From owner-bridge-laws Sun Mar 2 06:53:55 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA15399 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 2 Mar 1997 06:53:55 +1000 Received: from pip.dknet.dk (root@pip.dknet.dk [193.88.44.48]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id GAA15394 for ; Sun, 2 Mar 1997 06:53:46 +1000 Received: from default (cph20.ppp.dknet.dk [194.192.100.20]) by pip.dknet.dk (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id VAA21770 for ; Sat, 1 Mar 1997 21:53:34 +0100 Message-Id: <199703012053.VAA21770@pip.dknet.dk> Comments: Authenticated sender is From: "Jens & Bodil" Organization: Alesia Software To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Sat, 1 Mar 1997 21:53:13 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: "We have no agreement" (was: Re: Rules of disclosure) Priority: normal X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v2.42a) Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: Irwin Kostal Well, in the original thread we were concerned with a case where there was an agreement (at least the bidder thought so), and partner failed to alert. Now we have turned to the possibly more difficult "we have no agreement" case. I will stick my neck out here, slightly provoked. > 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. Well, I don't really. I was just adressing the clear-cut case, since that is how the thread started. > > 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 disagree. Your innocent opponents have the right to know that you have no agreement, but that according to the rudimentary agreements you have, the bid might be either splinter or a strong jump shift. Regulations vary, but in my NCBO (the DBF), an alert is in order here because one of the possible bids (the splinter) is "conventional". > > 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 This is a red herring. Under L20F1 you are obliged to disclose your agreements fully. In the case Eric has lined up, your obligation is when asked to explain "we have no agreement here; this can be either a strong jump shift or a splinter". IMHO, to refuse to give an explanation because it gives partner unauthorized information is not what the laws have in mind. > > > 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. I disagree. Partner has learned that you have not understood his bid as clear-cut, and that you may interpret it differently than he intended. This is the useful UI that he has. His obligation is to bid on as if you have understood his bid as intended; the UI deprives him of the right to guess at how you understood it until this becomes patently clear from the available AI. I am not sure, however, that I understand the statement about "partner's LAs". It is my impression that the set of LAs available to a player at his turn is independent of the UI available. Maybe I am just too nitpicking here, but surely you cannot be trying to say that whenever partner explains a meaning of your bid which agrees with your own point of view, then you must avoid all further actions based on the assumption that partner has understood your bid? > > He > > will be ethically obligated to work out what his best shot is, then do the > > opposite. No. See above. He must soldier on in his original intent. > > 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. Not necessarily. Partner may still have understood your bid, and everything is fine. > > > > 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"). You are in violation of L40B, provided your SO has provided applicable regulations. Your infraction is dealt with under L21, where a failure to alert properly is classified as misinformation. > > 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." That is the law (L21B1), not a fallacious proposition. > > 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. Well, yes, if "no agreement" covers a narrow selection of possible agreements, one or more of which would otherwise be alertable. But in the case where you have absolutely no agreement and no reasonable implicit agreement, I would find it reasonable not to alert, and if asked to reply "no agreement, no idea of what it might mean". > > 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. For the record, I do not support that point of view. I see no reason to require that all partnerships have agreements about all auctions, and I find it ridiculous to punish such lack of agreement under L90. > > 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. I agree, and I think you do have that chance. Your opponents, however, have a right to know about your agreements. That right is the law, and they don't lose it just because you are rolling the dice. > 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. Treatments, such as having only 14 points for a 15-17 NT are normal bridge. If you tend to apply this treatment more often than most of your peers, you should advise the opponents of it -- they do have that right, remember? I usually recommend (14)15-17 as the notation to use on the convention card. I can see that this would not work in events where "announcements" are in use. > 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? Nothing. You just have to respect the opponents' right to know how you have agreed to 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. Well, just to be sure no one misunderstands: I have nothing to do with the ACBL, and I also dislike regulations that impose minimum point requirements for certain two openings. I don't see, however, what the regulation of conventions has to do with the principle of full disclosure of parternship agreements. Fortunately, in my country you can open your weak twos on zero points if it pleases you -- but beware of sneaky opponents that play penalty doubles over superweak twos, and note that the DBF (like most other NCBOs, I suspect) does *not* allow you to change your methods according to the defense fielded against you. Of course, you must disclose to the opponents that you have agreements like weak twos 0-11 ... which is my sneaky way of getting this back into the thread where we started. -- Jens Brix Christiansen, Denmark From owner-bridge-laws Sun Mar 2 08:46:44 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA15671 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 2 Mar 1997 08:46:44 +1000 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 IAA15666 for ; Sun, 2 Mar 1997 08:46:36 +1000 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 RAA29483 for ; Sat, 1 Mar 1997 17:46:09 -0500 (EST) Received: by cfa183.harvard.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id RAA05516; Sat, 1 Mar 1997 17:46:35 -0500 Date: Sat, 1 Mar 1997 17:46:35 -0500 From: willner@cfa183.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Message-Id: <199703012246.RAA05516@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: L40E2 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: Eric Landau > And I have, and expect that we all have, seen cases in which > L16A adjudications have been triggered by a violation of L40E2. Oh? Nobody could give an example when I asked for one. Are you sure the law in question isn't 73B1? In particular, can you cite any harmful violation of L40E2 that isn't in violation of some other law? (There are a couple of other possibilities in the proprieties.) So far, the only arguments I've heard for the consensus view are: 1) "We 'know' it's illegal to look at the cc when it's not your turn, so it must be a violation of L40E2," and 2) "That's what the words say." Neither of these holds water when examined closely. 1) fails because the only harmful violations are violations of other laws, and 2) because the necessary "only" or "and not at other times" is missing. From owner-bridge-laws Sun Mar 2 22:46:12 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id WAA17527 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 2 Mar 1997 22:46:12 +1000 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 WAA17522 for ; Sun, 2 Mar 1997 22:46:04 +1000 Received: by relay-11.mail.demon.net id aa1105743; 2 Mar 97 12:19 GMT Received: from coruncanius.demon.co.uk ([194.222.115.176]) by relay-11.mail.demon.net id aa1104665; 2 Mar 97 12:13 GMT Message-ID: Date: Tue, 25 Feb 1997 21:21:26 +0000 To: Jeff Goldsmith Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Labeo Subject: Re: ******** defence In-Reply-To: <199702241821.KAA05752@tintin.JPL.NASA.GOV> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In message <199702241821.KAA05752@tintin.JPL.NASA.GOV>, Jeff Goldsmith writes > > >| 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. Labeo comments: It should be noted that most players, and especially stronger players, on the mainland of Europe consider it a losing style to allow weak no trumps to be passed out. They will protect with scant cards and appeal committees tend to accept such bids as having no logical alternative. Labeo From owner-bridge-laws Sun Mar 2 23:02:58 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA17576 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 2 Mar 1997 23:02:58 +1000 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 XAA17570 for ; Sun, 2 Mar 1997 23:02:53 +1000 Received: by relay-11.mail.demon.net id ab1112045; 2 Mar 97 12:59 GMT Received: from coruncanius.demon.co.uk ([194.222.115.176]) by relay-10.mail.demon.net id aa1018761; 2 Mar 97 12:12 GMT Message-ID: Date: Tue, 25 Feb 1997 21:31:40 +0000 To: "G. R. Bower" Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Labeo Subject: Re: Law 40 and Alerts In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In message , "G. R. Bower" writes > >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." > Labeo comments: The chief concern is UI to partner - drawing his attention to a feature of the last call. One should not do it when LHO or partner is about to call. When RHO is to call there are no more objections than when it is one's own turn - but the law still prohibits it. I think the law could be adjusted to allow a player to look at RHO's turn; oh, well.... maybe in ten years' time. Labeo From owner-bridge-laws Mon Mar 3 08:08:39 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA00572 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 3 Mar 1997 08:08:39 +1000 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 IAA00567 for ; Mon, 3 Mar 1997 08:08:33 +1000 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by relay-10.mail.demon.net id aa1008650; 2 Mar 97 22:02 GMT Message-ID: Date: Sun, 2 Mar 1997 21:44:05 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Rules of disclosure [WAS: ******** defence] In-Reply-To: <9702260211.AA12570@laplace.math.ntu.edu.tw> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk 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. Sounds very reasonable unless you become declarer or dummy. Otherwise you are making UI available to tell the opponents something they have no right to know and may confuse them if later bidding/play goes screwy. However, I would have thought this approach a bit harsh for declarer or dummy. If declarer has responded 2D to a Stayman 2C because he has no 5card major, it is difficult to see what harm it will do to say after the auction is finished "I thought we were playing 5card Stayman". -- 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 Mar 3 08:07:41 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA00533 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 3 Mar 1997 08:07:41 +1000 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 IAA00528 for ; Mon, 3 Mar 1997 08:07:33 +1000 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by relay-11.mail.demon.net id aa1116826; 2 Mar 97 22:02 GMT Message-ID: Date: Sun, 2 Mar 1997 21:49:55 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: The curse of Buxton In-Reply-To: <199702260320.NAA02763@clothes.peg.apc.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Roger Penny and Jane Stapleton wrote: >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. Absolutely true. Fortunately the Lawmakers have noticed this, and in the 1997 Laws "during play" has been replaced by "after the play period begins". >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". Agree so far. >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. I cannot quite remember what was wrong with this but Mike will tell you. Unfortunately at this moment all sources of malt whisky disappeared [went to bed!] so I am a little hazy about it! >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? I do not believe so. PPs should not be common [apart from warnings]: they are not designed to encourage people to play Bridge. If the player does this repeatedly then he should be fined, but not otherwise. >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? The Lawmakers deliberately made the recipient responsible in a change in the laws in 1987, so I would treat these players in the normal way for a breach of L7B1. So it depends what the normal way is. I do not like fines as explained, but I would not change my policy [whatever it is] because of the organiser's involvement. It sounds similar to Mike's case [just at more tables ] so let us see how that develops. ********************************************************************** 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 Mon Mar 3 08:14:29 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA00678 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 3 Mar 1997 08:14:29 +1000 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 IAA00672 for ; Mon, 3 Mar 1997 08:14:23 +1000 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by relay-10.mail.demon.net id ab1008652; 2 Mar 97 22:02 GMT Message-ID: Date: Sun, 2 Mar 1997 21:47:18 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: L40E2 In-Reply-To: <199702260442.XAA03985@cfa183.harvard.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Steve Willner wrote: >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. I believe it is useful to know what the Laws mean. I agree with Steve about a practical approach: but on this one occasion I am completely sure he is totally wrong. >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. Law 80 - Sponsoring Organization A sponsoring organization conducting an event under these Laws has the following duties and powers: F. Supplementary Regulations to publish or announce regulations supplementary to, but not in conflict with, these Laws. Of course the ACBL or any other SO is not above the 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 Mon Mar 3 08:16:27 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA00712 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 3 Mar 1997 08:16:27 +1000 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 IAA00706 for ; Mon, 3 Mar 1997 08:16:19 +1000 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by relay-10.mail.demon.net id aa1009511; 2 Mar 97 22:04 GMT Message-ID: Date: Sun, 2 Mar 1997 22:03:12 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Rules of disclosure [WAS: ******** defence] In-Reply-To: <970225195230_1349049327@emout13.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 97-02-25 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. Was OJ guilty of murder? No! Does that mean he cannot be forced to pay? No! In American Law, and British Law, there is a distinction between civil and criminal cases, quite correctly IMO. The distinction comes from the feeling that you need proof to convict, since there is no other side to suffer if you don't convict: however in a civil trial, you are deciding between two sides, and fairest is to make your best guess at what happened. That is the difference between adjustments and penalties. The former are civil: the latter criminal [not actually: but it is reasonable to think of them that way!]. It is reasonable to say that if someone cannot prove there is no MI then you will assume MI, because you have to decide between them and their opponents. However, to give a PP, which applies to them only, I feel a higher standard of proof is required. In Bridge we use judgement rather than absolute proof, so: MI exists for adjustment purposes unless the pair proves otherwise MI exists for penalty purposes if the TD/AC judges so -- 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 Mar 3 08:18:55 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA00776 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 3 Mar 1997 08:18:55 +1000 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 IAA00769 for ; Mon, 3 Mar 1997 08:18:48 +1000 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by relay-11.mail.demon.net id aa1116788; 2 Mar 97 22:02 GMT Message-ID: Date: Sun, 2 Mar 1997 21:43:36 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: ****** defense In-Reply-To: <199702251741.JAA08135@tintin.JPL.NASA.GOV> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Jeff Goldsmith wrote: >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. When I was talking about multiple infractions I admit I was thinking of mechanical errors. What happens in the failure to alert cases? The infraction of MI occurs at the moment the alert is not made. Now we know that the actual infraction in UI cases comes from the call/play that uses ["may be affected by"] UI: however, while it is not an infraction until that moment, it all started with the failure to alert: thus the whole UI affair started at the same moment as the MI. I am not convinced that two events which effectively start with the same thing should be treated as anything but simultaneous. Our approach over here is to look at all the possibilities without the UI, and without the MI, and give the NOs the best. -- 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 Mar 3 09:07:27 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA01341 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 3 Mar 1997 09:07:27 +1000 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 JAA01334 for ; Mon, 3 Mar 1997 09:07:19 +1000 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by relay-11.mail.demon.net id aa1117373; 2 Mar 97 22:05 GMT Message-ID: Date: Sun, 2 Mar 1997 22:03:26 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Rules of disclosure In-Reply-To: <1.5.4.32.19970227163829.006684c4@cais.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Eric Landau wrote: >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. The EBU's Orange book says: 4.1.5 When there is no alert, your opponents can assume that the call does not fall within an alertable category. In my view, that includes (3). However, what is not so clear to me is why it matters if you alert doubtful bids in complicated auctions. Surely the opponents don't ask the meaning at the time? When I am asked at the end of the auction, I am going to say "I am not sure: this is our first time together: he might have meant it as Washington, or maybe not!" What UI is partner going to use from my alert? I think that you should alert any call from partner where it is a reasonable supposition that it would fall into an alertable category if you had an agreement: it cannot do any harm. >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. ... and we hope never will be. How are you going to get new players into the game if you penalise them for being ignorant? -- 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 Mar 3 11:24:05 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id LAA03491 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 3 Mar 1997 11:24:05 +1000 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 LAA03486 for ; Mon, 3 Mar 1997 11:23:59 +1000 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by relay-6.mail.demon.net id aa618036; 2 Mar 97 22:02 GMT Message-ID: Date: Sun, 2 Mar 1997 21:48:46 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: L40E2 In-Reply-To: <199703012246.RAA05516@cfa183.harvard.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Steve Willner wrote: >> From: Eric Landau >> And I have, and expect that we all have, seen cases in which >> L16A adjudications have been triggered by a violation of L40E2. > >Oh? Nobody could give an example when I asked for one. What has L16A to do with it? I am called to the table. A player has looked at the CC when it was not his turn. How do I rule? I tell him that he is not entitled to. Next week, same again, same player, same ruling. Next week, same again, same player, issue a PP under my general powers in L90 for repeated failure to conform to the Laws of the game after warnings. No other Law: nothing to do with anything else. For most errors we only issue PPs if they are repeated after warnings. That applies to L40E2 just as much as L46A or L7A or L5B: and I bet that no-one who subscribes to this list can remember the last PP given for a breach of L46A or L7A or L5B! PPs are to make sure procedure is followed properly. > Are you sure >the law in question isn't 73B1? In particular, can you cite any >harmful violation of L40E2 that isn't in violation of some other law? >(There are a couple of other possibilities in the proprieties.) > >So far, the only arguments I've heard for the consensus view are: 1) "We >'know' it's illegal to look at the cc when it's not your turn, so it must >be a violation of L40E2," and 2) "That's what the words say." > >Neither of these holds water when examined closely. 1) fails because >the only harmful violations are violations of other laws, and 2) because >the necessary "only" or "and not at other times" is missing. It is time to change your position. -- 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 Mar 3 12:45:40 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id MAA04490 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 3 Mar 1997 12:45:40 +1000 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 MAA04484 for ; Mon, 3 Mar 1997 12:45:31 +1000 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by relay-5.mail.demon.net id aa522733; 2 Mar 97 22:02 GMT Message-ID: Date: Sun, 2 Mar 1997 21:42:52 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: ******** defence In-Reply-To: <970225123030_-1674990308@emout05.mail.aol.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Alan wrote: >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. To use L12C1 when a result was obtained is illegal. The Laws of the game require you to use L12C2. The reason given for using L12C1 is normally the difficulty of assigning a result. But *nowhere* in the Laws does it say that you have any right whatever to use L12C1 because L12C2 is too difficult. It does not matter *how* difficult it is to apply L12C2 you have *no* choice under the Laws of the game. Try reading L12C. It is perfectly clear: nowhere is there any option. A situation is either subject to L12C1 [no result obtained] or L12C2 [result obtained]. As a practical matter, I do not really disagree with using L12C1 illegally where you know in your heart that giving the NOs 60% is acceptable. But in a case like this, where the NOs are quite likely due for a ruling giving them a 95% board, to give them 60% in spite of the Law because it is "too difficult" seems grossly unfair on them. It is high time that the notion of "doing equity" was extended to ACs in the ACBL: even better to TDs. Perhaps then rulings will be given without having to worry to extra-ordinary lengths about vague possibilities. Rulings would become more acceptable to players, and appeals would be less frequent. I also do not see why you have such a problem with L12C2 on this hand anyway. Unless they put up a convincing argument, N might have doubled 2C, E might have passed, S would have passed, W might have passed: that's all you need: this one is not difficult. You don't have to look at the other possibilities at all. >> > 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. If it is clear and obvious that the bid is alertable, then so be it. My reading of the original case is that it was not, so your analogy would be wrong. Forget the case cited. If a player does not alert because he believes a call to be non-alertable then to issue a PP because he turns out to be wrong seems grossly unfair. If a player does not correct his partner's explanation because he is no longer sure it is wrong but now believes the error is the other side of the table then to issue a PP when he turns out to be right seems unfair. PPs are designed to discourage. If a person does not alert because he could not be bothered or he thinks the alerting rules are wrong or he conveniently "forgets" as he *always* does in this position, then issue a PP. But I think you should review your approach to PPs if you are going to issue them when people are confused as to what is right. If this is not what you were saying then we have commented on different things which would explain why the comments were different. -- 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 Mar 3 13:29:16 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id NAA04848 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 3 Mar 1997 13:29:16 +1000 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 NAA04842 for ; Mon, 3 Mar 1997 13:29:09 +1000 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by relay-6.mail.demon.net id aa617964; 2 Mar 97 22:02 GMT Message-ID: Date: Sun, 2 Mar 1997 21:41:23 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: ******** defence In-Reply-To: <199702251347.FAA19886@cactus.tc.pw.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Steve Barnfield wrote: >(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. In a recent case at an EBU event, the basis for an Appeal was that the player contended he had the right [a] for LHO to bid according to her knowledge of the system [b] for RHO to bid according to her knowledge of the system [c] for him to know the correct system and [d] for the final adjustment to be decided on his action assuming he knew they were having a bidding misunderstanding. [Not all bridge lawyers are in America!] The AC refused to accept [d], IMO correctly. This appeal form went through the normal screening process, and was seen by the L&EC. No-one disagreed with the AC. Surely this is at variance with the principle you espouse above. At first sight, I believe I agree with the AC at that time, and not with your 2) and 3) above. -- 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 Mar 3 18:19:23 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id SAA06536 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 3 Mar 1997 18:19:23 +1000 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 SAA06529 for ; Mon, 3 Mar 1997 18:19:15 +1000 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by relay-5.mail.demon.net id aa524893; 2 Mar 97 22:07 GMT Message-ID: Date: Sun, 2 Mar 1997 22:05:46 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: No Subject In-Reply-To: <1.5.4.32.19970226164229.0069e030@cais.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Eric Landau wrote: >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. The ACBL approach seems to be outside the Laws since there has been no infraction yet, but that is a trivial matter. It does seem to increase the number of Director calls alarmingly, since he is called in all those cases which are followed by partner not taking any action that could be as a result. OTOH, partner knows his position [whether there was UI or not] before he calls. >>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 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). ???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Are you sure? -- 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 Mar 3 22:50:25 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id WAA07480 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 3 Mar 1997 22:50:25 +1000 Received: from mail.be.innet.net (mail.be.innet.net [194.7.1.8]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id WAA07474 for ; Mon, 3 Mar 1997 22:50:17 +1000 Received: from innet.innet.be (pool03-71.innet.be [194.7.10.71]) by mail.be.innet.net (8.7.6/8.7.3) with SMTP id NAA01590 for ; Mon, 3 Mar 1997 13:50:12 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: <331AC80E.5BB3@innet.be> Date: Mon, 03 Mar 1997 12:46:06 +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: L40E2 References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Stevenson wrote: > > For most errors we only issue PPs if they are repeated after warnings. > That applies to L40E2 just as much as L46A or L7A or L5B: and I bet that > no-one who subscribes to this list can remember the last PP given for a > breach of L46A or L7A or L5B! PPs are to make sure procedure is > followed properly. > L7A : march 1988. The very first tournament I directed after I got my TD diploma Player : one of the directors on the examination board. I called him on three occasions in three rounds. Then I gave him a 3% PP. The board remained on the table for the whole three sessions afterwards. But David : there is a slight difference. L7A : the boards is placed - not to do so is an infraction. L40E2 : you are allowed to ... - the law does not state that something else is not allowed. I am of the opinion that you cannot give a PP when looking at the wrong time. L80E says that the SO can issue a condition that makes it illegal to look at the wrong time. Only then does it become an offence. But the SO could not issue a condition which would make looking at the 'right' time an offence. That is the scope of Law 40E2. Also of course, using L16 on a player who looked at the right time would be impossible, as L40E2 allows one to look, whereas looking at the wrong time would make a L16 ruling possible. But no PP's for looking at the wrong time. It's simply not in the Laws. RTFLB ! -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.club.innet.be/~pub02163/index.htm From owner-bridge-laws Mon Mar 3 22:50:30 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id WAA07486 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 3 Mar 1997 22:50:30 +1000 Received: from mail.be.innet.net (mail.be.innet.net [194.7.1.8]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id WAA07481 for ; Mon, 3 Mar 1997 22:50:24 +1000 Received: from innet.innet.be (pool03-71.innet.be [194.7.10.71]) by mail.be.innet.net (8.7.6/8.7.3) with SMTP id NAA01620 for ; Mon, 3 Mar 1997 13:50:19 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: <331AD41F.43DA@innet.be> Date: Mon, 03 Mar 1997 13:37:35 +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: The curse of Buxton References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk (by mistake mailed to michael in stead of the list, I wrote last tuesday :) michael amos wrote: > > 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 What discard - the Jack would be correct. > Diamond finesse Run the 10 or did West cover ? Let's presume north indeed holds 2 diamond winners after this trick. Or, as he's now in hand : > Top Spades and third Spade he must now hold : S 10743 H void (5 cards) D A C void with the rest being : S S Q H ? H QJ10 D K??? D (6 cards) C KQ C J4 S void H A87 D - C 1087 > When Spades did not break declarer faced his hand and conceded a > second trump trick for one off > > NS -50 > Obviously east acquiesced to the claim. Indeed, north will make all tricks but the queen of trumps. (Let's continue to presume that west will not make his diamond king, or he would have protested). > 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 OK, simple things first, north always held the club, so he revoked in trick 2. He did not make the trick himself, and he has not -yet- made a trick with the club, so 1 trick transferred (he made enough of them to be able to transfer one). That leaves the claim. North conceded one trick, so he claimed all tricks but one. He thought that was 4 tricks, but since there are six tricks left, he claimed 5 tricks. This has been acquiesced to (or how do you say this), according to L69A. The acquiescence is withdrawn, of course within the correct period. East-West have acquiesced in the loss of a trick to the club nine. If this tirck could 'not be lost by any normal play of the remaining cards, the trick shall be awarded'. So we have : S 10743 H - D A C 9 with the rest being : S S Q H ? H QJ10 D K??? D - C KQ C J4 S - H A87 D - C 1087 East on lead. Most normal plays would lead to the giving up of the club nine, but a normal play can be found in which the nine makes the trick. Especially since north has shown out in clubs, it would be logical for both opponents to discard clubs. So the claim can be awarded. All tricks bar one to declarer. Then we come back to the revoke. North has now made a trick with a card he could have made in the revoke trick, so he will lose two tricks. Total : 3 down (11 tricks claimed and made, 2 penalty tricks) If we do not agree to the claim, we would come to : 3 down (10 tricks awarded in the claim, 1 penalty trick). Interesting case, not too difficult (he said, not knowing how much he would later regret that statement). I would imagine that DS, minus malt whisky, would find it simple too. But of course I have forgotten something very obvious. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.club.innet.be/~pub02163/index.htm BTW, indeed I forgot that the gap 'during play' has not yet been closed to say 'after play begins'. But let's not argue about that. From owner-bridge-laws Tue Mar 4 04:23:51 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA12019 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 4 Mar 1997 04:23:51 +1000 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 EAA12014 for ; Tue, 4 Mar 1997 04:23:27 +1000 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 NAA12873 for ; Mon, 3 Mar 1997 13:22:55 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <1.5.4.32.19970303182237.006bd220@cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.4 (32) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Mon, 03 Mar 1997 13:22:37 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: "We have no agreement" (was: Re: Rules of disclosure) Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 09:53 PM 3/1/97 +0100, Jens wrote: >I disagree. Your innocent opponents have the right to know that you >have no agreement, but that according to the rudimentary agreements >you have, the bid might be either splinter or a strong jump shift. >Regulations vary, but in my NCBO (the DBF), an alert is in order >here because one of the possible bids (the splinter) is >"conventional". But isn't this almost always the case? Every partnership has "rudimentary agreements". "We have no agreement about that bid" is surely a weaker statement than "Based on the agreements we do have, partner's bid can have no possible meaning, and can only be explained as a fit of irrationality"; "no agreement" typically implies multiple possible interpretations, not no possible interpretations. So to require an alert when the possibilities merely include an alertable meaning (which will almost always be the case, at least in the ACBL, where auctions with multiple non-alertable meanings are as rare as dodos) is effectively equivalent requiring an alert to the fact that you have no agreement. >I disagree. Partner has learned that you have not understood his >bid as clear-cut, and that you may interpret it differently than he >intended. This is the useful UI that he has. His obligation is to >bid on as if you have understood his bid as intended; the UI >deprives him of the right to guess at how you understood it until >this becomes patently clear from the available AI. In the scenario I attempted to describe, partner has learned nothing new. He made his bid on the assumption that you wouldn't take it as clear-cut, and you haven't. He intended to make an ambiguous bid, and you have understood his bid as he intended it, i.e. as ambiguous. His intent was to (presumably without UI) make his best guess as you how you might have understood it without waiting until it becomes patently clear, and hope to survive. It is the arguable obligation to wait until it does become patently clear that creates the "UI trap" by preventing him from taking his best guess at a point when it may still do him some good to "guess right". By obliging him to wait for patent clarity, we would, in effect, be saying that it is unethical for him to make a deliberately amgiguous bid hoping to work out how you presumptively interpreted it before he bids again. >I am not sure, however, that I understand the statement about >"partner's LAs". It is my impression that the set of LAs available >to a player at his turn is independent of the UI available. Maybe I >am just too nitpicking here, but surely you cannot be trying to say that >whenever partner explains a meaning of your bid which agrees with your >own point of view, then you must avoid all further actions based on >the assumption that partner has understood your bid? Had he intended to make a strong jump shift, he would have had one set of LAs. Had he intended to make a splinter bid, he would have had a different set of LAs. If he intended to make a deliberately ambiguous bid, his LAs are the union of the two sets. If the table action tends to confirm that you recognized the ambiguity and we treat that as UI, then he will be forced to select a "non-suggested" LA, which will perforce come from the "wrong" set. He will be obliged, knowing that your bid is potentially ambiguous, to do his best to work out which interpretation you decided to base your subsequent bidding on, and then bid as though he had come to the opposite conclusion. That forces him into a "no win" position. >No. See above. He must soldier on in his original intent. But in the above scenario his original intent was to decide, on the next round, which interpretation you chose to respond to, and to do so based only on AI. If, however, we say that your alert, or lack of alert, perforce conveys UI, he can no longer follow through on his original intent without committing an ethical infraction. >Not necessarily. Partner may still have understood your bid, and >everything is fine. But that's the point. If you intended strong, and he understood strong, or if you intended splinter, and he understood splinter, everything would be fine. But if you intended ambiguous, and he understood ambiguous, everything is not fine; he is in the UI trap. >You are in violation of L40B, provided your SO has provided >applicable regulations. Your infraction is dealt with under L21, >where a failure to alert properly is classified as misinformation. This is the point we are debating. When you have no agreement about a bid, but can work out from the agreements that you do have that it must have one of several possible but disparate meanings, is this "no agreement" or is this "a special partnership understanding" within the meaning of L40B? I conclude the former, based on the fact that otherwise "no agreement" is equivalent to "no possible meaning"; to me, "do not alert if you have no agreement as to what partner's bid means" is not the same as "do not alert if partner's bid must be meaningless". >> > 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." > >That is the law (L21B1), not a fallacious proposition. If that were the law, one would be required to go even further than Jens seems to be suggesting. One would then have to alert the opponents when partner's bid can have no possible meaning in your system, since you do not have a non-alertable agreement. I do not believe that the law can be interpreted to require that. Eric Landau elandau@cais.com APL Solutions, Inc. elandau@acm.org 1107 Dale Drive (301) 589-4621 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 From owner-bridge-laws Tue Mar 4 04:37:16 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA13532 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 4 Mar 1997 04:37:16 +1000 Received: from pip.dknet.dk (root@pip.dknet.dk [193.88.44.48]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id EAA13522 for ; Tue, 4 Mar 1997 04:37:03 +1000 Received: from cph40.ppp.dknet.dk (cph40.ppp.dknet.dk [194.192.100.40]) by pip.dknet.dk (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id TAA21368 for ; Mon, 3 Mar 1997 19:36:54 +0100 From: Jesper Dybdal To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: ******** defence Date: Mon, 03 Mar 1997 19:36:51 +0100 Organization: at home Message-ID: <331c0afd.2598005@pipmail.dknet.dk> References: In-Reply-To: X-Mailer: Forte Agent .99g/32.339 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Sun, 2 Mar 1997 21:42:52 +0000, David Stevenson wrote: > To use L12C1 when a result was obtained is illegal. I do not read L12C1 as saying that so clearly. L12C2 says: "When the Director awards an assigned adjusted score in place of a result actually obtained ...". So we do agree that to use L12C2 when a result was not obtained is illegal. On the other hand, L12C1 says: "When, owing to an irregularity, no result can be obtained, ...". Note "can be obtained" rather than "has been obtained". I believe that there are (a few) situations where: - a result has been obtained, and - that result cannot be used because it is very much influenced by an irregularity, and - the TD therefore needs to assign an adjusted score, and - no result can (sensibly) be obtained by using L12C2. In this case, we do need L12C1. It is true that a result "has been" obtained, but we need a new (adjusted) result, and that result cannot be obtained by following L12C2. It seems to me that the requirements for using L12C1 are present. I was asked for advice in such a case recently. A pair had been using an illegal convention, and the TD was called after the auction when the opponents realized that they had reached a bad contract because of the pre-emptive effect of this illegal convention (a 2D opening that shows 0-6 hcp with unknown distribution). The TD allowed play to continue, determined later that the opponents had probably been damaged, and gave an artificial assigned score of 60%/40% (+/- 3 IMPS - this was a teams match). At the other table, the offenders' team mates had a really good result, and the TD now asked me whether he ought to have tried to assign a L12C2 score instead. I told him that I believed he had done the right thing, because it is totally impossible to assign a L12C2 score when the irregularity ruins the auction completely and occurs before even the first bid by the non-offenders; nobody could tell what results might occur. So I'd say that "no result can be obtained", assign 60%/40%, and consider it a legal L12C1 adjustment. On the other hand, I agree that this should be an unusual situation: L12C1 should not be used just because using L12C2 gets a little complicated. --=20 Jesper Dybdal, Denmark From owner-bridge-laws Tue Mar 4 04:37:19 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA13534 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 4 Mar 1997 04:37:19 +1000 Received: from pip.dknet.dk (root@pip.dknet.dk [193.88.44.48]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id EAA13525 for ; Tue, 4 Mar 1997 04:37:12 +1000 Received: from cph40.ppp.dknet.dk (cph40.ppp.dknet.dk [194.192.100.40]) by pip.dknet.dk (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id TAA21373 for ; Mon, 3 Mar 1997 19:36:58 +0100 From: Jesper Dybdal To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: The curse of Buxton Date: Mon, 03 Mar 1997 19:36:55 +0100 Organization: at home Message-ID: <331d0bac.2772646@pipmail.dknet.dk> References: <331AD41F.43DA@innet.be> In-Reply-To: <331AD41F.43DA@innet.be> X-Mailer: Forte Agent .99g/32.339 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Mon, 03 Mar 1997 13:37:35 +0000, Herman De Wael wrote: >But of course I have forgotten something very obvious. Well, Herman, since you do mention it yourself, you've forgotten L64B4: "The penalty for an established revoke does not apply ... if attention was first drawn to the revoke after a member of the non-offending side has made a call on the subsequent deal." So there is no trick transfer - only an adjusted score according to L64C. --=20 Jesper Dybdal, Denmark From owner-bridge-laws Tue Mar 4 04:59:57 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA15676 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 4 Mar 1997 04:59:57 +1000 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 EAA15669 for ; Tue, 4 Mar 1997 04:59:50 +1000 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 NAA14230 for ; Mon, 3 Mar 1997 13:59:39 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <1.5.4.32.19970303185922.006851e8@cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.4 (32) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Mon, 03 Mar 1997 13:59:22 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: L40E2 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 05:46 PM 3/1/97 -0500, Steve wrote: >Oh? Nobody could give an example when I asked for one. Are you sure >the law in question isn't 73B1? In particular, can you cite any >harmful violation of L40E2 that isn't in violation of some other law? >(There are a couple of other possibilities in the proprieties.) Steve's point is well-taken; it is true that any "harmful" violation of L40E2 must also violate L73B1. But that doesn't "nullify" L40E2 (however one chooses to interpret it); it merely renders it superfluous from the perspective of a TD or AC. Nevertheless, it does have prescriptive force, and is not superfluous from the point of view of the players. It is in the nature of "proprieties" to be broad general assertions constraining how one should behave, and to therefore subsume under their wording effective restatements of specific prescriptions that are to be found elsewhere. I see a clear if trivial analogy in L18A. Any violation of L18A is either "harmless", and as such would never be subjected to adjudication, or else constitutes a violation of L73B1 as well as L18A. But that doesn't mean that L18A is meaningless, nor that it must be interpreted in such a way as to leave open the possibility that a TD or AC will adjust a result to restore equity in some case where L73B1 doesn't apply. Eric Landau elandau@cais.com APL Solutions, Inc. elandau@acm.org 1107 Dale Drive (301) 589-4621 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 From owner-bridge-laws Tue Mar 4 05:07:19 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA16353 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 4 Mar 1997 05:07:19 +1000 Received: from pip.dknet.dk (root@pip.dknet.dk [193.88.44.48]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id FAA16348 for ; Tue, 4 Mar 1997 05:07:12 +1000 Received: from cph5.ppp.dknet.dk (cph5.ppp.dknet.dk [194.192.100.5]) by pip.dknet.dk (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id UAA22315 for ; Mon, 3 Mar 1997 20:07:04 +0100 From: Jesper Dybdal To: Bridge Laws Discussion List Subject: Re: "We have no agreement" (was: Re: Rules of disclosure) Date: Mon, 03 Mar 1997 20:07:00 +0100 Organization: at home Message-ID: <33242124.8268579@pipmail.dknet.dk> References: <1.5.4.32.19970303182237.006bd220@cais.com> In-Reply-To: <1.5.4.32.19970303182237.006bd220@cais.com> X-Mailer: Forte Agent .99g/32.339 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Mon, 03 Mar 1997 13:22:37 -0500, Eric Landau wrote: >But that's the point. If you intended strong, and he understood strong,= or >if you intended splinter, and he understood splinter, everything would = be >fine. But if you intended ambiguous, and he understood ambiguous, >everything is not fine; he is in the UI trap. I don't see the problem here. You intended ambiguous, he understood ambiguous: you are obviously in complete agreement as to what system agreements you have and do not have. How can UI then be a problem? When my partner explains my Stayman bid as Stayman, it is of course technically UI for me that he has understood my bid correctly; however, I'm allowed to assume that his response is a Stayman response because the UI has not helped me in any way. Correspondingly, when my partner explains my ambiguous bid as ambiguous in exactly the same way that I consider it ambiguous myself, though it is technically UI, it does not carry any information that I didn't have already. The only difference is that in the "ambiguous" case, our system is more difficult to explain and it may be more difficult to convince the TD that our system actually is ambiguous; but those are practical details that are irrelevant to the question of whether or not there is UI. (I made this point earlier in a posting that fortunately seems to have been lost somewhere on its way to and from Australia. It it turns up, please ignore it - it was written too hastily, and this one explains my opinion better.) --=20 Jesper Dybdal, Denmark From owner-bridge-laws Tue Mar 4 05:15:24 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA17101 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 4 Mar 1997 05:15:24 +1000 Received: from pip.dknet.dk (root@pip.dknet.dk [193.88.44.48]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id FAA17096 for ; Tue, 4 Mar 1997 05:15:18 +1000 Received: from cph17.ppp.dknet.dk (cph17.ppp.dknet.dk [194.192.100.17]) by pip.dknet.dk (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id UAA22553 for ; Mon, 3 Mar 1997 20:15:10 +0100 From: Jesper Dybdal To: Bridge Laws List Subject: Re: New law 25B Date: Mon, 03 Mar 1997 20:15:06 +0100 Organization: at home Message-ID: <332622da.8706258@pipmail.dknet.dk> References: <330ee3ee.2802389@pipmail.dknet.dk> In-Reply-To: <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 Can it really be true that nobody had any comments on this - or have we lost some mail? If it is a matter of lost mail, please tell me, and I'll repost it all. On Tue, 18 Feb 1997 18:55:50 +0100, I wrote: [snip] >"Until LHO calls, a call may be substituted when section A does not >apply: ..." [snip] >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. [snip] --=20 Jesper Dybdal, Denmark From owner-bridge-laws Tue Mar 4 05:59:40 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA20740 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 4 Mar 1997 05:59:40 +1000 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 FAA20735 for ; Tue, 4 Mar 1997 05:59:25 +1000 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 OAA16129 for ; Mon, 3 Mar 1997 14:59:16 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <1.5.4.32.19970303195859.006b37fc@cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.4 (32) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Mon, 03 Mar 1997 14:58:59 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: "We have no agreement" (was: Re: Rules of disclosure) Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 08:07 PM 3/3/97 +0100, Jesper wrote: >On Mon, 03 Mar 1997 13:22:37 -0500, Eric Landau >wrote: >>But that's the point. If you intended strong, and he understood strong, or >>if you intended splinter, and he understood splinter, everything would be >>fine. But if you intended ambiguous, and he understood ambiguous, >>everything is not fine; he is in the UI trap. > >I don't see the problem here. > >You intended ambiguous, he understood ambiguous: you are obviously in >complete agreement as to what system agreements you have and do not >have. How can UI then be a problem? > >When my partner explains my Stayman bid as Stayman, it is of course >technically UI for me that he has understood my bid correctly; >however, I'm allowed to assume that his response is a Stayman response >because the UI has not helped me in any way. > >Correspondingly, when my partner explains my ambiguous bid as >ambiguous in exactly the same way that I consider it ambiguous myself, >though it is technically UI, it does not carry any information that I >didn't have already. > >The only difference is that in the "ambiguous" case, our system is >more difficult to explain and it may be more difficult to convince the >TD that our system actually is ambiguous; but those are practical >details that are irrelevant to the question of whether or not there is >UI. I agree entirely with Jesper here. It sounds like he has misread my previous message. I did not intend to assert that my statement, which he cites above, is true. I intended to assert, in a context which may have been less than clear, that it would be true if we were to accept the premise -- which I was rejecting -- the the lack of an alert communicates (to the opponents, and hence to partner) that the partnership has a non-alertable agreement as to the meaning of the bid. Were that the case, partner is, in effect, forced to "disambiguate" the meaning of the bid (he must either alert or not alert; there is no third choice) even when he understands (knows) that the meaning is ambiguous. MOreover, his "disambuiguation" will perforce run the risk of giving MI, and will always give UI. So Jesper and I have the same thing in mind: You may make ambiguous bids. If partner understands that you have made an ambiguous bid, he should not alert. You will (must) then assume that he understood your bid as ambiguous (which is what you intended), and no "useful" UI is conveyed. But if the lack of an alert says "this bid has an agreed-upon, non-alertable meaning", then he must alert, or commit an MI infraction. So making an ambiguous bid, i.e. making a bid about which you have no agreement (and therefore have neither a non-alertable nor an alertable agreement) means that either (a) we are wrong to believe (as we, on the whole, apparently do) that "no agreement" is not alertable, or (b) it is impossible to make a bid about which you have no agreement without commiting an infraction. Eric Landau elandau@cais.com APL Solutions, Inc. elandau@acm.org 1107 Dale Drive (301) 589-4621 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 From owner-bridge-laws Tue Mar 4 06:22:41 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA20886 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 4 Mar 1997 06:22:41 +1000 Received: from msri.org (msri.org [198.129.64.224]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id GAA20881 for ; Tue, 4 Mar 1997 06:22:37 +1000 Received: (from smap@localhost) by msri.org (8.8.2/8.7.2) id MAA09631; Mon, 3 Mar 1997 12:22:42 -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 sma009628; Mon Mar 3 12:21:56 1997 Received: by boole.msri.org (8.7/DW.6) id MAA26196; Mon, 3 Mar 1997 12:21:37 -0800 (PST) Date: Mon, 3 Mar 1997 12:21:37 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <199703032021.MAA26196@boole.msri.org> From: David Grabiner To: hermandw@innet.be CC: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au In-reply-to: <331AC80E.5BB3@innet.be> (message from Herman De Wael on Mon, 03 Mar 1997 12:46:06 +0000) Subject: Re: L40E2 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk You write: > Also of course, using L16 on a player who looked at the right time would > be impossible, as L40E2 allows one to look, whereas looking at the wrong > time would make a L16 ruling possible. Looking does pass UI, just as asking questions does, even though both are permitted by Law. Why shouldn't L16 apply, particularly in the standard case of a player holding 14 points over a 1NT opening who looks or asks the range and then passes? -- David Grabiner, grabiner@msri.org, http://baseball.berkeley.edu/~grabiner I speak of MSRI and by MSRI but not for MSRI. Shop at the Mobius Strip Mall: Always on the same side of the street! Klein Glassworks, Torus Coffee and Donuts, Projective Airlines, etc. From owner-bridge-laws Tue Mar 4 06:44:42 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA21015 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 4 Mar 1997 06:44:42 +1000 Received: from pip.dknet.dk (root@pip.dknet.dk [193.88.44.48]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id GAA21010 for ; Tue, 4 Mar 1997 06:44:36 +1000 Received: from default (cph7.ppp.dknet.dk [194.192.100.7]) by pip.dknet.dk (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id VAA25420 for ; Mon, 3 Mar 1997 21:44:11 +0100 Message-Id: <199703032044.VAA25420@pip.dknet.dk> Comments: Authenticated sender is From: "Jens & Bodil" Organization: Alesia Software To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Mon, 3 Mar 1997 21:44:24 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Re: "We have no agreement" (was: Re: Rules of disclosure) Priority: normal X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v2.42a) Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: Eric Landau Some of you may be surprised to learn that I agree with Eric on most of this discussion. Jesper presented my views excellently a few hours ago, so let me try to highlight the slight disagreement still left between Eric and myself. > So Jesper and I have the same thing in mind: You may make ambiguous bids. Yes! > If partner understands that you have made an ambiguous bid, he should not > alert. Often true, but I still believe that if some of the ambiguity covers the possibility of an otherwise alertable call, then the ambiguous call should be alerted. When partner explains the bid as ambiguous, no useful UI is conveyed, and the original ambiguous caller has no restrictions imposed on him. > You will (must) then assume that he understood your bid as ambiguous > (which is what you intended), and no "useful" UI is conveyed. > > But if the lack of an alert says "this bid has an agreed-upon, non-alertable > meaning", then he must alert, or commit an MI infraction. Right. But my opinion is that - alert means that the call has an agreed-upon, alertable meaning or is ambiguous in a way that includes an obviously alertable meaning. - lack of alert means that the call has an agreed-upon alertable meaning, or is ambiguous in a way where it is not likely to have an alertable meaning, or is just simply not defined. An example of the last possiblity could be 1NT - 2C; 4D (at least in systems like Acol and Carrot Club which I am wont to play). > So making an > ambiguous bid, i.e. making a bid about which you have no agreement (and > therefore have neither a non-alertable nor an alertable agreement) means > that either (a) we are wrong to believe (as we, on the whole, apparently do) > that "no agreement" is not alertable, or (b) it is impossible to make a bid > about which you have no agreement without commiting an infraction. Certainly not (b). I think (a) in some cases, as mentioned above. -- Jens Brix Christiansen, Denmark From owner-bridge-laws Tue Mar 4 11:31:55 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id LAA22551 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 4 Mar 1997 11:31:55 +1000 Received: from relay-6.mail.demon.net (punt2.demon.co.uk [194.217.242.5]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id LAA22545 for ; Tue, 4 Mar 1997 11:31:47 +1000 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by relay-6.mail.demon.net id aa627576; 3 Mar 97 23:13 GMT Message-ID: Date: Mon, 3 Mar 1997 23:11:36 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: L40E2 In-Reply-To: <331AC80E.5BB3@innet.be> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Herman De Wael wrote: >David Stevenson wrote: >> >> For most errors we only issue PPs if they are repeated after warnings. >> That applies to L40E2 just as much as L46A or L7A or L5B: and I bet that >> no-one who subscribes to this list can remember the last PP given for a >> breach of L46A or L7A or L5B! PPs are to make sure procedure is >> followed properly. >> > >L7A : march 1988. >The very first tournament I directed after I got my TD diploma >Player : one of the directors on the examination board. >I called him on three occasions in three rounds. >Then I gave him a 3% PP. >The board remained on the table for the whole three sessions afterwards. > >But David : there is a slight difference. > >L7A : the boards is placed - not to do so is an infraction. >L40E2 : you are allowed to ... - the law does not state that something >else is not allowed. > >I am of the opinion that you cannot give a PP when looking at the wrong >time. >L80E says that the SO can issue a condition that makes it illegal to >look at the wrong time. Only then does it become an offence. >But the SO could not issue a condition which would make looking at the >'right' time an offence. >That is the scope of Law 40E2. > >Also of course, using L16 on a player who looked at the right time would >be impossible, as L40E2 allows one to look, whereas looking at the wrong >time would make a L16 ruling possible. > >But no PP's for looking at the wrong time. >It's simply not in the Laws. >RTFLB ! > There's really no point in further argument. I believe, and a majority of other posters believe, that L40E2 allows you to look at certain times and therefore does not allow you to look at others. Why am I not arguing it any further: because there is nothing to argue? No-one would read it to mean anything else in any normal situation. Of course I shall give a PP if they break the Law. I do not only give PPs for well-drafted Laws. -- 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 Mar 4 11:54:43 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id LAA22663 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 4 Mar 1997 11:54:43 +1000 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 LAA22658 for ; Tue, 4 Mar 1997 11:54:36 +1000 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by relay-10.mail.demon.net id aa1009269; 4 Mar 97 1:45 GMT Message-ID: Date: Tue, 4 Mar 1997 01:44:42 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: New law 25B In-Reply-To: <332622da.8706258@pipmail.dknet.dk> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Jesper Dybdal wrote: >Can it really be true that nobody had any comments on this - or have >we lost some mail? If it is a matter of lost mail, please tell me, >and I'll repost it all. > >On Tue, 18 Feb 1997 18:55:50 +0100, I wrote: > [snip] >>"Until LHO calls, a call may be substituted when section A does not >>apply: ..." > [snip] >>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. > [snip] There has been a division of opinion under the 1987 Laws as to whether a player may change his bid after asking the TD. The EBU's interpretation has been "No": we consider it would be a breach of L72B1. Some people have complained that that gives a player an advantage by not calling the TD: so be it! In our view L25B should be deleted, or severely modified anyway. The wording of the new L25B clearly gives the player the right to change his call. I personally think it is a very poor Law, but at least it is unambiguous, so I shall stop worrying. In future, if I bid 4S, and LHO's eyes light up, and he stands on his chair, I shall call the TD and retract my 4S call! Of course it isn't bridge, but it's legal! After the new Laws were given some very limited publicity it became obvious that one matter discussed on BLML had not been satisfactorily decided, namely the time limits when changes were permitted. L25A was alright: "Until his partner makes a call, ..." but L25B suffered from the same old problem: "Director, please may I change my bid: I don't want to bid 5S." Director "But you haven't bid 5S?" "Not on this board, silly! the one I played over there 20 minutes ago." TBW suggested that attempts to change a call after LHO had called were calls out of turn: I find this interpretation of limited credibility: "Director, am I allowed to change my 4S bid?" "I shall treat that remark as a call out of turn." Anyway, a change appeared after the final draft [!!]. It now says "Until LHO calls, a call may be substituted when section A does not apply:" At least it now has a time limit and unambiguously allows a change, so it should be easier to apply. I do not know whether the lengthy discussions on the subject in BLML affected the late decision, but it is possible. ********************************************************************** 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 Tue Mar 4 22:41:17 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id WAA25845 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 4 Mar 1997 22:41:17 +1000 Received: from mail.be.innet.net (mail.be.innet.net [194.7.1.8]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id WAA25840 for ; Tue, 4 Mar 1997 22:41:10 +1000 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 NAA29572 for ; Tue, 4 Mar 1997 13:41:04 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: <331C22F2.4346@innet.be> Date: Tue, 04 Mar 1997 13:26:10 +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: The curse of Buxton References: <331AD41F.43DA@innet.be> <331d0bac.2772646@pipmail.dknet.dk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Jesper Dybdal wrote: > > On Mon, 03 Mar 1997 13:37:35 +0000, Herman De Wael > wrote: > >But of course I have forgotten something very obvious. > > Well, Herman, since you do mention it yourself, you've forgotten > L64B4: > > "The penalty for an established revoke does not apply ... if attention > was first drawn to the revoke after a member of the non-offending side > has made a call on the subsequent deal." > > So there is no trick transfer - only an adjusted score according to > L64C. > -- > Jesper Dybdal, Denmark OK you're right. But does that mean that when someone claims, and shows his cards, I am required to count to see that he has shown thirteen cards ? Now this does create a problem : Since the penalty trick for the revoke cannot be given, the decision on the claim becomes important again : So we don't award the claim, simply because we don't like this declarer, and we give 10 tricks, no penalty trick. Afterwards, we let him appeal our decision on the claim and go to the AC. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.club.innet.be/~pub02163/index.htm From owner-bridge-laws Wed Mar 5 10:45:56 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA10732 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 5 Mar 1997 10:45:56 +1000 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 KAA10727 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 1997 10:45:49 +1000 Received: from soundconnex (t57.dialup.peg.apc.org [192.203.176.185]) by clothes.peg.apc.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id KAA25512 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 1997 10:44:43 +1000 (EST) Date: Wed, 5 Mar 1997 10:44:43 +1000 (EST) Message-Id: <199703050044.KAA25512@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@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Roger Penny and Jane Stapleton Subject: The Curse of Buxton Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In responding to my posting re his "Curse of Buxton" situation, Mike Amos wrote: >>[Roger Penny] Law 14 refers only to a "hand found deficient before play commences" and to a "hand found deficient during play". >[Mike Amos] Agreed - I wonder however if what you go on to say doesn't assume that it does apply - (one whole issue here is what we should do if the Law Book is silent). In fact (as you yourself point out later, Mike), the Law Book is not silent about this, or indeed about any other type of infraction which might not be covered specifically by a 'technical' law. As you suggest, Law 12.A.1 empowers the Director to "award an assigned adjusted score when he judges that these Laws do not provide indemnity to a non-offending contestant for the particular type of violation of law committed by an opponent." My ruling in the "Curse of Buxton" case was, in essence, based on 12.A.1, even though I had failed abysmally to identify that specifically at the time. At the same time, I was also very mindful of what I see is a TD's overriding responsibility - to maintain and/or restore equity (as is clearly specified in the heading of Law 64.C), while at the same time not falling into the trap of ignoring the provisions of Law 12.B. Thus, my response to Mike's question: >".... how does the TD establish what equity is if one player has played with only 12 cards??" would be: What infraction of Law has occurred here? The infraction is clearly a breach of Law 7.B.1 in that North failed to "count his cards face down to be sure he [had] exactly thirteen" and played the hand with just 12 cards without C9 in his hand. This is an infraction for which no penalty is specified, of course. Mike goes on to ask: >I have a worry here any way - how does the TD establish what equity is if one player has played with only 12 cards?? In this case, I would rule that any inequity on the board has occurred as a direct result of North's infraction - and equity suggests therefore that the TD should address the consequences of that particular infraction. Certainly, the score obtained at the table should not stand because that would not be in the least bit equitable for E/W, the non-offending pair. The line of argument I proposed in my original response therefore went on to address the play issue of what would have happened had North actually held 13 cards including C9 from the outset - and bridge logic (with the aid of Law 64C) led me to the [inevitable?] conclusion that an assigned "adjusted score of -100 to N/S" would be appropriate. I have no doubt that ">EW [would quickly become] keen to withdraw acquiescence now that they see the CLUB 9"! But it is, presumably, this withdrawal of acquiescence which provides the impetus for the TD to apply the relevant Laws cited above, IMO. Finally, I agree wholeheartedly with Mike's ultimate comment: ">Anyone who plays with 12 cannot possibly be 'in no way at fault' IMHO". At the same time, like David S., I do not award a PP for such infractions, except .... " If the player does this repeatedly then he should be fined, but not otherwise" [David S.]