold KQ opposite AJTx, saying 4 tricks is a Top Tricks claim, but > it does not mean that I will make A,K,Q and J. K,A,J and T are also top > tricks. So on clubs alone, David is right. When he has to actually play > the club suit, overtaking the queen and hoping for the ten to drop is > indeed a valid execution of the statement that he will make four club > tricks. Of course, in the actual layout, there is an alternative, namely > using hearts as an entry after unblocking KQ of clubs. Since there is > one way this fails, the claim is incorrect, but not for the reason that > Adam says. Interestingly, my wife, a rank beginner, brought up this exact card combination last night. I had told her a few days ago about this debate I was involved in, and she got me to explain the details to her. So now she's expressing opinions about the interpretations of the Laws, despite the fact that she still has very little idea how to play a hand. My God, what have I done to her????? :-) Anyway, I think there's a big difference in these combinations: (a) KQ AJ102 (b) KQ AJ92 In (a), you can claim four top tricks in this suit, the king, ace, jack, and 10. If you simply say "I have four tricks", and don't say just what those tricks are, we can assume if you're a decent player that those are the four tricks you mean. (If you specifically said "I will win the king, queen, ace, and jack in that suit, *then* there might be a problem.) However, I don't think you can apply that logic to (b). You don't know that the 9 will be good; therefore, we can't assume that the four top tricks you mean are the king, ace, jack, and 9. Thus, if you claim "I have four top tricks", we have to assume you mean the king, queen, ace, and jack. The 9 isn't a top trick and therefore doesn't count. As I mentioned in my previous message, I believe this is the case even if the 10 is unguarded. When you make the claim statement, you don't know that the 10 is unguarded; therefore, any statement you make about a fourth top trick in clubs *cannot* be interpreted to include the nine--unless you include words in your original claim that indicate you're HOPING for 10 to drop and conceding down one if it doesn't. Suppose we construct a different hand where the layout is in (b), but this time there are no outside high cards in the hand containing AJ92. E.g.: AJ92 43 432 5432 KQ A2 AK765 AK76 In 3NT (IMPs), declarer wins the opening H6 lead and claims 9 tricks--four top spades, a heart, two diamonds, two clubs. This time, I *would* allow the claim if the spade 10 is unguarded, but not because I consider the 9 to be part of the original claim. Here's the sequence of how things would happen in this case. (1) The director is called. The defense objects that declarer doesn't have four spade tricks. In accordance with 70B, all hands are faced. (2) Director points out to declarer that there's no entry to the top spades. According to the opinion I expressed in my previous contribution, there is no line consistent with declarer's original claim; therefore, director cannot assume that overtaking spades is implied by the claim statement. (3) Declarer, seeing the faced cards including the unguarded 10, proposes a new line of overtaking the second spade for his ninth trick. (4) Now Law 70D applies. Director can determine that there is *no* rational alternative play; therefore, according to Law 70D, the claim is allowed and declarer gets his nine tricks. I don't know whether it's permissible for the director, for simplicity, simply to award declarer nine tricks by assuming that the line declarer proposes in (3) is the only rational line, and therefore not waiting for declarer to propose a new line. The point is that even if director does make this assumption, this assumed line must meet the constraints imposed by Law 70D--that is, there must be no other "normal" line that would be less successful. So I'm in agreement with Herman on this, i.e. the fact that a normal alternative line would go down is one important part of the reason that I would disallow the claim in the original example. -- Adam From owner-bridge-laws Tue Feb 11 06:43:22 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA16526 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 11 Feb 1997 06:43:22 +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 GAA16521 for ; Tue, 11 Feb 1997 06:43:15 +1100 Received: from aarh2.ppp.dknet.dk (aarh2.ppp.dknet.dk [194.192.100.67]) by pip.dknet.dk (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id UAA01626 for ; Mon, 10 Feb 1997 20:43:02 +0100 From: Jesper Dybdal To: Bridge Laws List Subject: Re: Strange Claim Date: Mon, 10 Feb 1997 20:42:58 +0100 Organization: at home Message-ID: <330976bd.9070482@pipmail.dknet.dk> References: <3303629c.3917422@pipmail.dknet.dk> In-Reply-To: <3303629c.3917422@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 Mon, 10 Feb 1997 19:15:15 +0100, I wrote: >On Mon, 10 Feb 1997 09:57:26 +0000, Labeo > wrote: >> Here there is nothing to=20 >>force the possible flaw in his statement upon his attention. >If I agreed with that, I'd also agree with the 12 tricks. Oops - as you may notice if you read the rest of what I wrote, that was a slip of the keyboard. If I agreed with that (which I still do not), I'd rule that he played the CK and CQ early, not overtaking, because he'd forgotten that there was no entry to his hand. --=20 Jesper Dybdal, Denmark From owner-bridge-laws Tue Feb 11 06:49:50 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA16585 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 11 Feb 1997 06:49:50 +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 GAA16580 for ; Tue, 11 Feb 1997 06:49:43 +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 LAA22627 for <@mipl7.JPL.NASA.GOV:bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au>; Mon, 10 Feb 1997 11:49:01 -0800 Received: by tintin.JPL.NASA.GOV (940816.SGI.8.6.9/930416.SGI.MIPS) for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au id LAA00697; Mon, 10 Feb 1997 11:50:50 -0800 Date: Mon, 10 Feb 1997 11:50:50 -0800 From: jeff@tintin.JPL.NASA.GOV (Jeff Goldsmith) Message-Id: <199702101950.LAA00697@tintin.JPL.NASA.GOV> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Strange Claim Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Hmmm...maybe there ought to be a compendium of "busted claims imply this form of line of play" rulings. For example, it seems natural that in busted claims due to lack of entry to a blocked suit, that the natural line is to overtake and hope the suit is good. (This, of course, is what the main discussion on this thread is all about.) I'm sure that some more such types of busted claim statements will have "natural" resolutions. Would such rulings be sensible? --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 Feb 11 07:01:37 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA16652 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 11 Feb 1997 07:01:37 +1100 Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id HAA16647 for ; Tue, 11 Feb 1997 07:01:29 +1100 Received: from cfa183.harvard.edu (cfa183.harvard.edu [131.142.12.59]) by cfa.harvard.edu (8.7.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id PAA10467 for ; Mon, 10 Feb 1997 15:01:24 -0500 (EST) Received: by cfa183.harvard.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id PAA26456; Mon, 10 Feb 1997 15:01:35 -0500 Date: Mon, 10 Feb 1997 15:01:35 -0500 From: willner@cfa183.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Message-Id: <199702102001.PAA26456@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Strange Claim X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: Richard Lighton > As an aside, am I the only declarer who, having forgotten about > a stray trump and made a claim of the sort "They are all mine" has > said in response to a question from the director, "Of course I forgot > about the damned thing." I hope not. Alas, you are not the only one. It didn't matter what I said, though; I got an incorrect ruling anyway. (It was 30 years ago, but I still remember the incident. That should be a lesson to all directors how much a ruling can matter.) From owner-bridge-laws Tue Feb 11 07:04:38 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA16669 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 11 Feb 1997 07:04:38 +1100 Received: from relay-7.mail.demon.net (relay-7.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.9]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id HAA16664 for ; Tue, 11 Feb 1997 07:04:31 +1100 Received: from coruncanius.demon.co.uk ([194.222.115.176]) by relay-5.mail.demon.net id aa526929; 10 Feb 97 19:16 GMT Message-ID: Date: Mon, 10 Feb 1997 19:11:45 +0000 To: Herman De Wael Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au, Jens & Bodil From: Labeo Subject: Re: fwd:Re: Strange Claim In-Reply-To: <32FDD7A5.3A34@innet.be> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In message <32FDD7A5.3A34@innet.be>, Herman De Wael writes > >-- >Herman DE WAEL >Antwerpen Belgium >http://www.club.innet.be/~pub02163/index.htm >Jens & Bodil wrote: >> >> > >> [snipped. We know the hand by now] >> > >> >> I disagree. Let me share David's assumption about the statement: "I >> have 5 spades, 3 diamonds and 4 clubs". I do not adjudicate a claim >> based on a statement like this to the effect that declarer must cash >> his presumed winners in the order stated. If it is normal play to >> cash them in some other order, I choose the one that gives declarer >> the poorest result. >> >> In this case, I will let declarer start by cashing the diamonds, >> then the clubs. Obviously he will then discover that the clubs are >> blocked, and that his line of play is flawed. It is then normal play >> and faithful to this claim to reconsider his situation at this point, >> long before he has squeezed the hearts out of dummy. So we count >> tricks based on a heart to the jack; the opponents then score two >> hearts and a diamond, and declarer only gets 10 tricks. >> Labeo: It does not matter what order you play the suits in. Declarer has stated that he has the contract in top tricks and the question is only whether this is true. All this talk about what he would do in actual play has nothing whatsoever to do with the claim. > > [snippage] >> >> Finally, let me thank Sergei for giving us this hand to discuss. I >> suspect that he hadn't expected this much controversy to arise. >> -- >> Jens Brix Christiansen, Denmark > Labeo: The 'controversy' has arisen because some posters are trying to do declarer's thinking for him. That is not the task. The TD in these circumstances has only one task - to establish whether played as declarer has said (here all in top tricks) the contract makes or does not. Labeo From owner-bridge-laws Tue Feb 11 08:00:40 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA16878 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 11 Feb 1997 08:00:40 +1100 Received: from u3.farm.idt.net (root@u3.farm.idt.net [169.132.8.12]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id IAA16873 for ; Tue, 11 Feb 1997 08:00:33 +1100 Received: from ppp-14.ts-5.la.idt.net (ppp-14.ts-5.la.idt.net [204.235.93.33]) by u3.farm.idt.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id QAA08724; Mon, 10 Feb 1997 16:00:17 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <32FF8D54.6107@mail.idt.net> Date: Mon, 10 Feb 1997 13:04:20 -0800 From: Irwin Kostal Reply-To: bigfoot@idt.net X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0Gold (Win95; I; 16bit) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: bridge-laws Subject: Re: Strange Claim References: <199702041253.PAA09702@pent.sci-nnov.ru> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I am not a director, and have no particular credentials in dealing with these matters, but I do serve on committees with some regularity, and I have a question. In reading all the discussions about this claim, there seems to be an assumption that declarer would discover the club blockage before he plays the queen. I wonder about this assumption. Haven't we all seen players cash the king and queen and THEN wake up? For that matter (This is private now, and not for the general public) it has even happened to me. It seems we are giving the declarer the benefit of a doubt when we assume he'll wake up while he still has a club in his hand. Is this legitimate? Irv Kostal Sergei Litvak wrote: > > This board is from tournament where the level of players was over average > (it' not a joke). > > E is playing 6NT. The whole hand: > Jx > Axx > Jxxx > 8642 > AQTxx Kx > xx KJxxx > AKQ2 xx > KQ AJ97 > 9xxx > Qxx > xxx > T53 > > Diamond lead taken by Ace, Spade to King and back to Ace. When Jack of > Spades fall down declarer claimed for 5 spades, 3 diamonds and 4 clubs. > North called for TD. > What is the ruling? > Sergei Litvak > ------------------- > Voice: 7(8312)384255 > FAX: 7(8312(362061 > ------------------- From owner-bridge-laws Tue Feb 11 08:48:26 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA17092 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 11 Feb 1997 08:48:26 +1100 Received: from relay-7.mail.demon.net (relay-7.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.9]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id IAA17087 for ; Tue, 11 Feb 1997 08:48:18 +1100 Received: from mamos.demon.co.uk ([158.152.129.79]) by relay-5.mail.demon.net id aa525976; 10 Feb 97 21:32 GMT Message-ID: Date: Mon, 10 Feb 1997 21:30:37 +0000 To: bigfoot@idt.net Cc: bridge-laws From: michael amos Subject: Re: Strange Claim In-Reply-To: <32FF8D54.6107@mail.idt.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In message <32FF8D54.6107@mail.idt.net>, Irwin Kostal writes > there seems to be an >assumption that declarer would discover the club blockage before he >plays the queen. I've just read a whole weeks worth of postings on this hand and this worries me too - if i forget an outstanding trump in a claim I can never 'remember' until the trump is there on the table in front of me. If my claim fails to notice a blockage why should i be assumed to notice it before it is too late - ie the suit is blocked i agree with those posters who argue that there is no stated line at all - not with David S's view that the player has stated a line based on overtaking the club honours - as a td i am with Jesper here - no chance of 12 tricks :) - an irrational and careless claim has been adjudicated in a way which i am sure most players would find fair (except perhaps for declarer) (new software hope this works properly - shall be reading the manual soon :) along wiuth the Law Book David :) mike -- michael amos From owner-bridge-laws Tue Feb 11 20:41:38 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id UAA01454 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 11 Feb 1997 20:41:38 +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 UAA01446 for ; Tue, 11 Feb 1997 20:41:28 +1100 Received: from coruncanius.demon.co.uk ([194.222.115.176]) by relay-9.mail.demon.net id aa915760; 11 Feb 97 9:37 GMT Message-ID: <9DUVaCAT8+$yEwvO@coruncanius.demon.co.uk> Date: Tue, 11 Feb 1997 04:01:23 +0000 To: Jesper Dybdal Cc: Bridge Laws List From: Labeo Subject: Re: Strange Claim In-Reply-To: <3303629c.3917422@pipmail.dknet.dk> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In message <3303629c.3917422@pipmail.dknet.dk>, Jesper Dybdal writes >On Mon, 10 Feb 1997 09:57:26 +0000, Labeo > wrote: >>In message <32ff5098.1474470@pipmail.dknet.dk>, Jesper Dybdal >> writes >> >Labeo said: >> Declarer is stuck with his statement of claim and because he >>has played on Spades there is now only the one way to play the hand to >>conform to the statement; it happens to work and he has 12 tricks. The >>TD must not start inventing lines of play for declarer. > [ snipped - we have all read it - ] >> Jesper says: As for sympathy: I admit that I have a lot of sympathy for >non-offending players whose opponents try to get the TD to win >contracts which they quite possibly would not be able to win on their >own. And what's more, I believe that sympathy to be prescribed in the >laws. Labeo: now that, Jesper, is totally unjustified. There is no breath here of trying to get something from the TD which he can't get for himself. This is just a sloppy statement of claim but a lucky one. And non=offending players are allowed to have bad luck at times without our bending the laws to protect them from it. But going back to the claim, as I have read it declarer has said he can cash his contract in top tricks. The one thing we cannot do after that is to let him lead a suit in which he does not have top tricks. The only legitimate line is to cash suits - just that, nothing else. As for counting A.K.Q.J. in the suit, again you seem to be putting words in his mouth which he reportedly did not say; we are told he said he had four tricks in the suit - if he *said* "AKQJ" then of course he cannot enjoy them since after plucking two he is cut off from the others, but if he just said 'four tricks' the only question is whether he has four top tricks in clubs, not what they are. There is a very serious principle here: in following a statement of claim the TD must apply the exact statement of the claimant, not adjust it, not decide he meant something a bit different from what he said. This claim is not ambiguous; it may be based on confused thinking, if he had thought more clearly he might have said something rather different, but when the claimer has put his claim in plain words he is bound by what he has said; - he would be bound when it fails, he is equally bound when it succeeds and it is *not* for the TD to be going off on some journey of his own. Adjudication of a claim is an ascertainment of fact governed by the words of the claimer set against the relentless imperatives of the cards. Labeo From owner-bridge-laws Tue Feb 11 22:19:10 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id WAA02044 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 11 Feb 1997 22:19:10 +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 WAA02039 for ; Tue, 11 Feb 1997 22:19:01 +1100 Received: from innet.innet.be (pool03-39.innet.be [194.7.10.39]) by mail.be.innet.net (8.7.6/8.7.3) with SMTP id MAA03769 for ; Tue, 11 Feb 1997 12:18:54 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: <32FF1E9F.668A@innet.be> Date: Mon, 10 Feb 1997 13:11:59 +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: Strange Claim References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Labeo wrote: > > > Labeo: In the red herring example declarer's attention was forced > to his mistake by the appearance of the trump and he had only one > rational line of play when that happened. Here there is nothing to > force the possible flaw in his statement upon his attention. The play > of the cards to the first eight tricks will not do it. Jesper wants > to oblige him to find out before he comes down to his five card ending > with four clubs and a heart in dummy; but why? We do not have the power > to decree this must have happened. We know declarer is asleep and there > is no reason even to think he would wake up sooner. > Declarer is stuck with his statement of claim and because he > has played on Spades there is now only the one way to play the hand to > conform to the statement; it happens to work and he has 12 tricks. The > TD must not start inventing lines of play for declarer. > > Labeo: there are no doubtful points; declarer has told us his line of > play and we can implement it. > > Labeo: "clearly be discovered in the play" is wrong. And nothing is > inevitable here until we come to cash the four claimed club tricks. > > > Labeo: I do not understand why Jesper should say this. He is putting > his sympathies before his duty to apply the line of play that declarer > has stated. When the claimant has stated a clear line of play the > director's task is to test it and see if it works; this one does and > no matter how garbled the director judges declarer's thinking to have > been it is not his job to intervene and say 'but if you had played it > out you would actually have done something else'. The accident that > the contract does not go down, because of the club position, is not > a matter for the TD. We are not playing the hand out, we are ruling > on a claim in which the player has stated his play; for the director > the question is a factual one. Declarer has made his bed and must > lie on it: it turns out to be very comfortable. The odds were it > would not, but we are not here to see that justice is done if it is > not in the cards. > > Labeo Labeo, this 'feels' wrong, but it is very hard to try and figure where you went wrong. Try this one for size : Everybody knows that declarer got it wrong. He cannot cash four club winners. So we must decide how the play will proceed. At some moment in time, declarer will realize that he cannot win four top clubs. 1-I contend this is straight away. 2-I believe it was Jesper who said this will be after the cashing of the diamonds (which leads him to give two down after the heart to the jack). 3-David S and you think it will be when he tackles the clubs, and you now force him to play clubs regardless, and overtake. 4-nobody has yet suggested that it only happens after cashing KQ of clubs. Why not ? If you think this declarer is so stupid as to not notice the extra possibility of the hearts entry, then why not let him cash KQ and now notice there's nothing left on the table but hearts ? It is very easy to get a claim wrong. You think you have all tricks, but when you have to play them, you suddenly find that there's a problem. OTOH, it is very hard to play this hand wrong. When any declarer (but the most stupid beginner) is faced with this problem, it is obvious that the club problem is discovered. Even before a single card is played. There is only one correct moment where this mistake is 'discovered'. That is at the same moment as the claim. It is clear that the claim is therefor incorrect and we must decide upon its merits by listing the various logical options for declarer at the moment of dicovery that the stated line is flawed. Let me try once more : Just suppose declarer has just put his cards down, without any statement. The claim is clear, he intends to take nothing but top tricks. Yet it is flawed. So we must play it out. There are three possible lines (normal ones, not irrational ones), one of which goes down. Or suppose declarer holds KQ of hearts. Again the claim is made without any comment, but that there are 12 top tricks. Again the claim is defective. We will just have to play any 'normal' line. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.club.innet.be/~pub02163/index.htm From owner-bridge-laws Wed Feb 12 00:50:05 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA05587 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 12 Feb 1997 00:50:05 +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 AAA05582 for ; Wed, 12 Feb 1997 00:49:55 +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 IAA04608 for ; Tue, 11 Feb 1997 08:49:48 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <1.5.4.32.19970211134914.0067be58@cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.4 (32) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Tue, 11 Feb 1997 08:49:14 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: Quick Opinions Needed Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 02:09 PM 2/9/97 -0500, Alan wrote: >In a message dated 97-02-07 15:39:41 EST, Adam writes: > >> Are we saying that >> in order to get this result restored, N-S aren't allowed to commit >> any judgement errors? > >I hope noone thinks I was suggesting that. I think there is a big difference >between a judgement error and a "bad" bid. This, I think, is the heart of the "consequent-vs.-merely-subsequent" debate. I strongly disagree with Alan here; I think that in most cases there's little or no difference, and that what difference there is, if any, is purely subjective. I don't think players make bad bids knowing that they're bad bids; they make them thinking that they're good bids. And isn't thinking that what we (or most people, or a TD, or an AC) would consider to be a bad bid is a good bid exactly what we mean by "error in judgment"? (I write "in most cases" to cover "double shots", cases where a player makes what HE judges to be a bad bid in anticipation of a prospective reversal by the TD or AC of his likely bad result.) I will happily reverse myself and agree with Alan if and when someone writes a coherent and useful guideline for TDs and ACs that objectively defines the "difference between a judgment error and a 'bad' bid". But I'm not holding my breath. 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 Wed Feb 12 01:26:42 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA05874 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 12 Feb 1997 01:26:42 +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 BAA05869 for ; Wed, 12 Feb 1997 01:26:32 +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 JAA09277 for ; Tue, 11 Feb 1997 09:26:19 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <1.5.4.32.19970211142545.006852c4@cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.4 (32) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Tue, 11 Feb 1997 09:25:45 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: Quick Opinions Needed Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 06:58 PM 2/8/97 +0000, David wrote: > So, I propose that, if one side is having an adjustment made against >their score, the other side should not receive the benefit if: > >either [a] they took an action so outlandish that it can *only* be > explained as an attempt at a double shot > or [b] they took an action that was not a Logical Alternative I think this is right on target, although I'd cut-and-paste it a bit: "...the other side should not receive the benefit [only] if they took an action so outlandish that it can *only* be explained as an attempt at a double shot. "Definition: "Outlandish action: An action that was not a Logical Alternative." If we accept any criterion less stringent than David's, we can easily imagine the day when we'll be sitting as an AC in the following scenario: In case #1, a player in possession of UI has taken action Y, and we adjust the score to the result that he would have gotten had he taken LA action X. In case #2, a player whose opponents have committed an infraction has taken action X, which we deem to be a sufficiently egregious error to break the connection between infraction and damage, so we split the score and refuse to give him an adjusted result -- because HE MADE THE SAME BID ON THE SAME HAND IN THE SAME AUCTION that we REQUIRED of the player in case #1. Intuitively, this would seem irrational. 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 Wed Feb 12 01:55:37 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA06065 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 12 Feb 1997 01:55:37 +1100 Received: from emout20.mail.aol.com (emout20.mx.aol.com [198.81.11.46]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id BAA06059 for ; Wed, 12 Feb 1997 01:55:30 +1100 From: AlLeBendig@aol.com Received: (from root@localhost) by emout20.mail.aol.com (8.7.6/8.7.3/AOL-2.0.0) id JAA25754 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Tue, 11 Feb 1997 09:54:55 -0500 (EST) Date: Tue, 11 Feb 1997 09:54:55 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <970211095455_1895271109@emout20.mail.aol.com> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Quick Opinions Needed Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In a message dated 97-02-10 10:48:17 EST, Steve writes: > How does this apply to the 5H bid in question? Most of us agree 5H was > inferior, but I don't see that it comes anywhere near the level of > awfulness that would preclude redress. We cannot even prove the bid is > wrong! It's easy to construct hands where it would work, *especially* > if the 5D bid is not an infraction after all. Personnaly, I rate dbl as 100, pass as 65-70 (I believe it is forcing) and 5H as 10. Only one of our respondents seemed to give it much more value than that. And if the bid has a good chance of being right, don't you think partner will make the bid? Pass or double here does not commit the pair to a final decision. And if partner bids 5H on what looks like a close decision or even reasonable decision, I would never suggest no adjustment. A 5H bid at this point is a final decision with a hand that most seem to recognize as not qualified to make a final decision. > And a NO is certainly > entitled to assume that the opponents' actions are not infractions > and expect redress if they are. > > Sorry, Alan, but I think you were too hard on the NO's this time, > though I don't think it was an "egregious" TD error. :-) Now I'm relieved!:-) > > suppose S thought they were in a forcing pass situation and passed 5D to > give > > his partner the option of double or 5H. It comes around to N and who > doesn't > > think this is a forcing pass and the auction ends. > > Now _this_ is a situation where I might well consider the error egregious. > If there is a clear agreement that pass is forcing, North has blundered > by passing a forcing call. If not, South has blundered by failing to > show sound values in an ambiguous auction. You misunderstood. There wasn't a clear agreement in my model. S thought it would apply and N didn't. Since many of our respondents questioned if this was a forcing pass by S, that is an error that could happen to many pairs without either having done anything egregious or close to it. I view this predicament as clearly being consequent since they were forced into an unclear area by the infraction. For Eric's case, I classify this as an error in judgement in which one thought an agreement existed ans the other didn't. I have no trouble adjusting now. Not to give them the 800 that was available, but rather the 620. > At least one of those actions > is far worse than the 5H bid, at least in my perhaps poor bridge judgment. No if they had a simple misunderstand as to the meaning of a pass. > (If there is any doubt whether pass is forcing, I'd much rather bid 5H > than pass.) One who passed here would surely not think there was any doubt. I've certainly been in many situations where I knew exactly what a bid meant only to find out the idiot across the table (only teasing, guys) was on another page. I don't perceive those situations as egregious bridge errors. Just normal misunderstandings - judgement errors. > Even in this situation, which I perceive as far worse than the actual > one, I would vote for consequent and adjust for the NO's. The NO's are > still playing bridge, even if badly. We finally arrived at a point of agreement. At least as far as this being consequent damage and deserving an adjustment. I don't agree that this new model even approaches be as bad an "error" as the 5H bid. Alan LeBendig > From owner-bridge-laws Wed Feb 12 02:27:16 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA06373 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 12 Feb 1997 02:27:16 +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 CAA06367 for ; Wed, 12 Feb 1997 02:27:07 +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 KAA11809 for ; Tue, 11 Feb 1997 10:26:31 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <1.5.4.32.19970211152557.00688984@cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.4 (32) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Tue, 11 Feb 1997 10:25:57 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: Strange Claim Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 09:57 AM 2/10/97 +0000, Labeo wrote: >In message <32ff5098.1474470@pipmail.dknet.dk>, Jesper Dybdal > writes >>In our "Strange Claim" case, we also have a claimer that states a line >>of play that is meaningless; it is obvious that he has not noticed the >>club blockage. If the board was actually played out, he would >>undoubtedly at some time realize that the clubs were blocked. He >>would then reconsider his line of play. The result of this >>reconsideration will be either to overtake a club or to lead towards >>the hearts, possibly depending on whether or not he has taken the >>diamonds before discovering the blocking club. > >Labeo: In the red herring example declarer's attention was forced >to his mistake by the appearance of the trump and he had only one >rational line of play when that happened. Here there is nothing to >force the possible flaw in his statement upon his attention. The play >of the cards to the first eight tricks will not do it. Jesper wants >to oblige him to find out before he comes down to his five card ending >with four clubs and a heart in dummy; but why? We do not have the power >to decree this must have happened. We know declarer is asleep and there >is no reason even to think he would wake up sooner. > Declarer is stuck with his statement of claim and because he >has played on Spades there is now only the one way to play the hand to >conform to the statement; it happens to work and he has 12 tricks. The >TD must not start inventing lines of play for declarer. >> >>The TD "adjucates the result of the board as quitably as possible to >>both sides, but any doubtful points shall be resolved against the >>claimer" (L70A). > >Labeo: there are no doubtful points; declarer has told us his line of >play and we can implement it. I'll get into this discussion by reinforcing the key point already made: An enumeration of top tricks should not be taken to imply the order in which they will be cashed (other than that any given suit will be played from the top). The cash order is therefore "[a] doubtful point [which] shall be resolved against the claimer." If declarer tables his hand in a 4-card ending and announces "I have a trump and three top clubs", but has forgotten that there's a smaller trump outstanding, Labeo's logic would have us rule that declarer is deemed to have drawn the outstanding trump merely because he mentioned the word "trump" before the word "clubs" in his original statement. I don't believe any of us, however, including Labeo, would interpret L70C that way. Yet that's exactly equivalent to arguing that "five spades, three diamonds and four clubs" determines "the play of the cards to the first eight tricks". That doesn't wash; the order in which declarer plays his cards to the first eight tricks in this case is surely "a doubtful point which shall be resolved against the claimer". 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 Wed Feb 12 02:34:15 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA06436 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 12 Feb 1997 02:34:15 +1100 Received: from relay-11.mail.demon.net (relay-11.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.137]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id CAA06430 for ; Wed, 12 Feb 1997 02:34:07 +1100 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by relay-11.mail.demon.net id ac1109201; 11 Feb 97 15:15 GMT Message-ID: Date: Tue, 11 Feb 1997 15:13:08 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Strange Claim In-Reply-To: <199702101435.JAA22451@freenet3.carleton.ca> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk A. L. Edwards wrote: > >I'm with those who think declarer must be awarded 12 tricks. >His original statement said nothing about heart tricks; >therefore, he can't suddenly ask, or be compelled to >try, for them. As well, consider this: suppose, as one poster >suggested, that the HK was not accompanied by the HJ; in >this scenario, declarer would be awarded 12 tricks. Would the >defenders not now be justified in complaining when the CT >was *not* dropping? Would we not all be awarding 6H-1? >Yes, the declarer made a bad claim, but sometimes the cards >make us side not with St. Anthony, but with Loki. One of my correspondents has sent me this: Dear David, When Jan Cohen had me sit on ACs years ago she said it was to represent the Flight C players (when she was feeling kind she would upgrade the 'C' to a 'B' ). In the original case (as well as this one) we Flight B/C players would expect a result of down one. When declarer gets done running his spades and diamonds and leads the putative heart (whether towards the KJ or the K alone) we'd hop the ace to cash the diamond jack. Just another example of our tendancy to cash the setting trick, I guess. I find it difficult to follow the logic that declarer would establish that the club suit is blocked in time to avoid cashing diamonds and setting up the J in the N hand, particularly as people are reading the claim as specifying an order in which he will cash his tricks. FFTQFTE, if you so desire. Regards, Dear David, I have been too obscure before in my correspondence with you, so let me clear up my previous post. I, too, would give declarer 12 tricks *if and only if* the 10 of clubs drops. From the poorly stated claim, there is *no* indication that declarer is going to discover the club blockage *before he has cashed his diamonds*. Thus, I would have him cash spades and diamonds. *At that point* I *do not* think that playing a heart is a viable play, whether or not there is the J of hearts in dummy. I postulate that no defender holding the heart A and four diamonds is *ever* going to duck and allow declarer to actually make this hand if he guesses right. It was irritating to see this line of discussion, because it postulated the defense (the NOs, right?) going to sleep at exactly the fortuitous moment. Regards, -- 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 Feb 12 05:33:24 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA13987 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 12 Feb 1997 05:33:24 +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 FAA13981 for ; Wed, 12 Feb 1997 05:33:08 +1100 Received: from localhost by flash.irvine.com id aa08113; 11 Feb 97 10:32 PST To: Bridge Laws List CC: adam@flash.irvine.com Subject: Re: Strange Claim In-reply-to: Your message of "Tue, 11 Feb 1997 04:01:23 PST." <9DUVaCAT8+$yEwvO@coruncanius.demon.co.uk> Date: Tue, 11 Feb 1997 10:32:17 PST From: Adam Beneschan Message-ID: <9702111032.aa08113@flash.irvine.com> Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Labeo writes: [snip] > As for counting A.K.Q.J. in the suit, again you seem to be putting words > in his mouth which he reportedly did not say; we are told he said he had > four tricks in the suit - if he *said* "AKQJ" then of course he cannot > enjoy them since after plucking two he is cut off from the others, but > if he just said 'four tricks' the only question is whether he has four > top tricks in clubs, not what they are. The position is KQ AJ9x Some of us are saying that when East claimed four club tricks, this could mean only the four top honors. Labeo is saying that this is "putting words in his mouth". But how could you construct a scenario in which East means something other than exactly that? I can see several possible scenarios: (a) East was asleep and thought the 9 was really the 10, or that the 9 ranked directly below the jack in this deck. (Note: The 9 does rank directly below the jack in some games, but in those games the 10 ranks above the king, so it won't help us here to assume that East thought he was playing Skat or something. :-) (b) East thought the club 10 had been played already. (I can't buy that since the claim occurred quite early in the hand.) (c) East was hoping for the club 10 to drop. (d) East for some reason thought that no opponent could have more than three clubs and that therefore the 10 would have to drop. If you accept (c), then aren't you yourself putting words in East's mouth? To make a claim like this, East would have to say "I'm going to take four clubs if the 10 drops and three if it doesn't." Clearly, this was not part of his original statement. So if your intent is not to put words in East's mouth, (c) goes out the window. I've already mentioned that (b) is extremely unlikely and must also be rejected. (d) should be rejected, also; there are seven unplayed clubs, which is way too many for even a sleepy East to think that the missing honor *must* drop. This leaves (a) as a possibility. I'll admit that I've been asleep enough on occasion to be guilty of this sort of muddled thinking. However, let's allow that (a) is possible. Now, East's claim statement is ambiguous and could mean one of the following: (a) East thought the 9 was a winner (and was planning to overtake). (b) East intended the four top clubs to be the four club tricks of which he spoke (and was not planning to overtake). If I knew (a) were the case, I would definitely allow the claim. However, I think we can agree that (b) is a much more likely possibility than (a). But even if we don't allow the probability argument, we're left with an ambiguous claim statement. According to Law 70A, doubtful points have to be resolved against the claimer. Since interpretation (b) is worse than (a) for East's case, I believe that (b) is the interpretation that the director must go with, because of L70A. > There is a very serious > principle here: in following a statement of claim the TD must apply the > exact statement of the claimant, not adjust it, not decide he meant > something a bit different from what he said. As I've argued above, it seems clear that East most likely meant the A, K, Q, J. If you believe otherwise, I think *you're* the one who is deciding he meant something different from what he said. On the other hand, do you mean that "East simply meant he would take four club tricks", and that we can't add anything to that regarding which tricks we thought he meant? OK, if you allow that logic, then next time I hold these clubs: A1097 opposite KJ852 I will simply lay down my hand and claim five club tricks. Since I didn't specify which cards I meant, you have to allow me to take the line which allows me to take five club tricks. (Yes, I know that L70E might apply here; but if L70E weren't on the books, would you allow me a claim like this?) > This claim is not > ambiguous; it may be based on confused thinking, if he had thought more > clearly he might have said something rather different, but when the > claimer has put his claim in plain words he is bound by what he has > said; My argument here is that the claim is NOT fulfillable. East said he would take the A, K, Q, J of clubs (yes, it's clear to me that's what he meant) without a heart trick, and there's no way to do this. Deciding that "he didn't say which four clubs he would take, and therefore we'll assume that he thought the 9 was a winner" doesn't cut it, because it's pretty clear to me this was *not* East's assumption (and by L70A, we have to assume it wasn't). Therefore, East's claim simply cannot be carried out. Allowing East to overtake the clubs is a superficially similar line to the one he proposed---but it's still not what he said. The Laws don't specifically say what happens when a claim statement is impossible to fulfill. However, I think that any other possible line must be considered a "new line", and L70D applies. -- Adam From owner-bridge-laws Wed Feb 12 05:58:03 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA15858 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 12 Feb 1997 05:58:03 +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 FAA15850 for ; Wed, 12 Feb 1997 05:57:49 +1100 Received: from localhost by flash.irvine.com id aa09001; 11 Feb 97 10:57 PST To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au CC: adam@flash.irvine.com Subject: Re: Strange Claim In-reply-to: Your message of "Tue, 11 Feb 1997 15:13:08 PST." Date: Tue, 11 Feb 1997 10:57:08 PST From: Adam Beneschan Message-ID: <9702111057.aa09001@flash.irvine.com> Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Stevenson wrote: > One of my correspondents has sent me this: > > > Dear David, > When Jan Cohen had me sit on ACs years ago she said it was to represent > the Flight C players (when she was feeling kind she would upgrade the 'C' to > a 'B' ). > > In the original case (as well as this one) we Flight B/C players would > expect a result of down one. When declarer gets done running his spades > and diamonds and leads the putative heart (whether towards the KJ or the K > alone) we'd hop the ace to cash the diamond jack. > > Just another example of our tendancy to cash the setting trick, I guess. > I find it difficult to follow the logic that declarer would establish that > the club suit is blocked in time to avoid cashing diamonds and setting up > the J in the N hand, particularly as people are reading the claim as > specifying an order in which he will cash his tricks. > > FFTQFTE, if you so desire. > > Regards, > > > > > Dear David, > I have been too obscure before in my correspondence with you, so let me > clear up my previous post. > > I, too, would give declarer 12 tricks *if and only if* the 10 of clubs > drops. > > From the poorly stated claim, there is *no* indication that declarer is > going to discover the club blockage *before he has cashed his diamonds*. > > Thus, I would have him cash spades and diamonds. *At that point* I *do > not* think that playing a heart is a viable play, whether or not there is > the J of hearts in dummy. I postulate that no defender holding the heart A > and four diamonds is *ever* going to duck and allow declarer to actually > make this hand if he guesses right. It was irritating to see this line of > discussion, because it postulated the defense (the NOs, right?) going to > sleep at exactly the fortuitous moment. Both of these replies assume that declarer will run spades and diamonds before working on clubs. Although this thread has involved discussions of whether East's claim statement specified the order in which the tricks are taken, neither reply assumes that this order is mandated by the claim statement. Rather, both replies say that declarer *could* run spades and diamonds before noticing the club blockage, and thereby endplay himself into taking the inferior but winning line. Yes, he could. IMHO, that's completely irrelevant. In making my arguments to disallow the claim, my thinking has had to go through several refinements as people brought up additional points or forced me to think even more deeply about the problem. So while in a previous reply I argued that the claim statement doesn't imply a particular order of trick-taking, I now think that there are sufficient reasons to disallow the claim without concern for when the diamonds will be cashed. Here's my argument to date: (1) There is no line of play consistent with declarer's claim statement. Declarer stated he would take four club tricks. The 9 is not a winner; declarer made no statement to the effect that he was hoping to drop the 10; we therefore must assume that declarer meant the four top club honors when he made his claim. There is no way for declarer to take the four top club honors without taking a heart trick (or executing a steppingstone squeeze). (2) Since declarer's claim is logically impossible to execute, any line that is possible to execute must be considered a "new line" for the purposes of L70D. This includes the line in which the second club is overtaken. (3) To determine whether this "new line" is allowed, according to L70D, we must determine whether there is an alternative normal line that would be less successful. These alternative normal lines do not have to bear any relation to the original claim statement; the only requirement is that they be "normal", i.e. not irrational. (4) As the above correspondents pointed out, one normal line would be not to notice the club blockage. Declarer cashes spades and diamonds; at that point, one rational option is figure that a heart lead will probably beat the contract, and rely on the 10 of clubs dropping. (5) Another rational option is not to notice the club blockage and cash spades and diamonds; then, noticing the problem, unblock clubs and hope the defender with the heart ace doesn't have the long diamond. (6) Yet another rational option is to notice the club blockage and unblock clubs and play hearts before touching diamonds. All of these lines, (4), (5), and (6), would be normal lines of play for the purposes of L70D. (7) Because there are several normal lines, it is irrelevant that the line in (4) would succeed, because the lines in (5) and (6) would fail. Law 70D says we must disallow the claim if there is *any* normal line that would be less successful than the proposed one. So, by applying the Laws, I determine that the claim is not allowed. I really do not see how anyone could argue with (2) through (7) of the above argument; they appear to me to be clear applications of the Laws. Only (1) should be subject to dispute. -- Adam From owner-bridge-laws Wed Feb 12 05:58:14 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA15874 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 12 Feb 1997 05:58:14 +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 FAA15859 for ; Wed, 12 Feb 1997 05:58:04 +1100 Received: from cph56.ppp.dknet.dk (cph56.ppp.dknet.dk [194.192.100.56]) by pip.dknet.dk (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id TAA11998 for ; Tue, 11 Feb 1997 19:57:48 +0100 From: Jesper Dybdal To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Strange Claim Date: Tue, 11 Feb 1997 19:57:45 +0100 Organization: at home Message-ID: <3305bce2.3024849@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 Tue, 11 Feb 1997 15:13:08 +0000, David Stevenson quoted someone else: > From the poorly stated claim, there is *no* indication that = declarer is >going to discover the club blockage *before he has cashed his diamonds*. > > Thus, I would have him cash spades and diamonds. *At that point* I= *do >not* think that playing a heart is a viable play, whether or not there = is >the J of hearts in dummy. I postulate that no defender holding the = heart A >and four diamonds is *ever* going to duck and allow declarer to actually >make this hand if he guesses right. _If_ we interpret his claim as specifying that diamonds are to be cashed before clubs (which I don't), then leading a heart is not a very good chance, but it is _some_ chance after all: nobody says that the DJ has to in the same hand as the HA. Leading a heart in that situation wins only if declarer guesses the hearts correctly _and_ the opponent with the HA does not have the DJ. This is about 25%, and thus probably a worse chance than overtaking the club (I haven't calculated the chances of dropping the C10). So it is an "inferior", but not necessarily "irrational" play. However, I believe that - as Adam Beneschan has argued very convincingly - the claim does not specify an order in which to cash suits, and the TD must therefore rule that they are cashed in the order that is least advantageous to declarer. --=20 Jesper Dybdal, Denmark From owner-bridge-laws Wed Feb 12 06:05:25 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA15919 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 12 Feb 1997 06:05:25 +1100 Received: from pip.dknet.dk (pip.dknet.dk [193.88.44.48]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id FAA15884 for ; Wed, 12 Feb 1997 05:58:23 +1100 Received: from cph56.ppp.dknet.dk (cph56.ppp.dknet.dk [194.192.100.56]) by pip.dknet.dk (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id TAA11987 for ; Tue, 11 Feb 1997 19:57:28 +0100 From: Jesper Dybdal To: Bridge Laws List Subject: Re: Strange Claim Date: Tue, 11 Feb 1997 19:57:25 +0100 Organization: at home Message-ID: <3306bd52.3136800@pipmail.dknet.dk> References: <9DUVaCAT8+$yEwvO@coruncanius.demon.co.uk> In-Reply-To: <9DUVaCAT8+$yEwvO@coruncanius.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 Tue, 11 Feb 1997 04:01:23 +0000, Labeo wrote: > Labeo: now that, Jesper, is totally unjustified. There is no breath >here of trying to get something from the TD which he can't get for >himself. This is just a sloppy statement of claim ... Sorry, you're quite right - I obviously wrote that too fast. What I meant was that I have sympathy for players whose opponents actually _do_ win contracts with the help of the TD that they might not win by themselves. Nothing wrong with the actions of the players at all, only with the TD's ruling. Do we agree that if the declarer had actually played out the hand with the initial intention of following his stated line of play, then there is a significant chance that the contract would fail? If you do _not_ agree with that, there is no problem - then our disagreement is not over principles but only over the evaluation of the specific case. If you _do_ agree with that, then by your ruling declarer wins a contract by making a sloppy claim that he quite probably would not win if he played the cards himself. That is IMO totally unacceptable - it is the claimer's responsibility to state a line of play that convinces the TD that he would actually be able to get the claimed number of tricks on his own. >As for counting A.K.Q.J. in the suit, again you seem to be putting words >in his mouth which he reportedly did not say; we are told he said he had >four tricks in the suit - if he *said* "AKQJ" then of course he cannot >enjoy them since after plucking two he is cut off from the others, but >if he just said 'four tricks' the only question is whether he has four >top tricks in clubs, not what they are. He might also try to get those 4 tricks by getting an entry in hearts or by cashing the club KQ and vaguely hoping that he would somehow later on find himself in hand - quite consistent with the sloppyness of the claim. > This claim is not >ambiguous; it may be based on confused thinking, if he had thought more >clearly he might have said something rather different, but when the >claimer has put his claim in plain words he is bound by what he has >said; ... It is ambiguous, since it does not clarify how the problem of blocking clubs is to be solved. Declarer has claimed by posing a problem: how to get 4 club tricks? But he has not given the solution. The TD should not solve such problems for a claimer. > - he would be bound when it fails, he is equally bound when it >succeeds and it is *not* for the TD to be going off on some journey=20 >of his own. Bound only if his line of play clearly states what to about problems (such as blocking clubs or unexpected outstanding trumps) that will actually occur on the way. Otherwise, when such a problem occurs, we are back to a situation like the one with no stated line of play, so we have to find the least successful play that is not "irrational". And I must admit that I still don't understand why you believe this declarer should so clearly be bound by his "claim in plain words", while the declarer in my example of a forgotten outstanding trump should not, even though his claim was much clearer and plainer. --=20 Jesper Dybdal, Denmark From owner-bridge-laws Wed Feb 12 08:21:22 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA16742 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 12 Feb 1997 08:21:22 +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 IAA16737 for ; Wed, 12 Feb 1997 08:21:15 +1100 Received: (from lighton@localhost) by styx.ios.com (8.8.3/8.6.9) id QAA19381 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Tue, 11 Feb 1997 16:21:08 -0500 (EST) Date: Tue, 11 Feb 1997 16:21:08 -0500 (EST) From: Richard Lighton Message-Id: <199702112121.QAA19381@styx.ios.com> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Subject: Re: Strange Claim Hell, by now I can't find a copy of the hand! I think nobody has made a new point in quite a while, and we are not all going to agree. Is there anybody who still believes that declarer has stated a line of play? Last time I thought I noticed, David Stevenson was in that camp, but alone. The rest of us seem to have agreed that a claim of "I'm going to take 5 spades, 3 diamonds, and 4 clubs" did not specify an order. If it does specify a trick taking order, I assert that it is illogical to reach the position after trick 9: -- -- xx K x -- Q AJ9 and NOT realise that there is a club blockage. So if we say that an order of tricks has been specified, then the contract makes if the C10 drops. I think the majority view is that an order has not been specified, and that it is rational to realize AT THE LATEST that there is a problem in the above position. So if the C10 is adequately guarded, declarer can be forced to go down by reaching that position; he has no rational alternative play. If the C10 is unguarded, we have to assume that he will notice earlier, and have alternative lines available. The worst case from his point of view is -- -- xx KJ Qx -- Q AJ9 If he realizes in this position that the clubs are blocked, and the diamond position is unclear (one diamond has been thrown and both have followed to the AK), then a possible line is to cash the CQ and DQ, keeping both hearts, and play up to the KJ when the diamonds are unfavorable. If either of the A or Q is offside, declarer has to get it wrong, and if the AQ are both right, if North can hold a diamond, he will cash that. Declarer will go down unless The C10 is unguarded AND The HAQ are on side AND The diamond position is unclear and north can not hold a diamond. So, has west made a statement as to the order he will take his tricks? If so, he has to be allowed to make if the C10 behaves. If not, he is on a very low probability of success! Really, all the above might have contributed to the debate is the claim that in the first end-position, West's brain will be reduced to tears for him to think there is no club problem. At that point he has no options with the heart suit. Richard Lighton | Ask your brain: it'll tell you. A logical alternative (lighton@ios.com) | is one that did not reduce your brain to tears. Wood-Ridge NJ | USA | -- David Stevenson, on rec.games.bridge From owner-bridge-laws Wed Feb 12 09:27:11 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA17095 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 12 Feb 1997 09:27:11 +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 JAA17090 for ; Wed, 12 Feb 1997 09:27:05 +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 RAA01083 for ; Tue, 11 Feb 1997 17:00:20 -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 RAA07990 for ; Tue, 11 Feb 1997 17:21:22 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <1.5.4.32.19970211222044.0067c9e8@cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.4 (32) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Tue, 11 Feb 1997 17:20:44 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: Strange Claim Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 03:34 PM 2/10/97 +0000, David wrote: > I shall not go through my reasoning again. I think you know it. Let >me ask you a question, and please answer it to yourselves [yes, I know I >can trust you!] *before* you read on: is your approach to your ruling >based in any way on the defence's hands? Apart from posts agreeing with >me [a minority], most posts seem to agree that the *line* is irrelevant >to the defence's hands until you come to the heart guess: then they give >the opponent's the benefit of the doubt. Happy, are you? No, we "seem to agree that the *line* is irrelevant to the defence's hands until you come", not to the "heart guess", but to the "guess as to how to manage to take five spades, three diamonds and four clubs." There are three possible ways to do this: Heart to the king: 50% line, wins. Heart to the jack: 50% line, loses. Club overtake: 40% line, wins. This line is a perfect example of what the Laws mean by "careless or inferior, but not irrational". Since none of the above was specified in the original claim, we give the benefit of the doubt to the claimer's opponents by adjudicating on the assumption that declarer would have taken the losing line. > It has been pointed out that their ruling is that the hand makes if >the ace of hearts is onside if the jack of hearts is removed from dummy, >because then there is no guess. No, there's still a guess. Remove the jack of hearts and declarer now has only two possible ways to take the specified 12 tricks: heart to the king or club overtake. Since either line wins, we decide that, while there's still a guess, any (either) rational guess will yield 12 tricks, so we award 12 tricks. > Ok, everyone happy? Let's go for it! I am going to change the hand >very slightly. > >>>E is playing 6NT. The whole hand: > Jx > Axx > Jxxx > T642 >AQTxx Kx >xx Kxxxx >AKQ2 xx >KQ AJ97 > 9xxx > QJx > xxx > 853 > > No heart jack in the dummy. Your ruling: realise clubs are blocked, >play heart to king and pray, twelve tricks. No, because now there is still the same guess: heart to the king or club overtake. But this time one line wins and one line loses, so, just as in the original case, we assume that declarer would have taken the losing (perhaps, as is the case here, careless or inferior, but not irrational) line, and would go down. > My ruling [opinion unchanged]: playing heart not part of claim, so >attempt as best as possible to follow original line. This involves >overtaking club queen, eleven tricks, one off. My ruling: Neither playing heart nor overtaking club was specified, and neither is "irrational", so the choice is a "doubtful point" which must be "resolved against the claimer". So we resolve the point by "selecting" the overtake: eleven tricks, one off. > There was anger and feelings of it not being bridge in earlier posts. >In this case your line gives declarer a fully undeserved 50% shot: mine >gives him a fully deserved 40% shot. Are you sure that I am wrong? I'm not *sure* you're wrong, but I think you are. I'd say that your ruling gives declarer an undeserved 40% shot while mine gives him a fully deserved 20% shot. With no heart jack and the club ten dropping, the 20% shot comes in and he gets 12 tricks; in this case it doesn't come in, and he goes off. On the original hand, your ruling gives declarer the same undeserved 40% shot, which comes in, and he makes, while mine gives him a 10% shot, which doesn't come in, and he goes off. 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 Wed Feb 12 10:20:58 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA17553 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 12 Feb 1997 10:20:58 +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 KAA17548 for ; Wed, 12 Feb 1997 10:20:51 +1100 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by relay-7.mail.demon.net id aa709538; 11 Feb 97 16:57 GMT Message-ID: Date: Tue, 11 Feb 1997 16:53:03 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Strange Claim In-Reply-To: <32FF1E9F.668A@innet.be> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Herman De Wael wrote: >Let me try once more : > >Just suppose declarer has just put his cards down, without any >statement. The claim is clear, he intends to take nothing but top >tricks. Yet it is flawed. So we must play it out. There are three >possible lines (normal ones, not irrational ones), one of which goes >down. >Or suppose declarer holds KQ of hearts. Again the claim is made without >any comment, but that there are 12 top tricks. Again the claim is >defective. We will just have to play any 'normal' line. I do not believe that a claim without a statement is the same *at all* as the present case. He stated a line, which, while defective, must be followed as far as possible. -- 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 Feb 12 13:11:10 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id NAA18635 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 12 Feb 1997 13:11:10 +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 NAA18630 for ; Wed, 12 Feb 1997 13:11:03 +1100 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by relay-6.mail.demon.net id aa614291; 12 Feb 97 2:05 GMT Message-ID: Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 00:51:32 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Strange Claim In-Reply-To: <9702111057.aa09001@flash.irvine.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Adam Beneschan wrote: >Both of these replies assume that declarer will run spades and >diamonds before working on clubs. Although this thread has involved >discussions of whether East's claim statement specified the order in >which the tricks are taken, neither reply assumes that this order is >mandated by the claim statement. Rather, both replies say that >declarer *could* run spades and diamonds before noticing the club >blockage, and thereby endplay himself into taking the inferior but >winning line. > >Yes, he could. IMHO, that's completely irrelevant. > >In making my arguments to disallow the claim, my thinking has had to >go through several refinements as people brought up additional points >or forced me to think even more deeply about the problem. So while in >a previous reply I argued that the claim statement doesn't imply a >particular order of trick-taking, I now think that there are >sufficient reasons to disallow the claim without concern for when the >diamonds will be cashed. > >Here's my argument to date: > >(1) There is no line of play consistent with declarer's claim > statement. Declarer stated he would take four club tricks. The 9 > is not a winner; declarer made no statement to the effect that he > was hoping to drop the 10; we therefore must assume that declarer > meant the four top club honors when he made his claim. There is > no way for declarer to take the four top club honors without > taking a heart trick (or executing a steppingstone squeeze). > >(2) Since declarer's claim is logically impossible to execute, any > line that is possible to execute must be considered a "new line" > for the purposes of L70D. This includes the line in which the > second club is overtaken. [s] >So, by applying the Laws, I determine that the claim is not allowed. > >I really do not see how anyone could argue with (2) through (7) of the >above argument; they appear to me to be clear applications of the >Laws. Only (1) should be subject to dispute. Certainly I do not agree with (2). That is not the way claims are resolved, by allowing declarer to have another shot. Claims are resolved by the TD, not by the claimer. L40D appears to cater for the common case where the player attempts to embellish his claim. Not only should he not do so, but L70D is there to make sure it gains him nothing. -- 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 Feb 12 14:08:12 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id OAA18937 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 12 Feb 1997 14:08:12 +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 OAA18932 for ; Wed, 12 Feb 1997 14:08:06 +1100 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by relay-7.mail.demon.net id aa724267; 12 Feb 97 2:05 GMT Message-ID: Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 00:46:06 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Strange Claim In-Reply-To: <3306bd52.3136800@pipmail.dknet.dk> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Jesper Dybdal wrote: >On Tue, 11 Feb 1997 04:01:23 +0000, Labeo > wrote: > >> Labeo: now that, Jesper, is totally unjustified. There is no breath >>here of trying to get something from the TD which he can't get for >>himself. This is just a sloppy statement of claim ... > >Sorry, you're quite right - I obviously wrote that too fast. What I >meant was that I have sympathy for players whose opponents actually >_do_ win contracts with the help of the TD that they might not win by >themselves. Nothing wrong with the actions of the players at all, >only with the TD's ruling. > >Do we agree that if the declarer had actually played out the hand with >the initial intention of following his stated line of play, then there >is a significant chance that the contract would fail? Yes: because he may change his mind as to the line. We however, rule as though he is not going to change his mind. >If you do _not_ agree with that, there is no problem - then our >disagreement is not over principles but only over the evaluation of >the specific case. > >If you _do_ agree with that, then by your ruling declarer wins a >contract by making a sloppy claim that he quite probably would not win >if he played the cards himself. That is IMO totally unacceptable - it >is the claimer's responsibility to state a line of play that convinces >the TD that he would actually be able to get the claimed number of >tricks on his own. No, in the current case it is not a question of quite probably not winning. If, for example, he does cash his spades and diamonds, then his best chance is to overtake the clubs, since it needs more than the ace of hearts well placed. There is also the question of balance of probabilities. I think that we need to know how you would rule both with and without the heart jack in dummy, when the club ten is falling and when it isn't, with the heart ace and queen [if relevant] with LHO and RHO. My ruling is simple: I rule that he overtakes the club and makes it 40% of the time. At first sight it appears that others' rulings are that a] if there is no heart jack in dummy, declarer is not cashing the diamonds, but leading to the heart king for a 50% success rate b] if there is a heart jack in dummy, declarer is not cashing the diamonds, but leading to the heart king or jack and misguessing for a 25% success rate Is this right? Is it fair? Is this what declarer means by I'll take 5S's, 3D's and 4C's? >>As for counting A.K.Q.J. in the suit, again you seem to be putting words >>in his mouth which he reportedly did not say; we are told he said he had >>four tricks in the suit - if he *said* "AKQJ" then of course he cannot >>enjoy them since after plucking two he is cut off from the others, but >>if he just said 'four tricks' the only question is whether he has four >>top tricks in clubs, not what they are. > >He might also try to get those 4 tricks by getting an entry in hearts >or by cashing the club KQ and vaguely hoping that he would somehow >later on find himself in hand - quite consistent with the sloppyness >of the claim. > >> This claim is not >>ambiguous; it may be based on confused thinking, if he had thought more >>clearly he might have said something rather different, but when the >>claimer has put his claim in plain words he is bound by what he has >>said; ... > >It is ambiguous, since it does not clarify how the problem of blocking >clubs is to be solved. Declarer has claimed by posing a problem: how >to get 4 club tricks? But he has not given the solution. The TD >should not solve such problems for a claimer. > >> - he would be bound when it fails, he is equally bound when it >>succeeds and it is *not* for the TD to be going off on some journey >>of his own. > >Bound only if his line of play clearly states what to about problems >(such as blocking clubs or unexpected outstanding trumps) that will >actually occur on the way. Otherwise, when such a problem occurs, we >are back to a situation like the one with no stated line of play, so >we have to find the least successful play that is not "irrational". > >And I must admit that I still don't understand why you believe this >declarer should so clearly be bound by his "claim in plain words", >while the declarer in my example of a forgotten outstanding trump >should not, even though his claim was much clearer and plainer. AKQ - x - xxx x x xx - - - x -- JT9 - T Clubs are trumps. Cash the spades, he says, and I have a trump. Being a careless player he has forgotten that the hearts are good, and forgotten that he has an outstanding trump! Are you going to give the defence anything? I'm not. To go off you have to either make an irrational play [not overruffing] or a play that was not embraced by the original line, namely ruffing his diamond. When declarer makes a faulty claim we have to follow the line as far as we can. Sometimes declarer gets away with it. Shame! -- 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 Feb 12 14:44:32 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id OAA19095 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 12 Feb 1997 14:44:32 +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 OAA19090 for ; Wed, 12 Feb 1997 14:44:26 +1100 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by relay-7.mail.demon.net id aa713866; 11 Feb 97 23:21 GMT Message-ID: Date: Tue, 11 Feb 1997 23:06:48 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Strange Claim In-Reply-To: <9702111032.aa08113@flash.irvine.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Adam Beneschan wrote: >The Laws don't specifically say what happens when a claim statement is >impossible to fulfill. However, I think that any other possible line >must be considered a "new line", and L70D applies. The Laws do say what you do: that is the trouble! There is no suggestion in the Laws that the TD should give declarer any chance to embellish his statement. I do not believe that L70D has any relevance. Surely the TD just follows L70A and L70B? Surely you do not expect the TD to start asking the declarer for alternative lines of play? L70D says that alternative lines are not to be considered unless they are already covered, so what possible advantage is there to the TD allowing declarer a second bite at the cherry? -- 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 Feb 12 14:46:52 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id OAA19115 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 12 Feb 1997 14:46:52 +1100 Received: from irvine.com (flash.irvine.com [192.160.8.4]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id OAA19110 for ; Wed, 12 Feb 1997 14:46:41 +1100 Received: from localhost by flash.irvine.com id aa08209; 11 Feb 97 19:46 PST To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au CC: adam@flash.irvine.com Subject: Re: Strange Claim In-reply-to: Your message of "Wed, 12 Feb 1997 00:51:32 PST." Date: Tue, 11 Feb 1997 19:46:00 PST From: Adam Beneschan Message-ID: <9702111946.aa08209@flash.irvine.com> Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Stevenson responded to me: > >(2) Since declarer's claim is logically impossible to execute, any > > line that is possible to execute must be considered a "new line" > > for the purposes of L70D. This includes the line in which the > > second club is overtaken. > Certainly I do not agree with (2). That is not the way claims are > resolved, by allowing declarer to have another shot. Claims are > resolved by the TD, not by the claimer. [L70D] appears to cater for the > common case where the player attempts to embellish his claim. Not only > should he not do so, but L70D is there to make sure it gains him > nothing. OK, that's a good point. I never intended to give declarer "another shot"; rather, I was using L70D to ensure that no more tricks are given to declarer than would be given on the least successful alternative normal line. It's kind of ironic that you call this "giving declarer another shot", implying that it gives declarer some advantage, when in fact I was referring to this Law (and its phrases about alternative normal lines) to make sure that declarer was *not* advantaged more than I felt he should be. Maybe this should be called "allowing declarer to have another shot in his own foot." :-) Perhaps I should have proposed that the DIRECTOR, not the declarer, should be the one to evaluate the different possible lines. The point I've been trying to make is that all such lines should be considered in the context of L70D, which states that a "new line" is allowed only if no any normal alternative lines would be less successful. However, L70D does say "The Director shall not accept from claimer . . .", which weakens the argument that the conditions of L70D should apply when the director is the one evaluating the lines. To examine (2) further, let's assume, for the sake of argument, that we agree on my point (1), i.e. that declarer's claim statement is logically impossible and that no line of play is consistent with it. The Laws don't explicitly say what's supposed to happen in this case. There have been two lines of thinking on this thread regarding the director's proper course of action: (a) The director should follow the claim statement as closely as possible, effectively selecting the line of play that most closely resembles the claim statement. (b) The director should not follow the claim statement at all, since it represents an impossible line of play; instead, the director should determine what should happen by evaluating all normal alternative lines and selecting the one least advantageous to declarer. I can't find anything in the Laws that says that either interpretation (a) or (b) must be followed; nor can I find anything that says that either interpretation is illegal. My common sense tells me that (b) is a better interpretation; if a person makes a careless claim that makes no sense, a claim that "closely resembles" the illogical claim statement is still separate from the claimer's intent, just as much as a claim that wildly fails to resemble the claimer's statement. So in my view, if no line falls within what the claimer intended to say, there's no reason for the director to give one line preference over another. However, I'm basing this just on common sense, not on anything in the Laws. (The closest basis in the Laws that I can find is L70D, which disallows a "successful line of play not embraced in the original clarification statement if there is an alternative . . ." you know the rest. If the claim is logically impossible, then no line of play, successful or not, can be embraced in the original clarification statement. However, I've discussed above why this Law is a weak basis for my version of common sense.) So without anything else, the only thing that seems to guide us is Law 70A, which says that the director's goal is to be equitable but to resolve doubtful points in favor of the claimer's opponents. Since both (a) and (b) above seem to be allowed interpretations; this may mean that the director should apply whichever interpretation gives declarer a worse result (following the principle to resolve doubtful issues against the claimer). Anyway, this seems equitable to me. When someone makes a bad claim, it doesn't seem fair to the opponents to "assume" he meant a line that works luckily but bears only a superficial resemblance to the claimer's intent. (To those of you who have argued that "fairness" is irrelevant: you've done so because you believe the Laws require that a certain line be followed. However, I don't believe that is the case, and my argument is that 70A is perhaps the only guide that the director has in such cases, and 70A specifically mandates that the judgment be "equitable". Therefore, fairness is relevant.) Meanwhile, for those who believe that a defective claim statement must be followed as far as possible, how would you rule here? A6432 T3 753 762 KQ AKQJ97 AKQ9 A Assume a Flight C game. N-S skillfully avoid the laydown 7NT contract and play in 7H. After an opening trump lead, South lays down his hand and claims three spades, six hearts, three diamonds, and a club. This is a good hand for a textbook. The best line is to win in hand, unblock spades, lead to the trump ten, and try to cash the spade ace. It's not a sure thing, but it works whenever spades are 3-3, or one opponent is 2-2 in the majors; if East has two spades and ruffs the spade ace, you still have the chance of the J10 of diamonds dropping. (The alternative line is to draw six rounds of trumps and hope diamonds come down or that someone started with 4+ spades and 4+ diamonds.) After the actual claim, the director is called. Do you rule that, since declarer said he'd take three spade tricks, that you *must* assume declarer has taken the "textbook" line, because that is the only line in which declarer can possibly take three spade tricks? If so, we seem to have a situation in which declarer doesn't know what he's doing, but director, who knows more about the game than the players, "solves the problem" for declarer by means of his textbook knowledge. Somehow, this doesn't seem to me to be the right way to adjudicate claims. -- Adam From owner-bridge-laws Wed Feb 12 19:03:35 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id TAA19914 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 12 Feb 1997 19:03:35 +1100 Received: from tom.compulink.co.uk (tom.compulink.co.uk [194.153.0.51]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id TAA19909 for ; Wed, 12 Feb 1997 19:03:29 +1100 Received: (from root@localhost) by tom.compulink.co.uk (8.8.4/8.6.9) id IAA00470 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Wed, 12 Feb 1997 08:03:02 GMT Date: Wed, 12 Feb 97 08:02 GMT0 From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: Strange Claim 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 find myself agreeing with DWS on this one (wow!) but I think my rationale comes from a slgihtly different angle. Namely that Declarer has claimed 4 club tricks and that means that a discard from AJ9x is inconceivable, nor may declarer be permitted a heart switch before attempting to cash his own tricks as this is clearly in conflict with his original statement. If I am going to rule against declarer it must therefore be on the basis that he fails to overtake the second club. Personally I would regard that as irrational, even for a declarer too stupid to count his own tricks. I have sympathy for any TD who rules that it would be merely careless based on the obvious ineptitude of declarer, but not for those who rule this way because "declarer deserves to go down" as I think that judgement oversteps the TDs remit. Tim West-Meads. From owner-bridge-laws Wed Feb 12 20:37:45 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id UAA20198 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 12 Feb 1997 20:37:45 +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 UAA20193 for ; Wed, 12 Feb 1997 20:37:34 +1100 Received: by wsinfm04.win.tue.nl (8.7.1/1.45) id KAA18286; Wed, 12 Feb 1997 10:36:44 +0100 (MET) From: engels@win.tue.nl (Andre Engels) Message-Id: <199702120936.KAA18286@wsinfm04.win.tue.nl> Subject: Re: Strange Claim To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au (bridge laws list) Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 10:36:43 +0100 (MET) In-Reply-To: from "David Stevenson" at Feb 12, 97 00:46:06 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 David Stevenson: > There is also the question of balance of probabilities. I think that >we need to know how you would rule both with and without the heart jack >in dummy, when the club ten is falling and when it isn't, with the heart >ace and queen [if relevant] with LHO and RHO. My ruling is simple: I >rule that he overtakes the club and makes it 40% of the time. > > At first sight it appears that others' rulings are that >a] if there is no heart jack in dummy, declarer is not cashing the >diamonds, but leading to the heart king for a 50% success rate >b] if there is a heart jack in dummy, declarer is not cashing the >diamonds, but leading to the heart king or jack and misguessing for a >25% success rate > > Is this right? No. The ruling is: a] if there is no heart jack in dummy, declarer does the least succesful of: 1) leading hearts to the king 2) overtaking in clubs, giving a success rate of 20% b] if there is the heart jack in dummy, he has the extra possibility of leading hearts to the jack, giving 10% success rate. > > Is it fair? I don't know, but it's what the rules say. At least it's what most of us think they say. > > Is this what declarer means by I'll take 5S's, 3D's and 4C's? No. But overtaking isn't either. Either he did not mean any line of play, or an illegal one. Andre Engels From owner-bridge-laws Thu Feb 13 03:54:12 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA25343 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 03:54:12 +1100 Received: from mimas.glo.be (dns.glo.be [206.48.177.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id DAA25338 for ; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 03:54:03 +1100 Received: from phobos.glo.be (root@phobos.glo.be [206.48.176.11]) by mimas.glo.be (8.8.4/8.7.3) with ESMTP id RAA19362 for ; Wed, 12 Feb 1997 17:54:17 +0100 Received: from gi31451 (p2-25.z03.glo.be [206.48.186.57]) by phobos.glo.be (8.8.3/8.6.9) with ESMTP id SAA21797 for ; Wed, 12 Feb 1997 18:01:57 +0100 Message-Id: <199702121701.SAA21797@phobos.glo.be> From: "Fornoville Norbert" To: Subject: Re: Strange Claim Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 17:49:52 -0500 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet Mail 4.70.1132 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-MIME-Autoconverted: from 8bit to quoted-printable by mimas.glo.be id RAA19362 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk ---------- > From: David Stevenson > To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au > Subject: Re: Strange Claim > Date: 11 feb 97 11:53 >=20 > Herman De Wael wrote:=20 >=20 > >Let me try once more : > > > >Just suppose declarer has just put his cards down, without any > >statement. The claim is clear, he intends to take nothing but top > >tricks. Yet it is flawed. So we must play it out. There are three > >possible lines (normal ones, not irrational ones), one of which goes > >down. > >Or suppose declarer holds KQ of hearts. Again the claim is made withou= t > >any comment, but that there are 12 top tricks. Again the claim is > >defective. We will just have to play any 'normal' line. >=20 > I do not believe that a claim without a statement is the same *at all= *=20 > as the present case. He stated a line, which, while defective, must be= =20 > followed as far as possible. >=20 > --=20 > David Stevenson =20 > Well ,my try now ?? I think in judging a claim one always assumes a minimum bridgknowlegde o= f the claimer If one claims 3 tricks with K2 opposite to AQ3 ( one opponent having 3 spades), I accept that claimer will play the K on the first rond and the= n ace and queen, even when he did not mention this. If one claims 4 tricks with KQ opposite to AJT9 (even without an outside entry to AJT9), I accept that claimer will overtake the second club. If one claims 4 tricks with KQ opposite to AJ9x , I also accept and he MU= ST overtake his second club, all depending of the club ten for the making = of 3 or 4 tricks... ( he may not make his contract with Txxx in clubs and A= +Q hearths before K J, but what will those who disagree do now?) He did specify 5 spades + 3 diamonds ( he may not play a fourth one) + 4 clubs; not mentioning the hearths, he may not find a line of play where h= e plays on the hearth suit.. and I do not accept that he will not overtake the clubs If one claims and forgets an outstanding trump one is still allowed to overrruff... are you sure this will be always spotted by the claimer duri= ng normal play ?He allready proved not to be 100% attentive ... I am sure h= e will not always,and may already have discarded some loser before seeing that there is ruffed;=20 if you allow that ,can you object to a claim for 4 clubs tricks here ? otherwise one should not accept the overruff Telling to overtake the clubs would be of course much clear but .... And what when claiming (no side entries) 5 tricks in notrump contract wit= h AK72 versus 86543 assuming that the remaining cards split 2-2 ? Norbert Fornoville Antwerpen - Belgi=EB =20 From owner-bridge-laws Thu Feb 13 10:34:47 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA05956 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:34:47 +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 KAA05950 for ; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:34:39 +1100 Received: from localhost by flash.irvine.com id aa08549; 12 Feb 97 13:29 PST To: bridge laws list CC: adam@flash.irvine.com Subject: Re: Strange Claim In-reply-to: Your message of "Wed, 12 Feb 1997 10:36:43 PST." <199702120936.KAA18286@wsinfm04.win.tue.nl> Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 13:29:39 PST From: Adam Beneschan Message-ID: <9702121329.aa08549@flash.irvine.com> Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Pursuant to the thread about busted claims, I'd like opinions about how you would rule on the following claims. I'm interested in what Laws and principles apply, and how they should be applied. I might use some points in the responses to support my position about Sergei's original hand; I might also use those points to change my mind about the original hand. 1. This is the same as the original hand, except for a rather important change in the club spots. AQTxx Kx xx KJxxx AKQ2 xx KQ AJ43 East playing 6NT. Same line as before. Diamond lead won in dummy, spade king, spade ace, dropping the jack. Declarer claims five spades, three diamonds, four clubs. On the original hand, it's been argued that since East claimed four clubs, director must assume East has taken the only line in which four club tricks are possible, without a heart trick (since East didn't claim a heart trick). On the above hand, there is only one line in which four clubs are possible, the stepping-stone squeeze: cash all the spade and diamond winners, hoping someone is forced down to the bare heart ace and four clubs. (A diamond-club squeeze is not possible, since you can't rectify the count without setting up a heart trick, at which point the squeeze is pointless.) Do you rule that the stepping-stone squeeze is the line forced on East, and adjudicate the claim based on whether it succeeds or fails? If not, how do you rule? (Note that I've deliberately omitted the defender's hands.) 2. AK54 -- J52 AKQ643 642 AK103 542 AKQ East plays 6H. Trumps are 3-1. He wins the opening club lead, and absently cashes the ace, king, and QUEEN of hearts. Now he claims an overtrick, claiming six trumps, two spades, two diamonds, three clubs. What is the ruling? What Laws and/or principles are applied? -- Adam From owner-bridge-laws Thu Feb 13 10:34:53 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA05961 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:34:53 +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 KAA05955 for ; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:34:45 +1100 Received: from localhost by flash.irvine.com id aa08727; 12 Feb 97 13:34 PST To: bridge laws list CC: adam@flash.irvine.com Subject: Re: Strange Claim In-reply-to: Your message of "Wed, 12 Feb 1997 13:29:39 PST." <9702121329.aa08549@flash.irvine.com> Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 13:34:42 PST From: Adam Beneschan Message-ID: <9702121334.aa08727@flash.irvine.com> Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Oops, a slight omission: > AQTxx Kx > xx KJxxx > AKQ2 xx > KQ AJ43 > > . . . On the above hand, there is only one line in > which four clubs are possible, the stepping-stone squeeze . . . should read "there is only one line in which four clubs are possible without taking a heart trick". -- Adam From owner-bridge-laws Thu Feb 13 11:38:40 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id LAA06284 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 11:38:40 +1100 Received: from lsbsdi1.lightspeed.net (root@lsbsdi1.lightspeed.net [204.216.65.99]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id LAA06279 for ; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 11:38:32 +1100 Received: from LOCALNAME (bak-brks-ppp082.lightspeed.net [207.113.246.101]) by lsbsdi1.lightspeed.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id QAA02666; Wed, 12 Feb 1997 16:36:04 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <3301226B.7805@lightspeed.net> Date: Tue, 11 Feb 1997 17:52:43 -0800 From: "John R. Mayne" X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.01KIT (Win16; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Adam Beneschan CC: bridge laws list Subject: Re: Strange Claim References: <9702121329.aa08549@flash.irvine.