. Roger Penny From owner-bridge-laws Wed Mar 5 11:24:16 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id LAA10896 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 5 Mar 1997 11:24:16 +1000 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 LAA10891 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 1997 11:24:08 +1000 Received: from localhost by aurora.alaska.edu; (5.65v3.2/1.1.8.2/08Oct96-0254PM) id AA26535; Tue, 4 Mar 1997 16:23:59 -0900 Date: Tue, 4 Mar 1997 16:23:59 -0900 (AKST) From: "G. R. Bower" To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: The Other Set of Laws Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk With all of the recent fuss over some changes to the duplicate laws -- are any changes being made to the Laws of (Rubber) Contract Bridge, too? This became an issue recently at our club, since we run both duplicate and ACBL-sanctioned "Homestyle" games, and whether we direct the latter from the duplicate laws or the rubber bridge laws, we always get a complaint from SOMEBODY when some minor difference comes up. (For goodness' sake, the last big blow-up was over whether the laws require the shuffler to place the deck face down on the table after shuffling [the rubber bridge laws do, and the player in question always wants to put them face-up -- but we happened to only have the duplicate laws on hand that evening.] Is that a silly argument or what?) Gordon Bower From owner-bridge-laws Wed Mar 5 14:39:36 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id OAA11739 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 5 Mar 1997 14:39:36 +1000 Received: from swordfish.jcu.edu.au (swordfish.jcu.edu.au [137.219.16.117]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id OAA11733 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 1997 14:39:23 +1000 Received: from [137.219.38.114] by swordfish.jcu.edu.au with SMTP id AA30750 (5.65v3.2/IDA-1.5); Wed, 5 Mar 1997 14:38:45 +1000 X-Sender: sci-lsk@pop.jcu.edu.au Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Wed, 5 Mar 1997 14:38:14 +1000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Laurence.Kelso@jcu.edu.au (Laurie Kelso) Subject: L46B5 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Dummy KJ9 - AQ8 Declarer 10765432 Declarer leads a small card from hand and after LHO shows out says "play anything". North selects the King and RHO accidently plays the Queen under it and then proceeds to lead a different suit out of turn. I ruled the Queen played and then addressed the subsequent lead out of turn. This scenario does however bring into question Dummy's roll in determining which card is played from the tabled hand. L46B5 gives the defenders the right to "designate the play from dummy", but what are North's duties and rights in this situation. The play of the 9 would lead to a potential blockage and is clearly the least favourable card. Is North just following declarers instructions or has he overstepped his bounds in making a conscious decision to play the King? From owner-bridge-laws Wed Mar 5 14:53:41 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id OAA11795 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 5 Mar 1997 14:53:41 +1000 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 OAA11790 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 1997 14:53:35 +1000 Received: from localhost (pisarra@localhost) by ccnet3.ccnet.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id UAA02138 for ; Tue, 4 Mar 1997 20:51:48 -0800 X-Authentication-Warning: ccnet3.ccnet.com: pisarra owned process doing -bs Date: Tue, 4 Mar 1997 20:51:48 -0800 (PST) From: Chris Pisarra X-Sender: pisarra@ccnet3 To: bridge laws list Subject: Re: L46B5 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Wed, 5 Mar 1997, Laurie Kelso wrote: > This scenario does however bring into question Dummy's roll in determining > which card is played from the tabled hand. L46B5 gives the defenders the > right to "designate the play from dummy", but what are North's duties and > rights in this situation. The play of the 9 would lead to a potential > blockage and is clearly the least favourable card. Is North just following > declarers instructions or has he overstepped his bounds in making a > conscious decision to play the King? The defenders do indeed have the right. But when they don't choose to exercise it, then dummy may play as he chooses, and obviously any card he plays will be a conscious decision. It is far from clear to dummy that the 9 is particularly disadvantageous. The play of the K would seem, to me, to be an attempt to spend the highest card and take the least advantage. Certainly, W could/should speak up here if he reads the position (which isn't too hard after partner shows out) and wants to block the suit. It is not our job to do his job for him. Chris Chris Pisarra pisarra@ccnet.com From owner-bridge-laws Wed Mar 5 21:26:03 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id VAA13499 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 5 Mar 1997 21:26:03 +1000 Received: from mail.be.innet.net (mail.be.innet.net [194.7.1.8]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id VAA13494 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 1997 21:25:56 +1000 Received: from innet.innet.be (pool03-45.innet.be [194.7.10.45]) by mail.be.innet.net (8.7.6/8.7.3) with SMTP id MAA20135 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 1997 12:25:51 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: <331D6514.4ECF@innet.be> Date: Wed, 05 Mar 1997 12:20:36 +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: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Stevenson wrote: > > > Of course I shall give a PP if they break the Law. I do not only give > PPs for well-drafted Laws. > This is so unlike you David. We've all interpreted Laws before, and then when we RTFLB, realised that the Laws told us something else than we thought it said. At that time, I would not believe David Stevenson would say : 'This Law is not well-drafted, I choose no to follow it.' He might say : 'this Law is not well-drafted, I will follow it and make a note to try and have it changed in 10 years' time'. Or he might say : 'I thought this Law was meant otherwise, probably I am wrong, now why would the Lawmakers have said it like this ?'. But IMHO these Laws have generally been well-drafted. Most of the time, after careful analysis, we've found the true meaning of the Laws, the true intent of the Lawmakers. I do not believe they intented us to give PP's for every little thing. Looking at the CC at the 'wrong' time does not interfere with normal play. You should not do so, as you might give UI to partner. But as has been said in another thread by a certain DS (another abbreviation, David), UI is not given, it "becomes available". Partner must not use it, but giving it is not an infraction in itself. We might as well pose as a question on bridge-laws : 'Is sneezing allowed or not ?' I think the answer should be exactly the same as in the question that has been bothering us here : the Laws do not say that it is forbidden, so we cannot give a PP - OTOH the Laws do not say that it is allowed, so we could be facing UI, and SO's could ban it and make it forbidden. In the meantime, I shall continue to sneeze whenever DS mentions Quango. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.club.innet.be/~pub02163/index.htm From owner-bridge-laws Wed Mar 5 22:03:46 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id WAA13649 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 5 Mar 1997 22:03:46 +1000 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 WAA13644 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 1997 22:03:39 +1000 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by relay-10.mail.demon.net id aa1010756; 5 Mar 97 11:59 GMT Message-ID: Date: Wed, 5 Mar 1997 11:28:45 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: The Other Set of Laws In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk G. R. Bower wrote: >With all of the recent fuss over some changes to the duplicate >laws -- are any changes being made to the Laws of (Rubber) >Contract Bridge, too? I should say the next rubber Laws are due in 2002. The policy is [roughly] to alternate new Rubber and duplicate law books every five years or so. >This became an issue recently at our club, since we run both >duplicate and ACBL-sanctioned "Homestyle" games, and whether >we direct the latter from the duplicate laws or the rubber >bridge laws, we always get a complaint from SOMEBODY when some >minor difference comes up. (For goodness' sake, the last big >blow-up was over whether the laws require the shuffler to >place the deck face down on the table after shuffling [the >rubber bridge laws do, and the player in question always wants >to put them face-up -- but we happened to only have the duplicate >laws on hand that evening.] Is that a silly argument or what?) Errr yes: tell him that there is an inference in the duplicate Laws that you may not put the cards face up because it leads to unauthorised information under L12B, and therefore the procedure is avoided. Actually, I am making it up, but it should do! If you play a game which is a combination of two others then I suppose the TD should have discretion to apply whichever law book seems suitable. -- 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 Mar 5 23:29:52 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA14017 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 5 Mar 1997 23:29:52 +1000 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 XAA14011 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 1997 23:29:45 +1000 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by relay-11.mail.demon.net id aa1124945; 5 Mar 97 12:39 GMT Message-ID: Date: Wed, 5 Mar 1997 12:35:45 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: L46B5 In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Chris Pisarra wrote: >On Wed, 5 Mar 1997, Laurie Kelso wrote: >> This scenario does however bring into question Dummy's roll in determining >> which card is played from the tabled hand. L46B5 gives the defenders the >> right to "designate the play from dummy", but what are North's duties and >> rights in this situation. The play of the 9 would lead to a potential >> blockage and is clearly the least favourable card. Is North just following >> declarers instructions or has he overstepped his bounds in making a >> conscious decision to play the King? > > The defenders do indeed have the right. But when they don't >choose to exercise it, then dummy may play as he chooses, and obviously >any card he plays will be a conscious decision. > > It is far from clear to dummy that the 9 is particularly >disadvantageous. The play of the K would seem, to me, to be an attempt to >spend the highest card and take the least advantage. If my partner says play anything then I always play the highest card. Why should this dummy not have done so for that reason? > Certainly, W could/should speak up here if he reads the position >(which isn't too hard after partner shows out) and wants to block the >suit. It is not our job to do his job for him. -- 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 Mar 5 23:33:42 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA14080 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 5 Mar 1997 23:33:42 +1000 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 XAA14074 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 1997 23:33:36 +1000 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 IAA07195 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 1997 08:33:26 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <1.5.4.32.19970305133323.006948b8@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, 05 Mar 1997 08:33:23 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: L46B5 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 02:38 PM 3/5/97 +1000, Laurie wrote: > > Dummy > KJ9 > >- AQ8 > > Declarer > 10765432 > > > >Declarer leads a small card from hand and after LHO shows out says "play >anything". North selects the King and RHO accidently plays the Queen under >it and then proceeds to lead a different suit out of turn. I ruled the >Queen played and then addressed the subsequent lead out of turn. > >This scenario does however bring into question Dummy's roll in determining >which card is played from the tabled hand. L46B5 gives the defenders the >right to "designate the play from dummy", but what are North's duties and >rights in this situation. The play of the 9 would lead to a potential >blockage and is clearly the least favourable card. Is North just following >declarers instructions or has he overstepped his bounds in making a >conscious decision to play the King? I don't think L46B5 applies here. L46B5 applies when "declarer indicates a play without designating either a suit or rank". Declarer, however, has already led a card of a particular suit from hand, and must follow suit from dummy. I would rule that this means that he has, within the meaning of L46, "designated a suit"; there is no possibility that a card of some other suit might be played. So L46B2 applies, and he is "deemed to have called the lowest card of the suit indicated". L46B2 gives no discretion to either the opponents or the dummy; the 9 must be played. 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 Mar 5 23:53:31 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA14203 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 5 Mar 1997 23:53:31 +1000 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 XAA14198 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 1997 23:53:23 +1000 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 IAA07854 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 1997 08:53:18 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <1.5.4.32.19970305135315.0069c708@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, 05 Mar 1997 08:53:15 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: L40E2 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 12:20 PM 3/5/97 +0000, Herman wrote: >David Stevenson wrote: > >> Of course I shall give a PP if they break the Law. I do not only give >> PPs for well-drafted Laws. > >This is so unlike you David. > >We've all interpreted Laws before, and then when we RTFLB, realised that >the Laws told us something else than we thought it said. > >At that time, I would not believe David Stevenson would say : >'This Law is not well-drafted, I choose no to follow it.' > >He might say : 'this Law is not well-drafted, I will follow it and make >a note to try and have it changed in 10 years' time'. > >Or he might say : 'I thought this Law was meant otherwise, probably I am >wrong, now why would the Lawmakers have said it like this ?'. > >But IMHO these Laws have generally been well-drafted. Most of the time, >after careful analysis, we've found the true meaning of the Laws, the >true intent of the Lawmakers. >I do not believe they intented us to give PP's for every little thing. > >Looking at the CC at the 'wrong' time does not interfere with normal >play. You should not do so, as you might give UI to partner. But as >has been said in another thread by a certain DS (another abbreviation, >David), UI is not given, it "becomes available". Partner must not use >it, but giving it is not an infraction in itself. I'm confident that David has never given a player a PP for a first-offense violation of L40E2. Being the sweet guy that he is, I'm sure that he would very politely warn the offender that looking at the CC when it's not his turn is not permitted, and ask him not to do it again. If the offender ignores the warning, and repeats the offense, he should be penalized not for violating L40 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 Mar 6 00:08:58 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA14275 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 6 Mar 1997 00:08:58 +1000 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 AAA14270 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 1997 00:08:47 +1000 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 JAA11319 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 1997 09:08:42 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <1.5.4.32.19970305140839.006a45c8@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, 05 Mar 1997 09:08:39 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: L40E2 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk My apologies for the e-mailer hiccup that caused my previous message to be sent while I was still composing it. The complete text follows. At 12:20 PM 3/5/97 +0000, Herman wrote: >David Stevenson wrote: > >> Of course I shall give a PP if they break the Law. I do not only give >> PPs for well-drafted Laws. > >This is so unlike you David. > >We've all interpreted Laws before, and then when we RTFLB, realised that >the Laws told us something else than we thought it said. > >At that time, I would not believe David Stevenson would say : >'This Law is not well-drafted, I choose no to follow it.' > >He might say : 'this Law is not well-drafted, I will follow it and make >a note to try and have it changed in 10 years' time'. > >Or he might say : 'I thought this Law was meant otherwise, probably I am >wrong, now why would the Lawmakers have said it like this ?'. > >But IMHO these Laws have generally been well-drafted. Most of the time, >after careful analysis, we've found the true meaning of the Laws, the >true intent of the Lawmakers. >I do not believe they intented us to give PP's for every little thing. > >Looking at the CC at the 'wrong' time does not interfere with normal >play. You should not do so, as you might give UI to partner. But as >has been said in another thread by a certain DS (another abbreviation, >David), UI is not given, it "becomes available". Partner must not use >it, but giving it is not an infraction in itself. I'm confident that David has never given a player a PP for a first-offense violation of L40E2. Being the sweet guy that he is, I'm sure that he would very politely warn the offender that looking at the CC when it's not his turn is not permitted, and ask him not to do it again. If the offender ignores the warning, and repeats the offense, he should be penalized not for violating L40E2, but rather for "failure to comply promptly... with any instruction of the Director" as set forth in L90B8. 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 Mar 6 03:19:35 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA18401 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 6 Mar 1997 03:19:35 +1000 Received: from smtp2.erols.com (smtp2.erols.com [205.252.116.102]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id DAA18396 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 1997 03:19:25 +1000 Received: from hdavis.erols.com (spg-as49s17.erols.com [207.96.98.17]) by smtp2.erols.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id MAA02093 for ; Wed, 5 Mar 1997 12:19:19 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.32.19970305121941.006a4470@pop.erols.com> X-Sender: hdavis@pop.erols.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0 (32) Date: Wed, 05 Mar 1997 12:19:43 -0500 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Hirsch Davis Subject: Re: L46B5 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 12:35 PM 3/5/97 +0000, you wrote: > > If my partner says play anything then I always play the highest card. >Why should this dummy not have done so for that reason? > >> Certainly, W could/should speak up here if he reads the position >>(which isn't too hard after partner shows out) and wants to block the >>suit. It is not our job to do his job for him. > >-- >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 (_~^ ^~ > > As Eric has pointed out, neither the dummy nor the defenders have any choice in the matter, as a suit has been specified by the lead from declarer. In the case described, L46B2 requires the play of the 9, and allows no other card. If no suit had been specified (lead was in dummy, or dummy could not follow suit) then, L46B5 gives the choice of card played to either defender. Under no circumstances do the laws allow a choice of card to be made by dummy. So, when declarer says "play anything", and neither suit nor denomination are specified, dummy should not automatically play the highest card, but should wait for a defender to specify a card. Hirsch From owner-bridge-laws Thu Mar 6 09:10:46 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA28398 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 6 Mar 1997 09:10:46 +1000 Received: from dns.glo.be (dns.glo.be [206.48.177.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id JAA28392 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 1997 09:10:31 +1000 Received: from phobos.glo.be (root@phobos.glo.be [206.48.176.11]) by dns.glo.be (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id AAA30325 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 1997 00:07:27 +0100 Received: from gi31451 (p5-22.z03.glo.be [206.48.186.150]) by phobos.glo.be (8.8.3/8.6.9) with ESMTP id AAA19405 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 1997 00:10:17 +0100 Message-Id: <199703052310.AAA19405@phobos.glo.be> From: "Fornoville Norbert" To: Subject: Fw: L40E2 Date: Thu, 6 Mar 1997 00:05:40 -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=Default Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk ---------- > From: Eric Landau > To: Bridge Laws Discussion List > Subject: Re: L40E2 > Date: 26 feb 97 10:40 > > > 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 Maybe one could suggest to accompany "The New Laws" by a explanation of what is intended ?? L40E2: For the moment one should teach his partner to ask the meaning of the alerted call and not to look at the CC... ( one can not write everything in full on the CC, only a condensed information..). And one more occasion for them to go wrong :-)) From owner-bridge-laws Thu Mar 6 14:42:51 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id OAA29885 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 6 Mar 1997 14:42:51 +1000 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 OAA29880 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 1997 14:42:41 +1000 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by relay-11.mail.demon.net id aa1120200; 6 Mar 97 4:07 GMT Message-ID: <9ZkeG2CM+jHzEw7U@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Thu, 6 Mar 1997 03:52:44 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: L46B5 In-Reply-To: <1.5.4.32.19970305133323.006948b8@cais.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Eric Landau wrote: >I don't think L46B5 applies here. L46B5 applies when "declarer indicates a >play without designating either a suit or rank". Declarer, however, has >already led a card of a particular suit from hand, and must follow suit from >dummy. I would rule that this means that he has, within the meaning of L46, >"designated a suit"; there is no possibility that a card of some other suit >might be played. So L46B2 applies, and he is "deemed to have called the >lowest card of the suit indicated". L46B2 gives no discretion to either the >opponents or the dummy; the 9 must be played. Please read the law book. L46A requires that declarer names a rank and a suit. Read it please. Nothing about any difference when following suit. L46B2 tells you what to do if declarer designates a suit and not a rank. He didn't. L46B5 clearly applies because he did not designate a rank or a suit. It even gives the example of saying "play anything". Hirsch Davis wrote: >As Eric has pointed out, neither the dummy nor the defenders have any >choice in the matter, as a suit has been specified by the lead from >declarer. In the case described, L46B2 requires the play of the 9, and >allows no other card. Where in the law does it say anything about L46B2 applying if the suit is specified by the lead? That is a fabrication! Please read the law book. L46B2 applies when declarer designates a suit, and he didn't. -- 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 Mar 6 22:55:30 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id WAA01435 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 6 Mar 1997 22:55:30 +1000 Received: from laplace.math.ntu.edu.tw (yangboy@math.ntu.edu.tw [140.112.50.160]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id WAA01424 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 1997 22:50:36 +1000 Received: by laplace.math.ntu.edu.tw (4.1/SMI-4.1) id AA16007; Thu, 6 Mar 97 20:49:05 CST Date: Thu, 6 Mar 97 20:49:05 CST From: yangboy@math.ntu.edu.tw (B.Y.) Message-Id: <9703061249.AA16007@laplace.math.ntu.edu.tw> To: david@blakjak.demon.co.uk Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au In-Reply-To: (message from David Stevenson on Sun, 2 Mar 1997 21:44:05 +0000) Subject: Re: Rules of disclosure [WAS: ******** defence] Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Well, surprise, David respond to something that I write!! # >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. # Sounds very reasonable unless you become declarer or dummy. # Otherwise you [...] tell the opponents something they have no right # to know [...] However, I would have thought this approach a bit # harsh for declarer or dummy. [...] it is difficult to see what harm # it will do [...] I fail to see the logic. If the opponents have a right to know, then you disclose and UI be damned ... partner is not allowed to take advantage, and you have avoided giving MISinformation. If the opponents have no right to know, then it is *unethical* for me to tell them just because it won't do them any harm. As far as I can discern, according to the Laws of Duplicate Bridge I am not at liberty to give my opponents gratuitous information or otherwise reveal my hand just because I feel like it. From owner-bridge-laws Thu Mar 6 23:37:18 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA01595 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 6 Mar 1997 23:37:18 +1000 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 XAA01589 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 1997 23:37:10 +1000 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 IAA17285 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 1997 08:37:04 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <1.5.4.32.19970306133709.006895c4@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 Mar 1997 08:37:09 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: Fw: L40E2 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 12:05 AM 3/6/97 -0500, Fornoville wrote: > L40E2: For the moment one should teach his partner to ask the meaning >of the alerted call and not to look at the CC... >( one can not write everything in full on the CC, only a condensed >information..). >And one more occasion for them to go wrong :-)) IMHO, this is very wrong-headed advice. You should only question the opponents when their CC doesn't serve to provide the information you need. If this were appropriate behavior, we wouldn't need, and wouldn't have, CCs. I can't cite TFLB chapter and verse (ignoring the CC appears to be legal), but it has a vaguely unethical feel about it... perhaps because it feels like the motivation for asking instead of reading is that you are deliberately trying to create that "one more occasion for them to go wrong". It smells of "bridge lawyer" tactics, as though the reason for asking is the hope that the answer you may get will not match what's on the CC, and thereby provide that extra opportunity to win the board in adjudication. Moreover, asking questions is one more opportunity for you to go wrong. You are risking not just passing UI to partner, but doing so when it could easily have been avoided. I have been on several ACs where the issue was UI conveyed by asking questions during the auction, and can tell you that, whatever the letter of the law might be, an AC is likely to take a much harsher view when the question at issue didn't have to be asked because the answer could have been easily obtained from the CC. 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 Mar 7 01:05:37 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA04461 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 7 Mar 1997 01:05:37 +1000 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 BAA04456 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 1997 01:05:27 +1000 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 KAA29064 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 1997 10:05:21 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <1.5.4.32.19970306150526.0067df94@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 Mar 1997 10:05:26 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: L46B5 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 03:52 AM 3/6/97 +0000, David wrote: >Eric Landau wrote: > >>I don't think L46B5 applies here. L46B5 applies when "declarer indicates a >>play without designating either a suit or rank". Declarer, however, has >>already led a card of a particular suit from hand, and must follow suit from >>dummy. I would rule that this means that he has, within the meaning of L46, >>"designated a suit"; there is no possibility that a card of some other suit >>might be played. So L46B2 applies, and he is "deemed to have called the >>lowest card of the suit indicated". L46B2 gives no discretion to either the >>opponents or the dummy; the 9 must be played. > > Please read the law book. > > L46A requires that declarer names a rank and a suit. Read it please. >Nothing about any difference when following suit. > > L46B2 tells you what to do if declarer designates a suit and not a >rank. He didn't. > > L46B5 clearly applies because he did not designate a rank or a suit. >It even gives the example of saying "play anything". > >Hirsch Davis wrote: > >>As Eric has pointed out, neither the dummy nor the defenders have any >>choice in the matter, as a suit has been specified by the lead from >>declarer. In the case described, L46B2 requires the play of the 9, and >>allows no other card. > > Where in the law does it say anything about L46B2 applying if the suit >is specified by the lead? That is a fabrication! Please read the law >book. L46B2 applies when declarer designates a suit, and he didn't. My reading is that it says this quite clearly in the first paragraph of L46B: "In case of an incomplete or erroneous call... the following restrictions apply (except when declarer's different intention is incontrovertable)". When dummy is to follow suit, and declarer says "deuce" or "king", he has not named a suit, but I cannot believe that it is the intent of the law that this should constiute "an incomplete or erroneous call". (I also don't think bridge players are ready to accept the notion that every one of them commits multiple violations of law every time they declare a hand, literal reading of L46A notwithstanding.) Surely, declarer's intention, when he says "deuce", to follow suit, rather than revoke, is "incontrovertable". The suit to be played, in that case, is treated as having been (implicitly) "designated". The wording of L46B1 makes no suggestion that if declarer hasn't named a suit, i.e. if he says only "'high'" or "'low', or words of like import", L46B5 should apply. The law treats that as an "incomplete designation of rank", not as an incomplete designation of both rank and suit. In that case, the fact that declarer "incontrovertably intends" to follow suit is sufficient to establish that declarer has, as far as the law is concerned, "designated" the suit to be played. If we accept that saying only "high" or "low" is governed by L46B1 rather than by L46B5 when dummy must follow suit (as L46B1 makes clear), it surely follows that saying "anything" under similar circumstances is governed, similarly, by L46B2 rather than by L46B5. The parenthetical reference to "'play anything'" in L46B5 applies only "if declarer indicates a play without designating either a suit or rank", and the question at issue is whether this condition is met when dummy must follow suit. I believe it is not, i.e. that L46B5 is only intended to apply when dummy can, in fact, legally "play anything". I admit that the law here is subject to various interpretations, but I believe the interpretation above is one on which there is near-universal consensus. 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 Mar 7 02:18:57 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA04967 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 7 Mar 1997 02:18:57 +1000 Received: from TUDRNV.TUDELFT.NL (tudrnv.tudelft.nl [130.161.180.88]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id CAA04962 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 1997 02:18:45 +1000 Received: from duttncb.tn.tudelft.nl by TUDRNV.TUDelft.NL (PMDF V5.0-6 #15266) id <01IG6U8HR2XS001E0O@TUDRNV.TUDelft.NL>; Thu, 06 Mar 1997 17:04:49 +0100 Received: by duttncb.tn.tudelft.nl (16.6/15.6) id AA06739; Thu, 06 Mar 1997 17:03:28 +0100 Date: Thu, 06 Mar 1997 17:03:27 +0100 (MET) From: "E.Angad-Gaur" Subject: Re: L46B5 In-reply-to: <9ZkeG2CM+jHzEw7U@blakjak.demon.co.uk>; from "David Stevenson" at Mar 6, 97 3:52 am To: newsr@blakjak.demon.co.uk (David Stevenson) Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Message-id: <01IG6U8I0GIQ001E0O@TUDRNV.TUDelft.NL> Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Mailer: Elm [revision: 66.25] Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > > Eric Landau wrote: > > >I don't think L46B5 applies here. L46B5 applies when "declarer indicates a > >play without designating either a suit or rank". Declarer, however, has > >already led a card of a particular suit from hand, and must follow suit from > >dummy. I would rule that this means that he has, within the meaning of L46, > >"designated a suit"; there is no possibility that a card of some other suit > >might be played. So L46B2 applies, and he is "deemed to have called the > >lowest card of the suit indicated". L46B2 gives no discretion to either the > >opponents or the dummy; the 9 must be played. > > Please read the law book. > > L46A requires that declarer names a rank and a suit. Read it please. > Nothing about any difference when following suit. > > L46B2 tells you what to do if declarer designates a suit and not a > rank. He didn't. > > L46B5 clearly applies because he did not designate a rank or a suit. > It even gives the example of saying "play anything". > > > > Hirsch Davis wrote: > > >As Eric has pointed out, neither the dummy nor the defenders have any > >choice in the matter, as a suit has been specified by the lead from > >declarer. In the case described, L46B2 requires the play of the 9, and > >allows no other card. David Stevenson wrote: > Where in the law does it say anything about L46B2 applying if the suit > is specified by the lead? That is a fabrication! Please read the law > book. L46B2 applies when declarer designates a suit, and he didn't. > > It is not a fabrication. Because dummy must not revoke the suit is spe- cified. So in my opinion L46B2 requires the play of the 9 and no other card. -- --------------------------------------------------------------------------- S.E. Angad-Gaur | email :evert_np@duttncb.tn.tudelft.nl Technische Universiteit Delft | tel. : 015-786150 Faculteit der Technische Natuurkunde | fax : 015-783251 Lorentzweg 1 | 2628 CJ Delft | --------------------------------------------------------------------------- From owner-bridge-laws Fri Mar 7 02:30:54 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA05052 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 7 Mar 1997 02:30:54 +1000 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 CAA05047 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 1997 02:30:48 +1000 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 LAA11720 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 1997 11:30:44 -0500 (EST) Received: by cfa183.harvard.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id LAA07574; Thu, 6 Mar 1997 11:30:59 -0500 Date: Thu, 6 Mar 1997 11:30:59 -0500 From: willner@cfa183.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Message-Id: <199703061630.LAA07574@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: L46B5 X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: David Stevenson > L46A requires that declarer names a rank and a suit. It uses the verbs "calling" and "state." > L46B2 tells you what to do if declarer designates a suit and not a > rank. It uses the verb "designate," and goes on to say "deemed to have called." > L46B5 clearly applies because he did not designate a rank or a suit. > It even gives the example of saying "play anything". > Where in the law does it say anything about L46B2 applying if the suit > is specified by the lead? While "specifying by the lead" is surely different from calling or stating, it seems quite reasonable to interpret it as one form of designating. From owner-bridge-laws Fri Mar 7 02:50:49 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA05126 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 7 Mar 1997 02:50:49 +1000 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 CAA05121 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 1997 02:50:39 +1000 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 LAA12224 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 1997 11:50:36 -0500 (EST) Received: by cfa183.harvard.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id LAA07587; Thu, 6 Mar 1997 11:50:51 -0500 Date: Thu, 6 Mar 1997 11:50:51 -0500 From: willner@cfa183.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Message-Id: <199703061650.LAA07587@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: L12 X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > On Sun, 2 Mar 1997 21:42:52 +0000, David Stevenson > wrote: > > To use L12C1 when a result was obtained is illegal. > From: Jesper Dybdal > I do not read L12C1 as saying that so clearly. We might recall Edgar Kaplan's commentary on the "poor Eddie Kantar" case several years ago. He castigated the committee for (among other things!) poor bridge judgment in applying L12C1 instead of L12C2 but conceded that the ruling was proper if the AC could not work out a likely result absent the infraction. Jesper's example -- an illegal 2D opening -- seems to me to fall into the same category. I would much prefer a ruling based on L12C2, the TD giving the non-offenders a favorable contract based on seeing both hands. (An AC might want to delve into the non-offenders' actual bidding methods.) The actual ruling under L12C1 may be poor bridge judgment -- of course we would have to have full details to say -- but it doesn't seem to be illegal. Perhaps somebody could explain something I've never understood. When is it proper to throw out the board and redeal? Let us say the 2D infraction had occurred before the board was played at the other table. (If after, I don't believe the board can be redealt, but perhaps this is wrong.) From owner-bridge-laws Fri Mar 7 14:10:40 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id OAA07900 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 7 Mar 1997 14:10:40 +1000 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 OAA07895 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 1997 14:10:34 +1000 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by relay-5.mail.demon.net id aa0506340; 7 Mar 97 4:04 GMT Message-ID: Date: Fri, 7 Mar 1997 04:00:52 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: L46B5 In-Reply-To: <1.5.4.32.19970306150526.0067df94@cais.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I apologise for the tone of my previous post. I really considered this so completely obvious that I failed to apply common courtesy. While the headers are not part of the law, it has been argued on this group before that that is only relevant in the few cases where there seems to have been an error in writing the headers, and that in general they provide very useful pointers to the intention of the Lawmakers. I accepted this argument, albeit a trifle reluctantly. Law 46 - Incomplete or Erroneous Call of Card from Dummy A. Proper Form for Designating Dummy's Card When calling a card to be played from dummy, declarer should clearly state both the suit and the rank of the desired card. What does it mean to designate a rank or suit? I believe that this Law shows us the answer. This gives the Proper Form for Designating Dummy's Card. If you say "Play the two" then it is quite clear that you have not used the Proper Form: you have designated a rank but not a suit. One counter-argument to this was that if you have to follow suit from the dummy L46B could not apply in this case since you could not be required to revoke. The person who produced this counter-argument might consider reading L46B3B: 3. Designates Rank but Not Suit If declarer designates a rank but not a suit: (b) All Other Cases In all other cases, declarer must play a card from dummy of the designated rank if he can legally do so; but if there are two or more such cards that can be legally played, declarer must designate which is intended. It is quite clear from this that dummy is required to play a legal card. L46B would not require you to revoke so this is not an argument that L46B does not apply. To return to L46A. If declarer requires the two of hearts to be played from dummy, the Proper Form is for him to designate a suit ["hearts"] and a rank ["two"]. It is not correct procedure not to say hearts because of the requirement to follow suit. Of course, people will say, it does not matter that much: true, but if we are to analyse this Law, let us do it carefully. The word "designate" does not appear in the Definitions. My dictionary says: To mark out so as to make known To show To name To be a name for To appoint or nominate ... and it tells us it is a transitive verb. The point that is clear both from using L46A as a definition and using this dictionary is that to designate something is a positive action: declarer nominates the suit, or he names it, or whatever. When we move to L46B, we have various options, but the ones that are exercising us here seem to be L46B2 and L46B5, thus: B. Incomplete or Erroneous Call In case of an incomplete or erroneous call by declarer of the card to be played from dummy, the following restrictions apply (except when declarer's different intention is incontrovertible): 2. Designates Suit but Not Rank If declarer designates a suit but not a rank, he is deemed to have called the lowest card of the suit indicated. 5. No Suit or Rank Designated If declarer indicates a play without designating either a suit or rank (as by saying, ``play anything'', or words of like import), either defender may designate the play from dummy. It is clear from the above that to designate a suit, declarer should name it. If he does not do so, then *HE* has not designated it: he has not nominated it: he has not named it. Ah, says everyone, but we know he has to play that suit from dummy, so the suit is specified by that. But the Law does not say anything about a suit being "specified", or "required to be played": it gives rules based on whether **declarer** designated it. To make it totally clear, it even gives an example of declarer not designating either a suit or rank: the example is: "by saying, ``play anything'', or words of like import". This is the actual occurrence that led to this: it is shown *in the same words* in the Law: yet people have tried to argue that it means something else. To summarise: L46A gives the Proper Form for designating, and L46B gives certain rules for partially designated cards. There is no reference anywhere to the requirement to follow suit, which is of course paramount, but this Law is concerned with incomplete designations. There is no evidence anywhere that it is Proper for declarer not to specify a suit if it is required to be played, and if he does not there are rules to cover it. If declarer designates neither suit nor rank [eg, by saying "Play anything"] it is clear that L46B5 applies, whether dummy has a card of the suit led 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 Fri Mar 7 22:17:11 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id WAA09186 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 7 Mar 1997 22:17:11 +1000 Received: from tom.compulink.co.uk (tom.compulink.co.uk [194.153.0.51]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id WAA09181 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 1997 22:17:04 +1000 Received: (from root@localhost) by tom.compulink.co.uk (8.8.4/8.6.9) id MAA25580 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Fri, 7 Mar 1997 12:16:47 GMT Date: Fri, 7 Mar 97 12:15 GMT0 From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: The curse of Buxton 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: michael amos wrote: > 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? Well my first ruling is to fine the "nice lady" 2MP from the next table for misboarding (assuming she was North). This is standard practice at the clubs where I play and everyone seems to accept it. Secondly I establish NS as "the offending side" based on L7. Now although there are several rules I might call on to arrive at a judgement I want to focus on doing equity so the next step is to assess the damage to EW. I consider. If North had held C9 from the outset: a) I believe he would be much more likely to avoid the poor slam with a 7-1-4-1 holding than his "perceived" 8-1-4-0. b) With two entries to dummy and 1 discard from hand there would have been no question of a diamond loser on any normal play of the hand (given the finesse works). So since North's infraction actually led to a worse score on balance than might otherwise have been achieved, and certainy didn't lead to a better one, I see no reason for giving redress. The nature of North's infraction is not one for which I believe a penalty is appropriate so result stands seems fair to all. If -50 turns out to be below par then my analysis is obviously wrong and EW should appeal (I'd expect it to be well over 50%). Tim West-Meads From owner-bridge-laws Sat Mar 8 03:25:45 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA12732 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 8 Mar 1997 03:25:45 +1000 Received: from pip.dknet.dk (root@pip.dknet.dk [193.88.44.48]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id DAA12727 for ; Sat, 8 Mar 1997 03:25:34 +1000 Received: from default (cph48.ppp.dknet.dk [194.192.100.48]) by pip.dknet.dk (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id SAA10989 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 1997 18:25:25 +0100 Message-Id: <199703071725.SAA10989@pip.dknet.dk> Comments: Authenticated sender is From: "Jens & Bodil" Organization: Alesia Software To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Fri, 7 Mar 1997 18:24:51 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Re: L46B5 Priority: normal X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v2.42a) Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I know that this is not decided by voting, but just for the record, I support David's point of view, his analysis, and his conclusion (repeated below). I have thought this to be obvious all along. I have learned (again) that things may be less obvious than they seem to me and discussing the apparently obvious can be surprisingly rewarding. > From: David Stevenson > If declarer designates neither suit nor rank [eg, by saying "Play > anything"] it is clear that L46B5 applies, whether dummy has a card of > the suit led or not. -- Jens Brix Christiansen, Denmark From owner-bridge-laws Sat Mar 8 05:27:30 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA13302 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 8 Mar 1997 05:27:30 +1000 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 FAA13297 for ; Sat, 8 Mar 1997 05:27:25 +1000 From: Stephen_Barnfield@europe.notes.pw.com Received: by ivy.tc.pw.com; id MAA18618; Fri, 7 Mar 1997 12:04:12 -0800 (PST) Received: from cactus.tc.pw.com(131.209.7.48) by ivy.tc.pw.com via smap (3.2) id xma018469; Fri, 7 Mar 97 12:04:03 -0800 Received: (from root@localhost) by cactus.tc.pw.com (8.8.4/8.7.3) id LAA26940 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Fri, 7 Mar 1997 11:26:31 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <199703071926.LAA26940@cactus.tc.pw.com> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Fri, 7 Mar 97 18:28:09 GMT Subject: Re: Time for another easy one for Jens! Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Someone asked me, more than a month ago, for my commments on this. Now as Mr Burn would say, that's one more than is usually the slightest bit interested in what I think, so, with apologies for the delay, and for repeating the facts, here goes. > 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. The TD is then summoned, and, if you are in Europe, (i) LHO is offered, but declines, acceptance of your double (Law25B1); (ii) LHO is offered, but declines, acceptance of you 3S (Law25B2 and Law27A); (iii) you are then told what your options are, and you choose to bid 4S. The question is whether Law27B3 applies to require your partner to pass for the rest of the auction. In short I think not. I have thought quite hard about this. On the plain words of the Law either view is arguable. The reason I have decided Law27B3 does not apply is that I think the bracketed bit in Law27B "the offender is entitled to select his final call at that turn after the applicable penalties have been stated, and any call he has previously attempted to substitute is cancelled, but the lead penalties of Law26 may apply" includes the full extent of the penalty for the change of call following the statement of the applicable penalties. To me Law27 reads more naturally if interpreted this way: ie that the "bracketed bit" deals with an attempted correction before the penalties have been stated, and B1, B2 and B3 deal with corrections once the applicable penalties have been stated. The use of the present tense in Law27B3 suggests to me that it is not intended to apply to an infraction that has, at least partly, been dealt with earlier in Law27B. As a further straw in the wind, suppose the auction went 1S (4H) 3S corrected to 4D, then, after statement of the applicable penalties, to 4S. The wording of Law27B2 does not suggest it applies to the 4D bid. I realise this is not analagous, but there are similarities which suggest Law27B3 should not apply to the earlier problem. My reasoning may not be very good, and I would be quite prepared, as ever, to be corrected, but I cast my vote for Law27B3 not applying. From owner-bridge-laws Sat Mar 8 06:12:51 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA13460 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 8 Mar 1997 06:12:51 +1000 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 GAA13455 for ; Sat, 8 Mar 1997 06:12:45 +1000 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by relay-10.mail.demon.net id aa1021926; 7 Mar 97 19:34 GMT Message-ID: Date: Fri, 7 Mar 1997 15:08:17 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: The curse of Buxton In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Tim West-meads wrote: >Well my first ruling is to fine the "nice lady" 2MP from the next table for >misboarding (assuming she was North). This is standard practice at the clubs >where I play and everyone seems to accept it. Great. Let us know the clubs where you play so that we can avoid them like the plague. You fine nice little ladies for dropping a card on the floor? What do you do if they revoke? Shoot them? -- David Stevenson Bridge Cats Railways Logic /\_/\ Liverpool, England, UK http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk =( ^*^ )= bridge@blakjak.demon.co.uk Emails welcome bluejak on OKB ( | | ) Tel: +44 (0)151 677 7412 Phone before Fax please RTFLB (_~^ ^~ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Mar 8 08:06:56 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA13807 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 8 Mar 1997 08:06:56 +1000 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 IAA13802 for ; Sat, 8 Mar 1997 08:06:50 +1000 Received: from coruncanius.demon.co.uk ([194.222.115.176]) by relay-5.mail.demon.net id aa0529238; 7 Mar 97 21:59 GMT Message-ID: Date: Mon, 3 Mar 1997 02:02:46 +0000 To: Eric Landau Cc: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Labeo Subject: Re: Rules of disclosure In-Reply-To: <1.5.4.32.19970227163829.006684c4@cais.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In message <1.5.4.32.19970227163829.006684c4@cais.com>, Eric Landau writes >At 09:26 PM 2/26/97 +0100, Jens wrote: > much omitted....... > > eventually Eric Landau wrote: > >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. > >:Labeo writes: I have followed this thread with wonderment at some tortuous thinking that has emerged. Eric is very near the mark I believe in his satiric comment about not being allowed not to have an agreement. The first question in my mind when faced with a call of uncertain meaning, which may or may not be alertable, is whether I have an agreement with partner - explicit or derived from prior awareness of what we have done on earlier occasions. If the answer is 'no, there is nothing particular to this partnership which will guide me as to its meaning' (and this includes any common factor - e.g. normal practice in the circles where we both play - ) then I am obliged to draw upon my "general knowledge and experience". Where this is the case there is no obligation to disclose anything at all (Law 75C). What is more it is dangerous to alert because there is no defence if partner's call turns out to be not what we have judged and we are responsible for misleading opponent; where we have no edge on opponents in divining what partner is up to opponents should be left to use their own knowledge and experience with respect to calls genuinely made with no basis for specific agreement. In seeking to be helpful we can do more harm than good. Law 75C puts it beyond doubt that it is permissible to have no special agreement, which is what Law 40 A/B also says if read closely. Of course a question does arise if, with allegedly no agreement, partner makes a conventional call and you interpret it correctly. Should opponents also, in this situation, get it right? If there is doubt, then how did you get it right - what did you know? This kind of thing is especially difficult when players from different bridge cultures come together. I agree absolutely that an alert says "my partner's call is the subject of a special understanding between us and its meaning is alertable under the regulations governing play here and now". Absence of an alert says "my partner's call is not alertable; it may be that we have no agreement as to its meaning (and are relying upon our general knowledge and experience) or it may be that it has an agreed meaning which is not alertable under the regulations that apply". In neither case does the alert say what the meaning is and jumping to conclusions can lead to painful awakenings. Labeo From owner-bridge-laws Sat Mar 8 10:47:34 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA14434 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 8 Mar 1997 10:47:34 +1000 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 KAA14429 for ; Sat, 8 Mar 1997 10:47:28 +1000 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 TAA08323 for ; Fri, 7 Mar 1997 19:47:24 -0500 (EST) Received: by cfa183.harvard.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id TAA08224; Fri, 7 Mar 1997 19:47:44 -0500 Date: Fri, 7 Mar 1997 19:47:44 -0500 From: willner@cfa183.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Message-Id: <199703080047.TAA08224@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: L46B5 X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: David Stevenson > The point that is clear both from using L46A as a definition and using > this dictionary is that to designate something is a positive action: > declarer nominates the suit, or he names it, or whatever. This, of course, is the crux of the matter. What does it take to "designate" a suit? In particular, does leading a card to which dummy must follow "designate" the suit that declarer intends for dummy to play? There is no doubt that naming the suit is sufficient to designate it. The question is whether it is also necessary (in the mathematical sense). L46A uses the verbs "calling" and "state." The use of "designate" in L46B suggests that something else is meant. My Merriam-Webster includes the following definitions (among others): specify; stipulate; to indicate and set apart for a specific purpose, office, or duty; denote. Perhaps it's a matter of local custom, but around here nobody objects if declarer routinely fails to name the suit when dummy must follow. The inference is that people believe the suit already has been designated, even though it has not been named or called. If you accept this custom and interpretation, L45B5 still has a sensible interpretation, but it applies only when dummy is on play or about to discard. Are there official translations of the Laws into other languages? If so, I'd be interested in how this Law reads. The meaning seems to depend critically on the meaning of the verb. I note that the word used is much less active than alternatives like name, call out, select, or specify, any of which might have been chosen. From owner-bridge-laws Sat Mar 8 15:41:47 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id PAA15133 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 8 Mar 1997 15:41:47 +1000 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 PAA15128 for ; Sat, 8 Mar 1997 15:41:41 +1000 From: Finesse914@aol.com Received: (from root@localhost) by emout20.mail.aol.com (8.7.6/8.7.3/AOL-2.0.0) id AAA09998 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Sat, 8 Mar 1997 00:41:07 -0500 (EST) Date: Sat, 8 Mar 1997 00:41:07 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <970308004106_2096246843@emout20.mail.aol.com> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: How do you rule? Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Here's a situation that I found very interesting from a ruling standpoint and a disappointment from the player standpoint. To say up front, E W (E especially) were very ethical in the situation, I had no problem with the ethics: E S W N 2D P 3D P (1) 3N P(2) P P (1) North asks West what 2D was. She replies: "It's Flannery" (very calmly). There was no alert of the 2D bid. (2) South asks what 3D would mean in the Flannery sequence. (North/South don't play Flannery). West replies, it's shows a diamond suit. South asks if it is forcing or not forcing, West replies "it's just a suit". South calls for the director. She states that she and her partner do not play Flannery, and that this is an unusual auction and is uncertain if there were any irregularities, and asks for protection. The director at first states that she would want to back the entire auction up to the 2D opening bid. South replies "It's your call, if that's what you to do, my intention was to ask for protection if there were any irregularity. The director replies, "Oh OK, if it was protection you wanted, OK". South leads a club from a doubleton, board comes down with doubleton spade, Kxx in hearts, KJ diamonds, AQxxxx. She states as she is laying down the dummy, that she forgot they were playing Flannery, and that her intention was to further the preempt. 3NT turns out to be cold, the field is in 4H down 2, and N/S is stuck with a bottom. The director is called, and the director rediscusses the bidding, hears the comments and states that she really can't allow a cold top to E/W, that she should give Avg to NS/EW. She, being unfamiliar with Flannery, calls over another club director and states the situation, and then all of a sudden there is a committee. (No one requested one). The committee hears the bidding, comments and all, and then rules that the results stand. When questioned as to the rationale, a committee member replies "It's a fix". No question in my mind that W acted properly, believing in a diamond suit by E. I don't remember the hand, but looking at it I thought that I might give 3NT a try not knowing what the 3D bid was. E acted entirely properly, the ethics of the situation precludes her from correctly to 4H. So, is it just a fix? Do you allow the result stand without penalty, and what is your rationale? Thanks a bunch Finesse914@aol.com Laura Brown From owner-bridge-laws Sat Mar 8 23:25:09 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA16063 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 8 Mar 1997 23:25:09 +1000 Received: from tom.compulink.co.uk (tom.compulink.co.uk [194.153.0.51]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id XAA16058 for ; Sat, 8 Mar 1997 23:25:00 +1000 Received: (from root@localhost) by tom.compulink.co.uk (8.8.4/8.6.9) id NAA22491 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Sat, 8 Mar 1997 13:24:36 GMT Date: Sat, 8 Mar 97 13:23 GMT0 From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: The curse of Buxton To: newsr@blakjak.demon.co.uk, bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Cc: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Reply-To: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Message-Id: Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In-Reply-To: David Stevenson > Tim West-meads wrote: > > >Well my first ruling is to fine the "nice lady" 2MP from the next table for > >misboarding (assuming she was North). This is standard practice at the > clubs >where I play and everyone seems to accept it. > > Great. Let us know the clubs where you play so that we can avoid them > like the plague. Mostly the Young Chelsea in London, where admittedly nice little ladies are at something of a premium:-). The general view seems to be that misboardings are careless, discourteous and cause unnecessary problems at the next table - automatic penalties reinforce this view. > > You fine nice little ladies for dropping a card on the floor? What do > you do if they revoke? Shoot them? Apply Law 61etc. I couldn't find any reference to a director's right to impose the death penalty (though more than a few might have wished for it at times). Tim West-Meads From owner-bridge-laws Sun Mar 9 04:19:59 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA19243 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 9 Mar 1997 04:19:59 +1000 Received: from pip.dknet.dk (root@pip.dknet.dk [193.88.44.48]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id EAA19232 for ; Sun, 9 Mar 1997 04:19:49 +1000 Received: from cph62.ppp.dknet.dk (cph62.ppp.dknet.dk [194.192.100.62]) by pip.dknet.dk (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id TAA05551 for ; Sat, 8 Mar 1997 19:19:42 +0100 From: Jesper Dybdal To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: L46B5 Date: Sat, 08 Mar 1997 19:19:38 +0100 Organization: at home Message-ID: <3325a4b2.8644560@pipmail.dknet.dk> References: <199703080047.TAA08224@cfa183.harvard.edu> In-Reply-To: <199703080047.TAA08224@cfa183.harvard.edu> X-Mailer: Forte Agent .99g/32.339 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Fri, 7 Mar 1997 19:47:44 -0500, willner@cfa183.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) wrote: >Are there official translations of the Laws into other languages? If >so, I'd be interested in how this Law reads. The meaning seems to >depend critically on the meaning of the verb. I note that the word >used is much less active than alternatives like name, call out, select, >or specify, any of which might have been chosen. In L46B5 of the Danish version, the word "n=E6vne", which means "mention", has been used for "designate". I also believe this to be the correct interpretation. This is not only a matter of formal interpretation of the wording of the law; I believe there is some sense in the difference between L46B2 and L46B5. When I say "heart, please" without specifying the rank, I typically have a definite intention of playing the lowest heart - I am not indicating indifference as to which heart is played. L46B2 reflects that typical intention. On the other hand, when a player says "play anything", he is indicating that it does not matter to him which card is played. In this case, L46B5 makes sense, also when only one suit is legal. --=20 Jesper Dybdal, Denmark From owner-bridge-laws Sun Mar 9 04:19:58 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA19242 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 9 Mar 1997 04:19:58 +1000 Received: from pip.dknet.dk (root@pip.dknet.dk [193.88.44.48]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id EAA19233 for ; Sun, 9 Mar 1997 04:19:50 +1000 Received: from cph62.ppp.dknet.dk (cph62.ppp.dknet.dk [194.192.100.62]) by pip.dknet.dk (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id TAA05557 for ; Sat, 8 Mar 1997 19:19:44 +0100 From: Jesper Dybdal To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: L12 Date: Sat, 08 Mar 1997 19:19:41 +0100 Organization: at home Message-ID: <3324a4ad.8639903@pipmail.dknet.dk> References: <199703061650.LAA07587@cfa183.harvard.edu> In-Reply-To: <199703061650.LAA07587@cfa183.harvard.edu> X-Mailer: Forte Agent .99g/32.339 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Thu, 6 Mar 1997 11:50:51 -0500, willner@cfa183.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) wrote: >Jesper's example -- an illegal 2D opening -- seems to me to fall into >the same category. I would much prefer a ruling based on L12C2, the TD >giving the non-offenders a favorable contract based on seeing both >hands. (An AC might want to delve into the non-offenders' actual >bidding methods.) In the actual case, seeing "both" hands would not be enough - you'd need all four. Other tables had results ranging from -800 to +1100 on that board, so to use L12C2 you would have to artificially construct a competitive auction completely - I wouldn't like to try. >The actual ruling under L12C1 may be poor bridge >judgment -- of course we would have to have full details to say -- but >it doesn't seem to be illegal. I haven't got the full details either. --=20 Jesper Dybdal, Denmark From owner-bridge-laws Sun Mar 9 06:18:00 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA19629 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 9 Mar 1997 06:18:00 +1000 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 GAA19624 for ; Sun, 9 Mar 1997 06:17:54 +1000 Received: from mail1.isys.net[193.96.224.33] by mail.hamburg.netsurf.de with smtp (Smail 3.2 #2 -iSYS-); id m0w3SYn-000HOaC; Sat, 8 Mar 1997 21:17:41 +0100 (MET) Received: from meckwell [194.195.202.242] by mail1.isys.net with smtp (Smail 3.2 #3 -iSYS-); id m0w3SYu-001L7zC; Sat, 8 Mar 1997 21:17:48 +0100 (MET) Date: Sat, 8 Mar 1997 21:20:23 +0100 (CET) From: Henk Uijterwaal X-Sender: henk@meckwell Reply-To: Henk Uijterwaal To: Finesse914@aol.com cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: How do you rule? In-Reply-To: <970308004106_2096246843@emout20.mail.aol.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Sat, 8 Mar 1997 Finesse914@aol.com wrote: > Here's a situation that I found very interesting from a ruling standpoint and > a disappointment from the player standpoint. To say up front, E W (E > especially) > were very ethical in the situation, I had no problem with the ethics: > > E S W N > 2D P 3D P (1) > 3N P(2) P P > > (1) North asks West what 2D was. She replies: "It's Flannery" (very calmly). > There was no alert of the 2D bid. > (2) South asks what 3D would mean in the Flannery sequence. (North/South > don't play Flannery). West replies, it's shows a diamond suit. South asks if > it is forcing or > not forcing, West replies "it's just a suit". I assume that east answered south's question. > So, is it just a fix? Do you allow the result stand without penalty, and what > is your rationale? If I understand all this correctly, then west forgot that EW played Flannery when she bid 3D, but suddenly remembered the convention after north's question. In that case, there is no infraction and hence no reason for an adjusted score. NS are entitled to a correct explanation of the EW agreements, which is what they got. No law forces east to bid according to their agreements, the 3D is, admittedly a somewhat bizarre, psych. Score stands. 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 Sun Mar 9 09:36:12 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA20019 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 9 Mar 1997 09:36:12 +1000 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 JAA20014 for ; Sun, 9 Mar 1997 09:36:06 +1000 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by relay-5.mail.demon.net id aa0520940; 8 Mar 97 23:27 GMT Message-ID: <7VPf1AAfVfIzEwio@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Sat, 8 Mar 1997 23:25:19 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: L46B5 In-Reply-To: <199703080047.TAA08224@cfa183.harvard.