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Adam Beneschan wrote: > > Pursuant to the thread about busted claims, I'd like opinions about > how you would rule on the following claims. I'm interested in what > Laws and principles apply, and how they should be applied. I might > use some points in the responses to support my position about Sergei's > original hand; I might also use those points to change my mind about > the original hand. > > 1. This is the same as the original hand, except for a > rather important change in the club spots. > > AQTxx Kx > xx KJxxx > AKQ2 xx > KQ AJ43 > > East playing 6NT. Same line as before. Diamond lead won in dummy, > spade king, spade ace, dropping the jack. Declarer claims five > spades, three diamonds, four clubs. > I, having agreed completely with you earlier, now object to the use of the word "line" in this description. I think the comment was mere enumeration of tricks rather than line or statement of play. I therefore am going to end up ruling either off one or off two, and I will ask declarer what error he made in this silly claim. (If I believe him, and he says he hadn't thought about the blockage, I'd want to look at the other hands to see what the worst result reasonable would be, adjudicating in favor of the non-claimants.) > On the original hand, it's been argued that since East claimed four > clubs, director must assume East has taken the only line in which four > club tricks are possible, without a heart trick (since East didn't > claim a heart trick). On the above hand, there is only one line in > which four clubs are possible, the stepping-stone squeeze: cash all > the spade and diamond winners, hoping someone is forced down to the > bare heart ace and four clubs. (A diamond-club squeeze is not > possible, since you can't rectify the count without setting up a heart > trick, at which point the squeeze is pointless.) > > Do you rule that the stepping-stone squeeze is the line forced on > East, and adjudicate the claim based on whether it succeeds or fails? > > If not, how do you rule? > > (Note that I've deliberately omitted the defender's hands.) > > 2. > > AK54 -- > J52 AKQ643 > 642 AK103 > 542 AKQ > > East plays 6H. Trumps are 3-1. He wins the opening club lead, and > absently cashes the ace, king, and QUEEN of hearts. Now he claims an > overtrick, claiming six trumps, two spades, two diamonds, three clubs. > > What is the ruling? What Laws and/or principles are applied? > > -- Adam Well, we've hacked through all the Law 70 issues in many prior posts, but the key thing is whether declarer has stated a line. In my mind, no he has not (I am not going to force, or even allow, an attempt at a spade lead from dummy at trick two). As for the adjudication, this is more interesting. Declarer obviously goes down when diamonds are 4-2 with no Q-J drop (we will let defenders unblock from Q-x or J-x, however unlikely that may be in real life). What if declarer, gleefully oblivious, runs all his trumps, then clubs, then diamonds, then.. Hey! Wait a second! I believe that 70A (equity) requires the director to make a factual finding of whether declarer would rid himself of both trumps and clubs prior to leading diamonds. Since, again, I do not believe there to be a statement of play, I do not force declarer (necessarily) to play all of his trumps. I hate to make a ruling without the players in front of me on this sort of thing, but I would be inclined on 3-3 diamonds to allow the contract to make. In short, I believe that L70A works with L70D in non-statement claims to allow for the worst reasonable result to the claimer, unless it is clear that the claimer might have pursued an unreasonable line of play that would be worse. (Side note: --- AK54 AKQJT 543 A43 K54 AK54 QJ2 At my level of play, after the opening lead is faced, "13 tricks" is a legitimate claim, as is "4 clubs, 2 diamonds, 5 hearts, 2 spades." I'm never ever going to block it, nor are any of my opponents going to contest that I would block it; they know the trick count was not a line of play. As a matter of course, I tell opponents "I'm not going to do anything stupid," when I make large-trick claims, but I don't think it is necessary. --JRM From owner-bridge-laws Thu Feb 13 12:19:40 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id MAA06494 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 12:19:40 +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 MAA06489 for ; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 12:19:33 +1100 Received: from cph14.ppp.dknet.dk (cph14.ppp.dknet.dk [194.192.100.14]) by pip.dknet.dk (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id CAA06165 for ; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 02:19:24 +0100 From: Jesper Dybdal To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Strange Claim Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 02:19:20 +0100 Organization: at home Message-ID: <33045d02.3835344@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 Wed, 12 Feb 1997 00:46:06 +0000, David Stevenson wrote: > There is also the question of balance of probabilities. I think that=20 >we need to know how you would rule both with and without the heart jack=20 >in dummy, when the club ten is falling and when it isn't, with the heart= =20 >ace and queen [if relevant] with LHO and RHO. My ruling is simple: I=20 >rule that he overtakes the club and makes it 40% of the time. I rule that he discover the blocking clubs at the worst possible moment and then follow the least successful line of play that is "rational", though possibly "inferior" or "careless". With the EW hands as in the actual example, I give him the contract only if _all_ of the following "rational" lines of play succeed: * Overtake club. * Lead a heart and guess badly before cashing diamonds. * Lead a heart and guess badly after cashing diamonds. I.e., only if * The club 10 drops, and * The heart AQ are both in North's hand, and * The long diamond is in South's hand (a requirement that I seem to have overlooked in at least one of my earlier postings). I believe this is about a 5% chance (provided leading hearts after diamonds is considered "rational" - I believe it should be, but you are perfectly welcome to disagree and remove the requirement for the long diamond to be with South if you like, increasing the chance to about 10%). Without the heart jack, I give him the contract only if _all_ the following lines of play succeed: * Overtake club. * Lead a heart towards K before cashing diamonds. * Lead a heart towards K after cashing diamonds. This is the same situation, except that I now have no requirement for the HQ to be with North, thus doubling his chances. These rulings are based on my belief that if the hand was played out, declarer could hardly avoid detecting the blocking problem in time to change his plan. I also have some sympathy for the ruling that says that he may not detect the blocking clubs at all, and therefore gets only two club tricks. > Is this what declarer means by I'll take 5S's, 3D's and 4C's? What declarer means is that he has a plan for handling a slightly different hand - one where the clubs do not block. He has stated no plan for handling this hand, because he has not yet noticed the problem with this hand. > AKQ > - > x > - > xxx x > x xx > - - > - x > -- > JT9 > - > T > > Clubs are trumps. Cash the spades, he says, and I have a trump. =20 >Being a careless player he has forgotten that the hearts are good, and=20 >forgotten that he has an outstanding trump! > > Are you going to give the defence anything? I'm not. Neither am I. Just as in our 6NT example, declarer has not stated a line of play that makes sense for this hand. I therefore follow his statement until the point where he will discover his mistake (the ruff), and then rule as if he had no stated line of play from that point onwards; i.e., assume the least successful rational line of play. It seems irrational to me to do anything but overruff and get the rest. So on this hand, you (and I) are willing to let declarer get the benefit of not following his stated plan when that plan turns out to be meaningless. I believe that it follows that we should also consider corresponding changes of plan when they work _against_ declarer, as in the 6NT hand. In fact, I believe that it is even more obvious that we should do so when it works against declarer, since "any doubtful points shall be resolved against the claimer". The net result of all this is that I basically interpret L70 to mean that in order for claimer to get his claimed tricks, the statement he made must convince the TD beyond any reasonable doubt that the claimer would actually get the claimed tricks if he played out the hand. In your 4-card ending above, I am convinced that he would actually get the rest; in the 6NT hand, I'm not. --=20 Jesper Dybdal, Denmark From owner-bridge-laws Thu Feb 13 12:36:00 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id MAA06586 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 12:36:00 +1100 Received: from suntan.tandem.com (suntan.tandem.com [192.216.221.8]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id MAA06581 for ; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 12:35:55 +1100 From: FARLEY_WALLY@Tandem.COM Received: from POST.TANDEM.COM by suntan.tandem.com (8.6.12/suntan5.970212) id RAA00960; Wed, 12 Feb 1997 17:35:48 -0800 Received: by POST.TANDEM.COM (4.13/4.5) id AA31545; 12 Feb 97 17:35:33 +1600 Date: 12 Feb 97 17:34:00 +1600 Message-Id: <199702121735.AA31545@POST.TANDEM.COM> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Cc: adam@flash.irvine.com Subject: Re: Strange Claim Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I think the second case is clear-cut: declarer makes 6 if and only if a hand with (either) QJ doubleton or QJx of diamonds has three (or fewer, however unlikely that may be) clubs. If he can't figure out how to cash three rounds of trumps ending in an otherwise entryless dummy, I'm not going to consider that he will wake up in time to play diamonds before trumps at this point, making in all cases where diamonds are 3-3. Neither will I force him to play all his trumps and then play diamonds, even in the case where this would lead to a worse result. If a defender should have QJxxxx of diamonds and think she is entitled to four tricks on this 'claim' she may continue to think so, but I will not give her those tricks. Nor would I make declarer discard spades from the top. There is a limit. Regards, WWFiv Wally Farley Cupertino, CA {ACBL District 21} ------------ ORIGINAL ATTACHMENT -------- SENT 02-12-97 FROM SMTPGATE (adam@flash.irvine.com) Pursuant to the thread about busted claims, I'd like opinions about how you would rule on the following claims. I'm interested in what Laws and principles apply, and how they should be applied. I might use some points in the responses to support my position about Sergei's original hand; I might also use those points to change my mind about the original hand. 1. This is the same as the original hand, except for a rather important change in the club spots. AQTxx Kx xx KJxxx AKQ2 xx KQ AJ43 East playing 6NT. Same line as before. Diamond lead won in dummy, spade king, spade ace, dropping the jack. Declarer claims five spades, three diamonds, four clubs. On the original hand, it's been argued that since East claimed four clubs, director must assume East has taken the only line in which four club tricks are possible, without a heart trick (since East didn't claim a heart trick). On the above hand, there is only one line in which four clubs are possible, the stepping-stone squeeze: cash all the spade and diamond winners, hoping someone is forced down to the bare heart ace and four clubs. (A diamond-club squeeze is not possible, since you can't rectify the count without setting up a heart trick, at which point the squeeze is pointless.) Do you rule that the stepping-stone squeeze is the line forced on East, and adjudicate the claim based on whether it succeeds or fails? If not, how do you rule? (Note that I've deliberately omitted the defender's hands.) 2. AK54 -- J52 AKQ643 642 AK103 542 AKQ East plays 6H. Trumps are 3-1. He wins the opening club lead, and absently cashes the ace, king, and QUEEN of hearts. Now he claims an overtrick, claiming six trumps, two spades, two diamonds, three clubs. What is the ruling? What Laws and/or principles are applied? -- Adam From owner-bridge-laws Thu Feb 13 15:07:43 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id PAA07211 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 15:07:43 +1100 Received: from mule0.mindspring.com (mule0.mindspring.com [204.180.128.166]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id PAA07205 for ; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 15:07:36 +1100 Received: from greg (ip226.an12-new-york4.ny.pub-ip.psi.net [38.26.23.226]) by mule0.mindspring.com (8.8.4/8.8.4) with SMTP id XAA145846 for ; Wed, 12 Feb 1997 23:07:30 -0500 Message-Id: <1.5.4.32.19970213040732.006c466c@pop.pipeline.com> X-Sender: dyrektor@pop.pipeline.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.4 (32) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 23:07:32 -0500 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Alan Miller Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Consider the following deal: A10762 QJ963 J 108 K3 Q9854 752 none Q107 K86543 A9653 Q4 J AK1084 A92 KJ72 The contract is 6H, the early defense is Ace of clubs, diamond shift. Declarer claimed. The setting: last table in room in a swiss match, the table is rushing to finish. Declarer recoils as she uttered her claim as East showed out. For what it's worth, South is a multiple world champion. How would you rule? Alan From owner-bridge-laws Fri Feb 14 03:51:32 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA14022 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 14 Feb 1997 03:14:09 +1100 Received: from emout15.mail.aol.com (emout15.mx.aol.com [198.81.11.41]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id DAA14017 for ; Fri, 14 Feb 1997 03:13:59 +1100 From: AlLeBendig@aol.com Received: (from root@localhost) by emout15.mail.aol.com (8.7.6/8.7.3/AOL-2.0.0) id LAA26514 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 11:13:22 -0500 (EST) Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 11:13:22 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <970213111321_717512058@emout15.mail.aol.com> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: No Subject Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In a message dated 97-02-12 23:09:39 EST, you write: > Consider the following deal: > A10762 > QJ963 > J > 108 > > K3 Q9854 > 752 none > Q107 K86543 > A9653 Q4 > > J > AK1084 > A92 > KJ72 > > The contract is 6H, the early defense is Ace of clubs, diamond shift. > Declarer claimed. > > The setting: last table in room in a swiss match, the table is rushing to > finish. Declarer recoils as she uttered her claim as East showed out. > > For what it's worth, South is a multiple world champion. > > How would you rule? I rule the claim is valid. There is no indication that declarer may be unaware of the outstanding trumps. After E shows out of trumps I would not force S to draw trumps. S is now permitted to trump some losers and after the QC drops, the slam scores without a specific card required to be in a certain place. I guess a case could me made for declarer attempting to establish spades but I would not rule that way. Alan LeBendig From owner-bridge-laws Fri Feb 14 08:51:17 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA24381 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 14 Feb 1997 08:51:17 +1100 Received: from news.hal-pc.org (news.hal-pc.org [204.52.135.10]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id IAA24376 for ; Fri, 14 Feb 1997 08:50:59 +1100 From: r.pewick@bbs.hal-pc.org Received: from bbs.hal-pc.org (uucp@localhost) by news.hal-pc.org (8.8.3/8.6.12) with UUCP id PAA21494 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 15:50:47 -0600 (CST) Received: by bbs.hal-pc.org id 0M6L2026 Thu, 13 Feb 97 15:47:25 Message-ID: <9702131547.0M6L202@bbs.hal-pc.org> Organization: Houston Area League of PC Users X-Mailer: TBBS/PIMP v3.35 Date: Thu, 13 Feb 97 15:47:25 Subject: TIME FOR ANOTHER EAS To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk N>Subject: Re: Time for another easy one for Jens! First allow me to thank David for his comments. As David Stevenson advised me, perhaps an introduction is order. My name is Roger Pewick and I hail from Houston, Texas. I have an interest in learning what is behind the bridge laws and how they are supposed to work [and I suppose also, how they do not work]. To a great extent I know little other than what my common sense [or lack there of] tells me when it come to interpreting the Laws and I would like the opportunity to sharpen my knowledge. For those that did not see my first posting, I apologize. I am new to the Laws-List and I mistakenly emailed it to directly to David. I have refined my opinions on this issue and believe I have summarized them accurately. I have not yet been convinced that my assessment is without merit. Just because various people say so does not make it so. If it is incorrect, help convince me so that I might convince others. I think that a great deal of the discussion can be summarized by the observation which can be metaphorically phrased as such: All yellow cars which do not have purple tires must be Volkswagons. Where the yellow cars are changes of call covered by L25 and yellow cars with purple tires are changes of call when the director rules on an insufficient bid prior to a change of call. Put differently, most submitters feel that the change of call without the benefit of a director always calls for the application of L25 as the primary source for the ruling. The actuality is that auctions, like cars, come in all kinds of flavors even though they appear on the surface to be similar [I apologize for mixing bad metaphors, my intent is to try to communicate well]. What are the pertinent facts? [a] an insufficient bid was made [b] a remark was made by LHO suggesting that an irregularity was committed [c] the director was not summoned immediately [d] the offender changed his call after a short time- termed eventually [e] the change in call was a double Apparently the the majority of disscussers to date have agreed that in the 1s-4H-3S[*] auction, the proper law to apply is 25B1&2 because [d] occured irrespective of [a] ,[b], [c], and [e]. However, I challenge this concurrence of opinion with the assertion that the proper law to apply is L27 for various reasons, some of which are probably more sound than others. Consider the auction 1S-4H-3S under discussion- What are the various things that can logically happen after 3S: 1 ] the director is summoned 2 ] an exclamation such as 'You can't' might be said and the director is summoned immediately 3 ] an exclamation such as 'You can't' might be said and the director is NOT summoned immediately 3a] everyone waits for someone to get up the nerve to call the director 3b] the player takes it upon himself to change his call without the benefit of the director 4 ] LHO can say 'I do not accept' 5 ] LHO can say 'I do accept' 6 ] LHO can make a call over 3S 7 ] LHO can make a call over a change of call And what would the respective rulings be if the director were summoned after the occurence of the above scenarios? [ 1] the infraction is an insufficient bid [identified by the director call] and the ruling comes under L27A&B [ and any substitution of call comes under L27B] [ 2] the infraction is an insufficient bid [identified by the exclamation] and the ruling comes under L27A&B [and any substitution of call comes under L27B] [3a] the infraction is an insufficient bid [identified by the exclamation] and the ruling comes under L27A&B [note- no substitution of call made] [3b] the infraction is an insufficient bid [identified by the exclamation] and the ruling comes under L27B since the delay in calling the director can be [not must be] interpreted as to mean that the call is expected to be changed [the substitution of call comes under L27B] [ 4] the infraction is an insufficient bid [identified by the remark] and the ruling comes under L27B [any substitution of call comes under L27B] [ 5] the infraction is an insufficient bid [identified by the remark] and the ruling comes under L27A [the substitution of call comes under L27B] [ 6] the infraction is an insufficient bid [was not identified and was accepted by LHO's legal call] with the non offenders giving up the right to penalize per L27A [ 7] the infraction is a substituted call condoned [the insufficient bid was not identified but the the director's callidentifies the condoned substituted call] and L25B1 applies Is my reasoning sound that behaviors such as calling the director, making a remark, using language consistant with choosing a penalty of the corresponding law- can and should be used in determining the action which was the infraction? I believe that my reasoning is well placed and consistant with the intent of the Laws. Do others concur? Note that the irreguarity was identified as an insufficient bid [at least by inference] in all the cases except [6] the one where LHO gives up the ability to penalize and [7] the one where the identified infraction was not that insufficient bid. Therefore, in those cases where the initial irregularity was identified as an insufficient bid, the correct law to apply is L27 which covers insufficient bids and any corresponding substitution of call, both legal and illegal. As the cases that are relevant to the hand in question are [2] and [3a]&[3b] because a remark was made, it follows that only L27 applies to this hand. As to the interpretation of the remark 'You can't': I also made the assertion that 'You can't....' can be interpreted to mean 'I do not accept the insufficient bid' and it would be reasonable in various scenarios for a director to rule that LHO made a ruling by choosing the penalty 'I do not accept' when the director was not immediately summoned. I made this assertion even though another possible interpretation could be reasonable- 'an irregularity has been committed'. After going through the above excerise, I now realize that differentiating the intended meaning of 'You can't' is actually not material for *determining* which law [L25 or L27] to apply since it identifies in all cases that an irregularity [insufficient bid] has occurred so L27 applies. I feel that I was drawn into discussion calling for L25 to be applied and I used as one of my premises to the contrary that LHO's behavior taken in the context of all events had the effect of making a ruling at the table. My logic then followed: what was the nature of the table ruling? -it was the correcting of an insufficient bid. Therefore, since L27 deals with insufficient bids and their correction, the intent of the LAWS of Contract Bridge was that L27 was to apply, and so the proper law to apply is L27 and not L25. [Note that L25 can permit the acceptance of a substituted double except per L35A while L27B3 does not allow acceptance of a non permitted substituted double [such a double is cancelled...]]. While the interpretation of the remark is not material [except that it calls attention to the infraction] to the determination of what irregularity has occured, an interpretation of the remark may be in order if there was a question as to ofender's state of mind when he changed his call. That is, did the behavior of the opponents induce him to change his call as he would for an insufficient bid not accepted, without the benefit of a director. A great number of Americans have been trained [by peer pressure, etc..] to avoid calling the director and as a consequence ignore infractions and make table rulings amongst themselves. This is part of the non verbal communication [whether intended or not intended] which is a part of language and custom and are relevant for interpreting remarks. With this in mind, I contend that the case is strong that in this hand, the context in its entirety surrounding the remark suggests that the offender would tend to interpret the COMMUNICATION that the remark made as 'I do not accept your insufficient bid'. Hence LHO has effectively chosen that penalty for the infraction, insufficient bid, in accordance with L27B. Therefore, it becomes the director's chore to pick up the pieces at this point, which is deal with the non permitted double [L27B3] and UI [L26] and possible damage [L23A]. This avoids giving LHO a double shot [LHO's behavior induced the offender to commit another infraction for which everyone has fault because the director was not called] which would happen if things were backed up to the point PRIOR to LHO's remark which would give LHO the choice of accepting OR not accepting the insufficient bid OR accepting the changed call. I contend that in such situations [induced change of call] the intent of the Laws is not to give LHO options to choose from 3 knowns [bids]. For instance, when you choose an option for the insufficient bid infraction, you are not privy to what the offender's changed call will be until after you choose. Yes, the matter is different when the offender changes his call on his own volition. If LHO really wanted to accept the insufficient bid, he clearly would be entitled if the rules had been followed [for calling the TD] and ANY one had immediately called the director. In summary, I contend that because a remark was made drawing attention to an infraction, the infraction being an insufficient bid. Therefore, L27 applies. Up until the point that that remark is made a change of call would have fallen under L25. Communication, verbal and non verbal, leading up to the change in call is relevant in ruling whether LHO had excercised or forfeited any options they had. In this case, LHO could have known that inactivity [not calling the TD] could induce the offender to change their call without the benefit of a TD. Hence, a finding that a tab From owner-bridge-laws Fri Feb 14 09:07:26 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA24495 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 14 Feb 1997 09:07:26 +1100 Received: from mail.hamburg.netsurf.de (trance.isys.net [194.64.236.33]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id JAA24489 for ; Fri, 14 Feb 1997 09:07:20 +1100 Received: from mail1.isys.net[193.96.224.33] by mail.hamburg.netsurf.de with smtp (Smail 3.2 #2 -iSYS-); id m0vv9JC-000HHDC; Thu, 13 Feb 1997 23:07:14 +0100 (MET) Received: from meckwell [194.195.202.54] by mail1.isys.net with smtp (Smail 3.2 #3 -iSYS-); id m0vvAPJ-001LBYC; Fri, 14 Feb 1997 00:17:37 +0100 (MET) Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 23:09:39 +0100 (CET) From: Henk Uijterwaal X-Sender: henk@meckwell Reply-To: Henk Uijterwaal To: Alan Miller cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: your mail In-Reply-To: <1.5.4.32.19970213040732.006c466c@pop.pipeline.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Wed, 12 Feb 1997, Alan Miller wrote: > A10762 > QJ963 > J > 108 > K3 Q9854 > 752 none > Q107 K86543 > A9653 Q4 > J > AK1084 > A92 > KJ72 > The contract is 6H, the early defense is Ace of clubs, diamond shift. > Declarer claimed. > For what it's worth, South is a multiple world champion. > How would you rule? 6H making 6. After east shows out, declarer simply cashes 2 black suit winners and starts on a cross-ruff: 3 black suit winners, HA, 8 more trumps, West cannot overruff. I don't see how a multiple world champion can manage to go down here. Henk. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Henk Uijterwaal Email: henk.uijterwaal@hamburg.netsurf.de (home) henk@desy.de (work) WWW: http://www-zeus.desy.de/~uijter ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Leptoquarks? What Leptoquarks? From owner-bridge-laws Fri Feb 14 13:48:51 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id NAA25794 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 14 Feb 1997 13:48:51 +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 NAA25788 for ; Fri, 14 Feb 1997 13:48:46 +1100 Received: from coruncanius.demon.co.uk ([194.222.115.176]) by relay-7.mail.demon.net id aa703731; 14 Feb 97 1:46 GMT Message-ID: Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 08:26:07 +0000 To: Adam Beneschan Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Labeo Subject: Re: Strange Claim In-Reply-To: <9702101120.aa21885@flash.irvine.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In message <9702101120.aa21885@flash.irvine.com>, Adam Beneschan writes > >Herman wrote: > >and Adam said: > >I don't know whether it's permissible for the director, for >simplicity, simply to award declarer nine tricks by assuming that the >line declarer proposes in (3) is the only rational line, and therefore >not waiting for declarer to propose a new line. The point is that >even if director does make this assumption, this assumed line must >meet the constraints imposed by Law 70D--that is, there must be no >other "normal" line that would be less successful. > Labeo: "Normal line within the constraints of claimer's statement" that should say. In the case under discussion it rules out any line which does not cash top tricks. Declarer may have *thought* 'A-K-Q-J' but he is committed not to what we think he thought but to what he actually *said*. One of the reasons is that if he takes it to further appeal on that basis he has to win - you cannot deny him what he actually has said. Labeo From owner-bridge-laws Fri Feb 14 15:35:25 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id PAA26112 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 14 Feb 1997 15:35:25 +1100 Received: from relay-7.mail.demon.net (relay-7.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.9]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id PAA26106 for ; Fri, 14 Feb 1997 15:35:19 +1100 Received: from coruncanius.demon.co.uk ([194.222.115.176]) by relay-6.mail.demon.net id aa626499; 14 Feb 97 4:14 GMT Message-ID: Date: Fri, 14 Feb 1997 02:39:01 +0000 To: michael amos Cc: bigfoot@idt.net, bridge-laws From: Labeo Subject: Re: Strange Claim In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In message , michael amos writes >In message <32FF8D54.6107@mail.idt.net>, Irwin Kostal >writes >> there seems to be an >>assumption that declarer would discover the club blockage before he >>plays the queen. >I've just read a whole weeks worth of postings on this hand and this >worries me too - >if i forget an outstanding trump in a claim I can never 'remember' until >the trump is there on the table in front of me. If my claim fails to >notice a blockage why should i be assumed to notice it before it is too >late - ie the suit is blocked Labeo: My position is clear enough by now, I think, and I do not propose to say more, except, to be clear:- A claim is decided only on the basis of what the claimer says and the way the cards are. The TD is not concerned with the different question of what the player would have done if he had not claimed and had played the hand out, learning whatever he might as the play proceeds. The only exception to this provided by the laws is that we do not require him to act irrationally - e.g. he can take a finesse where a player would show out. Where a player does not fully specify his play we must still remain inside of whatever he has said. Here I am in no doubt that he has indicated he is only taking top tricks, so that anyone who wants him to lead a card which is not taking a top trick is not complying with his statement of claim. Labeo From owner-bridge-laws Fri Feb 14 22:32:56 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id WAA27147 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 14 Feb 1997 22:32:56 +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 WAA27142 for ; Fri, 14 Feb 1997 22:32:49 +1100 Received: from innet.innet.be (pool03-30.innet.be [194.7.10.30]) by mail.be.innet.net (8.7.6/8.7.3) with SMTP id MAA07029 for ; Fri, 14 Feb 1997 12:32:41 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: <3304591D.22D3@innet.be> Date: Fri, 14 Feb 1997 12:22:53 +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: Strange Claim References: <199702041253.PAA09702@pent.sci-nnov.ru> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk The thread "Strange Claim" is writing history on blml. Not only because it has become by now the longest running thread on the mailing list, but most certainly because of the personalities involved. I find that most of the contributors agree with the ruling of one down. There are only something like four dissenting voices. Usually, this would not stop us from calling this an unanimous verdict, were it not for the fact that David Stevenson is one of those four. In the little over a year that I have known him, first through private mail, then through blml, I have had disagreements with David once or twice (':-)). But never before have I known him to be wrong. At the end of threads, he has never had to agree more than partly on something he did not state early on in the discussion. And I don=92t think this is simply because he=92s a stubborn mule. (He may well be that, but I=92ve n= ot yet ascertained this). So I do not discount the possibility that 100 international TD=92s CAN be wrong and that David=92s point of view will turn out to be the right one. That is why I think it is very important that we settle this, and the fact that we will at last discover that David is human after all is only of secondary importance. Let=92s therefor do what David has taught us : RTFLB. Of course the relevant law is L70. (I don=92t have a complete lawbook in memory, so you will have to do without David-style quotations, sorry). L70A tells us the general objective. We will use that at the end of the ruling to have declarer put on the jack, if we have him play hearts. L70B just tells us the procedures. Declarer must specify a "clarification statement". L68C defines this as "a line of play or defence". Two separate words are used IMO, because the "statement" will often not include a particular "line". The director shall distill a "line" from the "statement".=20 Obviously, this line will be defective, as otherwise we would not be reading L70 in the first place. If it is defective beyond repair, again there is no problem. So we must assume that there is an alternative line that would bring in the contract. Three cases are considered : L70C is irrelevant to our case, and IMO just a special case where the other parts of the law are applied. L70E tells us that declarer is allowed to change his line of play when in normal play he discovers some fact that would normally affect the chosen line. This is a case that sometimes happens : a player will play out his line, and at some point discover that it is faulty. If at that same time, it becomes clear that there is an alternative line (and only one), he is allowed to take that path. Since he will not find out that the ten must drop, this does not affect our ruling. L70D is the real crux of the argumentation : D. Claimer Proposes New Line of Play The Director shall not accept from claimer any successful line of play not embraced in the original clarification statement if there is an alternative normal* line of play that would be less successful. This falls into two half sentences, separated by the word IF. The second half does NOT include the phrase "embraced in the original clarification statement". The alternative normal lines should not be covered in the statement given. I think we all agree that declarer has three lines of play, all of which qualify as normal. I do believe that both lines using hearts are alternative normal lines and that hearts to the jack is the "alternative normal* line of play that would be less successful". Thus, when on 8 feb, David wrote :=20 >That is what it is all about. No line that involves declarer playing=20 >a small red card from hand at any time is embraced in the original=20 >clarification statement. He is reading the wrong part of Law 70D. hearts to the jack need not be in the clarification. It is the less successful alternative. Of course this raises the point as to when to consider alternative lines. David goes to great lengths to say that declarer must carry out his original plan, almost to the letter. Then, when he finally discovers that the line does not work, it is unfortunately too late to do anything about it. He now has no more (losing) alternatives. We on the other hand, also include the possibility that declarer notices the blocking immediately, (something not even David will call unlikely) and we give him the additional options. Since L70A tells us doubtful points shall be resolved against declarer, nothing prevents us from calling the use of heart entries =91alternative normal lines of play=92. If we can have David agree to that, we can move on to the final point of discussion. (no, we=92re not there yet !) We have established that the condition in 70D is fulfilled. So : "the Director shall not accept any successful line not embraced in the original clarification". What is the successful line : overtake the club queen and hope for the ten to drop. What was the original clarification : I have four club tricks. Is this line embraced in this statement ? We=92ve all given lots of examples. I think we should enter into declarer=92s mind. When you see KQ opposite AJxx, you think to yourself : four tricks. I don=92t know about you, but I myself have often neglected to add =91.. if I have an entry to hand=92. That is the mistake declarer made. Overtaking the queen is a line not =91embraced in the statement=92.= He did not add this to his statement. By chance, he had the nine as well (thus giving him a third option, as it happens a successful one), but he certainly did not include that into his reasoning, or he would have said something about it. When he said, =91four clubs=92, he forgot he could no= t get into hand. So, overtaking the clubs is not a line of play =91embraced in the origina= l clarification statement=92 and there is an alternative normal line that i= s less successful, so Director should not accept this line. One down. (not two, as playing diamonds before hearts would IMHO be irrational). OK David, where did I go wrong ? As a side issue, let=92s just change some cards again :=20 Jx AQxx Jxxx 864 AQTxx Kx xx KJxxx AKQ2 xx KQ AJ97 9xxx xx xxx T532 (queen of hearts and two of clubs exchanged) In fact, this is the harder claim to rule upon. It would be fairly obvious that the heart entry is always there. Only a very experienced director will see that on this lay-out there are in fact three possible lines of play. The third, overtaking the club queen, is of course inferior, but certainly not irrational. This claim too should not be allowed : there is a less successful alternative. And to think all of this started in Nizhny Novgorod ! --=20 Herman DE WAEL =20 Antwerpen Belgium http://www.club.innet.be/~pub02163/index.htm From owner-bridge-laws Fri Feb 14 23:47:38 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA27354 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 14 Feb 1997 23:47:38 +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 XAA27349 for ; Fri, 14 Feb 1997 23:47:29 +1100 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by relay-10.mail.demon.net id aa1008409; 14 Feb 97 12:40 GMT Message-ID: <6Pb$zRArQFBzEwrt@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Fri, 14 Feb 1997 12:01:47 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: TIME FOR ANOTHER EAS In-Reply-To: <9702131547.0M6L202@bbs.hal-pc.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Roger Pewick wrote: > For those that did not see my first posting, I apologize. I am new to >the Laws-List and I mistakenly emailed it to directly to David. I have >refined my opinions on this issue and believe I have summarized them >accurately. I have not yet been convinced that my assessment is without >merit. Just because various people say so does not make it so. If it >is incorrect, help convince me so that I might convince others. > >I think that a great deal of the discussion can be summarized by the >observation which can be metaphorically phrased as such: > >All yellow cars which do not have purple tires must be Volkswagons. > >Where the yellow cars are changes of call covered by L25 and yellow cars >with purple tires are changes of call when the director rules on an >insufficient bid prior to a change of call. Put differently, most >submitters feel that the change of call without the benefit of a >director always calls for the application of L25 as the primary source >for the ruling. The actuality is that auctions, like cars, come in all >kinds of flavors even though they appear on the surface to be similar [I >apologize for mixing bad metaphors, my intent is to try to communicate well]. > >What are the pertinent facts? [a] an insufficient bid was made [b] a >remark was made by LHO suggesting that an irregularity was committed >[c] the director was not summoned immediately [d] the offender changed >his call after a short time- termed eventually [e] the change in call >was a double > >Apparently the the majority of disscussers to date have agreed that in >the 1s-4H-3S[*] auction, the proper law to apply is 25B1&2 because [d] >occured irrespective of [a] ,[b], [c], and [e]. However, I challenge >this concurrence of opinion with the assertion that the proper law to >apply is L27 for various reasons, some of which are probably more sound >than others. > >Consider the auction 1S-4H-3S under discussion- > >What are the various things that can logically happen after 3S: > >1 ] the director is summoned >2 ] an exclamation such as 'You can't' might be said and the director is >summoned immediately >3 ] an exclamation such as 'You can't' might be said and the director is >NOT summoned immediately >3a] everyone waits for someone to get up the nerve to call the director >3b] the player takes it upon himself to change his call without the >benefit of the director >4 ] LHO can say 'I do not accept' >5 ] LHO can say 'I do accept' >6 ] LHO can make a call over 3S >7 ] LHO can make a call over a change of call > > And what would the respective rulings be if the director were summoned >after the occurence of the above scenarios? > >[ 1] the infraction is an insufficient bid [identified by the director >call] and the ruling comes under L27A&B [ and any substitution of call >comes under L27B] >[ 2] the infraction is an insufficient bid [identified by the >exclamation] and the ruling comes under L27A&B [and any substitution of >call comes under L27B] >[3a] the infraction is an insufficient bid [identified by the >exclamation] and the ruling comes under L27A&B [note- no substitution >of call made] >[3b] the infraction is an insufficient bid [identified by the >exclamation] and the ruling comes under L27B since the delay in calling >the director can be [not must be] interpreted as to mean that the call >is expected to be changed [the substitution of call comes under L27B] >[ 4] the infraction is an insufficient bid [identified by the remark] >and the ruling comes under L27B [any substitution of call comes under L27B] >[ 5] the infraction is an insufficient bid [identified by the remark] >and the ruling comes under L27A [the substitution of call comes under L27B] >[ 6] the infraction is an insufficient bid [was not identified and was >accepted by LHO's legal call] with the non offenders giving up the right >to penalize per L27A >[ 7] the infraction is a substituted call condoned [the insufficient bid >was not identified but the the director's callidentifies the condoned >substituted call] and L25B1 applies > >Is my reasoning sound that behaviors such as calling the director, >making a remark, using language consistant with choosing a penalty of >the corresponding law- can and should be used in determining the action >which was the infraction? I believe that my reasoning is well placed >and consistant with the intent of the Laws. Do others concur? No! The infraction is determined by the Laws of the game. L25B says "If a call is substituted when section A does not apply". It does not say "If someone called at such a time". Any attempt to substitute a call before the TD reaches the table will be initially dealt with under L25, A or B as suitable. >Note that the irreguarity was identified as an insufficient bid [at >least by inference] in all the cases except [6] the one where LHO gives >up the ability to penalize and [7] the one where the identified >infraction was not that insufficient bid. Therefore, in those cases >where the initial irregularity was identified as an insufficient bid, >the correct law to apply is L27 which covers insufficient bids and any >corresponding substitution of call, both legal and illegal. As the >cases that are relevant to the hand in question are [2] and [3a]&[3b] >because a remark was made, it follows that only L27 applies to this hand. This so-called identification is meaningless. If you substitute a call, then you substitute a call. Sometimes there will be another Law that means L25 will not apply [L92B is an obvious candidate] but not because a substituted call is "identified" as not a substitute call. >As to the interpretation of the remark 'You can't': > >I also made the assertion that 'You can't....' can be interpreted to >mean 'I do not accept the insufficient bid' and it would be reasonable >in various scenarios for a director to rule that LHO made a ruling by >choosing the penalty 'I do not accept' when the director was not >immediately summoned. I made this assertion even though another >possible interpretation could be reasonable- 'an irregularity has been >committed'. It's very much a Bridge Lawyering type of interpretation, isn't it? No human being is trying to screw players in this way. Fortunately the Laws do not agree with this crappy interpretation. Anyway, whatever the Laws say, it is not our intention when ruling to try and convict people [the non-offending side!] by assuming something that they did not say, because they have used a terminology that a Bridge Lawyer might manage to interpret as something else. > After going through the above excerise, I now realize that >differentiating the intended meaning of 'You can't' is actually not >material for *determining* which law [L25 or L27] to apply since it >identifies in all cases that an irregularity [insufficient bid] has >occurred so L27 applies. I feel that I was drawn into discussion >calling for L25 to be applied and I used as one of my premises to the >contrary that LHO's behavior taken in the context of all events had the >effect of making a ruling at the table. My logic then followed: what >was the nature of the table ruling? -it was the correcting of an >insufficient bid. Therefore, since L27 deals with insufficient bids and >their correction, the intent of the LAWS of Contract Bridge was that L27 >was to apply, and so the proper law to apply is L27 and not L25. [Note >that L25 can permit the acceptance of a substituted double except per >L35A while L27B3 does not allow acceptance of a non permitted >substituted double [such a double is cancelled...]]. When you have two infractions the Law for each one applies, so the above is wrong. If you revoke out of turn, it is a meaningless exercise to decide whether the revoke law or the out of turn law applies: both do, of course. >While the interpretation of the remark is not material [except that it >calls attention to the infraction] to the determination of what >irregularity has occured, an interpretation of the remark may be in >order if there was a question as to ofender's state of mind when he >changed his call. That is, did the behavior of the opponents induce him >to change his call as he would for an insufficient bid not accepted, >without the benefit of a director. A great number of Americans have >been trained [by peer pressure, etc..] to avoid calling the director and >as a consequence ignore infractions and make table rulings amongst >themselves. This is part of the non verbal communication [whether >intended or not intended] which is a part of language and custom and are >relevant for interpreting remarks. Perhaps if Americans would start learning to call the TD and stop going in for Bridge Lawyering the game would be more friendly. >With this in mind, I contend that the case is strong that in this hand, >the context in its entirety surrounding the remark suggests that the >offender would tend to interpret the COMMUNICATION that the remark made >as 'I do not accept your insufficient bid'. Hence LHO has >effectively chosen that penalty for the infraction, insufficient bid, in >accordance with L27B. Therefore, it becomes the director's chore to >pick up the pieces at this point, which is deal with the non permitted >double [L27B3] and UI [L26] and possible damage [L23A]. This avoids >giving LHO a double shot [LHO's behavior induced the offender to commit >another infraction for which everyone has fault because the director was >not called] which would happen if things were backed up to the point >PRIOR to LHO's remark which would give LHO the choice of accepting OR >not accepting the insufficient bid OR accepting the changed call. I really think that you need to start considering the Laws, and stop wondering about irrelevancies. >I contend that in such situations [induced change of call] the intent of >the Laws is not to give LHO options to choose from 3 knowns [bids]. For >instance, when you choose an option for the insufficient bid infraction, >you are not privy to what the offender's changed call will be until >after you choose. Yes, the matter is different when the offender >changes his call on his own volition. If LHO really wanted to accept >the insufficient bid, he clearly would be entitled if the rules had been >followed [for calling the TD] and ANY one had immediately called the >director. Same comment. >In summary, I contend that because a remark was made drawing attention >to an infraction, the infraction being an insufficient bid. Therefore, >L27 applies. Up until the point that that remark is made a change of >call would have fallen under L25. Communication, verbal and non verbal, >leading up to the change in call is relevant in ruling whether LHO had >excercised or forfeited any options they had. In this case, LHO could >have known that inactivity [not calling the TD] could induce the >offender to change their call without the benefit of a TD. Hence, a >finding that a tab ???????????????? Come back Roger, all is forgiven! However, there really is no point in going into long details of would and wouldn't and intent of the laws. L25 deals with something that happened at the table: apply L25. L27 deals with something else that happened at the table: apply L27. The only problem really is that there was an apparent inconsistency within L27. To repeat: >All yellow cars which do not have purple tires must be Volkswagons. > >Where the yellow cars are changes of call covered by L25 and yellow cars >with purple tires are changes of call when the director rules on an >insufficient bid prior to a change of call. All yellow cars are yellow cars, whether with purple tyres or not, whether Volkswagens or not. -- 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 Sun Feb 16 00:56:30 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA08340 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 16 Feb 1997 00:56:30 +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 AAA08335 for ; Sun, 16 Feb 1997 00:56:20 +1100 Received: from catullus.agw.bt.co.uk by mailhub.axion.bt.co.uk with SMTP (PP); Sat, 15 Feb 1997 12:52:54 +0000 Received: from smsmaint002.agw.bt.co.uk (pdcgate.agw.bt.co.uk [192.168.207.73]) by catullus.agw.bt.co.uk (8.8.3/8.8.3) with SMTP id MAA09719 for ; Sat, 15 Feb 1997 12:52:52 GMT Received: by smsmaint002.agw.bt.co.uk with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Server Internet Mail Connector Version 4.0.994.63) id <01BC1B3F.B564E830@smsmaint002.agw.bt.co.uk>; Sat, 15 Feb 1997 12:56:49 -0000 Message-ID: From: "Burn, David" To: "'Bridge Laws'" Subject: Re: Strange claim Date: Sat, 15 Feb 1997 12:49:23 -0000 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 >From David Burn I have been following this thread with a great deal of interest, but with every intention of making no contribution, since it appeared to me that almost all of the relevant questions had been skilfully addressed by the various contributors. (I say "almost all" advisedly, for there is in my view a crucial omission which I will deal with below.) However, four separate people have asked me for my views, and since this is four more people than normally care what I think about anything, I will set them down as briefly as I can. It appears to me that in ruling on a contested claim, one should follow the Laws as far as they will take us - but sadly, this is not far enough (hence the debate). Herman de Wael has already attempted this, but in my view he omitted an important step (as did the director and the players, if the original account is complete). L70B3 is material: what objections were voiced to the claim, and what if anything was said about them? North-South's objection would (I presume) be based on the fact that East cannot certainly take four club tricks; was this stated, and how did declarer react? Without this information, it is very difficult to give any kind of definitive ruling. If L70B3 had been followed, then one of three things might have happened: (a) Declarer says: "Oh. Well, I'll have to overtake the CQ and hope the 10 drops, then." (b) Declarer says: "Oh. Well, I'll have to play a heart towards the KJ, then." (c) Declarer says nothing, and awaits the Director's ruling. I am prepared to bet Lombard Street to a china orange that (c) would not have happened, but since we do not have the relevant facts, we should consider each scenario in turn. (a) Much argument has centered around whether playing for the drop of C10 is "an alternative line of play not embraced in the original clarification statement." Labeo and others have argued that since declarer said that he was taking four club tricks, he should - nay, must - be permitted to overtake the CQ because that would become the only line consistent with the original statement. I have some sympathy with this view, but I firmly believe it to be wrong. At the time of making his statement, declarer was clearly unaware of the blockage; the four club tricks he alluded to were obviously the ace, king, queen and jack, and equally obviously he cannot take those tricks. Any line of play that results in the nine of clubs becoming a trick is in my view well outside the terms of the original statement. Thus, declarer may not overtake the CQ. (b) Only an ingenuous declarer would make such a statement on this hand; he would know that the ruling would be that he misguesses hearts and goes down. Thus, declarer may not play a heart to the king after the CQ. (c) This appears to be the position in which we find ourselves by default. Since the Director in this scenario has to deal only with the original statement, he should rule simply that declarer will, after cashing the CQ, play a heart to the jack and go down (I agree with those who have said that in claiming "5 spades, 3 diamonds and 4 clubs" declarer has said nothing about the order in which he will play his cards). David Stevenson has said that "in adjudicating a claim, you follow the original statement as far as possible and do not follow a different line." There is no basis in Law for this statement, but it appears to be a reasonable approach based on common sense. It is not, however, a universal principle, nor will it lead to equity in all cases. A better, though still not invariably equitable, approach would be to follow the sense of the original statement insofar as it can be determined what tricks declarer had in mind when he made it. Well, what did the original statement mean? At the time declarer made it, it is clear that he intended to cash the CK, the CQ, the CJ and the CA. In following this statement as far as possible, declarer becomes stranded in dummy after the CQ (and must now misguess hearts). If at the time declarer made his statement, he were compelled to play the hand in terms of *what was in his mind at the time the statement was made*, then he would not overtake the CQ, nor should he be permitted to do so simply because of the form of words that he used. To rule otherwise is wholly inequitable. It should be clear from what I have said that I would permit the contract to make if North had both heart honours, regardless of the drop of C10, because I believe that this would be equitable in terms of the original statement and of declarer's state of mind when he made it. But I wish that L70B3 had been addressed! From owner-bridge-laws Mon Feb 17 22:01:53 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id WAA26909 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 17 Feb 1997 22:01:53 +1100 Received: from mail.be.innet.net (mail.be.innet.net [194.7.1.8]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id WAA26903 for ; Mon, 17 Feb 1997 22:01:47 +1100 Received: from innet.innet.be (pool03-51.innet.be [194.7.10.51]) by mail.be.innet.net (8.7.6/8.7.3) with SMTP id MAA17759 for ; Mon, 17 Feb 1997 12:01:40 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: <33084820.3C32@innet.be> Date: Mon, 17 Feb 1997 11:59:28 +0000 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01 (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: New Law 79B Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I have just had - at last - a complete peek at the proposals for the new Laws. I have found something not mentioned before (I think). In Law 79B, the word 'may' is to be changed into 'need'. No increase in score need be granted unless ... What do you think of that change ? I don't like it. In the past, I could say : 'I believe you, but the Laws prevent me from changing this, otherwise less ethical players than yourself could use this to get points from uninterested opponents'. Now I will have to be the ogre director again. 'Why don't you change our score ? The opponents agree ! Don't you trust us ?' and so on. This new Law implies that the director can change the score. It does not say when he should do this and when not. I don't like it. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.club.innet.be/~pub02163/index.htm From owner-bridge-laws Tue Feb 18 12:52:33 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id MAA12777 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 18 Feb 1997 12:52:33 +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 MAA12771 for ; Tue, 18 Feb 1997 12:52:26 +1100 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by relay-11.mail.demon.net id ab1111458; 18 Feb 97 1:48 GMT Message-ID: Date: Tue, 18 Feb 1997 01:40:49 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: L40E2 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Law 40 - Partnership Understandings E. Convention Card 2. Referring to Opponents' Convention Card During the auction and play, any player except dummy may refer to his opponents' convention card at his own turn to call or play, but not to his own. Two questions. [1] Assuming you are not dummy, may you look at your opponents' convention card at partner's or opponents' turn to call or play? [2] Is the answer obvious from the above law? -- 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 Tue Feb 18 13:29:37 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id NAA12884 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 18 Feb 1997 13:29:37 +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 NAA12876 for ; Tue, 18 Feb 1997 13:29:18 +1100 Received: from localhost by flash.irvine.com id aa11415; 17 Feb 97 18:28 PST To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au CC: adam@flash.irvine.com Subject: Re: L40E2 In-reply-to: Your message of "Tue, 18 Feb 1997 01:40:49 PST." Date: Mon, 17 Feb 1997 18:28:09 PST From: Adam Beneschan Message-ID: <9702171828.aa11415@flash.irvine.com> Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > Law 40 - Partnership Understandings > > E. Convention Card > 2. Referring to Opponents' Convention Card > During the auction and play, any player except dummy may refer > to his opponents' convention card at his own turn to call or > play, but not to his own. > > > > Two questions. > > > [1] Assuming you are not dummy, may you look at your opponents' > convention card at partner's or opponents' turn to call or play? > > [2] Is the answer obvious from the above law? [1] No, and [2] I think it is obvious. If the intent were to allow you to look at the opponents' convention card any time you wanted to, 40E2 wouldn't have specifically said "at his own turn to call." (Yes, I saw the argument on r.g.b that "B implies A" does not mean "Not-B implies Not-A". Here "B" is "It's your own turn to call" and "A" is "You may look at your opponents' convention card." This is true if we're dealing strictly with logical propositions. However, in general, English prose should not be read as propositions in the context of algebraic logic. Or something like that.) -- Adam From owner-bridge-laws Tue Feb 18 15:21:07 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id PAA13329 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 18 Feb 1997 15:21:07 +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 PAA13324 for ; Tue, 18 Feb 1997 15:21:00 +1100 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by relay-10.mail.demon.net id aa1014586; 18 Feb 97 4:18 GMT Message-ID: Date: Tue, 18 Feb 1997 04:16:46 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: New Law 79B In-Reply-To: <33084820.3C32@innet.be> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Herman De Wael wrote: >I have just had - at last - a complete peek at the proposals for the new >Laws. >I have found something not mentioned before (I think). > >In Law 79B, the word 'may' is to be changed into 'need'. > >No increase in score need be granted unless ... > >What do you think of that change ? >I don't like it. >In the past, I could say : 'I believe you, but the Laws prevent me from >changing this, otherwise less ethical players than yourself could use >this to get points from uninterested opponents'. >Now I will have to be the ogre director again. 'Why don't you change our >score ? The opponents agree ! Don't you trust us ?' and so on. > >This new Law implies that the director can change the score. It does not >say when he should do this and when not. I don't like it. > I like it. It legalises what many TDs, including myself, do anyway. If, as has happened to me, you have a situation where everyone knows a mistake has been made, hiding behind a law to give a ruling that you know is wrong and will upset both sides seems silly unless it could affect something seriously. The law was introduced because someone won a top event in the USA after a couple of LOLs were convinced that he had actually taken one trick more than was scored. Very reasonable law. Take a Swiss Pairs, where you know how people are doing. If there is a problem of this sort at Table one with one match to play, I shall tell them I shall not increase the score because the Law says so. But at Table 43? Of course my decision whether to increase the score is based on position and whether the increase in score can win an event, not on the people concerned. I am surprised if TDs do not now increase a score when a pair cannot be in contention, and I like that to be regularised. -- 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 Feb 19 00:34:05 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA17676 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 19 Feb 1997 00:34:05 +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 AAA17671 for ; Wed, 19 Feb 1997 00:34:00 +1100 Received: (from uucp@localhost) by micros-bh.micros.com (8.6.12/8.6.11) id IAA04535 for ; Tue, 18 Feb 1997 08:33:48 -0500 Received: from micros.micros.com by micros-bh.micros.com via smap (V3.1.1) id xma004529; Tue, 18 Feb 97 08:33:28 -0500 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 IAA25311 for ; Tue, 18 Feb 1997 08:32:19 -0500 From: Chris Miller To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: An incident from the club ... X-Mailer: ScoMail 3.0.Bd MIME-Version: 1.0 Date: Tue, 18 Feb 1997 8:26:37 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <9702180826.aa10024@rna.micros.com> Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Round 3 of a non-Life Master pairs game, 4-board rounds. The director places the boards for Round 3 on the table. All players take their hands and sort them, and North passes. A moment afterwards South bids 1C. East points out that this is out of turn, and South responds "But I'm Dealer". In fact (a) the board was rotated and (b) South hadn't noticed North's pass. North is obviously at fault for not checking the board orientation at the start. South is a novice, the other players are relatively experienced. What is your ruling? In practice, the Director, after some study of the Law book, ruled 1. that the board be played rotated, so that South was the opening bidder. 2. That North, having passed out of turn before any player had bid, must pass at the next opportunity to call. There was some doubt whether to treat the North and South calls as simultaneous; if they had been so treated, then North's call would have been considered a subsequent call,and hence a Pass at RHO's turn to bid, which also seems to compel a Pass at next opportunity to bid. Should EW have been given the option of accepting North's opening Pass. If so, how is South's 1C bid handled? ---- 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 Wed Feb 19 03:08:53 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA19344 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 19 Feb 1997 03:08:53 +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 DAA19339 for ; Wed, 19 Feb 1997 03:08:43 +1100 Received: from tempest.cise.npl.co.uk by waffle.cise.npl.co.uk; Tue, 18 Feb 1997 16:08:06 GMT Date: Tue, 18 Feb 97 16:08:04 GMT Message-Id: <6834.9702181608@tempest.cise.npl.co.uk> From: Robin Barker To: chris@micros.com Subject: Re: An incident from the club ... Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Chris > All players take their hands and sort them, and North passes. > A moment afterwards South bids 1C. East points out that this is > out of turn, and South responds "But I'm Dealer". > > In fact (a) the board was rotated and (b) South hadn't noticed > North's pass. > > North is obviously at fault for not checking the board orientation > at the start. South is a novice, the other players are relatively > experienced. > > What is your ruling? > > In practice, the Director, after some study of the Law book, ruled > 1. that the board be played rotated, so that South was the opening bidder. Clearly the player with the cards from the slot marked "Dealer" must be the opening bidder (so that results are comparable). Usually we can allow play of the board if N<->S and E<->W or even if N->E->S->W->N (when the result will be "arrow-switched"). So the South player has the hand from the slot marked "North/Dealer" and is to open the bidding. > 2. That North, having passed out of turn before any player had bid, must > pass at the next opportunity to call. > > There was some doubt whether to treat the North and South calls as > simultaneous; if they had been so treated, then North's call would have > been considered a subsequent call,and hence a Pass at RHO's turn to bid, > which also seems to compel a Pass at next opportunity to bid. > > Should EW have been given the option of accepting North's opening Pass. > If so, how is South's 1C bid handled? I may be conventient to treat the bids as simultaneous, but they weren't. We have to deal with N's PassOOT and S's subsequent bid. This raises similar problems to a hand earlier this year where the auction had progressed counter-clockwise. I suggest we deal with the infractions in order. N's PassOOT is not considered in rotation as none of L28 applies, so we then offer East the opportunity to accept N's Pass (L29B), telling him that if he does so we will then rule on S's 1C bid as (2) below. 1) East does not accept the Pass, bidding reverts to South his 1C stands and North is subject to L30A (as 2. above). 2) East accepts the Pass, now we must deal with S's 1C bid. I do not think we can apply L28B and allow East to call, as a penalty is already being assessed. West can accept 1C and call forfeiting the right to penalise (L29B). Otherwise the auction reverts to East. If East passes, South must repeat 1C and there is not penalty (L30A1), otherwise if East bids North/South are subject to Law30A2: if South repeats clubs North must pass once, etc. 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 Wed Feb 19 04:56:07 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA23098 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 19 Feb 1997 04:56:07 +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 EAA23061 for ; Wed, 19 Feb 1997 04:55:59 +1100 Received: from cph52.ppp.dknet.dk (cph52.ppp.dknet.dk [194.192.100.52]) by pip.dknet.dk (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id SAA23617 for ; Tue, 18 Feb 1997 18:55:49 +0100 From: Jesper Dybdal To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: New Law 79B Date: Tue, 18 Feb 1997 18:55:43 +0100 Organization: at home Message-ID: <330adad3.471507@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 Tue, 18 Feb 1997 04:16:46 +0000, David Stevenson wrote: > I like it. It legalises what many TDs, including myself, do anyway. I like it too (and I do it too). > If, as has happened to me, you have a situation where everyone knows a= =20 >mistake has been made, hiding behind a law to give a ruling that you=20 >know is wrong and will upset both sides seems silly unless it could=20 >affect something seriously. Exactly. In fact, it seems silly even if it _could_ affect something seriously. [snip] >I am surprised if TDs do not now increase a score >when a pair cannot be in contention, and I like that to be regularised. I would do it even if the pair was in contention. My position is that the law forbids an increase in score "if a subsequent disagreement arises", but if it is definitely sorted out to become what you might call a "subsequent new agreement" instead, it does seem silly to not change the score - provided that the TD is quite convinced that the new score is actually correct and that the L79C period has not expired. Of course it could be a problem if, as you say, a pair of LOLs are bamboozled into believing that they got fewer tricks than they actually did; but then we're talking about an extremely rare case of (at least almost) cheating, and that concerns me less that the fairly common case of the two sides agreeing on a wrong score by mistake. --=20 Jesper Dybdal, Denmark From owner-bridge-laws Wed Feb 19 04:56:09 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA23100 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 19 Feb 1997 04:56:09 +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 EAA23084 for ; Wed, 19 Feb 1997 04:56:02 +1100 Received: from cph52.ppp.dknet.dk (cph52.ppp.dknet.dk [194.192.100.52]) by pip.dknet.dk (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id SAA23621 for ; Tue, 18 Feb 1997 18:55:52 +0100 From: Jesper Dybdal To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: L40E2 Date: Tue, 18 Feb 1997 18:55:46 +0100 Organization: at home Message-ID: <330bde40.1348849@pipmail.dknet.dk> References: <9702171828.aa11415@flash.irvine.com> In-Reply-To: <9702171828.aa11415@flash.irvine.com> X-Mailer: Forte Agent .99g/32.339 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Mon, 17 Feb 1997 18:28:09 PST, Adam Beneschan wrote: >[1] No, and [2] I think it is obvious. If the intent were to allow >you to look at the opponents' convention card any time you wanted to, >40E2 wouldn't have specifically said "at his own turn to call." I agree. --=20 Jesper Dybdal, Denmark From owner-bridge-laws Wed Feb 19 04:56:12 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA23104 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 19 Feb 1997 04:56:12 +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 EAA23095 for ; Wed, 19 Feb 1997 04:56:06 +1100 Received: from cph52.ppp.dknet.dk (cph52.ppp.dknet.dk [194.192.100.52]) by pip.dknet.dk (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id SAA23624 for ; Tue, 18 Feb 1997 18:55:55 +0100 From: Jesper Dybdal To: Bridge Laws List Subject: New law 25B Date: Tue, 18 Feb 1997 18:55:50 +0100 Organization: at home Message-ID: <330ee3ee.2802389@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 Don't worry - I won't (now) go into the quite terrible and illogical penalties specified by the new L25B. But there is another problem: the very beginning of L25B has been changed from "If a call is substituted when section A does not apply: ..." to "Until LHO calls, a call may be substituted when section A does not apply: ..." (that's what it says in the copy that I have at long last received - I cannot guarantee that it is final). This must mean that L25B changes are now _legal_, and can actually be made on purpose without conflict with L72B2 (the former L72B1) if you're willing to accept the penalty. However, L25B still uses the word "penalty" about the consequences of a L25B change of call. My guess is that the new wording is a mistake; but it is then a rather bad mistake, since it is very important to distinguish between the perfectly legal changes of calls covered by L25A and the (until now) illegal changes of calls covered by L25B. When called by a player who says "I've regretted the call I just made - may I change it?", are we now really to say "Yes, if you're willing to accept the following penalty: ..."? And if we are, can his LHO ruin it by calling before the TD gets there? --=20 Jesper Dybdal, Denmark From owner-bridge-laws Wed Feb 19 08:15:15 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA29071 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 19 Feb 1997 08:15:15 +1100 Received: from relay-11.mail.demon.net (relay-11.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.137]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id IAA29066 for ; Wed, 19 Feb 1997 08:15:08 +1100 Received: from coruncanius.demon.co.uk ([194.222.115.176]) by relay-11.mail.demon.net id aa1121525; 18 Feb 97 21:12 GMT Message-ID: Date: Tue, 18 Feb 1997 19:02:40 +0000 To: David Stevenson Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Labeo Subject: Re: L40E2 In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In message , David Stevenson writes >Law 40 - Partnership Understandings > >E. Convention Card > > .....cut..... > >Two questions. > > >[1] Assuming you are not dummy, may you look at your opponents' >convention card at partner's or opponents' turn to call or play? > >[2] Is the answer obvious from the above law? > >Labeo responds so: [1] No [2] Yes. One sometimes comes across a misunderstanding of the construction of the laws. The so-called 'laws' are in fact the rules of a game and they operate in the way that game rules operate. That is to say they are prescriptive - they tell you how the game is played and what they do not say is not part of the game. A matter on which the laws are silent is what the 'laws' themselves term "extraneous". To be used in the game an action must be positively authorized in the laws. The use of extraneous matters is not authorized, even if the laws are silent about it. I agree it would be useful if the Preface to the laws said as much explicitly, but there is evidence in the laws it is so: one of the places in which the evidence is apparent is Law 40E2. In a posting on this thread Adam Beneschan has stated the point well. Labeo From owner-bridge-laws Wed Feb 19 08:36:59 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA29184 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 19 Feb 1997 08:36:59 +1100 Received: from mail.hamburg.netsurf.de (trance.isys.net [194.64.236.33]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id IAA29179 for ; Wed, 19 Feb 1997 08:36:53 +1100 Received: from mail1.isys.net[193.96.224.33] by mail.hamburg.netsurf.de with smtp (Smail 3.2 #2 -iSYS-); id m0vwxD6-000HJ3C; Tue, 18 Feb 1997 22:36:24 +0100 (MET) Received: from meckwell [194.195.202.121] by mail1.isys.net with smtp (Smail 3.2 #3 -iSYS-); id m0vwyKT-001LBOC; Tue, 18 Feb 1997 23:48:05 +0100 (MET) Date: Tue, 18 Feb 1997 22:38:49 +0100 (CET) From: Henk Uijterwaal X-Sender: henk@meckwell Reply-To: Henk Uijterwaal To: Adam Beneschan cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: L40E2 In-Reply-To: <9702171828.aa11415@flash.irvine.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > > [1] Assuming you are not dummy, may you look at your opponents' > > convention card at partner's or opponents' turn to call or play? > > [2] Is the answer obvious from the above law? > [1] No, and [2] I think it is obvious. If the intent were to allow > you to look at the opponents' convention card any time you wanted to, > 40E2 wouldn't have specifically said "at his own turn to call." Agree 100%. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Henk Uijterwaal Email: henk.uijterwaal@hamburg.netsurf.de (home) henk@desy.de (work) WWW: http://www-zeus.desy.de/~uijter ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Leptoquarks? What Leptoquarks? From owner-bridge-laws Wed Feb 19 09:56:32 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA29751 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 19 Feb 1997 09:56:32 +1100 Received: from inet-smtp-gw-1.us.oracle.com (inet-smtp-gw-1.us.oracle.com [192.86.155.81]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id JAA29745 for ; Wed, 19 Feb 1997 09:56:24 +1100 Received: from oracle.us.oracle.com (oracle.us.oracle.com [144.25.88.100]) by inet-smtp-gw-1.us.oracle.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id OAA32203; Tue, 18 Feb 1997 14:56:15 -0800 (PST) Received: from sun-jboyce.oracle.com by oracle.us.oracle.com with ESMTP (8.6.9/37.7) id OAA11360; Tue, 18 Feb 1997 14:55:57 -0800 Received: by sun-jboyce.oracle.com (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id OAA08381; Tue, 18 Feb 1997 14:55:40 -0800 Date: Tue, 18 Feb 1997 14:55:40 -0800 From: jboyce@sun-jboyce.us.oracle.com (Jim Boyce) Message-Id: <199702182255.OAA08381@sun-jboyce.oracle.com> To: Labeo@coruncanius.demon.co.uk CC: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au In-reply-to: (message from Labeo on Tue, 18 Feb 1997 19:02:40 +0000) Subject: Re: L40E2 Reply-to: jboyce%sun-jboyce@us.oracle.com Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk This is my first posting to this mailing list. I am not a director, nor am I currently an active player. (I was probably a reasonable Flight B player when I did play.) I am a mathematician by training and my interest is to see that the rules of the game well-founded. I do not want the Laws to make reasonable behavior illegal. It seems to me that various other regulations also have a bearing on this question. In some auctions, you need to know the meaning of LHO's bid in order to alert (or not) the meaning of partner's bid before RHO can bid. If you cannot consult the opponents' convention card until after RHO has called, then what should you do? Or, ... You come to the table, greet the opponents, and start to examine their card. LHO (dealer) is in a hurry and bids. Are you in violation of the law for examining their card during LHO's turn to bid? or has LHO somehow bid out of turn? Or is the question of when you can examine the convention card less clear-cut than many of you have suggested? -jim From owner-bridge-laws Wed Feb 19 10:04:08 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA29807 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 19 Feb 1997 10:04:08 +1100 Received: from relay-7.mail.demon.net (relay-7.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.9]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id KAA29799 for ; Wed, 19 Feb 1997 10:03:59 +1100 Received: from coruncanius.demon.co.uk ([194.222.115.176]) by relay-7.mail.demon.net id aa713916; 18 Feb 97 21:12 GMT Message-ID: Date: Tue, 18 Feb 1997 20:57:10 +0000 To: Adam Beneschan Cc: bridge laws list From: Labeo Subject: Re: Strange Claim In-Reply-To: <9702121329.aa08549@flash.irvine.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In message <9702121329.aa08549@flash.irvine.com>, Adam Beneschan writes > >Pursuant to the thread about busted claims, I'd like opinions about >how you would rule on the following claims. I'm interested in what >Laws and principles apply, and how they should be applied. > >Labeo responds as follows: Getting away from specific hands and looking at the principles of Law 70, what I see is this: 1. We are not dealing with Play of the hand; we are dealing with the adjudication of a specific claim by a player. We are required to say whether he makes the number of tricks he claims by the method stated in his clarification of claim. 2. Law 70D tells the Director that he must not allow claimer to propose a line of play not embraced in his original clarification if there is an alternative normal line of play that would be less successful. 3. The Director's first duty therefore is to proceed to do the things set out in 70b; in doing so he may well learn more about claimer's previously stated intentions, without permitting him to go outside of his earlier words. In the recently discussed case we had no such advantage and had to rule on what we knew. The next step is to take the claimer's stated line of play and see if it works. This line need not be good bridge, it need not even be rational in the TDs opinion: if it can be followed exactly and is a legal play of the cards the Director should determine the outcome on whether it succeeds or not. The Director is not authorized to introduce an alternative line of play not embraced in the clarification statement by the player because he thinks it is a more sensible line of play, nor because he thinks it is what would happen if the player had played the cards out = the law gives him no authority to do that where he is able to follow claimer's statement. 4. Where claimer's proposed play cannot be followed - is illegal or simply breaks down or is insufficiently stated or presents a margin of doubt as to the way in which what he said is to be done - the TD will rule against claimer if there is a 'normal' (rational) line of play that will fail. But if there is only one way to carry out claimer's statement no ambiguity exists as to the application of his words; it is then wrong for the TD to propose an ambiguity to him and especially he should not suggest that if he had actually played it out he would have been led by some circumstance to do something else. (The footnote, of course, stops the TD from forcing upon the player an unsuccessful line that would be irrational. It does not stop the player following a successful line that he has stated in his claim, because the TD thinks it is irrational and is unfair to opponents = that is a wrong view of equity. 5. If the declarer does not clarify his claim originally then the question is whether any (every) normal play which is not irrational will give him his tricks. Sometimes his meaning is indisputable from the play prior to the claim and the cards remaining : it is then irrational not to do what is obvious. 6. There are specific provisions when (70C) opponent has a trump that is not dealt with in the statement and (70E) when claimer wants to play finesse or drop successfully and has not said in his claim which view he will take. This is how I see Law 70. Labeo From owner-bridge-laws Wed Feb 19 10:09:10 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA29856 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 19 Feb 1997 10:09:10 +1100 Received: from pimaia4w.prodigy.com (pimaia4w.prodigy.com [198.83.18.139]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id KAA29851 for ; Wed, 19 Feb 1997 10:09:02 +1100 Received: from mime3.prodigy.com (mime3.prodigy.com [192.168.253.27]) by pimaia4w.prodigy.com (8.6.10/8.6.9) with ESMTP id RAA26430 for ; Tue, 18 Feb 1997 17:47:41 -0500 Received: (from root@localhost) by mime3.prodigy.com (8.6.10/8.6.9) id RAA73106 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 18 Feb 1997 17:04:21 -0500 Message-Id: <199702182204.RAA73106@mime3.prodigy.com> X-Mailer: Prodigy Internet GW(v0.9beta) - ae01dm04sc03 From: DMFV47B@prodigy.com ( CHYAH E BURGHARD) Date: Tue, 18 Feb 1997 17:04:21, -0500 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: L40E2 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk How do you apply L40E2 in the following circumstance or is there another law that covers this? LHO makes an opening call, your partner looks at their convention card and makes a bid. However, you don't know what LHO's call meant, so you don't know whether to alert your partner's bid or even what it means. Do you say, "that could be an alert depending on the meaning of the 1C bid?" For example, if 1C is "may be short", then your partner's call was natural, but if it was 1C "is 16+", then your partner's call is artificial? The other choice is that RHO makes a call, now you look at the card, find out that you should have alerted partner's call and now you call the director? Or else there is everyone's favorite, "alert!" "yes?" "I don't know!" -Chyah From owner-bridge-laws Wed Feb 19 10:36:19 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA00113 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 19 Feb 1997 10:36:19 +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 KAA00104 for ; Wed, 19 Feb 1997 10:36:11 +1100 Received: from coruncanius.demon.co.uk ([194.222.115.176]) by relay-6.mail.demon.net id aa602207; 18 Feb 97 21:12 GMT Message-ID: Date: Tue, 18 Feb 1997 19:21:29 +0000 To: David Stevenson Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Labeo Subject: Re: New Law 79B In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In message , David Stevenson writes >Herman De Wael wrote: > >>I have just had - at last - a complete peek at the proposals for the new >>Laws. >>I have found something not mentioned before (I think). >> >>In Law 79B, the word 'may' is to be changed into 'need'. >> >>No increase in score need be granted unless ... >> >>What do you think of that change ? > (cut) David Stevenson said: > The law was introduced because someone won a top event in the USA >after a couple of LOLs were convinced that he had actually taken one >trick more than was scored. Very reasonable law. Labeo: Oh, come on! Some time or other, somewhere (not I believe USA) it was suspected a pair without interest in the prize list had perhaps colluded with a co-national pair to 'correct' a result to the second pair's advantage. The law was put in to take away any such suspicion. I prefer the force of the law as it was if we believe there are players who will abuse the law; but David Stevenson has shown how the Director may use the new version of the law - and TDs could be helped by some official guidance on the point from NBOs or ZAs. Labeo From owner-bridge-laws Wed Feb 19 11:02:26 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id LAA00298 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 19 Feb 1997 11:02:26 +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 LAA00293 for ; Wed, 19 Feb 1997 11:02:20 +1100 Received: from localhost by flash.irvine.com id aa26054; 18 Feb 97 16:01 PST To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au CC: adam@flash.irvine.com Subject: Re: L40E2 In-reply-to: Your message of "Tue, 18 Feb 1997 14:55:40 PST." <199702182255.OAA08381@sun-jboyce.oracle.com> Date: Tue, 18 Feb 1997 16:01:41 PST From: Adam Beneschan Message-ID: <9702181601.aa26054@flash.irvine.com> Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > You come to the table, greet the opponents, and start to examine their > card. LHO (dealer) is in a hurry and bids. Are you in violation of > the law for examining their card during LHO's turn to bid? or has LHO > somehow bid out of turn? Or is the question of when you can examine > the convention card less clear-cut than many of you have suggested? Hmmm . . . good point. L17A says the auction period begins when someone makes a call, and L40E2 starts "During the auction and play", so this law kicks in as soon as LHO makes a call. So before LHO makes a call, you're not in violation for examining their card at LHO's turn to call. After LHO's call, however, it appears that you're technically in violation for examining their card at *partner's* turn to call. My personal practice is that if I want to study their convention card before we start playing, I do so before I look at my hand. I might ask questions about their system or general approach, and discuss defenses to unusual conventions with partner. If anyone then makes a call, if I'm not done looking, I will continue to examine the card, ask questions, discuss defenses, still before looking at my hand. It appears that the Laws make what I'm doing illegal; it seems to me that this is a hole in the Laws that should be plugged up. -- Adam From owner-bridge-laws Wed Feb 19 11:12:30 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id LAA00332 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 19 Feb 1997 11:12:30 +1100 Received: from relay-11.mail.demon.net (relay-11.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.137]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id LAA00327 for ; Wed, 19 Feb 1997 11:12:23 +1100 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by relay-11.mail.demon.net id aa1111478; 18 Feb 97 23:50 GMT Message-ID: Date: Tue, 18 Feb 1997 23:36:44 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Strange claim In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Burn, David wrote: >It appears to me that in ruling on a contested claim, one >should follow the Laws as far as they will take us - but >sadly, this is not far enough (hence the debate). Herman >de Wael has already attempted this, but in my view he >omitted an important step (as did the director and the >players, if the original account is complete). L70B3 is >material: what objections were voiced to the claim, and >what if anything was said about them? North-South's >objection would (I presume) be based on the fact that East >cannot certainly take four club tricks; was this stated, and >how did declarer react? Without this information, it is very >difficult to give any kind of definitive ruling. > >If L70B3 had been followed, then one of three things might >have happened: > >(a) Declarer says: "Oh. Well, I'll have to overtake the CQ and >hope the 10 drops, then." >(b) Declarer says: "Oh. Well, I'll have to play a heart towards >the KJ, then." >(c) Declarer says nothing, and awaits the Director's ruling. > >I am prepared to bet Lombard Street to a china orange that >(c) would not have happened, but since we do not have the >relevant facts, we should consider each scenario in turn. In fact, declarer does not always say anything relevant at such a time: sometimes he contents himself with "Oh, s**t!", or listens to his partner going on about why he should never claim, he always makes a hash of it, and if only she had listened to her mother ... However, what I do not see is how this affects anything anyway. Alright, suppose declarer says [a] or [b]: in what way do these affect the ruling? In no way at all, I would contend. All that happens is that L70D kicks in, and declarer's extra words are not particularly relevant. L70B3 does not mention declarer: it refers to listening to opponents, and I cannot see any relevance. As far as L70B3 is concerned, I am sure that the opponents said something like "The clubs are blocked." Any further comments by declarer are nothing to do with L70B3. -- 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 Feb 19 11:18:46 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id LAA00363 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 19 Feb 1997 11:18:46 +1100 Received: from relay-11.mail.demon.net (relay-11.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.137]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id LAA00358 for ; Wed, 19 Feb 1997 11:18:36 +1100 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by relay-10.mail.demon.net id aa1010596; 18 Feb 97 23:50 GMT Message-ID: Date: Tue, 18 Feb 1997 23:42:53 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Strange Claim In-Reply-To: <3304591D.22D3@innet.be> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Herman De Wael wrote:=20 >Of course the relevant law is L70. Sometimes the nuances of the Laws surprise me. While I tell everyone=20 to read the Law book, there is little doubt that it tends to be done=20 more in the technical laws, such as bids out of turn, while claims, MI=20 and UI cases tend to be more a matter of TD judgement and a presumption=20 that the law is clear. In my case, I have received very good training,=20 so that I often "know" something because of my training, and find that=20 the Laws back me up. It comes as quite a shock to me, when reading L70,=20 to find that this is not really the case in this particular area. >L70A tells us the general objective. We will use that at the end of the >ruling to have declarer put on the jack, if we have him play hearts. I agree, this gives us the broad outline. >L70B just tells us the procedures. Declarer must specify a >"clarification statement". L68C defines this as "a line of play or >defence". Two separate words are used IMO, because the "statement" will >often not include a particular "line". The director shall distill a >"line" from the "statement". Now L70B is where the problem lies. Where is L70B4? Come on,=20 lawmakers, where is it? In effect, my training and experience have led=20 me to assume a L70B4: 4. Decision The Director then adjudges the claim as fairly as possible, following as far as practicable the clarification statement, but allowing for the opponents' objections. No further clarification from the claimer is accepted. But where is it? Some posters have suggested an alternative L70B4 [in effect]: 4. Decision The Director then adjudges the claim as fairly as possible, following the clarification statement if possible, but allowing for the opponents' objections. No further clarification from the claimer is accepted. I can live with that one, I think, since it seems to follow the spirit=20 of the Laws, and since there does not seem to be anything contrary to it=20 in the Laws. However, some postings have assumed this: 4. Decision The Director then adjudges the claim as fairly as possible, following the clarification statement if possible, but allowing for the opponents' objections. Further clarification from the claimer will be accepted for doubtful points, subject to L70D. Now, I contend that this one is not acceptable, and is against the=20 spirit of the Laws. Nothing in the these Laws suggests that claimer=20 should be *offered* another shot at his contract. Since L70B1 includes=20 repeating [not embellishing] the clarification statement and L70B3=20 refers to the opponents, then I am sure that if it was correct to give=20 the claimer a further chance then there would be a law to say so. Why, then, does L70D exist? Because human nature being what it is,=20 after declarer says "I have 12 tricks", and the defence say "The clubs=20 are blocked", declarer says something like "Of course I overtake the=20 club" or "I meant, *of course*, playing a heart to the king". =20 Basically, such further clarification should not be sought: if freely=20 given it should be ignored except for making it easier for the TD to see=20 what is happening. David Burn has suggested it would be useful to know what declarer said=20 when his line clearly had become defective: I suggest that this is not=20 relevant to the ruling, so we do not need to know. Furthermore, when=20 asked a question on BLML [or RGB or RGBO/OKBD for that matter], it is=20 reasonable to assume that all pertinent facts have been given us. So I=20 assume that [a] anything he said is irrelevant and [b] he did not say=20 anything important anyway. >L70C is irrelevant to our case, and IMO just a special case where the >other parts of the law are applied. True. >L70E tells us that declarer is allowed to change his line of play when >in normal play he discovers some fact that would normally affect the >chosen line. This is a case that sometimes happens : a player will play >out his line, and at some point discover that it is faulty. If at that >same time, it becomes clear that there is an alternative line (and only >one), he is allowed to take that path. >Since he will not find out that the ten must drop, this does not affect >our ruling True. >L70D is the real crux of the argumentation : > >D. Claimer Proposes New Line of Play >The Director shall not accept from claimer any successful line of play >not embraced in the original clarification statement if there is an >alternative normal* line of play that would be less successful. Well, he didn't offer an alternative line, so this Law is irrelevant. Now, I will accept that these three Laws, while not directly involved=20 in this ruling, might be used in interpretation of L70A in view of the=20 doubt, and lack of L70B4. What do they say in effect? They all say=20 that you do not accept a successful line when there is a less successful=20 but normal line available. Let us try for a better wording of L70B4, based on the presumption=20 that L70C, L70D and L70E are just special cases of L70B4. 