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Steve Willner wrote: >> From: David Stevenson >> The point that is clear both from using L46A as a definition and using >> this dictionary is that to designate something is a positive action: >> declarer nominates the suit, or he names it, or whatever. > >This, of course, is the crux of the matter. What does it take to >"designate" a suit? In particular, does leading a card to which >dummy must follow "designate" the suit that declarer intends for >dummy to play? > >There is no doubt that naming the suit is sufficient to designate it. >The question is whether it is also necessary (in the mathematical >sense). It is difficult to see an alternative within the meaning ascribed to the word "designate" by the language and the confines of the Laws. >L46A uses the verbs "calling" and "state." The use of "designate" in >L46B suggests that something else is meant. L46A [heading] uses "designate". The reason that the Law does not use the term "designate" is clearly that L46A is telling you the proper way to designate a card: in fact the heading tells you so. >My Merriam-Webster includes the following definitions (among others): >specify; stipulate; to indicate and set apart for a specific purpose, >office, or duty; denote. I am not very keen on "(among others)": when I quoted from the dictionary I gave all the definitions so that readers could judge for themselves. Anyway, this will do. How does declarer "specify" a card? By naming it, of course. >Perhaps it's a matter of local custom, but around here nobody objects >if declarer routinely fails to name the suit when dummy must follow. >The inference is that people believe the suit already has been >designated, even though it has not been named or called. And this misconception is at the heart of the incorrect arguments proposed in various posts. The Laws give a proper form for designating, and *say so*. They clearly accept that people will often not follow that proper form. Without a Nazi-style regime that is obvious. So they go on to tell you what to do when the proper form is not followed. If you lead the heart two from hand, LHO follows small, and you say "queen" then you clearly and unambiguously have *not* used the proper form, which *requires* you to state a suit and a rank [read L46A {below} if you do not believe me]. If you have not used the proper form, then L46B applies: it is an incomplete or erroneous call. You apply L46B3B, and surprise, surprise, it makes no difference: you are required to follow suit so L46B3B says the heart queen must be played. >If you accept this custom and interpretation, L45B5 still has a >sensible interpretation, but it applies only when dummy is on play or >about to discard. The custom is fine: like many places throughout the world, L46B3B is applied routinely. The interpretation is clearly faulty. >Are there official translations of the Laws into other languages? If >so, I'd be interested in how this Law reads. The meaning seems to >depend critically on the meaning of the verb. I note that the word >used is much less active than alternatives like name, call out, select, >or specify, any of which might have been chosen. Designate is a more active term than name: call out and select seem irrelevant: even specify has a slightly different meaning. However, I believe that the following is clear: Law 46 - Incomplete or Erroneous Call of Card from Dummy A. Proper Form for Designating Dummy's Card When calling a card to be played from dummy, declarer should clearly state both the suit and the rank of the desired card. Now you tell me how saying "queen" is the proper form under this 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 Sun Mar 9 16:04:09 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id QAA20731 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 9 Mar 1997 16:04:09 +1000 Received: from lionfish.jcu.edu.au (lionfish.jcu.edu.au [137.219.16.119]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id QAA20726 for ; Sun, 9 Mar 1997 16:04:01 +1000 Received: from localhost by lionfish.jcu.edu.au with SMTP id AA09134 (5.65v3.2/IDA-1.5); Sun, 9 Mar 1997 16:03:37 +1000 Date: Sun, 9 Mar 1997 16:03:36 +1000 (EST) From: Laurence Kelso1 To: David Stevenson Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: L46B5 In-Reply-To: <7VPf1AAfVfIzEwio@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Sat, 8 Mar 1997, David Stevenson wrote: > Steve Willner wrote: > > >> From: David Stevenson > >> The point that is clear both from using L46A as a definition and using > >> this dictionary is that to designate something is a positive action: > >> declarer nominates the suit, or he names it, or whatever. > > > >This, of course, is the crux of the matter. What does it take to > >"designate" a suit? In particular, does leading a card to which > >dummy must follow "designate" the suit that declarer intends for > >dummy to play? > > > >There is no doubt that naming the suit is sufficient to designate it. > >The question is whether it is also necessary (in the mathematical > >sense). > > It is difficult to see an alternative within the meaning ascribed to > the word "designate" by the language and the confines of the Laws. > > >L46A uses the verbs "calling" and "state." The use of "designate" in > >L46B suggests that something else is meant. > > L46A [heading] uses "designate". The reason that the Law does not use > the term "designate" is clearly that L46A is telling you the proper way > to designate a card: in fact the heading tells you so. > > >My Merriam-Webster includes the following definitions (among others): > >specify; stipulate; to indicate and set apart for a specific purpose, > >office, or duty; denote. > > I am not very keen on "(among others)": when I quoted from the > dictionary I gave all the definitions so that readers could judge for > themselves. > > Anyway, this will do. How does declarer "specify" a card? By naming > it, of course. > > >Perhaps it's a matter of local custom, but around here nobody objects > >if declarer routinely fails to name the suit when dummy must follow. > >The inference is that people believe the suit already has been > >designated, even though it has not been named or called. > > And this misconception is at the heart of the incorrect arguments > proposed in various posts. The Laws give a proper form for designating, > and *say so*. They clearly accept that people will often not follow > that proper form. Without a Nazi-style regime that is obvious. So they > go on to tell you what to do when the proper form is not followed. If > you lead the heart two from hand, LHO follows small, and you say "queen" > then you clearly and unambiguously have *not* used the proper form, > which *requires* you to state a suit and a rank [read L46A {below} if > you do not believe me]. > > If you have not used the proper form, then L46B applies: it is an > incomplete or erroneous call. You apply L46B3B, and surprise, surprise, > it makes no difference: you are required to follow suit so L46B3B says > the heart queen must be played. > > >If you accept this custom and interpretation, L45B5 still has a > >sensible interpretation, but it applies only when dummy is on play or > >about to discard. > > The custom is fine: like many places throughout the world, L46B3B is > applied routinely. The interpretation is clearly faulty. > > >Are there official translations of the Laws into other languages? If > >so, I'd be interested in how this Law reads. The meaning seems to > >depend critically on the meaning of the verb. Having posed the original question, I'm with David in believing that L46B5 is the appropriate Law and that designate means stating verbally both suit and rank. For those that believe that a suit has already been designated by declarer's act of leading it. Let me draw your attention to L45C4(b) and ask what other forms of "inadvertant designation" would you allow to be corrected? Also would you apply this to cards played from hands other than dummy? (I think Not!) Laurie From owner-bridge-laws Mon Mar 10 09:08:35 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA25691 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 10 Mar 1997 09:08:35 +1000 Received: from smtp2.erols.com (smtp2.erols.com [205.252.116.102]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id JAA25686 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 1997 09:08:28 +1000 Received: from hdavis.erols.com (spg-as48s46.erols.com [207.172.41.118]) by smtp2.erols.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id SAA29269 for ; Sun, 9 Mar 1997 18:08:22 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.32.19970309180909.006980cc@pop.erols.com> X-Sender: hdavis@pop.erols.com (Unverified) X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0 (32) Date: Sun, 09 Mar 1997 18:09:11 -0500 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Hirsch Davis Subject: Re: L46B5 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 07:19 PM 3/8/97 +0100, you wrote: [snip] >When I say "heart, please" without specifying the rank, I typically >have a definite intention of playing the lowest heart - I am not >indicating indifference as to which heart is played. L46B2 reflects >that typical intention. > >On the other hand, when a player says "play anything", he is >indicating that it does not matter to him which card is played. In >this case, L46B5 makes sense, also when only one suit is legal. >-- >Jesper Dybdal, Denmark > > Your second paragraph is not necessarily true. Declarer's "play anything" may be contrued as meaning he is indifferent to which of the cards is played from dummy from among those that it is legal for him to play. It has been pointed out that the header in Law 46B indicated that the restrictions apply "except where declarer's different intent is incontrovertible". It has been suggested, and I concur, that declarer's intent not to revoke can be considered incontrovertible intent to follow suit. Accordingly, when we lead a suit from hand, and call a card without specifying the suit, that is usually considered a legal play, even though it does not follow the form in L46A. Declarer's intent is incontrovertible, so play procedes. The same occurs when a defender leads a suit. Declarer calls a card from dummy, often specifying only the rank, but not the suit. However, since intent to follow suit is once again incontrovertible, the play is allowed. I have never taken a director's call in either of these situations, has anyone? If we allow that declarer has an incontrovertible intention to follow suit, then the command "play anything" once a suit that the dummy must play has been established means that only the rank has not been designated. Accordingly, L46B2 governs the situation. The assertion the L46B5 may be applicable here only makes sense if we allow that declarer may in fact intend to revoke, a stipulation that I find hard to accept. See also L44C, which stipulates that a player must follow suit if possible, and also states that "This obligation takes precedence over all other requirements of these Laws". This wording is sufficiently strong that I believe that it establishes Declarer's intent to follow suit in Dummy, and is sufficient to designate a suit within the requirements of the Laws, even though proper form has not been followed. Just to look at a different situation, suppose that declarer is out of the led suit in Dummy, and again calls "play anything". However, Dummy is down to only one side suit, which must be played since there is no other. The presence of only a single suit in Dummy is an accident of the cards, and is not sufficient to establish Declarers intent to play the suit IMO, even though no choice is available. In this case, since Declarer cannot play the designated suit, I believe that neither suit nor rank has been designated, and L46B5 gives the selection of card to be played to the defense. Hirsch From owner-bridge-laws Mon Mar 10 21:11:12 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id VAA27457 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 10 Mar 1997 21:11:12 +1000 Received: from mail.be.innet.net (mail.be.innet.net [194.7.1.8]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id VAA27452 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 1997 21:11:06 +1000 Received: from innet.innet.be (pool03-212.innet.be [194.7.10.212]) by mail.be.innet.net (8.7.6/8.7.3) with SMTP id MAA09852 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 1997 12:11:01 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: <3322B12C.322F@innet.be> Date: Sun, 09 Mar 1997 12:46:36 +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: L46B5 References: <199703080047.TAA08224@cfa183.harvard.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Steve Willner wrote: > > Are there official translations of the Laws into other languages? If > so, I'd be interested in how this Law reads. The meaning seems to > depend critically on the meaning of the verb. I note that the word > used is much less active than alternatives like name, call out, select, > or specify, any of which might have been chosen. There are NO official translations of the Laws in other Languages. Whenever a problem arises, the National Authority should always refer to the English Original in order to find the correct meaning. So you should not try and resolve an English Language problem by looking at translations, rather the reverse. Besides, as we all know and the dutch translator found out recently, the English language is far richer than any other. Read the introduction on the different verbs does, shall, should, must, etc. No other language has such a range. So the English language must remain our only point of reference. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.club.innet.be/~pub02163/index.htm From owner-bridge-laws Tue Mar 11 00:20:30 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA00491 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 11 Mar 1997 00:20:30 +1000 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 AAA00486 for ; Tue, 11 Mar 1997 00:20:19 +1000 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 JAA13862 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 1997 09:20:14 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <1.5.4.32.19970310142051.006aba24@cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.4 (32) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Mon, 10 Mar 1997 09:20:51 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: L46B5 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk After (appropriately, IMO) taking Steve to task for his overly literal reading of L40, David now seems to be making the same mistake with respect to L46. I grant that a strictly literal reading of L46 does suggest that the precise specification in L46A would determine the applicability of either L46B2 or L46B5 (in the same way that a strictly literal reading of L40E2 suggests that reading opp's CC out of turn is not addressed). But I believe that this is neither the intent of the lawmakers nor the common interpretation of L46. When a club is led and dummy must follow suit, it just isn't credible that the writers of L46 intended that the play of the remainder of the hand should be different depending on whether declarer says "anything" or "any club". I am sure that not one declarer in 1000 (perhaps not even one TD in 1000) would ever even imagine that this insignificant difference in choice of words, whose meaning, in context, is obviously identical, could possibly effect the outcome of a deal. Eric Landau elandau@cais.com APL Solutions, Inc. elandau@acm.org 1107 Dale Drive (301) 589-4621 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 From owner-bridge-laws Tue Mar 11 00:41:17 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA00589 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 11 Mar 1997 00:41:17 +1000 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 AAA00584 for ; Tue, 11 Mar 1997 00:41:09 +1000 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by relay-11.mail.demon.net id ab1108902; 10 Mar 97 14:29 GMT Message-ID: Date: Mon, 10 Mar 1997 14:27:48 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: L46B5 In-Reply-To: <3.0.32.19970309180909.006980cc@pop.erols.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Hirsch Davis wrote: >At 07:19 PM 3/8/97 +0100, you wrote: > >[snip] > >>When I say "heart, please" without specifying the rank, I typically >>have a definite intention of playing the lowest heart - I am not >>indicating indifference as to which heart is played. L46B2 reflects >>that typical intention. >> >>On the other hand, when a player says "play anything", he is >>indicating that it does not matter to him which card is played. In >>this case, L46B5 makes sense, also when only one suit is legal. >>-- >>Jesper Dybdal, Denmark >> >> > >Your second paragraph is not necessarily true. Declarer's "play anything" >may be contrued as meaning he is indifferent to which of the cards is >played from dummy from among those that it is legal for him to play. It has >been pointed out that the header in Law 46B indicated that the restrictions >apply "except where declarer's different intent is incontrovertible". It >has been suggested, and I concur, that declarer's intent not to revoke can >be considered incontrovertible intent to follow suit. Accordingly, when we >lead a suit from hand, and call a card without specifying the suit, that is >usually considered a legal play, even though it does not follow the form in >L46A. Declarer's intent is incontrovertible, so play procedes. The same >occurs when a defender leads a suit. Declarer calls a card from dummy, >often specifying only the rank, but not the suit. However, since intent to >follow suit is once again incontrovertible, the play is allowed. I have >never taken a director's call in either of these situations, has anyone? I do not see that it is legal even though it does not follow the form in L46A. L46A tells you the correct way to designate: not to follow it is not legal. The bit about declarer's different intention is incontrovertible is quite irrelevant: if you say queen after leading a club then L46B3B tells you that is the queen of clubs. And why does it tell you this? If your approach was correct then this would not be a necessary Law, would it? >If we allow that declarer has an incontrovertible intention to follow suit, >then the command "play anything" once a suit that the dummy must play has >been established means that only the rank has not been designated. >Accordingly, L46B2 governs the situation. The assertion the L46B5 may be >applicable here only makes sense if we allow that declarer may in fact >intend to revoke, a stipulation that I find hard to accept. See also L44C, >which stipulates that a player must follow suit if possible, and also >states that "This obligation takes precedence over all other requirements >of these Laws". This wording is sufficiently strong that I believe that it >establishes Declarer's intent to follow suit in Dummy, and is sufficient to >designate a suit within the requirements of the Laws, even though proper >form has not been followed. It is hard to see the point of this complication of a simple situation. The Law talks about declarer designating, ie naming. The Laws don't name anything. >Just to look at a different situation, suppose that declarer is out of the >led suit in Dummy, and again calls "play anything". However, Dummy is down >to only one side suit, which must be played since there is no other. The >presence of only a single suit in Dummy is an accident of the cards, and is >not sufficient to establish Declarers intent to play the suit IMO, even >though no choice is available. In this case, since Declarer cannot play >the designated suit, I believe that neither suit nor rank has been >designated, and L46B5 gives the selection of card to be played to the defense. Declarer cannot play the designated suit because there is no designated suit. It taxes credulity too far that the term play anything, after leading a club, means play any club when there are clubs in the dummy, but does not mean play any heart when there are only hearts in the dummy. --------- I realise that people have been surprised by this whole approach because they have been under a misapprehension, probably for some time, so I do think the time has come to go back to first principles. Read L46A. Note the heading. Now read L46B with an open mind, and remember what designate means. It is a positive action, is it 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 Tue Mar 11 01:44:39 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA00781 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 11 Mar 1997 01:44:39 +1000 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 BAA00776 for ; Tue, 11 Mar 1997 01:44:31 +1000 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 AA25916; Mon, 10 Mar 1997 10:44:25 -0500 Received: from localhost by Panoramix.UQSS.UQuebec.ca with SMTP (1.39.111.2/15.6) id AA188108662; Mon, 10 Mar 1997 10:44:23 -0500 X-Openmail-Hops: 1 Date: Mon, 10 Mar 97 10:44:04 -0500 Message-Id: Subject: L46B5 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 On previous message on Law 46, Willner wrote: Are there official translation of the Laws in other langages? In the old (1987) official french version (Federation francaise de bridge), Law 46A uses the terms "enoncer clairement a la fois la couleur et le rang" as the correct manner for dealer to designate the card payed by dummy. In french dictionnaries, "enoncer" means "express in net terms what we want to say". So the free translation from french to english should be: "Express clearly, in net terms, both the suit and the rank of the card played by the dummy". Cannot be more clear. In french, Law 46A says that the correct manner to designate a card is to express in net terms. If I say "play anything" it is quite evident for me that Law 46B5 applies. The declarer was far from expressing in "net terms" what he wants to say. No matter languages subtilities, I think it is the "spirit" of this law. Laval Du Breuil Quebec City From owner-bridge-laws Tue Mar 11 03:09:22 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA01535 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 11 Mar 1997 03:09:22 +1000 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 DAA01529 for ; Tue, 11 Mar 1997 03:09:15 +1000 Received: from catullus.agw.bt.co.uk by mailhub.axion.bt.co.uk with SMTP (PP); Mon, 10 Mar 1997 16:59:56 +0000 Received: from losgate.agw.bt.co.uk (losgate.agw.bt.co.uk [147.150.97.232]) by catullus.agw.bt.co.uk (8.8.3/8.8.3) with SMTP id QAA01546 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 1997 16:59:42 GMT Received: by losgate.agw.bt.co.uk with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Server Internet Mail Connector Version 4.0.994.63) id <01BC2D74.8A21F9F0@losgate.agw.bt.co.uk>; Mon, 10 Mar 1997 17:00:21 -0000 Message-ID: From: "Burn, David" To: "'Bridge Laws'" Subject: RE: L46B5 Date: Mon, 10 Mar 1997 16:58:20 -0000 X-Mailer: Microsoft Exchange Server Internet Mail Connector Version 4.0.994.63 Encoding: 31 TEXT Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Sometimes I am completely bewildered by the ability of this group to create storms of cataclysmic force in teacups barely large enough to accommodate a sugar lump. Of course, if declarer or a defender leads a club and dummy has some clubs, "play anything" means "play any club", not "revoke if you like." That being so, the defenders (severally but not jointly) have the right to specify which club ought to be played. To assert, as various people appear to be implying, that the defenders can now specify that dummy revokes, is...well, words rather fail me. Equally, to assert that declarer has designated a suit when he hasn't is...the power of speech has yet to return. As DWS has correctly pointed out, declarer has said something which (L46B5) gives the opponents the right to designate the play from dummy. But, since the requirement to follow suit takes precedence over all other requirements of the Laws (L44C), the defenders may exercise their choice only within the overriding constraint on dummy to play a club. This interpretation is consistent with: (a) the wording of the Laws; (b) the spirit of Law 46; (c) common sense. I therefore await Mr Stevenson's objections to it with interest :) David Burn From owner-bridge-laws Tue Mar 11 04:24:50 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA01908 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 11 Mar 1997 04:24:50 +1000 Received: from smtp2.erols.com (smtp2.erols.com [205.252.116.102]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id EAA01903 for ; Tue, 11 Mar 1997 04:24:44 +1000 Received: from hdavis.erols.com (spg-as46s10.erols.com [207.172.113.178]) by smtp2.erols.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id NAA15926 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 1997 13:24:38 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.32.19970310132530.006a26b4@pop.erols.com> X-Sender: hdavis@pop.erols.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0 (32) Date: Mon, 10 Mar 1997 13:25:32 -0500 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Hirsch Davis Subject: Re: L46B5 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 02:27 PM 3/10/97 +0000, David Stevenson wrote: [snip] > Read L46A. Note the heading. Now read L46B with an open mind, and >remember what designate means. It is a positive action, is it not? > >-- [snip] I think we're going to have to agree to disagree here. You also have to read the header to L46B with an open mind. While failure to state the suit is a violation of the form specified in L46A, we still cannot base a ruling on Declarer intending to revoke in Dummy. Is any Declarer going to have difficulty proving an incontrovertible intent to follow suit in Dummy as required by L44C? I hope not, particularly given the way people commonly specify their plays at the table today. Hirsch From owner-bridge-laws Tue Mar 11 08:17:03 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA02974 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 11 Mar 1997 08:17:03 +1000 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 IAA02969 for ; Tue, 11 Mar 1997 08:16:56 +1000 Received: from mail1.isys.net[193.96.224.33] by mail.hamburg.netsurf.de with smtp (Smail 3.2 #2 -iSYS-); id m0w4DN6-000HPSC; Mon, 10 Mar 1997 23:16:44 +0100 (MET) Received: from meckwell [194.195.202.87] by mail1.isys.net with smtp (Smail 3.2 #3 -iSYS-); id m0w4DNU-001L8RC; Mon, 10 Mar 1997 23:17:08 +0100 (MET) Date: Mon, 10 Mar 1997 23:19:15 +0100 (CET) From: Henk Uijterwaal X-Sender: henk@meckwell Reply-To: Henk Uijterwaal To: Herman De Wael cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Translations. In-Reply-To: <3322B12C.322F@innet.be> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Sun, 9 Mar 1997, Herman De Wael wrote: > Steve Willner wrote: > > Are there official translations of the Laws into other languages? If > > so, I'd be interested in how this Law reads. The meaning seems to > > depend critically on the meaning of the verb. I note that the word > > used is much less active than alternatives like name, call out, select, > > or specify, any of which might have been chosen. > There are NO official translations of the Laws in other Languages. We might have a different definition for "Official Translation", but IMHO, the Dutch lawbook IS an official translation of the 1987 Laws. The book was translated by a joint Dutch-Flemish committee and the result was approved, by the board of directors of the NBB and VBL, for general use at bridge tournaments in Holland and Belgium. So, I'd call this an "official translation". An "unofficial translation" would, IMHO, be somebody sitting down and doing an ad-hoc translation of the english text. And, FWIW, the Dutch-Flemish committee, did include several directors as well as professional translators. The same goes for the German translation. The translation isn't as good as the Dutch one (a few subtle points of the English text got lost in the translation), but it is still approved by the DBV as the official German lawbook to be used in DBV events. > Whenever a problem arises, the National Authority should always refer to > the English Original in order to find the correct meaning. I agree, it is, after all, a translation. > Besides, as we all know and the dutch translator found out recently, the > English language is far richer than any other. > Read the introduction on the different verbs does, shall, should, must, > etc. No other language has such a range. Well, they realized that back in 1987 (see the introduction) but also noted that there were several English words with multiple meanings, which required the translators to make a choice. The translators check with the WBF however. Finally, you can translate "does", "shall" etc into Dutch while preserving their meaning. It will require a bit more text though. 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 Wed Mar 12 01:45:36 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA08310 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 12 Mar 1997 01:45:36 +1000 Received: from pip.dknet.dk (root@pip.dknet.dk [193.88.44.48]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id BAA08305 for ; Wed, 12 Mar 1997 01:45:27 +1000 Received: from cph5.ppp.dknet.dk (cph5.ppp.dknet.dk [194.192.100.5]) by pip.dknet.dk (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id QAA13828 for ; Tue, 11 Mar 1997 16:45:17 +0100 From: Jesper Dybdal To: Bridge Laws List Subject: New L16A: "demonstrably" Date: Tue, 11 Mar 1997 16:45:11 +0100 Organization: at home Message-ID: <33267c0c.445380@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 In the new L16A, the words "... that could reasonably have been suggested over another ..." have been replaced by "... that could demonstrably have been suggested over another ..." I have just been reading the first draft of the translation of the new L16A to Danish. Trying to get an opinion about the translation, I realized that I don't really understand what the change in English mean. Does anyone have opinions as to what this change of words mean in reality? Are there hands where we should adjust by the old laws, but not by the new ones, or vice versa? What does "demonstrably" actually mean here? Does it just mean that the TD must be able to describe ("demonstrate") why he considers one alternative suggested over another? If so, I cannot see that it makes any real difference. --=20 Jesper Dybdal, Denmark From owner-bridge-laws Wed Mar 12 02:36:13 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA08688 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 12 Mar 1997 02:36:13 +1000 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 CAA08683 for ; Wed, 12 Mar 1997 02:36:05 +1000 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 LAA22403 for ; Tue, 11 Mar 1997 11:35:59 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <1.5.4.32.19970311163645.00697e60@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 Mar 1997 11:36:45 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: New L16A: "demonstrably" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 04:45 PM 3/11/97 +0100, Jesper wrote: >In the new L16A, the words > "... that could reasonably have been suggested over another ..." >have been replaced by > "... that could demonstrably have been suggested over another ..." > >I have just been reading the first draft of the translation of the new >L16A to Danish. Trying to get an opinion about the translation, I >realized that I don't really understand what the change in English >mean. > >Does anyone have opinions as to what this change of words mean in >reality? Are there hands where we should adjust by the old laws, but >not by the new ones, or vice versa? > >What does "demonstrably" actually mean here? Does it just mean that >the TD must be able to describe ("demonstrate") why he considers one >alternative suggested over another? If so, I cannot see that it makes >any real difference. "Demonstrably" is the much stronger term; something which is "reasonable" must be logical or possible, but not necessarily true, while something which is "demonstrable" must be true. So the condition for adjustment required by the new L16A is stronger than it was previously, and there will be hands which would have been adjusted previously that no longer should be. This is not a small change. I read it as roughly equivalent to changing "could have been suggested" to "was suggested". I suspect that what the writers had in mind was the treatment of auctions like 1S by partner, 2S by you, then, after a huddle, 3S by partner. At one time it was accepted interpretation that you were free to bid as you liked, since you had no way of knowing whether partner was considering passing 2S or bidding game on his own. But there has been a growing tendency for ACs to make adjustments on this auction on the grounds that if you guess correctly that constitutes prima facie evidence that you had (perhaps from prior experience with this partner) some idea of which of the alternatives partner's huddle was likely to suggest. I'd guess that the change in L16A was intended to preclude the latter interpretation, and make it clear that TDs and ACs should not adjust scores in these kinds of situations. Jesper: If you would like me to, I will post a copy of your message to the alt.usage.english newsgroup (in which I am a somewhat active participant), and forward any (useful) replies to you and/or BLML. /eric 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 Mar 12 07:02:53 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA09777 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 12 Mar 1997 07:02:53 +1000 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 HAA09767 for ; Wed, 12 Mar 1997 07:02:43 +1000 Received: from mail1.isys.net[193.96.224.33] by mail.hamburg.netsurf.de with smtp (Smail 3.2 #2 -iSYS-); id m0w4Ygs-000HQOC; Tue, 11 Mar 1997 22:02:34 +0100 (MET) Received: from meckwell [194.195.202.166] by mail1.isys.net with smtp (Smail 3.2 #3 -iSYS-); id m0w4YhP-001L8RC; Tue, 11 Mar 1997 22:03:07 +0100 (MET) Date: Tue, 11 Mar 1997 22:05:07 +0100 (CET) From: Henk Uijterwaal X-Sender: henk@meckwell Reply-To: Henk Uijterwaal To: Eric Landau cc: Bridge Laws Discussion List Subject: Re: New L16A: "demonstrably" In-Reply-To: <1.5.4.32.19970311163645.00697e60@cais.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Eric Landau wrote: > Jesper wrote: > > >In the new L16A, the words > > "... that could reasonably have been suggested over another ..." > >have been replaced by > > "... that could demonstrably have been suggested over another ..." Isn't it "demonstratably" rather than "demonstrably"? My spell checker doesn't like either one. > >What does "demonstrably" actually mean here? Does it just mean that > >the TD must be able to describe ("demonstrate") why he considers one > >alternative suggested over another? If so, I cannot see that it makes > >any real difference. > > "Demonstrably" is the much stronger term; something which is "reasonable" > must be logical or possible, but not necessarily true, while something which > is "demonstrable" must be true. I would consider "demonstrably" to be somewhere between "reasonably" and "was suggested", but not necessarily true. Suppose player A tries for a grand slam, partner B bids something, A signs off slowly and B bids the slam anyway. The TD is called. B agrees that there was UI but defends himself with something along the lines of "When partner tried for slam, I was always going to bid 7C, but showed kings just in case 7NT was possible". Under "Reasonable", the TD can adjust as soon as he thinks that passing is not illogical. If the text said "was suggested by the UI", then he'd have to prove that the statement of the player that he was always going to bid slam, was wrong. "Demonstrably" is, IMHO, somewhere in between. The TD(+opponents) doesn't have to prove anything about what the player thought when he bid, but he has to give convincing arguments that the UI suggested the bid. > I suspect that what the writers had in mind was the treatment of auctions > like 1S by partner, 2S by you, then, after a huddle, 3S by partner. At one > time it was accepted interpretation that you were free to bid as you liked, > since you had no way of knowing whether partner was considering passing 2S > or bidding game on his own. But there has been a growing tendency for ACs > to make adjustments on this auction on the grounds that if you guess > correctly that constitutes prima facie evidence that you had (perhaps from > prior experience with this partner) some idea of which of the alternatives > partner's huddle was likely to suggest. I'd guess that the change in L16A > was intended to preclude the latter interpretation, and make it clear that > TDs and ACs should not adjust scores in these kinds of situations. I think that this is a fine example. You cannot give convincing arguments that the UI suggested 4S (just reverse any argument and it works in favor of passing), so there cannot be an adjustment. 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 Wed Mar 12 07:58:43 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA10035 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 12 Mar 1997 07:58:43 +1000 Received: from irvine.com (flash.irvine.com [192.160.8.4]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id HAA10030 for ; Wed, 12 Mar 1997 07:58:38 +1000 Received: from localhost by flash.irvine.com id aa20227; 11 Mar 97 13:57 PST To: Bridge Laws Discussion List CC: adam@flash.irvine.com Subject: Re: New L16A: "demonstrably" In-reply-to: Your message of "Tue, 11 Mar 1997 22:05:07 PST." Date: Tue, 11 Mar 1997 13:57:49 PST From: Adam Beneschan Message-ID: <9703111357.aa20227@flash.irvine.com> Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Henk wrote: > Eric Landau wrote: > > > Jesper wrote: > > > > >In the new L16A, the words > > > "... that could reasonably have been suggested over another ..." > > >have been replaced by > > > "... that could demonstrably have been suggested over another ..." > > Isn't it "demonstratably" rather than "demonstrably"? My spell checker > doesn't like either one. "Demonstrably" is correct; it appears in Webster's Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary. -- Adam From owner-bridge-laws Wed Mar 12 09:23:54 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA10450 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 12 Mar 1997 09:23:54 +1000 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 JAA10445 for ; Wed, 12 Mar 1997 09:23:48 +1000 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by relay-10.mail.demon.net id aa1014725; 11 Mar 97 23:21 GMT Message-ID: Date: Tue, 11 Mar 1997 23:17:42 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: L46B5 In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Burn, David wrote: >This interpretation is consistent with: (a) the wording >of the Laws; (b) the spirit of Law 46; (c) common >sense. I therefore await Mr Stevenson's objections >to it with interest :) Perhaps you would like to explain to the awaiting multitude why I should be objecting when you agree with me? I am sure that they would all be intrigued to know. :)))))) -- 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 Mar 12 09:27:24 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA10467 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 12 Mar 1997 09:27:24 +1000 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 JAA10462 for ; Wed, 12 Mar 1997 09:27:18 +1000 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by relay-6.mail.demon.net id ab0618412; 11 Mar 97 23:21 GMT Message-ID: Date: Tue, 11 Mar 1997 23:16:29 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: ******** defence In-Reply-To: <331c0afd.2598005@pipmail.dknet.dk> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Jesper Dybdal wrote: >On Sun, 2 Mar 1997 21:42:52 +0000, David Stevenson > wrote: >> To use L12C1 when a result was obtained is illegal. > >I do not read L12C1 as saying that so clearly. > >L12C2 says: "When the Director awards an assigned adjusted score in >place of a result actually obtained ...". So we do agree that to use >L12C2 when a result was not obtained is illegal. > >On the other hand, L12C1 says: "When, owing to an irregularity, no >result can be obtained, ...". Note "can be obtained" rather than "has >been obtained". I believe that there are (a few) situations where: >- a result has been obtained, and >- that result cannot be used because it is very much influenced by an >irregularity, and >- the TD therefore needs to assign an adjusted score, and >- no result can (sensibly) be obtained by using L12C2. > >In this case, we do need L12C1. It is true that a result "has been" >obtained, but we need a new (adjusted) result, and that result cannot >be obtained by following L12C2. It seems to me that the requirements >for using L12C1 are present. > >I was asked for advice in such a case recently. > >A pair had been using an illegal convention, and the TD was called >after the auction when the opponents realized that they had reached a >bad contract because of the pre-emptive effect of this illegal >convention (a 2D opening that shows 0-6 hcp with unknown >distribution). The TD allowed play to continue, determined later that >the opponents had probably been damaged, and gave an artificial >assigned score of 60%/40% (+/- 3 IMPS - this was a teams match). > >At the other table, the offenders' team mates had a really good >result, and the TD now asked me whether he ought to have tried to >assign a L12C2 score instead. I told him that I believed he had done >the right thing, because it is totally impossible to assign a L12C2 >score when the irregularity ruins the auction completely and occurs >before even the first bid by the non-offenders; nobody could tell what >results might occur. So I'd say that "no result can be obtained", >assign 60%/40%, and consider it a legal L12C1 adjustment. > >On the other hand, I agree that this should be an unusual situation: >L12C1 should not be used just because using L12C2 gets a little >complicated. This is very sensible, and I agree. What I cannot see is why L12C1 gets used so frequently just because a TD/AC is not sure how the bidding would have gone. The example that set this thread off is a case in point: after 2C is doubled some players would pass on the next three hands: so where is the difficulty? Most of the hands that I have seen where A6040 has been applied seem to me to be caused by a simple failure to read L12C2. Where an illegal convention is used, the EBU have laid down a precedent that says that no result can be obtained [basically for the reasons you give] and A6040 results. But a normal UI situation rarely should be taxing the abilities of ACs and TDs because they are required to lean in a particular direction. In my view the only real reason to apply L6040 in such cases is because it is perceived sometimes to be fair: that's OK, but if so, why is the footnote to L12C2 that makes this legal not universal? It seems to me that certain authorities are confusing a simple matter considerably. -- 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 Mar 12 09:51:04 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA10576 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 12 Mar 1997 09:51:04 +1000 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 JAA10571 for ; Wed, 12 Mar 1997 09:50:59 +1000 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by relay-5.mail.demon.net id ab0524082; 11 Mar 97 23:21 GMT Message-ID: Date: Tue, 11 Mar 1997 23:17:28 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Rules of disclosure In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Labeo wrote: >I agree absolutely that an alert says "my partner's call is the subject >of a special understanding between us and its meaning is alertable >under the regulations governing play here and now". Are you sure? Personally, I would have said that an alert says "my partner's call is alertable under the regulations governing play here and now". If the regulations say that a call which is likely to be conventional requires an alert even when the player is not sure of the meaning, then surely he is required to alert? EBU regulations require this IMO. -- 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 Mar 12 10:01:08 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA10640 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 12 Mar 1997 10:01:08 +1000 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 KAA10634 for ; Wed, 12 Mar 1997 10:01:02 +1000 Received: from elizian.demon.co.uk ([158.152.48.63]) by relay-6.mail.demon.net id aa0601511; 11 Mar 97 23:51 GMT Message-ID: <$Z8QlJA09eJzEw7j@elizian.demon.co.uk> Date: Tue, 11 Mar 1997 23:49:08 +0000 To: Jesper Dybdal Cc: Bridge Laws List From: Ian Muir Subject: Re: New L16A: "demonstrably" In-Reply-To: <33267c0c.445380@pipmail.dknet.dk> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.00 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk >In the new L16A, the words > "... that could reasonably have been suggested over another ..." >have been replaced by > "... that could demonstrably have been suggested over another ..." > >What does "demonstrably" actually mean here? Does it just mean that >the TD must be able to describe ("demonstrate") why he considers one >alternative suggested over another? If so, I cannot see that it makes >any real difference. Ian Muir's first reply: (so have patience) >>> FOUR spelling mistakes so I am re-sending. Apologies. Chamber's English Dictionary (1990): "(adj.) demonstrable; that may be demonstrated: (adv.) demonstrably." The point is well made that it must be *shown*, not simply be a theoretical possibility. NEBA --- EBU --- BBL --- ??? Ian Muir From owner-bridge-laws Wed Mar 12 10:05:02 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA10671 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 12 Mar 1997 10:05:02 +1000 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 KAA10666 for ; Wed, 12 Mar 1997 10:04:56 +1000 Received: from elizian.demon.co.uk ([158.152.48.63]) by relay-11.mail.demon.net id aa1119405; 11 Mar 97 23:00 GMT Message-ID: Date: Tue, 11 Mar 1997 22:58:34 +0000 To: Jesper Dybdal Cc: Bridge Laws List From: Ian Muir Subject: Re: New L16A: "demonstrably" In-Reply-To: <33267c0c.445380@pipmail.dknet.dk> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.00 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk >In the new L16A, the words > "... that could reasonably have been suggested over another ..." >have been replaced by > "... that could demonstrably have been suggested over another ..." > >What does "demonstrably" actually mean here? Does it just mean that >the TD must be able to describe ("demonstrate") why he considers one >alternative suggested over another? If so, I cannot see that it makes >any real difference. Ian Muir's first reply: (so have patience) Cahmber's English Dictionary (1990): "(adj.) demonstable; that may be demonstrated: (adv.) demonstrably." The point is well made that is must be *shown*, not simply be a theoretical possiblity. NEBA --- EBU --- BBL --- ??? Ian Muir From owner-bridge-laws Wed Mar 12 10:37:39 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA10737 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 12 Mar 1997 10:37:39 +1000 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 KAA10732 for ; Wed, 12 Mar 1997 10:37:31 +1000 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by relay-5.mail.demon.net id aa0503253; 12 Mar 97 0:24 GMT Message-ID: Date: Wed, 12 Mar 1997 00:09:02 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: 1997 Laws [General] MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk This was originally posted in December. I am reposting it for anyone who may have missed it the first time, or who wants another look. It has been amended somewhat. It is always available on my WWW Bridge page at http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/brg_menu.htm. ******************************************************************** Amended paragraphs are shown thus. ******************************************************************** Before reading this article, I strongly advise you to read the article 1997 Laws in a separate thread in the same group/list. These are the changes that are not technical ones IMO, so they may affect you. The technical ones are in 1997 Laws [Technical] on BLML. ******************************************************************** The definition of Convention is a little strange: it seems to define a natural call as one willing to play there or showing length [at least three cards] or strength in the denomination [even though it does not use the word "natural"], then define a convention as any other call. The full definition is given in 1997 Laws - Technical. ******************************************************************** There have been a few arguments about "the footnote to L12C2", which gave Appeals Committees but not Tournament Directors the right to adjust an assigned adjusted score to do equity. Since this did not appear in American Law books, nor in several others around the world, its existence was doubted. It will now appear as a new section, L12C3, but it is a Zonal option. People like myself will be extremely disappointed that it has not been extended to Tournament Directors. There is no other change to adjusted scores, except that an average minus can be less than 40%. The first major change concerns Unauthorised Information. When a player on the offending side withdraws a call or play, previously his partner was allowed to use such information, after any penalty. In the new Laws, he is not allowed to. Suppose your partner leads out of turn when it is declarer's lead, and before anything else happens, declarer leads himself. Your partner's card can be withdrawn without penalty [L53C]. At the moment you are allowed to use the knowledge that he wanted to make that lead: in the new Laws it is forbidden [L16C2]. Have you ever asked a question about a bid not made? RHO opens 4C, showing hearts, and you ask what a 4H bid would have shown. Bloody- minded players have always tried to avoid answering, because you are not asking about the actual sequence. It has long been a bone of contention. Now you are allowed to ask such a question: it specifically says so in the new L20F1. Incidentally, has anyone ever said that you are not allowed to ask questions about individual bids? Many read L20F1 as saying so, though there has been no attempt to enforce this: the new Law makes it clear that individual questions are permitted. If you try to change an inadvertent call without pause for thought, the advent of bidding boxes has complicated the time factor. What happens if you only realise you have made the wrong call some time afterwards, when you look down and see it [yes, I have passed my partner's Precision club before now!]? What happens if LHO has called? CHO? RHO? Dummy has appeared? Discussions earlier this year on BLML discovered that some allow no changes after LHO has called, and in one case a change was allowed after dummy had appeared! The discussion concluded that until partner called seemed fair, and the new L25A has legalised this. ******************************************************************** Unfortunately if you try to change your call too late, or deliberately because you have changed your mind, you use L25B. The same time problems occur: however the Lawmakers have made a very late change, and decided that you may not change after LHO calls. Different countries have had different views as to what the TD should do if someone asks whether they can change their call: the new Laws clearly permits this change. *** ******************************************************************** Much of this very complex Law is unchanged: as previously, a player offers his new call: the next player can accept it. If he doesn't, the player can choose whether to go back to the original call and silence partner, or pick another call [yes, it can be a third call!] This section is unchanged: so far. Now for the new bit: if this last occurs, then the player who changed his call is now playing for a maximum of 40% on the board, although his opponents can get whatever they get. Directors [and Scorers] are going to love this one! ******************************************************************** If someone attempts to change an insufficient bid under L25B some countries allow either the insufficient bid or the substituted bid to be accepted: some do not. The ACBL added their own footnote, not in European Law books, so that the insufficient bid could be accepted, but not the substituted bid. In the new L25B1 the footnote appears somewhat altered with the effect of the current ACBL practice, so that only the insufficient bid may be accepted. ******************************************************************** A simple change to insufficient bids: currently you cannot correct an insufficient conventional bid without incurring a penalty: in future you will not be allowed to correct an insufficient natural bid without incurring a penalty either, *if* the correction would be to a bid that would normally be conventional. If this is not clear: you bid 1D over 1NT. Currently you may bid 2D without penalty if the 1D is natural: in future you will only be allowed to if both the 1D and the 2D are both natural [L27B1A]. Another one for the bloody-minded: if three cards have been played to a trick and declarer calls for a card from dummy by saying "High" or something, then the defence can no longer insist he wastes a big card: it is assumed that he means the smallest winning card [L46B1]. L47E had a couple of anomalies: if an opponent had given you misinformation you could change your play even if it did not affect you! This is no longer the case. Occasionally you could retract your opening lead after seeing dummy: this also no longer applies. Also if you tell an opponent that it is his lead when it is not he has always been allowed to retract it: it has been noted that you should not accept it! If the Zonal authority does not allow defenders to ask each other "Having none?" [currently the case in Europe but not North America: L61B has a Zonal option] then the question establishes the revoke through L63A4, a Law that does not appear in ACBL Law books. In the new Laws it becomes L63B: the revoke is not established, ie the player must substitute a legal card, but the penalty is applied as though the revoke is established. New L72B1 Proprieties: Infraction of Law: Adjusted Score Whenever the Director deems that an offender could have known at the time of his irregularity that the irregularity would be likely to damage the non-offending side, he shall require the auction and play to continue, afterwards awarding an adjusted score if he considers that the offending side gained an advantage through the irregularity. One of the great changes in the 1987 Laws was to introduce the concept of "could have known" so that a Director who suspected some malpractice did not have to produce proof positive that there was no other explanation before giving an adjusted score. He no longer had to say "You are cheating so I am adjusting the score": in some circumstances he could say "You have made a call/play that could have been based on ..., so I am required to adjust, even though you may not have done anything untoward." It appeared in various places such as L23. In the new Laws this above generalised Law now means that the principle applies in *every* situation. NOTE: All quotations from, comments on or digests of the 1997 Laws are based on a "final draft copy" in the writer's possession. At the time of writing this draft copy has not been approved by all the regulatory bodies involved so no guarantee is given that it is in fact the same as the Law book will be when it is officially published. -- David Stevenson 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 Mar 12 10:40:53 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA10770 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 12 Mar 1997 10:40:53 +1000 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 KAA10765 for ; Wed, 12 Mar 1997 10:40:48 +1000 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by relay-5.mail.demon.net id ab0524047; 11 Mar 97 23:21 GMT Message-ID: Date: Tue, 11 Mar 1997 23:16:47 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Rules of disclosure [WAS: ******** defence] In-Reply-To: <9703061249.AA16007@laplace.math.ntu.edu.tw> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk B.Y. wrote: > I fail to see the logic. If the opponents have a right to >know, then you disclose and UI be damned ... partner is not allowed to >take advantage, and you have avoided giving MISinformation. If the >opponents have no right to know, then it is *unethical* for me to tell >them just because it won't do them any harm. As far as I can discern, >according to the Laws of Duplicate Bridge I am not at liberty to give >my opponents gratuitous information or otherwise reveal my hand just >because I feel like it. Possibly not, but few would take you to task for doing so when you are declarer. Mind you, just because nothing in the Laws allows it, suggesting it is unethical seems to be putting it a bit high. If you tell the opponents something when you are declarer, and it is not misleading, but perfectly true, it is difficult to see what Law is going to be applied to you to shut you up! -- 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 Mar 12 10:54:03 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA10860 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 12 Mar 1997 10:54:03 +1000 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 KAA10855 for ; Wed, 12 Mar 1997 10:53:56 +1000 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by relay-11.mail.demon.net id aa1127139; 12 Mar 97 0:24 GMT Message-ID: Date: Wed, 12 Mar 1997 00:17:51 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: 1997 Laws [Technical] MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk This was originally posted in December. I am reposting it for anyone who may have missed it the first time, or who wants another look. It has been amended somewhat. It is always available on my WWW Bridge page at http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/brg_menu.htm. ******************************************************************** Amended paragraphs are shown thus. ******************************************************************** Before reading this article, I strongly advise you to read the article 1997 Laws in a separate thread in the same group/list. These are the changes that are technical ones IMO. All other changes, apart from changes that merely clean up the wording or are trivial, are in 1997 Laws [General] in a separate thread. ******************************************************************** Definition of Convention A call that, by partnership agreement, conveys a meaning other than willingness to play in the denomination named (or in the last denomination named), or highcard strength or length (three cards or more) there. However, an agreement as to overall strength does not make a call a convention. ******************************************************************** ******************************************************************** The definition of Convention is strange: it seems to define a natural call as one willing to play there or showing length [at least three cards] or strength in the denomination [even though it does not use the word "natural"], then define a convention as any other call. At first sight it seems that sponsoring organisations will not be allowed to regulate an opening bid of 1S that shows the ace of spades since this is not conventional! ******************************************************************** The definition of session, which has been discussed extensively in BLML, has become a number of boards, specified by the sponsoring organisation, which probably solves the problems we discussed. Shuffling and dealing has changed somewhat: nothing that really matters, unless you count the fact that dealing clockwise becomes "recommended" [L6]. There was a section, namely L11B, which never quite did what was intended, since it said that any call or play by the other side meant no penalty could be imposed. It was regularly ignored, because there are many situations where it clearly could not apply. This section has been deleted. In L13, where the bidding has started with the wrong number of cards the TD will be empowered to let it continue in cases where it clearly does not matter to do so. L17D dealt with playing with the cards from the wrong board. It is still in the wrong place [it has nothing to do with the rest of L17] but a totally confusing Law has been cleaned up and made easier for the TD. L18E is a new one that appears to legalise bidding boxes [and written bidding] for bids, but not for passes or doubles or redoubles! Actually, it is just in the wrong place, and it is a technical Law only. The infamous L23B [Damaging Pass at Partner's Turn] has disappeared. while L23A [Damaging Enforced Pass] is still there, both of these are really covered by the new L72B1 discussed in 1997 Laws [General]. L40E2 now has a footnote allowing defences to unusual methods to be referred to at the table: this legalises what is happening when HUMs are played. L50 now makes it clear that a Major Penalty card is unauthorised information for partner, except for the fact that partner has to play it. A face-up opening lead out of turn is treated as the lead even if there is a face-down one in turn [L54]. The revoke Law for trick 12 sometimes gave declarer a lucky advantage: this has now been taken away [L62D2]. L70E disallows finesses and so on after claims, but there is a new bit allowing finesses if the play would be irrational otherwise. L73 has a few small but significant changes: the list of ways partner can give unauthorised information in L73C is not exhaustive: this is made clear. L73D1 accepts that variations in tempo do occur. L73E adds the words "or experience" after concealed partnership understanding to disallow deception based thereon. L73F2 no longer refers to a "deceptive" remark or whatever, but a remark for which there is no demonstrable bridge reason. These technical differences probably make this Law easier to apply. It has even become illegal to address a Director in a discourteous way [L74B5]: sorry fellas! Breaches of Propriety have now become Violations of Procedure [L74C]. A new L80G makes the sponsoring organisation responsible for arranging appeals. L83 gives the TD the right to refer matters to "the appropriate committee" on his own initiative. L92 now allows for the correction period for appeals and rulings to be different from that for errors of score in L79C, and allows for penalties for appeals without merit, thus legalising things that happen now. Note L81C6 refers to the TD taking action on events within the L79C correction period not the L92 one. L93 has a special Zonal option for different appeal methods. The new Law book has two Appendices, one of which is Special Conditions Pertaining to the Use of Screens, the other WBF Bidding Box Procedures for use without screens. I understand that these are highly recommended but not required. Certainly the Bidding Box procedures are at variance with current EBU/WBU procedures in that a call is made when the cards are removed from the box with apparent intent. NOTE: All quotations from, comments on or digests of the 1997 Laws are based on a "final draft copy" in the writer's possession. At the time of writing this draft copy has not been approved by all the regulatory bodies involved so no guarantee is given that it is in fact the same as the Law book will be when it is officially published. -- David Stevenson 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 Mar 12 11:09:50 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id LAA10921 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 12 Mar 1997 11:09:50 +1000 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 LAA10916 for ; Wed, 12 Mar 1997 11:09:40 +1000 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by relay-11.mail.demon.net id ab1121473; 11 Mar 97 23:21 GMT Message-ID: Date: Tue, 11 Mar 1997 23:15:48 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: The curse of Buxton In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.01 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? North was in breach of L7B1 since he did not have 13 cards. The WBF's intended and stated policy is to make the recipient of a hand responsible for ensuring it has 13 cards, so despite TWM's diatribe against the nice LOL, North is clearly responsible. Do we fine him? No, we have no evidence to show that he is a habitual offender. L14 refers to a hand with a deficient card: unfortunately it does not apply after the end of the play. The Lawmakers appear not to have intended this, since the 1997 Laws will change this so that L14 will apply, but that Law book does not apply yet. Accordingly we cannot use it. What about the revoke? Did he revoke? Law 44 - Sequence and Procedure of Play C. Requirement to Follow Suit In playing to a trick, each player must follow suit if possible. This obligation takes precedence over all other requirements of these Laws. It was possible for him to follow suit: he could have counted his cards at that moment, discovered he was one short, searched, found the card and played it. So it was possible: so he was required to: a failure to follow suit as required under this Law is a revoke per L61A. Of course, there are no automatic penalty tricks for a revoke when attention was first drawn after the start of the next deal [L64B4] merely the catchall L64C to restore equity: Law 64 - Procedure after Establishment of a Revoke C. Director Responsible for Equity When, after any established revoke, including those not subject to penalty, the Director deems that the non-offending side is insufficiently compensated by this Law for the damage caused, he shall assign an adjusted score. Well? What this means is that if a player who revoked would have made ten tricks without the revoke, then L64C gives his opponents at least three tricks, whether there are any penalty ticks to be transferred or not. If he had not revoked then presumably he would have finessed in diamonds twice [no other play making sense] to make eleven tricks. He did make eleven tricks, so L64C does not affect the outcome. -------- We have a claim and acquiescence. Reading L69A shows there was acquiescence, since each side has made a call on a subsequent board, but the opponents may make an attempt to withdraw acquiescence under L69B, since it is within the Correction Period. Law 69 - Acquiescence in Claim or Concession B. Acquiescence in Claim Withdrawn Within the correction period established in accordance with Law 79C, a contestant may withdraw acquiescence in an opponent's claim, but only if he has acquiesced in the loss of a trick his side has actually won, or in the loss of trick that could not, in the Director's judgement, be lost by any normal** play of the remaining cards. The board is rescored with such trick awarded to the acquiescing side. ** For the purposes of Laws 69, 70, and 71, ``normal'' includes play that would be careless or inferior for the class of player involved, but not irrational. Their side have not acquiesced in the loss of a trick their side has actually won, so have they acquiesced in the loss of a trick that could not be lost by any normal play of the remaining cards? At the moment of the claim, the cards were: S 10743 H - D A C [9] S - S Q H 6 H J10 D K76 D 9 C KQ C J4 S - H 875 D - C 1087 ... even though no-one realised it! One possible normal play with the West hand is to keep the club honours to the death since the whole hand seems irrelevant, so the defence get an extra trick under L69B. -------- How will this be different under the new Law book? Law 14 - Missing Card A. Hand Found Deficient Before Play Commences [s] B. Hand Found Deficient Afterwards When three hands are correct and the fourth is found to be deficient after the play period begins, the Director makes a search for any missing card, and: 1. Card Is Found (a) If a card is found among the played cards, Law 67 applies. (b) If a card is found elsewhere, it is restored to the deficient hand, and penalties may apply (see 3., following). [s] 3. Possible Penalties A card restored to a hand under the provisions of Section B of this law is deemed to have belonged continuously to the deficient hand. It may become a penalty card (Law 50), and failure to have played it may constitute a revoke. The revoke is still out of time for penalty tricks. In fact the effect is - no change whatever! It just saves searching through the exact wording of L44C to make sure that it was a revoke. -- 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 Mar 12 11:28:44 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id LAA11020 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 12 Mar 1997 11:28:44 +1000 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 LAA11015 for ; Wed, 12 Mar 1997 11:28:39 +1000 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by relay-6.mail.demon.net id aa0614415; 12 Mar 97 0:24 GMT Message-ID: Date: Tue, 11 Mar 1997 23:54:48 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: 1997 Laws MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk This was originally posted in December. I am reposting it for anyone who may have missed it the first time, or who wants another look. It has been amended [very slightly]. It is always available on my WWW Bridge page at http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/brg_menu.htm. Sometime in 1997 a new Law book will come into use. In the ACBL it is expected in late May. How will this affect you? In many ways, not as much as you might think. Play will still go clockwise, and Bridge will still be a game for four players. :))) The Laws of Bridge are produced by the World Bridge Federation [WBF] and are used throughout the world. Over the last few months, I have seen a number of references to the ACBL Laws [or some term that means the same] but this is a misapprehension. These are international Laws. There are a few Laws [very few] that allow Zonal options, and interpretation is not quite the same throughout the world, and the Laws are translated into other countries, but there is only one set of Laws worldwide. These are the Laws of Duplicate Bridge. Rubber Bridge has its own Law book, also world-wide, and it tends to be revised in between Duplicate Laws revisions, so the next Rubber Law book should appear in about 2002. The first thing to note about these new Laws is that a majority are the same. In fact the Law numbers are the same, Law 25 remaining as Law 25, except occasionally a new section has been added or one deleted. A quick glance at the new Law book would probably lead one to think it was unchanged, but this is far from the truth. There are a lot of minor revisions, and I shall not mention them much, because there is little interest in attempts to clean up wording. I shall try to bring to your attention the changes that seem most important. Below I list the most important changes. For many of you this will be sufficient. However, I have produced two other documents. One is called 1997 Laws [General] and lists all the other changes that I believe will interest RGBers. It expands the list below and gives a few other non-technical changes. The other is called 1997 Laws [Technical] and I do not believe it will be of general interest. I have copied this document to RGBO, RGB and BLML. 1997 Laws [General] I have copied to RGB and BLML, but I do not think it would interest members of RGBO. 1997 Laws [Technical] I have only sent to BLML. If you think that I should have posted elsewhere then tell me. If you want a copy of any of them then tell me and I shall send you one. If you want to subscribe to any of the groups/lists either let me know, and I shall explain how to subscribe, or look at my Homepage http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk which explains how to subscribe and what the groups/lists are. The most important changes are: Unauthorised Information: when a call or play is withdrawn by the offending side the information of that call or play is and remains unauthorised [not so under the current Laws]. You can ask questions about individual calls in the auction, and about other relevant calls that could have been made but were not. If you change an inadvertent call without pause for thought, that is OK, so long as partner has not called. But if you attempt to change it otherwise, a dreadfully complicated Law comes into effect, and you may find yourself playing for a maximum on the board of 40%! Insufficient bids cannot be corrected without penalty if the corrected bid would normally be conventional. One for the Europeans: if you establish a revoke by a defender asking "Having none?" the card is corrected, but the penalty still applies; in the ACBL this is not illegal at the moment. If an offender could have known it was to his advantage then a TD can adjust in any situation: he does not need to accuse anyone of cheating: he just adjusts. NOTE: All quotations from, comments on or digests of the 1997 Laws are based on a "final draft copy" in the writer's possession. At the time of writing this draft copy has not been approved by all the regulatory bodies involved so no guarantee is given that it is in fact the same as the Law book will be when it is officially published. -- David Stevenson 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 Mar 12 12:00:18 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id MAA11116 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 12 Mar 1997 12:00:18 +1000 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 MAA11111 for ; Wed, 12 Mar 1997 12:00:11 +1000 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by relay-10.mail.demon.net id aa1015841; 12 Mar 97 0:25 GMT Message-ID: Date: Wed, 12 Mar 1997 00:24:57 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: L46B5 In-Reply-To: <1.5.4.32.19970310142051.006aba24@cais.