4. Decision The Director then adjudges the claim as fairly as possible, following the clarification statement if possible, but allowing for the opponents' objections. The Director shall not consider any successful line of play not embraced in the original clarification statement if there is an alternative normal [*] line of play that would be less successful.=20 Note that I have deleted the bit about declarer not getting a second=20 shot. When you read the wording above, it is not really necessary,=20 because it will be clearly ignored, and it is not possible to stop=20 declarer explaining at length: the TD just does not act on it. I believe this to be a reasonable interpretation of the Laws, and I=20 feel that, if agreed, it should be included in a future Law book. =20 National authorities might consider accepting it as an interpretation=20 until that happens. Do you agree? ------ How about the original hand? >>That is what it is all about. No line that involves declarer playing=20 >>a small red card from hand at any time is embraced in the original=20 >>clarification statement. L70B4 [proposed] makes this irrelevant. >Of course this raises the point as to when to consider alternative >lines. David goes to great lengths to say that declarer must carry out >his original plan, almost to the letter. Then, when he finally discovers >that the line does not work, it is unfortunately too late to do anything >about it. He now has no more (losing) alternatives. We on the other >hand, also include the possibility that declarer notices the blocking >immediately, (something not even David will call unlikely) and we give >him the additional options. Since L70A tells us doubtful points shall be >resolved against declarer, nothing prevents us from calling the use of >heart entries =91alternative normal lines of play=92. I have never disagreed with this: they are alternative normal lines of=20 play. Under my original reading of the Laws that was not sufficient to=20 make me consider them: under the proposed L70B4 I do consider them. >If we can have David agree to that, we can move on to the final point of >discussion. (no, we=92re not there yet !) > >We have established that the condition in 70D is fulfilled. So : >"the Director shall not accept any successful line not embraced in the >original clarification". > >What is the successful line : overtake the club queen and hope for the >ten to drop. >What was the original clarification : I have four club tricks. > >Is this line embraced in this statement ? > >We=92ve all given lots of examples. I think we should enter into >declarer=92s mind. When you see KQ opposite AJxx, you think to yourself : >four tricks. I don=92t know about you, but I myself have often neglected >to add =91.. if I have an entry to hand=92. That is the mistake declarer >made. Overtaking the queen is a line not =91embraced in the statement=92. = He >did not add this to his statement. By chance, he had the nine as well >(thus giving him a third option, as it happens a successful one), but he >certainly did not include that into his reasoning, or he would have said >something about it. When he said, =91four clubs=92, he forgot he could not >get into hand. > >So, overtaking the clubs is not a line of play =91embraced in the original >clarification statement=92 and there is an alternative normal line that is >less successful, so Director should not accept this line. One down. (not >two, as playing diamonds before hearts would IMHO be irrational). > >OK David, where did I go wrong ? Only really in the relevance of all this. It is quite logical and=20 sensible, but the question was relevance. If you have to follow the=20 original claim as closely as possible, and it was a top tricks claim,=20 then you have to follow the line that is just top tricks, and my=20 original ruling stands. However, I have now shifted my position to take in a different=20 approach, embracing a proposed L70B4. Ruling under this Law, the=20 original claim will not do, so we consider the options: overtake the=20 club, or heart to the jack or heart to the king. One down, so long as=20 one of these lines fails. You could complicate this ruling by considering whether declarer=20 would cash his diamonds before playing the heart: is that normal? I=20 don't really think so, but it is not the interest in the hand: that is=20 just judgement. >And to think all of this started in Nizhny Novgorod ! Yes, terrible claim, as I said at the start. :)) --=20 David Stevenson Bridge Cats Railways Logic /\_/\ Liverpool, England, UK http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk =3D( ^*^ )=3D bridge@blakjak.demon.co.uk Emails welcome bluejak on OKB ( | | ) Tel: +44 (0)151 677 7412 Phone before Fax please RTFLB (_~^ ^~ =20 From owner-bridge-laws Wed Feb 19 11:48:20 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id LAA00451 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 19 Feb 1997 11:48:20 +1100 Received: from pip.dknet.dk (root@pip.dknet.dk [193.88.44.48]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id LAA00446 for ; Wed, 19 Feb 1997 11:48:13 +1100 Received: from cph30.ppp.dknet.dk (cph30.ppp.dknet.dk [194.192.100.30]) by pip.dknet.dk (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id BAA06866 for ; Wed, 19 Feb 1997 01:48:01 +0100 From: Jesper Dybdal To: Bridge Laws List Subject: Re: L40E2 Date: Wed, 19 Feb 1997 01:47:54 +0100 Organization: at home Message-ID: <330d4c6e.6499075@pipmail.dknet.dk> References: <199702182255.OAA08381@sun-jboyce.oracle.com> In-Reply-To: <199702182255.OAA08381@sun-jboyce.oracle.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, 18 Feb 1997 14:55:40 -0800, jboyce@sun-jboyce.us.oracle.com (Jim Boyce) wrote: >Or is the question of when you can examine >the convention card less clear-cut than many of you have suggested? In practice, it certainly is - for the simple reason that L40E2 is not enforced strictly. In the situation where you don't know whether to alert because you don't know what LHO's call meant, you do one of the following: (a) Say "That may be alertable depending on the meaning of ...". (b) Look quickly at their CC and alert or not. (c) Say "just a moment while I find out whether that is alertable" and check their CC. (d) Alert and, if asked, say "It depends on the meaning of the XX bid - what does the XX bid show?" Of these four actions, (b) and (c) violate L40E2. L40E2 says "at his own turn to call or play" (also in the new laws), and probably should have said "at his own turn to call, play, or possibly alert". As a TD, I simply interpret it as if it said just that. Or rather, I would if I was ever called upon to rule such a case - it has not happened yet. It is not the only place in the laws where the only sensible action is to assume that the author meant something slightly different than what he said. I've never heard of a case where any player was penalized or even reprimanded for (b) or (c). In an ordinary club game, I often look at opponents' CC as dummy. I do it to familiarize myself with their system in general, not to check any point relevant to the current hand, and I try to act in a way that makes it fairly obvious that that is what I'm doing. That is clearly against the law - but it is also a practical way to use the time when you're dummy. When my LHO calls, RHO alerts, and partner reaches for the CC, I also quite often reach for the CC - since partner is already looking at the CC, I can hardly influence him by also looking at it. Illegal, yes. But practical, since I then know whether to alert or not when my partner calls a moment later. I consider L40E2 a law that is routinely violated in a quite unproblematical way, and which exists in order to allow the TD to do something about it on the extremely rare cases where it is violated in a way that matters. Of course, it would be better to have a law that also allowed looking at the CC whenever there is obviously no risk that looking will call attention to any fact related to the current hand. >You come to the table, greet the opponents, and start to examine their >card. LHO (dealer) is in a hurry and bids. Are you in violation of >the law for examining their card during LHO's turn to bid? With a literal reading of L40E2, yes. L40E2 says "During the auction and play, any player except dummy may...". This must mean that before the auction period, you are allowed to look at the CC (though the logically minded may find that this is an interpretation that is somewhat contrary to the one we've made to decide that you may _only_ look at your turn, it is obviously what is intended). The auction period begins when any player makes a call, or, for a side, when either partner looks at the face of his cards. So it has begun, and you are not allowed to look at the CC. However, the new laws solve this problem: L17 is changed so that the auction period for a side begins when one of the two players looks at the face of his cards, regardless of what the other side does. This change was probably made to solve exactly this kind of problem. --=20 Jesper Dybdal, Denmark From owner-bridge-laws Wed Feb 19 12:23:05 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id MAA00579 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 19 Feb 1997 12:23:05 +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 MAA00573 for ; Wed, 19 Feb 1997 12:22:54 +1100 Received: from localhost by flash.irvine.com id aa04419; 18 Feb 97 17:22 PST To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au CC: adam@flash.irvine.com Subject: Re: L40E2 In-reply-to: Your message of "Tue, 18 Feb 1997 16:01:41 PST." <9702181601.aa26054@flash.irvine.com> Date: Tue, 18 Feb 1997 17:22:12 PST From: Adam Beneschan Message-ID: <9702181722.aa04419@flash.irvine.com> Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I wrote: > . . . If anyone then makes a > call, if I'm not done looking, I will continue to examine the card, > ask questions, discuss defenses, still before looking at my hand. It > appears that the Laws make what I'm doing illegal; it seems to me that > this is a hole in the Laws that should be plugged up. Then Jesper wrote: > However, the new laws solve this problem: L17 is changed so that the > auction period for a side begins when one of the two players looks at > the face of his cards, regardless of what the other side does. This > change was probably made to solve exactly this kind of problem. Ask and ye shall receive---sometimes sooner than you think . . . Maybe David should change his .sig to read RTFNLB (Read the *New* Law Book!), no? :-) -- Adam From owner-bridge-laws Wed Feb 19 14:38:03 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id OAA01295 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 19 Feb 1997 14:38:03 +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 OAA01290 for ; Wed, 19 Feb 1997 14:37:57 +1100 Received: (from smap@localhost) by msri.org (8.8.2/8.7.2) id TAA17930; Tue, 18 Feb 1997 19:37:56 -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 sma017925; Tue Feb 18 19:37:40 1997 Received: by boole.msri.org (8.7/DW.6) id TAA23017; Tue, 18 Feb 1997 19:37:21 -0800 (PST) Date: Tue, 18 Feb 1997 19:37:21 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <199702190337.TAA23017@boole.msri.org> From: David Grabiner To: jd@pip.dknet.dk CC: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au In-reply-to: <330d4c6e.6499075@pipmail.dknet.dk> (message from Jesper Dybdal on Wed, 19 Feb 1997 01:47:54 +0100) Subject: Re: L40E2 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Jesper Dybal writes: > When my LHO calls, RHO alerts, and partner reaches for the CC, I also > quite often reach for the CC - since partner is already looking at the > CC, I can hardly influence him by also looking at it. Illegal, yes. > But practical, since I then know whether to alert or not when my > partner calls a moment later. And even without the concern of the alert, it helps the flow of the game. When LHO opens 2D alerted, partner's required hesitation is time that you can use to plan your own bid, but only if you know that the bid is Roman and not Flannery. > I consider L40E2 a law that is routinely violated in a quite > unproblematical way, and which exists in order to allow the TD to do > something about it on the extremely rare cases where it is violated in > a way that matters. Since there is no penalty specified, the only penalty under the Laws is the possible transmission of UI, which seems unlikely once a bid has been alerted or partner has picked up the other card. > Of course, it would be better to have a law that > also allowed looking at the CC whenever there is obviously no risk > that looking will call attention to any fact related to the current > hand. This would codify the note above. There can be a UI problem in certain cases; for example, in an NCBO without announcements, LHO opens 1NT, playing an unusual range, and you pick up the card. -- David Grabiner, grabiner@msri.org, http://baseball.berkeley.edu/~grabiner I speak of MSRI and by MSRI but not for MSRI. Shop at the Mobius Strip Mall: Always on the same side of the street! Klein Glassworks, Torus Coffee and Donuts, Projective Airlines, etc. From owner-bridge-laws Wed Feb 19 15:25:02 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id PAA01646 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 19 Feb 1997 15:25:02 +1100 Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id PAA01631 for ; Wed, 19 Feb 1997 15:24:56 +1100 Received: from cfa183.harvard.edu (cfa183.harvard.edu [131.142.12.59]) by cfa.harvard.edu (8.8.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id XAA01998 for ; Tue, 18 Feb 1997 23:24:51 -0500 (EST) Received: by cfa183.harvard.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id XAA00381; Tue, 18 Feb 1997 23:24:53 -0500 Date: Tue, 18 Feb 1997 23:24:53 -0500 From: willner@cfa183.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Message-Id: <199702190424.XAA00381@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: L40E2 X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk From: David Grabiner > There can be a UI problem in certain > cases; for example, in an NCBO without announcements, LHO opens 1NT, > playing an unusual range, and you pick up the card. This is clearly undesirable behavior, but we don't need to appeal to L40. Acts like this are prohibited by L73B1 (extraneous gestures). From owner-bridge-laws Wed Feb 19 17:59:29 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id RAA02317 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 19 Feb 1997 17:59:29 +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 RAA02312 for ; Wed, 19 Feb 1997 17:59:21 +1100 Received: from default (cph3.ppp.dknet.dk [194.192.100.3]) by pip.dknet.dk (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id HAA14334 for ; Wed, 19 Feb 1997 07:59:10 +0100 Message-Id: <199702190659.HAA14334@pip.dknet.dk> Comments: Authenticated sender is From: "Jens & Bodil" Organization: Alesia Software To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Tue, 18 Feb 1997 21:13:30 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Re: An incident from the club ... Priority: normal X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v2.42a) Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: Chris Miller > Round 3 of a non-Life Master pairs game, 4-board rounds. > > The director places the boards for Round 3 on the table. > All players take their hands and sort them, and North passes. > A moment afterwards South bids 1C. East points out that this is > out of turn, and South responds "But I'm Dealer". > > In fact (a) the board was rotated and (b) South hadn't noticed > North's pass. > > North is obviously at fault for not checking the board orientation > at the start. South is a novice, the other players are relatively > experienced. > > What is your ruling? > > In practice, the Director, after some study of the Law book, ruled > 1. that the board be played rotated, so that South was the opening bidder. Yes. The player in the South seat is effectively North for this hand, and consequently he is the dealer. He is not (yet) the opening bidder (said he, picking nits). > 2. That North, having passed out of turn before any player had > bid, must pass at the next opportunity to call. When the TD rules this way, he should allow South to take his 1C back and choose his call knowing full well that his partner is obliged to pass the first round of bidding. He might well choose to do so holding, say, 19 HCP and a longish club suit. Lead penalties according to L26 should not apply, since the call is not withdrawn by an offending player. Under the 1987 laws (but not the 1997 laws as we currently know them) the 1C bid, if withdrawn, is authorized information for the player in the North seat. However, I don't completely agree with the basic ruling. See below. > > There was some doubt whether to treat the North and South calls as > simultaneous; This is a judgment to be made by the TD. No doubt he did his best. > if they had been so treated, then North's call would have > been considered a subsequent call,and hence a Pass at RHO's turn to bid, > which also seems to compel a Pass at next opportunity to bid. Yes. Cruel, isn't it, when he holds 11 HCP and 6C is cold. > Should EW have been given the option of accepting North's opening Pass. Yes. L29B gives the player in the East seat (who holds West's hand) that opportunity, but not his partner. There does not seem to be any exception in this case, and indeed it would open for some very tricky "sharp" bids. > If so, how is South's 1C bid handled? Reading the law book is (for once) not enough here. Where is L28B2 "call out of rotation made by partner"? We cannot use L28B and cancel the pass by North, since he is not S's _opponent_. And, since L28B is so specific, I read between the lines that S's 1C must be considered a call out of rotation. We therefore have two infractions: N's pass out of rotation and S's 1C, which we must rule as out of rotation as well. In my opinion, the TD must consider this as one compound irregularity. If the player in the East seat accepts the pass, the right to penalize is forefeited. In my opinion, this also applies to the second half of the infraction, which means that the 1C bid is cancelled without further penalty. If the pass is not accepted, we could try to penalize South for making a bid out of rotation at his own turn to call -- which sounds ridiculous, and is not foreseen in L30. I therefore, when the pass is not accepted, revert to the ruling given at the table, with the extra comments attached above. I don't really know whether I think L26 applies if the 1C bid is replaced with 3NT; in a way South is a player at fault. I find no reason to apply L12A1 (East-West do not seem to be robbed), nor L12A2 (normal play of the board still seems eminently possible). Note that under the expected 1997 laws, EW share the responsibility for placing the board correctly (but the director does not share that responsibility!). This should, I believe, only have influence on any procedural penalties imposed for playing a board that is placed wrong. Somehow I don't find a procedural penalty reasonable here. -- Jens Brix Christiansen, Denmark From owner-bridge-laws Wed Feb 19 21:57:09 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id VAA03003 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 19 Feb 1997 21:57:09 +1100 Received: from mailhub.axion.bt.co.uk (mailhub.axion.bt.co.uk [132.146.5.4]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id VAA02998 for ; Wed, 19 Feb 1997 21:57:01 +1100 Received: from catullus.agw.bt.co.uk by mailhub.axion.bt.co.uk with SMTP (PP); Wed, 19 Feb 1997 10:54:46 +0000 Received: from smsmaint002.agw.bt.co.uk (pdcgate.agw.bt.co.uk [192.168.207.73]) by catullus.agw.bt.co.uk (8.8.3/8.8.3) with SMTP id KAA11318 for ; Wed, 19 Feb 1997 10:54:28 GMT Received: by smsmaint002.agw.bt.co.uk with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Server Internet Mail Connector Version 4.0.994.63) id <01BC1E53.B6BCDA00@smsmaint002.agw.bt.co.uk>; Wed, 19 Feb 1997 10:57:35 -0000 Message-ID: From: "Burn, David" To: David Stevenson Cc: "'Bridge Laws'" Subject: RE: Strange claim Date: Wed, 19 Feb 1997 10:51:25 -0000 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 David Stevenson wrote: [much familiar stuff deleted] > >>In fact, declarer does not always say anything relevant at such a >>time: sometimes he contents himself with "Oh, s**t!", or listens to his >>partner going on about why he should never claim, he always makes a hash >>of it, and if only she had listened to her mother ... > >>However, what I do not see is how this affects anything anyway. >>Alright, suppose declarer says [a - I will overtake the club] >>or [b - I will play a heart to the king]: in what way do these affect >>the ruling? In no way at all, I would contend. All that happens is >>that L70D kicks in, and declarer's extra words are not particularly >>relevant. > >>L70B3 does not mention declarer: it refers to listening to opponents, >>and I cannot see any relevance. As far as L70B3 is concerned, I am sure >>that the opponents said something like "The clubs are blocked." Any >>further comments by declarer are nothing to do with L70B3. >L70B3 is relevant because in 99% of cases, declarer will state an >alternative line of play once the objection to his original statement is >heard. The Director must then consider whether that line of play is acceptable under L70D. Of course declarer's extra words are relevant! > If declarer makes no further statement, then (as I have said) the Director should rule as best he can in accordance with the sense of the original statement (which does *not* mean trying to follow it word for word when the words clearly diverge from the sense). But if he does make a further statement, the Director is bound to consider it. > From owner-bridge-laws Thu Feb 20 01:23:11 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA06602 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 20 Feb 1997 01:23:11 +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 BAA06597 for ; Thu, 20 Feb 1997 01:23:01 +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 JAA07560 for ; Wed, 19 Feb 1997 09:22:55 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <1.5.4.32.19970219142157.00688f18@cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.4 (32) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Wed, 19 Feb 1997 09:21:57 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: L40E2 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 01:47 AM 2/19/97 +0100, Jesper wrote: >On Tue, 18 Feb 1997 14:55:40 -0800, jboyce@sun-jboyce.us.oracle.com >(Jim Boyce) wrote: >>Or is the question of when you can examine >>the convention card less clear-cut than many of you have suggested? > >In practice, it certainly is - for the simple reason that L40E2 is not >enforced strictly. That's certainly true around here. L40E2 is considered unworkable in its letter, but we do try to enforce what we perceive to be its "spirit" -- to prevent a player's looking at the opponents' CC from alerting his partner to the advisability of doing so. In effect, we allow a player to look at any time during the "window" between his partner's bid (or play, if defending) and his own. That even gets "stretched" in obvious cases, e.g. partner (at his turn) picks up and peruses the CC, then puts it down and starts thinking about what to bid; no one will object if the player then picks it up and looks at it himself, even though his partner hasn't bid yet. Although it hasn't come up, I'm sure we'd allow a player who was perusing the opponents' CC before the auction started to continue to do so after his LHO has started the auction as dealer. Stricter enforcement would accomplish nothing other than to slow down the game. It would be nice to have the Laws changed to sanction this practice, by allowing a player to look at the CC any time after partner has called (or played) but before he has done so. My own habit when partner makes a possibly alertable bid is to say something like "Please don't bid yet", then look at the CC, then either alert or not (I would probably say something like "no, not alertable" just to let everyone know what I was doing). This is technically illegal, but clearly falls within the above guidelines. Eric Landau elandau@cais.com APL Solutions, Inc. elandau@acm.org 1107 Dale Drive (301) 589-4621 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 From owner-bridge-laws Thu Feb 20 01:35:15 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA06644 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 20 Feb 1997 01:35:15 +1100 Received: from relay-11.mail.demon.net (relay-11.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.137]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id BAA06639 for ; Thu, 20 Feb 1997 01:35:07 +1100 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by relay-10.mail.demon.net id aa1009323; 19 Feb 97 14:17 GMT Message-ID: Date: Wed, 19 Feb 1997 13:57:29 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: L40E2 In-Reply-To: <330d4c6e.6499075@pipmail.dknet.dk> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Jesper Dybdal wrote: >On Tue, 18 Feb 1997 14:55:40 -0800, jboyce@sun-jboyce.us.oracle.com >(Jim Boyce) wrote: >>Or is the question of when you can examine >>the convention card less clear-cut than many of you have suggested? > >In practice, it certainly is - for the simple reason that L40E2 is not >enforced strictly. I don't think this comment is right at all. On this mailing list we often discuss what the Laws are, or what they mean, and sometimes how we do apply them, or should apply them. These discussions are often different from each other. Either L40E2 is clear and unambiguous, or it isn't. That was one of my two original questions. I cannot see whether it is enforced strictly can possibly affect whether it is ambiguous or not. Assuming that it is unambiguous, and that it means that you may not look when it is your partner's/opponents' turn, then it would be dealt with under L16 or L73. How would you expect us to enforce it strictly: go round asking everyone that you see looking at a convention card whether it is their turn? Alright, you say it is not enforced strictly: tell me the last time that you enforced it laxly. Have you been asked for a ruling on this subject? If so, did you tell the player that he could look when it was not his turn? I bet you haven't! Given the Law means as I said, and is unambiguous, then I am sure you will enforce it strictly, by waiting until a ruling comes along where UI is involved, and treating it as a UI matter. >As a TD, I simply interpret it as if it said just that. Or rather, I >would if I was ever called upon to rule such a case - it has not >happened yet. It is not the only place in the laws where the only >sensible action is to assume that the author meant something slightly >different than what he said. I've never heard of a case where any >player was penalized or even reprimanded for (b) or (c). Penalise? Of course not! If asked, you will explain what the Law is. >When my LHO calls, RHO alerts, and partner reaches for the CC, I also >quite often reach for the CC - since partner is already looking at the >CC, I can hardly influence him by also looking at it. Illegal, yes. >But practical, since I then know whether to alert or not when my >partner calls a moment later. No problem: UI becomes very unlikely to matter. >I consider L40E2 a law that is routinely violated in a quite >unproblematical way, and which exists in order to allow the TD to do >something about it on the extremely rare cases where it is violated in >a way that matters. Of course, it would be better to have a law that >also allowed looking at the CC whenever there is obviously no risk >that looking will call attention to any fact related to the current >hand. Now that is difficult. It would be extremely difficult to draft a Law that allows you to look unless UI happens to matter. I think that is impractical. But as you have shown in your approach to this Law, it is totally unnecessary to change the Law: it seems to be working, so why change it? >However, the new laws solve this problem: L17 is changed so that the >auction period for a side begins when one of the two players looks at >the face of his cards, regardless of what the other side does. This >change was probably made to solve exactly this kind of problem. Good. -- 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 Feb 20 04:09:42 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA07595 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 20 Feb 1997 04:09:42 +1100 Received: from pip.dknet.dk (root@pip.dknet.dk [193.88.44.48]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id EAA07589 for ; Thu, 20 Feb 1997 04:09:33 +1100 Received: from cph54.ppp.dknet.dk (cph54.ppp.dknet.dk [194.192.100.54]) by pip.dknet.dk (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id SAA08894 for ; Wed, 19 Feb 1997 18:09:23 +0100 From: Jesper Dybdal To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: L40E2 Date: Wed, 19 Feb 1997 18:09:16 +0100 Organization: at home Message-ID: <330d32e3.4780894@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 Wed, 19 Feb 1997 13:57:29 +0000, David Stevenson wrote: >Jesper Dybdal wrote:=20 >>On Tue, 18 Feb 1997 14:55:40 -0800, jboyce@sun-jboyce.us.oracle.com >>(Jim Boyce) wrote: >>>Or is the question of when you can examine >>>the convention card less clear-cut than many of you have suggested? >> >>In practice, it certainly is - for the simple reason that L40E2 is not >>enforced strictly. > > I don't think this comment is right at all. On this mailing list we >often discuss what the Laws are, or what they mean, and sometimes how we >do apply them, or should apply them. These discussions are often >different from each other. Certainly. L40E2 is clear and unambiguous - but it is also not enforced. This means that the "question of when you can examine the convention card" is not clear cut. You _can_ examine the CC in some situations where doing so is illegal; you can even do so without being penalized and without anybody at all thinking badly about you. The only problem is that you know it to be illegal. > Either L40E2 is clear and unambiguous, or it isn't. That was one of >my two original questions. I cannot see whether it is enforced strictly >can possibly affect whether it is ambiguous or not. It cannot. L40E2 is not ambiguous (IMO - and I suggest that we consider it unambiguous for the purposes of this discussion). > Assuming that it is unambiguous, and that it means that you may not >look when it is your partner's/opponents' turn, then it would be dealt >with under L16 or L73. How would you expect us to enforce it strictly: >go round asking everyone that you see looking at a convention card >whether it is their turn? The decision to enforce some law strictly is only partly ours as TDs and SOs. That decision is very much made by the players. When players never call the TD for a certain type of violation of correct procedure, then that procedure will not be enforced in practice. Assume, as a very theoretical exercise, that the DBF felt a great need to have L40E2 followed always. What could we do? We could write regulations specifying large L90 penalties for violating L40E2 and we could write articles in bridge magazines urging players to call the TD when their opponents commit the terrible crime of looking at a CC out of turn. It still would not be enforced, because most players would find it ridiculous. > Alright, you say it is not enforced strictly: tell me the last time >that you enforced it laxly. Have you been asked for a ruling on this >subject? If so, did you tell the player that he could look when it was >not his turn? I bet you haven't! No, I haven't. But when I see players violating L40E2 (in non-problematical ways) I don't take the initiative to tell them about L40E2 either. If I am the TD, I thereby violate L81C6. If I am a player, I thereby risk giving my opponents the impression that it is legal to look at the CC (particularly if I do so myself). And if asked directly: "May I look at the CC out of turn?", I'd answer "No, you may not. It is illegal. But everybody does it, and nobody is ever going to penalize you for it unless it transfers useful UI to your partner." > Given the Law means as I said, and is unambiguous, then I am sure you >will enforce it strictly, by waiting until a ruling comes along where UI >is involved, and treating it as a UI matter. I will of course enforce the UI part of it strictly. When I talk about not enforcing it, I am only talking about the "procedural requirement" part of L40E2, not about the passing of UI. >>When my LHO calls, RHO alerts, and partner reaches for the CC, I also >>quite often reach for the CC - since partner is already looking at the >>CC, I can hardly influence him by also looking at it. Illegal, yes. >>But practical, since I then know whether to alert or not when my >>partner calls a moment later. > > No problem: UI becomes very unlikely to matter. The only problem is that it is illegal. A TD has the right to give me a L90 penalty if he happens to feel that the procedural part of L40E2 is important. > Now that is difficult. It would be extremely difficult to draft a Law >that allows you to look unless UI happens to matter. I think that is >impractical. But as you have shown in your approach to this Law, it is >totally unnecessary to change the Law: it seems to be working, so why >change it? It is working by being violated. There is something wrong when players have to decide to break the law in order to make it work well. By accepting violations of laws like L40E2, we make it harder for ourselves to insist that players follow other laws to the letter. In addition, there are probably people who actually follow L40E2 simply because they believe in following the law; such players will be slightly handicapped because they use their time less efficiently and therefore has less time available than those who do violate L40E2. It would therefore be better to have laws that require a specific procedure only when we actually want that specific procedure followed always. L40E2 could simply be replaced by something like: "During the auction and play, any player may refer to his opponents' convention card, but not to his own. However, Law 16A may apply." This would (in regard to opponents' CC) change it from a law about correct procedure into a law about UI. But I freely admit that I live quite comfortably with the current L40E2. As you say, it works. And as long as it continues to work, there is no real problem. But if some day half the world's players began calling the TD for every violation of L40E2 and half of those TDs began imposing L90 penalties for those violations, then we would have a problem. --=20 Jesper Dybdal, Denmark From owner-bridge-laws Thu Feb 20 08:25:17 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA17305 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 20 Feb 1997 08:25:17 +1100 Received: from pip.dknet.dk (root@pip.dknet.dk [193.88.44.48]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id IAA17298 for ; Thu, 20 Feb 1997 08:25:10 +1100 Received: from default (cph24.ppp.dknet.dk [194.192.100.24]) by pip.dknet.dk (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id WAA18224 for ; Wed, 19 Feb 1997 22:24:59 +0100 Message-Id: <199702192124.WAA18224@pip.dknet.dk> Comments: Authenticated sender is From: "Jens & Bodil" Organization: Alesia Software To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Wed, 19 Feb 1997 22:25:06 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Re: L40E2 Priority: normal X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v2.42a) Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: David Stevenson In general, I second Jesper's points of view on this question, but there is a little quirk that I would like to add > Jesper Dybdal wrote: > >I consider L40E2 a law that is routinely violated in a quite > >unproblematical way, and which exists in order to allow the TD to do > >something about it on the extremely rare cases where it is violated in > >a way that matters. Of course, it would be better to have a law that > >also allowed looking at the CC whenever there is obviously no risk > >that looking will call attention to any fact related to the current > >hand. > > Now that is difficult. It would be extremely difficult to draft a Law > that allows you to look unless UI happens to matter. I think that is > impractical. But as you have shown in your approach to this Law, it is > totally unnecessary to change the Law: it seems to be working, so why > change it? Well, it doesn't seem to be working in all repsects, now does it: The EBU finds it necessary to append a regulation to the effect (if not the letter) that "thou shalt not look at thy opponents' convention card if he hath just opened 1NT" (although L40E2 explicitly allows me to look at it a my turn to bid). That regulation and the announcement procedures defined by the ACBL for similar situations show that the enforced law is something like "the opponents' convention card is there for you to look at, but don't when there is a risk of transmitting useful UI to your partner, for instance when you are contemplating action over their 1NT opening." So I maintain that it doesn't work. Still, I find it hard to improve, so why change it? -- Jens Brix Christiansen, Denmark From owner-bridge-laws Thu Feb 20 09:37:56 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA17695 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 20 Feb 1997 09:37:56 +1100 Received: from mail.hamburg.netsurf.de (trance.isys.net [194.64.236.33]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id JAA17690 for ; Thu, 20 Feb 1997 09:37:48 +1100 Received: from mail1.isys.net[193.96.224.33] by mail.hamburg.netsurf.de with smtp (Smail 3.2 #2 -iSYS-); id m0vxKdm-000HJUC; Wed, 19 Feb 1997 23:37:30 +0100 (MET) Received: from meckwell [194.195.202.242] by mail1.isys.net with smtp (Smail 3.2 #3 -iSYS-); id m0vxLlN-001LBwC; Thu, 20 Feb 1997 00:49:25 +0100 (MET) Date: Wed, 19 Feb 1997 23:39:54 +0100 (CET) From: Henk Uijterwaal X-Sender: henk@meckwell Reply-To: Henk Uijterwaal To: Jesper Dybdal cc: Bridge Laws List Subject: Re: L40E2 In-Reply-To: <330d4c6e.6499075@pipmail.dknet.dk> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Wed, 19 Feb 1997, Jesper Dybdal wrote: > (Jim Boyce) wrote: > >Or is the question of when you can examine > >the convention card less clear-cut than many of you have suggested? > > In practice, it certainly is - for the simple reason that L40E2 is not > enforced strictly. > In the situation where you don't know whether to alert because you > don't know what LHO's call meant, you do one of the following: > (a) Say "That may be alertable depending on the meaning of ...". > (b) Look quickly at their CC and alert or not. > (c) Say "just a moment while I find out whether that is alertable" and > check their CC. > (d) Alert and, if asked, say "It depends on the meaning of the XX bid > - what does the XX bid show?" > > Of these four actions, (b) and (c) violate L40E2. L40E2 says "at his > own turn to call or play" (also in the new laws), and probably should > have said "at his own turn to call, play, or possibly alert". > > As a TD, I simply interpret it as if it said just that. Or rather, I > would if I was ever called upon to rule such a case - it has not > happened yet. It is not the only place in the laws where the only > sensible action is to assume that the author meant something slightly > different than what he said. I've never heard of a case where any > player was penalized or even reprimanded for (b) or (c). I think that we should keep in mind that 40E2 has been around since, at least, the 1975 laws. Back in 1975, alerts had not been introduced world-wide, so one had to ask or check the CC, and a not too ethical player could, if it wasn't for 40E2, alert his partner by picking up the CC when it was his turn and it was likely that he wasn't aware of a convention. Also, over the last 10 or so years, the number of pairs that plays different defences against the same opening bid but with different meanings (eg. weak or strong NT's) has increased. >10 years ago, a bit was an alert or not, it didn't matter what the exact meaning was. Anyway, what is the problem here? We all agree that there are cases where one has to ask the meaning of LHO's call before one knows if one has to alert, and we probably all agree that Jesper's options (b) and (c), while technically a violation of the law, are reasonable ways to solve the alert or not question. Why don't we just leave it at that? Henk. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Henk Uijterwaal Email: henk.uijterwaal@hamburg.netsurf.de (home) henk@desy.de (work) WWW: http://www-zeus.desy.de/~uijter ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Leptoquarks? What Leptoquarks? From owner-bridge-laws Thu Feb 20 13:34:11 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id NAA18985 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 20 Feb 1997 13:34:11 +1100 Received: from relay-11.mail.demon.net (relay-11.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.137]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id NAA18980 for ; Thu, 20 Feb 1997 13:34:03 +1100 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by relay-10.mail.demon.net id aa1008836; 20 Feb 97 2:22 GMT Message-ID: Date: Wed, 19 Feb 1997 23:26:53 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: L40E2 In-Reply-To: <199702192124.WAA18224@pip.dknet.dk> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Jens & Bodil wrote: >> From: David Stevenson > >In general, I second Jesper's points of view on this question, but >there is a little quirk that I would like to add > >> Jesper Dybdal wrote: >> >I consider L40E2 a law that is routinely violated in a quite >> >unproblematical way, and which exists in order to allow the TD to do >> >something about it on the extremely rare cases where it is violated in >> >a way that matters. Of course, it would be better to have a law that >> >also allowed looking at the CC whenever there is obviously no risk >> >that looking will call attention to any fact related to the current >> >hand. >> >> Now that is difficult. It would be extremely difficult to draft a Law >> that allows you to look unless UI happens to matter. I think that is >> impractical. But as you have shown in your approach to this Law, it is >> totally unnecessary to change the Law: it seems to be working, so why >> change it? > >Well, it doesn't seem to be working in all repsects, now does it: >The EBU finds it necessary to append a regulation to the effect (if >not the letter) that "thou shalt not look at thy opponents' >convention card if he hath just opened 1NT" (although L40E2 >explicitly allows me to look at it a my turn to bid). That >regulation and the announcement procedures defined by the ACBL for >similar situations show that the enforced law is something like "the >opponents' convention card is there for you to look at, but don't >when there is a risk of transmitting useful UI to your partner, for >instance when you are contemplating action over their 1NT opening." > >So I maintain that it doesn't work. Still, I find it hard to >improve, so why change it? The EBU's regulation is primarily of importance to stop people finding out the range of the opening notrump *at their turn to call*, so is not really germane to this discussion. There is a certain defence to 1NT, rather naughtily referred to in England as the ******** defence, where ******** is the name of a country, which goes as follows: Over 1NT, point ranges are as follows: 0-5 Pass quickly 6-7 Pass after a slight hesitation 8-9 Pass after a reasonable hesitation 10-11 Ask the range then pass quickly 12-13 Ask the range then pass slowly 14-15 Ask the range then double slowly 16-17 Ask the range then double quickly 18-19 Double slowly without asking the range 20+ Double quickly without asking the range Do you believe that no-one plays this? -- 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 Feb 20 18:22:56 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id SAA20358 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 20 Feb 1997 18:22:56 +1100 Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id SAA20353 for ; Thu, 20 Feb 1997 18:22:48 +1100 Received: from cfa183.harvard.edu (cfa183.harvard.edu [131.142.12.59]) by cfa.harvard.edu (8.8.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id CAA20082 for ; Thu, 20 Feb 1997 02:22:42 -0500 (EST) Received: by cfa183.harvard.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id CAA00995; Thu, 20 Feb 1997 02:22:49 -0500 Date: Thu, 20 Feb 1997 02:22:49 -0500 From: willner@cfa183.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Message-Id: <199702200722.CAA00995@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: L40E2 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: David Stevenson > 2. Referring to Opponents' Convention Card > During the auction and play, any player except dummy may refer > to his opponents' convention card at his own turn to call or > play, but not to his own. > [1] Assuming you are not dummy, may you look at your opponents' > convention card at partner's or opponents' turn to call or play? My answer is "Yes, subject to L73B1 and perhaps other Laws or regulations." (L73B1 given at end of this message.) Would those who are so quick to answer "no" *based on L40E2 itself* please answer the following: 1. Does L40A prohibit calls or plays that are based on a partnership agreement? 2. Why is the law so careful to forbid looking at one's own CC but is silent on what happens when it is not your turn? What makes you think that silence is unintentional? 3. If looking at the CC is generally prohibited at times other than one's own turn, why is the prohibition not in effect before and after the auction and play? 4. Under what circumstances would you impose a penalty under L40E2 and not under L73B1? As you can no doubt tell, I think L40E2 is *silent* on looking at the CC at other than your turn, leaving that for other Laws and regulations. I'm astonished that people I respect think otherwise, and I'd like to ask them to reconsider. Let's see what some others have said. From: Jesper Dybdal > Of course, it would be better to have a law that > also allowed looking at the CC whenever there is obviously no risk > that looking will call attention to any fact related to the current > hand. L73B1 forbids looking at the CC to call partner's attention to something. If you read L40E2 as I do, what is the problem? From: Eric Landau > L40E2 is considered unworkable in its > letter, but we do try to enforce what we perceive to be its "spirit" -- to > prevent a player's looking at the opponents' CC from alerting his partner to > the advisability of doing so. L73B1. > In effect, we allow a player to look at any > time during the "window" between his partner's bid (or play, if defending) > and his own. That even gets "stretched" in obvious cases, So you are in practice enforcing L40E2 precisely as I read it. > It would be nice to have the Laws changed to sanction this practice, by > allowing a player to look at the CC any time after partner has called (or > played) but before he has done so. Or change how you read the Law? > My own habit when partner makes a possibly alertable bid is to say something > like "Please don't bid yet", then look at the CC, then either alert or not > (I would probably say something like "no, not alertable" just to let > everyone know what I was doing). This is technically illegal, but clearly > falls within the above guidelines. Someone once posted that the ACBL endorses (or perhaps requires) this procedure. Of course we know ACBL regulations sometimes contradict the Laws. From: Jesper Dybdal > You _can_ examine the CC in some situations where doing so is illegal; > you can even do so without being penalized and without anybody at all > thinking badly about you. The only problem is that you know it to be > illegal. Some of us don't know it to be illegal. > L40E2 is not ambiguous I agree. I just don't think it means the same thing everybody else does. :-) > And if asked directly: "May I look at the CC out of turn?", I'd answer > "No, you may not. It is illegal. But everybody does it, and nobody > is ever going to penalize you for it unless it transfers useful UI to > your partner." Wouldn't it be simpler to say "Yes, but be careful of L73B1?" > There is something wrong when players have to decide to break the > law in order to make it work well. Exactly so. Maybe it's the popular reading of the Law that is wrong. > It would therefore be better to have laws that require a specific > procedure only when we actually want that specific procedure followed > always. > L40E2 could simply be replaced by something like: > "During the auction and play, any player may refer to his opponents' > convention card, but not to his own. However, Law 16A may apply." This is pretty much what I think the current Laws say. We all know it's illegal to say "Hey, partner, their bid doesn't mean what you think." It's illegal whether done orally or by a meaningful or "well-timed" look at the CC. I'm simply arguing that the prohibition comes from L73B1 and not L40E2. Isn't that more consistent with what the text of L40E2 says? For completeness: (73)B. Inappropriate Communication between Partners 1. Gratuitous Information It is inappropriate for communication between partners to be effected through the manner in which calls or plays are made, through extraneous remarks or gestures, or through questions asked or not asked of the opponents, through alerts and explanations given or not given to them. From owner-bridge-laws Thu Feb 20 18:46:51 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id SAA20561 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 20 Feb 1997 18:46:51 +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 SAA20556 for ; Thu, 20 Feb 1997 18:46:45 +1100 Received: from localhost (pisarra@localhost) by ccnet3.ccnet.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id XAA02273 for ; Wed, 19 Feb 1997 23:45:18 -0800 X-Authentication-Warning: ccnet3.ccnet.com: pisarra owned process doing -bs Date: Wed, 19 Feb 1997 23:45:18 -0800 (PST) From: Chris Pisarra X-Sender: pisarra@ccnet3 To: bridge laws list Subject: Re: L40E2 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Maybe this is just too obvious: Since I am required to alert certain of partner's bids, at the point when he bids it *is* my turn to play, and therefore entirely permissible for me to look at the opponent's convention card. Chris Chris Pisarra pisarra@ccnet.com From owner-bridge-laws Thu Feb 20 20:20:44 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id UAA21103 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 20 Feb 1997 20:20:44 +1100 Received: from gw-nl1.philips.com (gw-nl1.philips.com [192.68.44.33]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id UAA21095 for ; Thu, 20 Feb 1997 20:20:36 +1100 Received: (from nobody@localhost) by gw-nl1.philips.com (8.6.10/8.6.10-0.994n-08Nov95) id KAA08227 for ; Thu, 20 Feb 1997 10:20:29 +0100 Received: from unknown(130.139.36.3) by gw-nl1.philips.com via smap (V1.3+ESMTP) with ESMTP id sma007998; Thu Feb 20 10:19:28 1997 Received: from nlsce1.ehv.sc.philips.com (nlsce1.ehv.sc.philips.com [130.144.63.106]) by smtprelay.nl.cis.philips.com (8.6.10/8.6.10-1.2.1m-970214) with ESMTP id KAA01433 for ; Thu, 20 Feb 1997 10:19:27 +0100 Received: from sydney (sydney [130.144.63.213]) by nlsce1.ehv.sc.philips.com (8.6.10/8.6.10-1.001a-11Jun96) with ESMTP id KAA12080; Thu, 20 Feb 1997 10:19:25 +0100 From: Con Holzscherer Received: (from holzsche@nlsce1.ehv.sc.philips.com) by sydney (1.37.109.15/) id AA120100360; Thu, 20 Feb 1997 10:19:21 +0100 Message-Id: <199702200919.AA120100360@sydney> Subject: Re: L40E2 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au, and@ehv.sc.philips.com, not@ehv.sc.philips.com, to@ehv.sc.philips.com Date: Thu, 20 Feb 1997 10:19:20 MET X-Mailer: Elm [revision: 109.14] Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: Chris Pisarra > Maybe this is just too obvious: > Since I am required to alert certain of partner's bids, at the > point when he bids it *is* my turn to play, and therefore entirely > permissible for me to look at the opponent's convention card. Four remarks: * You are forbidden by the law to look at the OCC at that moment. * It would be more logical to allow looking at the OCC to make alerting easier, like Chris said. * The laws were not written with the current alert-procedure in mind; I hope the new laws will be. * Formally, the problem Chris describes above, can be solved by simply explaining your agreements. Example: Over an artificial 1C (i.e. a bid that can be done on zero or one clubs) you play 3C as natural, over a natural 1C on the other hand, 3C shows D and S. If opponents open 1C and partner bids 3C, you alert and explain aforementioned agreement. This procedure may seem a bit cumbersome for the opponents (they have to draw their own conclusions), but it has certain advantages, e.g. it prevents UI situations in cases where it might be unclear whether in your partnership a certain 1C opening bid by opponents is or isn't considered natural. -- Con Holzscherer Philips Semiconductors B.V. Systems Laboratory Eindhoven (formerly: PCALE) Building BE 5.44, (Hurksestraat 19) P.O.Box 218, 5600 MD Eindhoven, The Netherlands Phone: +31-40-27 22150 fax : +31-40-27 22764 E-mail: holzsche@ehv.sc.philips.com Seri : holzsche@nlsce1 From owner-bridge-laws Thu Feb 20 22:31:16 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id WAA21757 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 20 Feb 1997 22:31:16 +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 WAA21751 for ; Thu, 20 Feb 1997 22:31:09 +1100 Received: from innet.innet.be (pool03-244.innet.be [194.7.10.244]) by mail.be.innet.net (8.7.6/8.7.3) with SMTP id MAA23020 for ; Thu, 20 Feb 1997 12:31:01 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: <330C3ECC.42BE@innet.be> Date: Thu, 20 Feb 1997 12:08:44 +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: Strange Claim References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Stevenson wrote: > > > > >OK David, where did I go wrong ? > > Only really in the relevance of all this. It is quite logical and > sensible, but the question was relevance. If you have to follow the > original claim as closely as possible, and it was a top tricks claim, > then you have to follow the line that is just top tricks, and my > original ruling stands. > > However, I have now shifted my position to take in a different > approach, embracing a proposed L70B4. Ruling under this Law, the > original claim will not do, so we consider the options: overtake the > club, or heart to the jack or heart to the king. One down, so long as > one of these lines fails. > Thank you David, you have reassured me and many others. And welcome back between the rest of us mortals. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.club.innet.be/~pub02163/index.htm From owner-bridge-laws Fri Feb 21 04:37:34 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA27978 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 21 Feb 1997 04:37:34 +1100 Received: from relay-7.mail.demon.net (relay-7.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.9]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id EAA27927 for ; Fri, 21 Feb 1997 04:37:23 +1100 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by relay-6.mail.demon.net id aa625932; 20 Feb 97 17:35 GMT Message-ID: Date: Thu, 20 Feb 1997 17:32:26 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: L40E2 In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Chris Pisarra wrote: > > Maybe this is just too obvious: > > Since I am required to alert certain of partner's bids, at the >point when he bids it *is* my turn to play, and therefore entirely >permissible for me to look at the opponent's convention card. This cannot be the right answer. A quick look at the definitions shows that an alert is not a play, and it is not your turn. -- 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 Feb 21 04:37:19 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA27924 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 21 Feb 1997 04:37:19 +1100 Received: from mail.hamburg.netsurf.de (trance.isys.net [194.64.236.33]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id EAA27919 for ; Fri, 21 Feb 1997 04:37:10 +1100 Received: from mail1.isys.net[193.96.224.33] by mail.hamburg.netsurf.de with smtp (Smail 3.2 #2 -iSYS-); id m0vxcQW-000HJHC; Thu, 20 Feb 1997 18:37:00 +0100 (MET) Received: from meckwell [194.195.202.237] by mail1.isys.net with smtp (Smail 3.2 #3 -iSYS-); id m0vxdYM-001LBqC; Thu, 20 Feb 1997 19:49:10 +0100 (MET) Date: Thu, 20 Feb 1997 18:39:27 +0100 (CET) From: Henk Uijterwaal X-Sender: henk@meckwell Reply-To: Henk Uijterwaal To: Con Holzscherer cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: L40E2 In-Reply-To: <199702200919.AA120100360@sydney> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Thu, 20 Feb 1997, Con Holzscherer wrote: > > From: Chris Pisarra > * Formally, the problem Chris describes above, can be solved by > simply explaining your agreements. > Example: Over an artificial 1C (i.e. a bid that can be done > on zero or one clubs) you play 3C as natural, over a natural > 1C on the other hand, 3C shows D and S. If opponents open 1C > and partner bids 3C, you alert and explain aforementioned > agreement. > This procedure may seem a bit cumbersome for the opponents > (they have to draw their own conclusions), but it has certain > advantages, e.g. it prevents UI situations in cases where it > might be unclear whether in your partnership a certain 1C > opening bid by opponents is or isn't considered natural. Except that an opponent may ask "But we play Dutch Doubleton (or Polish Club), do you consider that a natural or artificial 1C opener". Bridgewise you can make an argument for both cases, different players may draw different conclusions and you are certainly entitled to know what the opponents decided. Henk ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Henk Uijterwaal Email: henk.uijterwaal@hamburg.netsurf.de (home) henk@desy.de (work) WWW: http://www-zeus.desy.de/~uijter ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Leptoquarks? What Leptoquarks? From owner-bridge-laws Fri Feb 21 05:33:24 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA03779 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 21 Feb 1997 05:33:24 +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 FAA03774 for ; Fri, 21 Feb 1997 05:33:18 +1100 Received: from localhost (pisarra@localhost) by ccnet3.ccnet.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id KAA14210 for ; Thu, 20 Feb 1997 10:31:49 -0800 X-Authentication-Warning: ccnet3.ccnet.com: pisarra owned process doing -bs Date: Thu, 20 Feb 1997 10:31:48 -0800 (PST) From: Chris Pisarra X-Sender: pisarra@ccnet3 To: bridge laws list Subject: Re: L40E2 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Thu, 20 Feb 1997, David Stevenson wrote: > This cannot be the right answer. A quick look at the definitions > shows that an alert is not a play, and it is not your turn. Then what do you want to call it? I am required to take an action at this point in the auction, isn't that my turn? It would appear to me that with the advent of the alert system, the real order of the auction, with North dealer, is: N (S) E (W) S (N) W (E) with the players in parentheses having some potential requirement to take the action of alerting or announcing. When a player must take an action, it must perforce be that player's turn. If the rule book has yet to catch up with this concept, then it is the book which is out of step with reality. Of course, the real answer to this debate is that precisely 473 angels can dance on the head of this particular pin. Chris Chris Pisarra pisarra@ccnet.com From owner-bridge-laws Fri Feb 21 06:18:55 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA05476 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 21 Feb 1997 06:18:55 +1100 Received: from u2.farm.idt.net (lighton@u2.farm.idt.net [169.132.8.11]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id GAA05471 for ; Fri, 21 Feb 1997 06:18:47 +1100 Received: from localhost (lighton@localhost) by u2.farm.idt.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id OAA24895 for ; Thu, 20 Feb 1997 14:18:35 -0500 (EST) Date: Thu, 20 Feb 1997 14:18:31 -0500 (EST) From: Richard Lighton X-Sender: lighton@u2.farm.idt.net To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: L40E2 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > > Of course, the real answer to this debate is that precisely 473 > angels can dance on the head of this particular pin. > No, Chris. This is Law 40E2 Therefore 4000 angels can dance on the head of THIS pin, at least, if they understand the notation. From owner-bridge-laws Fri Feb 21 12:08:57 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id MAA07219 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 21 Feb 1997 12:08:57 +1100 Received: from aurora.alaska.edu (fsgrb@aurora.alaska.edu [137.229.18.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id MAA07214 for ; Fri, 21 Feb 1997 12:08:49 +1100 Received: from localhost by aurora.alaska.edu; (5.65v3.2/1.1.8.2/08Oct96-0254PM) id AA15691; Thu, 20 Feb 1997 16:08:32 -0900 Date: Thu, 20 Feb 1997 16:08:32 -0900 (AKST) From: "G. R. Bower" To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Law 40 and Alerts Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Like many others, I dislike the never-enforced prohibition against looking at the CC unless it is my turn to bid. Perhaps the solution would be for the Powers that Be to change the law to read, "you may not consult the opponents' CC when it is partner's turn to call." This would prevent you from passing UI by looking at the CC while pard is choosing his bid. However, as soon as partner has bid, you would be able (in theory) to look at the card, determine whether the bid was alertable, and take the appropriate action, before RHO bids. If RHO chooses to make a call lightning-fast before I figure out if I have to alert partner's double of a weak notrump (for instance), the worst that can happen is that he will be allowed to change his call -- subject to the usual UI conditions -- after receiving an explanation. In practice, of course, letting us look at the opponents' CC any time, subject to UI conditions, would be the easiest and simplest approach, though I can see why there would be objections to changing the law in that way. Gordon Bower From owner-bridge-laws Fri Feb 21 22:55:02 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id WAA09422 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 21 Feb 1997 22:55:02 +1100 Received: from u1.farm.idt.net (lighton@u1.farm.idt.net [169.132.8.10]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id WAA09417 for ; Fri, 21 Feb 1997 22:54:53 +1100 Received: from localhost (lighton@localhost) by u1.farm.idt.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id GAA18624 for ; Fri, 21 Feb 1997 06:54:46 -0500 (EST) Date: Fri, 21 Feb 1997 06:54:46 -0500 (EST) From: Richard Lighton X-Sender: lighton@u1.farm.idt.net To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: L40E2 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk willner@cfa183.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) wrote: > > From: David Stevenson > > 2. Referring to Opponents' Convention Card > > During the auction and play, any player except dummy may refer > > to his opponents' convention card at his own turn to call or > > play, but not to his own. > > [1] Assuming you are not dummy, may you look at your opponents' > > convention card at partner's or opponents' turn to call or play? > > My answer is "Yes, subject to L73B1 and perhaps other Laws or > regulations." (L73B1 given at end of this message.) > My answer is "no." > Would those who are so quick to answer "no" *based on L40E2 itself* > please answer the following: > > 1. Does L40A prohibit calls or plays that are based on a partnership > agreement? > No, because it is only part of Law 40. Calls or plays based on partnership understanding are covered by L40B. > 2. Why is the law so careful to forbid looking at one's own CC but is > silent on what happens when it is not your turn? What makes you > think that silence is unintentional? > I assert that L40E2 is not silent on the subject. There is no other section of the Laws that makes reference to this matter. If the Law had been worded 2. Referring to Opponents' Convention Card During the auction and play, any player except dummy may refer to his opponents' convention card but not to his own. it would have meant what Steve is suggesting. > 3. If looking at the CC is generally prohibited at times other than > one's own turn, why is the prohibition not in effect before and after > the auction and play? The period when the prohibition is in effect is clearly defined by L40E2. It has no effect on the game to study one's opponents' methods when the ball is not in play. > > 4. Under what circumstances would you impose a penalty under L40E2 > and not under L73B1? > I admit I can't think of one, unless someone is being deliberately annoying about doing it for gamesmanship purposes. But then, I've never heard of anyone being penalized for violating L6B by dealing in four piles, left to right, right to left. -- Richard Lighton | Ask your brain: it'll tell you. A logical alternative (lighton@idt.net) | is one that did not reduce your brain to tears. Wood-Ridge NJ | From owner-bridge-laws Sat Feb 22 05:31:21 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA14491 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 22 Feb 1997 05:31:21 +1100 Received: from relay-7.mail.demon.net (relay-7.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.9]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id FAA14486 for ; Sat, 22 Feb 1997 05:31:13 +1100 Received: from casewise.demon.co.uk ([158.152.187.206]) by relay-6.mail.demon.net id aa620941; 21 Feb 97 18:01 GMT From: David Martin To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Thu, 20 Feb 1997 15:18:36 Subject: Re: An incident from the club ... X-Confirm-Reading-To: David Martin X-pmrqc: 1 Priority: normal X-mailer: Pegasus Mail v3.22 Message-ID: <856548076.620941.0@casewise.demon.co.uk> Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: Chris Miller > Round 3 of a non-Life Master pairs game, 4-board rounds. > > The director places the boards for Round 3 on the table. > All players take their hands and sort them, and North passes. > A moment afterwards South bids 1C. East points out that this is > out of turn, and South responds "But I'm Dealer". > > In fact (a) the board was rotated and (b) South hadn't noticed > North's pass. > > North is obviously at fault for not checking the board orientation > at the start. South is a novice, the other players are relatively > experienced. > > What is your ruling? Assuming that the 1C and Pass are not found to be simultaneous which would make life easy as Laws 33 and 30B1 apply, my suggestion is as follows: If West had bid over South's 1C then presumably this would have condoned it under Law 29B? However, if West has not already conveniently condoned the 1C, how about unravelling the events in the reverse order that they occurred, ie. *first* give West the opportunity to condone 1C (still under Law 29B "LHO *may* elect to call"). If West does not accept the 1C, cancel it under Law 29A and offer East the opportunity to condone the original Pass out of turn. If East does elect to condone North's Pass, then apply the appropriate part of Law 31A (bid out of rotation at RHO's turn to call) to South's 1C bid. If East does not condone North's pass then cancel it under Law 29A, apply Law 30A to North's Pass and let the auction revert to South. South can now make any call he wishes knowing that North must pass at his first turn to call and, under the 1987 Laws, subject to the proviso that a Law 23B adjusted score will be given if South takes any unusual action that is protected by North's enforced Pass. DM Regards. David M From owner-bridge-laws Sat Feb 22 23:20:55 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA17215 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 22 Feb 1997 23:20:55 +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 XAA17210 for ; Sat, 22 Feb 1997 23:20:48 +1100 Received: from freenet3.carleton.ca (ac342@freenet3.carleton.ca [134.117.136.23]) by freenet.carleton.ca (8.8.3/8.6.4) with ESMTP id HAA05055 for ; Sat, 22 Feb 1997 07:20:39 -0500 (EST) Received: (ac342@localhost) by freenet3.carleton.ca (8.8.4/NCF-Sun-Client) id HAA18216; Sat, 22 Feb 1997 07:20:38 -0500 (EST) Date: Sat, 22 Feb 1997 07:20:38 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <199702221220.HAA18216@freenet3.carleton.ca> From: ac342@freenet.carleton.ca (A. L. Edwards) To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: L40E2 Reply-To: ac342@freenet.carleton.ca Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > > > >> >> Of course, the real answer to this debate is that precisely 473 >> angels can dance on the head of this particular pin. >> >No, Chris. This is Law 40E2 > >Therefore 4000 angels can dance on the head of THIS pin, at least, >if they understand the notation. > I guess I'm confused. If a) 40 represents the number of angels, and b) angels have no true substance, and c) E=MCsquared, then (40*0)*MCsquared*2= 0 Therefore, there are no angels, and, very likely, no pin either. Yours in levity (and for transcendentalists, levitation) Tony (aka ac342) ps. are you altogether certain you received this message? From owner-bridge-laws Sun Feb 23 17:23:11 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id RAA24493 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 23 Feb 1997 17:23:11 +1100 Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id RAA24488 for ; Sun, 23 Feb 1997 17:23:03 +1100 Received: from cfa183.harvard.edu (cfa183.harvard.edu [131.142.12.59]) by cfa.harvard.edu (8.8.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id BAA05455 for ; Sun, 23 Feb 1997 01:22:57 -0500 (EST) Received: by cfa183.harvard.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id BAA02459; Sun, 23 Feb 1997 01:23:01 -0500 Date: Sun, 23 Feb 1997 01:23:01 -0500 From: willner@cfa183.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Message-Id: <199702230623.BAA02459@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: L40E2 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Even though my reading seems unpopular, let me try once more. Can we agree that a given law, applied to a particular act in specified circumstances, can have one of four possibilities: a) mandate the act, b) permit the act, c) forbid the act, or d) be silent on the subject? In case (d), the act may be regulated by another Law, by regulation, by reference to general principles, or left unregulated. My claim is that L40E2 is silent (d) on whether or not you may look or ask when it is not your turn. Most others seem to advocate (c). (I trust we all agree that it means (b) when it is your turn.) > From: Richard Lighton > > 1. Does L40A prohibit calls or plays that are based on a partnership > > agreement? > > > No, because it is only part of Law 40. Calls or plays based on partnership > understanding are covered by L40B. So we agree that L40A is silent (d) as to actions that are based on a partnership understanding? What difference in wording leads you to read L40E2 differently? > > 2. Why is the law so careful to forbid looking at one's own CC but is > > silent on what happens when it is not your turn? What makes you > > think that silence is unintentional? > > > I assert that L40E2 is not silent on the subject. There is no other > section of the Laws that makes reference to this matter. Aside from L73B1, of course. Why are you so sure that the matter must be completely covered within the Laws and not left for other regulation? > If the Law had been worded > > 2. Referring to Opponents' Convention Card > During the auction and play, any player except dummy may refer > to his opponents' convention card but not to his own. > > it would have meant what Steve is suggesting. Not so. The suggested wording would be giving permission (b) at all times. That is not what I've advocated. If L40E2 had been meant to forbid, it could easily have been written "at his own turn but not otherwise." There is no such language. (Perhaps this is the Laws' version of the Baskerville Coup.) > > 3. If looking at the CC is generally prohibited at times other than > > one's own turn, why is the prohibition not in effect before and after > > the auction and play? > > The period when the prohibition is in effect is clearly defined > by L40E2. It has no effect on the game to study one's opponents' methods > when the ball is not in play. I agree with the last sentence of course, but the argument is about what the Law says, not what it ought to say. Just where in L40E2 do you read a prohibition? If there is a general prohibition, as some have advocated, then what Law grants permission at the beginning and end of the round? And if there is no general prohibition, where do you see a specific prohibition when not your turn? Look folks, just because it is often a bad idea to look or ask at other than your own turn does not mean L40E2 is the place to find a prohibition. My reading is in accord with strict formal logic ("If a then b." does not imply "If not a, then not b.") and also with the way many people play. Why would anyone want to read this Law any other way? From owner-bridge-laws Mon Feb 24 14:15:21 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id OAA09311 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 24 Feb 1997 14:15:21 +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 OAA09306 for ; Mon, 24 Feb 1997 14:15:17 +1100 From: ardelm@ozemail.com.au 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 OAA25248 for ; Mon, 24 Feb 1997 14:15:14 +1100 (EST) Received: from dialup.ozemail.com.au ([203.63.221.49]) by oznet02.ozemail.com.au (8.8.4/8.6.12) with SMTP id OAA10317 for ; Mon, 24 Feb 1997 14:09:52 +1100 (EST) Date: Mon, 24 Feb 1997 14:09:52 +1100 (EST) Message-Id: <199702240309.OAA10317@oznet02.ozemail.com.au> X-Sender: ardelm@ozemail.com.au 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 Subject: Law40E Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Where I play, it is a common courtesy for those pairs playing any sort of unusual methods, to provide one copy of the system card to each opponent. Should I close my eyes while my partner bids in case I inadvertently infract? Cheers, Tony Musgrove From owner-bridge-laws Tue Feb 25 04:01:05 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA15560 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 25 Feb 1997 04:01:05 +1100 Received: from relay-11.mail.demon.net (relay-11.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.137]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id EAA15553 for ; Tue, 25 Feb 1997 04:00:53 +1100 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by relay-11.mail.demon.net id aa1108905; 24 Feb 97 16:54 GMT Message-ID: Date: Mon, 24 Feb 1997 16:10:07 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: An incident from the club ... In-Reply-To: <856548076.620941.0@casewise.demon.co.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Martin wrote: >However, if West has not already conveniently condoned the 1C, how >about unravelling the events in the reverse order that they occurred, >ie. *first* give West the opportunity to condone 1C (still under Law >29B "LHO *may* elect to call"). Custom and practice, commonsense and the teachings of the EBU are that when there is more than one infraction they are dealt with in the order that they occurred. You may, of course, feel that none of these are relevant authorities. -- 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 Tue Feb 25 04:37:12 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA17207 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 25 Feb 1997 04:37:12 +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 EAA17194 for ; Tue, 25 Feb 1997 04:37:04 +1100 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by relay-5.mail.demon.net id aa502152; 24 Feb 97 16:54 GMT Message-ID: Date: Mon, 24 Feb 1997 16:09:36 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: L40E2 In-Reply-To: <199702230623.BAA02459@cfa183.harvard.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Steve Willner wrote: >Even though my reading seems unpopular, let me try once more. > >Can we agree that a given law, applied to a particular act in specified >circumstances, can have one of four possibilities: a) mandate the act, >b) permit the act, c) forbid the act, or d) be silent on the subject? >In case (d), the act may be regulated by another Law, by regulation, by >reference to general principles, or left unregulated. > >My claim is that L40E2 is silent (d) on whether or not you may look or >ask when it is not your turn. Most others seem to advocate (c). (I >trust we all agree that it means (b) when it is your turn.) >Just where in L40E2 do you read a prohibition? If there is a general >prohibition, as some have advocated, then what Law grants permission >at the beginning and end of the round? And if there is no general >prohibition, where do you see a specific prohibition when not your turn? > >Look folks, just because it is often a bad idea to look or ask at other >than your own turn does not mean L40E2 is the place to find a >prohibition. My reading is in accord with strict formal logic ("If a >then b." does not imply "If not a, then not b.") and also with the way >many people play. Why would anyone want to read this Law any other way? It is clear and obvious what L40E2 means. No other argument is necessary. -- 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 Tue Feb 25 05:20:13 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA21373 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 25 Feb 1997 05:20:13 +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 FAA21355 for ; Tue, 25 Feb 1997 05:20:07 +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 KAA05162 for <@mipl7.JPL.NASA.GOV:bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au>; Mon, 24 Feb 1997 10:19:31 -0800 Received: by tintin.JPL.NASA.GOV (940816.SGI.8.6.9/930416.SGI.MIPS) for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au id KAA05752; Mon, 24 Feb 1997 10:21:31 -0800 Date: Mon, 24 Feb 1997 10:21:31 -0800 From: jeff@tintin.JPL.NASA.GOV (Jeff Goldsmith) Message-Id: <199702241821.KAA05752@tintin.JPL.NASA.GOV> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: ******** defence Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Stevenson said: | There is a certain defence to 1NT, rather naughtily referred to in |England as the ******** defence, where ******** is the name of a |country, which goes as follows: | |Over 1NT, point ranges are as follows: | | 0-5 Pass quickly | 6-7 Pass after a slight hesitation | 8-9 Pass after a reasonable hesitation |10-11 Ask the range then pass quickly |12-13 Ask the range then pass slowly |14-15 Ask the range then double slowly |16-17 Ask the range then double quickly |18-19 Double slowly without asking the range |20+ Double quickly without asking the range | | Do you believe that no-one plays this? Of course not. In the US, Tom Dressing called a variation that's a defense to opponents' preempts, "Weasel." I was reading a 1979 Bridge World this weekend. Edgar Kaplan was commenting on such practice. He was pointing out that scientific bidding made this unnecessary, so in contrast to "New Science," he called these methods, "The Old Black Magic." I now have a name (and an acronym) for this stuff. Sadly, we played a team who were using The Old Black Magic in a regional knockout Friday. After the first infraction (rather blatant, I might add) I looked up to call the director. We had three floor directors. Two of them would not even understand what I meant and the other would surely have ruled, "you are better than they are. They need it. Result stands." He would have been right, but I'm still unhappy to realize that in most of our local tournaments there's no point to calling the director on OBM. How do I know that two of them wouldn't have a clue? This occurred in a previous match. Different opponents, same directors. IMPs, E/W only vul, long match: North ----- 9x AKx Jxx J9876 West East ---- ---- AQxx K10xx 1087xx QJ9 A10 Qxxx xx 10x South ----- Jxx xx K98x AKQx South West North East ----- ---- ----- ---- 1D * Pass 1NT Pass Pass 2C Dbl Pass Pass 2H Dbl All Pass * 1NT would have been 10-12. 2C was not alerted, but was intended as takeout. 2H doubled made three after a diamond lead. After the hand, East said, "we don't play that." West said, "I guess we don't play that." Of course, no convention card notation existed, and no system notes were available. It's likely that the pair had no agreement (so 2C was natural) because it seems silly to play 2C for the majors when 2D would do better, but I know of at least one partner who insists that 2D is natural, too, so what do I know? North might have had misinformation (you judge). South knew what was going on, what what could South do? Would a 3C bid have been natural? Would it have been safe? (On the weasel subject, South figured out afterwards the right answer: ask if 2C was natural. When answered, "yes," ask, "are you sure?" Then bid 3C. Next problem!) N/S (we) called the director. She came over and made it very clear that she had no idea how to proceed. She thought for a little while and said, "I need to consult with another director." She did, with one who is famous for having no idea about the laws or any technical details. They concluded that they had no idea so they let the result stand. The match wasn't close, so no appeal was necessary. How would you rule? This ruling has a couple of interesting tidbits, but the main point I wanted to make was that in a local regional tournament, we had no floor directors who knew how to start attacking the problem. This is a very sad situation. --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 Feb 25 09:32:48 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA25343 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 25 Feb 1997 09:32:48 +1100 Received: from emout07.mail.aol.com (emout07.mx.aol.com [198.81.11.22]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id JAA25338 for ; Tue, 25 Feb 1997 09:32:42 +1100 From: AlLeBendig@aol.com Received: (from root@localhost) by emout07.mail.aol.com (8.7.6/8.7.3/AOL-2.0.0) id RAA08435; Mon, 24 Feb 1997 17:32:03 -0500 (EST) Date: Mon, 24 Feb 1997 17:32:03 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <970224173158_-1675073539@emout07.mail.aol.com> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au cc: jeff@tintin.JPL.NASA.GOV Subject: Re: ******** defence Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In a message dated 97-02-24 16:54:19 EST, Jeff G. writes: [hand snipped] > 2C was not alerted, but was intended as takeout. > 2H doubled made three after a diamond lead. > > After the hand, East said, "we don't play that." > West said, "I guess we don't play that." Of course, > no convention card notation existed, and no system > notes were available. It's likely that the pair > had no agreement (so 2C was natural) because it > seems silly to play 2C for the majors when 2D > would do better, but I know of at least one partner > who insists that 2D is natural, too, so what do I know? I don't see this as having been that tough. When W bid 2C, he clearly thought it was for the majors. It is possible he hoped his partner would read it that way but more likely (IMO) that he expected his partner to read it that way. If W thought such an agreement existed and E didn't, there is clearly misinformation. We are directed to assume such. The burden is on E-W to "prove" otherwise. He never disclosed this misinformation prior to the opening lead (he was well aware there had been no alert). I rule the board gets thrown out and N-S gain 3 IMPs (assuming their teammates didn't have a better result;-). If E-W are experienced, I would want a procedural penalty for W's failure to disclose. Had he done so it wouldn't have been that difficult for the TD to have a chance of achieving or determining a bridge result. If they convince me that no such agreement existed but W hoped his partner would read it (unlikely), then result stands. Still don't understand what was so tough about this. And to allow result to stand because they were confused about what to do? This staff was poor all week and this is another example. > North might have had misinformation (you judge). That's my opinion. Alan LeBendig From owner-bridge-laws Tue Feb 25 10:08:28 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA25707 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 25 Feb 1997 10:08:28 +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 KAA25700 for ; Tue, 25 Feb 1997 10:08:20 +1100 Received: from mamos.demon.co.uk ([158.152.129.79]) by relay-7.mail.demon.net id aa719980; 24 Feb 97 22:10 GMT Message-ID: Date: Mon, 24 Feb 1997 22:07:48 +0000 To: bridge-laws From: michael amos Subject: The curse of Buxton MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Twice a year the British Bridge League runs a congress at Buxton - a beautiful town in the heart of the Peak District. It often snows in February and contestants struggle to arrive on time. No snow this year - only wind and rain. More than a hundred tables are in play on each of the two days of the weekends - Saturday we play Swiss Pairs - Sunday Swiss Teams. It's a pleasant occasion and an opportunity to meet old friends and sink a drink or two (Don't ask David about malt whisky - I promised to keep it a secret :)) Anyway this little disaster from the Swiss Pairs may amuse you and tax some of you to come up with the correct ruling. I am still not sure - and David found that reading from the Law Book was not much help this time. (He was masquerading as a player this weekend, but inevitably we got round to discussing rulings over a glass of the afore not-mentioned malt whisky in the bar afterwards) Board 6 E/W Vulnerable Dealer E S AK107432 H 9 D AQJ4 C void S 95 S QJ86 H 642 H QJ103 D K7632 D 98 C KQ6 C J42 S void H AK875 D 105 C A108753 North played in 6S Heart lead won in dummy Club A - Diamond discard Top Heart - Diamond discard Diamond finesse Top Spades and third Spade When Spades did not break declarer faced his hand and conceded a second trump trick for one off NS -50 The players moved on to Board 7 and completed it. At this point, the nice lady from the next table came over with the Club 9 (henceforth known as the Curse of Buxton) "Does anyone want this?" she asked. Comparison with the curtain card revealed that North's hand on board 6 had in fact been S AK107432 H 9 D AQJ4 C 9 North now came to search for the TD - "I bet you have never seen anything like this before" he said. Of course we have seen things like this - but how do you rule? mike :) -- michael amos From owner-bridge-laws Tue Feb 25 14:46:38 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id OAA27095 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 25 Feb 1997 14:46:38 +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 OAA27090 for ; Tue, 25 Feb 1997 14:46:30 +1100 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by relay-10.mail.demon.net id ac1027207; 25 Feb 97 3:41 GMT Message-ID: Date: Tue, 25 Feb 1997 03:18:59 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: ******** defence In-Reply-To: <970224173158_-1675073539@emout07.mail.aol.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Alan LeBendig wrote: >I don't see this as having been that tough. When W bid 2C, he clearly >thought it was for the majors. It is possible he hoped his partner would >read it that way but more likely (IMO) that he expected his partner to read >it that way. If W thought such an agreement existed and E didn't, there is >clearly misinformation. We are directed to assume such. The burden is on >E-W to "prove" otherwise. He never disclosed this misinformation prior to >the opening lead (he was well aware there had been no alert). I rule the >board gets thrown out and N-S gain 3 IMPs (assuming their teammates didn't >have a better result;-). I never understand this type of ruling. It is very common in some parts of the world, I believe [not in GBritain], but seems completely illegal. L12C1 makes it quite clear that an ArtAS only applies when no result can be obtained: but a result was obtained so L12C1 does not apply. When a result was obtained, L12C2 applies, and an AssAS is applied. For my actual ruling see below. > If E-W are experienced, I would want a procedural >penalty for W's failure to disclose. Had he done so it wouldn't have been >that difficult for the TD to have a chance of achieving or determining a >bridge result. If they convince me that no such agreement existed but W >hoped his partner would read it (unlikely), then result stands. Still don't >understand what was so tough about this. And to allow result to stand >because they were confused about what to do? This staff was poor all week >and this is another example. This is the wrong approach. No player is particularly meant to understand the nuances of the Laws and regulations. To fine someone for failing to disclose when there is a mixup and he doesn't know what is right is incredibly harsh, and is only required because of the totally soft ruling on the actual hand. A PP is totally unsuitable in this type of case. Jeff Goldsmith wrote: > 9x > AKx IMPs, E/W only vul, long match > Jxx > AQxx J9876 K10xx > 1087xx QJ9 > A10 Qxxx > xx Jxx 10x > xx > K98x > AKQx > > South West North East > 1D * Pass 1NT Pass > Pass 2C Dbl Pass > Pass 2H Dbl All Pass > > * 1NT would have been 10-12. > >2C was not alerted, but was intended as takeout. >2H doubled made three after a diamond lead. > >After the hand, East said, "we don't play that." >West said, "I guess we don't play that." Of course, >no convention card notation existed, and no system >notes were available. It's likely that the pair >had no agreement (so 2C was natural) because it >seems silly to play 2C for the majors when 2D >would do better, but I know of at least one partner >who insists that 2D is natural, too, so what do I know? > >North might have had misinformation (you judge). >South knew what was going on, what what could >South do? Would a 3C bid have been natural? >Would it have been safe? (On the weasel subject, >South figured out afterwards the right answer: >ask if 2C was natural. When answered, "yes," >ask, "are you sure?" Then bid 3C. Next problem!) > >N/S (we) called the director. She came over and >made it very clear that she had no idea how >to proceed. She thought for a little while >and said, "I need to consult with another director." >She did, with one who is famous for having no idea >about the laws or any technical details. They concluded >that they had no idea so they let the result stand. The >match wasn't close, so no appeal was necessary. > >How would you rule? This ruling has a couple of >interesting tidbits, but the main point I wanted to >make was that in a local regional tournament, we >had no floor directors who knew how to start attacking >the problem. This is a very sad situation. In all these alert and misexplanation situations the TD *must* consider MI and UI. If you bid 2C as takeout and partner passes the assumption is that he has long clubs. Since West has UI [no alert of 2C] and pass is an LA, then I rule 2C*-4. -- 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 Tue Feb 25 18:14:39 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id SAA27765 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 25 Feb 1997 18:14:39 +1100 Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id SAA27759 for ; Tue, 25 Feb 1997 18:14:33 +1100 Received: from cfa183.harvard.edu (cfa183.harvard.edu [131.142.12.59]) by cfa.harvard.edu (8.8.