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Eric Landau wrote: >After (appropriately, IMO) taking Steve to task for his overly literal >reading of L40, David now seems to be making the same mistake with respect >to L46. I grant that a strictly literal reading of L46 does suggest that >the precise specification in L46A would determine the applicability of >either L46B2 or L46B5 (in the same way that a strictly literal reading of >L40E2 suggests that reading opp's CC out of turn is not addressed). But I >believe that this is neither the intent of the lawmakers nor the common >interpretation of L46. While I agree with the logic, I disagree with the facts. The situation in L40 was that we had to divine the Lawmakers' intention from the wording even though it was not totally unambiguous. Here we have to work out between two possibilities, both of which are credible. Given that, I would accept there might be a case for the alternative interpretation if it was either [a] what everyone believed or [b] what everyone thought the law obviously meant. In the current case, I do not believe either. >When a club is led and dummy must follow suit, it just isn't credible that >the writers of L46 intended that the play of the remainder of the hand >should be different depending on whether declarer says "anything" or "any >club". I am sure that not one declarer in 1000 (perhaps not even one TD in >1000) would ever even imagine that this insignificant difference in choice >of words, whose meaning, in context, is obviously identical, could possibly >effect the outcome of a deal. Sounds good, Eric. Unfortunately the lawmakers have it right, and you have it wrong, and I don't believe I am 1 in a 1000, either. If I play a card from dummy, and I say "heart", then I mean a small heart. If I play a card from the dummy, and I say "play anything", then I mean "play anything legal". That IMO is what the lawmakers mean, and I think it is a more commonly held view than yours. Just for comparison, let's point out what you are claiming. If you play a card from dummy, and you say "heart", then you mean a small heart. If you play a card from the dummy, without needing to follow suit, and you say "play anything", then you mean "play anything legal". If you play a card from the dummy, needing to follow suit, and you say "play anything", then you mean "play the smallest legal card". It does not make any sense, Eric. -- 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 Mar 12 12:26:38 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id MAA11265 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 12 Mar 1997 12:26:38 +1000 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 MAA11260 for ; Wed, 12 Mar 1997 12:26:30 +1000 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by relay-11.mail.demon.net id aa1127137; 12 Mar 97 0:24 GMT Message-ID: Date: Wed, 12 Mar 1997 00:18:21 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: L46B5 In-Reply-To: <3.0.32.19970310132530.006a26b4@pop.erols.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Hirsch Davis wrote: >At 02:27 PM 3/10/97 +0000, David Stevenson wrote: > > >[snip] >> Read L46A. Note the heading. Now read L46B with an open mind, and >>remember what designate means. It is a positive action, is it not? >> >>-- >[snip] > >I think we're going to have to agree to disagree here. You also have to >read the header to L46B with an open mind. While failure to state the >suit is a violation of the form specified in L46A, we still cannot base a >ruling on Declarer intending to revoke in Dummy. Is any Declarer going to >have difficulty proving an incontrovertible intent to follow suit in Dummy >as required by L44C? I hope not, particularly given the way people >commonly specify their plays at the table today. I HAVE NOT SUGGESTED A RULING BASED ON ANY INTENTION TO REVOKE BY DECLARE IN DUMMY. For goodness' sake, please re-read the earlier posts. It is a completely stupid suggestion that any ruling or interpretation would be based on a revoke by dummy. -- 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 Mar 12 20:00:35 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id UAA12401 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 12 Mar 1997 20:00:35 +1000 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 UAA12396 for ; Wed, 12 Mar 1997 20:00:24 +1000 Received: from elizian.demon.co.uk ([158.152.48.63]) by relay-11.mail.demon.net id aa1112202; 12 Mar 97 9:51 GMT Message-ID: Date: Wed, 12 Mar 1997 09:47:32 +0000 To: David Stevenson Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Ian Muir Subject: Re: The curse of Buxton In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.00 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In message , David Stevenson writes > > The revoke is still out of time for penalty tricks. In fact the >effect is - no change whatever! It just saves searching through the >exact wording of L44C to make sure that it was a revoke. > The definitive solution to The Curse of Buxton and entirely without the aid of Malt Whisky. Quite remarkable! Well done David. Can I have my Law Book back now? :-) NEBA --- EBU --- BBL --- ??? Ian Muir From owner-bridge-laws Wed Mar 12 20:23:09 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id UAA12534 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 12 Mar 1997 20:23:09 +1000 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 UAA12529 for ; Wed, 12 Mar 1997 20:23:02 +1000 Received: from elizian.demon.co.uk ([158.152.48.63]) by relay-11.mail.demon.net id aa1112212; 12 Mar 97 9:51 GMT Message-ID: Date: Wed, 12 Mar 1997 09:39:09 +0000 To: David Stevenson Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Ian Muir Subject: Re: L46B5 In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.00 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In message , David Stevenson writes >Burn, David wrote: > >>This interpretation is consistent with: (a) the wording >>of the Laws; (b) the spirit of Law 46; (c) common >>sense. I therefore await Mr Stevenson's objections >>to it with interest :) > >David Stevenson wrote: > > Perhaps you would like to explain to the awaiting multitude why I >should be objecting when you agree with me? I am sure that they would >all be intrigued to know. :)))))) > This is obvious; anything which David (Burn) finds to be transparently correct, is inevitably bound to be dissected, criticised and shot down in flames by David (Stevenson) ... except for this one, in which I support the English view. The precedence of L:44.C is beyond dispute, with 2 exceptions:- 1: "There are no facts, only shared opinions" (Anon.) 2: Law:0 _The Objective of The Game_ It is the responsiblity of all players, Director and other persons involved in Duplicate Contract Bridge to *enjoy* themselves. NEBA --- EBU --- BBL --- ??? Ian Muir From owner-bridge-laws Wed Mar 12 23:49:56 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA13156 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 12 Mar 1997 23:49:56 +1000 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 XAA13151 for ; Wed, 12 Mar 1997 23:49:41 +1000 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 IAA01143 for ; Wed, 12 Mar 1997 08:49:35 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <1.5.4.32.19970312135028.0069a344@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, 12 Mar 1997 08:50:28 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: New L16A: "demonstrably" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 10:05 PM 3/11/97 +0100, Henk wrote: >Isn't it "demonstratably" rather than "demonstrably"? My spell checker >doesn't like either one. American Heritage Dictionary gives: "demonstrable (adj): Capable of being shown or proved. - demonstrably (adv)." "Demonstratably" isn't even in my unabridged, although it's an obvious synonym. >I would consider "demonstrably" to be somewhere between "reasonably" and >"was suggested", but not necessarily true. Surely something that's "capable of being proved" must be true by definition. >Suppose player A tries for a grand slam, partner B bids something, A >signs off slowly and B bids the slam anyway. The TD is called. B agrees >that there was UI but defends himself with something along the lines of >"When partner tried for slam, I was always going to bid 7C, but showed >kings just in case 7NT was possible". > >Under "Reasonable", the TD can adjust as soon as he thinks that passing >is not illogical. If the text said "was suggested by the UI", then >he'd have to prove that the statement of the player that he was always >going to bid slam, was wrong. "Demonstrably" is, IMHO, somewhere in >between. The TD(+opponents) doesn't have to prove anything about what the >player thought when he bid, but he has to give convincing arguments that >the UI suggested the bid. Henk and I agree that the TD/AC needn't prove anything about what the player was thinking; I suspect we're differing only about semantics. "Henk, I suggest you continue to participate actively in BLML." By writing the previous sentence, I have demonstrably suggested a course of action to Henk, notwithstanding the fact that it is undoubtedly what he would have done anyhow had I not made the suggestion. So I'll stick to my guns; L16A now allows adjustments only if the action in question "was suggested", as opposed to "might have been suggested", in particular if the player had had additional information (such as about partner's "huddling tendencies"). >> I suspect that what the writers had in mind was the treatment of auctions >> like 1S by partner, 2S by you, then, after a huddle, 3S by partner. At one >> time it was accepted interpretation that you were free to bid as you liked, >> since you had no way of knowing whether partner was considering passing 2S >> or bidding game on his own. But there has been a growing tendency for ACs >> to make adjustments on this auction on the grounds that if you guess >> correctly that constitutes prima facie evidence that you had (perhaps from >> prior experience with this partner) some idea of which of the alternatives >> partner's huddle was likely to suggest. I'd guess that the change in L16A >> was intended to preclude the latter interpretation, and make it clear that >> TDs and ACs should not adjust scores in these kinds of situations. > >I think that this is a fine example. You cannot give convincing arguments >that the UI suggested 4S (just reverse any argument and it works in favor >of passing), so there cannot be an adjustment. Well, there could be an adjustment in the above scenario. But with the new wording, the TD/AC would need to show ("demonstrably", such as by producing a record of prior instances) that the player DID have such knowledge of partner's "huddling tendencies", rather than merely "might have". 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 Mar 13 01:26:27 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA15812 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 13 Mar 1997 01:26:27 +1000 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 BAA15807 for ; Thu, 13 Mar 1997 01:26:01 +1000 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 KAA13719 for ; Wed, 12 Mar 1997 10:25:48 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <1.5.4.32.19970312152641.006aa248@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, 12 Mar 1997 10:26:41 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: L46B5 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 12:24 AM 3/12/97 +0000, David wrote: > Sounds good, Eric. Unfortunately the lawmakers have it right, and you >have it wrong, and I don't believe I am 1 in a 1000, either. > > If I play a card from dummy, and I say "heart", then I mean a small >heart. > > If I play a card from the dummy, and I say "play anything", then I >mean "play anything legal". > > That IMO is what the lawmakers mean, and I think it is a more commonly >held view than yours. > > Just for comparison, let's point out what you are claiming. > > If you play a card from dummy, and you say "heart", then you mean a >small heart. > > If you play a card from the dummy, without needing to follow suit, and >you say "play anything", then you mean "play anything legal". > > If you play a card from the dummy, needing to follow suit, and you say >"play anything", then you mean "play the smallest legal card". > > It does not make any sense, Eric. I'll try to make sense of it. If I say "play a heart" I do not mean "play a small heart"; I mean "play any heart". It is L46B2, not my intention, that tells us that when I mean for any heart to be played, the smallest one actually gets played. If I must follow suit with a heart, and I say "play anything", I mean "play anything legal" (just as David does); the question at issue is not my intended meaning, but rather whether or not L46 now tells us to play the smallest one. Now, if I really meant "play anything", I would be giving dummy "permission" to revoke. Were that the case, L46B5 would apply, the opponents would be able to "designate the play from dummy", and (since L46B5 says nothing about "legal cards") they would be able to call for a revoke, since that was within the scope of my statement. But it's not the case; we agree that "play anything" does carry the meaning of "play anything legal". My "different intention", i.e. my intention to select my play only from among legal cards (not to revoke), is "incontrovertable" within the meaning of L46B. Dummy is required by my statement to play a legal card, which incontrovertably means that he must follow suit, which incontrovertably means that he must play a heart. Granted, I didn't say "play a heart", and what I did say, "play anything", does indeed constitute a "different intention". I argue that once we grant that my "different intention" to play a legal card is "incontrovertable", it must follow that my intention to follow suit, i.e. to play a heart, is equally "incontrovertable". In that case, L46B tells us to apply L46B2 rather than L46B5. The counterargument seems to be that L46A requires declarer to "clearly state.. the suit", so that the application of L46B is governed by whether or not the word "heart" was actually used. But I think (I hope) that we would all agree that, had my actual words been "follow suit", that would have been a clear statement of the suit to be played, without my actually having used the word "heart". Once we accept that "play anything" really means "play anything legal", we must accept that it equally clearly means "follow suit". Thus my argument that we should apply L46B2 rather than L46B5 rests only on the claim that "play anything legal" and "follow suit" are "incontrovertably" equivalent statements. 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 Mar 13 02:26:00 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA16183 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 13 Mar 1997 02:26:00 +1000 Received: from mail.be.innet.net (mail.be.innet.net [194.7.1.8]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id CAA16178 for ; Thu, 13 Mar 1997 02:25:53 +1000 Received: from innet.innet.be (pool03-10.innet.be [194.7.10.10]) by mail.be.innet.net (8.7.6/8.7.3) with SMTP id RAA03103 for ; Wed, 12 Mar 1997 17:25:30 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: <3326ACE8.2D76@innet.be> Date: Wed, 12 Mar 1997 13:17:28 +0000 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01 (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: New L16A: "demonstrably" References: <33267c0c.445380@pipmail.dknet.dk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Jesper Dybdal wrote: > > In the new L16A, the words > "... that could reasonably have been suggested over another ..." > have been replaced by > "... that could demonstrably have been suggested over another ..." > > I have just been reading the first draft of the translation of the new > L16A to Danish. Trying to get an opinion about the translation, I > realized that I don't really understand what the change in English > mean. > > Does anyone have opinions as to what this change of words mean in > reality? Are there hands where we should adjust by the old laws, but > not by the new ones, or vice versa? > > What does "demonstrably" actually mean here? Does it just mean that > the TD must be able to describe ("demonstrate") why he considers one > alternative suggested over another? If so, I cannot see that it makes > any real difference. > -- > Jesper Dybdal, Denmark Perhaps an appeal case from last sunday can prove helpful : the bidding went : W N E S 1NT p 2D (15-17 & transfer) p ..2H p 3H p 4H all pass +1 EW complained about the 3H bid after the hesitant 2H and the TD returned the score to 2H+3. Before the AC, south was able to convince the committee members that he was always going to bid on. However, the AC noticed that he held a 2542 shape and asked him why he bid 3H and not 2NT. A mistake, based on my two doubletons, he said. So the AC decided that 3H might have been suggested over 2NT by the UI and gave an AS of 3H+2 (north held 15 HCP and 4H and had bid 4H because of an expected 6th heart in south). Would we agree that this ruling would be the same under the new Law ? We should then use an argument such as : - since the UI shows more than 2 hearts, it can be demonstrated that a 3H bid (normally showing 6 cards) is suggested over the LA of 2NT. I believe in the New Law there must be such a "proof" before the "demonstrable" becomes true. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.club.innet.be/~pub02163/index.htm From owner-bridge-laws Thu Mar 13 07:20:31 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA17569 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 13 Mar 1997 07:20:31 +1000 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 HAA17564 for ; Thu, 13 Mar 1997 07:20:24 +1000 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by relay-6.mail.demon.net id ab0616911; 12 Mar 97 20:41 GMT Message-ID: Date: Wed, 12 Mar 1997 13:37:29 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: L46B5 In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Ian Muir wrote: >This is obvious; anything which David (Burn) finds to be transparently >correct, is inevitably bound to be dissected, criticised and shot down >in flames by David (Stevenson) ... except for this one, in which I >support the English view. The precedence of L:44.C is beyond dispute, >with 2 exceptions:- > >1: "There are no facts, only shared opinions" (Anon.) > >2: Law:0 > _The Objective of The Game_ >It is the responsiblity of all players, Director and other persons >involved in Duplicate Contract Bridge to *enjoy* themselves. I should like to apologise to the other 145 of you. It was I, unthinkingly, who gave Ian Muir the address of this mailing list. Mea culpa. -- 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 Mar 13 07:40:20 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA17854 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 13 Mar 1997 07:40:20 +1000 Received: from emout18.mail.aol.com (emout18.mx.aol.com [198.81.11.44]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id HAA17849; Thu, 13 Mar 1997 07:40:13 +1000 From: OAdamec@aol.com Received: (from root@localhost) by emout18.mail.aol.com (8.7.6/8.7.3/AOL-2.0.0) id QAA07790; Wed, 12 Mar 1997 16:39:34 -0500 (EST) Date: Wed, 12 Mar 1997 16:39:34 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <970312163629_-1572822588@emout18.mail.aol.com> To: owner-bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au, bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au (bridgelawsdiscussionlist) Subject: Re: New L16A: "demonstrably" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Eric Landau wrote: "I suspect that what the writers had in mind was the treatment of auctions like..." The hand and auction that brought about the rule change came up in the NAC in Miami. It was extensively commented on the Appeals Book called "Miami Vice" edited by Kokish & Colker. In the current ACBL Bulletin, March 1997, p.23 in an article by Gary Blaise the hand comes up again to demonstrate the change in Law 16, and leads to some strong language by Blaise. Here is North's hand: S - AK H - AKJ108543 D - 107 C - 6 The auction: RHO starts with 3c, this hand bids 4H, next hand bids 5C, partner of above gives it a good huddle and passes, and now North hand bids 5H. Blaise says: If you are North's opponents. "Do you call the director? I suggest that if you do, you have not tried to see the situation from North's point of view. Try to win by skill, flair and luck - not by going "court" to see what you can get even when your side was not disadvantaged by an irregularity." Earlier in the article Blaise says: The rule change "is an attempt to have results determined by bridge equity and skill at the bridge table rather than by skill at litigation." At the NAC apparently the same hand caused the same hesitation, pass and pull at 5 tables. Two of the were appealed and came to committee. The same committee ruled on both of them. In the "Miami Vice" book many panelists and Kokish/Colker commented on the Committee rulings. What do you think? Otto From owner-bridge-laws Thu Mar 13 18:10:57 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id SAA20310 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 13 Mar 1997 18:10:57 +1000 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 SAA20305 for ; Thu, 13 Mar 1997 18:10:49 +1000 Received: from casewise.demon.co.uk ([158.152.187.206]) by relay-10.mail.demon.net id aa1020060; 13 Mar 97 7:56 GMT Received: by bridge.casewise.demon.co.uk with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Server Internet Mail Connector Version 4.0.994.63) id <01BC2F09.7A207590@bridge.casewise.demon.co.uk>; Wed, 12 Mar 1997 17:19:00 -0000 Message-ID: From: David Martin To: "'bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au'" Subject: FW: L46B5 Date: Wed, 12 Mar 1997 17:18:56 -0000 X-Mailer: Microsoft Exchange Server Internet Mail Connector Version 4.0.994.63 Encoding: 17 TEXT Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk >>Burn, David wrote: >> >>>This interpretation is consistent with: (a) the wording >>>of the Laws; (b) the spirit of Law 46; (c) common >>>sense. I therefore await Mr Stevenson's objections >>>to it with interest :) >> >>David Stevenson wrote: >> >> Perhaps you would like to explain to the awaiting multitude why I >>should be objecting when you agree with me? I am sure that they would >>all be intrigued to know. :)))))) >> What's worrying me is that I find myself totally in agreement with TWO other Davids simultaneously! From owner-bridge-laws Thu Mar 13 23:45:36 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA21466 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 13 Mar 1997 23:45:36 +1000 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 XAA21461 for ; Thu, 13 Mar 1997 23:45:27 +1000 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 IAA18674 for ; Thu, 13 Mar 1997 08:45:21 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <1.5.4.32.19970313134621.00696fdc@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, 13 Mar 1997 08:46:21 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: New L16A: "demonstrably" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 04:39 PM 3/12/97 -0500, Otto wrote: >The hand and auction that brought about the rule change came up >in the NAC in Miami. It was extensively commented on the Appeals >Book called "Miami Vice" edited by Kokish & Colker. > >In the current ACBL Bulletin, March 1997, p.23 in an article >by Gary Blaise the hand comes up again to demonstrate the >change in Law 16, and leads to some strong language by Blaise. > >Here is North's hand: >S - AK H - AKJ108543 D - 107 C - 6 > >The auction: RHO starts with 3c, this hand bids 4H, next hand >bids 5C, partner of above gives it a good huddle and passes, >and now North hand bids 5H. > >Blaise says: If you are North's opponents. >"Do you call the director? I suggest that if you do, you have >not tried to see the situation from North's point of view. >Try to win by skill, flair and luck - not by going "court" >to see what you can get even when your side was not disadvantaged >by an irregularity." > >Earlier in the article Blaise says: >The rule change "is an attempt to have results determined by >bridge equity and skill at the bridge table rather than by >skill at litigation." > >At the NAC apparently the same hand caused the same hesitation, >pass and pull at 5 tables. Two of the were appealed and came >to committee. The same committee ruled on both of them. >In the "Miami Vice" book many panelists and Kokish/Colker >commented on the Committee rulings. > >What do you think? I think that: (1) This is an excellent example of the point of the law change. (2) The two pairs who took this hand to a committee when 5H turned out to be the winning call would have just as readily gone to committee had N doubled and double turned out to be the winning call. (3) Even under the old law, I would allow 5H to stand. (4) There are, however, others who would disagree, and reverse 5H. Had N doubled and double turned out to be the winning call, they would, applying the same logic, reverse the double. (5) The law change makes it clear that (lacking clear evidence that this particular S's huddle suggested 5H over double to this particular N) 5H should stand. (I have not read the Miami appeals book, and have no idea what actually happened in committee; Mr. Blaiss's article in the Bulletin doesn't tell us.) 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 Mar 14 07:03:43 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA25553 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 14 Mar 1997 07:03:43 +1000 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 HAA25548 for ; Fri, 14 Mar 1997 07:03:35 +1000 Received: from coruncanius.demon.co.uk ([194.222.115.176]) by relay-10.mail.demon.net id aa1027964; 13 Mar 97 20:22 GMT Message-ID: Date: Thu, 13 Mar 1997 20:18:55 +0000 To: "G. R. Bower" Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Labeo Subject: Re: The Other Set of Laws In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In message , "G. R. Bower" writes > >With all of the recent fuss over some changes to the duplicate >laws -- are any changes being made to the Laws of (Rubber) >Contract Bridge, too? > Labeo: rubber bridge laws are changed at a different time from the duplicate laws and are not regarded as connected - two 'different' games. I believe the Portland Club would like to bring the two sets of laws into sync, but this urge is not noticeably present in the WBF Laws Committee. Labeo From owner-bridge-laws Fri Mar 14 08:42:47 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA26102 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 14 Mar 1997 08:42:47 +1000 Received: from emout02.mail.aol.com (emout02.mx.aol.com [198.81.11.93]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id IAA26097 for ; Fri, 14 Mar 1997 08:42:41 +1000 From: KRAllison@aol.com Received: (from root@localhost) by emout02.mail.aol.com (8.7.6/8.7.3/AOL-2.0.0) id RAA26635; Thu, 13 Mar 1997 17:42:03 -0500 (EST) Date: Thu, 13 Mar 1997 17:42:03 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <970313174124_1516928168@emout02.mail.aol.com> To: Labeo@coruncanius.demon.co.uk, fsgrb@aurora.alaska.edu cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: The Other Set of Laws Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk >>Labeo: rubber bridge laws are changed at a different time from the duplicate laws and are not regarded as connected - two 'different' games. I believe the Portland Club would like to bring the two sets of laws into sync, but this urge is not noticeably present in the WBF Laws Committee.<< In fact, the ACBL Laws Commission, represented by the Drafting Committee, makes a definite effort to keep the two sets of Laws as much in synch as possible, bearing in mind the essential differences between duplicate and rubber bridge. There is an offset of approximately five years's duration between editions of the two Laws books. If you looked at editions of the Rubber Bridge Laws up to now,. you would likely see the approach of those towards the Contract Bridge Laws.. Karen From owner-bridge-laws Fri Mar 14 08:58:16 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA26163 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 14 Mar 1997 08:58:16 +1000 Received: from msri.org (msri.org [198.129.64.224]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id IAA26158 for ; Fri, 14 Mar 1997 08:58:09 +1000 Received: (from smap@localhost) by msri.org (8.8.2/8.7.2) id OAA22881 for ; Thu, 13 Mar 1997 14:58:22 -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 sma022879; Thu Mar 13 14:58:11 1997 Received: by euclid.msri.org (8.7/MSRI) id OAA06307; Thu, 13 Mar 1997 14:45:06 -0800 (PST) To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: ACBL to limit score adjustments to 1/4 board? From: David Grabiner Date: 13 Mar 1997 14:45:05 -0800 Message-ID: Lines: 49 X-Mailer: Gnus v5.3/Emacs 19.34 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk The following policy appears in the NABC Daily Bulletin from the ACBL board meeting highlights. Does anyone know anything about the background for this proposal? Effective July 24, 1997 and after input from the C&C Committee and approval from the National Laws Commission, the Board will consider the following during the Summer meeting: In cases other than KO teams, where someone is found to have committed an offense that causes damage, a score adjustment is limited to one-fourth of a board or 3 IMPs, as appropriate, each way in equal amounts. Depending on the severity of the infraction, a procedural penalty shall be assessed to the offending side according to guidelines that will be submitted prior to approval. Additionally, if the Appeals Committee decides the appeal is unjustified, it will also assess a procedural penalty of one-fourth of a board or 3 IMPs, as appropriate. This seems to be an attempt to prevent players from making unreasonable gains with adjusted scores, but it is much too strong. As it is written, this says that if your opponents use unauthorized information to get a top, you can only get a 25% board after adjustment. The opponents may be given a procedural penalty to get the bottom that they deserve, but it won't help you. And for even this to work, the procedural penalty has to cover the difference, which may require a penalty out of proportion to the offense. If you have a misunderstanding in a complex situation and there is misinformation or unauthorized information leading to a top-to-bottom swing, will the director or committee impose a 3/4-board penalty? The policy also isn't consistent with the Laws; Law 12C2 says that the non-offending side receives "the most favorable result which was likely had the infraction not occurred." I don't have a problem with a procedural penalty for filing unjustified appeals; these penalties are occasionally imposed by committees without an official rule. -- 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 Mar 14 09:01:58 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA26195 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 14 Mar 1997 09:01:58 +1000 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 JAA26190 for ; Fri, 14 Mar 1997 09:01:51 +1000 Received: from coruncanius.demon.co.uk ([194.222.115.176]) by relay-10.mail.demon.net id aa1009051; 13 Mar 97 22:39 GMT Message-ID: Date: Thu, 13 Mar 1997 22:35:35 +0000 To: Jesper Dybdal Cc: Bridge Laws List From: Labeo Subject: Re: New L16A: "demonstrably" In-Reply-To: <33267c0c.445380@pipmail.dknet.dk> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In message <33267c0c.445380@pipmail.dknet.dk>, Jesper Dybdal writes >In the new L16A, the words > "... that could reasonably have been suggested over another ..." >have been replaced by > "... that could demonstrably have been suggested over another ..." > >I have just been reading the first draft of the translation of the new >L16A to Danish. Trying to get an opinion about the translation, I >realized that I don't really understand what the change in English >mean. > >Does anyone have opinions as to what this change of words mean in >reality? Are there hands where we should adjust by the old laws, but >not by the new ones, or vice versa? > >What does "demonstrably" actually mean here? Does it just mean that >the TD must be able to describe ("demonstrate") why he considers one >alternative suggested over another? If so, I cannot see that it makes >any real difference. Labeo: I can speak to the nature of the problem which the drafting committee was trying to solve. It was perceived that appeals committees (and perhaps TDs) were too readily making decisions automatically in favour of the NO side. It was always the intention that offenders should be allowed to show if they could, in acceptable bridge terms, that the call they had made when in possession of UI was the call that was so clear to players of their standard that it should not be considered to be based upon the UI and should be allowed to stand. It seemed this problem with AC decisions was especially a North American problem and not occurring much in Europe where guidelines for TDs are somewhat different. I am uncertain how other Zones felt. The object was to choose a word which would more readily bring about the desired approach in ACs than the word 'reasonably' had done in the 1987 Laws. There was much agonising about the choice of a word and many suggestions made. Nothing seemed perfect, but 'demonstrably' was considered to come nearest to what was desired. It is a subjective concept inasmuch as it has to be interpreted basically as "demonstrably to the satisfaction of the AC or TD, as the case may be"; they must be persuaded by the arguments that the call was sufficiently clear cut to be allowed. That was always the case but it was not seen to be working as desired. Even if there are still problems with the word 'demonstrably' perhaps the very fact of changing the word will help to produce the effect. The most important thing in regard to this for those promulgating the new laws (and indeed others) may be the effort to explain to TDs and ACs what the aim is. Labeo From owner-bridge-laws Fri Mar 14 10:44:00 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA26738 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 14 Mar 1997 10:44:00 +1000 Received: from lsbsdi1.lightspeed.net (root@lsbsdi1.lightspeed.net [204.216.64.33]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id KAA26728; Fri, 14 Mar 1997 10:43:46 +1000 Received: from LOCALNAME (bak-brks2-ppp001.lightspeed.net [207.113.248.20]) by lsbsdi1.lightspeed.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id QAA16020; Thu, 13 Mar 1997 16:39:16 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <33275F35.479C@lightspeed.net> Date: Wed, 12 Mar 1997 17:58:13 -0800 From: "John R. Mayne" X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.01KIT (Win16; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: OAdamec@aol.com CC: owner-bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au, bridgelawsdiscussionlist Subject: Re: New L16A: "demonstrably" References: <970312163629_-1572822588@emout18.mail.aol.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk OAdamec@aol.com wrote: > > Eric Landau wrote: > "I suspect that what the writers had in mind was the treatment of auctions > like..." > > The hand and auction that brought about the rule change came up > in the NAC in Miami. It was extensively commented on the Appeals > Book called "Miami Vice" edited by Kokish & Colker. > > In the current ACBL Bulletin, March 1997, p.23 in an article > by Gary Blaise the hand comes up again to demonstrate the > change in Law 16, and leads to some strong language by Blaise. > > Here is North's hand: > S - AK H - AKJ108543 D - 107 C - 6 > > The auction: RHO starts with 3c, this hand bids 4H, next hand > bids 5C, partner of above gives it a good huddle and passes, > and now North hand bids 5H. -- **This is not the way the hand at the NABC ever went. South hand gave it a good huddle and doubled at five tables. This is critical.** > > Blaise says: If you are North's opponents. > "Do you call the director? I suggest that if you do, you have > not tried to see the situation from North's point of view. > Try to win by skill, flair and luck - not by going "court" > to see what you can get even when your side was not disadvantaged > by an irregularity." > > Earlier in the article Blaise says: > The rule change "is an attempt to have results determined by > bridge equity and skill at the bridge table rather than by > skill at litigation." > > At the NAC apparently the same hand caused the same hesitation, > pass and pull at 5 tables. Two of the were appealed and came > to committee. The same committee ruled on both of them. > In the "Miami Vice" book many panelists and Kokish/Colker > commented on the Committee rulings. > > What do you think? > Otto I think it's comparing apples and oranges. The committee hand did not go that way; south made a slow double. Over slow pass, I think 5H is justifiable. Over slow double, no chance. If committees were good, we wouldn't have this question of "skill in litigation" too often. Most of the committees now are pretty good and I don't see a large number of horrible rulings. I thought Colker and Kokish were right on in their analysis. The committee needs to find out from the pairs what 4H shows; most pairs I know have ill-defined or undefined agreements. My agreement is 8.5-9.5 tricks. Partner now needs to bid non-stupidly; the actual south hand was: 8532 Q73 AJ42 K4, which is a stupid double IMO, playing any sensible definition of 4H. Partner has to be able to double to say 5C is going down, no? (The same committee ruled that 5H was clear-cut in both cases and allowed the bid at both tables. Yuck. So, now we are going to give less teeth to the UI rule? Aaaugh!) So assuming the change from NABC hand to Bulletin was intentional, I don't see any difference in enforcement made clear by Blaiss. I'm very worried though. I find it absolutely awful that anyone in power would support a takeout to 5H after an at-least reasonable 4H bid and slow double. I wouldn't take out any double with the north hand. JRM From owner-bridge-laws Fri Mar 14 12:12:01 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id MAA26985 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 14 Mar 1997 12:12:01 +1000 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 MAA26980 for ; Fri, 14 Mar 1997 12:11:55 +1000 From: KRAllison@aol.com Received: (from root@localhost) by emout13.mail.aol.com (8.7.6/8.7.3/AOL-2.0.0) id VAA08631; Thu, 13 Mar 1997 21:11:10 -0500 (EST) Date: Thu, 13 Mar 1997 21:11:10 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <970313210956_1217256022@emout13.mail.aol.com> To: grabiner@msri.org, bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: ACBL to limit score adjustments to 1/4 board? Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk As you may imagine, the Laws Commission did not put its imprimateur on this recommendation from ACBL Board of Directors. The Laws Commission pointed out that each case needs to be considered on its own merits and there is no legal way to limit redress where damage has occurred. Law 12c2 was certainly cited in the discussion. Karen From owner-bridge-laws Fri Mar 14 20:17:21 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id UAA28309 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 14 Mar 1997 20:17:21 +1000 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 UAA28304 for ; Fri, 14 Mar 1997 20:17:04 +1000 Received: from tempest.cise.npl.co.uk by waffle.cise.npl.co.uk; Fri, 14 Mar 1997 10:16:28 GMT Date: Fri, 14 Mar 97 10:16:27 GMT Message-Id: <352.9703141016@tempest.cise.npl.co.uk> From: Robin Barker To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: L46B5 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Eric Landau ends a careful summation of this thread with: > The counterargument seems to be that L46A requires declarer to "clearly > state.. the suit", so that the application of L46B is governed by whether or > not the word "heart" was actually used. But I think (I hope) that we would > all agree that, had my actual words been "follow suit", that would have been > a clear statement of the suit to be played, without my actually having used > the word "heart". Once we accept that "play anything" really means "play > anything legal", we must accept that it equally clearly means "follow suit". > Thus my argument that we should apply L46B2 rather than L46B5 rests only on > the claim that "play anything legal" and "follow suit" are > "incontrovertably" equivalent statements. I suggest that there is a real difference between declarers use of "play anything (legal)" and "follow suit". The former means I have lost interest in (no longer care about) the hand or dummy's cards; whereas the latter means I have at least sufficient interest in the status of dummy's cards to know that dummy can (and, of course, will!) follow suit. I am not happy that this should really affect which card gets played! Wouldn't we all be happier if "play anything" meant play the lowest card from the lowest (C; Sat, 15 Mar 1997 04:04:34 +1000 From: aokay@globalserve.net Received: from The (dialin333.globalserve.net [206.186.21.99]) by enigma.globalserve.net (8.8.5/8.6.9) with SMTP id NAA29174 for ; Fri, 14 Mar 1997 13:03:56 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <3329933C.16DC@globalserve.net> Date: Fri, 14 Mar 1997 13:05:08 -0500 Reply-To: aokay@globalserve.net X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01Gold (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: bridgelawsdiscussionlist Subject: Re: New L16A: "demonstrably" References: <970312163629_-1572822588@emout18.mail.aol.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk OAdamec@aol.com wrote: ... > Here is North's hand: > S - AK H - AKJ108543 D - 107 C - 6 > > The auction: RHO starts with 3c, this hand bids 4H, next hand > bids 5C, partner of above gives it a good huddle and passes, > and now North hand bids 5H. .. > What do you think? > Otto Anybody who didn't bid on is insane. Anybody who questions the action is trying to get something for nothing. David G. Bryce From owner-bridge-laws Sat Mar 15 05:46:04 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA02934 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 15 Mar 1997 05:46:04 +1000 Received: from emout07.mail.aol.com (emout07.mx.aol.com [198.81.11.22]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id FAA02927 for ; Sat, 15 Mar 1997 05:45:58 +1000 From: OAdamec@aol.com Received: (from root@localhost) by emout07.mail.aol.com (8.7.6/8.7.3/AOL-2.0.0) id OAA17419 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Fri, 14 Mar 1997 14:45:18 -0500 (EST) Date: Fri, 14 Mar 1997 14:45:18 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <970314144516_-835653406@emout07.mail.aol.com> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: New L16A: "demonstrably" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Here is North's hand: S - AK H - AKJ108543 D - 107 C - 6 Actually as someone pointed out. in Miami NAC, the auction was: P-P-3C-4H; 5C-slooooow-DBL-P-5H. Now what do you think? The committee overruled the directors..and allowed 5H to stand. Kokish/Colker and only a small number of committee reviewers thought the committee wrong. Apparently, the large majority of the expert community thought that pulling this slow double should have been allowed. How would the new law affect that? Otto From owner-bridge-laws Sat Mar 15 06:05:35 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA03037 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 15 Mar 1997 06:05:35 +1000 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 GAA03032 for ; Sat, 15 Mar 1997 06:05:29 +1000 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 PAA17823 for ; Fri, 14 Mar 1997 15:05:06 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <1.5.4.32.19970314200407.0068c6b0@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, 14 Mar 1997 15:04:07 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: New L16A: "demonstrably" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 02:45 PM 3/14/97 -0500, Otto wrote: >Here is North's hand: > S - AK H - AKJ108543 D - 107 C - 6 > >Actually as someone pointed out. in Miami NAC, the auction was: >P-P-3C-4H; 5C-slooooow-DBL-P-5H. > >Now what do you think? > >The committee overruled the directors..and allowed 5H to stand. >Kokish/Colker and only a small number of committee reviewers >thought the committee wrong. Apparently, the large majority of the >expert community thought that pulling this slow double should have been >allowed. On this auction, I don't think the pull should be allowed, and would adjust the score to the result of 5CX. >How would the new law affect that? My reading of the new law is that any bid that would have been allowed to stand under the old law should be allowed to stand under the new one, so the change should not have affected the committee's decision. 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 Mar 15 06:52:14 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA03225 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 15 Mar 1997 06:52:14 +1000 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 GAA03220 for ; Sat, 15 Mar 1997 06:52:08 +1000 Received: from tempest.cise.npl.co.uk by waffle.cise.npl.co.uk; Fri, 14 Mar 1997 20:51:34 GMT Date: Fri, 14 Mar 97 20:51:32 GMT Message-Id: <2089.9703142051@tempest.cise.npl.co.uk> From: Robin Barker To: OAdamec@aol.com Subject: Re: New L16A: "demonstrably" Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > Here is North's hand: > S - AK H - AKJ108543 D - 107 C - 6 > > Actually as someone pointed out. in Miami NAC, the auction was: > P-P-3C-4H; 5C-slooooow-DBL-P-5H. So it is the same case! There are more details on line at http://home.worldcom.ch/~fsb/miami.html appeal case 6. 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 Sat Mar 15 07:43:08 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA03535 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 15 Mar 1997 07:43:08 +1000 Received: from msri.org (msri.org [198.129.64.224]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id HAA03530 for ; Sat, 15 Mar 1997 07:43:03 +1000 Received: (from smap@localhost) by msri.org (8.8.2/8.7.2) id NAA07239; Fri, 14 Mar 1997 13:43:16 -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 sma007173; Fri Mar 14 13:42:31 1997 Received: by euclid.msri.org (8.7/MSRI) id NAA08150; Fri, 14 Mar 1997 13:42:20 -0800 (PST) Date: Fri, 14 Mar 1997 13:42:20 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <199703142142.NAA08150@euclid.msri.org> From: David Grabiner To: OAdamec@aol.com CC: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au In-reply-to: <970314144516_-835653406@emout07.mail.aol.com> (OAdamec@aol.com) Subject: Re: New L16A: "demonstrably" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk You write: > Here is North's hand: > S - AK H - AKJ108543 D - 107 C - 6 > Actually as someone pointed out. in Miami NAC, the auction was: > P-P-3C-4H; 5C-slooooow-DBL-P-5H. And N-S were vulnerable against nonvulnerable opponents at matchpoints. > Now what do you think? > The committee overruled the directors..and allowed 5H to stand. > Kokish/Colker and only a small number of committee reviewers > thought the committee wrong. Apparently, the large majority of the > expert community thought that pulling this slow double should have been > allowed. > How would the new law affect that? I don't think that the new law would affect it. The slow double demonstrably suggests 5H over pass, whether this is a forcing pass situation or not. The issue before the committee is the same; is pass a logical alternative? The committee and most of the expert panel concluded that it wasn't, since North had less defense and much more offense than would be normal for his 4H bid, and thus could expect to make 5H but not unlikely to collect +800 against 5C. -- 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 Mar 15 08:56:03 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA03777 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 15 Mar 1997 08:56:03 +1000 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 IAA03772 for ; Sat, 15 Mar 1997 08:55:58 +1000 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 RAA03729 for ; Fri, 14 Mar 1997 17:55:47 -0500 (EST) Received: by cfa183.harvard.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id RAA03275; Fri, 14 Mar 1997 17:56:09 -0500 Date: Fri, 14 Mar 1997 17:56:09 -0500 From: willner@cfa183.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Message-Id: <199703142256.RAA03275@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: New L16A: "demonstrably" X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk [Note: most messages to this group should go to "bridge-laws" and not to "owner-bridge-laws." "Bridge-laws" is all of us; "owner" is Markus, who probably reads the traffic but doesn't need two copies. Administrative requests go to "majordomo."] > > The auction: RHO starts with 3c, this hand bids 4H, next hand > > bids 5C, partner of above gives it a good huddle and passes, > > and now North hand bids 5H. > From: "John R. Mayne" > -- **This is not the way the hand at the NABC ever went. South hand gave > it a good huddle and doubled at five tables. This is critical.** Thanks to the person who gave the reference to the appeals writeup. The 3C opening was by third hand at matchpoints, favorable vulnerability. Cases 5 and 6 are the hand in question. The two appeals cases refer to slow doubles. Do we know what happened at other tables? Passes wouldn't surprise me. > The committee hand did not go > that way; south made a slow double. Over slow pass, I think 5H is > justifiable. Over slow double, no chance. These are certainly different cases. In all UI cases, we have two issues: logical alternative (LA) and "suggested over another." The second is clear after the slow double but not at all clear after a putative slow pass (especially if pass is forcing). The change to "demonstrably" seems to affect "suggested over another" but not the definition of LA. > Partner has to be able to double to say 5C is going down, no? Well, no, actually, unless you think pass would be forcing. (Maybe it should be.) At least some people think it's more important to show values. I wouldn't think of doubling with xxx xxx xxx QJT9. The actual hand (8532 Q73 AJ42 K4) seems not crazy, though I'd prefer 5H. But change a small heart into a small club, and double seems fine. (I'd hope to do it in tempo, of course.) > (The same committee ruled that 5H was clear-cut in both cases and allowed > the bid at both tables. Yuck. So, now we are going to give less teeth to > the UI rule? Aaaugh!) This ruling would seem automatic in Europe or anywhere the definition of LA is 25% or something like it. It's not so clear in North America, where our definition is 0%, but even over here, it isn't crazy. From owner-bridge-laws Sat Mar 15 10:15:21 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA04081 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 15 Mar 1997 10:15:21 +1000 Received: from msri.org (msri.org [198.129.64.224]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id KAA04075 for ; Sat, 15 Mar 1997 10:15:15 +1000 Received: (from smap@localhost) by msri.org (8.8.2/8.7.2) id QAA10872 for ; Fri, 14 Mar 1997 16:15:28 -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 sma010864; Fri Mar 14 16:14:46 1997 Received: by euclid.msri.org (8.7/MSRI) id QAA08721; Fri, 14 Mar 1997 16:14:32 -0800 (PST) Date: Fri, 14 Mar 1997 16:14:32 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <199703150014.QAA08721@euclid.msri.org> From: David Grabiner To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au In-reply-to: <199703142256.RAA03275@cfa183.harvard.edu> (willner@cfa183.harvard.edu) Subject: Re: New L16A: "demonstrably" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Steve Willner writes: >> > The auction: RHO starts with 3c, this hand bids 4H, next hand >> > bids 5C, partner of above gives it a good huddle and passes, >> > and now North hand bids 5H. >> From: "John R. Mayne" >> -- **This is not the way the hand at the NABC ever went. South hand gave >> it a good huddle and doubled at five tables. This is critical.** > Thanks to the person who gave the reference to the appeals writeup. > The 3C opening was by third hand at matchpoints, favorable > vulnerability. Cases 5 and 6 are the hand in question. > The two appeals cases refer to slow doubles. Do we know what happened > at other tables? Passes wouldn't surprise me. The appeals book says that all five cases were identical. Three pairs chose to appeal, and one withdrew at screening. -- David Grabiner, grabiner@msri.org, http://baseball.berkeley.edu/~grabiner I speak of MSRI and by MSRI but not for MSRI. Shop at the Mobius Strip Mall: Always on the same side of the street! Klein Glassworks, Torus Coffee and Donuts, Projective Airlines, etc. From owner-bridge-laws Sun Mar 16 03:12:56 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA08703 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 16 Mar 1997 03:12:56 +1000 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 DAA08698 for ; Sun, 16 Mar 1997 03:12:18 +1000 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 MAA15376 for ; Sat, 15 Mar 1997 12:12:12 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <1.5.4.32.19970315171109.0068cc2c@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, 15 Mar 1997 12:11:09 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: New L16A: "demonstrably" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 05:56 PM 3/14/97 -0500, Steve wrote: >> From: "John R. Mayne" >> The committee hand did not go >> that way; south made a slow double. Over slow pass, I think 5H is >> justifiable. Over slow double, no chance. > >These are certainly different cases. In all UI cases, we have two >issues: logical alternative (LA) and "suggested over another." The >second is clear after the slow double but not at all clear after a >putative slow pass (especially if pass is forcing). > >The change to "demonstrably" seems to affect "suggested over another" >but not the definition of LA. Exactly. It's perfectly reasonable to accept that letting the opps play 5C undoubled is not an LA for N, and allow him to take his best shot between 5H and double. S's slow pass tells N that it will be right to take whichever action S was contemplating. The new wording makes it clear that, absent demonstrable evidence that he had some way of knowing which that was, he is to be presumed to not know, so he takes his shot and it should be allowed to stand, right or wrong. In particular, the committee may not, as they might have (although misguidedly IMO) under the current wording, take a right guess as prima facie evidence that N had some knowledge of what S was contemplating. But a slow double clearly suggests pulling over passing. So the committee must decide whether passing 5CX is an LA, and their ruling would not be affected by the law change. >> Partner has to be able to double to say 5C is going down, no? > >Well, no, actually, unless you think pass would be forcing. (Maybe it >should be.) At least some people think it's more important to show >values. I wouldn't think of doubling with xxx xxx xxx QJT9. The >actual hand (8532 Q73 AJ42 K4) seems not crazy, though I'd prefer 5H. >But change a small heart into a small club, and double seems fine. >(I'd hope to do it in tempo, of course.) I'd say yes. Pass may not be forcing, but it's very likely on this auction and vulnerability that, as in this case, N will have a hand that calls for some action -- and we seem to agree that he has a clear 5H bid on this hand. So S would be well advised to double, perhaps not with xxx/xxx/xxx/QJ109, but certainly with, say, xxxx/x/xxxx/QJ109. That's why I'd have voted to adjust; it's too easy to solve this problem with a fast double on the latter hand, and a slow double on the actual one. >> (The same committee ruled that 5H was clear-cut in both cases and allowed >> the bid at both tables. Yuck. So, now we are going to give less teeth to >> the UI rule? Aaaugh!) Perhaps, but this case isn't indicative of anything to do with the new wording, since it was made under the old wording. In a sense it will have fewer "teeth", but I believe that the lawmakers were trying to restore what was intended under the old law. We do want to avoid giving the UI adjustment criteria so many teeth that, sharklike, it devours every right decision anyone makes after their partner has conveyed UI. And that's the way committees seem to have been going lately, although, admittedly, committee rulings have been so inconsistent that it's hard to spot trends. At minimum, though, most players seem to believe this to be the case, so it makes sense to clarify the legal point in any case. >This ruling would seem automatic in Europe or anywhere the definition >of LA is 25% or something like it. It's not so clear in North America, >where our definition is 0%, but even over here, it isn't crazy. Certainly not crazy, although I don't happen to agree with it, given the North American UI interpretations and case law, but that's why we have committees. We expect North American committees to be harsher in UI cases than European ones, and, on average, they seem to be, although they are also less consistent (perhaps because of more varied membership). 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 Mar 16 08:53:32 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA09563 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 16 Mar 1997 08:53:32 +1000 Received: from deimos.glo.be (root@deimos.glo.be [206.48.176.12]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id IAA09557 for ; Sun, 16 Mar 1997 08:53:24 +1000 Received: from phobos.glo.be (phobos.glo.be [206.48.176.11]) by deimos.glo.be (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id XAA31212; Sat, 15 Mar 1997 23:55:38 +0100 Received: from gi31451 (p9-17.z03.glo.be [206.48.176.49]) by phobos.glo.be (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id XAA11319; Sat, 15 Mar 1997 23:53:15 +0100 (MET) Message-Id: <199703152253.XAA11319@phobos.glo.be> From: "Fornoville Norbert" To: "Eric Landau" Cc: Subject: Re: L46B5 Date: Sat, 15 Mar 1997 23:48:44 -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=Default Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Eric wrote.. ..........................................- >I'll try to make sense of it. If I say "play a heart" I do not mean "play a > small heart"; I mean "play any heart". (it is not what you mean but how you are executing it that counts here ) Is law74 A3 -Conformity to Correct Procedure - not clear on this point ? Every player should follow UNIFORM and correct procedure in calling and playing, since any departure from correct standards may disrupt the orderly progress of the game. This law in combination with law 46A ( ...clearly state both the suit and the rank..) gives no other option IMO then applying 46B5.. (suit nor rank designated) The correct procedure was not followed.... Norbert Fornoville From owner-bridge-laws Sun Mar 16 09:08:59 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA09613 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 16 Mar 1997 09:08:59 +1000 Received: from pip.dknet.dk (root@pip.dknet.dk [193.88.44.48]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id JAA09607 for ; Sun, 16 Mar 1997 09:08:53 +1000 Received: from default (cph42.ppp.dknet.dk [194.192.100.42]) by pip.dknet.dk (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id AAA00423 for ; Sun, 16 Mar 1997 00:08:42 +0100 Message-Id: <199703152308.AAA00423@pip.dknet.dk> Comments: Authenticated sender is From: "Jens & Bodil" Organization: Alesia Software To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Sun, 16 Mar 1997 00:09:00 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Re: ACBL to limit score adjustments to 1/4 board? Priority: normal X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v2.42a) Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > The following policy appears in the NABC Daily Bulletin from the ACBL > board meeting highlights. Does anyone know anything about the > background for this proposal? > > Effective July 24, 1997 and after input from > the C&C Committee and approval from the > National Laws Commission, the Board will > consider the following during the Summer > meeting: In cases other than KO teams, > where someone is found to have > committed an offense that causes damage, > a score adjustment is limited to one-fourth > of a board or 3 IMPs, as appropriate, each > way in equal amounts. Depending on the > severity of the infraction, a procedural > penalty shall be assessed to the offending > side according to guidelines that will be > submitted prior to approval. Additionally, if > the Appeals Committee decides the appeal > is unjustified, it will also assess a > procedural penalty of one-fourth of a board > or 3 IMPs, as appropriate. > > This seems to be an attempt to prevent players from making unreasonable > gains with adjusted scores, but it is much too strong. As it is > written, this says that if your opponents use unauthorized information > to get a top, you can only get a 25% board after adjustment. The > opponents may be given a procedural penalty to get the bottom that they > deserve, but it won't help you. I agree. This "limited adjustment" part of this proposal does not agree very well with the last sentence in "The Scope of the Laws": The Laws are primarily designed not as punishment for irregularities, but rather as redress for damage. -- Jens Brix Christiansen, Denmark From owner-bridge-laws Mon Mar 17 07:02:19 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA14860 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 17 Mar 1997 07:02:19 +1000 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 HAA14855 for ; Mon, 17 Mar 1997 07:02:12 +1000 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 QAA16001 for ; Sun, 16 Mar 1997 16:02:04 -0500 (EST) Received: by cfa183.harvard.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id QAA04019; Sun, 16 Mar 1997 16:02:13 -0500 Date: Sun, 16 Mar 1997 16:02:13 -0500 From: willner@cfa183.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Message-Id: <199703162102.QAA04019@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Miami Vice Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk [Concerning the 3C-4H-5C-x auction: I've deleted the message too quickly, but someone suggested the double might show xxxx x xxxx QJT9 if not xxx xxx xxx QJT9.] This is getting into bridge judgment, not laws, but I think the above hands are too similar to distinguish in such a jammed auction. If you do or don't double with one, surely you have to do the same with the other. But if you double with these, what do you do with something like Kxxx xx Kxxx xxx ? The latter is my idea of a double; I'd pass both the first two (again presuming pass is not forcing). If someone really would double with one of the first two hands, passing the double definitely becomes a LA, at least in North America and quite likely even in Europe. I guess all this really tells us is what we knew: not everybody bids alike, and the TD or at least the AC has to inquire into the actual methods in use in order to determine LA's. From owner-bridge-laws Mon Mar 17 09:33:05 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA15169 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 17 Mar 1997 09:33:05 +1000 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 JAA15164 for ; Mon, 17 Mar 1997 09:33:00 +1000 Received: from coruncanius.demon.co.uk ([194.222.115.176]) by relay-6.mail.demon.net id aa0615554; 16 Mar 97 23:20 GMT Message-ID: <7a+E8AAp6HLzEwbX@coruncanius.demon.co.uk> Date: Sun, 16 Mar 1997 23:13:45 +0000 To: "E.Angad-Gaur" Cc: David Stevenson , bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Labeo Subject: Re: L46B5 In-Reply-To: <01IG6U8I0GIQ001E0O@TUDRNV.TUDelft.NL> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In message <01IG6U8I0GIQ001E0O@TUDRNV.TUDelft.NL>, "E.Angad-Gaur" writes >> >> Eric Landau wrote: >> >> >I don't think L46B5 applies here. L46B5 applies when "declarer indicates a >> >play without designating either a suit or rank". Declarer, however, has >> >already led a card of a particular suit from hand, and must follow suit from >> >dummy. > ...some omitted ... >> Hirsch Davis wrote: >> >> >As Eric has pointed out, neither the dummy nor the defenders have any >> >choice in the matter, as a suit has been specified by the lead from >> >declarer. In the case described, L46B2 requires the play of the 9, and >> >allows no other card. > > David Stevenson wrote: > >> Where in the law does it say anything about L46B2 applying if the suit >> is specified by the lead? That is a fabrication! Please read the law >> book. L46B2 applies when declarer designates a suit, and he didn't. >> >> > It is not a fabrication. Because dummy must not revoke the suit is spe- >cified. So in my opinion L46B2 requires the play of the 9 and no other card. > > Labeo writes: This is an interesting point. I am sure it is not what the lawmakers intended; but on the other hand my standard position is that laws should say what they mean. David Stevenson hangs his hat on the peg of Law 46A which makes it clear enough that the lead is not a designation of suit. It seems obvious that the requirements of Law 44C are not a communication from Declarer and do not satisfy the 46A requirement that Declarer shall "state" the suit and the rank of the card to be played from dummy. I do not consider Declarer has done anything to "designate" suit or rank in the circumstances given and I believe the demand that declarer make a statement identifying the card to be played is independent of the action prior to the play from dummy. However I can see the point of the Angad-Gaur argument and to call it a 'fabrication' strikes me as OTT. Labeo From owner-bridge-laws Mon Mar 17 10:32:31 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA15345 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 17 Mar 1997 10:32:31 +1000 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 KAA15340 for ; Mon, 17 Mar 1997 10:32:25 +1000 Received: from coruncanius.demon.co.uk ([194.222.115.176]) by relay-5.mail.demon.net id aa0500187; 16 Mar 97 23:20 GMT Message-ID: Date: Sun, 16 Mar 1997 02:26:48 +0000 To: Jesper Dybdal Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Labeo Subject: Re: L46B5 In-Reply-To: <3325a4b2.8644560@pipmail.dknet.dk> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In message <3325a4b2.8644560@pipmail.dknet.dk>, Jesper Dybdal=20 writes >On Fri, 7 Mar 1997 19:47:44 -0500, willner@cfa183.harvard.edu (Steve >Willner) wrote: >>Are there official translations of the Laws into other languages? If >>so, I'd be interested in how this Law reads. The meaning seems to >>depend critically on the meaning of the verb. I note that the word >>used is much less active than alternatives like name, call out, select, >>or specify, any of which might have been chosen. > >In L46B5 of the Danish version, the word "n=E6vne", which means >"mention", has been used for "designate". > >I also believe this to be the correct interpretation. This is not >only a matter of formal interpretation of the wording of the law; I >believe there is some sense in the difference between L46B2 and L46B5. Labeo: I have been quite mystified by all the discussion about=20 'designate' and it seems even more bizarre when there are attempts to=20 explain it by reference to a translation to another language. The=20 translation can be no better than the translator's understanding of=20 the English - and his ability to find a word for this in the other=20 language. What is more, the Laws are written in English and the=20 meaning of the English text provides the definitive interpretation if=20 there are conflicts.=20 For those who have a problem with 'designate' it may be=20 better to approach it through its first step meaning of "to make a=20 designation". A designation is an identification of something without doubt or ambiguity and it can be done in any manner of communication=20 whatsoever - speech, sign, writing, gesture, anything that is capable=20 of pointing something out or marking it for notice. So to 'designate' within the meaning of Law 46 a player=20 must communicate an identification of the rank and/or denomination=20 (as the case may be) of a card and do so in any manner that makes his=20 meaning clear. The TD has to decide whether he has in fact done this. May I illustrate this: if I write of a star appearing in=20 the English sky and say that it is of magnitude 0.38 and is seen=20 roughly half way between Betelgeuse and Alphard, in the absence of a=20 second star fitting this specification I have *designated* Procyon -=20 there could be no uncertainty as to which star I had identified and=20 some would be able to give it a name. Labeo From owner-bridge-laws Mon Mar 17 20:06:49 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id UAA16467 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 17 Mar 1997 20:06:49 +1000 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 UAA16456 for ; Mon, 17 Mar 1997 20:06:39 +1000 Received: from coruncanius.demon.co.uk ([194.222.115.176]) by relay-6.mail.demon.net id aa0603041; 17 Mar 97 9:52 GMT Message-ID: Date: Sun, 16 Mar 1997 23:40:23 +0000 To: OAdamec@aol.com Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Labeo Subject: Re: New L16A: "demonstrably" In-Reply-To: <970314144516_-835653406@emout07.mail.aol.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In message <970314144516_-835653406@emout07.mail.aol.com>, OAdamec@aol.com writes >Here is North's hand: > S - AK H - AKJ108543 D - 107 C - 6 > >Actually as someone pointed out. in Miami NAC, the auction was: >P-P-3C-4H; 5C-slooooow-DBL-P-5H. > >Now what do you think? > >The committee overruled the directors..and allowed 5H to stand. >How would the new law affect that? >Otto > >Labeo comments: It is so frequently the case that he who makes a slow double (at high competitive level) will not mind at all if it is removed by partner that I would expect it to be very difficult to persuade an AC that the choice of action cannot demonstrably have been suggested etc. etc. Labeo From owner-bridge-laws Mon Mar 17 20:19:40 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id UAA16548 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 17 Mar 1997 20:19:40 +1000 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 UAA16542 for ; Mon, 17 Mar 1997 20:19:34 +1000 Received: from coruncanius.demon.co.uk ([194.222.115.176]) by relay-11.mail.demon.net id aa1109777; 17 Mar 97 9:52 GMT Message-ID: Date: Mon, 17 Mar 1997 09:50:21 +0000 To: Eric Landau Cc: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Labeo Subject: Re: New L16A: "demonstrably" In-Reply-To: <1.5.4.32.19970315171109.0068cc2c@cais.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In message <1.5.4.32.19970315171109.0068cc2c@cais.com>, Eric Landau writes >At 05:56 PM 3/14/97 -0500, Steve wrote: > >>> From: "John R. Mayne" > ...Much omitted, and then Eric Landau (I believe) said: In a sense it will have fewer "teeth", but I believe that the lawmakers were trying to restore what was intended under the old law. We do want to avoid giving the UI adjustment criteria so many teeth that, sharklike, it devours every right decision anyone makes after their partner has conveyed UI. And that's the way committees seem to have been going lately, although, admittedly, committee rulings have been soinconsistent that it's hard to spot trends. At minimum, though, most players seem to believe this to be the case, so it makes sense to clarify the legal point in any case. > Labeo comments: It is almost inevitable that less accomplished players will be seen to have more logical alternatives than expert players and maybe the way the law stands this disadvantages the former somewhat. It is arguable that, no matter what the class of player or what his LAs, the player should always be allowed to make the call which, in an uncontaminated auction, would be adjudged most fitting. I have a gut feeling that it is wrong to deny a player what would be considered 'best action' in an auction devoid of UI; but I do believe the law as written will deny the player this often enough. There may be scope with the stronger criterion of 'demonstrably' to come nearer to it. Labeo From owner-bridge-laws Tue Mar 18 00:52:49 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA19710 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 18 Mar 1997 00:52:49 +1000 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 AAA19705 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 1997 00:52:42 +1000 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by relay-11.mail.demon.net id ab1110524; 17 Mar 97 14:27 GMT Message-ID: Date: Mon, 17 Mar 1997 13:22:58 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: New L16A: "demonstrably" In-Reply-To: <1.5.4.32.19970315171109.0068cc2c@cais.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Eric Landau wrote: >At 05:56 PM 3/14/97 -0500, Steve wrote: > >>> From: "John R. Mayne" > >>> The committee hand did not go >>> that way; south made a slow double. Over slow pass, I think 5H is >>> justifiable. Over slow double, no chance. >> >>These are certainly different cases. In all UI cases, we have two >>issues: logical alternative (LA) and "suggested over another." The >>second is clear after the slow double but not at all clear after a >>putative slow pass (especially if pass is forcing). >> >>The change to "demonstrably" seems to affect "suggested over another" >>but not the definition of LA. > >Exactly. It's perfectly reasonable to accept that letting the opps play 5C >undoubled is not an LA for N, and allow him to take his best shot between 5H >and double. S's slow pass tells N that it will be right to take whichever >action S was contemplating. The new wording makes it clear that, absent >demonstrable evidence that he had some way of knowing which that was, he is >to be presumed to not know, so he takes his shot and it should be allowed to >stand, right or wrong. In particular, the committee may not, as they might >have (although misguidedly IMO) under the current wording, take a right >guess as prima facie evidence that N had some knowledge of what S was >contemplating. The argument on this subject is interesting. However, I believe the Miami Vice hand to be an unfortunate example, because people's perception of the bridge judgement of the actual hand is different. We have had some who think pulling automatic, and some who think passing is automatic. While the hand is very interesting, it does not help in our understanding of the term demonstrably. What would perhaps help would be if someone quoted a hand that everyone agrees on the bridge judgement, and then we can see whether the new wording would affect the ruling. Any offers? -- 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 Mar 18 00:54:15 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA19730 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 18 Mar 1997 00:54:15 +1000 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 AAA19724 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 1997 00:54:09 +1000 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by relay-10.mail.demon.net id aa1016907; 17 Mar 97 14:27 GMT Message-ID: Date: Mon, 17 Mar 1997 13:17:53 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: ACBL to limit score adjustments to 1/4 board? In-Reply-To: <199703152308.AAA00423@pip.dknet.dk> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Jens & Bodil wrote: >I agree. This "limited adjustment" part of this proposal does not >agree very well with the last sentence in "The Scope of the Laws": > > The Laws are primarily designed not as punishment for > irregularities, but rather as redress for damage. Let me get this straight. I am doubled in 4S, slowly, which is making for a cold top. RHO removes on a hand that eleven bridge players out of ten and Nanki Poo would pass on and I get a 20% board. The ACBL will now allow me a maximum of 45%. Have I got this correct? Law 80 - Sponsoring Organization A sponsoring organization conducting an event under these Laws has the following duties and powers: F. Supplementary Regulations to publish or announce regulations supplementary to, but not in conflict with, these Laws. Perhaps someone would like to point this out to the ACBL, assuming that I have not misunderstood. They have no right to make such a regulation because it clearly conflicts with the Laws of the game. I believe it also conflicts with natural justice, but that is another matter! It seems to me to be one more example of "Think perpetrator: don't worry about the victim"! A man was beaten on the road to Jerusalem and left for dead. First a Levi came past, but he passed by on the other side. Then a priest came, but he drew aside, and passed on. Then two sociologists passed: "Gracious", said one to the other, "the man who did this needs our help." -- 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 Mar 18 01:44:56 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA19948 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 18 Mar 1997 01:44:56 +1000 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 BAA19943 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 1997 01:44:49 +1000 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 KAA24512 for ; Mon, 17 Mar 1997 10:44:42 -0500 (EST) Received: by cfa183.harvard.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id KAA04335; Mon, 17 Mar 1997 10:44:55 -0500 Date: Mon, 17 Mar 1997 10:44:55 -0500 From: willner@cfa183.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Message-Id: <199703171544.KAA04335@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: L46B5 X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: Labeo > David Stevenson hangs his hat on the peg of Law 46A > which makes it clear enough that the lead is not a designation of suit. All agree that leading is not a designation of suit *in proper form*. Nor is it naming or calling. The argument is over whether or not it is a "designation" within the meaning of L46B2, which does not contain the words "in proper form" or anything like them. In another message: > From: Labeo > For those who have a problem with 'designate' it may be > better to approach it through its first step meaning of "to make a > designation". A designation is an identification of something without > doubt or ambiguity and it can be done in any manner of communication > whatsoever - speech, sign, writing, gesture, anything that is capable > of pointing something out or marking it for notice. Under this definition, it does seem that the lead "designates" the suit in question. Surely there can be no doubt or ambiguity about which suit dummy is to play. If, on the other hand, you read "designate" as "name" or "designate in proper form," you will reach a different conclusion. From owner-bridge-laws Tue Mar 18 02:59:45 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA20444 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 18 Mar 1997 02:59:45 +1000 Received: from tom.compulink.co.uk (tom.compulink.co.uk [194.153.0.51]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id CAA20438 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 1997 02:59:36 +1000 Received: (from root@localhost) by tom.compulink.co.uk (8.8.4/8.6.9) id QAA20417 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Mon, 17 Mar 1997 16:59:22 GMT Date: Mon, 17 Mar 97 16:57 GMT0 From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: New L16A: "demonstrably" To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Cc: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Reply-To: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Message-Id: Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In-Reply-To: Labeo wrote: > It is almost inevitable that less accomplished players > will be seen to have more logical alternatives than expert players and > maybe the way the law stands this disadvantages the former somewhat. It > is arguable that, no matter what the class of player or what his LAs, > the player should always be allowed to make the call which, in an > uncontaminated auction, would be adjudged most fitting. I have a gut > feeling that it is wrong to deny a player what would be considered > 'best action' in an auction devoid of UI; but I do believe the law as > written will deny the player this often enough. > There may be scope with the stronger criterion of > 'demonstrably' to come nearer to it. I'm not sure that this is actually a problem with the law 'as written'. Neither 73C or 16A even imply that you may not take 'the percentage action' based only on the AI. IMO it is very unusual for a (UK) committee to agree unanimously on a 'best action' and still rule something else as an LA. Indeed I have yet to encounter a TD who rules against what *he* considers the 'best action'. However, I do think that Labeo's comments apply to the way the law is sometimes interpreted in the US. After all if something becomes an LA once "several people consider it" even if none choose it*, this is hardly surprising. Hand on heart, how many of us do not even "consider" alternative bids in even the simplest auction - let alone a complex one. The wording change may go some way towards addressing this, but one has to ask whether it will go far enough. *This may not be the actual intention of the ACBL but it is certainly one I have seen promulgated on RGB. Tim West-Meads From owner-bridge-laws Tue Mar 18 03:48:26 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA20601 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 18 Mar 1997 03:48:26 +1000 Received: from irvine.com (flash.irvine.com [192.160.8.4]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id DAA20596 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 1997 03:48:18 +1000 Received: from localhost by flash.irvine.com id aa12860; 17 Mar 97 9:47 PST To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au CC: adam@flash.irvine.com Subject: Re: ACBL to limit score adjustments to 1/4 board? In-reply-to: Your message of "13 Mar 1997 14:45:05 PST." Date: Mon, 17 Mar 1997 09:47:41 PST From: Adam Beneschan Message-ID: <9703170947.aa12860@flash.irvine.com> Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > > The following policy appears in the NABC Daily Bulletin from the ACBL > board meeting highlights. Does anyone know anything about the > background for this proposal? > > Effective July 24, 1997 and after input from > the C&C Committee and approval from the > National Laws Commission, the Board will > consider the following during the Summer > meeting: In cases other than KO teams, > where someone is found to have > committed an offense that causes damage, > a score adjustment is limited to one-fourth > of a board or 3 IMPs, as appropriate, each > way in equal amounts. Depending on the > severity of the infraction, a procedural > penalty shall be assessed to the offending > side according to guidelines that will be > submitted prior to approval. Additionally, if > the Appeals Committee decides the appeal > is unjustified, it will also assess a > procedural penalty of one-fourth of a board > or 3 IMPs, as appropriate. > > This seems to be an attempt to prevent players from making unreasonable > gains with adjusted scores, but it is much too strong. As it is > written, this says that if your opponents use unauthorized information > to get a top, you can only get a 25% board after adjustment. The > opponents may be given a procedural penalty to get the bottom that they > deserve, but it won't help you. And for even this to work, the > procedural penalty has to cover the difference, which may require a > penalty out of proportion to the offense. If you have a > misunderstanding in a complex situation and there is misinformation or > unauthorized information leading to a top-to-bottom swing, will the > director or committee impose a 3/4-board penalty? Apparently this is already moot, since the Laws Commission has rightly shot this one down. But I just wanted to add my voice in support of those who said it was a bad idea. The last committee case I was involved in (as a player--I've never been a committee member) was after this auction partner RHO me LHO 1C(1) 3H(2) pass pass X 3S 4D pass 4H pass 4S pass 5H pass 6D all pass (1) Precision (2) Slow alert; LHO explained that they play this as showing 5-5 in the majors over natural 1C openers, but he wasn't sure about what they played over a strong club. 3H, it turns out, was intended as natural but was a psych. 4H was our last making spot. However, under the circumstances, it was impossible for me to pass 4H. We got a zero on the board, but the director changed it to A+ and the committee agreed with him, saying the explanation muddied the waters so much that we were unable to recover. If the proposed rule had been in effect, we would have been limited to a 25% board--hardly equitable IMHO. -- Adam From owner-bridge-laws Tue Mar 18 04:58:13 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA20989 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 18 Mar 1997 04:58:13 +1000 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 EAA20983 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 1997 04:58:07 +1000 Received: from localhost (lighton@localhost) by u2.farm.idt.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id NAA18433 for ; Mon, 17 Mar 1997 13:58:02 -0500 (EST) Date: Mon, 17 Mar 1997 13:58:02 -0500 (EST) From: Richard Lighton X-Sender: lighton@u2.farm.idt.net To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Re: ACBL to limit score adjustments to 1/4 board? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Stevenson raised valid objections to the above proposed incomprehensibility, but . . . If my memory serves, Karen Allison, a member of the ACBL Laws commission, has already posted somewhere that the Laws Commission has already told the ACBL Board of Directors that they can't do that. I thought it was in BLML. If so, isn't it time this debate ended? (Sorry, I don't keep old BLML stuff) If I'm wrong, I'm sorry to interrupt. Richard Lighton | Mother, may I go and maffick (lighton@idt.net) | Tear about and hinder traffic? Wood-Ridge NJ | -- Reginald's Peace Poem USA | Saki From owner-bridge-laws Tue Mar 18 05:07:31 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA21079 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 18 Mar 1997 05:07:31 +1000 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 FAA21074 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 1997 05:07:25 +1000 Received: from localhost (lighton@localhost) by u2.farm.idt.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id OAA21156 for ; Mon, 17 Mar 1997 14:07:21 -0500 (EST) Date: Mon, 17 Mar 1997 14:07:21 -0500 (EST) From: Richard Lighton X-Sender: lighton@u2.farm.idt.net To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Re: New L16A: "demonstrably" In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Mon, 17 Mar 1997, David Stevenson wrote: > > The argument on this subject is interesting. However, I believe the > Miami Vice hand to be an unfortunate example, because people's > perception of the bridge judgement of the actual hand is different. We > have had some who think pulling automatic, and some who think passing is > automatic. While the hand is very interesting, it does not help in our > understanding of the term demonstrably. > > What would perhaps help would be if someone quoted a hand that > everyone agrees on the bridge judgement, and then we can see whether the > new wording would affect the ruling. Any offers? > How about: -- -- -- AKQJT98765432 I make a "trap" bid of 5C, hoping to get doubled at a higher level. LHO bids 6S. Partner makes a slow double. I pull. Is this sufficiently clear cut an action? -- Richard Lighton | Mother, may I go and maffick (lighton@idt.net) | Tear about and hinder traffic? Wood-Ridge NJ | -- Reginald's Peace Poem USA | Saki From owner-bridge-laws Tue Mar 18 05:36:58 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA21210 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 18 Mar 1997 05:36:58 +1000 Received: from pip.dknet.dk (root@pip.dknet.dk [193.88.44.48]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id FAA21205 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 1997 05:36:52 +1000 Received: from cph143.ppp.dknet.dk (cph143.ppp.dknet.dk [194.192.100.143]) by pip.dknet.dk (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id UAA00540 for ; Mon, 17 Mar 1997 20:36:30 +0100 From: Jesper Dybdal To: Bridge Laws List Subject: Re: L46B5 Date: Mon, 17 Mar 1997 20:36:24 +0100 Organization: at home Message-ID: <33319ce4.8769900@pipmail.dknet.dk> References: In-Reply-To: X-Mailer: Forte Agent .99g/32.339 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Sun, 16 Mar 1997 02:26:48 +0000, Labeo wrote: >The=20 >translation can be no better than the translator's understanding of=20 >the English - and his ability to find a word for this in the other=20 >language. What is more, the Laws are written in English and the=20 >meaning of the English text provides the definitive interpretation if=20 >there are conflicts. Translated versions have no authority in any way in relation to interpretation of the original text, of course. They can, however, be used as examples of how the English text has actually been interpreted in a situation where we must assume that serious consideration was given to the matter before deciding on a translation. I quoted the Danish translation as such an example, and certainly did not mean to imply that it had any authority in a discussion of the original version. --=20 Jesper Dybdal, Denmark From owner-bridge-laws Tue Mar 18 07:33:53 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA21769 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 18 Mar 1997 07:33:53 +1000 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 HAA21764 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 1997 07:33:48 +1000 Received: from mail1.isys.net[193.96.224.33] by mail.hamburg.netsurf.de with smtp (Smail 3.2 #2 -iSYS-); id m0w6k27-000HLuC; Mon, 17 Mar 1997 22:33:31 +0100 (MET) Received: from meckwell [194.195.202.97] by mail1.isys.net with smtp (Smail 3.2 #3 -iSYS-); id m0w6k27-001L9uC; Mon, 17 Mar 1997 22:33:31 +0100 (MET) Date: Mon, 17 Mar 1997 22:36:06 +0100 (CET) From: Henk Uijterwaal X-Sender: henk@meckwell Reply-To: Henk Uijterwaal To: David Stevenson cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: ACBL to limit score adjustments to 1/4 board? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Mon, 17 Mar 1997, David Stevenson wrote: > Jens & Bodil wrote: David, Jens, others: Karen already posted that the ACBL Laws commission objected against the idea and the proposal is now where it belongs. Can we please use the bandwidth for something else? 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 Tue Mar 18 08:42:56 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA22395 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 18 Mar 1997 08:42:56 +1000 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 IAA22390 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 1997 08:42:50 +1000 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 RAA24735 for ; Mon, 17 Mar 1997 17:42:44 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <1.5.4.32.19970317224158.006938ec@cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.4 (32) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Mon, 17 Mar 1997 17:41:58 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: New L16A: "demonstrably" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 02:07 PM 3/17/97 -0500, Richard wrote: >How about: > >-- >-- >-- >AKQJT98765432 > >I make a "trap" bid of 5C, hoping to get doubled at a higher level. > >LHO bids 6S. > >Partner makes a slow double. > >I pull. > >Is this sufficiently clear cut an action? It's TOO clear-cut for our purposes, since we'd likely all agree that there are no LAs to 7C here. Try this one: NV vs V. A/-/AKQJ/AK109xxxx. 5C-6S-P(slow)-P-? 7C still seems like the percentage action, but double is now presumably an LA. Does partner have some clubs, but decided not to save in case you could beat 6S on your hand alone? Or does partner have a misfit for clubs, but decided not to double because he's not sure he can beat 6S? You bid 7C, and it turns out to be the winning decision. Might partner's tempo have "reasonably" suggested your 7C bid, say, for example, if you believed that partner would assume you had enough to beat 6S for your 5C bid, and always double with a misfit? Perhaps. Might partner's tempo have "demonstrably" suggested your 7C bid, in the absense of any reason (for a TD or AC) to believe that partner would always double with a misfit? I don't think so. Eric Landau elandau@cais.com APL Solutions, Inc. elandau@acm.org 1107 Dale Drive (301) 589-4621 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 From owner-bridge-laws Tue Mar 18 12:13:28 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id MAA23271 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 18 Mar 1997 12:13:28 +1000 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 MAA23266 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 1997 12:13:17 +1000 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by relay-6.mail.demon.net id aa0619876; 18 Mar 97 1:55 GMT Message-ID: Date: Tue, 18 Mar 1997 01:52:55 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: ACBL to limit score adjustments to 1/4 board? In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Henk Uijterwaal wrote: >On Mon, 17 Mar 1997, David Stevenson wrote: >> Jens & Bodil wrote: > >David, Jens, others: Karen already posted that the ACBL Laws commission >objected against the idea and the proposal is now where it belongs. > >Can we please use the bandwidth for something else? You mean something useful, like a discussion of UI cases with 13 card suits? I have obviously misunderstood. I thought the BoD was the *final* authority and could overrule the Laws Commission: I am pleased to discover 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 Mar 18 23:25:47 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA25271 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 18 Mar 1997 23:25:47 +1000 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 XAA25266 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 1997 23:25:40 +1000 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 IAA11421 for ; Tue, 18 Mar 1997 08:25:35 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <1.5.4.32.19970318132454.0068c3e8@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, 18 Mar 1997 08:24:54 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: ACBL to limit score adjustments to 1/4 board? Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 01:52 AM 3/18/97 +0000, David wrote: > I have obviously misunderstood. I thought the BoD was the *final* >authority and could overrule the Laws Commission: I am pleased to >discover that I am wrong. The BoD is the final authority; the ACBL Laws Commission merely advises on such matters. In the 1970s there were several cases where the ACBL passed rules over the objection of the LC, but they took so much criticism for doing so that these (or, at least, the most egregious of them, such as the flat ban on 1NT openings with less than 10 HCP, or the requirement that weak 2-bids could have no more than a seven HCP range) were eventually reversed. Since those days, the BoD has been very reluctant to overrule the advice of the LC, and almost certainly won't do so in this case (it's not clear, but my wife, who's on the BoG and was in Dallas, thinks they've already given up on this particular proposal). The hot topic at the meetings this year, once again, was term limits for Directors. Once more the BoG was nearly unanimous in recommending term limits to the BoD, and once more the BoD turned them down, although this time by the closest vote ever (11-14). 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 Mar 19 23:46:33 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA03303 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 19 Mar 1997 23:46:33 +1000 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 XAA03298 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 1997 23:46:23 +1000 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 IAA27909 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 1997 08:46:18 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <1.5.4.32.19970319134544.00679edc@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 Mar 1997 08:45:44 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: ACBL to limit score adjustments to 1/4 board? Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 05:45 PM 3/18/97 +0100, S.E. wrote: >Please tell me what is the BoD and what is the BoG ? BoD: The ACBL Board of Directors, which runs the ACBL. BoG: The ACBL Board of Governors, which serves in an advisory capacity to the BoD, but has no real authority (aka "the ACBL's House of Lords"). Personal aside to S.E.: I apologize for the accidental reflection of your original message back to you. David S. isn't the only BLMLer whose cats walk on his keyboard! 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 Mar 20 04:00:57 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA06948 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 20 Mar 1997 04:00:57 +1000 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 EAA06943 for ; Thu, 20 Mar 1997 04:00:50 +1000 Received: (from nobody@localhost) by gw-nl1.philips.com (8.6.10/8.6.10-0.994n-08Nov95) id TAA12773 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 1997 19:00:46 +0100 Received: from unknown(130.139.36.3) by gw-nl1.philips.com via smap (V1.3+ESMTP) with ESMTP id sma012722; Wed Mar 19 19:00:23 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-970305) with ESMTP id TAA24835 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 1997 19:00:22 +0100 Received: from brisbane (brisbane [130.144.63.109]) by nlsce1.ehv.sc.philips.com (8.6.10/8.6.10-1.001a-11Jun96) with ESMTP id TAA09756 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 1997 19:00:19 +0100 From: Con Holzscherer Received: (from holzsche@nlsce1.ehv.sc.philips.com) by brisbane (1.37.109.15/) id AA203664421; Wed, 19 Mar 1997 19:00:21 +0100 Message-Id: <199703191800.AA203664421@brisbane> Subject: Re: New L16A: "demonstrably To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Wed, 19 Mar 1997 19:00:21 MET X-Mailer: Elm [revision: 109.14] Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk As a member of the Dutch National Appeals Committee I can not let two remarks recently made in this 'list' pass without comment. ************************************************************** Steve Willner wrote: SW> This ruling would seem automatic in Europe or anywhere SW> the definition of LA is 25% or something like it. SW> It's not so clear in North America, where our definition SW> is 0%, but even over here, it isn't crazy. I do not think there is a difference in 'definition of LA' between the ACBL and Europe in general. In the Netherlands we follow the rule "if some peer would consider it, it is an LA", which does not sound like 25% to me. *************************************************************** Eric Landau wrote: EL> We expect North American committees to be harsher in UI EL> cases than European ones, ...... Why? The same Laws apply in both continents! EL> .....and, on average, they seem to be, ........ On what information do you base this statement? Do you have any statistics to corroborate it? **************************************************************** Con Holzscherer Philips Semiconductors B.V. Systems Laboratory Eindhoven Phone: +31-40-27 22150 fax : +31-40-27 22764 E-mail: holzsche@ehv.sc.philips.com From owner-bridge-laws Thu Mar 20 04:16:09 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA07081 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 20 Mar 1997 04:16:09 +1000 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 EAA07074 for ; Thu, 20 Mar 1997 04:16:00 +1000 Received: from casewise.demon.co.uk ([158.152.187.206]) by relay-10.mail.demon.net id ab1002095; 19 Mar 97 18:08 GMT Received: by bridge.casewise.demon.co.uk with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Server Internet Mail Connector Version 4.0.994.63) id <01BC348C.80473F70@bridge.casewise.demon.co.uk>; Wed, 19 Mar 1997 17:39:31 -0000 Message-ID: From: David Martin To: "'bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au'" Subject: FW: Time for another easy one for Jens! Date: Wed, 19 Mar 1997 17:39:28 -0000 X-Mailer: Microsoft Exchange Server Internet Mail Connector Version 4.0.994.63 Encoding: 47 TEXT Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Stephen Barnfield wrote: >>Someone asked me, more than a month ago, for my commments on this. >Now as >>Mr >>Burn would say, that's one more than is usually the slightest bit interested >>in >>what I think, so, with apologies for the delay, and for repeating the facts, >>here goes. > >>> 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. > >>The TD is then summoned, and, if you are in Europe, (i) LHO is offered, but >>declines, acceptance of your double (Law25B1); (ii) LHO is offered, but >>declines, acceptance of you 3S (Law25B2 and Law27A); (iii) you are then >>>told >>what your options are, and you choose to bid 4S. > >>The question is whether Law27B3 applies to require your partner to pass for >>>the >>rest of the auction. > >>In short I think not. > >>I have thought quite hard about this. On the plain words of the Law either >>view is arguable. The reason I have decided Law27B3 does not apply is that >>I >>think the bracketed bit in Law27B "the offender is entitled to select his >>final >>call at that turn after the applicable penalties have been stated, and any >>call >>he has previously attempted to substitute is cancelled, but the lead >>penalties >>of Law26 may apply" includes the full extent of the penalty for the change >>of >>call following the statement of the applicable penalties. > SNIP Thanks for the reply. I have now thought further about this and agree with you and DWS although I still find it quite disturbing that the Laws of Bridge are not universally constant during an event and appear to be influenced by the gravitational presence of a passing TD whose orbit >happened to bring him near to the table at the time of the infraction. From owner-bridge-laws Thu Mar 20 04:53:37 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA07439 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 20 Mar 1997 04:53:37 +1000 Received: from msri.org (msri.org [198.129.64.224]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id EAA07434 for ; Thu, 20 Mar 1997 04:53:32 +1000 Received: (from smap@localhost) by msri.org (8.8.2/8.7.2) id KAA19210 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 1997 10:53:45 -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 sma019158; Wed Mar 19 10:53:11 1997 Received: by euclid.msri.org (8.7/MSRI) id KAA13597; Wed, 19 Mar 1997 10:51:28 -0800 (PST) Date: Wed, 19 Mar 1997 10:51:28 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <199703191851.KAA13597@euclid.msri.org> From: David Grabiner To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Hesitating after partner's skip bid when opponent doesn't Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk The following situation came up in a discussion on rec.games.bridge: N E S W 1H P 1S P 4C P 4S East didn't hesistate over the 4C bid. If South doesn't call the director for this infraction, is he supposed to use up the rest of the 10 seconds? I think he should, because a quick pass would pass UI; therefore, if he does take 10-15 seconds to make the call, this should not be considered to pass UI to partner. -- 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 Mar 20 09:22:20 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA08662 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 20 Mar 1997 09:22:20 +1000 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 JAA08657 for ; Thu, 20 Mar 1997 09:22:05 +1000 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 QAA09666 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 1997 16:48:32 -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 RAA25842 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 1997 17:09:33 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <1.5.4.32.19970319220819.006889e4@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 Mar 1997 17:08:19 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: New L16A: "demonstrably Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 07:00 PM 3/19/97 MET, Con wrote: > As a member of the Dutch National Appeals Committee I can >not let two remarks recently made in this 'list' pass without >comment. > >************************************************************** > >Steve Willner wrote: > >SW> This ruling would seem automatic in Europe or anywhere >SW> the definition of LA is 25% or something like it. >SW> It's not so clear in North America, where our definition >SW> is 0%, but even over here, it isn't crazy. > > I do not think there is a difference in 'definition of LA' >between the ACBL and Europe in general. In the Netherlands >we follow the rule "if some peer would consider it, it is an >LA", which does not sound like 25% to me. > >*************************************************************** > >Eric Landau wrote: > >EL> We expect North American committees to be harsher in UI >EL> cases than European ones, ...... > > Why? The same Laws apply in both continents! > >EL> .....and, on average, they seem to be, ........ > > On what information do you base this statement? Do you have >any statistics to corroborate it? > >**************************************************************** I certainly don't have statistics, and very much doubt if anyone does. In fact, I don't even have an impression based on personal observation, since I have never been fortunate enough to play in a European tournament. My remarks (and, I would guess, Steve's similarly) are based on what I've learned over the past couple of years from reading the extensive and very much international discussions of this subject on rec.games.bridge (newsgroup) and BLML (this mailing list), as well as from anecdotes recounted by American players who play regularly on both sides of the pond. I find Con's assertion that there is no difference between European and American interpretations of the "definition of LA" rather surprising, as it seems to contradict what most of the European correspondents on r.g.b and BLML have been telling us. Until a few years ago, the ACBL's "official" definition of what constituted an LA for purposes of evaluating L16 claims and assigning adjusted scores was an action that approximately 25% or more of a player's peers would consider taking. There seems to be a consensus that this roughly matched the prevailing interpretation and practice in Europe. But then the ACBL decided that this criterion should be strengthened significantly, and published a new interpretation, under which an LA was defined as an action that ANY of a player's peers MIGHT consider taking. This increased the scope of LAs for TDs and ACs to consider, both because of the obvious difference between "25% or more" and "any", and because of the difference between "would", which was generally taken to mean that there were circumstances, albeit perhaps rare, in which one might actually take the LA action, and "might", which is generally assumed to mean that one would think about it, albeit perhaps rarely, even if one would never actually take it. I can attest with confidence, from personal experience, that the ACBL's change in interpretation most definitely resulted in a change in practice. It's clear that TDs and ACs make more, and more dramatic, score adjustments now than they did before the change. AFAIK, no such change occurred in European interpretation and practice, so if Con's suggestion that European and American practices are, today, roughly equal in "harshness" is correct, then it must be the case that, prior to the change, European TDs and ACs were far "harsher" in these situations than Americans were. This may be true, but doesn't square with what I read in r.g.b and BLML. I can further attest that while it may be true that the current American practice really isn't significantly more "heavy-handed" in UI cases than the European practice, the folks at the ACBL who were responsible for the change in interpretation certainly think that it is, and intended it to be. 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 Mar 20 12:29:36 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id MAA09551 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 20 Mar 1997 12:29:36 +1000 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 MAA09546 for ; Thu, 20 Mar 1997 12:29:30 +1000 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by relay-11.mail.demon.net id aa1120176; 20 Mar 97 2:07 GMT Message-ID: Date: Thu, 20 Mar 1997 02:03:21 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: EBU TDs MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Home competition is growing! Apart from Quango [quango@blakjak.demon.co.uk] who tends to watch over my rulings, my wife Liz [liz@blakjak.demon.co.uk] has been promoted onto the full EBU panel of TDs as a Congress `B' Director. From the same list I notice that two new trainees have been added to the EBU list, Rachael King and David Martin. Clearly this is a very reasonable thing to do, since both of them subscribe to BLML! Congratulations to the three of them! -- David Stevenson Bridge Cats Railways Logic /\_/\ Liverpool, England, UK http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk =( ^*^ )= bridge@blakjak.demon.co.uk Emails welcome bluejak on OKB ( | | ) Tel: +44 (0)151 677 7412 Phone before Fax please RTFLB (_~^ ^~ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Mar 20 12:54:13 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id MAA09591 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 20 Mar 1997 12:54:13 +1000 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 MAA09586 for ; Thu, 20 Mar 1997 12:54:07 +1000 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by relay-5.mail.demon.net id aa0515493; 20 Mar 97 2:07 GMT Message-ID: Date: Thu, 20 Mar 1997 01:57:05 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: New L16A: "demonstrably In-Reply-To: <199703191800.AA203664421@brisbane> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Con Holzscherer wrote: > As a member of the Dutch National Appeals Committee I can >not let two remarks recently made in this 'list' pass without >comment. >Steve Willner wrote: > >SW> This ruling would seem automatic in Europe or anywhere >SW> the definition of LA is 25% or something like it. >SW> It's not so clear in North America, where our definition >SW> is 0%, but even over here, it isn't crazy. > > I do not think there is a difference in 'definition of LA' >between the ACBL and Europe in general. In the Netherlands >we follow the rule "if some peer would consider it, it is an >LA", which does not sound like 25% to me. Europe suffers somewhat from fragmentation. We are not a single country the way that the USA is. Yes, I know that the ACBL comprises four countries, but the USA predominates, and the ACBL is a single NCBO. Here in Europe we have many countries with many NCBOs. We speak different languages. We have different currencies. We have a history of many countries disagreeing on everything. Many people do not see what advantage there is in a European Union. A year ago I started posting to RGB. Soon it became obvious that there was not much understanding of the Laws except for a small minority of people. We began exchanging emails, and from these beginnings BLML was born. At that time many of us had little idea whether other countries were similar. The Europeans in the group [originally Jens, Jesper, Richard, Herman and myself] were surprised and pleased to discover that there was a unanimity of opinion on a number of matters. Despite the fact that many of the Americans were reasonable and sensible [the original ones were Alan, Steve and Eric, AFAIR: apologies if I have missed anyone] they argued things differently: much of the difference came, we eventually realised, from the different approach in the ACBL. How about L16? We found from discussion that there used to be a 25% rule in the ACBL, but that it was changed and tightened. The EBU/WBU uses 30% [which I believe should be 20% or even 15%] and it seemed that no Europeans claimed to use anything approaching the American standard. Furthermore what we have read does not convince us in any way that the Americans have got it right. Maybe they have, but I for one would need a lot of convincing. Then we have two ways in which we think "European" rather than think separate countries/NCBOs. First, we have a European TD guide. EBL 16.6 We broadly interpret a "logical alternative" as being a call or play which three in ten players of equal ability ..." So Endicott and Hansen in the official EBL TD guide use the 30% rule! Second, how about EBL TD seminars? There has been no English TD attending the last three [four?] for reasons I will not go into publicly. However, I would have heard if there had been any changes in this area. So I am confident that on these courses nothing approaching the ACBL criteria has been used. It is possible that a European country/NCBO has a different interpretation of the Laws from the rest of Europe. It seems from Con's remarks that the Netherlands may be one such. However, our approach to referring to European interpretations seems reasonable because there clearly is a unanimity amongst a number of countries and the EBL and that is why I have referred to the European approach and will continue to do so. From BLML and private emails I have got an impression of Tournament Direction in a number of other countries. I am still not confident enough to say that I know the Australian approach, or the South African approach, or various other NCBOs. However, I do believe that I *know* the approach of the *majority* of European NCBOs, which is what I call the European approach, and the approach of the ACBL, which I often call the American or the North American approach. >Eric Landau wrote: > >EL> We expect North American committees to be harsher in UI >EL> cases than European ones, ...... > > Why? The same Laws apply in both continents! Interpretations differ. L16 refers to LAs, and the Law is the same, but the "European" interpretation of an LA differs from the "North American" interpretation. >EL> .....and, on average, they seem to be, ........ > > On what information do you base this statement? Do you have >any statistics to corroborate it? I think the rest of us know it to be generally true, even if not so in the Netherlands. -- 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 Mar 20 13:52:37 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id NAA09688 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 20 Mar 1997 13:52:37 +1000 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 NAA09683 for ; Thu, 20 Mar 1997 13:52:31 +1000 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by relay-6.mail.demon.net id aa0612546; 20 Mar 97 2:07 GMT Message-ID: Date: Thu, 20 Mar 1997 01:17:53 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Hesitating after partner's skip bid when opponent doesn't In-Reply-To: <199703191851.KAA13597@euclid.msri.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Grabiner wrote: > >The following situation came up in a discussion on rec.games.bridge: > >N E S W >1H P 1S P >4C P 4S > >East didn't hesistate over the 4C bid. If South doesn't call the >director for this infraction, is he supposed to use up the rest of the >10 seconds? I think he should, because a quick pass would pass UI; >therefore, if he does take 10-15 seconds to make the call, this should >not be considered to pass UI to partner. > The easy solution, suggested by someone on RGB, is for South to call the TD, and tell him that East did not hesitate. This will give him time for contemplation! We have had a few rulings on things like this. I believe that you have a right to expect your opponents to follow the regulations, and thus should *not* be ruled against in this type of situation. -- 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 Mar 20 18:45:52 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id SAA10590 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 20 Mar 1997 18:45:52 +1000 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 SAA10585 for ; Thu, 20 Mar 1997 18:45:46 +1000 From: Stephen_Barnfield@europe.notes.pw.com Received: by ivy.tc.pw.com; id BAA03387; Thu, 20 Mar 1997 01:26:07 -0800 (PST) Received: from cactus.tc.pw.com(131.209.7.48) by ivy.tc.pw.com via smap (3.2) id xma003290; Thu, 20 Mar 97 01:25:55 -0800 Received: (from root@localhost) by cactus.tc.pw.com (8.8.4/8.7.3) id AAA29517 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Thu, 20 Mar 1997 00:48:05 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <199703200848.AAA29517@cactus.tc.pw.com> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Thu, 20 Mar 97 08:40:29 GMT Subject: Re: Hesitating after partner's skip bid when opponent doesn't Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Grabiner wrote: > >The following situation came up in a discussion on rec.games.bridge: > >N E S W >1H P 1S P >4C P 4S > >East didn't hesistate over the 4C bid. If South doesn't call the >director for this infraction, is he supposed to use up the rest of the >10 seconds? I think he should, because a quick pass would pass UI; >therefore, if he does take 10-15 seconds to make the call, this should >not be considered to pass UI to partner. > David Stevenson wrote: From owner-bridge-laws Thu Mar 20 20:05:55 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id UAA10823 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 20 Mar 1997 20:05:55 +1000 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 UAA10818 for ; Thu, 20 Mar 1997 20:05:47 +1000 From: Stephen_Barnfield@europe.notes.pw.com Received: by ivy.tc.pw.com; id CAA10431; Thu, 20 Mar 1997 02:46:09 -0800 (PST) Received: from cactus.tc.pw.com(131.209.7.48) by ivy.tc.pw.com via smap (3.2) id xma010351; Thu, 20 Mar 97 02:45:48 -0800 Received: (from root@localhost) by cactus.tc.pw.com (8.8.4/8.7.3) id CAA06630 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Thu, 20 Mar 1997 02:07:57 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <199703201007.CAA06630@cactus.tc.pw.com> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Thu, 20 Mar 97 10:00:42 GMT Subject: Re: Hesitating after partner's skip bid when opponent doesn't Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk My first attempt to send this appeared to fail. Here is the second attempt. David Grabiner wrote: > >The following situation came up in a discussion on rec.games.bridge: > >N E S W >1H P 1S P >4C P 4S > >East didn't hesistate over the 4C bid. If South doesn't call the >director for this infraction, is he supposed to use up the rest of the >10 seconds? I think he should, because a quick pass would pass UI; >therefore, if he does take 10-15 seconds to make the call, this should >not be considered to pass UI to partner. > David Stevenson wrote: > > > > We have had a few rulings on things like this. I believe that you >have a right to expect your opponents to follow the regulations, and >thus should *not* be ruled against in this type of situation. I assume the problem here is when South bids 4S slowly, and North proceeds, leading to a successful slam. Whilst each case depends on its own facts, there are IMO two Laws to be borne in mind: (1) Law16A2 ends "The Director ... stands ready to assign an adjusted score if he considers that an infraction of the law has resulted in damamge." Whilst for South to hesitate and North to proceed even though pass was a logical alternative *is* an infraction of law, *East's* failure to stop is an infraction of a regulation (and possibly Law 73A2 also). Depending on the facts it may be that South's infraction did not "result" in damage since East's infraction might also have been necessary for the damage to be caused. If so then there is no reason to adjust the score. [I recognise this is certainly not an unassailable argument, but it has the merit of leading to a result which I think many would think fair.] (2) IMO there is no "non-offending side" for the purposes of Law12C2 (assigned adjusted score). Therefore even if the TD took away NS's good score, he or she should not give EW "the most favourable result that was likely had" North not proceeded over South's slow 4S. If the Director did adjust the score to give both sides the worst of it, then, depending on the facts, the Appeals Committee might consider that "to do equity" they should adjust the score back, for both sides, to the slam making. If that was what they thought, then their power "to do equity" under Law12C2 permits them to do this. Any views? From owner-bridge-laws Thu Mar 20 23:51:30 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA11564 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 20 Mar 1997 23:51:30 +1000 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 XAA11558 for ; Thu, 20 Mar 1997 23:51:19 +1000 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 IAA14151 for ; Thu, 20 Mar 1997 08:51:08 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <1.5.4.32.19970320135000.00686648@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, 20 Mar 1997 08:50:00 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: Hesitating after partner's skip bid when opponent doesn't Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 01:17 AM 3/20/97 +0000, David S. wrote: > The easy solution, suggested by someone on RGB, is for South to call >the TD, and tell him that East did not hesitate. This will give him >time for contemplation! I find this suggestion appalling. Calling the TD, wasting his valuable time on a matter for which you neither expect nor think you deserve redress, solely for the purpose of "covering up" the time needed to decide on what to bid, in order to avoid getting into a position where your otherwise obvious hesitation might lead to a UI situation. Yuck. I suppose it would be legal, since your opponent did commit a technical infraction, albeit one which had no effect on the subsequent action, but it certainly strikes me as a gross violation of the spirit in which the game should be played. Would we tolerate a player who deliberately spilled his coffee or upset the table to cover up his huddles when he had a problem he needed to take time to think about? Well, we might, but we certainly wouldn't look favorably on such a practice. And isn't calling the TD for the same purpose even worse, since it seriously inconveniences the rest of the room by making one less TD available to take seriously intended director calls? 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 Mar 21 01:03:29 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA14184 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 21 Mar 1997 01:03:29 +1000 Received: from emout18.mail.aol.com (emout18.mx.aol.com [198.81.11.44]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id BAA14179 for ; Fri, 21 Mar 1997 01:03:01 +1000 From: AlLeBendig@aol.com Received: (from root@localhost) by emout18.mail.aol.com (8.7.6/8.7.3/AOL-2.0.0) id KAA14270 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Thu, 20 Mar 1997 10:02:22 -0500 (EST) Date: Thu, 20 Mar 1997 10:02:22 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <970320100221_1614597315@emout18.mail.aol.com> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: ACBL to limit score adjustments to 1/4 board? Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In a message dated 97-03-13 17:59:50 EST, David G. writes: > The following policy appears in the NABC Daily Bulletin from the ACBL > board meeting highlights. Does anyone know anything about the > background for this proposal? > > Effective July 24, 1997 and after input from > the C&C Committee and approval from the > National Laws Commission, the Board will > consider the following during the Summer > meeting: In cases other than KO teams, > where someone is found to have > committed an offense that causes damage, > a score adjustment is limited to one-fourth > of a board or 3 IMPs, as appropriate, each > way in equal amounts. Depending on the > severity of the infraction, a procedural > penalty shall be assessed to the offending > side according to guidelines that will be > submitted prior to approval. Additionally, if > the Appeals Committee decides the appeal > is unjustified, it will also assess a > procedural penalty of one-fourth of a board > or 3 IMPs, as appropriate. There has been a great deal of misinformation here. The above proposal has some backing from many very prominent players. Hamman, Wolff and Goldman to name three.. It is NOT their intent to always limit adjustments to 1/4 of a board but rather in cases where the non-offenders were usually going to get a very good result. A simple example given to me: If David S. and I are playing together (it could happen) and we use hesitation Blackwood to bid a very bad slam (2%) which just happens to make, this "group" believes that our opponents should be stuck with their result. They claim that most of the time our opponents will get a very good result and therefore they have a great deal of equity going for them. As Wolff has written, this should be considered NPL (normal playing luck). They originally wanted no adjustment in such a situation for the NOs but found they had more support if they limited the adjustment. I have opposed this from the first time I heard it. They seem concerned with the fact that the "field" is being affected by giving one pair a great result which they in no way earned. I suggested that we then should limit adjustments for revokes since the same bonus result is inflicted on the field. Karen Allison pointed out that the Laws Commission has indeed told the BOD that this approach is wrong and not in the Scope of the Laws. However, I don't believe this to be the end of this effort. If the BOD is convinced that this is the right way to go, they may try to get the Laws Commission to agree with some wording that allows for Zonal options. This has happened in the past. The BOD has never overruled the LC but I am not certain they wouldn't consider it their right to do so. \\\\\\ O O ( > ) \ 0 / \ Alan LeBendig From owner-bridge-laws Fri Mar 21 01:07:37 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA14207 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 21 Mar 1997 01:07:37 +1000 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 BAA14202 for ; Fri, 21 Mar 1997 01:07:32 +1000 Received: from hirsch.usuf2.usuhs.mil ([131.158.13.27]) by smtp1.erols.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id KAA02155 for ; Thu, 20 Mar 1997 10:08:05 -0500 Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19970320100335.0068e30c@pop.erols.com> X-Sender: hdavis@pop.erols.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Thu, 20 Mar 1997 10:03:35 -0500 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Hirsch Davis Subject: Re: Hesitating after partner's skip bid when opponent doesn't In-Reply-To: <1.5.4.32.19970320135000.00686648@cais.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 08:50 AM 3/20/97 -0500, Eric Landau wrote: >At 01:17 AM 3/20/97 +0000, David S. wrote: > >> The easy solution, suggested by someone on RGB, is for South to call >>the TD, and tell him that East did not hesitate. This will give him >>time for contemplation! > [snip] > >Would we tolerate a player who deliberately spilled his coffee or upset the >table to cover up his huddles when he had a problem he needed to take time >to think about? Well, we might, but we certainly wouldn't look favorably on >such a practice. And isn't calling the TD for the same purpose even worse, >since it seriously inconveniences the rest of the room by making one less TD >available to take seriously intended director calls? > [snip] Agreed that to call the TD solely for the purpose of buying time to contemplate a bid in an egregious ethical violation. But that is not the case here. An opponent has failed to hesitate after a stop card. It is not known at the time whether the violation is a technical one or not. The fast pass may influence the opening lead, or dissuade the opponent's partner from a close double. We do not know if this has occured, and may not until well into the play of the hand. And if we wait to summon the director at that point, we may have difficulty in establishing the fact of the fast pass. So, I think we must tolerate, and perhaps encourage, the player who summons the director after a fast pass, as it will make the facts of any subsequent ruling much easier to establish. And if the fast pass, and subsequent director call, give a player more time to consider his bid? I can think to no way to tell a player not to consider the hand during the time needed for a director call. Perhaps if players realized that their fast pass (and subsequent director call) gives more time to an opponent, we will see fewer fast passes after skip bids. Hirsch From owner-bridge-laws Fri Mar 21 06:34:05 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA16292 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 21 Mar 1997 06:34:05 +1000 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 GAA16259 for ; Fri, 21 Mar 1997 06:32:55 +1000 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 PAA10279 for ; Thu, 20 Mar 1997 15:32:49 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <1.5.4.32.19970320203142.00688318@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, 20 Mar 1997 15:31:42 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: ACBL to limit score adjustments to 1/4 board? Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 10:02 AM 3/20/97 -0500, Alan wrote: >There has been a great deal of misinformation here. The above proposal has >some backing from many very prominent players. Hamman, Wolff and Goldman to >name three.. It is NOT their intent to always limit adjustments to 1/4 of a >board but rather in cases where the non-offenders were usually going to get a >very good result. A simple example given to me: If David S. and I are >playing together (it could happen) and we use hesitation Blackwood to bid a >very bad slam (2%) which just happens to make, this "group" believes that our >opponents should be stuck with their result. They claim that most of the >time our opponents will get a very good result and therefore they have a >great deal of equity going for them. As Wolff has written, this should be >considered NPL (normal playing luck). They originally wanted no adjustment >in such a situation for the NOs but found they had more support if they >limited the adjustment. Now let me get this example straight. My opponents violate the rules and, by doing so, reach a slam that's cold as the cards lie. We go to committee, and their score is adjusted to the "equity" result that would have obtained had they not committed the infraction, and therefore not bid the slam. But my equity position -- whether or not I'm entitled to the result that would have obtained absent the infraction -- depends on whether the committee thinks that their cold slam was a "good" slam or a "bad" slam. Say what? If a robber steals my property, and gets caught with the goods, the Law recovers the stolen property and puts the robber in jail. If these folks wrote the criminal laws, then, had I been the victim of an "ordinary" armed robbery, I could get my property back, whereas if I had been the victim of some complicated scheme that needed a great deal of luck to succeed, my property would be burned, and I would be expected to write it off to "ordinary luck". >I have opposed this from the first time I heard it. It's nice to have at least one sensible person in a position of influence. Thank you, Alan. > They seem concerned with the fact that the "field" is being affected by >giving one pair a great result which they in no way earned. I suggested that >we then should limit adjustments for revokes since the same bonus result is >inflicted on the field. "Great result[s] which [are] in no way earned" are part of the game. Luck has a critical role to play in Bridge. If this is their concern, why limit it to situations where the opponents have committed an infraction? Why not limit the score you're entitled to in situations where the opponents have committed a stupid blunder? Doesn't that effect the field just as much? For that matter, if fairness to the field is more important than equity at the table, then, if their 2% slam goes down, shouldn't we give them a FAVORABLE adjustment rather than letting them keep their distorted-relative-to-the-field result? In my less charitable moments, I sometimes think that many top experts would like to see all of the luck removed from the game entirely. If we take their argument to absurd lengths, perhaps Messrs. Hamman, Wolff, Goldman et al would favor the ultimate in "fairness to the field": Let the seeding committee decide the outcome of the event, and don't bother playing with the cards at all. Then we could be safe from outcomes that are "distorted" by others' "unearned" results. >Karen Allison pointed out that the Laws Commission has indeed told the BOD >that this approach is wrong and not in the Scope of the Laws. However, I >don't believe this to be the end of this effort. If the BOD is convinced >that this is the right way to go, they may try to get the Laws Commission to >agree with some wording that allows for Zonal options. This has happened in >the past. The BOD has never overruled the LC but I am not certain they >wouldn't consider it their right to do so. The BoD hasn't overruled the LC lately, but has certainly done so in the past. There were several cases, back when Edgar Kaplan was a member of the ACBL LC but before he joined the WBF LC, in which the BoD overruled the (ACBL) LC; I distinctly recall Mr. Kaplan's rather strongly worded editorials on the subject in The Bridge World. 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 Mar 21 12:51:18 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id MAA18031 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 21 Mar 1997 12:51:18 +1000 Received: from emout03.mail.aol.com (emout03.mx.aol.com [198.81.11.94]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id MAA18026 for ; Fri, 21 Mar 1997 12:51:11 +1000 From: AlLeBendig@aol.com Received: (from root@localhost) by emout03.mail.aol.com (8.7.6/8.7.3/AOL-2.0.0) id VAA20340 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Thu, 20 Mar 1997 21:50:36 -0500 (EST) Date: Thu, 20 Mar 1997 21:50:36 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <970320215035_180707310@emout03.mail.aol.com> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: ACBL to limit score adjustments to 1/4 board? Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In a message dated 97-03-20 15:37:51 EST, Eric writes: >>Alan wrote: > >Karen Allison pointed out that the Laws Commission has indeed told the BOD > >that this approach is wrong and not in the Scope of the Laws. However, I > >don't believe this to be the end of this effort. If the BOD is convinced > >that this is the right way to go, they may try to get the Laws Commission > to > >agree with some wording that allows for Zonal options. This has happened > in > >the past. The BOD has never overruled the LC but I am not certain they > >wouldn't consider it their right to do so. > > The BoD hasn't overruled the LC lately, but has certainly done so in the > past. There were several cases, back when Edgar Kaplan was a member of the > ACBL LC but before he joined the WBF LC, in which the BoD overruled the > (ACBL) LC; I distinctly recall Mr. Kaplan's rather strongly worded > editorials on the subject in The Bridge World. Your memory is much longer than mine, Eric. I was not really involved before the early 80s. My apologies for misrepresenting such history. The current BOD does indeed seem inclined to abide by the wishes of the ACBL LC. That could change, I suppose. This entire discussion first became a public one at the start of the San Francisco NABC. At that time we were holding a meeting on the first night of all the top NABC Appeals Members. Bobby Goldman brought this topic up after we had discussed some philosophies on PPs. There were 42 members and top players there and after both positions were presented a straw poll was taken as to how the members felt about this. I was horrified to see the vote split down the middle. Rich Colker, Eric Kokish, Ray Raskin, Jon Brissman and I discussed this prior to the Dallas NABC. Our decision was to inform all members of the Appeals Committee that we were going to rule as the Laws read which meant adjustments according to L12C. They were told they were welcome to believe this was the wrong approach but if they felt they must rule differently, they might as well not serve. There were a few grumbles, but noone quit. \\\\\\ O O ( > ) \ 0 / \ Alan LeBendig From owner-bridge-laws Fri Mar 21 13:31:57 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id NAA18124 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 21 Mar 1997 13:31:57 +1000 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 NAA18119 for ; Fri, 21 Mar 1997 13:31:51 +1000 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by relay-6.mail.demon.net id aa0603027; 21 Mar 97 3:26 GMT Message-ID: Date: Fri, 21 Mar 1997 00:11:44 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Hesitating after partner's skip bid when opponent doesn't In-Reply-To: <1.5.4.32.19970320135000.00686648@cais.