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id CAA08000 for ; Tue, 25 Feb 1997 02:14:29 -0500 (EST) Received: by cfa183.harvard.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id CAA03410; Tue, 25 Feb 1997 02:14:40 -0500 Date: Tue, 25 Feb 1997 02:14:40 -0500 From: willner@cfa183.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Message-Id: <199702250714.CAA03410@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: L40E2 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: David Stevenson > It is clear and obvious what L40E2 means. Well, I've always thought so too. :-) From owner-bridge-laws Tue Feb 25 19:03:58 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id TAA27918 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 25 Feb 1997 19:03:58 +1100 Received: from uranus.bgr.de (uranus.bgr.de [193.174.160.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id TAA27913 for ; Tue, 25 Feb 1997 19:03:46 +1100 From: thomas.dehn@bgr.de Received: by uranus.bgr.de; (5.65v3.2/1.3/10May95) id AA08733; Tue, 25 Feb 1997 09:02:10 +0100 Received: by mailhub.bgr.de id AA23006; Tue, 25 Feb 1997 09:04:02 GMT Received: from localhost by b2ax02.nlfb.bgr.de; (5.65v3.2/1.1.8.2/04Dec96-0333PM) id AA15407; Tue, 25 Feb 1997 09:04:15 GMT Message-Id: <9702250904.AA15407@b2ax02.nlfb.bgr.de> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: L40E2 Date: Tue, 25 Feb 97 09:04:15 +0000 X-Mts: smtp Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk >From: willner@cfa183.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) >> From: David Stevenson >> It is clear and obvious what L40E2 means. >Well, I've always thought so too. :-) It is so nice to see Steve and David agree. ;-) Before I really participate in this discussion, I have one question: When am I allowed to inquire the meaning of opponents' bidding? [I don't have TFLB right here, but the German approach seems to be that I am allowed to ask questions *only* when it is my turn, but may look into their convention card - in Germany, every pair has to provide it's opponents with TWO ccs - whenever I want to.] Thomas From owner-bridge-laws Wed Feb 26 00:34:22 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA01342 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 26 Feb 1997 00:34:22 +1100 Received: from ivy.tc.pw.com (ivy.tc.pw.com [131.209.1.4]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id AAA01337 for ; Wed, 26 Feb 1997 00:34:16 +1100 From: Stephen_Barnfield@europe.notes.pw.com Received: by ivy.tc.pw.com; id GAA04402; Tue, 25 Feb 1997 06:08:09 -0800 (PST) Received: from cactus.tc.pw.com(131.209.7.48) by ivy.tc.pw.com via smap (3.2) id xma004357; Tue, 25 Feb 97 06:07:41 -0800 Received: (from root@localhost) by cactus.tc.pw.com (8.8.4/8.7.3) id FAA19886 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Tue, 25 Feb 1997 05:47:07 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <199702251347.FAA19886@cactus.tc.pw.com> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Tue, 25 Feb 97 13:26:46 GMT Subject: Re: ******** defence Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Stevenson wrote: >Alan LeBendig wrote: >>I don't see this as having been that tough. When W bid 2C, he clearly >>thought it was for the majors. It is possible he hoped his partner would >>read it that way but more likely (IMO) that he expected his partner to read >>it that way. If W thought such an agreement existed and E didn't, there is >>clearly misinformation. We are directed to assume such. The burden is on >>E-W to "prove" otherwise. He never disclosed this misinformation prior to >>the opening lead (he was well aware there had been no alert). I rule the >>board gets thrown out and N-S gain 3 IMPs (assuming their teammates didn't >>have a better result;-). > I never understand this type of ruling. It is very common in some >parts of the world, I believe [not in GBritain], but seems completely >illegal. L12C1 makes it quite clear that an ArtAS only applies when >no result can be obtained: but a result was obtained so L12C1 does not >apply. When a result was obtained, L12C2 applies, and an AssAS is >applied. For my actual ruling see below. I agree with the analysis of Law12. >> If E-W are experienced, I would want a procedural >>penalty for W's failure to disclose. Had he done so it wouldn't have been >>that difficult for the TD to have a chance of achieving or determining a >>bridge result. If they convince me that no such agreement existed but W >>hoped his partner would read it (unlikely), then result stands. Still don't >>understand what was so tough about this. And to allow result to stand >>because they were confused about what to do? This staff was poor all week >>and this is another example. > This is the wrong approach. No player is particularly meant to >understand the nuances of the Laws and regulations. To fine someone for >failing to disclose when there is a mixup and he doesn't know what is >right is incredibly harsh, and is only required because of the totally >soft ruling on the actual hand. A PP is totally unsuitable in this type >of case. I agree with the preceding paragraph until the final sentence. Applying the very sound principle DWS espouses to these facts (including that EW are experienced) goes too far. West made a bid which he knew his partner should alert. His partner did not alert it. If West were experienced then I think he should be fined for failing to disclose the failure to alert at the end of the auction. For one thing, had W called the TD before the lead, and explained his 2C call, S could have chosen to bid 3C. IMO for an experienced player to fail to disclose at the earliest oppoortunity (ie before the OL) errors in the information given to opponents during the auction nearly always merits a procedural penalty. Of course I also agree that a procedural penalty would be obviated by a sensible ruling from the TD. > > I hope we all know the hand > > >>After the hand, East said, "we don't play that." >>West said, "I guess we don't play that." Of course, >>no convention card notation existed, and no system >>notes were available. It's likely that the pair >>had no agreement (so 2C was natural) because it >>seems silly to play 2C for the majors when 2D >>would do better, but I know of at least one partner >>who insists that 2D is natural, too, so what do I know? >> >>North might have had misinformation (you judge). >>South knew what was going on, what what could >>South do? Would a 3C bid have been natural? >>Would it have been safe? (On the weasel subject, >>South figured out afterwards the right answer: >>ask if 2C was natural. When answered, "yes," >>ask, "are you sure?" Then bid 3C. Next problem!) >> >>N/S (we) called the director. She came over and >>made it very clear that she had no idea how >>to proceed. She thought for a little while >>and said, "I need to consult with another director." >>She did, with one who is famous for having no idea >>about the laws or any technical details. They concluded >>that they had no idea so they let the result stand. The >>match wasn't close, so no appeal was necessary. >> >>How would you rule? This ruling has a couple of >>interesting tidbits, but the main point I wanted to >>make was that in a local regional tournament, we >>had no floor directors who knew how to start attacking >>the problem. This is a very sad situation. > In all these alert and misexplanation situations the TD *must* >consider MI and UI. If you bid 2C as takeout and partner passes the >assumption is that he has long clubs. Since West has UI [no alert of >2C] and pass is an LA, then I rule 2C*-4. In principle I agree, but for completeness add three comments. (1) EW might be able to convince the TD that their agreement was that pass of the double invited the 2C bidder to bid his longer major. From the facts we were given, they would not on this occasion, since the EW agreement does not seem to be documented, but the point is potentially valid. (2) The TD might take the view that, if (and it is a big if) N knows W thinks this is "majors" and E thinks this is natural, then N might decide to pass, and collect a penalty in hundreds. After all W's hand might be more distributional, so that removing the double even if E's pass shows clubs would be clear. This point is more relevant for an appeal committee, who can award an assigned adjusted score based on a percentage assessment of what might have happened, rather than a TD, who does not have the "percentage" option available. (3) As regards the "big if" in (2) above, this is a point TDs and ACs seem to me to be reluctant to take, even though it appears to me to be correct, at least in theory. From owner-bridge-laws Wed Feb 26 03:58:05 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA03356 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 26 Feb 1997 03:58:05 +1100 Received: from relay-11.mail.demon.net (relay-11.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.137]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id DAA03351 for ; Wed, 26 Feb 1997 03:57:56 +1100 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by relay-11.mail.demon.net id ab1124334; 25 Feb 97 16:22 GMT Message-ID: Date: Tue, 25 Feb 1997 16:20:11 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: L40E2 In-Reply-To: <9702250904.AA15407@b2ax02.nlfb.bgr.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Thomas wrote: >>From: willner@cfa183.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) >>> From: David Stevenson >>> It is clear and obvious what L40E2 means. >>Well, I've always thought so too. :-) >It is so nice to see Steve and David agree. >;-) > >Before I really participate in this discussion, >I have one question: >When am I allowed to inquire the meaning of opponents' >bidding? > >[I don't have TFLB right here, but the German approach seems to >be that I am allowed to ask questions *only* when it is >my turn, but may look into their convention card - in >Germany, every pair has to provide it's opponents with >TWO ccs - whenever I want to.] In my view you may ask when it is your turn to call or play, unless you are dummy. Steve's reading of the Law, *if* consistent with his reading of L40E2, will be that L20F permits you to ask when it is your turn to call or play, unless you are dummy, and you can also ask at any other time if you feel like it. Law 20 - Review and Explanation of Calls F. Explanation of Calls 1. During the Auction During the auction and before the final pass, any player, at his own turn to call, may request [*] a full explanation of the opponents' auction; replies should normally be given by the partner of a player who made a call in question (see Law 75C). 2. During the Play Period After the final pass and throughout the play period, declarer or either defender (but Law 16, Unauthorized Information, may apply) at his own turn to play may request [*] such an explanation of opposing auction, and declarer may request an explanation of the defenders' card play conventions. [*] Law 16 may apply; and sponsoring organizations may establish regulations for written explanations. -- 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 Feb 26 04:31:28 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA04104 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 26 Feb 1997 04:31:28 +1100 Received: from emout05.mail.aol.com (emout05.mx.aol.com [198.81.11.96]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id EAA04043 for ; Wed, 26 Feb 1997 04:31:15 +1100 From: AlLeBendig@aol.com Received: (from root@localhost) by emout05.mail.aol.com (8.7.6/8.7.3/AOL-2.0.0) id MAA01781; Tue, 25 Feb 1997 12:30:32 -0500 (EST) Date: Tue, 25 Feb 1997 12:30:32 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <970225123030_-1674990308@emout05.mail.aol.com> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au cc: david@blakjak.demon.co.uk Subject: Re: ******** defence Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In a message dated 97-02-24 22:48:06 EST, David S. wrote:> Alan LeBendig wrote:>> > >I don't see this as having been that tough. When W bid 2C, he clearly > >thought it was for the majors. It is possible he hoped his partner would > >read it that way but more likely (IMO) that he expected his partner to read > >it that way. If W thought such an agreement existed and E didn't, there is > >clearly misinformation. We are directed to assume such. The burden is on > >E-W to "prove" otherwise. He never disclosed this misinformation prior to > >the opening lead (he was well aware there had been no alert). I rule the > >board gets thrown out and N-S gain 3 IMPs (assuming their teammates didn't > >have a better result;-). > > I never understand this type of ruling. It is very common in some > parts of the world, I believe [not in GBritain], but seems completely > illegal. L12C1 makes it quite clear that an ArtAS only applies when > no result can be obtained: but a result was obtained so L12C1 does not > apply. When a result was obtained, L12C2 applies, and an AssAS is > applied. For my actual ruling see below. A result was obtained, David. But there is a great deal of uncertainty as to what that result might have without the misinformation. If N had been a screenmate with W, he would have known that 2C was intended as majors. But he would not know that E was not aware of this agreement. Would he now double this bid to show clubs or would that be a suggestion that he wanted to double the subsequent major runout? If he was a screenmate with E. he would be told it was natural and would likely double but now S would know that it was majors and W was probably about to bid one. On the assumption that N must also have clubs, S may bid 3C now. The point I'm trying to make is that each player could never find out there was a problem during the auction. That is why I feel L12C1 applies. I am unable to determine with any certainty to satisfy me what the result may have been without the MI. This obviously would have been much easier had there been disclosure of the MI prior to the opening lead. After asking a few questions away from the table, I'm confident I would be more comfortable applying L12C2 for a "real" adjustment. > > If E-W are experienced, I would want a procedural > >penalty for W's failure to disclose. Had he done so it wouldn't have been > >that difficult for the TD to have a chance of achieving or determining a > >bridge result. If they convince me that no such agreement existed but W > >hoped his partner would read it (unlikely), then result stands. Still don' > t > >understand what was so tough about this. And to allow result to stand > >because they were confused about what to do? This staff was poor all week > >and this is another example. > > This is the wrong approach. No player is particularly meant to > understand the nuances of the Laws and regulations. To fine someone for > failing to disclose when there is a mixup and he doesn't know what is > right is incredibly harsh, and is only required because of the totally > soft ruling on the actual hand. A PP is totally unsuitable in this type > of case. I strongly disagree, David. A nuance of the Law? He knows that he thought 2C was conventional and it wasn't alerted. That's all he needs to know to be aware that disclosure is required. We have publicized this very openly and have made it crystal clear that players are expected to know their obligations here and always disclose. The Active Ethics Campaign has been a big help in this area. I would never be even suggesting that L12C1 may apply if there had been disclosure and we were able to ask some pertinent questions. I would never consider a PP if the player was not very experienced - I tried to make that clear. There is one good thing about issuing a PP here - you only have to do it once. They will never fail to comply with this "nuance" in the future. Many of us believe that this PP is to be assessed regardless of the ruling on the actual hand. It is in no way meant to be any part of a score adjustment. Just a separate "ticket" for a specific offense. If I get stooped for speeding and it is discovered my license has expired, the fine for the expired license is in no way connected to the fine for speeding. I view this in the same fashion. Alan LeBendig From owner-bridge-laws Wed Feb 26 04:40:02 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA05273 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 26 Feb 1997 04:40:02 +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 EAA05268 for ; Wed, 26 Feb 1997 04:39:56 +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 JAA26388 for <@mipl7.JPL.NASA.GOV:bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au>; Tue, 25 Feb 1997 09:39:23 -0800 Received: by tintin.JPL.NASA.GOV (940816.SGI.8.6.9/930416.SGI.MIPS) for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au id JAA08135; Tue, 25 Feb 1997 09:41:17 -0800 Date: Tue, 25 Feb 1997 09:41:17 -0800 From: jeff@tintin.JPL.NASA.GOV (Jeff Goldsmith) Message-Id: <199702251741.JAA08135@tintin.JPL.NASA.GOV> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: ****** defense Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Stevenson wrote: |Alan LeBendig wrote: | |>I don't see this as having been that tough. When W bid 2C, he clearly |>thought it was for the majors. It is possible he hoped his partner would |>read it that way but more likely (IMO) that he expected his partner to read |>it that way. If W thought such an agreement existed and E didn't, there is |>clearly misinformation. We are directed to assume such. The burden is on |>E-W to "prove" otherwise. He never disclosed this misinformation prior to |>the opening lead (he was well aware there had been no alert). I rule the |>board gets thrown out and N-S gain 3 IMPs (assuming their teammates didn't |>have a better result;-). | | I never understand this type of ruling. It is very common in some |parts of the world, I believe [not in GBritain], but seems completely |illegal. L12C1 makes it quite clear that an ArtAS only applies when |no result can be obtained: but a result was obtained so L12C1 does not |apply. When a result was obtained, L12C2 applies, and an AssAS is |applied. For my actual ruling see below. I concur. Including the "I never understand" part. There are several quite likely possible results, so there's no reason to assign an artificial one. The play in clubs isn't too hard to figure out. E/W will take two spades and two diamonds. |Jeff Goldsmith wrote: | |> 9x |> AKx IMPs, E/W only vul, long match |> Jxx |> AQxx J9876 K10xx |> 1087xx QJ9 |> A10 Qxxx |> xx Jxx 10x |> xx |> K98x |> AKQx |> |> South West North East |> 1D * Pass 1NT Pass |> Pass 2C Dbl Pass |> Pass 2H Dbl All Pass |> |> * 1NT would have been 10-12. |> |>2C was not alerted, but was intended as takeout. |>2H doubled made three after a diamond lead. |> |>After the hand, East said, "we don't play that." |>West said, "I guess we don't play that." Of course, |>no convention card notation existed, and no system |>notes were available. It's likely that the pair |>had no agreement (so 2C was natural) because it |>seems silly to play 2C for the majors when 2D |>would do better, but I know of at least one partner |>who insists that 2D is natural, too, so what do I know? |> |>North might have had misinformation (you judge). |>South knew what was going on, what what could |>South do? Would a 3C bid have been natural? |>Would it have been safe? (On the weasel subject, |>South figured out afterwards the right answer: |>ask if 2C was natural. When answered, "yes," |>ask, "are you sure?" Then bid 3C. Next problem!) |> |>N/S (we) called the director. She came over and |>made it very clear that she had no idea how |>to proceed. She thought for a little while |>and said, "I need to consult with another director." |>She did, with one who is famous for having no idea |>about the laws or any technical details. They concluded |>that they had no idea so they let the result stand. The |>match wasn't close, so no appeal was necessary. |> |>How would you rule? This ruling has a couple of |>interesting tidbits, but the main point I wanted to |>make was that in a local regional tournament, we |>had no floor directors who knew how to start attacking |>the problem. This is a very sad situation. | | In all these alert and misexplanation situations the TD *must* |consider MI and UI. If you bid 2C as takeout and partner passes the |assumption is that he has long clubs. Since West has UI [no alert of |2C] and pass is an LA, then I rule 2C*-4. Is pass a logical alternative? I think it's unclear. I doubt, sans certain agreement, that any of that player's peers would seriously consider passing. It *ought* to be a LA, but I don't think it is by our current definition. Is this a flaw in the current definition or just in my understanding of it? With 2D as "pick a major" available to East, however, there's a logical argument that pass should be to play. Is this a strong enough argument to make passing a LA? I don't think so, but that's an intuitive feeling, not anything more than that. Let's say we think it is the case that pass is a LA. The misinformation infraction, however, doesn't lead to that result. If North had been correctly informed, he'd've probably passed 2C. (I was North, so I *know* I'd've passed 2C.) South would have been charmed to pass. That leads to 2C-4. According to an earlier posting by David Stevenson, we are to take these infractions in chronological order. Misinformation came first. Do we apply the logic from the misinformation case before considering the UI case? Obviously not, or there would be no UI case. So, I don't understand the procedure for multiple infractions anymore. I thought it was, "take each infraction in turn, then give the offending side the worst result at all probable, including penalties, and give the non-offending side the best probable result." That would lead to the 2Cx-4 ruling. I was a little unfair. The directors said to me, "you should have known what was going on. Result stands." I think that meant she felt that the double of 2H (I was North) was a blunder that broke the chain of consequent damage. That's silly. On the other hand, South definitely knew what was going on and had a very strong clue that 2Hx wasn't a good spot. She could have bid 3C to improve the score. Or could she? What would 3C have meant? Since South had averred a club suit, isn't 3C a cue bid of sorts, looking for notrump or some such? This is the most interesting problem in the matter, I think: the misinformation made it very difficult for South, who knew what was going on, to recover. If there had been a delayed alert of 2C, "ooppss...that was not clubs," then I'd've at least thought about South's pass of 2Hx as being very hungry, borderline as to being a wild swinging action. (Also borderline insane.) How does it fit in that South's action is likely to be misconstrued because of the misinformation? I think that's a very curious twist. Do we forgive her completely because of this danger? --Jeff # "I'm a blonde; I'm a blonde: B-L-A-N-D!" # --- # http://muggy.gg.caltech.edu/~jeff From owner-bridge-laws Wed Feb 26 08:27:12 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA12967 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 26 Feb 1997 08:27:12 +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 IAA12958 for ; Wed, 26 Feb 1997 08:27:02 +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 QAA13643 for ; Tue, 25 Feb 1997 16:00:37 -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 QAA07556 for ; Tue, 25 Feb 1997 16:21:36 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <1.5.4.32.19970225212032.0080c7ec@cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.4 (32) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Tue, 25 Feb 1997 16:20:32 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Rules of disclosure [WAS: ******** defence] Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 12:30 PM 2/25/97 -0500, Alan wrote: >I strongly disagree, David. A nuance of the Law? He knows that he thought >2C was conventional and it wasn't alerted. That's all he needs to know to be >aware that disclosure is required. We have publicized this very openly and >have made it crystal clear that players are expected to know their >obligations here and always disclose. The ACBL certainly hasn't "made it crystal clear" to me. Clearly, if he KNOWS that 2C was conventional and it wasn't alerted, he must disclose this. But the impression I have gained from reading what the ACBL has said on the subject is that if he knows that HE THOUGHT 2C was conventional BUT WAS MISTAKEN he is NOT supposed to disclose this, which is a very different policy than "always disclose". Is this not true? 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 Wed Feb 26 10:58:09 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA14400 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 26 Feb 1997 10:58:09 +1100 Received: from hestia.ccs.deakin.edu.au (root@hestia.ccs.deakin.edu.au [128.184.1.3]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id KAA14395 for ; Wed, 26 Feb 1997 10:58:04 +1100 Received: from cm.deakin.edu.au (elwing.cm.deakin.edu.au [128.184.80.171]) by hestia.ccs.deakin.edu.au (8.8.5/8.8.3) with ESMTP id KAA21295 for ; Wed, 26 Feb 1997 10:57:55 +1100 (EST) Message-Id: <199702252357.KAA21295@hestia.ccs.deakin.edu.au> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: L40E2 In-reply-to: Your message of "Tue, 25 Feb 1997 16:20:11 -0000." Date: Wed, 26 Feb 1997 10:57:55 +1100 From: Douglas Newlands Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk :Thomas wrote: :>>From: willner@cfa183.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) :>>> From: David Stevenson :>>> It is clear and obvious what L40E2 means. :>>Well, I've always thought so too. :-) :>I have one question: :>When am I allowed to inquire the meaning of opponents' :>bidding? :> : In my view you may ask when it is your turn to call or play, unless :you are dummy. Steve's reading of the Law, *if* consistent with his :reading of L40E2, will be that L20F permits you to ask when it is your :turn to call or play, unless you are dummy, and you can also ask at any :other time if you feel like it. : :Law 20 - Review and Explanation of Calls : :F. Explanation of Calls : 1. During the Auction : During the auction and before the final pass, any player, ONLY at : his own turn to call, may request [*] a full explanation of the : opponents' auction; replies should normally be given by the : partner of a player who made a call in question (see Law 75C). : 2. During the Play Period : After the final pass and throughout the play period, declarer : or either defender (but Law 16, Unauthorized Information, may : apply) ONLY at his own turn to play may request [*] such an : explanation of opposing auction, and declarer may request an : explanation of the defenders' card play conventions. If I insert the word "only" into the above law in the two places shown, does it change the meaning of the law? Should it? If not, why not? I don't believe this law says what it is commonly interpreted as saying. This may be because of a lack of care in drafting the law. doug. From owner-bridge-laws Wed Feb 26 11:43:00 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id LAA14616 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 26 Feb 1997 11:43:00 +1100 Received: from pip.dknet.dk (root@pip.dknet.dk [193.88.44.48]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id LAA14611 for ; Wed, 26 Feb 1997 11:42:52 +1100 Received: from cph12.ppp.dknet.dk (cph12.ppp.dknet.dk [194.192.100.12]) by pip.dknet.dk (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id BAA03006 for ; Wed, 26 Feb 1997 01:26:49 +0100 From: Jesper Dybdal To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: ******** defence Date: Wed, 26 Feb 1997 01:26:48 +0100 Organization: at home Message-ID: <3318830d.5831475@pipmail.dknet.dk> References: <970225123030_-1674990308@emout05.mail.aol.com> In-Reply-To: <970225123030_-1674990308@emout05.mail.aol.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, 25 Feb 1997 12:30:32 -0500 (EST), AlLeBendig@aol.com wrote: >In a message dated 97-02-24 22:48:06 EST, David S. wrote:> >>A PP is totally unsuitable in this type=20 >> of case. > >I strongly disagree, David. A nuance of the Law? He knows that he = thought >2C was conventional and it wasn't alerted. That's all he needs to know = to be >aware that disclosure is required. Yes, he certainly should have known it. However, perhaps he really didn't. That is a possibility, and penalizing for violation of correct procedure when the player simply didn't know the law is a good way to put people off duplicate bridge. If he did know (or would have known if he had taken the trouble to analyze the situation), something needs to be done to change his behaviour. I believe that consistent and correct score adjustments are much more effective than PPs in such situations; when he has received a few adjustments, he will hopefully realize that violation of his duty to disclose only harms his own side. Meanwhile, by not penalizing, we do not risk penalizing an innocent but ignorant player. I am thus on David's side here (though I admit that there is a snag: changing people's behaviour in that way is very difficult unless most of the TDs they meet are competent and do adjust scores appropriately.) --=20 Jesper Dybdal, Denmark From owner-bridge-laws Wed Feb 26 12:35:00 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id MAA14891 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 26 Feb 1997 12:35:00 +1100 Received: from emout13.mail.aol.com (emout13.mx.aol.com [198.81.11.39]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id MAA14886 for ; Wed, 26 Feb 1997 12:34:53 +1100 From: AlLeBendig@aol.com Received: (from root@localhost) by emout13.mail.aol.com (8.7.6/8.7.3/AOL-2.0.0) id UAA02112 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Tue, 25 Feb 1997 20:34:15 -0500 (EST) Date: Tue, 25 Feb 1997 20:34:15 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <970225195230_1349049327@emout13.mail.aol.com> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Rules of disclosure [WAS: ******** defence] Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In a message dated 97-02-25 16:31:54 EST, Eric writes:> Alan LeBendig wrote:>> > >I strongly disagree, David. A nuance of the Law? He knows that he thought > >2C was conventional and it wasn't alerted. That's all he needs to know to > be > >aware that disclosure is required. We have publicized this very openly and > >have made it crystal clear that players are expected to know their > >obligations here and always disclose. > > The ACBL certainly hasn't "made it crystal clear" to me. Clearly, if he > KNOWS that 2C was conventional and it wasn't alerted, he must disclose this. > But the impression I have gained from reading what the ACBL has said on the > subject is that if he knows that HE THOUGHT 2C was conventional BUT WAS > MISTAKEN he is NOT supposed to disclose this, which is a very different > policy than "always disclose". Is this not true? How do I know who was mistaken, Eric? Do I decide partner is right because there was no alert and therefore say "I forgot" or "I was mistaken"? This will generally allow me to get away with many things. That is why we are to assume there was misinformation without some "proof" to the contrary. My experience has shown that players are generally playing two different methods. One thinks an agreement exists and the other doesn't. On the given hand, when W bid 2C he clearly thought it showed majors. East didn't alert and W now knows there is a problem. He cannot simply defend himself by saying "I was mistaken". Barring some "proof" of his being mistaken, HE MUST DISCLOSE. I have notes to prove I am playing 2D shows majors and it is properly marked on my card. I could easily defend a position of having forgotten or being mistaken. If that were the case, you are correct that I should not disclose because there has been no MI. But players are too ready (IMO) to fall back on this defense when they know in their hearts that they were on different tracks. I want proof before I am willing to accept this defense. Alan LeBendig From owner-bridge-laws Wed Feb 26 12:43:46 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id MAA14957 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 26 Feb 1997 12:43:46 +1100 Received: from smtp3.erols.com (smtp3.erols.com [205.252.116.103]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id MAA14952 for ; Wed, 26 Feb 1997 12:43:40 +1100 Received: from hdavis.erols.com (spg-as50s40.erols.com [207.172.111.40]) by smtp3.erols.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id UAA23837 for ; Tue, 25 Feb 1997 20:43:36 -0500 Message-Id: <3.0.32.19970225204349.00699ef8@pop.erols.com> X-Sender: hdavis@pop.erols.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0 (32) Date: Tue, 25 Feb 1997 20:43:51 -0500 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Hirsch Davis Subject: Re: Rules of disclosure [WAS: ******** defence] Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 04:20 PM 2/25/97 -0500, you wrote: [snip] > >The ACBL certainly hasn't "made it crystal clear" to me. Clearly, if he >KNOWS that 2C was conventional and it wasn't alerted, he must disclose this. >But the impression I have gained from reading what the ACBL has said on the >subject is that if he knows that HE THOUGHT 2C was conventional BUT WAS >MISTAKEN he is NOT supposed to disclose this, which is a very different >policy than "always disclose". Is this not true? > >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 > > > Had he spontaneously woken up and discovered his 2C bid to be natural, this would be true. However, in this case, he was awakened by the dog that didn't bark in the night, in this case partner's failure to alert. The absence of an expected alert is UI in this situation. A player cannot use an alert, or a failure to alert, from partner to define his own bid. Accordingly, once a player has been awakened to the meaning of his bid through his partner's alert, or failure to so so, he must stay consistent with the original meaning he thought the bid had, unless the auction itself reveals that he has mistaken his bid. Waking up at this point would be an action suggested by UI. Consequently, since he thought his bid was conventional, and the only information he had that it was not was partner's failure to alert (UI), he must disclose the "failure to alert". Hirsch From owner-bridge-laws Wed Feb 26 13:13:22 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id NAA15056 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 26 Feb 1997 13:13:22 +1100 Received: from laplace.math.ntu.edu.tw (math.ntu.edu.tw [140.112.50.160]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id NAA15051 for ; Wed, 26 Feb 1997 13:13:15 +1100 Received: from newton.math.ntu.edu.tw by laplace.math.ntu.edu.tw (4.1/SMI-4.1) id AA12570; Wed, 26 Feb 97 10:11:23 CST Date: Wed, 26 Feb 97 10:11:23 CST Message-Id: <9702260211.AA12570@laplace.math.ntu.edu.tw> Received: by newton.math.ntu.edu.tw (4.1/SMI-4.1) id AA06338; Wed, 26 Feb 97 10:10:58 CST From: "B.Y." To: hdavis@erols.com Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au In-Reply-To: <3.0.32.19970225204349.00699ef8@pop.erols.com> (message from Hirsch Davis on Tue, 25 Feb 1997 20:43:51 -0500) Subject: Re: Rules of disclosure [WAS: ******** defence] Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk The Bridge World position, if I am not mistaken, is that if you know that you made a mistaken bid through whatever means, you are *NOT* *ALLOWED* to disclose. You must continue to bid as if you did not wake up of course, but the opponents are not entitled to any more than your agreements. Out of favour with the Ayatollah, I know. From owner-bridge-laws Wed Feb 26 14:21:23 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id OAA15270 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 26 Feb 1997 14:21:23 +1100 Received: from clothes.peg.apc.org (www.peg.apc.org [192.131.13.10]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id OAA15265 for ; Wed, 26 Feb 1997 14:21:17 +1100 Received: from soundconnex (t34.dialup.peg.apc.org [192.203.176.162]) by clothes.peg.apc.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id NAA02763 for ; Wed, 26 Feb 1997 13:20:12 +1000 (EST) Date: Wed, 26 Feb 1997 13:20:12 +1000 (EST) Message-Id: <199702260320.NAA02763@clothes.peg.apc.org> X-Sender: soundconnex@pop.peg.apc.org X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 2.1.2 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: bridge-laws From: Roger Penny and Jane Stapleton Subject: Re: The curse of Buxton Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Michael Amos wrote: >Board 6 E/W Vulnerable Dealer E S AK107432 H 9 D AQJ4 C void S 95 S QJ86 H 642 H QJ103 D K7632 D 98 C KQ6 C J42 S void H AK875 D 105 C A108753 >North played in 6S. Heart lead won in dummy; Club A - Diamond discard; Top Heart - Diamond discard; Diamond finesse; Top Spades and third Spade. >When Spades did not break declarer faced his hand and conceded a second trump trick for one off: NS -50 >The players moved on to Board 7 and completed it. At this point, the nice lady from the next table came over with the Club 9 (henceforth known as the Curse of Buxton): "Does anyone want this?" she asked. >Comparison with the curtain card revealed that North's hand on board 6 had in fact been: S AK107432 H 9 D AQJ4 C 9 >North now came to search for the TD - "I bet you have never seen anything like this before", he said. Of course we have seen things like this - but how do you rule? Law 14 refers only to a "hand found deficient before play commences" and to a "hand found deficient during play". Consequently, this Law cannot be applied directly to Michael's "Curse of Buxton" situation, presumably. I suggest, therefore, that Law 64 would be the appropriate Law to apply in that declarer revoked when he discarded a diamond instead of playing the C9 (which should have been in his hand) to Trick 2. This would presumably be a revoke for which no penalty is assessed because "attention was first drawn to the revoke after a member of the non-offending side has made a call on the subsequent round". Thus, Law 64C could then be applied. In this case, declarer's revoke had allowed him to discard a losing diamond from his hand which he would have had to lose to West's DK on his line of play as described by Michael, with amendment to incorporate the play of C9, i.e. CA - C9 Top Heart - Diamond discard (D4) Diamond finesse (playing DJ, thus leaving D.AQ in hand) Top Spades and third Spade. This would have left declarer locked in his hand, having to lead away from D.AQ. To restore equity, I would therefore assign an adjusted score of -100 to N/S. The question I would then ask is whether a procedural penalty should also be assessed against North for his failure to adhere to the requirements of Law 7.B.1? A somewhat similar case occurred in a major Swiss Teams Championship event in Australia two or three years ago. In the top row of the field, eight tables were sharing a set of 20 boards preduplicated by the Sponsoring Organisation. A particular board had been played at three tables where North held just 12 cards but, because declarer [North!] had claimed after three or four tricks at all these tables, none of the Norths had been found at the end of play to be one card short. When the board came to be played at the fourth table, however, a North finally counted his cards accurately, face downwards before the start of play, and the TD was called. When the TD made his "search for the missing card", it was finally resolved that the board had been delivered to Table 1 in its deficient state - the missing card had apparently been gone missing during the process of duplication. Would you rule that Law 6.E.3 applies to this situation and that, because the Director's "assistants, or other appointed agents" were responsible for the fact that the board was deficient from the outset, the tables involved should be regarded as "contestant[s] in no way at fault"? Or would you consider that Law 7.B.1 takes precedence and take some sort of action under that Law? Or would you deal with this situation in some other way? Roger Penny From owner-bridge-laws Wed Feb 26 15:42:03 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id PAA16078 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 26 Feb 1997 15:42:03 +1100 Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id PAA16070 for ; Wed, 26 Feb 1997 15:41:56 +1100 Received: from cfa183.harvard.edu (cfa183.harvard.edu [131.142.12.59]) by cfa.harvard.edu (8.8.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id XAA26616; Tue, 25 Feb 1997 23:41:50 -0500 (EST) Received: by cfa183.harvard.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id XAA03985; Tue, 25 Feb 1997 23:42:04 -0500 Date: Tue, 25 Feb 1997 23:42:04 -0500 From: willner@cfa183.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Message-Id: <199702260442.XAA03985@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au, newsr@blakjak.demon.co.uk Subject: Re: L40E2 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: David Stevenson > Steve's reading of the Law, *if* consistent with his > reading of L40E2, will be that L20F permits you to ask when it is your > turn to call or play, unless you are dummy, and you can also ask at any > other time if you feel like it. Sorry, I guess my messages have been woefully unclear. My reading of L40E2 is that you can look at the cc when it isn't your turn *subject to L73B1*, other Laws, and also to any regulations (from ZO, NCBO, or SO) that may apply. Normally L73B1 makes it a very bad idea to look when it's partner's turn and a somewhat bad idea to look when it's an opponent's turn, though looking is legal if it can be done without being noticed or if circumstances avoid any problem with L73B1 or other Laws. Asking, as opposed to looking at the cc, is governed by L20F. I think the same principle applies, though the circumstances where L73B1 won't be a limitation are quite rare. (Screens or at RHO's turn are about the only cases I can think of, and asking at RHO's turn is a bit rude unless you need to know whether to alert or not.) In terms of practical bridge, I don't think David and I disagree very much. He might say "technically illegal but no penalty" when I would say "legal," but I'm not by any means advocating complete license to look or ask at any time whatever. I just think the prohibition is primarily in L73B1, not L40E2 or L20F. Incidentally, L40E1 gives the SO clear authority to make whatever regulations it likes about use of the cc. These would take precedence over the Laws themselves, whatever interpretation you might give them. I can't find corresponding authority for asking questions, but I haven't looked carefully. From owner-bridge-laws Wed Feb 26 22:21:16 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id WAA21281 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 26 Feb 1997 22:21:16 +1100 Received: from uranus.bgr.de (uranus.bgr.de [193.174.160.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id WAA21274 for ; Wed, 26 Feb 1997 22:21:08 +1100 From: thomas.dehn@bgr.de Received: by uranus.bgr.de; (5.65v3.2/1.3/10May95) id AA00912; Wed, 26 Feb 1997 12:19:33 +0100 Received: by mailhub.bgr.de id AA27022; Wed, 26 Feb 1997 12:21:25 GMT Received: from localhost by b2ax02.nlfb.bgr.de; (5.65v3.2/1.1.8.2/04Dec96-0333PM) id AA16021; Wed, 26 Feb 1997 12:21:34 GMT Message-Id: <9702261221.AA16021@b2ax02.nlfb.bgr.de> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: L40E2 Date: Wed, 26 Feb 97 12:21:34 +0000 X-Mts: smtp Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David wrote: >Thomas wrote: >>Before I really participate in this discussion, >>I have one question: >>When am I allowed to inquire the meaning of opponents' >>bidding? > In my view you may ask when it is your turn to call or play, unless >you are dummy. [rest snipped] I'm not surprised ;-). I think we have a problem here, and I would like to have the laws changed. Example: LHO bids 2D, RHO alerts. Partner takes a look at their CC and bids 2S. If 2D is Flannery or Multi, we have the agreement that 2S is natural, hence I am supposed not to alert 2S here. If we would have a different agreement (like shorter major), I would have to alert partner's 2S. If 2D is, say, Anti-Flannery, 2S is a takeout bid and I would have to alert it. Not all bidding sequences are like 2D 3D, where the meaning of 2D probably will make it obvious for RHO whether 3D is natural or artificial. How can I make a decision whether to alert or not without asking questions or looking at their CC? Before RHO has to bid, of course. Please note that partner in practise may not ask questions about the meaning of 2D because he can get these informations from their CC. Thomas, who wants to be allowed to look at their CC all the time From owner-bridge-laws Wed Feb 26 23:12:01 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA21788 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 26 Feb 1997 23:12:01 +1100 Received: from relay-11.mail.demon.net (relay-11.