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Eric Landau wrote: >At 01:17 AM 3/20/97 +0000, David S. wrote: > >> The easy solution, suggested by someone on RGB, is for South to call >>the TD, and tell him that East did not hesitate. This will give him >>time for contemplation! > >I find this suggestion appalling. Calling the TD, wasting his valuable time >on a matter for which you neither expect nor think you deserve redress, >solely for the purpose of "covering up" the time needed to decide on what to >bid, in order to avoid getting into a position where your otherwise obvious >hesitation might lead to a UI situation. Yuck. I suppose it would be >legal, since your opponent did commit a technical infraction, albeit one >which had no effect on the subsequent action, but it certainly strikes me as >a gross violation of the spirit in which the game should be played. Hey, what's all this? It is not an infraction that had no effect on the subsequent auction. I would not be suggesting calling the TD if it were. The failure of the player to follow an obvious and well-known regulation is the direct cause of the UI that is about to happen. >Would we tolerate a player who deliberately spilled his coffee or upset the >table to cover up his huddles when he had a problem he needed to take time >to think about? Well, we might, but we certainly wouldn't look favorably on >such a practice. And isn't calling the TD for the same purpose even worse, >since it seriously inconveniences the rest of the room by making one less TD >available to take seriously intended director calls? Possibly, but this case is not similar. You have a right to think during RHO's mandatory pause. Therefore it is an infraction that is clearly affecting the game. Why don't you have all players using stop cards and leaving them out for 10 seconds? This sort of problem would go away. -- 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 Mar 21 13:50:19 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id NAA18161 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 21 Mar 1997 13:50:19 +1000 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 NAA18156 for ; Fri, 21 Mar 1997 13:50:12 +1000 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by relay-10.mail.demon.net id aa1009184; 21 Mar 97 3:26 GMT Message-ID: Date: Fri, 21 Mar 1997 00:04:37 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: ACBL to limit score adjustments to 1/4 board? In-Reply-To: <1.5.4.32.19970320203142.00688318@cais.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Eric Landau wrote: I agree with everything Eric wrote so I shall not repeat it. ------------- I believe it is very important that we fight strongly against any notion of protecting the field. It has no basis in law. Its main advantage is that it gives BLs an excuse to ask for rulings that would be very difficult to justify to their own consciences otherwise. The luck of different actions at different tables is a basic part of the game. There is no advantage to trying to level it out in one particular way while leaving it unaltered in other ways. Fortunately, the principle of protecting the field does not appear in the Law book, and we should always fight hard to make sure that interpretations and regulations do not include 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 Sat Mar 22 07:10:21 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA24245 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 22 Mar 1997 07:10:21 +1000 Received: from mail2.isys.net (trance.isys.net [194.64.236.33]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id HAA24240 for ; Sat, 22 Mar 1997 07:10:15 +1000 Received: from mail1.isys.net[193.96.224.33] by mail2.isys.net with smtp (Smail 3.2 #2 -iSYS-); id m0w8BZX-000HTHC; Fri, 21 Mar 1997 22:09:59 +0100 (MET) Received: from meckwell [194.195.202.217] by mail1.isys.net with smtp (Smail 3.2 #3 -iSYS-); id m0w8BZX-001LD6C; Fri, 21 Mar 1997 22:09:59 +0100 (MET) Date: Fri, 21 Mar 1997 22:12:42 +0100 (CET) From: Henk Uijterwaal X-Sender: henk@meckwell Reply-To: Henk Uijterwaal To: David Stevenson cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: New L16A: "demonstrably 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 Mar 1997, David Stevenson wrote: > Here in Europe we have many countries with many NCBOs. We speak > different languages. We have different currencies. We have a history > of many countries disagreeing on everything. Many people do not see > what advantage there is in a European Union. This probably belongs on another list, but the only when I'm in the UK, I heard serious discussions about the EU. In the two other European countries where I've lived, it isn't an issue at all. 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 Sat Mar 22 08:15:56 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA24462 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 22 Mar 1997 08:15:56 +1000 Received: from ns.dknet.dk (root@ns.dknet.dk [193.88.44.42]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id IAA24456 for ; Sat, 22 Mar 1997 08:15:45 +1000 Received: from pip.dknet.dk (root@pip.dknet.dk [193.88.44.48]) by ns.dknet.dk (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id XAA24053 for ; Fri, 21 Mar 1997 23:15:39 +0100 (MET) Received: from default (cph25.ppp.dknet.dk [194.192.100.25]) by pip.dknet.dk (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id XAA04534 for ; Fri, 21 Mar 1997 23:15:32 +0100 Message-Id: <199703212215.XAA04534@pip.dknet.dk> Comments: Authenticated sender is From: "Jens & Bodil" Organization: Alesia Software To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Fri, 21 Mar 1997 23:15:50 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Definition of logical alternative (was) "demonstrably" Priority: normal X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v2.42a) Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk From: David Stevenson > Con Holzscherer wrote: > > > As a member of the Dutch National Appeals Committee I can > >not let two remarks recently made in this 'list' pass without > >comment. > > >Steve Willner wrote: > > > >SW> This ruling would seem automatic in Europe or anywhere > >SW> the definition of LA is 25% or something like it. > >SW> It's not so clear in North America, where our definition > >SW> is 0%, but even over here, it isn't crazy. > > > > I do not think there is a difference in 'definition of LA' > >between the ACBL and Europe in general. In the Netherlands > >we follow the rule "if some peer would consider it, it is an > >LA", which does not sound like 25% to me. [more snippage] > How about L16? We found from discussion that there used to be a 25% > rule in the ACBL, but that it was changed and tightened. The EBU/WBU > uses 30% [which I believe should be 20% or even 15%] and it seemed that > no Europeans claimed to use anything approaching the American standard. > Furthermore what we have read does not convince us in any way that the > Americans have got it right. Maybe they have, but I for one would need > a lot of convincing. > > Then we have two ways in which we think "European" rather than think > separate countries/NCBOs. First, we have a European TD guide. > > EBL 16.6 > We broadly interpret a "logical alternative" as being a call or play > which three in ten players of equal ability ..." > > So Endicott and Hansen in the official EBL TD guide use the 30% rule! > > Second, how about EBL TD seminars? There has been no English TD > attending the last three [four?] for reasons I will not go into > publicly. However, I would have heard if there had been any changes in > this area. So I am confident that on these courses nothing approaching > the ACBL criteria has been used. The latest EBL seminar, in Milan last year, discussed this at length. The policy recommended was (in broad terms) to use 20% or even 15%, even though it used to be 25% or 30%. Coming back from the seminar, I discussed this with my colleagues on the Danish appeals committee, and we think that we follow these guidelines, and also that we have been following them for some time. FWIW, my report on this matter also went out to all national-level TDs in Denmark. The way we phrase our interpretation in Denmark (translating from memory from a recent letter of mine to the editor of Dnask Bridge) is: To determine if an action is an LA, the AC estimates what the player's peers would do in the same situation, playing the same methods, in absence of the UI. An action is an LA if a more than a scattered few of these peers would *choose* it. We stress that it is not a question of poll taking, and we try to avoid giving percentages, but if pressed we say that 30% is certainly well above "a scattered few". 15% or 20% feels about right, but it could be as little as 10%. Note that we deliberately do not try to judge what people think about in such situations (which is philosophically difficult), only what they actually do (which is difficult enough without the philosophical overtones). It seems that Denmark allows more actions in UI situations than the Netherlands and the ACBL, but fewer than some countries in Britain. -- Jens Brix Christiansen, Denmark From owner-bridge-laws Sat Mar 22 08:58:18 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA24656 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 22 Mar 1997 08:58:18 +1000 Received: from msri.org (msri.org [198.129.64.224]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id IAA24651 for ; Sat, 22 Mar 1997 08:58:13 +1000 Received: (from smap@localhost) by msri.org (8.8.2/8.7.2) id OAA29631 for ; Fri, 21 Mar 1997 14:58:27 -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 sma029612; Fri Mar 21 14:57:40 1997 Received: by boole.msri.org (8.7/DW.6) id OAA02577; Fri, 21 Mar 1997 14:57:24 -0800 (PST) Date: Fri, 21 Mar 1997 14:57:24 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <199703212257.OAA02577@boole.msri.org> From: David Grabiner To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Official policy on mispulls from bidding box Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Is there an official WBF or ACBL position published somewhere on when you can correct a mispull from a bidding box? At a club game last night, my RHO opened 1NT, I passed, and LHO pulled 1D from her box, then tried to correct it after I waited a few seconds and called the director. The director didn't have any reference other than "without pause for thought" on which to judge whether this was a correctable mispull or an insufficient bid that would have been corrected to a conventional 2D. She ruled insufficient bid; I thought this was wrong but didn't have any basis for correcting her. As a separate point, should the director be able to look at offender's hand (which had six points and five hearts) to confirm that this was a mispull, while it would have been a misbid if the offender had held 13 points and five diamonds? -- 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 Mar 22 23:06:19 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA26769 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 22 Mar 1997 23:06:19 +1000 Received: from buttons.ihug.co.nz (buttons.ihug.co.nz [203.29.160.140]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id XAA26764 for ; Sat, 22 Mar 1997 23:06:14 +1000 Received: from sat374.ihug.co.nz (sat374.ihug.co.nz [207.212.239.120]) by buttons.ihug.co.nz (950413.SGI.8.6.12/950213.SGI.AUTOCF) via SMTP id LAA18098 for ; Sat, 22 Mar 1997 11:49:04 GMT Date: Sat, 22 Mar 1997 11:49:04 GMT Message-Id: <199703221149.LAA18098@buttons.ihug.co.nz> X-Sender: tripack@ihug.co.nz 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: patrick carter Subject: logical alternatives Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Just to add one more opinion to the raft of views floating backwards and forwards about when one is allowed to make a bid that may have been suggested by unauthorised information I'll add the New Zealand point of view. We have put the following definition in the NZCBA Bridge Manual: Law 16a: There are no logical alternatives to an action that would have been selected by 75% of the field competing in that stage of the event. If the player concerned was of a significantly higher standard than the remainder of the field then there are no logical alternatives to that which would have been selected by 75% of players of a similar ability. When we promulgated this interpretation, we received complaints from two of our six Regional Authorities. One complained that there must be a level playing field and that all players should be judged against what the field would do. The other complained that each player must be rated against his/her own peers. Both RA were happy with the 75% concept, merely on how it was judged. A copy of each letter was sent to the other RA and we have heard no more about it. Regards Patrick Carter Patrick Carter Email: tripack@ihug.co.nz Auckland Bridge Club Director Phone: (64)96293615 - home New Zealand (64)95245562 - bridge club Chairman, Laws @ Ethics Fax: (64)95245576 N.Z.C.B.A. From owner-bridge-laws Sat Mar 22 23:40:21 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA26864 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 22 Mar 1997 23:40:21 +1000 Received: from relay-finch.mail.demon.net (relay-finch.mail.demon.net [158.152.1.63]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id XAA26859 for ; Sat, 22 Mar 1997 23:40:14 +1000 Received: from rbarden.demon.co.uk ([158.152.169.19]) by relay-finch.mail.demon.net id aa0023286; 22 Mar 97 13:37 GMT Message-ID: Date: Fri, 21 Mar 1997 21:01:28 +0000 To: AlLeBendig@aol.com Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Paul Barden Subject: Re: ACBL to limit score adjustments to 1/4 board? In-Reply-To: <970320100221_1614597315@emout18.mail.aol.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 1.12 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In message <970320100221_1614597315@emout18.mail.aol.com>, AlLeBendig@aol.com writes >In a message dated 97-03-13 17:59:50 EST, David G. writes: > >> The following policy appears in the NABC Daily Bulletin from the ACBL >> board meeting highlights. Does anyone know anything about the >> background for this proposal? >> >> Effective July 24, 1997 and after input from >> the C&C Committee and approval from the >> National Laws Commission, the Board will >> consider the following during the Summer >> meeting: In cases other than KO teams, >> where someone is found to have >> committed an offense that causes damage, >> a score adjustment is limited to one-fourth >> of a board or 3 IMPs, as appropriate, each >> way in equal amounts. Depending on the >> severity of the infraction, a procedural >> penalty shall be assessed to the offending >> side according to guidelines that will be >> submitted prior to approval. Additionally, if >> the Appeals Committee decides the appeal >> is unjustified, it will also assess a >> procedural penalty of one-fourth of a board >> or 3 IMPs, as appropriate. > >There has been a great deal of misinformation here. The above proposal has >some backing from many very prominent players. Hamman, Wolff and Goldman to >name three.. It is NOT their intent to always limit adjustments to 1/4 of a >board but rather in cases where the non-offenders were usually going to get a >very good result. A simple example given to me: If David S. and I are >playing together (it could happen) and we use hesitation Blackwood to bid a >very bad slam (2%) which just happens to make, this "group" believes that our >opponents should be stuck with their result. They claim that most of the >time our opponents will get a very good result and therefore they have a >great deal of equity going for them. As Wolff has written, this should be >considered NPL (normal playing luck). They originally wanted no adjustment >in such a situation for the NOs but found they had more support if they >limited the adjustment. I have opposed this from the first time I heard it. > They seem concerned with the fact that the "field" is being affected by >giving one pair a great result which they in no way earned. I suggested that >we then should limit adjustments for revokes since the same bonus result is >inflicted on the field. > I don't understand the wording of the rule, but I agree completely with the aims of Hamman, Wolff and Goldman. If you are alleged to have taken advantage of UI to bid a slam, but the slam turns out to be 2%, then clearly the allegation is false. If the 2% slam happens to make, that doesn't add force to the allegation. The aim of the rules on UI is to make sure that players don't bid (or defend) more accurately than their skill and judgment permits. Making a 2% slam has got nothing to do with bidding accurately. >Karen Allison pointed out that the Laws Commission has indeed told the BOD >that this approach is wrong and not in the Scope of the Laws. However, I >don't believe this to be the end of this effort. If the BOD is convinced >that this is the right way to go, they may try to get the Laws Commission to >agree with some wording that allows for Zonal options. This has happened in >the past. The BOD has never overruled the LC but I am not certain they >wouldn't consider it their right to do so. > >\\\\\\ > O O > ( > ) > \ 0 > / \ >Alan LeBendig -- Paul Barden From owner-bridge-laws Sun Mar 23 01:59:26 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA29377 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 23 Mar 1997 01:59:26 +1000 Received: from ns.dknet.dk (root@ns.dknet.dk [193.88.44.42]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id BAA29372 for ; Sun, 23 Mar 1997 01:59:19 +1000 Received: from pip.dknet.dk (root@pip.dknet.dk [193.88.44.48]) by ns.dknet.dk (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id QAA13354 for ; Sat, 22 Mar 1997 16:59:13 +0100 (MET) Received: from default (cph8.ppp.dknet.dk [194.192.100.8]) by pip.dknet.dk (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id QAA23437 for ; Sat, 22 Mar 1997 16:59:08 +0100 Message-Id: <199703221559.QAA23437@pip.dknet.dk> Comments: Authenticated sender is From: "Jens & Bodil" Organization: Alesia Software To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Sat, 22 Mar 1997 16:59:27 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Re: Official policy on mispulls from bidding box Priority: normal X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v2.42a) Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: David Grabiner > Is there an official WBF or ACBL position published somewhere on when > you can correct a mispull from a bidding box? There soon will be. The 1997 Laws (Law 25A) say that you can correct a mispull *until partner makes a call*, provided that it really is a mispull and provided that you do not pause for thought . The part in <> is not explicit in the L25A, but difficult to quarrel with when you note the time limit. > At a club game last night, my RHO opened 1NT, I passed, and LHO pulled > 1D from her box, then tried to correct it after I waited a few seconds > and called the director. The director didn't have any reference other > than "without pause for thought" on which to judge whether this was a > correctable mispull or an insufficient bid that would have been > corrected to a conventional 2D. She ruled insufficient bid; I thought > this was wrong but didn't have any basis for correcting her. It is an insufficient bid if she intended 1D; it is a mispull if she intended 2D. In the latter case, the way you describe the situation, it is obvious that she did not pause for thought once her attention was drawn to the error; thus it may be corrected to the intended call without penalty. Most likely, little harm was done by the ruling. Surely your LHO corrected 1D to 2H; this bars RHO from the auction. Of course, in a freak situation where 2H becomes the final contract, and your partner is end-played on the opening lead, you could have been damaged by the wrong ruling, and you should have appealed. > As a separate point, should the director be able to look at offender's > hand (which had six points and five hearts) to confirm that this was a > mispull, while it would have been a misbid if the offender had held 13 > points and five diamonds? The EBL TD seminar recommended that you do not look at the hand, but that you take the player aside and ask what happened. Persistent readers of BLML will remember that I recently reported on a similar incident where I (TD) had to have this type of private conversation with Bodil (player): different conclusion. Even the most obnoxious of players (Bodil does not qualify as obnoxious) I have encountered would not be dishonest in a case like this; and there is always the possibility of checking afterwards. -- Jens Brix Christiansen, Denmark From owner-bridge-laws Sun Mar 23 07:30:41 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA00519 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 23 Mar 1997 07:30:41 +1000 Received: from mail2.isys.net (trance.isys.net [194.64.236.33]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id HAA00514 for ; Sun, 23 Mar 1997 07:30:33 +1000 Received: from mail1.isys.net[193.96.224.33] by mail2.isys.net with smtp (Smail 3.2 #2 -iSYS-); id m0w8YMs-000HUFC; Sat, 22 Mar 1997 22:30:26 +0100 (MET) Received: from meckwell [194.195.202.163] by mail1.isys.net with smtp (Smail 3.2 #3 -iSYS-); id m0w8YMs-001L9BC; Sat, 22 Mar 1997 22:30:26 +0100 (MET) Date: Sat, 22 Mar 1997 22:33:15 +0100 (CET) From: Henk Uijterwaal X-Sender: henk@meckwell Reply-To: Henk Uijterwaal To: Paul Barden cc: AlLeBendig@aol.com, bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: ACBL to limit score adjustments to 1/4 board? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Fri, 21 Mar 1997, Paul Barden wrote: > If you are alleged to have taken > advantage of UI to bid a slam, but the slam turns out to be 2%, then > clearly the allegation is false. Suppose we have a Hesitation RKCBW auction and a player bids slam. The slam turns out to be against all odds: AK opposite QJ in one side suit, Axxx opposite xxxx in another and a finesse should work too. (Un)fortunately, the finesse works and after stripping the side suits, you can endplay an opponent who happens to hold KQ doubleton in the side suit. Now consider two auctions prior to HRKCBW: in the first one, the bidding went along the lines of 1S-4NT, response, break in tempo plus sign-off, 6. In this case, the score should, IMHO, be adjusted. There was UI and a player took advantage of it. The fact that the slam turned out to be hopeless is irrelevant, that is something that wasn't investigated. Now consider an auction where these features were investigated. Again there is a HRKCBW auction, again a player bids slam, but this time he KNOWS about all the features of the hand that would make it a bad slam. Now, IMHO, there shouldn't be an adjustment: a player took a wild and gambling auction that wasn't suggested by the UI. It worked, but that was just a random coincidence. Under the current laws, you can, of course, decide on this on a case by case basis. 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 Sun Mar 23 12:05:31 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id MAA00947 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 23 Mar 1997 12:05:31 +1000 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 MAA00942 for ; Sun, 23 Mar 1997 12:05:25 +1000 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by relay-10.mail.demon.net id aa1023404; 23 Mar 97 1:52 GMT Message-ID: Date: Sat, 22 Mar 1997 03:33:58 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Official policy on mispulls from bidding box In-Reply-To: <199703212257.OAA02577@boole.msri.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Grabiner wrote: >Is there an official WBF or ACBL position published somewhere on when >you can correct a mispull from a bidding box? > >At a club game last night, my RHO opened 1NT, I passed, and LHO pulled >1D from her box, then tried to correct it after I waited a few seconds >and called the director. The director didn't have any reference other >than "without pause for thought" on which to judge whether this was a >correctable mispull or an insufficient bid that would have been >corrected to a conventional 2D. She ruled insufficient bid; I thought >this was wrong but didn't have any basis for correcting her. It is a judgement matter. However, what you have not said is how long elapsed between your LHO's realisation of the mistake and his attempt to change it. That is the time scale for "without pause for thought". It is up to the TD to decide whether it is inadvertent and whether it is in time. ACBL regulations state: ************************************************************************ Even with practice and familiarity, accidents will happen and the "OOPS" rule applies to inadvertent calls or mechanical errors. For example: You mean to bid 1 Spade but accidentally play the 1 Heart card on the table. The director is authorized to permit you to change your call if it was inadvertent. In such a case, some immediate indication is necessary before LHO has called. The director should be very liberal in judging whether there was pause for thought. If LHO has already taken some action you now have an obligation, just as with verbal bidding, to continue bidding as though no irregularity had occurred. ************************************************************************ Some notes: first, this is written for the players: it does not tell you how the TD should interpret. Second, we have come to the view that it can be corrected somewhat later than this. We decided that authorities differed, but a majority set the final limit when partner called, not LHO. The new Laws make the final limit at that time. ------------ Generally we try to look at our views of the Laws here on this mailing list rather than WBF or ACBL positions. We are discussing it: many of us do not belong to the ACBL: where judgement for Directors is involved, European views are quite likely to be better than American views *because* the ACBL approach discourages their Directors from using judgement. Furthermore the WBF tends not to promulgate its position on various matters. While I and others will no doubt try to ask any question that is asked, I think you would do better to ask the views of individuals on the list rather than the WBF or ACBL position. ----------- >As a separate point, should the director be able to look at offender's >hand (which had six points and five hearts) to confirm that this was a >mispull, while it would have been a misbid if the offender had held 13 >points and five diamonds? Absolutely not. The TD should not look into hands until the end of the hand, with due respect to Jens who has a possible exception: even if we accept that particular case it is very rare. Suppose the TD had looked and seen five HCP, five hearts, and six diamonds: what does she do then? Say, I cannot rule because you seem to have both red suits ? If a TD looks at a hand then that TD will find it impossible to avoid giving UI to the players from time to time. Suppose she sees a psyche? We expect TDs in Europe to judge hands, but only after consideration and consultation. If a TD looks at a hand during the auction, she has to determine immediately whether it fits one explanation or another. I could go on, but I won't: a TD should *never* look at a hand until play has ceased. -- 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 Mar 23 12:34:09 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id MAA01014 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 23 Mar 1997 12:34:09 +1000 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 MAA01009 for ; Sun, 23 Mar 1997 12:34:03 +1000 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by relay-5.mail.demon.net id aa0527934; 23 Mar 97 2:29 GMT Message-ID: <7TO$kYAOTJNzEwq3@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Sun, 23 Mar 1997 02:26:22 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: logical alternatives In-Reply-To: <199703221149.LAA18098@buttons.ihug.co.nz> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk patrick carter wrote: > Just to add one more opinion to the raft of views floating backwards and >forwards about when one is allowed to make a bid that may have been >suggested by unauthorised information I'll add the New Zealand point of >view. We have put the following definition in the NZCBA Bridge Manual: > >Law 16a: There are no logical alternatives to an action that would >have been selected by 75% of the field competing in that >stage of the event. If the player concerned was of a >significantly higher standard than the remainder of the >field then there are no logical alternatives to that which >would have been selected by 75% of players of a similar ability. So, roughly speaking, if there are only two actions, an action that would be found by 30% of players qualifies as an LA under EBU practice and per the EBL guide [Endicott + Hansen]: a 25% choice under NZ and Australia practice [I have recently received a missive on Australian practice]: a 15-20% choice per the EBL seminar in Milan: something similar in many/most European countries: a 5% action in the Netherlands and the ACBL. I believe that the EBU should reduce its 30% somewhat. Endicott + Hansen wrote the EBL guide some years ago: it is not impossible that they would reduce it under current interpretations. It seems to me that we have two camps in effect: anything conceivable is an LA [ACBL + Netherlands]; any bid reasonably considered is an LA [Europe excluding Netherlands + Australasia]. -- 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 Mar 23 17:32:37 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id RAA01646 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 23 Mar 1997 17:32:37 +1000 Received: from sirene.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de (sirene.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de [134.99.128.2]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id RAA01641 for ; Sun, 23 Mar 1997 17:32:30 +1000 Received: from isdn84.extern.uni-duesseldorf.de by sirene.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de with SMTP (PP) id <02371-0@sirene.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de>; Sun, 23 Mar 1997 08:32:23 +0000 Message-ID: <3334DCD3.7E3F@mail.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de> Date: Sun, 23 Mar 1997 08:33:39 +0100 From: Richard Bley Reply-To: bley@uni-duesseldorf.de Organization: Heinrich Heine Universität Düsseldorf X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01Gold [de] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: logical alternatives References: <7TO$kYAOTJNzEwq3@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Hi all just a short comment: David Stevenson wrote: > (...) > So, roughly speaking, if there are only two actions, an action that > would be found by 30% of players qualifies as an LA under EBU practice > and per the EBL guide [Endicott + Hansen]: a 25% choice under NZ and > Australia practice [I have recently received a missive on Australian > practice]: a 15-20% choice per the EBL seminar in Milan: something > similar in many/most European countries: a 5% action in the > Netherlands and the ACBL. That is a good summary of the discussion. But I have my problems with these percentages. I doubt that anyone can find out, if a doubtful action is 15% or 25% or 30%. At least I would make no bet, that I could manage it: (...) > > It seems to me that we have two camps in effect: anything conceivable > is an LA [ACBL + Netherlands]; any bid reasonably considered is an LA > [Europe excluding Netherlands + Australasia]. > That´s true. And its practical. And Australia is not a part of Europe ;) With this distinction it is fairly possible to work. I think the given doubts about the use of percentages in this area is the reason, that nobody is able to give examples, which would been a LA in 30% or 20% terms. So long Richard From owner-bridge-laws Sun Mar 23 22:37:25 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id WAA02056 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 23 Mar 1997 22:37:25 +1000 Received: from mail.be.innet.net (mail.be.innet.net [194.7.1.8]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id WAA02051 for ; Sun, 23 Mar 1997 22:37:17 +1000 Received: from innet.innet.be (pool03-238.innet.be [194.7.10.238]) by mail.be.innet.net (8.7.6/8.7.3) with SMTP id NAA05637 for ; Sun, 23 Mar 1997 13:37:13 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: <33352B6F.3C2A@innet.be> Date: Sun, 23 Mar 1997 13:09:03 +0000 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01 (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: ACBL to limit score adjustments to 1/4 board? References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Paul Barden wrote: > > > I don't understand the wording of the rule, but I agree completely with > the aims of Hamman, Wolff and Goldman. If you are alleged to have taken > advantage of UI to bid a slam, but the slam turns out to be 2%, then > clearly the allegation is false. If the 2% slam happens to make, that > doesn't add force to the allegation. > > The aim of the rules on UI is to make sure that players don't bid (or > defend) more accurately than their skill and judgment permits. Making a > 2% slam has got nothing to do with bidding accurately. > There is a difference between a 2% slam and a slam that 2% of the field bid. A 2% slam depends on three splits and two finesses. It is a bad slam, and bidding it on UI has nothing to do with that. If your opponents are in that slam, you would have a top 98% of the time, and a bottom 2%. Your expected result rises from 50% to 98% by them bidding slam. Even if they use UI to do this, your equitable result is not changed negatively, on the contrary. A 2% bid slam OTOH can be a very good one indeed. Suppose they hold 26 points between them, but by good bidding, they find out that the chances of making slam are 60%. Of course they are alone in that slam, so they score a top 60% of the time, and a bottom on 40%. Their expected result is 60%. By them bidding that slam, your expected result goes down from 50% to 40%. If they use UI in that case, surely you are entitled to a rectification, and perhaps a 10% is sufficient, so the ACBL limit would be enough. But the game does not work that way. They are not entitled to bid that slam, because they use UI to do it. They should not be punished for this, but they should clearly feel that they have nothing to gain by doing it. When they see that their opponents 'lose' something (as 02% + 25% = 27% compared to average), they have gained 'something'. That is not good and this is why I don't suscribe to the idea. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.club.innet.be/~pub02163/index.htm From owner-bridge-laws Sun Mar 23 22:41:25 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id WAA02073 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 23 Mar 1997 22:41:25 +1000 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 WAA02068 for ; Sun, 23 Mar 1997 22:41:19 +1000 From: OAdamec@aol.com Received: (from root@localhost) by emout01.mail.aol.com (8.7.6/8.7.3/AOL-2.0.0) id HAA12750 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Sun, 23 Mar 1997 07:40:45 -0500 (EST) Date: Sun, 23 Mar 1997 07:40:45 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <970323074043_-1705538435@emout01.mail.aol.com> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: logical alternatives Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In a message dated 97-03-23 02:34:16 EST, bley@rz.uni-duesseldorf.de (Richard Bley) writes: > That is a good summary of the discussion. But I have my problems with > these percentages. I doubt that anyone can find out, if a doubtful > action is 15% or 25% or 30%. At least I would make no bet, that I could > manage it: One of the difficulties in this kind of discussion is a societal habit of putting numbers or percentages, i.e. quanitfying something that is basically not quantifiable. We see this all the time in a variety of non-bridge fields. Percentages are just tossed around to show an estimate. In theory, we could find out if a certain percentage of peers would make certain bids on certain hands. We could conduct a poll. And theoretically, we could, in this age of computers be able to poll via computer a representative sample of peers at a large tournament - a National say - before the case went to committee. Assuming that this theory just might be suggested as a practice some time in the future to guide committees, is this what one would want? What we have now is directors and committees making judgements based on their experience. Could that experience be broadened? Sample hands, for example? Otto From owner-bridge-laws Mon Mar 24 07:56:37 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA05918 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 24 Mar 1997 07:56:37 +1000 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 HAA05913 for ; Mon, 24 Mar 1997 07:56:31 +1000 Received: from mamos.demon.co.uk ([158.152.129.79]) by relay-5.mail.demon.net id aa0514520; 23 Mar 97 21:36 GMT Message-ID: Date: Sun, 23 Mar 1997 15:45:28 +0000 To: Jesper Dybdal Cc: Bridge Laws List From: michael amos Subject: Re: New L16A: "demonstrably" In-Reply-To: <33267c0c.445380@pipmail.dknet.dk> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In message <33267c0c.445380@pipmail.dknet.dk>, Jesper Dybdal writes >In the new L16A, the words > "... that could reasonably have been suggested over another ..." >have been replaced by > "... that could demonstrably have been suggested over another ..." > >I have just been reading the first draft of the translation of the new >L16A to Danish. Trying to get an opinion about the translation, I >realized that I don't really understand what the change in English >mean. > >Does anyone have opinions as to what this change of words mean in >reality? Are there hands where we should adjust by the old laws, but >not by the new ones, or vice versa? > >What does "demonstrably" actually mean here? Does it just mean that >the TD must be able to describe ("demonstrate") why he considers one >alternative suggested over another? If so, I cannot see that it makes >any real difference. Sorry i have taken a long while to reply - i wanted to hear what others had to say before expressing what is a personal and very ignoranr view point >the words > "... >the words > "... that could reasonably have been suggested over another ..." > have been suggested over another ..." seem themselves to be problematic and not really very well expressed in terms of what they seem to be intended to mean - my personal opinion is that what the lawmakers intended to imply here was > "... that could reasonably have been shown to have been suggested over another ..." and so i believe that demonstrably as in the new version is simply an attempt to say what was intended before - i don't think that the new law is intended to be in any practical terms different from the one we operate under at present i think the current discussion of how we define LA is far more significant -- michael amos From owner-bridge-laws Mon Mar 24 08:26:37 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA06077 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 24 Mar 1997 08:26:37 +1000 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 IAA06072 for ; Mon, 24 Mar 1997 08:26:32 +1000 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 RAA26674 for ; Sun, 23 Mar 1997 17:26:28 -0500 (EST) Received: by cfa183.harvard.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id RAA07941; Sun, 23 Mar 1997 17:26:28 -0500 Date: Sun, 23 Mar 1997 17:26:28 -0500 From: willner@cfa183.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Message-Id: <199703232226.RAA07941@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: New L16A: "demonstrably" X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I'd like to ask a new question on this thread. Let us assume that in a particular jurisdiction, it has been observed that a particular hesitation that seems on the surface ambiguous occurs in practice in only one of the possible situations. (The jurisdiction in question might be anything from an NCBO to a single club.) The authorities therefore instruct committees that they should assume that this hesitation suggests the usual, even though in theory (and perhaps in practice in a rare case) it might show the opposite. This is an interpretation or a rule of evidence, I suppose, not a new regulation in conflict with the Laws. Is this sort of rule changed by the new wording? Can it be applied to a specific pair whose history is known? Can it be applied when only the the pattern in a population is known, but the history of a particular pair is not known? Can it be applied to, say, users of a specific bidding system that has problems with certain hand types? Old-timers will realize, I expect, that I'm thinking of the EBU instruction that 1M-(P)-2M(slow) is assumed to be strong. (Or do I have it backwards?) I'm afraid past discussion on this subject occasioned some ill-feeling, and I don't want to start new trouble. My apology if I've misinterpreted the EBU regulation in question. Clearly something like it could be an example of the general question I'm asking, even if the facts I've mooted above don't correspond to this particular rule. I'd be interested in any comments on the specific example, of course. From owner-bridge-laws Mon Mar 24 10:56:56 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA06418 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 24 Mar 1997 10:56:56 +1000 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 KAA06413 for ; Mon, 24 Mar 1997 10:56:48 +1000 Received: from coruncanius.demon.co.uk ([194.222.115.176]) by relay-6.mail.demon.net id aa0627457; 24 Mar 97 0:53 GMT Message-ID: Date: Sun, 23 Mar 1997 02:58:48 +0000 To: Jesper Dybdal Cc: Bridge Laws List From: Labeo Subject: Re: New law 25B In-Reply-To: <330ee3ee.2802389@pipmail.dknet.dk> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In message <330ee3ee.2802389@pipmail.dknet.dk>, Jesper Dybdal writes >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? Labeo responds: I have taken time to digest your comment because I had a difficulty in following the point you wished to make. The text of the Law (new and old alike) makes it clear that a purposeful change is an 'infraction' - a breach of the rules. But in each case the procedure to deal with it is laid down. If a purposeful change is attempted after LHO has called it will not be allowed; but if the attempted change comes before LHO calls then the options set out in the laws will operate and a call by LHO will only affect them if it is an acceptance of the substituted call. It is true that the attitude to the purposeful change has altered to the extent that the attempt to change is not challenged up to the point when LHO calls. But then, was it challenged previously except with a frown? New Law 25B picks up something of the relaxed manner of Laws 17 and 18 which are singularly lacking in 'should' and 'must'. Labeo From owner-bridge-laws Mon Mar 24 11:08:13 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id LAA06470 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 24 Mar 1997 11:08:13 +1000 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 LAA06465 for ; Mon, 24 Mar 1997 11:08:07 +1000 Received: from coruncanius.demon.co.uk ([194.222.115.176]) by relay-11.mail.demon.net id aa1102580; 24 Mar 97 0:53 GMT Message-ID: Date: Wed, 19 Mar 1997 00:45:50 +0000 To: David Stevenson Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Labeo Subject: Pass MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I was doing some preparatory work on indexing the new (1997) laws today when it suddenly dawned that whilst bids, doubles and redoubles, are particularized in Laws 18 and 19 there is no corresponding law treating of Pass. To establish the nature of Pass it is necessary to refer to the Definitions. Recalling some recent discussion on the significance of Pass I noted that a Pass tells us that the player has elected not to bid, double or redouble; Passes which announce values, and those which deny them, are either conventional or the subject of partnership agreements. Labeo From owner-bridge-laws Mon Mar 24 11:12:59 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id LAA06496 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 24 Mar 1997 11:12:59 +1000 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 LAA06490 for ; Mon, 24 Mar 1997 11:12:53 +1000 Received: from coruncanius.demon.co.uk ([194.222.115.176]) by relay-10.mail.demon.net id aa1000466; 24 Mar 97 0:53 GMT Message-ID: <3V03fGAZ3INzEw6S@coruncanius.demon.co.uk> Date: Sun, 23 Mar 1997 01:56:41 +0000 To: Steve Willner Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Labeo 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 In message <199702230623.BAA02459@cfa183.harvard.edu>, Steve Willner writes >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.) > Labeo writes: Interesting. From now on, applying this principle to Law 40E2, last five words and footnote, I shall learn to recite my CC word for word and then look at it as often as I like when it is someone else's turn to play. Labeo From owner-bridge-laws Mon Mar 24 21:11:12 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id VAA08019 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 24 Mar 1997 21:11:12 +1000 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 VAA08012 for ; Mon, 24 Mar 1997 21:11:05 +1000 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by relay-5.mail.demon.net id aa0501563; 24 Mar 97 10:56 GMT Message-ID: <1fp8XBAQblNzEwqK@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Mon, 24 Mar 1997 10:26:24 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: New law 25B In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Labeo wrote: >Labeo responds: > I have taken time to digest your comment because I >had a difficulty in following the point you wished to make. > The text of the Law (new and old alike) makes it >clear that a purposeful change is an 'infraction' - a breach of the >rules. But in each case the procedure to deal with it is laid down. >If a purposeful change is attempted after LHO has called it will not >be allowed; but if the attempted change comes before LHO calls then >the options set out in the laws will operate and a call by LHO will >only affect them if it is an acceptance of the substituted call. I do not think it is as simple as that. My understanding is that you are not allowed to infringe a law intentionally: L72B1 current says that. So what happens if you say: "Stop everything, please, I want to call the Director.": when the Director arrives, you say "I want to change my call."? The answer is clear to me: under the current law book you may *not* do so: there is no reason not to apply L72B1: under the new Law book you *may* do so, because L25B does give you that right, so that must be considered the case despite L72B2 [L72B1 renumbered]. > It is true that the attitude to the purposeful change >has altered to the extent that the attempt to change is not challenged >up to the point when LHO calls. But then, was it challenged previously >except with a frown? It was challenged by the Directors not permitting it. > New Law 25B picks up something of the relaxed manner >of Laws 17 and 18 which are singularly lacking in 'should' and 'must'. -- David Stevenson MayDay Swiss Pairs in Liverpool! Liverpool, England, UK Hughes Simultaneous Pairs at end of June! bridge@blakjak.demon.co.uk Seem Homepage for details Bridgepage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/brg_menu.htm From owner-bridge-laws Mon Mar 24 23:01:49 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA08299 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 24 Mar 1997 23:01:49 +1000 Received: from solix.udac.se (solix.UDAC.SE [193.44.78.10]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id XAA08294 for ; Mon, 24 Mar 1997 23:01:41 +1000 From: Rachael.King@minidoc.se Received: from caesar.udac.se (caesar.udac.se [193.44.79.10]) by solix.udac.se (8.8.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id OAA11517 for ; Mon, 24 Mar 1997 14:01:02 +0100 Received: from mail.minidoc.se ([195.17.253.66]) by caesar.udac.se (8.7.3/NetworkC-1) with SMTP id OAA52793 for ; Mon, 24 Mar 1997 14:00:49 +0100 Received: by mail.minidoc.se(Lotus SMTP MTA v1.05 (274.9 11-27-1996)) id C1256464.0047DF4D ; Mon, 24 Mar 1997 14:05:02 +0200 X-Lotus-FromDomain: MINIDOC@MINIDOC_EXT To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Message-ID: Date: Mon, 24 Mar 1997 12:07:20 +0200 Subject: When can you ask questions Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Sequence : N E S W 2D p 2NT p 2S 2D = Multi 2NT = enquiry 3S would be 6+ card suit, 6 -10 points Director is called for the insufficent bid. I am not sure whether you deem 2S as natural or conventional. I decided natural as it does show spades. After regalling all the options East asked if he could ask some questions about the NS system and their possible continuations over 2S or 3S before deciding whether to accept the 2S bid. Do you let him ask the questions? Thanks Rachael King From owner-bridge-laws Mon Mar 24 23:32:48 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA08431 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 24 Mar 1997 23:32:48 +1000 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 XAA08426 for ; Mon, 24 Mar 1997 23:32:40 +1000 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 IAA04951 for ; Mon, 24 Mar 1997 08:32:02 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <1.5.4.32.19970324133125.00693ef4@cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.4 (32) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Mon, 24 Mar 1997 08:31:25 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: Official policy on mispulls from bidding box Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 03:33 AM 3/22/97 +0000, David S. wrote: >David Grabiner wrote: > >>As a separate point, should the director be able to look at offender's >>hand (which had six points and five hearts) to confirm that this was a >>mispull, while it would have been a misbid if the offender had held 13 >>points and five diamonds? > > Absolutely not. The TD should not look into hands until the end of >the hand, with due respect to Jens who has a possible exception: even if >we accept that particular case it is very rare. > > Suppose the TD had looked and seen five HCP, five hearts, and six >diamonds: what does she do then? Say, I cannot rule because you seem to >have both red suits ? > > If a TD looks at a hand then that TD will find it impossible to avoid >giving UI to the players from time to time. Suppose she sees a psyche? >We expect TDs in Europe to judge hands, but only after consideration and >consultation. If a TD looks at a hand during the auction, she has to >determine immediately whether it fits one explanation or another. > > I could go on, but I won't: a TD should *never* look at a hand until >play has ceased. It has been my experience that, in the top-level ACBL events in particular, TDs *always* look at the hands. Each floor director carries a complete set of hand records; on being called to a table, the first thing they do is check the board number and bring out the hand record, even before asking what the problem is. They're pretty good at avoiding giving UI to the players; unless it's obvious from the ruling (e.g. on an insufficient bid, where the TD must determine whether it was conventional or not), the players generally can't tell whether the TD's knowledge of the hands had anything to do with how they ruled. Of course, in UI and MI situations, 99-44/100% of the time the initial "ruling" is "play out the hand and call me back if you feel you've been damaged", and by the time the TD returns to the table everyone is aware of all the hands. 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 Mon Mar 24 23:45:10 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA08502 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 24 Mar 1997 23:45:10 +1000 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 XAA08496 for ; Mon, 24 Mar 1997 23:45:04 +1000 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by relay-6.mail.demon.net id aa0615373; 24 Mar 97 13:15 GMT Message-ID: Date: Mon, 24 Mar 1997 11:49:28 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: ACBL to limit score adjustments to 1/4 board? In-Reply-To: <1.5.4.32.19970320203142.00688318@cais.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I am reposting this because I cannot remember it appearing. If it has and this is a duplicate, please accept my apologies. Eric Landau wrote: I agree with everything Eric wrote so I shall not repeat it. ------------- I believe it is very important that we fight strongly against any notion of protecting the field. It has no basis in law. Its main advantage is that it gives BLs an excuse to ask for rulings that would be very difficult to justify to their own consciences otherwise. The luck of different actions at different tables is a basic part of the game. There is no advantage to trying to level it out in one particular way while leaving it unaltered in other ways. Fortunately, the principle of protecting the field does not appear in the Law book, and we should always fight hard to make sure that interpretations and regulations do not include it. -- David Stevenson MayDay Swiss Pairs in Liverpool! Liverpool, England, UK Hughes Simultaneous Pairs at end of June! bridge@blakjak.demon.co.uk Seem Homepage for details Bridgepage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/brg_menu.htm From owner-bridge-laws Mon Mar 24 23:47:03 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA08527 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 24 Mar 1997 23:47:03 +1000 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 XAA08520 for ; Mon, 24 Mar 1997 23:46:57 +1000 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by relay-11.mail.demon.net id aa1106282; 24 Mar 97 13:15 GMT Message-ID: Date: Mon, 24 Mar 1997 11:48:22 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Hesitating after partner's skip bid when opponent doesn't In-Reply-To: <1.5.4.32.19970320135000.00686648@cais.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I am reposting this because I cannot remember it appearing. If it has and this is a duplicate, please accept my apologies. Eric Landau wrote: >At 01:17 AM 3/20/97 +0000, David S. wrote: > >> The easy solution, suggested by someone on RGB, is for South to call >>the TD, and tell him that East did not hesitate. This will give him >>time for contemplation! > >I find this suggestion appalling. Calling the TD, wasting his valuable time >on a matter for which you neither expect nor think you deserve redress, >solely for the purpose of "covering up" the time needed to decide on what to >bid, in order to avoid getting into a position where your otherwise obvious >hesitation might lead to a UI situation. Yuck. I suppose it would be >legal, since your opponent did commit a technical infraction, albeit one >which had no effect on the subsequent action, but it certainly strikes me as >a gross violation of the spirit in which the game should be played. Hey, what's all this? It is not an infraction that had no effect on the subsequent auction. I would not be suggesting calling the TD if it were. The failure of the player to follow an obvious and well-known regulation is the direct cause of the UI that is about to happen. >Would we tolerate a player who deliberately spilled his coffee or upset the >table to cover up his huddles when he had a problem he needed to take time >to think about? Well, we might, but we certainly wouldn't look favorably on >such a practice. And isn't calling the TD for the same purpose even worse, >since it seriously inconveniences the rest of the room by making one less TD >available to take seriously intended director calls? Possibly, but this case is not similar. You have a right to think during RHO's mandatory pause. Therefore it is an infraction that is clearly affecting the game. Why don't you have all players using stop cards and leaving them out for 10 seconds? This sort of problem would go away. -- 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 Mar 24 23:57:29 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA08562 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 24 Mar 1997 23:57:29 +1000 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 XAA08556 for ; Mon, 24 Mar 1997 23:57:22 +1000 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 IAA05382 for ; Mon, 24 Mar 1997 08:57:17 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <1.5.4.32.19970324135640.00696f94@cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.4 (32) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Mon, 24 Mar 1997 08:56:40 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: ACBL to limit score adjustments to 1/4 board? Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 09:01 PM 3/21/97 +0000, Paul wrote: >I don't understand the wording of the rule, but I agree completely with >the aims of Hamman, Wolff and Goldman. If you are alleged to have taken >advantage of UI to bid a slam, but the slam turns out to be 2%, then >clearly the allegation is false. If the 2% slam happens to make, that >doesn't add force to the allegation. If this were true, we would all agree, but I can't accept it. If N bids 4NT and S responds by saying "five diamonds; I have two aces", and N now goes on to bid a 2% slam, by what logic is the "allegation" that N took advantage of UI "clearly false"? >The aim of the rules on UI is to make sure that players don't bid (or >defend) more accurately than their skill and judgment permits. Making a >2% slam has got nothing to do with bidding accurately. I'd say that the aim of the UI rules is to make sure that players don't bid or defend based on UI. It would be a huge (and, IMO, totally unworkable) change in interpretation and practice to accept the idea that a player can have taken advantage of UI only if the player's call or play is deemed to be beyond what "their skill and judgment permits". Eric Landau elandau@cais.com APL Solutions, Inc. elandau@acm.org 1107 Dale Drive (301) 589-4621 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 From owner-bridge-laws Tue Mar 25 00:23:14 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA10910 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 25 Mar 1997 00:23:14 +1000 Received: from TUDRNV.TUDELFT.NL (tudrnv.tudelft.nl [130.161.180.88]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id AAA10905 for ; Tue, 25 Mar 1997 00:23:02 +1000 Received: from duttncb.tn.tudelft.nl by TUDRNV.TUDelft.NL (PMDF V5.0-6 #15266) id <01IGVVVRNFPS005JOH@TUDRNV.TUDelft.NL> for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Mon, 24 Mar 1997 15:22:23 +0100 Received: by duttncb.tn.tudelft.nl (16.6/15.6) id AA24764; Mon, 24 Mar 1997 15:20:53 +0100 Date: Mon, 24 Mar 1997 15:20:52 +0100 (MET) From: "E.Angad-Gaur" Subject: Re: Official policy on mispulls from bidding box In-reply-to: ; from "David Stevenson" at Mar 22, 97 3:33 am To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Message-id: <01IGVVVROIAQ005JOH@TUDRNV.TUDelft.NL> Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Mailer: Elm [revision: 66.25] Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > > David Grabiner wrote: > > >Is there an official WBF or ACBL position published somewhere on when > >you can correct a mispull from a bidding box? > > > >At a club game last night, my RHO opened 1NT, I passed, and LHO pulled > >1D from her box, then tried to correct it after I waited a few seconds > >and called the director. The director didn't have any reference other > >than "without pause for thought" on which to judge whether this was a > >correctable mispull or an insufficient bid that would have been > >corrected to a conventional 2D. She ruled insufficient bid; I thought > >this was wrong but didn't have any basis for correcting her. > >As a separate point, should the director be able to look at offender's > >hand (which had six points and five hearts) to confirm that this was a > >mispull, while it would have been a misbid if the offender had held 13 > >points and five diamonds? David Stevenson wrote: > > Absolutely not. The TD should not look into hands until the end of > the hand, with due respect to Jens who has a possible exception: even if > we accept that particular case it is very rare. > > If a TD looks at a hand then that TD will find it impossible to avoid > giving UI to the players from time to time. Suppose she sees a psyche? > We expect TDs in Europe to judge hands, but only after consideration and > consultation. If a TD looks at a hand during the auction, she has to > determine immediately whether it fits one explanation or another. > > I could go on, but I won't: a TD should *never* look at a hand until > play has ceased. > In Holland we have additional ruling that you can change your call by a mispull untill partner makes a call. Point is to determine if your call is a mispull or "a change of mind" ergo 25B. And to determine between these two cases the TD must take the unfortunate(?) player with him from the table. Then the TD can ask the player, what hap- pened, what his hand was( which cards he had). Depending om the answers the TD must judge if it a "mispull or a puposeful Correction". I always let the player leave his cards at the table. The other players must not know what I am asking. If the information about his actual hand given to me is wrong I can allways correct it afterwards. So in my opinion I am looking his hand in a different way without giving UI to the other players. I have allways been able to solve the distinction between 25A and 25B in this way. The player must convince me that it is a mispull else I will apply rule 25B. -- --------------------------------------------------------------------------- S.E. Angad-Gaur | email :evert_np@duttncb.tn.tudelft.nl Technische Universiteit Delft | tel. : 015-786150 Faculteit der Technische Natuurkunde | fax : 015-783251 Lorentzweg 1 | 2628 CJ Delft | --------------------------------------------------------------------------- From owner-bridge-laws Tue Mar 25 02:23:24 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA11420 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 25 Mar 1997 02:23:24 +1000 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 CAA11411 for ; Tue, 25 Mar 1997 02:22:26 +1000 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 LAA17994 for ; Mon, 24 Mar 1997 11:22:19 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <1.5.4.32.19970324162143.00822f84@cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.4 (32) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Mon, 24 Mar 1997 11:21:43 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: New L16A: "demonstrably" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 05:26 PM 3/23/97 -0500, Steve wrote: >Let us assume that in a particular jurisdiction, it has been observed >that a particular hesitation that seems on the surface ambiguous occurs >in practice in only one of the possible situations. (The jurisdiction >in question might be anything from an NCBO to a single club.) The >authorities therefore instruct committees that they should assume that >this hesitation suggests the usual, even though in theory (and perhaps >in practice in a rare case) it might show the opposite. This is an >interpretation or a rule of evidence, I suppose, not a new regulation >in conflict with the Laws. These are purely personal opinions, but I'll give it a go. >Is this sort of rule changed by the new wording? Either changed (if you believe that it would have been acceptable under the old wording) or clarified (if you don't). >Can it be applied to >a specific pair whose history is known? Yes. The known history makes the suggestion "demonstrable". >Can it be applied when only >the the pattern in a population is known, but the history of a >particular pair is not known? No. It (arguably) could have been under the old wording, so this is a change. My own opinion, however, is that the lawmakers never intended to permit this, and changed the wording to make this clear and stop TDs/ACs from interpreting it this way. >Can it be applied to, say, users of a >specific bidding system that has problems with certain hand types? I'm not sure what Steve means here. Obviously, the LA(s) "suggested" by a break in tempo depend on the system being played. Consider his example: 1S-P-2S(slow). In SA, 2S shows about 6-9 "support points"; responder might be huddling with a bad hand, thinking of passing, or with a good hand, thinking of taking stronger action, so with a marginal hand that might pass or bid on opener is unconstrained. But if this pair plays that 2S shows 0-9 support points, then responder's huddle "demonstrably" suggests the good hand, and opener must pass if that is an LA. Eric Landau elandau@cais.com APL Solutions, Inc. elandau@acm.org 1107 Dale Drive (301) 589-4621 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 From owner-bridge-laws Tue Mar 25 02:59:29 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA11593 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 25 Mar 1997 02:59:29 +1000 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 CAA11587 for ; Tue, 25 Mar 1997 02:59:18 +1000 Received: from tempest.cise.npl.co.uk by waffle.cise.npl.co.uk; Mon, 24 Mar 1997 16:58:35 GMT Date: Mon, 24 Mar 97 16:58:33 GMT Message-Id: <7263.9703241658@tempest.cise.npl.co.uk> From: Robin Barker To: Rachael.King@minidoc.se Subject: Re: When can you ask questions Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > Sequence : > N E S W > 2D p 2NT p > 2S > > 2D = Multi > 2NT = enquiry > 3S would be 6+ card suit, 6 -10 points > Director is called for the insufficent bid. I am not sure whether you deem > 2S as natural or conventional. > I decided natural as it does show spades. > After regalling all the options East asked if he could ask some questions > about the NS system and their possible continuations > over 2S or 3S before deciding whether to accept the 2S bid. Do you let him > ask the questions? Hi Rachel I would say yes. East can ask at his turn to call. The moot point is can East ask when it is turn to decide if he wants it to be his turn to call. I feel that East should have any information to which he is entitled before making any decision (but I can see that others will disagree). However, there is a real danger of unauthorised information: it may become obvious what East is thinking of from his questions. I would specifically warn East of this danger. BTW What was East thinking of doing? 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 Tue Mar 25 03:24:15 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA11690 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 25 Mar 1997 03:24:15 +1000 Received: from msri.org (msri.org [198.129.64.224]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id DAA11685 for ; Tue, 25 Mar 1997 03:24:03 +1000 Received: (from smap@localhost) by msri.org (8.8.2/8.7.2) id JAA25289; Mon, 24 Mar 1997 09:24:15 -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 sma025278; Mon Mar 24 09:24:08 1997 Received: by boole.msri.org (8.7/DW.6) id JAA03331; Mon, 24 Mar 1997 09:23:53 -0800 (PST) Date: Mon, 24 Mar 1997 09:23:53 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <199703241723.JAA03331@boole.msri.org> From: David Grabiner To: Rachael.King@minidoc.se CC: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au In-reply-to: (Rachael.King@minidoc.se) Subject: Re: When can you ask questions Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk You write: > Sequence : > N E S W > 2D p 2NT p > 2S > 2D = Multi > 2NT = enquiry > 3S would be 6+ card suit, 6 -10 points > Director is called for the insufficent bid. I am not sure whether you deem > 2S as natural or conventional. > I decided natural as it does show spades. I consider it a natural treatment; in general, a bid which shows specific quality in the suit bid and certain general values is a treatment, not a convention. > After regalling all the options East asked if he could ask some questions > about the NS system and their possible continuations > over 2S or 3S before deciding whether to accept the 2S bid. Do you let him > ask the questions? In general, you may not base your agreements on the opponents' possible continuations (for example, playing light preempts if the opponents play takeout doubles and sound preempts if they play penalty doubles). I think the same principle extends here; East may base his choice to accept or reject 2S on the same criteria that he may base his bid over 2S or 3S. He is thus entitled to know what 2NT and 3S show, but not what 4D over 3S would show. N-S should not have agreements about possible continuations over an insufficient bid in any case, so East shouldn't be able to ask for them. -- David Grabiner, grabiner@msri.org, http://baseball.berkeley.edu/~grabiner I speak of MSRI and by MSRI but not for MSRI. Shop at the Mobius Strip Mall: Always on the same side of the street! Klein Glassworks, Torus Coffee and Donuts, Projective Airlines, etc. From owner-bridge-laws Tue Mar 25 04:17:11 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA11898 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 25 Mar 1997 04:17:11 +1000 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 EAA11893 for ; Tue, 25 Mar 1997 04:16:59 +1000 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 MAA19546 for ; Mon, 24 Mar 1997 12:50:47 -0500 (EST) Received: from elandau.cais.com.cais.com (elandau.cais.com [207.176.64.97]) by andrew.cais.com (8.8.4/8.8.4/cais-andrew-jdf) with SMTP id NAA21514 for ; Mon, 24 Mar 1997 13:11:47 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <1.5.4.32.19970324181112.0068cf80@cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.4 (32) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Mon, 24 Mar 1997 13:11:12 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: When can you ask questions Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 09:23 AM 3/24/97 -0800, David wrote: >In general, you may not base your agreements on the opponents' possible >continuations (for example, playing light preempts if the opponents play >takeout doubles and sound preempts if they play penalty doubles). I >think the same principle extends here; East may base his choice to >accept or reject 2S on the same criteria that he may base his bid over >2S or 3S. He is thus entitled to know what 2NT and 3S show, but not >what 4D over 3S would show. I do not agree with this interpretation. Full disclosure means that your opponents' agreements should be an "open book", i.e. you should be entitled to know anything about them that you wish. If a player may not ask about possible continuations, then the information available to him about his opponents' agreements depends on the happenstance of what they did or didn't choose to (or have room to) write on their convention cards. You are not allowed to base your methods on the opponents' possible continuations, but are fully entitled to base your exercise of judgment on them, and so must be entitled to discover what they are. Eric Landau elandau@cais.com APL Solutions, Inc. elandau@acm.org 1107 Dale Drive (301) 589-4621 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 From owner-bridge-laws Tue Mar 25 04:28:34 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA11967 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 25 Mar 1997 04:28:34 +1000 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 EAA11962 for ; Tue, 25 Mar 1997 04:28:25 +1000 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 NAA21926 for ; Mon, 24 Mar 1997 13:28:13 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <1.5.4.32.19970324182738.00679b80@cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.4 (32) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Mon, 24 Mar 1997 13:27:38 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: Official policy on mispulls from bidding box Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 09:32 AM 3/24/97 -0800, David wrote: >You write: > >> It has been my experience that, in the top-level ACBL events in particular, >> TDs *always* look at the hands. Each floor director carries a complete set >> of hand records; on being called to a table, the first thing they do is >> check the board number and bring out the hand record, even before asking >> what the problem is. > >This procedure works in many cases; what do they do in Swisses and KO's? > >I think I've seen this applied twice at NABC's and not applied once in a >regional. All three times, the problem was that the opponents were >discussing a board when I sat down at the table, and gave me information >about their result. The NABC games were board-a-match, and the boards >were replaced for our table. The regional game was matchpoints, and the >director told us to bid out the hand, and then said it was unplayable >and scored it A+/A+. My impression (as a player; I have no knowledge of policy) is that the TDs do this only in the top-level (NABC+) events at the Nationals; they do not do it in lower-rated events or other than at the Nationals. My direct experience, IIRC, is limited to board-a-match and matchpoint events; I don't think I've had it come up in a Swiss or KO. As we've already suggested, it can't be too easy for a TD to make a ruling based on knowing the hands without risking inappropriately giving away information about the hands. So it would make sense to me for the "they" who give working instructions to the TDs to tell them to do this in NABC+ events only, where they know that, by design, only their best TDS will be working the floor, and, for obvious reasons, not to openly state such a policy. Eric Landau elandau@cais.com APL Solutions, Inc. elandau@acm.org 1107 Dale Drive (301) 589-4621 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 From owner-bridge-laws Tue Mar 25 04:40:20 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA12073 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 25 Mar 1997 04:40:20 +1000 Received: from msri.org (msri.org [198.129.64.224]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id EAA12068 for ; Tue, 25 Mar 1997 04:40:14 +1000 Received: (from smap@localhost) by msri.org (8.8.2/8.7.2) id KAA26616; Mon, 24 Mar 1997 10:40:28 -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 sma026602; Mon Mar 24 10:40:03 1997 Received: by boole.msri.org (8.7/DW.6) id KAA03344; Mon, 24 Mar 1997 10:39:47 -0800 (PST) Date: Mon, 24 Mar 1997 10:39:47 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <199703241839.KAA03344@boole.msri.org> From: David Grabiner To: willner@cfa183.harvard.edu CC: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au In-reply-to: <199703232226.RAA07941@cfa183.harvard.edu> (willner@cfa183.harvard.edu) Subject: Re: New L16A: "demonstrably" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk You write: > I'd like to ask a new question on this thread. > Let us assume that in a particular jurisdiction, it has been observed > that a particular hesitation that seems on the surface ambiguous occurs > in practice in only one of the possible situations. (The jurisdiction > in question might be anything from an NCBO to a single club.) The > authorities therefore instruct committees that they should assume that > this hesitation suggests the usual, even though in theory (and perhaps > in practice in a rare case) it might show the opposite. This is an > interpretation or a rule of evidence, I suppose, not a new regulation > in conflict with the Laws. > Is this sort of rule changed by the new wording? This is a tricky point. One change is that "demonstrably" apparently precludes suggesting both an action and its opposite. Suppose that 1H-(P)-2H(slow) is 70% likely to be strong, 20% weak, and 10% normal strength with a spade suit. In that case, this sequence suggests making a marginal 2S invite, which will gain more than it loses if 4H or 4S makes opposite most of the strong and spade-suit hands. But is this demonstrable? Only if opener is expected to work this out, something which I wouldn't expect most openers to do. If it is ruled that opener should work this out, then the adjustment is independent of responder's actual hand. If opener has a marginal invite and passes, responder has a weak hand, and 2H makes exactly, there is no adjustment. In theory, if opener has a marginal invite and bids 2S, responder corrects to 3H with a weak hand, and 3H makes when the opponents would have competed to a making 3D with no invite, there should be an adjustment. If the sponsoring organization publishes the interpretation in question, then opener could be expected to know it. However, it is not unethical to hesitate with a hand that doesn't fit the interpretation (assuming that you have a legitimate problem), even if you know that the restriction your hesitation places on partner will work to your advantage, as in the example above. If the information is not published, it will be hard for a committee to conclude that there should be an adjustment. The standard should be that the hesitator's partner should have known (not merely could have known) about the likely problem, and the adjustment should be made on the basis of the likely problem. The committee must be able to say that if the hesitator had a different problem and his partner made a bid suggested by the different problem, there would have been no adjustment. > Can it be applied to > a specific pair whose history is known? Yes; this provides the demonstration. And the above principle still applies if the actual problem doesn't correspond to the usual one. > Can it be applied to, say, users of a > specific bidding system that has problems with certain hand types? The evidence must be that the totality of problem hand types demonstrably suggests the action. For example, if a slow Precision 2D bid is usually made on 3-4-1-5 or 4-3-1-5 hands (rather than 4-4-1-4 or 4-4-0-5), the bid suggests 3C over 2S because 3S is much more attractive opposite 3-4-1-5. If both bids are considered logical alternatives with a particular responding hand, and it is concluded that Precision players expect this to be the problem, then an adjustment should be made if responder gains an advantage by bidding 3C. But this must be subject to the same rules as above. If opener happens to have hesitated with AJTx Kxxx K KQTx, considering a 1C opener instead of 2D, responder chooses to bid 3C and is down one, and a 5-1 spade break would cause 2S to go down two, you should still adjust (assuming that you don't apply the Kaplan doctrine that 3C was an inferior contract and the luck of the deal, not the infraction, caused the gain); if responder chooses to bid 2S and makes it when 3C would have gone down, there is no adjustment. -- David Grabiner, grabiner@msri.org, http://baseball.berkeley.edu/~grabiner I speak of MSRI and by MSRI but not for MSRI. Shop at the Mobius Strip Mall: Always on the same side of the street! Klein Glassworks, Torus Coffee and Donuts, Projective Airlines, etc. From owner-bridge-laws Tue Mar 25 08:29:22 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA13274 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 25 Mar 1997 08:29:22 +1000 Received: from m4.boston.juno.com (m4.boston.juno.com [205.231.101.198]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id IAA13263 for ; Tue, 25 Mar 1997 08:29:15 +1000 Received: (from paulhar@juno.com) by m4.boston.juno.com (queuemail) id RLN09222; Mon, 24 Mar 1997 17:27:22 EST To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: define mispull Message-ID: <19970324.173120.3518.0.paulhar@juno.com> X-Mailer: Juno 1.15 X-Juno-Line-Breaks: 2-7,9-10,15-16,18-26,28-29,32-34 From: paulhar@juno.com (Paul D. Harrington) Date: Mon, 24 Mar 1997 17:27:22 EST Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk We have run into two questionable situations with actions that were called mispulls from bid boxes. Please explain the thinking that justifies these rulings if they are correct. Situation #1 - Sectional tournament Using bid boxes, North opened 1H. East put the 2H card on the table and then said he didn't mean to bid it and corrected to pass. The director approved this action. It appeared that East had incorrectly seen North's opening bid and attempted to overcall his suit since East had five hearts. Was The 2H bid a mispull? Does the use of bid boxes require less attention on the part of players? Without the bid boxes, East would never have had the chance to see North's bid and would not realize what he had done. South became declarer in a spade contract and West led a heart. Should there be a lead penalty for this mispull if that's what it was?. Situation #2 - Regional tournament: N E S W 1NT P 2C P P P At this point, South exclaimed, "You Passed!!?" and North wanted to change his bid. Director allowed North to bid his four-card major. Isn't North obliged to watch all bids and respond accordingly? Does the use of bid boxes reduce the need for concentration? Was the pass a mispull? Pat & Paul Harrington From owner-bridge-laws Tue Mar 25 10:04:06 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA13718 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 25 Mar 1997 10:04:06 +1000 Received: from ihug.co.nz (ihug.co.nz [203.29.160.4]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id KAA13713 for ; Tue, 25 Mar 1997 10:04:00 +1000 Received: from port1581-Auck.ihug.co.nz (port1581-Auck.ihug.co.nz [203.29.165.57]) by ihug.co.nz (8.7.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id MAA10826 for ; Tue, 25 Mar 1997 12:06:59 +1200 (NZST) Date: Tue, 25 Mar 1997 12:06:59 +1200 (NZST) Message-Id: <199703250006.MAA10826@ihug.co.nz> X-Sender: tripack@ihug.co.nz 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: patrick carter Subject: basing agreements Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Both David and Eric have recently stated that you may not base your agreements on opponent's possible continuations, although they then differ about a minor point relating to that. The specific case given was that it would be illegal to play light pre-empts against opponent's who use takeout doubles and sound pre-empts against opponent's using penalty doubles. What basis in Law is there for this assertion? Law 75a says that information conveyed to partner through agreements must arise from the calls' plays and conditions of the current deal. Surely one of the conditions of the current deal is that you are seated at the table playing opponents who play either penalty or takeout doubles. If there is any evidence to show that the conditions of the current deal specifically only relate to vulnerability (in which case why not just say vulnerability) then there is more grounds for David's and Eric's assertion. However that would make the following case interesting: Pair A sits down to play a 16 board teams match. On perusing their system card they note they play penalty doubles of pre-empts and one says "gee, that's unusual, we'd better make sure our pre-empts are sound then." If the opponents now called you to the table would you rule that pair A were not allowed to change to playing sound pre-empts for this teams match? If you do allow them to change, then what is the difference between this and the same situation in a 2 boards a round pairs event? I am aware that the opponent's may wish to change their methods for sound pre-empts to takeout doubles, but that shouldn't cause a chicken and egg paradoxical situation here. They can surely agree to play penalty doubles against pre-empts, except where the opponents have an agreement to play sound pre-empts, either as a general rule or only sound when playing a pair who's methods are to play penalty doubles of unsound pre-empts. Patrick Carter tripack@ihug.co.nz Director, Auckland Bridge Club phone: (64)96293615 (home) Chairman, Laws & Ethics, NZCBA (64)95245562 (bridge club) fax: (64)95245576 From owner-bridge-laws Tue Mar 25 11:54:52 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id LAA14156 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 25 Mar 1997 11:54:52 +1000 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 LAA14151 for ; Tue, 25 Mar 1997 11:54:44 +1000 Received: from mamos.demon.co.uk ([158.152.129.79]) by relay-10.mail.demon.net id aa1022565; 25 Mar 97 1:41 GMT Message-ID: Date: Tue, 25 Mar 1997 00:34:28 +0000 To: "Paul D. Harrington" Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: michael amos Subject: Re: define mispull In-Reply-To: <19970324.173120.3518.0.paulhar@juno.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In message <19970324.173120.3518.0.paulhar@juno.com>, "Paul D. Harrington" writes >We have run into two questionable situations with actions that were >called mispulls from bid boxes. Please explain the thinking that >justifies these rulings if they are correct. > >Situation #1 - Sectional tournament > >Using bid boxes, North opened 1H. > >East put the 2H card on the table and then said he didn't mean to bid it >and corrected to pass. My understanding is that this is not a mispull - East intended to bid 2H when he took the card from the box - I guess that we have a problem in some situations where a player lies to as directly as this East has done - perhaps public execution might deter others from this type of action :) I had a similar difficulty not long ago where the bidding started 1D - 1D - the overcaller had a 16 count and a perfectly normal 1D opener - he assured me that he had mispulled and intended to bid 1NT - I felt very unhappy at this - i had only two choices - believe him or accuse him of lying - i chickened out i guess - i didn't believe him but did allow the change I think this is very unfortunate - as a TD I want to be as liberal as I can within the laws in allowing genuine mispulls to be corrected - I believe this to be in accord with the spirit of the game as a player i don't want a good game destroyed by an accidental mispull In some ways however i wonder if this attitude can prevail if players regularly abuse it - if this does become the case then i think our current approach will become unworkable and maybe we will need to rethink it - as a player i take the bidding cards from the box look at them and only then put them on the table - perhaps if we allowed no changes but encouraged players to do this we have a workable approach >The director approved this action. I don't think i would have > >It appeared that East had incorrectly seen North's opening bid and >attempted to overcall his suit since East had five hearts. Was The 2H >bid a mispull? Does the use of bid boxes require less attention on the >part of players? Without the bid boxes, East would never have had the >chance to see North's bid and would not realize what he had done. > >South became declarer in a spade contract and West led a heart. Should >there be a lead penalty for this mispull if that's what it was?. > > >Situation #2 - Regional tournament: > >N E S W >1NT P 2C P >P P > >At this point, South exclaimed, "You Passed!!?" and North wanted to >change his bid. > >Director allowed North to bid his four-card major. Again I do not understand this ruling i clearly would not regard this as a mispull - i understand that we apply the same criteria to boxes as to verbal bids as in Law 25 - the key word is inadvertent - i take this to mean a slip of the tongue - if for some daft reason i say One Spade when i mean to say One Heart the Law allows me to change this if i attempt to do so without pause for thought - if i am daft enough not to notice partner has responded with Stayman that is not inadvertent it is stupid >Isn't North obliged >to watch all bids and respond accordingly? yep > Does the use of bid boxes >reduce the need for concentration? no >Was the pass a mispull? no > > >Pat & Paul Harrington :) mike -- michael amos From owner-bridge-laws Tue Mar 25 13:11:45 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id NAA14384 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 25 Mar 1997 13:11:45 +1000 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 NAA14379 for ; Tue, 25 Mar 1997 13:11:40 +1000 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by relay-6.mail.demon.net id aa0619105; 25 Mar 97 3:09 GMT Message-ID: Date: Mon, 24 Mar 1997 17:25:03 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: logical alternatives In-Reply-To: <3334DCD3.7E3F@mail.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Richard Bley wrote: >Hi all >just a short comment: >David Stevenson wrote: >> >(...) >> So, roughly speaking, if there are only two actions, an action that >> would be found by 30% of players qualifies as an LA under EBU practice >> and per the EBL guide [Endicott + Hansen]: a 25% choice under NZ and >> Australia practice [I have recently received a missive on Australian >> practice]: a 15-20% choice per the EBL seminar in Milan: something >> similar in many/most European countries: a 5% action in the > Netherlands and >the ACBL. > >That is a good summary of the discussion. But I have my problems with >these percentages. I doubt that anyone can find out, if a doubtful >action is 15% or 25% or 30%. At least I would make no bet, that I could >manage it: > >(...) > >> >> It seems to me that we have two camps in effect: anything conceivable >> is an LA [ACBL + Netherlands]; any bid reasonably considered is an LA >> [Europe excluding Netherlands + Australasia]. >> >Thats true. And its practical. And Australia is not a part of Europe ;) Ahem: I knew that! :) The second group should have read: [{Europe excluding Netherlands} + Australasia] >With this distinction it is fairly possible to work. >I think the given doubts about the use of percentages in this area is >the reason, that nobody is able to give examples, which would been a LA >in 30% or 20% terms. It is always *possible* to produce examples of a 25% action. You could do it by poll and adjusting a hand to suit. For example, how many of you pass after 1H NB 4H with QJxxx A A KJxxxx at Red [ie V v NV]? If the answer is that half of you do, then we make the SJ the SK and ask again: alternatively if the answer had been that only one in ten of you pass, then we make the SJ the S2 and ask again. I just do not believe it is too useful to find such examples since there will be arguments on the bridge judgement: see the Miami Vice hand, with people saying "of course you pull" and "of course you pass". Also, we have had threads recently that have mixed up a 25% action with a 25% expectation of success of a bid. I believe a summary of what is meant in a two option case [say, pass or bid] is that an LA in Europe[1] is one that *if* you had a chance to poll a number of players of similar ability playing a similar system and style *then* at least one in four [roughly] would call it and an LA in North America[2] is one that *if* you had a chance to poll a number of players of similar ability playing a similar system and style *then* at least one in twenty [roughly] would call it, or at least one in ten [roughly] would strongly consider calling it. We cannot do such polls. Even if the logistics were available in practice there would be no way of making sure that the players asked were of similar ability playing a similar system and style, nor that they would bid sensibly - I am quite sure that people's actions at the table vary considerably from their actions when presented with a piece of paper and a problem. {Many years ago, shortly after leaving University, Dave Graham gave my regular partner and myself two hands on pieces of paper. We bid them 1H [Acol] 2NT [Baron, 15+, FG, balanced] 3NT Pass, and asked him the problem. There isn't one, he said, it's just a standard 3NT on two balanced hands and 28 HCP. Hard luck, we said, you didn't catch us. No, he said, but you are the *first* pair out of twenty that I have polled to reach 3NT: most get to 6C or 6D on the 4-3 fit. I just wanted to confirm that people bid differently when given problems on paper.} Notes: [1] Europe is defined as Europe including Australasia but excluding the Netherlands! [2] North America is defined as Europe plus the Netherlands! -- David Stevenson MayDay Swiss Pairs in Liverpool! Liverpool, England, UK Hughes Simultaneous Pairs at end of June! bridge@blakjak.demon.co.uk See my Homepage for details Bridgepage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/brg_menu.htm From owner-bridge-laws Tue Mar 25 13:12:05 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id NAA14401 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 25 Mar 1997 13:12:05 +1000 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 NAA14392 for ; Tue, 25 Mar 1997 13:11:59 +1000 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by relay-10.mail.demon.net id aa1014515; 25 Mar 97 3:09 GMT Message-ID: <4R8fEcBEBrNzEwLu@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Mon, 24 Mar 1997 16:48:04 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Official policy on mispulls from bidding box In-Reply-To: <1.5.4.32.19970324133125.00693ef4@cais.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Eric Landau wrote: >At 03:33 AM 3/22/97 +0000, David S. wrote: > >>David Grabiner wrote: >> >>>As a separate point, should the director be able to look at offender's >>>hand (which had six points and five hearts) to confirm that this was a >>>mispull, while it would have been a misbid if the offender had held 13 >>>points and five diamonds? >> >> Absolutely not. The TD should not look into hands until the end of >>the hand, with due respect to Jens who has a possible exception: even if >>we accept that particular case it is very rare. >> >> Suppose the TD had looked and seen five HCP, five hearts, and six >>diamonds: what does she do then? Say, I cannot rule because you seem to >>have both red suits ? >> >> If a TD looks at a hand then that TD will find it impossible to avoid >>giving UI to the players from time to time. Suppose she sees a psyche? >>We expect TDs in Europe to judge hands, but only after consideration and >>consultation. If a TD looks at a hand during the auction, she has to >>determine immediately whether it fits one explanation or another. >> >> I could go on, but I won't: a TD should *never* look at a hand until >>play has ceased. > >It has been my experience that, in the top-level ACBL events in particular, >TDs *always* look at the hands. Each floor director carries a complete set >of hand records; on being called to a table, the first thing they do is >check the board number and bring out the hand record, even before asking >what the problem is. They're pretty good at avoiding giving UI to the >players; unless it's obvious from the ruling (e.g. on an insufficient bid, >where the TD must determine whether it was conventional or not), the players >generally can't tell whether the TD's knowledge of the hands had anything to >do with how they ruled. Of course, in UI and MI situations, 99-44/100% of >the time the initial "ruling" is "play out the hand and call me back if you >feel you've been damaged", and by the time the TD returns to the table >everyone is aware of all the hands. I grant you that if the TDs normally look at the hands then they can hide their feelings easier but I should be pleased to hear any reason why it is easier to give rulings. It sounds to me that judgement of hands is more difficult when you have preconceived notions. Certainly in major English events I carry a copy of the hands around with me: the point it that I do not look at it until after eliciting the facts and then only for judgement rulings: I believe that my mechanical rulings will be less efficient if I see the hands. While I know that we have a fair cross-section of people here on BLML, including junior and senior TDs, regular and senior appeals members, lawmakers, and players with general laws-interest from Europe/RoWorld, and we have junior TDs, regular and senior appeals members, lawmakers, and players with general laws-interest from North America, do we have any senior TDs from North America? I would very much like to hear on this specific subject from North American TDs, whether junior or senior! -- David Stevenson MayDay Swiss Pairs in Liverpool! Liverpool, England, UK Hughes Simultaneous Pairs at end of June! bridge@blakjak.demon.co.uk See my Homepage for details Bridgepage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/brg_menu.htm From owner-bridge-laws Tue Mar 25 13:25:34 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id NAA14436 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 25 Mar 1997 13:25:34 +1000 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 NAA14431 for ; Tue, 25 Mar 1997 13:25:26 +1000 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by relay-11.mail.demon.net id aa1110280; 25 Mar 97 3:09 GMT Message-ID: Date: Mon, 24 Mar 1997 16:36:46 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Official policy on mispulls from bidding box In-Reply-To: <01IGVVVROIAQ005JOH@TUDRNV.TUDelft.NL> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk E.Angad-Gaur wrote: >> >> David Grabiner wrote: >> >> >Is there an official WBF or ACBL position published somewhere on when >> >you can correct a mispull from a bidding box? >> > >> >At a club game last night, my RHO opened 1NT, I passed, and LHO pulled >> >1D from her box, then tried to correct it after I waited a few seconds >> >and called the director. The director didn't have any reference other >> >than "without pause for thought" on which to judge whether this was a >> >correctable mispull or an insufficient bid that would have been >> >corrected to a conventional 2D. She ruled insufficient bid; I thought >> >this was wrong but didn't have any basis for correcting her. > >> >As a separate point, should the director be able to look at offender's >> >hand (which had six points and five hearts) to confirm that this was a >> >mispull, while it would have been a misbid if the offender had held 13 >> >points and five diamonds? > >David Stevenson wrote: >> >> Absolutely not. The TD should not look into hands until the end of >> the hand, with due respect to Jens who has a possible exception: even if >> we accept that particular case it is very rare. >> >> If a TD looks at a hand then that TD will find it impossible to avoid >> giving UI to the players from time to time. Suppose she sees a psyche? >> We expect TDs in Europe to judge hands, but only after consideration and >> consultation. If a TD looks at a hand during the auction, she has to >> determine immediately whether it fits one explanation or another. >> >> I could go on, but I won't: a TD should *never* look at a hand until >> play has ceased. >> > >In Holland we have additional ruling that you can change your call by a >mispull untill partner makes a call. Point is to determine if your call >is a mispull or "a change of mind" ergo 25B. > >And to determine between these two cases the TD must take the unfortunate(?) >player with him from the table. Then the TD can ask the player, what hap- >pened, what his hand was( which cards he had). Depending om the answers the >TD must judge if it a "mispull or a puposeful Correction". I always let the >player leave his cards at the table. The other players must not know what >I am asking. If the information about his actual hand given to me is wrong >I can allways correct it afterwards. >So in my opinion I am looking his hand in a different way without giving UI >to the other players. >I have allways been able to solve the distinction between 25A and 25B in this >way. >The player must convince me that it is a mispull else I will apply rule 25B. The difference between taking someone away from the table and looking at his hand is *enormous*. Suppose a player bids 1D over 1NT as an overcall. You look at his hand and see: Q9xxx x AKJ97 xx What do you do next? Look at his CC to see what 2D over 1NT was? Ok, let's say you do that. Asptro, spades and another, so it could have been Asptro. Now what? [In defiance of an earlier thread, three others at the table will now be trying to get a squint at the CC, I can assure you.] Wait a minute, what's an opening 1D? Shows 0+ diamonds, phoney, Precision, easy, it's conventional, rule it as conventional, read the Law. "But ..." says the player. His opponents come to his rescue: "We know he heard a 1C opening from another table," they say, "Why can't he correct it to 2D?" I cannot see what advantage there is in looking into a player's hand. What generally happens is that the TD is required then to apply his bridge playing judgement when not in full possession of the facts. On the other hand taking the player away from the table solves everthing: "What did you mean to do?" you ask: when you hear that it was a antural overcall of 1D over an misheard 1C you know what to do. So, Mr Angad-Gaur, you are not "looking at his hand in another way": what you are doing is eliciting the facts in the most efficient way and by far the best way. -- David Stevenson MayDay Swiss Pairs in Liverpool! Liverpool, England, UK Hughes Simultaneous Pairs at end of June! bridge@blakjak.demon.co.uk See my Homepage for details Bridgepage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/brg_menu.htm From owner-bridge-laws Tue Mar 25 13:28:58 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id NAA14456 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 25 Mar 1997 13:28:58 +1000 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 NAA14450 for ; Tue, 25 Mar 1997 13:28:51 +1000 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by relay-5.mail.demon.net id aa0516440; 25 Mar 97 3:18 GMT Message-ID: <$+Ouv4BPP0NzEw49@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Tue, 25 Mar 1997 03:17:35 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Insufficient bid MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk A player made an insufficient bid Director is called , reads the rules pertaining to the situation . When auction reverts to insufficient bidder he says DOUBLE in spite of being not allowed ( without insufficient bid double would have been admissible ) But quicker than director opens his mouth to say anything next player in rotation says REDOUBLE How this situation be ruled ?? There are several possibilities 1) Redouble constitutes acceptance of an illegal double , waiwing all penalties. Therefore double and redouble stand , and insufficient bidders partner can bid. 2) Redouble is cancelled without penalty and rules regarding an attempt to substitute double for an insufficient bid apply 3) Double and Redouble are cancelled and Both Doublers partner and Redoublers partner will be barred from the auction 4 ) Only the redoubler is subject to penalty and double and redouble are cancelled Which one is correct ? May be none of above Please let me know Mark Levin ------------ I have copied the above from RGB. The only answers given were [a] a clearly incorrect answer and [b] comments on [a]. What do you think? -- David Stevenson MayDay Swiss Pairs in Liverpool! Liverpool, England, UK Hughes Simultaneous Pairs at end of June! bridge@blakjak.demon.co.uk See my Homepage for details Bridgepage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/brg_menu.htm From owner-bridge-laws Tue Mar 25 13:44:04 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id NAA14497 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 25 Mar 1997 13:44:04 +1000 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 NAA14492 for ; Tue, 25 Mar 1997 13:43:58 +1000 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by relay-6.mail.demon.net id aa0620987; 25 Mar 97 3:18 GMT Message-ID: <9+iuv3B$O0NzEwZx@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Tue, 25 Mar 1997 03:17:19 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: New L16A: "demonstrably" In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk michael amos wrote: >In message <33267c0c.445380@pipmail.dknet.dk>, Jesper Dybdal > writes >>In the new L16A, the words >> "... that could reasonably have been suggested over another ..." >>have been replaced by >> "... that could demonstrably have been suggested over another ..." >> >>I have just been reading the first draft of the translation of the new >>L16A to Danish. Trying to get an opinion about the translation, I >>realized that I don't really understand what the change in English >>mean. >> >>Does anyone have opinions as to what this change of words mean in >>reality? Are there hands where we should adjust by the old laws, but >>not by the new ones, or vice versa? >> >>What does "demonstrably" actually mean here? Does it just mean that >>the TD must be able to describe ("demonstrate") why he considers one >>alternative suggested over another? If so, I cannot see that it makes >>any real difference. >Sorry i have taken a long while to reply - i wanted to hear what others >had to say before expressing what is a personal and very ignoranr view >point >>the words >> "... > >>the words >> "... that could reasonably have been suggested over another ..." >> have been suggested over another ..." > >seem themselves to be problematic and not really very well expressed in >terms of what they seem to be intended to mean - my personal opinion is >that what the lawmakers intended to imply here was > >> "... that could reasonably have been shown to have been suggested >over another ..." > >and so i believe that demonstrably as in the new version is simply an >attempt to say what was intended before - i don't think that the new law >is intended to be in any practical terms different from the one we >operate under at present > >i think the current discussion of how we define LA is far more >significant I too have been reading this thread with some interest. Several posts were concerned with the Bridge judgement of an action with a large number of hearts. Despite anything said to the contrary I believe that all that was really being argued about was whether a certain action constituted an LA or not. Quite frankly, no-one has convinced me that the change of wording from reasonably to demonstrably means anything. Labeo suggested it is not so much a real change as an attempt to clarify because the Laws Commission feels the North American approach has not followed what the Commission intended. That may be so. If so, it is a similar change to the one being welcomed on RGB where a certain Law has changed from "Any player ..." to Any player, including dummy, ..." which is not exactly a change of substance. Certainly it appears that Gary Blaiss has welcomed the change in an article in the ACBL journal. He appears to think it is a move against BLs. However I do not see why, and I have not seen the article yet [yes, I have joined the ACBL, but apparently the journal has to swim the Atlantic before I can see it!]. Interestingly, I have been asked why I have not put a note of this change in my articles. When I first saw the change my immediate reaction was that it was cleaning up the wording and that it made no difference. I still feel that. It is my intention, as far as my articles on changes is concerned to insert something like this: ********************************************************************** One change is that where UI is concerned partner may not choose among logical alternatives one that could "demonstrably" have been suggested over another: previously the word "reasonably" was used. It will be interesting to see what differences of interpretation will come because of this: not everyone thinks it makes any difference. ********************************************************************** The person who suggested I add something also said that he thought BLML had reached some sort of consensus: I do not believe we have, and feel one reason has been discussing the bridge judgement of one hand rather than trying to show in what way this change of wording matters. -- David Stevenson MayDay Swiss Pairs in Liverpool! Liverpool, England, UK Hughes Simultaneous Pairs at end of June! bridge@blakjak.demon.co.uk See my Homepage for details Bridgepage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/brg_menu.htm From owner-bridge-laws Tue Mar 25 14:51:08 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id OAA14658 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 25 Mar 1997 14:51:08 +1000 Received: from relay-finch.mail.demon.net (relay-finch.mail.demon.net [158.152.1.63]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id OAA14652 for ; Tue, 25 Mar 1997 14:51:01 +1000 Received: from rbarden.demon.co.uk ([158.152.169.19]) by relay-finch.mail.demon.net id aa0008653; 25 Mar 97 0:32 GMT Message-ID: Date: Tue, 25 Mar 1997 00:31:23 +0000 To: Eric Landau Cc: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Paul Barden Subject: Re: ACBL to limit score adjustments to 1/4 board? In-Reply-To: <1.5.4.32.19970324135640.00696f94@cais.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 1.12 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In message <1.5.4.32.19970324135640.00696f94@cais.com>, Eric Landau writes >At 09:01 PM 3/21/97 +0000, Paul wrote: > >>I don't understand the wording of the rule, but I agree completely with >>the aims of Hamman, Wolff and Goldman. If you are alleged to have taken >>advantage of UI to bid a slam, but the slam turns out to be 2%, then >>clearly the allegation is false. If the 2% slam happens to make, that >>doesn't add force to the allegation. > >If this were true, we would all agree, but I can't accept it. If N bids 4NT >and S responds by saying "five diamonds; I have two aces", and N now goes on >to bid a 2% slam, by what logic is the "allegation" that N took advantage of >UI "clearly false"? Of course in this case if North bids a slam which ought to be off two aces then he has taken advantage of UI. But then it wouldn't just be a case for score adjustment, it would be a serious infraction worthy of extreme sanction (unless the player were very inexperienced). There are two separate problems here. One is that we wish to punish the intentional use of UI. The other is that we wish to avoid advantage from the unintentional use of UI. It is the latter case which I am addressing. To make sure that no advantage can accrue from the unintentional use of UI, the Laws assume that UI has been used if it reasonably could have been. I am suggesting that this should be relaxed to the extent that, unless it is clear that UI has been used, we assume that it has not when the resulting contract is clearly inferior to the contract we are considering adjusting to. This would not be a major change to the Laws. It simply involves assessing "damage", analytically if not chronologically, at the end of the auction not the end of the play. >>The aim of the rules on UI is to make sure that players don't bid (or >>defend) more accurately than their skill and judgment permits. Making a >>2% slam has got nothing to do with bidding accurately. > >I'd say that the aim of the UI rules is to make sure that players don't bid >or defend based on UI. It would be a huge (and, IMO, totally unworkable) >change in interpretation and practice to accept the idea that a player can >have taken advantage of UI only if the player's call or play is deemed to be >beyond what "their skill and judgment permits". > That is not what I intended to suggest. >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 > -- Paul Barden From owner-bridge-laws Tue Mar 25 21:28:04 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id VAA15822 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 25 Mar 1997 21:28:04 +1000 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 VAA15817 for ; Tue, 25 Mar 1997 21:27:57 +1000 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 GAA17173 for ; Tue, 25 Mar 1997 06:27:48 -0500 (EST) Received: by cfa183.harvard.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id GAA08919; Tue, 25 Mar 1997 06:27:55 -0500 Date: Tue, 25 Mar 1997 06:27:55 -0500 From: willner@cfa183.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Message-Id: <199703251127.GAA08919@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: When can you ask questions Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: Rachael.King@minidoc.se > After regalling all the options East asked if he could ask some questions > about the NS system and their possible continuations > over 2S or 3S before deciding whether to accept the 2S bid. Do you let him > ask the questions? Something Kaplan once wrote about an unrelated situation seems relevant here. Suppose a different player in the same situation happens to be completely familiar with the opponents' methods. Clearly he can use his knowledge in making his choice. Aren't all players entitled to be in the same position? Cautioning about UI, as somebody else suggested, may be a good idea. Questions at any time can transmit UI, and players are supposed to know that, but this situation seems unusually delicate. From owner-bridge-laws Tue Mar 25 21:32:55 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id VAA15862 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 25 Mar 1997 21:32:55 +1000 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 VAA15857 for ; Tue, 25 Mar 1997 21:32:50 +1000 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 GAA17293 for ; Tue, 25 Mar 1997 06:32:46 -0500 (EST) Received: by cfa183.harvard.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id GAA08932; Tue, 25 Mar 1997 06:32:54 -0500 Date: Tue, 25 Mar 1997 06:32:54 -0500 From: willner@cfa183.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Message-Id: <199703251132.GAA08932@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Pass Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: Labeo > Recalling some recent discussion on the significance of Pass I > noted that a Pass tells us that the player has elected not to bid, > double or redouble I trust we all agree with this! > Passes which announce values, and those which deny > them, are either conventional or the subject of partnership agreements. Sorry, but I don't understand this at all. Aren't these two separate questions? A given pass may or may not be the subject of partnership agreement. If it is, the agreement may or may not be conventional. (It probably is conventional if the pass promises values and probably isn't if it denies them.) What am I missing? From owner-bridge-laws Tue Mar 25 21:43:04 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id VAA15889 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 25 Mar 1997 21:43:04 +1000 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 VAA15884 for ; Tue, 25 Mar 1997 21:42:58 +1000 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 GAA17287 for ; Tue, 25 Mar 1997 06:42:55 -0500 (EST) Received: by cfa183.harvard.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id GAA08951; Tue, 25 Mar 1997 06:43:02 -0500 Date: Tue, 25 Mar 1997 06:43:02 -0500 From: willner@cfa183.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Message-Id: <199703251143.GAA08951@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: New law 25B Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: David Stevenson > So what happens if you say: "Stop everything, please, I want to > call the Director.": when the Director arrives, you say "I want to > change my call."? > > The answer is clear to me: under the current law book you may *not* do > so.... There is no point repeating the discussion we had some time ago, but for newcomers to the list, let me just mention that it's not so clear to everyone. In brief, the current L25B can be read as giving permission to change one's call. If one reads it that way, the question of an intentional infraction does not arise. This reading is unpopular, I think, but not clearly wrong. I certainly hope the new L25B is clearer than the current one. From owner-bridge-laws Tue Mar 25 21:45:44 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id VAA15907 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 25 Mar 1997 21:45:44 +1000 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 VAA15902 for ; Tue, 25 Mar 1997 21:45:25 +1000 Received: from tempest.cise.npl.co.uk by waffle.cise.npl.co.uk; Tue, 25 Mar 1997 11:44:47 GMT Date: Tue, 25 Mar 97 11:44:45 GMT Message-Id: <13760.9703251144@tempest.cise.npl.co.uk> From: Robin Barker To: tripack@ihug.co.nz Subject: Re: basing agreements Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: patrick carter > Subject: basing agreements > > Both David and Eric have recently stated that you may not base your > agreements on opponent's possible continuations, although they then differ > about a minor point relating to that. The specific case given was that it > would be illegal to play light pre-empts against opponent's who use takeout > doubles and sound pre-empts against opponent's using penalty doubles. What > basis in Law is there for this assertion? > > Law 75a says that information conveyed to partner through agreements must > arise from the calls' plays and conditions of the current deal. Surely one > of the conditions of the current deal is that you are seated at the table > playing opponents who play either penalty or takeout doubles. > > If there is any evidence to show that the conditions of the current deal > specifically only relate to vulnerability (in which case why not just say > vulnerability) then there is more grounds for David's and Eric's assertion. > However that would make the following case interesting: > > Pair A sits down to play a 16 board teams match. On perusing their system > card they note they play penalty doubles of pre-empts and one says "gee, > that's unusual, we'd better make sure our pre-empts are sound then." If the > opponents now called you to the table would you rule that pair A were not > allowed to change to playing sound pre-empts for this teams match? If you do > allow them to change, then what is the difference between this and the same > situation in a 2 boards a round pairs event? > > I am aware that the opponent's may wish to change their methods for sound > pre-empts to takeout doubles, but that shouldn't cause a chicken and egg > paradoxical situation here. They can surely agree to play penalty doubles > against pre-empts, except where the opponents have an agreement to play > sound pre-empts, either as a general rule or only sound when playing a pair > who's methods are to play penalty doubles of unsound pre-empts. > I do not think there is a problem here. e.g. W N E S 1H 2S ? If East is to call then EW can have an agreement where the meaning of East's call depends on the meaning of NS's agreement as to the meaning of North's call. If NS's agreement is "loose" WJO if EW play negative doubles, "sound" WJO if EW play penalty doubles, then NS do NOT have a complete agreement in this position. Why not? Because they do not cover all the possible EW agreement for double: in particular, they do not cover the EW agreement "penalties if WJO is loose, negative if WJO is sound". Once this "chicken-and-egg" situation has come up once for NS they will have an agreement or at least some partership experience of what is their strength of WJO when the EW agreement is "penalties if WJO is loose, negative if WJO is sound". EW are entitled to knowledge of the NS agreement/understanding in this situation, and this knowledge will affect the meaning of the EW double. In summary: if NS agreement is "WJO is loose if EW double is negative, WJO is sound if EW double is penalties" and EW agreement is "double is penalties if WJO is loose, double is negative if WJO is sound" then NS will have an agreement/understanding/experience of their strength of WJO in this situation which will resolve the apparent "chicken-and-egg paradox". 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 Tue Mar 25 21:59:09 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id VAA15947 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 25 Mar 1997 21:59:09 +1000 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 VAA15942 for ; Tue, 25 Mar 1997 21:59:03 +1000 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 GAA17642 for ; Tue, 25 Mar 1997 06:59:00 -0500 (EST) Received: by cfa183.harvard.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id GAA09007; Tue, 25 Mar 1997 06:59:07 -0500 Date: Tue, 25 Mar 1997 06:59:07 -0500 From: willner@cfa183.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Message-Id: <199703251159.GAA09007@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: logical alternatives Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: David Stevenson > I believe a summary of what is meant in a two option case [say, pass > or bid] is that an LA in Europe[1] is one that *if* you had a chance to > poll a number of players of similar ability playing a similar system and > style *then* at least one in four [roughly] would call it and an LA in > North America[2] is one that *if* you had a chance to poll a number of > players of similar ability playing a similar system and style *then* at > least one in twenty [roughly] would call it, or at least one in ten > [roughly] would strongly consider calling it. The statement relating to North America may be a reasonable estimate of the practical results, but the explicit intent of the changed definition was to avoid any need to estimate percentages. The definition as written is considerably more stringent than David suggests (corresponding to something like 0%), but my impression is that it is not being enforced quite so stringently. [Nice story deleted; good example of the difficulty of estimating percentages in any case.] > [2] North America is defined as Europe plus the Netherlands! Hi, David. You are trying too hard, but I think most of us know what you meant! From owner-bridge-laws Tue Mar 25 22:56:09 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id WAA16078 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 25 Mar 1997 22:56:09 +1000 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 WAA16073 for ; Tue, 25 Mar 1997 22:56:01 +1000 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 HAA19072 for ; Tue, 25 Mar 1997 07:55:56 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <1.5.4.32.19970325125527.006863f4@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 Mar 1997 07:55:27 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: define mispull Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 05:27 PM 3/24/97 EST, Paul wrote: >We have run into two questionable situations with actions that were >called mispulls from bid boxes. Please explain the thinking that >justifies these rulings if they are correct. > >Situation #1 - Sectional tournament > >Using bid boxes, North opened 1H. > >East put the 2H card on the table and then said he didn't mean to bid it >and corrected to pass. The director approved this action. > >It appeared that East had incorrectly seen North's opening bid and >attempted to overcall his suit since East had five hearts. Was The 2H >bid a mispull? Does the use of bid boxes require less attention on the >part of players? Without the bid boxes, East would never have had the >chance to see North's bid and would not realize what he had done. > >South became declarer in a spade contract and West led a heart. Should >there be a lead penalty for this mispull if that's what it was?. > > >Situation #2 - Regional tournament: > >N E S W >1NT P 2C P >P P > >At this point, South exclaimed, "You Passed!!?" and North wanted to >change his bid. > >Director allowed North to bid his four-card major. Isn't North obliged >to watch all bids and respond accordingly? Does the use of bid boxes >reduce the need for concentration? Was the pass a mispull? Both of these rulings were incorrect. A mispull is a purely mechanical error -- it means that the player was attempting to pull and display a particular bid card but his fingers accidentally grasped a different bid card. A change of intent is never a mispull, whether caused by mis-seeing or mis-hearing the previous auction, or by mis-remembering one's bidding agreements, or by miscounting one's points. Situations such as those above are governed by L25B, not L25A. Eric Landau elandau@cais.com APL Solutions, Inc. elandau@acm.org 1107 Dale Drive (301) 589-4621 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 From owner-bridge-laws Tue Mar 25 23:22:49 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA16182 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 25 Mar 1997 23:22:49 +1000 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 XAA16177 for ; Tue, 25 Mar 1997 23:22:42 +1000 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 IAA19599 for ; Tue, 25 Mar 1997 08:22:37 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <1.5.4.32.19970325132208.006956c4@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 Mar 1997 08:22:08 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: basing agreements Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 12:06 PM 3/25/97 +1200, Patrick wrote: > Both David and Eric have recently stated that you may not base your >agreements on opponent's possible continuations, although they then differ >about a minor point relating to that. The specific case given was that it >would be illegal to play light pre-empts against opponent's who use takeout >doubles and sound pre-empts against opponent's using penalty doubles. What >basis in Law is there for this assertion? None. Apologies for confusing the issue. What David and I were referring to is not in the Laws, but is an ACBL regulation that applies only in North America. The ACBL regulation says that pairs may not vary their "system" based on their opponents' "defenses against the opponents' conventional calls and preemptive bids". Whether this rule is in fact permissable under L40D (as it would clearly be if it read "conventions" rather than "system", but then it wouldn't apply to light vs. sound preempts) is questionable at best, but that's for another thread. Eric Landau elandau@cais.com APL Solutions, Inc. elandau@acm.org 1107 Dale Drive (301) 589-4621 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 From owner-bridge-laws Tue Mar 25 23:40:59 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA16286 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 25 Mar 1997 23:40:59 +1000 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 XAA16281 for ; Tue, 25 Mar 1997 23:40:53 +1000 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by relay-11.mail.demon.net id ab1109513; 25 Mar 97 13:21 GMT Message-ID: Date: Tue, 25 Mar 1997 12:55:56 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: define mispull In-Reply-To: <19970324.173120.3518.0.paulhar@juno.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Paul D. Harrington wrote: >We have run into two questionable situations with actions that were >called mispulls from bid boxes. Please explain the thinking that >justifies these rulings if they are correct. > >Situation #1 - Sectional tournament Is this in the ACBL? >Using bid boxes, North opened 1H. > >East put the 2H card on the table and then said he didn't mean to bid it >and corrected to pass. The director approved this action. > >It appeared that East had incorrectly seen North's opening bid and >attempted to overcall his suit since East had five hearts. Was The 2H >bid a mispull? Does the use of bid boxes require less attention on the >part of players? Without the bid boxes, East would never have had the >chance to see North's bid and would not realize what he had done. No, it is not allowed to be changged. At the moment that East took 2H out of the box, he intended to bid 2H, so it is not a mispull. >South became declarer in a spade contract and West led a heart. Should >there be a lead penalty for this mispull if that's what it was?. Certainly not. There is *no* case for a lead penalty. Either he did not mean to bid 2H at all, so why a lead penalty? or he did intend to bid 2H, in which case it is *not* a mispull. >Situation #2 - Regional tournament: > >N E S W >1NT P 2C P >P P > >At this point, South exclaimed, "You Passed!!?" and North wanted to >change his bid. > >Director allowed North to bid his four-card major. Isn't North obliged >to watch all bids and respond accordingly? Does the use of bid boxes >reduce the need for concentration? Was the pass a mispull? No, at the time he passed he meant to pass. It is not correctable under L25A. Of course there is L25B, but then the TD would rule the contract back to 2C anyway because any change under L25B would be caused by the UI. A mispull means that the card taken out of the bid box was not the card that the brain intended at that moment. If card and brain agree, it is not a mispull and not subject to L25A. -- David Stevenson MayDay Swiss Pairs in Liverpool! Quango and Nanki Poo Hughes Simultaneous Pairs at end of June! appear on the WWW !!! See my Homepage for details Bridgepage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/brg_menu.htm From owner-bridge-laws Tue Mar 25 23:42:58 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA16307 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 25 Mar 1997 23:42:58 +1000 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 XAA16302 for ; Tue, 25 Mar 1997 23:42:49 +1000 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 IAA20107 for ; Tue, 25 Mar 1997 08:42:42 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <1.5.4.32.19970325134213.0069fa68@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 Mar 1997 08:42:13 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: Official policy on mispulls from bidding box Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 04:48 PM 3/24/97 +0000, David wrote: > I grant you that if the TDs normally look at the hands then they can >hide their feelings easier but I should be pleased to hear any reason >why it is easier to give rulings. It sounds to me that judgement of >hands is more difficult when you have preconceived notions. > > Certainly in major English events I carry a copy of the hands around >with me: the point it that I do not look at it until after eliciting the >facts and then only for judgement rulings: I believe that my mechanical >rulings will be less efficient if I see the hands. > > While I know that we have a fair cross-section of people here on BLML, >including junior and senior TDs, regular and senior appeals members, >lawmakers, and players with general laws-interest from Europe/RoWorld, >and we have junior TDs, regular and senior appeals members, lawmakers, >and players with general laws-interest from North America, do we have >any senior TDs from North America? > > I would very much like to hear on this specific subject from North >American TDs, whether junior or senior! FTR, I'm a very junior-level TD in North America (as well as an occasional AC member and an interested player). I work at clubs and at "unit level" tournaments (the first step above the club level). At the latter, our usual policy is to have a copy of the hands at the directors' desk, which we do not take with us when answering calls. The implicit policy is that if a ruling is complicated enough to require looking at the hands, then it's complicated enough that we should be consulting with other staff members before making it final. I'd say that, at our level, this is a sensible policy. 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 Mar 26 00:10:25 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA16576 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 26 Mar 1997 00:10:25 +1000 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 AAA16532 for ; Wed, 26 Mar 1997 00:10:18 +1000 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by relay-10.mail.demon.net id aa1026396; 25 Mar 97 13:21 GMT Message-ID: Date: Tue, 25 Mar 1997 11:15:32 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Quango and Nanki Poo MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Who makes sure my rulings are correct? Quango, of course! He and Nanki Poo have been checking my bridge contributions for months. The time has come! The piccies have been taken! They have been scanned! They are now on my Homepage! check them out! Homepage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk -- David Stevenson MayDay Swiss Pairs in Liverpool! Quango and Nanki Poo Hughes Simultaneous Pairs at end of June! appear on the WWW !!! See my Homepage for details Bridgepage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/brg_menu.htm From owner-bridge-laws Wed Mar 26 00:15:48 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA18741 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 26 Mar 1997 00:15:48 +1000 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 AAA18736 for ; Wed, 26 Mar 1997 00:15:38 +1000 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 JAA21079 for ; Tue, 25 Mar 1997 09:15:28 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <1.5.4.32.19970325141459.0069e54c@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 Mar 1997 09:14:59 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: Insufficient bid Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 03:17 AM 3/25/97 +0000, David wrote: > A player made an insufficient bid Director is called , reads the rules >pertaining to the situation . When auction reverts to insufficient >bidder >he says DOUBLE >in spite of being not allowed ( without insufficient bid double would >have >been admissible ) But quicker than director opens his mouth to say >anything next player in rotation says REDOUBLE How this situation be >ruled >?? > There are several possibilities > 1) Redouble constitutes acceptance of an illegal double , waiwing all >penalties. >Therefore double and redouble stand , and insufficient bidders partner >can >bid. > 2) Redouble is cancelled without penalty and rules regarding an >attempt >to substitute double for an insufficient bid apply > 3) Double and Redouble are cancelled and Both Doublers partner and >Redoublers partner will be barred from the auction > 4 ) Only the redoubler is subject to penalty and double and redouble >are >cancelled > Which one is correct ? May be none of above Please let me know >Mark Levin > > ------------ > > I have copied the above from RGB. The only answers given were [a] a >clearly incorrect answer and [b] comments on [a]. > > What do you think? Double and redouble stand, auction continues normally, no penalties. The governing law is in the first paragraph of L35. L35A does not apply, since the double was proper under L19, albeit inadmissable under L27. Although this is the same ruling yielded by (1) above, that statement is incorrect. Redouble does not "constitute acceptance of an illegal double" in general. This particular redouble, however, does constitute acceptance of this particular illegal double. My personal "sympathies" lie with (2) above, but that's not how I read the Laws. 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 Mar 26 01:00:46 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA18942 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 26 Mar 1997 01:00:46 +1000 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 BAA18937 for ; Wed, 26 Mar 1997 01:00:30 +1000 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 KAA00797 for ; Tue, 25 Mar 1997 10:00:21 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <1.5.4.32.19970325145952.00698eb4@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 Mar 1997 09:59:52 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: ACBL to limit score adjustments to 1/4 board? Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 12:31 AM 3/25/97 +0000, Paul wrote: >There are two separate problems here. One is that we wish to punish the >intentional use of UI. The other is that we wish to avoid advantage >from the unintentional use of UI. It is the latter case which I am >addressing. > >To make sure that no advantage can accrue from the unintentional use of >UI, the Laws assume that UI has been used if it reasonably could have >been. I am suggesting that this should be relaxed to the extent that, >unless it is clear that UI has been used, we assume that it has not when >the resulting contract is clearly inferior to the contract we are >considering adjusting to. > >This would not be a major change to the Laws. It simply involves >assessing "damage", analytically if not chronologically, at the end of >the auction not the end of the play. I do not dispute Paul's logic; I merely disagree with his definitions. If the use of UI leads to a better score for the offenders (and, to avoid the red-herring side issue, we stipulate that the NOs couldn't have done anything about it), I would call that "advantage" to the offenders and "damage" to the NOs. I do not believe that these terms ought to be defined statistically based solely on the offenders' hands. "Advantage" and "damage", IMO, accrue to the result on the actual hand, not to its "single-dummy" expected value. Results at the bridge table do not always follow statistical expectations. If I bid a slam that can't be beaten because three finesses win and two suits break 3-3, I'd say that it was to my advantage to have bid 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 Wed Mar 26 01:37:10 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA19122 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 26 Mar 1997 01:37:10 +1000 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 BAA19116 for ; Wed, 26 Mar 1997 01:36:42 +1000 Received: from tempest.cise.npl.co.uk by waffle.cise.npl.co.uk; Tue, 25 Mar 1997 15:36:01 GMT Date: Tue, 25 Mar 97 15:36:00 GMT Message-Id: <13988.9703251536@tempest.cise.npl.co.uk> From: Robin Barker To: elandau@cais.com Subject: Re: Insufficient bid Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > > A player made an insufficient bid Director is called , reads the rules > >pertaining to the situation . When auction reverts to insufficient > >bidder > >he says DOUBLE > >in spite of being not allowed ( without insufficient bid double would > >have > >been admissible ) But quicker than director opens his mouth to say > >anything next player in rotation says REDOUBLE How this situation be > >ruled > >?? > > There are several possibilities > > 1) Redouble constitutes acceptance of an illegal double , waiwing all > >penalties. > >Therefore double and redouble stand , and insufficient bidders partner > >can > >bid. > > 2) Redouble is cancelled without penalty and rules regarding an > >attempt > >to substitute double for an insufficient bid apply > > 3) Double and Redouble are cancelled and Both Doublers partner and > >Redoublers partner will be barred from the auction > > 4 ) Only the redoubler is subject to penalty and double and redouble > >are > >cancelled > > Which one is correct ? May be none of above Please let me know > Double and redouble stand, auction continues normally, no penalties. > > The governing law is in the first paragraph of L35. L35A does not apply, > since the double was proper under L19, albeit inadmissable under L27. > > Although this is the same ruling yielded by (1) above, that statement is > incorrect. Redouble does not "constitute acceptance of an illegal double" > in general. This particular redouble, however, does constitute acceptance > of this particular illegal double. > > My personal "sympathies" lie with (2) above, but that's not how I read the Laws. > I disagree, L35 only applies to "any call specified below" i.e. in section 5, L36-39. This inadmissible double is not covered by L36-39 so can not be condoned in the way described by L35. My reading is that there is no provision to allow a double of L27B3 to stand. There are no exceptions to the statement to L27B3 ".. the attempted call is cancelled ..". I rule (2). 