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.137]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id XAA21783 for ; Wed, 26 Feb 1997 23:11:55 +1100 Received: from casewise.demon.co.uk ([158.152.187.206]) by relay-11.mail.demon.net id aa1102886; 26 Feb 97 12:06 GMT From: David Martin To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Tue, 25 Feb 1997 11:57:09 Subject: Re: An incident from the club ... X-Confirm-Reading-To: David Martin X-pmrqc: 1 Priority: normal X-mailer: Pegasus Mail v3.22 Message-ID: <856958801.112886.0@casewise.demon.co.uk> Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Martin wrote: >However, if West has not already conveniently condoned the 1C, how >about unravelling the events in the reverse order that they occurred, >ie. *first* give West the opportunity to condone 1C (still under Law >29B "LHO *may* elect to call"). David Stevenson wrote: >Custom and practice, commonsense and the teachings of the EBU are >that when there is more than one infraction they are dealt with in >the order that they occurred. You may, of course, feel that none of >these are relevant authorities. You are welcome to your opinion of what is common sense but I can assure you that the above is not universal custom and practice nor is it what is taught on all EBU courses nor is it the view held by some very distinguished EBU directors. I regard the publications of the WBF, EBL and EBU together with the minutes of the L&E as the relevant authorities. Where in any of these is your view supported? Regards. David M From owner-bridge-laws Wed Feb 26 23:19:50 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA21847 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 26 Feb 1997 23:19:50 +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 XAA21842 for ; Wed, 26 Feb 1997 23:19:43 +1100 Received: from casewise.demon.co.uk ([158.152.187.206]) by relay-11.mail.demon.net id aa1102898; 26 Feb 97 12:06 GMT From: David Martin To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Tue, 25 Feb 1997 12:30:37 Subject: Re: Time for another easy one for Jens! X-Confirm-Reading-To: David Martin X-pmrqc: 1 Priority: normal X-mailer: Pegasus Mail v3.22 Message-ID: <856958803.112898.0@casewise.demon.co.uk> Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Martin wrote: >I agree that if LHO does not accept the Double then L27 should be >applied. However, if LHO does not accept the insufficient bid, >**then it seems odd to me that L27B3 should not be immediately applied >to the first Double** (my main point). David Stevenson wrote: >But you have already applied L25B2, which includes the wording: > > "If the substituted call is not accepted, it is cancelled; and:" But it does not say cancelled *without penalty* >Now, I am sorry, but that is the Law. You cannot apply it and not >apply it simultaneously. Either you have cancelled it under L25B >with all that that entails, or you have not. When you say that "L25 >should be invoked first" then you have included the above line so the >double is cancelled. Agreed that it is cancelled but *not without penalty* Snip >Furthermore you do not apply conflicting laws to the same situation. > When you apply more than one Law it is to cover different parts of >the situation, such as L26 for Lead penalties. L25 *unambiguously* >deals with the double and that is an end of it. L25 is not in conflict with L27B3. *Both* state that the double is cancelled. Agreed that L25 is unambiguous but it is not *complete* and we still use other laws eg. L26 to add additional penalties to L25. SNIP Regards. David M From owner-bridge-laws Wed Feb 26 23:25:06 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA21913 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 26 Feb 1997 23:25:06 +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 XAA21908 for ; Wed, 26 Feb 1997 23:25:00 +1100 Received: from innet.innet.be (pool03-96.innet.be [194.7.10.96]) by mail.be.innet.net (8.7.6/8.7.3) with SMTP id NAA08727 for ; Wed, 26 Feb 1997 13:24:55 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: <33143427.5F3C@innet.be> Date: Wed, 26 Feb 1997 13:01:27 +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: L40E2 References: <199702260442.XAA03985@cfa183.harvard.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Steve Willner wrote: > > > From: David Stevenson > > Steve's reading of the Law, *if* consistent with his > > reading of L40E2, will be that L20F permits you to ask when it is your > > turn to call or play, unless you are dummy, and you can also ask at any > > other time if you feel like it. > > Sorry, I guess my messages have been woefully unclear. > > My reading of L40E2 is that you can look at the cc when it isn't your > turn *subject to L73B1*, other Laws, and also to any regulations (from > ZO, NCBO, or SO) that may apply. Normally L73B1 makes it a very bad > idea to look when it's partner's turn and a somewhat bad idea to look > when it's an opponent's turn, though looking is legal if it can be done > without being noticed or if circumstances avoid any problem with L73B1 > or other Laws. > > Asking, as opposed to looking at the cc, is governed by L20F. I think > the same principle applies, though the circumstances where L73B1 won't > be a limitation are quite rare. (Screens or at RHO's turn are about the > only cases I can think of, and asking at RHO's turn is a bit rude unless > you need to know whether to alert or not.) > > In terms of practical bridge, I don't think David and I disagree very > much. He might say "technically illegal but no penalty" when I would > say "legal," but I'm not by any means advocating complete license to > look or ask at any time whatever. I just think the prohibition is > primarily in L73B1, not L40E2 or L20F. > > Incidentally, L40E1 gives the SO clear authority to make whatever > regulations it likes about use of the cc. These would take precedence > over the Laws themselves, whatever interpretation you might give them. > I can't find corresponding authority for asking questions, but I > haven't looked carefully. I think this last point is a very valid one. The Laws do not forbid looking at the CC at bad moments. But by stating the right moments to do so, they lay the foundation for possible UI infractions. The Laws do not make looking at a bad moment an offence, punishable by PP's. SO's could regulate to make this so, as this is not contrary to the Laws. But no-one could write regulations that prohibit the looking at CC's at these correct times. I believe that is why the Laws are specifically silent to this point. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.club.innet.be/~pub02163/index.htm From owner-bridge-laws Thu Feb 27 01:11:39 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA25798 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 27 Feb 1997 01:11:39 +1100 Received: from cinna.ultra.net (cinna.ultra.net [199.232.56.8]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id BAA25793 for ; Thu, 27 Feb 1997 01:11:27 +1100 Received: from azure-tech.com (mail.azure-tech.com [204.249.180.200]) by cinna.ultra.net (8.8.5/ult1.04) with SMTP id JAA20294 for ; Wed, 26 Feb 1997 09:11:22 -0500 (EST) Received: from Microsoft Mail (PU Serial #1189) by azure-tech.com (PostalUnion/SMTP(tm) v2.1.6 for Windows NT(tm)) id AA-1997Feb26.085600.1189.71716; Wed, 26 Feb 1997 09:06:05 -0500 From: REW@azure-tech.com (Richard Willey) To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au ('bridge-laws') Message-ID: <1997Feb26.085600.1189.71716@azure-tech.com> X-Mailer: Microsoft Mail via PostalUnion/SMTP for Windows NT Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Organization: Azure Technologies, Inc. Date: Wed, 26 Feb 1997 09:06:05 -0500 Subject: No Subject Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Greetings. I hope that this question is too "basic" for this mailing list, but I'm still trying to work out the "logic" of certain types of director's calls. The following incident happened yesterday evening during a club game. RHO ME LHO Partner (1C) - Pass - (1S) - 1N (Pass) - Pass - (X) - 2H (X) - (3D) - (X) - All pass Partner's 1N bid was a sandwich NT. By partnership agreement, this bid showed a weak, offensively oriented two suited takeout. RHO made a long hesitation prior to his subsequent pass. LHO chose to balance with a double holding J9754 J87 KQx 8x At the time of the balancing double, I called the director to ask for protection in the event that LHO's action was unduly influenced by his partner's hesitation. I have a pair of questions for the mailing list. First a very simple one. Should the director call have been made at the time of the hesitation or when LHO chose to balance. Second. To what extent should the opponent's hesitations protect my partnership against its own mistakes. In the absence of the balancing double, my partnership would have had a top board playing in 1N. However, once the opponent's doubled the 1N contract, partner made what I consider to be an egregious error by bidding 2H with an unsuitable hand. 3DX -1 was a near bottom board. 2S by the opponents would have represented an Average Minus for us. The director ruled that LHO's balancing double could have been influenced by his partner's hesitation, and adjusted the board to +90 for North South (the most likely result had we played in 1NT). However, the director also encouraged the partnership to appeal the decision at the end of the session (the other pair did not do so). What should the correct ruling be on a hand such as this one? Richard From owner-bridge-laws Thu Feb 27 01:50:26 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA26045 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 27 Feb 1997 01:50:26 +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 BAA26038 for ; Thu, 27 Feb 1997 01:50:14 +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 JAA12787 for ; Wed, 26 Feb 1997 09:50:02 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <1.5.4.32.19970226144907.0069b990@cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.4 (32) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Wed, 26 Feb 1997 09:49:07 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: Rules of disclosure Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 08:34 PM 2/25/97 -0500, Alan wrote: >How do I know who was mistaken, Eric? Do I decide partner is right because >there was no alert and therefore say "I forgot" or "I was mistaken"? This >will generally allow me to get away with many things. That is why we are to >assume there was misinformation without some "proof" to the contrary. My >experience has shown that players are generally playing two different >methods. One thinks an agreement exists and the other doesn't. On the given >hand, when W bid 2C he clearly thought it showed majors. East didn't alert >and W now knows there is a problem. He cannot simply defend himself by >saying "I was mistaken". Barring some "proof" of his being mistaken, HE MUST >DISCLOSE. I have notes to prove I am playing 2D shows majors and it is >properly marked on my card. I could easily defend a position of having >forgotten or being mistaken. If that were the case, you are correct that I >should not disclose because there has been no MI. But players are too ready >(IMO) to fall back on this defense when they know in their hearts that they >were on different tracks. I want proof before I am willing to accept this >defense. I fully agree with everything Alan says. But I find it tangential to the issue; the area remains problematic even after accepting all of the above. Let's recap the scenario: N makes a bid thinking his partnership agreement is A, which is alertable. S thinks they have agreement B, which is not alertable, and does not alert. The rules say: (Case 1:) If the actual agreement is A, S's failure to alert is misinformation, and N is required to offer the opponents a correct explanation at the end of the auction. But (Case 2:) if the actual agreement is B, there has been no misinformation, and it would be improper to offer such an explanation, as that would introduce misinformation where none had previously been given. Alan adds: Since it will normally be to the confused pair's ("offender's") advantage to claim case 2, we must assume case 1 "barring some 'proof'", such as partnership notes or a clearly marked CC. So what have we got now? (Case 1:) Unless the pair's notes or CC clearly indicate that the actual agreement is B, S's failure to alert is presumptive misinformation, and the delayed explanation must be offered. But (Case 2:) if the notes or CC clearly indicate that the actual agreement is B, it would be improper to offer it. Obviously, though, if this partnership knew their notes and/or CC cold, they wouldn't be in this situation. And, since a hand is in progress, N may not refer to his own notes or CC. Besides, even if permitted, doing so at this point would "give the show away", and would therefore be equivalent to volunteering information in case 2, which he is not required to do; this would mean that he was, in effect, obliged to inform the opponents that there had been "partnership confusion" even with no misinformation. (Admittedly, some think that there should be such an obligation, but that's another discussion.) So N is still left "guessing" as to whether he is "in" case 1 or case 2. Alan correctly and appropriately tells us how to make an objective post-facto determination as to the accuracy of N's guess. But this does nothing to help N out at the table at the time he must decide. Eric Landau elandau@cais.com APL Solutions, Inc. elandau@acm.org 1107 Dale Drive (301) 589-4621 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 From owner-bridge-laws Thu Feb 27 02:24:31 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA26318 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 27 Feb 1997 02:24:31 +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 CAA26313 for ; Thu, 27 Feb 1997 02:24:24 +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 JAA15324 for ; Wed, 26 Feb 1997 09:58:13 -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 KAA14039 for ; Wed, 26 Feb 1997 10:19:17 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <1.5.4.32.19970226151819.0067b554@cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.4 (32) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Wed, 26 Feb 1997 10:18:19 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: Rules of disclosure Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 08:43 PM 2/25/97 -0500, Hirsch wrote: >Had he spontaneously woken up and discovered his 2C bid to be natural, this >would be true. However, in this case, he was awakened by the dog that >didn't bark in the night, in this case partner's failure to alert. The >absence of an expected alert is UI in this situation. A player cannot use >an alert, or a failure to alert, from partner to define his own bid. >Accordingly, once a player has been awakened to the meaning of his bid >through his partner's alert, or failure to so so, he must stay consistent >with the original meaning he thought the bid had, unless the auction itself >reveals that he has mistaken his bid. Waking up at this point would be an >action suggested by UI. All quite correct, but irrelevant. In Hirsch's scenario, 2C was natural by agreement, he thought it was conventional, he was reminded of the correct agreement by his partner's failure to alert, that is UI, and he may not use this UI in selecting his subsequent actions, i.e. he must bid in a manner consistent with his original misapprehension that 2C was conventional. In the complementary scenario, where 2C is conventional by agreement, he is similarly constrained from using the UI that partner (mistakenly) thought it to be natural. So, in either case, he must bid in a manner consistent with his original understanding of the meaning of 2C, regardless of whether (based on what he now knows) he was right or wrong. But while he may not use the UI to select subsequent actions, he may, in fact MUST, "use" the UI in the second case to "wake up" to the fact that his partner has given MI to the opponents, and correct the MI. The "action" at issue is the act of informing the opponents, at the end of the auction, that they have been given MI. The fact that that is, literally, "an action suggested by UI" is a red herring here. Eric Landau elandau@cais.com APL Solutions, Inc. elandau@acm.org 1107 Dale Drive (301) 589-4621 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 From owner-bridge-laws Thu Feb 27 02:42:04 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA26393 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 27 Feb 1997 02:42:04 +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 CAA26387 for ; Thu, 27 Feb 1997 02:41:25 +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 KAA15044 for ; Wed, 26 Feb 1997 10:41:05 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <1.5.4.32.19970226154007.0068db8c@cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.4 (32) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Wed, 26 Feb 1997 10:40:07 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: L40E2 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 10:57 AM 2/26/97 +1100, Doug wrote: >:F. Explanation of Calls >: 1. During the Auction >: During the auction and before the final pass, any player, ONLY at >: his own turn to call, may request [*] a full explanation of the >: opponents' auction; replies should normally be given by the >: partner of a player who made a call in question (see Law 75C). >: 2. During the Play Period >: After the final pass and throughout the play period, declarer >: or either defender (but Law 16, Unauthorized Information, may >: apply) ONLY at his own turn to play may request [*] such an >: explanation of opposing auction, and declarer may request an >: explanation of the defenders' card play conventions. > >If I insert the word "only" into the above law in the two places shown, does >it change the meaning of the law? Should it? It would change the meaning of the law as read by a logician or grammarian, but not as read by a TD or AC. Whether it "should" depends on the perspective from which you read it in the first place. > If not, why not? > >I don't believe this law says what it is commonly interpreted as saying. This may >be because of a lack of care in drafting the law. Because, as Doug's further comment suggests, it would merely bring the logicians' and grammarians' understandings in line with the interpretation already common among TDs and ACs. The latter base their interpretation on what they perceive to be the lawmakers' intent rather than on a precise, grammatically literal, reading of the wording of the law. And they are right to do so; we do not, and cannot, expect our lawmakers to write laws in ways which are logically and grammatically exact and perfect. Really, the only debatable point here (and the one which is being actively debated) is whether or not the "common interpretation" and the lawmakers' intent coincide. We can wish and hope for the day when our written laws will be sufficiently precise and exact to leave no doubt as to their intent, but we'd be foolish to expect it. Eric Landau elandau@cais.com APL Solutions, Inc. elandau@acm.org 1107 Dale Drive (301) 589-4621 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 From owner-bridge-laws Thu Feb 27 02:57:22 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA26453 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 27 Feb 1997 02:57:22 +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 CAA26448 for ; Thu, 27 Feb 1997 02:57:13 +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 KAA15401 for ; Wed, 26 Feb 1997 10:31:03 -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 KAA17397 for ; Wed, 26 Feb 1997 10:52:02 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <1.5.4.32.19970226155103.006986b8@cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.4 (32) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Wed, 26 Feb 1997 10:51:03 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: Rules of disclosure Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 10:11 AM 2/26/97 CST, B.Y. wrote: >The Bridge World position, if I am not mistaken, is that if you know >that you made a mistaken bid through whatever means, you are *NOT* >*ALLOWED* to disclose. You must continue to bid as if you did not >wake up of course, but the opponents are not entitled to any more than >your agreements. Out of favour with the Ayatollah, I know. This, now, gets back to the original question with which I started this thread. My impression is that the ACBL's position is substantively the same as TBW's. Yangboy suggests that it is not. Can anyone (Alan?) speak officially for the ACBL on this? Eric Landau elandau@cais.com APL Solutions, Inc. elandau@acm.org 1107 Dale Drive (301) 589-4621 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 From owner-bridge-laws Thu Feb 27 03:43:44 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA26816 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 27 Feb 1997 03:43:44 +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 DAA26810 for ; Thu, 27 Feb 1997 03:43:32 +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 LAA21940 for ; Wed, 26 Feb 1997 11:43:27 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <1.5.4.32.19970226164229.0069e030@cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.4 (32) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Wed, 26 Feb 1997 11:42:29 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: No Subject Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 09:06 AM 2/26/97 -0500, Richard wrote: >First a very simple one. Should the director call have been made at the >time of the hesitation or when LHO chose to balance. If you're playing in the ACBL, you're supposed to call the director at the time of the hesitation; this is not the case in most of the rest of the world. In practice, it shouldn't matter; you should lose no rights by waiting. The purported advantage of calling immediately is that the TD should be somewhat more favorably inclined to accept your contention that there actually was a hesitation in the event that the opponents dispute it, but in my experience it really doesn't matter. >Second. To what extent should the opponent's hesitations protect my >partnership against its own mistakes. You are protected against the opponents gaining any possible advantage from the hesitation, so you are protected from your own mistakes to the extent that the hesitation may have allowed them to gain an advantage from your mistake, but no further. Suppose, for example, that the opponents' hesitation allows them to bid a slam that you might have beaten, but you slip up on defense and they make it. The TD should adjust the score, say, from 6H+6 to 5H+6. You are thus "protected" from your mistake having allowed them to score up a slam, but not protected from your mistake having allowed them to score up 12 tricks. >In the absence of the balancing double, my partnership would have had a >top board playing in 1N. >However, once the opponent's doubled the 1N contract, partner made what I >consider to be an egregious error by bidding 2H with an unsuitable hand. > 3DX -1 was a near bottom board. > >2S by the opponents would have represented an Average Minus for us. > >The director ruled that LHO's balancing double could have been influenced >by his partner's hesitation, and adjusted the board to +90 for North >South (the most likely result had we played in 1NT). However, the >director also encouraged the partnership to appeal the decision at the >end of the session (the other pair did not do so). > >What should the correct ruling be on a hand such as this one? It depends on a crucial fact which you haven't given us: Was the conventional 1NT call alerted? If so, the ruling given was absolutely correct. If not, the TD must decide what might have happened had the alert been given. If he decides that RHO might not have passed, he should adjust the score to the least favorable (to your side) result that might have been obtained had RHO not passed. If he so decides, then 1NT could not have become the final contract, and the ruling should not have been to adjust the result to 1NT+1. RHO's hesitation would have no effect, since it would not have occurred absent the original infraction (the failure to alert). If, OTOH, he decides that RHO would have passed in any case, then the failure to alert would have had no effect, the hesitation would have occurred absent the original infraction, and 1NT+1 is correct. Eric Landau elandau@cais.com APL Solutions, Inc. elandau@acm.org 1107 Dale Drive (301) 589-4621 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 From owner-bridge-laws Thu Feb 27 07:26:47 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA06351 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 27 Feb 1997 07:26:47 +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 HAA06346 for ; Thu, 27 Feb 1997 07:26:38 +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 VAA20534 for ; Wed, 26 Feb 1997 21:26:22 +0100 Message-Id: <199702262026.VAA20534@pip.dknet.dk> Comments: Authenticated sender is From: "Jens & Bodil" Organization: Alesia Software To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Wed, 26 Feb 1997 21:26:25 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Re: Rules of disclosure Priority: normal X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v2.42a) Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Everyone seems to make this such a big deal. I don't really see the problem. I usually instruct players to behave as follows: Assume that you make a bid that you believe is conventional, but partner does not alert it. There are now three possibilities: a: You have been the fool, and partner is clearly right. You had forgotten your system, but you now know this. You have misbid, and there is nothing to disclose. You must treat the fact that you have misbid as UI. You must not in hindsight invent the excuse that you were psyching. b: Your partner is the fool, and you are clearly right. Partner may have forgotten the system or he may simply have forgotten to alert. You must treat partner's failure to alert as misinformation and (call the director and) correct it at the appropriate time (L75D2). It is UI to you that partner may have misunderstood your bid. c: You are not really sure whether you have misbid. You should assume that partner may be in error and protect the opponents by (calling the director and) correcting the missing alert at the appropriate time, preferably with a statement like "I believe that partner should have alerted this bid". If your side is declaring, this will often lead to further questions. If partner's explanation of your dubious bid then does not fit what you had in mind, you must immediately correct partner's explanation and explain what your view of the meaning of the bid is. As long as it makes any difference, it is UI to you that you and partner may be having a misunderstanding. This is basically a consequence of the remark in brackets in example 2 in the footnote to L75. Endicott and Hansen in their commentary say (75.7) "Whenever it appears there may be a mistaken explanation or mistaken bid, the director must rule ... but he must not be summoned, however, until the time at which it is legitimate to correct the misinformation." Note the phrasing "it appears there may be". (c) above is where some BLML'ers seem to disagree. This surprises me. Everyone I know plays this way. Well, almost everyone. Now and then I need to teach some of our highly ranked players about (c), but whenever they appeal, the committee is always keen to emphasize that (c) is the way to behave. IMHO, the "how am I to guess which one of us is right" attitude, as a reason to keep silent in case (c), smacks just a tiny bit of the dread bridge lawyer. -- Jens Brix Christiansen, Denmark From owner-bridge-laws Thu Feb 27 15:25:13 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id PAA09917 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 27 Feb 1997 15:25:13 +1100 Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id PAA09912 for ; Thu, 27 Feb 1997 15:25:06 +1100 Received: from cfa183.harvard.edu (cfa183.harvard.edu [131.142.12.59]) by cfa.harvard.edu (8.8.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id XAA19801 for ; Wed, 26 Feb 1997 23:25:02 -0500 (EST) Received: by cfa183.harvard.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id XAA04557; Wed, 26 Feb 1997 23:25:19 -0500 Date: Wed, 26 Feb 1997 23:25:19 -0500 From: willner@cfa183.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Message-Id: <199702270425.XAA04557@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: L40E2 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: Eric Landau [adding "only"] > It would change the meaning of the law as read by a logician or grammarian, I'm glad at least one person agrees with me about that! > but not as read by a TD or AC. > Because, as Doug's further comment suggests, it would merely bring the > logicians' and grammarians' understandings in line with the interpretation > already common among TDs and ACs. The latter base their interpretation on > what they perceive to be the lawmakers' intent rather than on a precise, > grammatically literal, reading of the wording of the law. And they are > right to do so Why are they right to do so? Reading the literal meaning gives the result that is adhered to in practice. No one has offered an example of a penalty under L40E2. From owner-bridge-laws Fri Feb 28 03:40:23 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA16018 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 28 Feb 1997 03:40:23 +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 DAA16009 for ; Fri, 28 Feb 1997 03:39:25 +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 LAA04470 for ; Thu, 27 Feb 1997 11:39:19 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <1.5.4.32.19970227163829.006684c4@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, 27 Feb 1997 11:38:29 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: Rules of disclosure Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 09:26 PM 2/26/97 +0100, Jens wrote: >c: You are not really sure whether you have misbid. You should > assume that partner may be in error and protect the opponents by > (calling the director and) correcting the missing alert at the > appropriate time, preferably with a statement like "I believe > that partner should have alerted this bid". If your side is > declaring, this will often lead to further questions. If > partner's explanation of your dubious bid then does not fit what > you had in mind, you must immediately correct partner's > explanation and explain what your view of the meaning of the bid > is. As long as it makes any difference, it is UI to you that > you and partner may be having a misunderstanding. This is > basically a consequence of the remark in brackets in example 2 in > the footnote to L75. Endicott and Hansen in their commentary say > (75.7) "Whenever it appears there may be a mistaken explanation > or mistaken bid, the director must rule ... but he must not be > summoned, however, until the time at which it is legitimate to > correct the misinformation." Note the phrasing "it appears there > may be". > >(c) above is where some BLML'ers seem to disagree. This surprises >me. Everyone I know plays this way. Well, almost everyone. Now and >then I need to teach some of our highly ranked players about (c), but >whenever they appeal, the committee is always keen to emphasize that >(c) is the way to behave. > >IMHO, the "how am I to guess which one of us is right" attitude, as a >reason to keep silent in case (c), smacks just a tiny bit of the >dread bridge lawyer. This works fine in the clear-cut case Jens addresses, where you have an agreement about an auction, but one partner or the other has forgotten it; one of you is "right" and one of you has "misbid". The problematic case arises when you really have no agreement. Jens' position would seem to be in accord with L75, but L75 fails to address this. When partners "disagree" on the interpretation of a bid, L75 (and Jens) seem to assume that one partner must be right and the other wrong. But in real life, this is often not the case. You sit down to play in a tournament event with a first-time partner. You have a five minute discussion of your methods. You agree to play "standard". You decide to play splinter bids. Partner opens 1S, you bid 2C, and partner bids 3H. Uh-oh. In Bridge World Standard, that's a strong jump shift, but in Washington Standard (Robinson) that's a splinter bid. You can assume that nobody has "forgotten" an agreement that you never made. You don't know which meaning partner has chosen. You do know that partner was aware that you had no agreement and therefore you wouldn't know, but has decided (or, at least, is hoping) that you'll be able to work it out from your hand, or, knowing you'll be forced to guess, is simply hoping that you'll make the right guess, thinking that otherwise you'll be giving up too much to the field to get a decent result anyhow. Alerting at this point would be disastrous. If you keep silent, and just take your best shot, partner will have to try to work out what you decided to assume (guess) his bid meant for the purpose of choosing yours, and take his best shot. This might or might not work out. If you alert ("We play both strong jump shifts and splinter bids, but have no agreement as to which applies in this particular auction"), you create a "UI trap." Partner's LAs must now encompass both of your possible interpretations of his bid. He will be ethically obligated to work out what his best shot is, then do the opposite. He hoped to work out what was going on and land on his feet, but you have effectively prohibited him from doing so. You are doomed. It might make sense to deal with this by waiting until the auction is over and then informing the opponents as to what was going on, but this is clearly outside the Laws. The normal post-alert procedure (under L75D2) is for correcting partner's failure to alert; it is not intended (or appropriate) for it to cover your own "failure to alert". Nor can this be justified under L75D1, as you haven't "subsequently realized" anything; you knew what was going on all along. At best you're guilty of misinforming the opponents (to see this, consider what should happen if, upon learning what was going on, RHO says "if I had known that when he bid 3H I would have doubled"). At worst, you're in violation of L72B1. The bottom line is that any train of logic that may appear to justify invoking a procedure that's intended to cover a failure to alert must inevitably lead to the conclusion that you are required to alert when the bid is made. What we're seeing here is merely one aspect of the broad and widespread acceptance of a seemingly common-sense, but in reality fallacious, proposition, viz. "If no alert is given, you are entitled to assume that the opponents have a non-alertable agreement." After all, this does sound like it should follow from the proposition that "if the opponents have an alertable agreement, they must alert", but that's just wrong; it overlooks the fact that there are actually three possibilities: (1) the opponents have an alertable agreement, (2) the opponents have a non-alertable agrement, or (3) the opponents don't have an agreement. We have seen repeated attempts on the part of those who accept the faulty logic outlined above to provide procedures to bring it about. Inevitably, such procedures effectively introduce, through the "back door", the equivalent of a new rule that drastically alters the way we play bridge. Jens' logic leads us to the effective rule that you must alert the opponents when partner makes a bid about which you have no agreement. Bobby Wolff's "convention disruption" argument -- a rather different approach to legislating the same fallacious proposition -- leads us to the effective rule that you are not allowed to not have an agreement about an auction. Neither is bridge as we know it. 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 Feb 28 03:44:41 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA16037 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 28 Feb 1997 03:44:41 +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 DAA16032 for ; Fri, 28 Feb 1997 03:44:33 +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 LAA18572 for ; Thu, 27 Feb 1997 11:18:20 -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 LAA04480 for ; Thu, 27 Feb 1997 11:39:25 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <1.5.4.32.19970227163834.00679b24@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, 27 Feb 1997 11:38:34 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: L40E2 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 11:25 PM 2/26/97 -0500, Steve wrote: >Why are they right to do so? Reading the literal meaning gives the >result that is adhered to in practice. No one has offered an example of >a penalty under L40E2. There's no such thing as "a penalty under L40E2", since L40E2 is silent on the subject of penalties. But we have numerous examples of cases in which one law prescribes some particular behavior while leaving the penalty for violating that prescription to some other law. The general consensus, both on BLML and within the bridge community as a whole, seems to be that the potential penalty for violation of L40E2 is given by L16A. And I have, and expect that we all have, seen cases in which L16A adjudications have been triggered by a violation of L40E2. The fact that, having been triggered by a violation of L40E2, L16A will in many (indeed, the overwhelming majority of, although few such actually reach adjudication) cases lead to a "no penalty" ruling ("no harm, no foul") doesn't really matter here. Consider an analogy from (American) football. It is illegal for a defender to interfere with a receiver's attempt to catch a thrown ball. The rule does not specify that the ball must be catchable. But the official calling the play may, and often does, rule that there is no penalty because the receiver could not have caught the ball even absent the interference. The lack of a penalty does not mean that the interference was not, in that case, an infraction of the rules. The consensus interpretation of L40E2 is not contraindicated by anything in the Laws. It may be wrong (i.e. it may not be what the writers of the law had in mind), but it isn't unreasonable. 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 Feb 28 08:10:29 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA25411 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 28 Feb 1997 08:10:29 +1100 Received: from u3.farm.idt.net (root@u3.farm.idt.net [169.132.8.12]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id IAA25406 for ; Fri, 28 Feb 1997 08:10:23 +1100 Received: from ppp-18.ts-5.la.idt.net (ppp-18.ts-5.la.idt.net [204.235.93.37]) by u3.farm.idt.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id QAA25928; Thu, 27 Feb 1997 16:10:00 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <3315F905.3B1C@mail.idt.net> Date: Thu, 27 Feb 1997 13:13:41 -0800 From: Irwin Kostal Reply-To: bigfoot@idt.net X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0Gold (Win95; I; 16bit) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Eric Landau CC: bridge-laws Subject: Re: Rules of disclosure References: <1.5.4.32.19970227163829.006684c4@cais.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Eric Landau wrote: > > At 09:26 PM 2/26/97 +0100, Jens wrote: > > >c: You are not really sure whether you have misbid. You should snip, snip, snip.... > This works fine in the clear-cut case Jens addresses, where you have an > agreement about an auction, but one partner or the other has forgotten it; > one of you is "right" and one of you has "misbid". The problematic case > arises when you really have no agreement. Jens' position would seem to be > in accord with L75, but L75 fails to address this. When partners "disagree" > on the interpretation of a bid, L75 (and Jens) seem to assume that one > partner must be right and the other wrong. But in real life, this is often > not the case. > > You sit down to play in a tournament event with a first-time partner. You > have a five minute discussion of your methods. You agree to play > "standard". You decide to play splinter bids. > > Partner opens 1S, you bid 2C, and partner bids 3H. Uh-oh. In Bridge World > Standard, that's a strong jump shift, but in Washington Standard (Robinson) > that's a splinter bid. You can assume that nobody has "forgotten" an > agreement that you never made. You don't know which meaning partner has > chosen. You do know that partner was aware that you had no agreement and > therefore you wouldn't know, but has decided (or, at least, is hoping) that > you'll be able to work it out from your hand, or, knowing you'll be forced > to guess, is simply hoping that you'll make the right guess, thinking that > otherwise you'll be giving up too much to the field to get a decent result > anyhow. > > Alerting at this point would be disastrous. I'm not a rules maven, and don't know L72D1 from hr753, but it seems to me I have NO obligation, or even any right to alert this bid. If we have no agreement, we have no agreement! What useful information can I give the opp's EXCEPT that we have no agreement? If they were to ask, that is the answer I'd give them. I wouldn't discuss possibilities, because that would DEFINITELY become UI for partner If you keep silent, and just > take your best shot, partner will have to try to work out what you decided > to assume (guess) his bid meant for the purpose of choosing yours, and take > his best shot. This might or might not work out. If you alert ("We play > both strong jump shifts and splinter bids, but have no agreement as to which > applies in this particular auction"), you create a "UI trap." Partner's LAs > must now encompass both of your possible interpretations of his bid. He > will be ethically obligated to work out what his best shot is, then do the > opposite. He hoped to work out what was going on and land on his feet, but > you have effectively prohibited him from doing so. You are doomed. > > It might make sense to deal with this by waiting until the auction is over > and then informing the opponents as to what was going on, but this is > clearly outside the Laws. The normal post-alert procedure (under L75D2) is > for correcting partner's failure to alert; it is not intended (or > appropriate) for it to cover your own "failure to alert". Nor can this be > justified under L75D1, as you haven't "subsequently realized" anything; you > knew what was going on all along. At best you're guilty of misinforming the > opponents (to see this, consider what should happen if, upon learning what > was going on, RHO says "if I had known that when he bid 3H I would have > doubled"). At worst, you're in violation of L72B1. The bottom line is that > any train of logic that may appear to justify invoking a procedure that's > intended to cover a failure to alert must inevitably lead to the conclusion > that you are required to alert when the bid is made. > > What we're seeing here is merely one aspect of the broad and widespread > acceptance of a seemingly common-sense, but in reality fallacious, > proposition, viz. "If no alert is given, you are entitled to assume that the > opponents have a non-alertable agreement." After all, this does sound like > it should follow from the proposition that "if the opponents have an > alertable agreement, they must alert", but that's just wrong; it overlooks > the fact that there are actually three possibilities: (1) the opponents have > an alertable agreement, (2) the opponents have a non-alertable agrement, or > (3) the opponents don't have an agreement. > > We have seen repeated attempts on the part of those who accept the faulty > logic outlined above to provide procedures to bring it about. Inevitably, > such procedures effectively introduce, through the "back door", the > equivalent of a new rule that drastically alters the way we play bridge. > Jens' logic leads us to the effective rule that you must alert the opponents > when partner makes a bid about which you have no agreement. Bobby Wolff's > "convention disruption" argument -- a rather different approach to > legislating the same fallacious proposition -- leads us to the effective > rule that you are not allowed to not have an agreement about an auction. > Neither is bridge as we know it. I agree quite strongly with this. If partner wants to make a bid that is outside our agreements, he is rolling the dice, and I think we should have a chance to get a good roll as well as a bad roll. Of course, after 'this' hand, we'll have at least a de facto agreement, but for now, we win or lose, depending on who lands on their feet. To broaden the scope a bit, there are some people out there who have no understanding that judgement factors can apply to a situation. They feel cheated when someone has only 14 points for a 15-17 NT, etc. I think the above is a relative of this kind of thinking, namely, that an agreement with partner is an undertaking to the opponents. Edgar Kaplan, if I recall correctly, believed just the opposite. Whatever happened to the idea that we each can bid our cards any way we see fit? A number of ACBL regulations seem to be directed at removing judgement from the game, like the minimum point count requirements for certain two openings. I dislike the whole trend. Irv > > 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 Feb 28 08:57:51 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA25582 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 28 Feb 1997 08:57:51 +1100 Received: from Amnesix.UQSS.UQuebec.ca (Amnesix.UQSS.UQuebec.CA [192.77.51.5]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id IAA25577 for ; Fri, 28 Feb 1997 08:57:45 +1100 From: Laval_Dubreuil@UQSS.UQuebec.CA Received: from Panoramix.UQSS.UQuebec.CA by Amnesix.UQSS.UQuebec.ca with SMTP (1.37.109.8/15.6) id AA16161; Thu, 27 Feb 1997 16:57:39 -0500 Received: from localhost by Panoramix.UQSS.UQuebec.ca with SMTP (1.39.111.2/15.6) id AA123750657; Thu, 27 Feb 1997 16:57:37 -0500 X-Openmail-Hops: 1 Date: Thu, 27 Feb 97 16:57:28 -0500 Message-Id: Subject: Illustrationn of Laws Mime-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; name="Texte" Content-Disposition: inline; filename="Texte" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Hi all, I hesitated to send this message to the list, because it my be interpreted as publicity, but I think I have something that can be usefull to some of you. Fell free to react if it is unethical... To help my wife and I becoming directors, I prepared some years ago flow charts of most Laws in chapter 4, 5 and 6. I published this recto-verso, having the flow chart on one page and the related text just in front. I used Powerpoint to make the best presentation. I know there are other publications like this, but as an information specialist within a university, I pretend to have one of the best tool to learn laws. More and more directors and players around Quebec province have the same opinion. For now, I worked in french, having permission from Federation francaise de bridge to use their texts. In the context of new edition of laws, I will have to change texts (as fast as I will get the french edition), but have little to do one charts. I should work on an english version if somebody is interested by. I would only need help from a more experienced TD to be sure there is no mistakes in flow charts. Having wrights on english version of texts is an other problem.... If somebody is interested to see what I have done, I can send a sample file in email (french and english in WinWord 6.0). I can also send a complimentary copy of the french edition to some of you. Please send private email Laval Du Breuil Quebec City Laval_DuBreuil@uqss.uquebec.ca