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 Mar 26 02:26:49 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA19548 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 26 Mar 1997 02:26:49 +1000 Received: from TUDRNV.TUDELFT.NL (tudrnv.tudelft.nl [130.161.180.88]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id CAA19542 for ; Wed, 26 Mar 1997 02:26:38 +1000 Received: from duttncb.tn.tudelft.nl by TUDRNV.TUDelft.NL (PMDF V5.0-6 #15266) id <01IGXDP7KMCG0062I2@TUDRNV.TUDelft.NL> for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Tue, 25 Mar 1997 17:03:17 +0100 Received: by duttncb.tn.tudelft.nl (16.6/15.6) id AA27652; Tue, 25 Mar 1997 17:01:35 +0100 Date: Tue, 25 Mar 1997 17:01:34 +0100 (MET) From: "E.Angad-Gaur" Subject: Re: Insufficient bid In-reply-to: <$+Ouv4BPP0NzEw49@blakjak.demon.co.uk>; from "David Stevenson" at Mar 25, 97 3:17 am To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Message-id: <01IGXDP7ODDU0062I2@TUDRNV.TUDelft.NL> Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Mailer: Elm [revision: 66.25] Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > > A player made an insufficient bid Director is called , reads the rules > pertaining to the situation . When auction reverts to insufficient > bidder > he says DOUBLE > in spite of being not allowed ( without insufficient bid double would > have > been admissible ) But quicker than director opens his mouth to say > anything next player in rotation says REDOUBLE How this situation be > ruled > ?? > There are several possibilities > 1) Redouble constitutes acceptance of an illegal double , waiwing all > penalties. > Therefore double and redouble stand , and insufficient bidders partner > can > bid. > 2) Redouble is cancelled without penalty and rules regarding an > attempt > to substitute double for an insufficient bid apply > 3) Double and Redouble are cancelled and Both Doublers partner and > Redoublers partner will be barred from the auction > 4 ) Only the redoubler is subject to penalty and double and redouble > are > cancelled > Which one is correct ? May be none of above Please let me know > Mark Levin > > > ------------ > > I have copied the above from RGB. The only answers given were [a] a > clearly incorrect answer and [b] comments on [a]. > > What do you think? --------------------------------------------------------------- It a illegal but admissible double. So we cannot use law 35 and 36. Use law 11B. Double and redouble stands and the bidding goes on (everybody). If in my opion necessary I will give penalty's (law 11D). > > -- > David Stevenson MayDay Swiss Pairs in Liverpool! > Liverpool, England, UK Hughes Simultaneous Pairs at end of June! > bridge@blakjak.demon.co.uk See my Homepage for details > Bridgepage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/brg_menu.htm > -- --------------------------------------------------------------------------- S.E. Angad-Gaur | email :evert_np@duttncb.tn.tudelft.nl Technische Universiteit Delft | tel. : 015-786150 Faculteit der Technische Natuurkunde | fax : 015-783251 Lorentzweg 1 | 2628 CJ Delft | --------------------------------------------------------------------------- From owner-bridge-laws Wed Mar 26 02:26:54 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA19553 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 26 Mar 1997 02:26:54 +1000 Received: from TUDRNV.TUDELFT.NL (tudrnv.tudelft.nl [130.161.180.88]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id CAA19547 for ; Wed, 26 Mar 1997 02:26:47 +1000 Received: from duttncb.tn.tudelft.nl by TUDRNV.TUDelft.NL (PMDF V5.0-6 #15266) id <01IGXE2FT56O0060GO@TUDRNV.TUDelft.NL> for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Tue, 25 Mar 1997 17:13:11 +0100 Received: by duttncb.tn.tudelft.nl (16.6/15.6) id AA27679; Tue, 25 Mar 1997 17:11:41 +0100 Date: Tue, 25 Mar 1997 17:11:40 +0100 (MET) From: "E.Angad-Gaur" Subject: Re: Official policy on mispulls from bidding box In-reply-to: ; from "David Stevenson" at Mar 24, 97 4:36 pm To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Message-id: <01IGXE2FU7RM0060GO@TUDRNV.TUDelft.NL> Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Mailer: Elm [revision: 66.25] Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > > E.Angad-Gaur wrote: > > >> > >> David Grabiner wrote: > >> > >> >Is there an official WBF or ACBL position published somewhere on when > >> >you can correct a mispull from a bidding box? > >> > > >> >At a club game last night, my RHO opened 1NT, I passed, and LHO pulled > >> >1D from her box, then tried to correct it after I waited a few seconds > >> >and called the director. The director didn't have any reference other > >> >than "without pause for thought" on which to judge whether this was a > >> >correctable mispull or an insufficient bid that would have been > >> >corrected to a conventional 2D. She ruled insufficient bid; I thought > >> >this was wrong but didn't have any basis for correcting her. > > > >> >As a separate point, should the director be able to look at offender's > >> >hand (which had six points and five hearts) to confirm that this was a > >> >mispull, while it would have been a misbid if the offender had held 13 > >> >points and five diamonds? > > > >David Stevenson wrote: > >> > >> Absolutely not. The TD should not look into hands until the end of > >> the hand, with due respect to Jens who has a possible exception: even if > >> we accept that particular case it is very rare. > >> > >> If a TD looks at a hand then that TD will find it impossible to avoid > >> giving UI to the players from time to time. Suppose she sees a psyche? > >> We expect TDs in Europe to judge hands, but only after consideration and > >> consultation. If a TD looks at a hand during the auction, she has to > >> determine immediately whether it fits one explanation or another. > >> > >> I could go on, but I won't: a TD should *never* look at a hand until > >> play has ceased. > >> > > > >In Holland we have additional ruling that you can change your call by a > >mispull untill partner makes a call. Point is to determine if your call > >is a mispull or "a change of mind" ergo 25B. > > > >And to determine between these two cases the TD must take the unfortunate(?) > >player with him from the table. Then the TD can ask the player, what hap- > >pened, what his hand was( which cards he had). Depending om the answers the > >TD must judge if it a "mispull or a puposeful Correction". I always let the > >player leave his cards at the table. The other players must not know what > >I am asking. If the information about his actual hand given to me is wrong > >I can allways correct it afterwards. > >So in my opinion I am looking his hand in a different way without giving UI > >to the other players. > >I have allways been able to solve the distinction between 25A and 25B in this > >way. > >The player must convince me that it is a mispull else I will apply rule 25B. > > The difference between taking someone away from the table and looking > at his hand is *enormous*. > > Suppose a player bids 1D over 1NT as an overcall. You look at his > hand and see: > > Q9xxx > x > AKJ97 > xx > > What do you do next? Look at his CC to see what 2D over 1NT was? Ok, > let's say you do that. Asptro, spades and another, so it could have > been Asptro. Now what? [In defiance of an earlier thread, three others > at the table will now be trying to get a squint at the CC, I can assure > you.] > > Wait a minute, what's an opening 1D? Shows 0+ diamonds, phoney, > Precision, easy, it's conventional, rule it as conventional, read the > Law. > > "But ..." says the player. His opponents come to his rescue: "We know > he heard a 1C opening from another table," they say, "Why can't he > correct it to 2D?" > > I cannot see what advantage there is in looking into a player's hand. > What generally happens is that the TD is required then to apply his > bridge playing judgement when not in full possession of the facts. > > On the other hand taking the player away from the table solves > everthing: "What did you mean to do?" you ask: when you hear that it was > a antural overcall of 1D over an misheard 1C you know what to do. > > So, Mr Angad-Gaur, you are not "looking at his hand in another way": > what you are doing is eliciting the facts in the most efficient way and > by far the best way. I you put it in this way, OK. At the table where the players can see that TD is looking in the hands and judging is totally wrong. This gives UI to the players. I agree. > > -- > David Stevenson MayDay Swiss Pairs in Liverpool! > Liverpool, England, UK Hughes Simultaneous Pairs at end of June! > bridge@blakjak.demon.co.uk See my Homepage for details > Bridgepage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/brg_menu.htm > -- --------------------------------------------------------------------------- S.E. Angad-Gaur | email :evert_np@duttncb.tn.tudelft.nl Technische Universiteit Delft | tel. : 015-786150 Faculteit der Technische Natuurkunde | fax : 015-783251 Lorentzweg 1 | 2628 CJ Delft | --------------------------------------------------------------------------- From owner-bridge-laws Wed Mar 26 03:09:16 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA19782 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 26 Mar 1997 03:09:16 +1000 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 DAA19777 for ; Wed, 26 Mar 1997 03:09:11 +1000 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by relay-10.mail.demon.net id aa1027486; 25 Mar 97 16:49 GMT Message-ID: Date: Tue, 25 Mar 1997 14:33:57 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: ACBL to limit score adjustments to 1/4 board? In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Paul Barden wrote: >To make sure that no advantage can accrue from the unintentional use of >UI, the Laws assume that UI has been used if it reasonably could have >been. Not at all. No such assumption is made by either the Laws or by competent TDs. If UI is available, then certain calls/plays are disallowed. Therefore an adjustment is suitable if such calls/plays are found. It matters not at all why the player made such a call or play, and there is no presumption that he "used" UI: he has merely made a call/play that is not permitted. > I am suggesting that this should be relaxed to the extent that, >unless it is clear that UI has been used, we assume that it has not when >the resulting contract is clearly inferior to the contract we are >considering adjusting to. This makes incorrect assumptions about the current Laws. -- David Stevenson MayDay Swiss Pairs in Liverpool! Quango and Nanki Poo Hughes Simultaneous Pairs at end of June! appear on the WWW !!! See my Homepage for details Bridgepage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/brg_menu.htm From owner-bridge-laws Wed Mar 26 03:14:45 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA19811 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 26 Mar 1997 03:14:45 +1000 Received: from irvine.com (flash.irvine.com [192.160.8.4]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id DAA19806 for ; Wed, 26 Mar 1997 03:14:39 +1000 Received: from localhost by flash.irvine.com id aa20101; 25 Mar 97 9:14 PST To: Bridge Laws Discussion List CC: adam@flash.irvine.com Subject: Re: Insufficient bid In-reply-to: Your message of "Tue, 25 Mar 1997 09:14:59 PST." <1.5.4.32.19970325141459.0069e54c@cais.com> Date: Tue, 25 Mar 1997 09:14:03 PST From: Adam Beneschan Message-ID: <9703250914.aa20101@flash.irvine.com> Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Eric Landau wrote: > > A player made an insufficient bid Director is called , reads the rules > >pertaining to the situation . When auction reverts to insufficient > >bidder > >he says DOUBLE > >in spite of being not allowed ( without insufficient bid double would > >have > >been admissible ) But quicker than director opens his mouth to say > >anything next player in rotation says REDOUBLE How this situation be > >ruled > >?? > > There are several possibilities > > 1) Redouble constitutes acceptance of an illegal double , waiwing all > >penalties. > >Therefore double and redouble stand , and insufficient bidders partner > >can > >bid. > > 2) Redouble is cancelled without penalty and rules regarding an > >attempt > >to substitute double for an insufficient bid apply > > 3) Double and Redouble are cancelled and Both Doublers partner and > >Redoublers partner will be barred from the auction > > 4 ) Only the redoubler is subject to penalty and double and redouble > >are > >cancelled > > Which one is correct ? May be none of above Please let me know > > Double and redouble stand, auction continues normally, no penalties. > > The governing law is in the first paragraph of L35. L35A does not apply, > since the double was proper under L19, albeit inadmissable under L27. > > Although this is the same ruling yielded by (1) above, that statement is > incorrect. Redouble does not "constitute acceptance of an illegal double" > in general. This particular redouble, however, does constitute acceptance > of this particular illegal double. > > My personal "sympathies" lie with (2) above, but that's not how I > read the Laws. As I posted on r.g.b, I agree with Robin on this one (my ruling is (2), plus redouble is UI, plus possible procedural penalties); however, I indicated how I could see letting the double and redouble stand as a possibility. The comment I wanted to make here was that even if the double and redouble stand, I see *no* reason why this removes the bar from insufficient bidder's partner (as (1) above states). The insufficient bid was not accepted; offender did not correct it to a sufficient bid; therefore the requirement to pass is not waived. The first paragraph of L35 says: When, after any inadmissible call specified below, the offender's LHO makes a call before a penalty has been assessed, there is no penalty for the inadmissible call (the lead penalties of Law 26 do not apply), and: However, if this paragraph applies, it applies to the DOUBLE (which is the inadmissible call in question), not to the insufficient bid. Thus, any penalties for the double are cancelled, but penalties for the insufficient bid (i.e. barring partner for the auction) are not cancelled. -- Adam From owner-bridge-laws Wed Mar 26 03:38:37 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA19893 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 26 Mar 1997 03:38:37 +1000 Received: from irvine.com (flash.irvine.com [192.160.8.4]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id DAA19888 for ; Wed, 26 Mar 1997 03:38:30 +1000 Received: from localhost by flash.irvine.com id aa20890; 25 Mar 97 9:37 PST To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au CC: adam@flash.irvine.com Subject: Re: Insufficient bid In-reply-to: Your message of "Tue, 25 Mar 1997 17:01:34 PST." <01IGXDP7ODDU0062I2@TUDRNV.TUDelft.NL> Date: Tue, 25 Mar 1997 09:37:54 PST From: Adam Beneschan Message-ID: <9703250937.aa20890@flash.irvine.com> Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk S.E. Angad-Gaur writes: > It a illegal but admissible double. So we cannot use law 35 and 36. > Use law 11B. > Double and redouble stands and the bidding goes on (everybody). > If in my opion necessary I will give penalty's (law 11D). I had forgotten about 11B. It appears that in order to make a correct ruling, one needs to be familiar with Laws 11, 19, 27, and 35; and by a strange coincidence, these Law numbers are evenly spaced apart! Unfortunately, Law 43, the next in sequence, is about dummy's limitations, so we can't find a way to make that Law applicable also. :) Anyway . . . I don't think Law 11B can be used to let the double stand. Law 11B discusses the right to penalize; when offender's LHO redoubled, he forfeited any penalties for the double. However, 27B3 reads: 3. Attempt to Correct by a Double or Redouble If the offender attempts to substitute a double or redouble for his insufficient bid, the attempted call is cancelled; and (penalty) his partner must pass whenever it is his turn to call (see Law 23A when the pass damages the non-offending side), and the lead penalties of Law 26 may apply. The part after "(penalty)" specifies the penalties for offender's double; the redouble causes these penalties to be cancelled under 11B. However, the part before "(penalty)" is NOT a penalty and therefore is not covered by 11B. Thus, it still stands. The double is cancelled; the redouble must also be cancelled. The insufficient bidder must still correct the insufficient bid to a sufficient bid or to a pass. Partner is no longer barred from the bidding, since the penalty for the double has been cancelled; however, if the insufficient bidder doesn't correct his bid to the lowest sufficient bid, or if the insufficient bid or corrected bid may be conventional, the bar on insufficient bidder's partner is reinstated by Law 27B2. This bar is a penalty for the insufficient bid, not a penalty for the illegal double; therefore, it is not covered by 11B. I still think the cancelled redouble constitutes UI for redoubler's partner. -- Adam From owner-bridge-laws Wed Mar 26 07:57:25 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA21559 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 26 Mar 1997 07:57:25 +1000 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 HAA21554 for ; Wed, 26 Mar 1997 07:57:15 +1000 From: Stephen_Barnfield@europe.notes.pw.com Received: by ivy.tc.pw.com; id OAA16282; Tue, 25 Mar 1997 14:39:07 -0800 (PST) Received: from cactus.tc.pw.com(131.209.7.48) by ivy.tc.pw.com via smap (3.2) id xma015237; Tue, 25 Mar 97 14:37:00 -0800 Received: (from root@localhost) by cactus.tc.pw.com (8.8.4/8.7.3) id NAA27583 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Tue, 25 Mar 1997 13:59:00 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <199703252159.NAA27583@cactus.tc.pw.com> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Mon, 24 Mar 97 15:29:02 GMT Subject: When can you ask questions Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Rachel King asked: >Sequence : > N E S W > 2D p 2NT p > 2S> > > 2D = Multi > 2NT = enquiry > 3S would be 6+ card suit, 6 -10 points >Director is called for the insufficent bid. I am not sure whether you deem >2S as natural or conventional. >I decided natural as it does show spades. >After regalling all the options East asked if he could ask some questions >about the NS system and their possible continuations >over 2S or 3S before deciding whether to accept the 2S bid. Do you let him >ask the questions? There are some difficult questions here: (1) In the happy far-off days when I was a TD, I took the view that an insufficient bid was rarely "incontrovertibly" anything. I think it is not a good idea to ask at the table what 3S means, since, after such a question it is very hard to avoid giving unauthorised information (UI) to the players at the table. One might take the player away from the table to ask what had been intended. Even this has its risks, however. For example, I usually play that 3S shows 8PT in diamonds. If you came back and ruled that 2S was not incontrovertibly natural, then you have probably given UI. Thus I used to rule on the basis that 2S was not "incontrovertibly not conventional": perhaps taking the easy option! It is also arguable that, whatever 2S is, it is *not* conventional, since NS will not have agreed what this sequence means. The new Laws are different here. I'd be interested to hear what current TDs do. (2) Whilst neither Law20F1 nor Law 40E2 enable E to ask this information (unless it is on the convention card, or should be), I take the view (just) that Law75A permits it. From owner-bridge-laws Wed Mar 26 09:00:50 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA21864 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 26 Mar 1997 09:00:50 +1000 Received: from relay-finch.mail.demon.net (relay-finch.mail.demon.net [158.152.1.63]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id JAA21849 for ; Wed, 26 Mar 1997 09:00:42 +1000 Received: from rbarden.demon.co.uk ([158.152.169.19]) by relay-finch.mail.demon.net id aa0013116; 25 Mar 97 20:58 GMT Message-ID: <5044wBAPxDOzEwRR@rbarden.demon.co.uk> Date: Tue, 25 Mar 1997 20:57:51 +0000 To: David Stevenson Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Paul Barden Subject: Re: ACBL to limit score adjustments to 1/4 board? In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 1.12 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In message , David Stevenson writes >Paul Barden wrote: > >>To make sure that no advantage can accrue from the unintentional use of >>UI, the Laws assume that UI has been used if it reasonably could have >>been. > > Not at all. No such assumption is made by either the Laws or by >competent TDs. If UI is available, then certain calls/plays are >disallowed. Therefore an adjustment is suitable if such calls/plays are >found. It matters not at all why the player made such a call or play, >and there is no presumption that he "used" UI: he has merely made a >call/play that is not permitted. > >> I am suggesting that this should be relaxed to the extent that, >>unless it is clear that UI has been used, we assume that it has not when >>the resulting contract is clearly inferior to the contract we are >>considering adjusting to. > > This makes incorrect assumptions about the current Laws. > I have been making some assumptions about the motivations behind the Laws. What the Laws say is, as you all know: "the partner may not choose from among logical alternative actions one that could reasonably have been suggested over another by the extraneous information." and later that an adjustment should be made if "an infraction of law has resulted in damage" I assume that the motivation for this is the desire to ensure that players cannot gain by taking advantage of UI, consciously or otherwise. Does anyone disagree with this assumption? However, it is in practice possible for a player to break this law without in any way taking advantage of UI. He may be genuinely unaware of the UI, or he may have detailed knowledge about his partner's habits which tells him that a hesitation which appears to suggest one action in fact suggests the opposite. Most of the argument against the proposal I am supporting has been along the lines of "if you break this Law you are an offender, and offenders should be punished". The change I advocate would have the effect of allowing such offenders to escape when the evidence of the hands is that they have not taken advantage of UI. What's wrong with that? -- Paul Barden From owner-bridge-laws Wed Mar 26 09:03:39 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA21894 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 26 Mar 1997 09:03:39 +1000 Received: from msri.org (msri.org [198.129.64.224]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id JAA21888 for ; Wed, 26 Mar 1997 09:03:32 +1000 Received: (from smap@localhost) by msri.org (8.8.2/8.7.2) id PAA15006 for ; Tue, 25 Mar 1997 15:03:45 -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 sma015004; Tue Mar 25 15:03:41 1997 Received: by euclid.msri.org (8.7/MSRI) id PAA20527; Tue, 25 Mar 1997 15:00:03 -0800 (PST) To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: A case where "demonstrably" would probably make a difference From: David Grabiner Date: 25 Mar 1997 15:00:01 -0800 Message-ID: Lines: 36 X-Mailer: Gnus v5.3/Emacs 19.34 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Here's an appeals case from Albuquerque in which the ruling was criticized by several members of the expert panel, and would probably be different with the "demonstrably" rule. I'm deliberately not including the details so that readers who haven't seen it can judge suggested alternatives without looking at the whole hand. The full hand is Case 47, http://home.worldcom.ch/~fsb/appeals/al944351.html South held Q9 AT2 AT53 KT87, neither side vulnerable, matchpoints. S W N E 1C 1D P 4H P P P(slow) South chose the right lead to beat the contract; another suit would have allowed it to make, while a third would give a result which depended on play to a later trick. The director ruled that South had UI, and let the E-W score stand while giving N-S the worse of 40% and the table result. "The Committee complemented the Director on a good ruling." Aside from the fact that the ruling was odd (I don't see how you can give average-minus to only one side; it should have been either -420/-50, -420/+420, or A-/A+), I don't think an adjustment would have been made at all with the "demonstrably" rule. North's hand desmonstrably suggests a lead, and a lead might have been suggested if North had bid 4S, 5C, or doubled, but which hand does he hold? -- 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 Mar 26 11:54:36 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id LAA22869 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 26 Mar 1997 11:54:36 +1000 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 LAA22864 for ; Wed, 26 Mar 1997 11:54:27 +1000 From: Stephen_Barnfield@europe.notes.pw.com Received: by ivy.tc.pw.com; id SAA21391; Tue, 25 Mar 1997 18:36:04 -0800 (PST) Received: from cactus.tc.pw.com(131.209.7.48) by ivy.tc.pw.com via smap (3.2) id xma021033; Tue, 25 Mar 97 18:35:13 -0800 Received: (from root@localhost) by cactus.tc.pw.com (8.8.4/8.7.3) id RAA05717 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Tue, 25 Mar 1997 17:57:13 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <199703260157.RAA05717@cactus.tc.pw.com> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Tue, 25 Mar 97 08:27:59 GMT Subject: Re: basing agreements Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Patrick Carter wrote: > Both David and Eric have recently stated that you may not base your >agreements on opponent's possible continuations, although they then differ >about a minor point relating to that. The specific case given was that it >would be illegal to play light pre-empts against opponent's who use takeout >doubles and sound pre-empts against opponent's using penalty doubles. What >basis in Law is there for this assertion? I have no comment on this, since I am not sure I agree with the statement. I too will be interested to see the answer. > > Law 75a says that information conveyed to partner through agreements must >arise from the calls' plays and conditions of the current deal. Surely one >of the conditions of the current deal is that you are seated at the table >playing opponents who play either penalty or takeout doubles. > > If there is any evidence to show that the conditions of the current deal >specifically only relate to vulnerability (in which case why not just say >vulnerability) then there is more grounds for David's and Eric's assertion. >However that would make the following case interesting: > > Pair A sits down to play a 16 board teams match. On perusing their system >card they note they play penalty doubles of pre-empts and one says "gee, >that's unusual, we'd better make sure our pre-empts are sound then." If the >opponents now called you to the table would you rule that pair A were not >allowed to change to playing sound pre-empts for this teams match? If you do >allow them to change, then what is the difference between this and the same >situation in a 2 boards a round pairs event? The conditions of contest may have something to say about whether a pair can change their methods part-way through an event, or part-way through a session. In most cases I guess not, however. > > I am aware that the opponent's may wish to change their methods for sound >pre-empts to takeout doubles, but that shouldn't cause a chicken and egg >paradoxical situation here. They can surely agree to play penalty doubles >against pre-empts, except where the opponents have an agreement to play >sound pre-empts, either as a general rule or only sound when playing a pair >who's methods are to play penalty doubles of unsound pre-empts. In the simple chicken-and-egg situation, I think it is the person who is first to act, ie the preemptor, who has to define that partnership's agreement. Of course this agreement may vary according to the position and vulnerability. From owner-bridge-laws Wed Mar 26 12:29:16 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id MAA22991 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 26 Mar 1997 12:29:16 +1000 Received: from dfw-ix13.ix.netcom.com (dfw-ix13.ix.netcom.com [206.214.98.13]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id MAA22985 for ; Wed, 26 Mar 1997 12:28:48 +1000 Received: (from smap@localhost) by dfw-ix13.ix.netcom.com (8.8.4/8.8.4) id UAA24829; Tue, 25 Mar 1997 20:28:00 -0600 (CST) Received: from sbo-ca3-05.ix.netcom.com(205.184.185.101) by dfw-ix13.ix.netcom.com via smap (V1.3) id sma023900; Tue Mar 25 20:18:04 1997 Message-ID: <33388627.6764@popd.ix.netcom.com> Date: Tue, 25 Mar 1997 18:13:26 -0800 From: B&S Reply-To: jonbriss@ix15.ix.netcom.com Organization: Brissman & Schlueter X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0Gold (Win95; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: David Stevenson CC: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: New L16A: "demonstrably" References: <9+iuv3B$O0NzEwZx@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Stevenson wrote, inter alia: > ********************************************************************** > One change is that where UI is concerned partner may not choose among > logical alternatives one that could "demonstrably" have been suggested > over another: previously the word "reasonably" was used. It will be > interesting to see what differences of interpretation will come > because of this: not everyone thinks it makes any difference. > ********************************************************************** As a lawyer, I find this thread fascinating. Gary Blaiss thinks this change of wording will help eliminate BLs? Fat chance. Rather than arguing about what's reasonable, BLs (and others) will henceforth "demonstrate" that UI caused a LA to be rejected. The term "demonstrably" speaks to which party shoulders the burden of proof. IMO, the proponents for adjustment will have to demonstrate (perhaps through analogous hands) that they are entitled to relief. It's a higher hurdle to clear with the new language; as a result, average players will be disadvantaged but BLs will have found their element. It was never clear to me under the old law who carried the burden of proof to show what was reasonable. I think it's clear now. Does anyone agree? Jon Brissman From owner-bridge-laws Wed Mar 26 12:35:40 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id MAA23035 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 26 Mar 1997 12:35:40 +1000 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 MAA23030 for ; Wed, 26 Mar 1997 12:35:21 +1000 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by relay-5.mail.demon.net id aa0527588; 26 Mar 97 2:28 GMT Message-ID: <5MvPzoCH9GOzEwC2@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Wed, 26 Mar 1997 00:35:19 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: ACBL to limit score adjustments to 1/4 board? In-Reply-To: <5044wBAPxDOzEwRR@rbarden.demon.co.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Paul Barden wrote: >In message , David Stevenson > writes >>Paul Barden wrote: >> >>>To make sure that no advantage can accrue from the unintentional use of >>>UI, the Laws assume that UI has been used if it reasonably could have >>>been. >> >> Not at all. No such assumption is made by either the Laws or by >>competent TDs. If UI is available, then certain calls/plays are >>disallowed. Therefore an adjustment is suitable if such calls/plays are >>found. It matters not at all why the player made such a call or play, >>and there is no presumption that he "used" UI: he has merely made a >>call/play that is not permitted. >> >>> I am suggesting that this should be relaxed to the extent that, >>>unless it is clear that UI has been used, we assume that it has not when >>>the resulting contract is clearly inferior to the contract we are >>>considering adjusting to. >> >> This makes incorrect assumptions about the current Laws. >> > >I have been making some assumptions about the motivations behind the >Laws. What the Laws say is, as you all know: > >"the partner may not choose from among logical alternative actions one >that could reasonably have been suggested over another by the extraneous >information." > >and later that an adjustment should be made if "an infraction of law has >resulted in damage" > >I assume that the motivation for this is the desire to ensure that >players cannot gain by taking advantage of UI, consciously or otherwise. >Does anyone disagree with this assumption? No, that is the motivation. >However, it is in practice possible for a player to break this law >without in any way taking advantage of UI. He may be genuinely unaware >of the UI, or he may have detailed knowledge about his partner's habits >which tells him that a hesitation which appears to suggest one action in >fact suggests the opposite. Absolutely correct. >Most of the argument against the proposal I am supporting has been along >the lines of "if you break this Law you are an offender, and offenders >should be punished". The change I advocate would have the effect of >allowing such offenders to escape when the evidence of the hands is that >they have not taken advantage of UI. What's wrong with that? It is completely impractical. The judgement that you want applied is not possible. -- David Stevenson MayDay Swiss Pairs in Liverpool! Quango and Nanki Poo Hughes Simultaneous Pairs at end of June! appear on the WWW !!! See my Homepage for details Bridgepage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/brg_menu.htm From owner-bridge-laws Wed Mar 26 14:31:20 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id OAA23352 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 26 Mar 1997 14:31:20 +1000 Received: from ccnet3.ccnet.com (root@ccnet3.ccnet.com [192.215.96.11]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id OAA23347 for ; Wed, 26 Mar 1997 14:31:10 +1000 Received: from localhost (pisarra@localhost) by ccnet3.ccnet.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id SAA15960 for ; Tue, 25 Mar 1997 18:59:21 -0800 X-Authentication-Warning: ccnet3.ccnet.com: pisarra owned process doing -bs Date: Tue, 25 Mar 1997 18:59:21 -0800 (PST) From: Chris Pisarra X-Sender: pisarra@ccnet3 To: bridge laws list Subject: Re: New L16A: "demonstrably" In-Reply-To: <33388627.6764@popd.ix.netcom.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Tue, 25 Mar 1997, Jon Brissman wrote: > The term "demonstrably" speaks to which party shoulders the burden of > proof. IMO, the proponents for adjustment will have to demonstrate > (perhaps through analogous hands) that they are entitled to relief. > It's a higher hurdle to clear with the new language; as a result, > average players will be disadvantaged but BLs will have found their > element. > > It was never clear to me under the old law who carried the burden of > proof to show what was reasonable. I think it's clear now. > > Does anyone agree? I agree that the complainants will actually have to make a case, rather than just arguing that UI existed and therefore they should get a good score. I disagree that this will disadvantage average players. Average players meet this situation mostly as defendants--and if the plaintiffs now have to shoulder a larger burden, then it is to the BL's detriment. When average players are the plaintiffs in UI situations, it tends to be in the most egregious of cases. They are not the ones to call the director because their RHO flickered for 1/1000th of a second. Their calls tend to be in more clear cut situations, where the burden of proof is hardly onerous, and is indeed often self-evident. I like this change, and I feel that it is long overdue. Chris Chris Pisarra pisarra@ccnet.com From owner-bridge-laws Thu Mar 27 00:13:49 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA26453 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 27 Mar 1997 00:13:49 +1000 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 AAA25629 for ; Thu, 27 Mar 1997 00:11:52 +1000 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 JAA10583 for ; Wed, 26 Mar 1997 09:11:44 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <1.5.4.32.19970326141124.0069e574@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 Mar 1997 09:11:24 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: A case where "demonstrably" would probably make a difference Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 03:00 PM 3/25/97 -0800, David wrote: > >Here's an appeals case from Albuquerque in which the ruling was >criticized by several members of the expert panel, and would probably be >different with the "demonstrably" rule. > >I'm deliberately not including the details so that readers who haven't >seen it can judge suggested alternatives without looking at the whole >hand. The full hand is Case 47, >http://home.worldcom.ch/~fsb/appeals/al944351.html > >South held Q9 AT2 AT53 KT87, neither side vulnerable, matchpoints. > >S W N E >1C 1D P 4H >P P P(slow) > >South chose the right lead to beat the contract; another suit would have >allowed it to make, while a third would give a result which depended on >play to a later trick. > >The director ruled that South had UI, and let the E-W score stand while >giving N-S the worse of 40% and the table result. "The Committee >complemented the Director on a good ruling." > >Aside from the fact that the ruling was odd (I don't see how you can >give average-minus to only one side; it should have been either >-420/-50, -420/+420, or A-/A+), I don't think an adjustment would have >been made at all with the "demonstrably" rule. North's hand >desmonstrably suggests a lead, and a lead might have been suggested if >North had bid 4S, 5C, or doubled, but which hand does he hold? I agree with David that this might well be a case where the ruling would have gone differently under the new Laws. But then, I don't care for this ruling under the current Laws; as I've said in the earlier discussion, I think this is the sort of ruling that's based on the misunderstanding of the current Laws that the wording change was intended to preclude. I think the AC can reasonably assume that, once N has passed 1D, he probably wasn't thinking about bidding now (unless N-S are playing an unusual method that deprived him of a normal 1S or 2C bid over 1D), so his huddle is most likely to be based on a marginal double (albeit that's hard to imagine looking at S's 2-1/2 QTs). So what? I don't see where S has an easier lead problem against 4HX than against 4H. If that's true, partner's huddle suggested only, at best, that S's lead might be critical, not what suit he should lead. I have an uncharitable feeling that whatever the winning lead turned out to be, once S found it E-W were going to call the police and contend that it might have been influenced by N's huddle. I'll be interested to learn (a) what lead was made, and, more importantly, (b) on what basis the committee determined that that lead was suggested by N's huddle -- this is the heart of the issue, not whether S had UI. The second aspect of this ruling, which David raises as a side-issue, troubles me even more than the issue under discussion. David's summary of the case ("South chose the right lead to beat the contract...") strongly suggests that the result on the hand swung solely on the choice of opening lead. There is nothing to suggest that once S led whatever he led, E could or should have made 4H. If that's true, then what could E have done to "break the connection between infraction and damage"? If the committee decided that S's lead was an infraction, and that E-W were damaged by the infraction, on what possible basis could they have refused to award E-W the reciprocal of N-S's adjusted score? At least their judgment on the UI issue was, admittedly, subjective, even if I disagree with it. But if giving N-S A- was justified, shouldn't giving E-W A+ have been automatic? Finally, why was N-S given the worse of the actual result or A-? Why not just -420? If 4H was "likely" to have made on some other lead, on what basis did the TD and the committee find that "no result [could have been] obtained"? In my judgment, this ruling has three strikes against it. And "the committee complemented the director on a good ruling"!!? Oh my. P.S. FWIW I'm still trying to decide whether I would lead SQ or C7. 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 Mar 27 02:51:18 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA27961 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 27 Mar 1997 02:51:18 +1000 Received: from mail.be.innet.net (mail.be.innet.net [194.7.1.8]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id CAA27956 for ; Thu, 27 Mar 1997 02:51:10 +1000 Received: from innet.innet.be (pool03-150.innet.be [194.7.10.150]) by mail.be.innet.net (8.7.6/8.7.3) with SMTP id RAA07338 for ; Wed, 26 Mar 1997 17:51:05 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: <3339272B.27D6@innet.be> Date: Wed, 26 Mar 1997 13:39:55 +0000 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01 (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Quango and Nanki Poo References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Stevenson wrote: > > Who makes sure my rulings are correct? Quango, of course! He and > Nanki Poo have been checking my bridge contributions for months. > > The time has come! The piccies have been taken! They have been > scanned! They are now on my Homepage! check them out! > > Homepage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk > haaatcheeeee !!!! -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.club.innet.be/~pub02163/index.htm From owner-bridge-laws Thu Mar 27 03:11:21 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA28118 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 27 Mar 1997 03:11:21 +1000 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 DAA28113 for ; Thu, 27 Mar 1997 03:11:13 +1000 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 LAA25690 for ; Wed, 26 Mar 1997 11:45:05 -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 MAA29652 for ; Wed, 26 Mar 1997 12:06:06 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <1.5.4.32.19970326170546.006992a8@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 Mar 1997 12:05:46 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: New L16A: "demonstrably" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 06:13 PM 3/25/97 -0800, Jon wrote: >As a lawyer, I find this thread fascinating. Gary Blaiss thinks this >change of wording will help eliminate BLs? Fat chance. Rather than >arguing about what's reasonable, BLs (and others) will henceforth >"demonstrate" that UI caused a LA to be rejected. > >The term "demonstrably" speaks to which party shoulders the burden of >proof. IMO, the proponents for adjustment will have to demonstrate >(perhaps through analogous hands) that they are entitled to relief. >It's a higher hurdle to clear with the new language; as a result, >average players will be disadvantaged but BLs will have found their >element. > >It was never clear to me under the old law who carried the burden of >proof to show what was reasonable. I think it's clear now. > >Does anyone agree? Jon raises the possibility that the bridge lawyers will find a way around the new wording of the Law, and that the change will therefore ultimately disadvantage the ordinary players who aren't "legal sharpies". This is a serious concern. What I expect was behind Gary Blaiss's remark in print about the BLs was that, in the kinds of ambiguous situations we've been discussing, they will no longer be able to simply assert before an AC that "well, there's some reasonable possibility that he might have known, from past experience playing with this partner, that his huddle suggested the action he took, even if the huddle would not have carried the same suggestion to any of you." There do seem to be a lot of TDs/ACs out there (I am definitely not among them) who believe that this is all that the old wording required. Now, at least, the BLs will be required to offer some positive "demonstration" that, in the context of the particular partnership, the selected LA was in fact suggested by the huddle. That will surely be tougher than making a bald, unsubstantiated assertion that this might be true. I hope Gary is right, and Jon's concern does not prove out, but only time will tell. Perhaps it depends on whether or not the average players now bring such tricky situations before committees or whether it's only the BLs who do so. 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 Mar 27 04:01:55 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA28501 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 27 Mar 1997 04:01:55 +1000 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 EAA28496 for ; Thu, 27 Mar 1997 04:01:47 +1000 Received: from casewise.demon.co.uk ([158.152.187.206]) by relay-10.mail.demon.net id aa1004187; 26 Mar 97 17:16 GMT Received: by bridge.casewise.demon.co.uk with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Server Internet Mail Connector Version 4.0.994.63) id <01BC3A03.CB713C40@bridge.casewise.demon.co.uk>; Wed, 26 Mar 1997 16:36:03 -0000 Message-ID: From: David Martin To: "'bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au'" Subject: FW: Insufficient bid Date: Wed, 26 Mar 1997 16:35:59 -0000 X-Mailer: Microsoft Exchange Server Internet Mail Connector Version 4.0.994.63 Encoding: 60 TEXT Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > Adam Beneschan writes: >>S.E. Angad-Gaur writes: >> >>> It a illegal but admissible double. So we cannot use law 35 and 36. >>> Use law 11B. >>> Double and redouble stands and the bidding goes on (everybody). >>> If in my opion necessary I will give penalty's (law 11D). > >>I had forgotten about 11B. It appears that in order to make a correct >>ruling, one needs to be familiar with Laws 11, 19, 27, and 35; and by >>a strange coincidence, these Law numbers are evenly spaced apart! >>Unfortunately, Law 43, the next in sequence, is about dummy's >>limitations, so we can't find a way to make that Law applicable also. >>:) > >>Anyway . . . I don't think Law 11B can be used to let the double >>stand. Law 11B discusses the right to penalize; when offender's LHO >>redoubled, he forfeited any penalties for the double. However, 27B3 >>reads: > >>3. Attempt to Correct by a Double or Redouble > > > If the offender attempts to substitute a double or redouble for his > > insufficient bid, the attempted call is cancelled; and (penalty) > >his partner must pass whenever it is his turn to call (see Law 23A > >when the pass damages the non-offending side), and the lead > >penalties of Law 26 may apply. > >>The part after "(penalty)" specifies the penalties for offender's >>double; the redouble causes these penalties to be cancelled under 11B. > >>However, the part before "(penalty)" is NOT a penalty and therefore is >>not covered by 11B. Thus, it still stands. The double is cancelled; >>the redouble must also be cancelled. The insufficient bidder must >>still correct the insufficient bid to a sufficient bid or to a pass. >>Partner is no longer barred from the bidding, since the penalty for >>the double has been cancelled; however, if the insufficient bidder >>doesn't correct his bid to the lowest sufficient bid, or if the >>insufficient bid or corrected bid may be conventional, the bar on >>insufficient bidder's partner is reinstated by Law 27B2. This bar is >>a penalty for the insufficient bid, not a penalty for the illegal >>double; therefore, it is not covered by 11B. > >>I still think the cancelled redouble constitutes UI for redoubler's >>partner. > >> -- Adam > > I agree entirely with this arguement EXCEPT for the very last sentence. IMO Law 16C applies to the redouble making it AI (even if you regard the redoubler as an offender then the Law specifies no penalty). Furthermore, I would want to ask the doubler if he heard and understood my original instructions as if he did then IMO a PP under Laws 90B8 and >11D might well be in order. > From owner-bridge-laws Thu Mar 27 04:44:35 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA28697 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 27 Mar 1997 04:44:35 +1000 Received: from enigma.globalserve.net (enigma.globalserve.net [205.206.120.2]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id EAA28692 for ; Thu, 27 Mar 1997 04:44:26 +1000 From: aokay@globalserve.net Received: from The (dialin936.globalserve.net [207.245.6.211]) by enigma.globalserve.net (8.8.5/8.6.9) with SMTP id NAA12426 for ; Wed, 26 Mar 1997 13:44:04 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <33396E9F.691B@globalserve.net> Date: Wed, 26 Mar 1997 13:44:47 -0500 Reply-To: aokay@globalserve.net X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01Gold (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Quango and Nanki Poo References: <3339272B.27D6@innet.be> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Herman De Wael wrote: > > David Stevenson wrote: > > > haaatcheeeee !!!! Some strange Flemish expression no doubt. Well, to celebrate the posting, I sent David a digital postcard with one of _his own_ pix on it. I think it was Quango. This was from http://www.toronto-bridge.com/digitalmail.htm. Now active, but not perfected yet. David G. Bryce From owner-bridge-laws Thu Mar 27 05:14:23 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA28817 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 27 Mar 1997 05:14:23 +1000 Received: from irvine.com (flash.irvine.com [192.160.8.4]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id FAA28812 for ; Thu, 27 Mar 1997 05:14:13 +1000 Received: from localhost by flash.irvine.com id aa16583; 26 Mar 97 11:13 PST To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au CC: adam@flash.irvine.com Subject: Re: FW: Insufficient bid In-reply-to: Your message of "Wed, 26 Mar 1997 16:35:59 PST." Date: Wed, 26 Mar 1997 11:13:29 PST From: Adam Beneschan Message-ID: <9703261113.aa16583@flash.irvine.com> Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Martin wrote: > Adam Beneschan writes: > > > >>I still think the cancelled redouble constitutes UI for redoubler's > >>partner. > > > I agree entirely with this arguement EXCEPT for the very last sentence. > IMO Law 16C applies to the redouble making it AI (even if you regard the > redoubler as an offender then the Law specifies no penalty). Hmmm . . . Unfortunately, I forgot to RTFLB before making this statement. My feeling is that it "should" be UI, and after looking through the Laws to address the main issue, I guess I just got sick of looking at them. Actually, I think David would have been right a few months ago, but not now. From what I gather from David Stevenson's web site on the 1997 Laws, L16C has been changed so that, if the redouble is considered an "offense", then it becomes UI. However, it doesn't seem clear from the Laws whether the redoubler should be considered an offender. To me, making a quick redouble, while the director is standing right there, before the director has a chance to say anything, is pretty offensive, so it should be an offense. But that's just my gut feeling, and not an interpretation of the Laws. The Laws don't say anything at all about a call made after an attempt to correct an insufficient bid to a double. To me, the Laws say that an insufficient bid *cannot* be corrected to a double, so the double must be cancelled, as must the succeeding call. But the Laws don't say anything at all about the succeeding call, in the same way that they say things about condoning inadmissible calls in Law 35. However, there are similar situations in Laws 35A and 35C. These cases deal with condoning inadmissible calls that *cannot* be allowed to stand (i.e. bad doubles and redoubles, and bids of more than 7). In those cases, the inadmissible calls are still cancelled, and the succeeding calls are also cancelled. However, these Laws do not refer to the succeeding calls as irregularities or offenses. I guess the thinking was that, even though these cancelled calls convey information to partner, the person making the call isn't the *real* offender, so what he does shouldn't be penalized. I'm not sure this is good thinking. Surely anyone who knows which way is up knows that when RHO doubles LHO's bid, he should call the director and not make a call. Some bridge lawyer could take unfair advantage in an auction like this: (yes, I have heard this auction!!) BL LHO CHO RHO 1C dbl pass redbl BL, knowing that his call will be cancelled without penalty, could get in a free lead-directing bid or something. So I'd support a change to 35A and 35C (and also 35E, the nonexistent Law which deals with condoning an attempt to change an insufficient bid to a double or redouble) to make cancelled calls unauthorized information. However, the cases in 35A and 35C probably only come up in novice games anyway, so this whole discussion is probably academic. (RHO, by the way, was a beginner who had just been taught that a redouble shows 10 points.) So my conclusion is that David is right, I was wrong, the quick redouble is not an "offense" according to the Laws and does not constitute UI. But since I still think the person who made the redouble was out of line, I think a PP is in order (and I agree with David that a PP may also be in order for the doubler). -- Adam From owner-bridge-laws Thu Mar 27 09:02:18 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA29667 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 27 Mar 1997 09:02:18 +1000 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 JAA29662 for ; Thu, 27 Mar 1997 09:02:12 +1000 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by relay-5.mail.demon.net id aa0511740; 26 Mar 97 22:40 GMT Message-ID: Date: Wed, 26 Mar 1997 21:49:53 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: A case where "demonstrably" would probably make a difference In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Grabiner wrote: >Here's an appeals case from Albuquerque in which the ruling was >criticized by several members of the expert panel, and would probably be >different with the "demonstrably" rule. > >I'm deliberately not including the details so that readers who haven't >seen it can judge suggested alternatives without looking at the whole >hand. The full hand is Case 47, >http://home.worldcom.ch/~fsb/appeals/al944351.html > >South held Q9 AT2 AT53 KT87, neither side vulnerable, matchpoints. > >S W N E >1C 1D P 4H >P P P(slow) > >South chose the right lead to beat the contract; another suit would have >allowed it to make, while a third would give a result which depended on >play to a later trick. > >The director ruled that South had UI, and let the E-W score stand while >giving N-S the worse of 40% and the table result. "The Committee >complemented the Director on a good ruling." Always nice to see Committees complimenting TDs on totally illegal rulings. >Aside from the fact that the ruling was odd (I don't see how you can >give average-minus to only one side; it should have been either >-420/-50, -420/+420, or A-/A+), I don't think an adjustment would have >been made at all with the "demonstrably" rule. North's hand >desmonstrably suggests a lead, and a lead might have been suggested if >North had bid 4S, 5C, or doubled, but which hand does he hold? I do not see how a change of the wording of the Law affects this. I would have thought that a player who passes originally then thinks of coming in *usually* has values in the opponent's suit. Therefore a diamond lead is somewhat indicated by the UI. If they led a diamond to beat the contract, I would rule it back: if they led anything else to beat the contract then I do not see how it is suggested by the UI. If they ruled it back on a spade lead because they are not allowing successful actions after UI then it is a lack of understanding of the Laws. If they are less likely to get it wrong with the word "demonstrably" there, then good: the change has done some good. That means that the change in wording has been a clarification, not a change of substance. If it hesitates, shoot it. Where have I heard that before? -- David Stevenson MayDay Swiss Pairs in Liverpool! Quango and Nanki Poo Hughes Simultaneous Pairs at end of June! appear on the WWW !!! See my Homepage for details Bridgepage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/brg_menu.htm From owner-bridge-laws Thu Mar 27 09:10:18 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA29731 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 27 Mar 1997 09:10:18 +1000 Received: from mail2.isys.net (trance.isys.net [194.64.236.33]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id JAA29726 for ; Thu, 27 Mar 1997 09:10:13 +1000 Received: from mail1.isys.net[193.96.224.33] by mail2.isys.net with smtp (Smail 3.2 #2 -iSYS-); id m0wA1pY-000HYpC; Thu, 27 Mar 1997 00:10:08 +0100 (MET) Received: from meckwell [194.195.202.41] by mail1.isys.net with smtp (Smail 3.2 #3 -iSYS-); id m0wA1pX-001LAFC; Thu, 27 Mar 1997 00:10:07 +0100 (MET) Date: Thu, 27 Mar 1997 00:12:46 +0100 (CET) From: Henk Uijterwaal X-Sender: henk@meckwell Reply-To: Henk Uijterwaal To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: ACBL to limit score adjustments to 1/4 board? In-Reply-To: <5044wBAPxDOzEwRR@rbarden.demon.co.uk> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Tue, 25 Mar 1997, Paul Barden wrote: > David Stevenson > >Paul Barden wrote: > I have been making some assumptions about the motivations behind the > Laws. What the Laws say is, as you all know: > > "the partner may not choose from among logical alternative actions one > that could reasonably have been suggested over another by the extraneous > information." > > and later that an adjustment should be made if "an infraction of law has > resulted in damage" > > I assume that the motivation for this is the desire to ensure that > players cannot gain by taking advantage of UI, consciously or otherwise. Exactly. > However, it is in practice possible for a player to break this law > without in any way taking advantage of UI. > He may be genuinely unaware of the UI, This might be true, but how can you (the director) ever decide that? By asking the player if he noticed the break in tempo or whatever else created the UI? If you allow this, then it will be a matter of days before players realize that they always should answer "no" to this question and leave it up to the director to prove otherwise. We might as well legalize taking advantage of UI now. > or he may have detailed knowledge about his partner's habits > which tells him that a hesitation which appears to suggest one action in > fact suggests the opposite. If a partnership has reached a point where A knows what B's habits mean, then the partnership is communicating through means other than the bids and cards. I'd suggest that A tells B to change his habits. > Most of the argument against the proposal I am supporting has been along > the lines of "if you break this Law you are an offender, and offenders > should be punished". The change I advocate would have the effect of > allowing such offenders to escape when the evidence of the hands is that > they have not taken advantage of UI. What's wrong with that? Nothing. But this is already the case, there are no penalties for creating UI, there are only penalties for using it. 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 Mar 27 10:44:47 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA00437 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 27 Mar 1997 10:44:47 +1000 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 KAA00432 for ; Thu, 27 Mar 1997 10:44:41 +1000 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by relay-10.mail.demon.net id ab1009138; 27 Mar 97 0:22 GMT Message-ID: Date: Wed, 26 Mar 1997 23:28:24 +0000 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Quango and Nanki Poo In-Reply-To: <33396E9F.691B@globalserve.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David G. Bryce wrote: >Herman De Wael wrote: >> David Stevenson wrote: >> haaatcheeeee !!!! > >Some strange Flemish expression no doubt. > >Well, to celebrate the posting, I sent David a digital postcard with one >of _his own_ pix on it. I think it was Quango. > >This was from http://www.toronto-bridge.com/digitalmail.htm. Now active, >but not perfected yet. Very confusing. It *was* Quango. After never showing any interest in TV screen or computer monitor for nine years, Quango reacted to Nanki Poo all over my computer screen by trying to pat him with his paw. Not sure what that means. -- David Stevenson MayDay Swiss Pairs in Liverpool! Quango and Nanki Poo Hughes Simultaneous Pairs at end of June! appear on the WWW !!! See my Homepage for details Bridgepage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/brg_menu.htm From owner-bridge-laws Thu Mar 27 12:22:47 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id MAA00745 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 27 Mar 1997 12:22:47 +1000 Received: from tom.compulink.co.uk (tom.compulink.co.uk [194.153.0.51]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id MAA00740 for ; Thu, 27 Mar 1997 12:22:40 +1000 Received: (from root@localhost) by tom.compulink.co.uk (8.8.4/8.6.9) id CAA06150 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Thu, 27 Mar 1997 02:22:06 GMT Date: Thu, 27 Mar 97 02:21 GMT0 From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: ACBL to limit score adjustments to 1/4 board? 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: Henk wrote (in response to Paul Barden): > This might be true, but how can you (the director) ever decide that? > By asking the player if he noticed the break in tempo or whatever else > created the UI? If you allow this, then it will be a matter of days > before players realize that they always should answer "no" to this > question and leave it up to the director to prove otherwise. We might > as well legalize taking advantage of UI now. While this may contain an element of truth I find it an incredibly sad reflection on the current state of bridge. I would prefer to believe that people would regard telling the truth as more important than winning - it's only a game for god's sake. IMO The current laws mean that there will be many (perhaps even a majority of) occasions where an adjustment will be made even though the player concerned did not make use of the UI. An in-depth review of the underlying assumptions and practices for UI situations should be able to improve things. Say we take a sample of bridge players of reasonable standard I might expect to classify them as follows: 15% Bridge Lawyers 80% "Regular,decent folks" c5% People of Questionable Ethics <1% Cheats I believe that the current laws disadvantage the majority with respect to BLs in an attempt to protect them from the small minority of PoQEs/Cheats - an attempt which often fails as the PoQEs are often pretty hot on the lawyering front themselves. It doesn't matter whether you agree with my assumptions on population breakdown, it's just a suggestion to get a slightly different angle on what the laws should try and achieve. > > or he may have detailed knowledge about his partner's habits > > which tells him that a hesitation which appears to suggest one action in > > fact suggests the opposite. > > If a partnership has reached a point where A knows what B's habits mean, > then the partnership is communicating through means other than the > bids and cards. I'd suggest that A tells B to change his habits. Realistically this is unavoidable if you play with someone regularly, B's habits are generally like "tells" in poker, so ingrained that it is almost impossible to control them when under pressure even if B knows what they are. Tim West-Meads From owner-bridge-laws Fri Mar 28 10:43:47 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA07270 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 28 Mar 1997 10:43:47 +1000 Received: from msri.org (msri.org [198.129.64.224]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id KAA07256 for ; Fri, 28 Mar 1997 10:43:39 +1000 Received: (from smap@localhost) by msri.org (8.8.2/8.7.2) id QAA16674 for ; Thu, 27 Mar 1997 16:43:51 -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 sma016667; Thu Mar 27 16:43:43 1997 Received: by euclid.msri.org (8.7/MSRI) id QAA24819; Thu, 27 Mar 1997 16:39:26 -0800 (PST) Date: Thu, 27 Mar 1997 16:39:26 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <199703280039.QAA24819@euclid.msri.org> From: David Grabiner To: grabiner@msri.org CC: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au In-reply-to: (message from David Grabiner on 25 Mar 1997 15:00:01 -0800) Subject: Re: A case where "demonstrably" would probably make a difference Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I wrote: > Here's an appeals case from Albuquerque in which the ruling was > criticized by several members of the expert panel, and would probably be > different with the "demonstrably" rule. Now that this has generated some discussion, I'll give the added details. The case is Case 47, http://home.worldcom.ch/~fsb/appeals/al944351.html South held Q9 AT2 AT53 KT87, neither side vulnerable, matchpoints. K85432 54 86 963 J76 AT 63 KQJ987 KQJ974 2 Q5 AJ42 Q9 AT2 AT53 KT87 > S W N E > 1C 1D P 4H > P P P(slow) > South chose the right lead to beat the contract; another suit would have > allowed it to make, while a third would give a result which depended on > play to a later trick. There were several different opinions as to what lead was suggested; this, I think, justifies the conclusion that E-W would have no case under the "demonstrably" rule. The Committee's basis for concluding that a spade lead was suggested was not given, but it was probably a look at North's hand, which should not have any effect on the suggested alternative given either the old or the new rules. A spade lead beats the contract. On the DA lead, South must guess at trick two whether North or East has the remaining diamond; a spade switch still beats the contract on the actual layout. On a club lead, the contract will make because the only reasonable line of play seems to be CQ, CA, club ruff, SA, club ruff, and North can't overruff the H6. > The director ruled that South had UI, and let the E-W score stand while > giving N-S the worse of 40% and the table result. "The Committee > complemented the Director on a good ruling." This statement drew a lot of criticism, and justifiably so. A split score is possible if the director concluded that it was "at all probable" but not "reasonably likely" that E-W would go down had their been no infraction. If South is not allowed to lead the SA, then it is much more than "reasonably likely" that he will either lead a club or lead the DA and continue diamonds, so the score should be -420/+420. Even if the director is trying to rule that the contract would make 75% of the time without the UI (allowing South to make a spade lead, or DA and spade switch, some of the time even though it was suggested by UI), the ruling would be -420/-50. A- should be awarded when a bridge result cannot be obtained, and I find it hard to believe that a committee couldn't obtain one. (I don't think -420/A- is inherently an unreasonable type of ruling. Suppose, on a different hand, it was ruled that the non-offenders might have bid differently had there been no misinformation, but it wasn't likely. This justifies adjusting the offenders' score only, and if it the auction would have gotten confusing after the alternative bid, the offenders could still get A-.) -- 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 Mar 28 13:30:59 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id NAA07531 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 28 Mar 1997 13:30:59 +1000 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 NAA07526 for ; Fri, 28 Mar 1997 13:30:50 +1000 Received: from localhost by aurora.alaska.edu; (5.65v3.2/1.1.8.2/22Mar97-0141PM) id AA12866; Thu, 27 Mar 1997 18:30:42 -0900 Date: Thu, 27 Mar 1997 18:30:42 -0900 (AKST) From: "G. R. Bower" To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Mispulls Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I must admit that I am very disappointed that the policy on correcting mispulls in being liberalized. We never allowed such liberties when people misspoke. The laws already contain a clause that deems it an infraction to "pay insufficient attention to the game." I was willing to live with the until- the-next-player-has-bid rule. But what I really want is to make it clear to people that they ought to LOOK at their bid as they set it down and make sure they have the right one. Frankly, I have always felt that the "without pause for thought" condition should only be used for deciding whether a 3-second hesitation was an accident or not, but that there should be a policy that there is no such thing as a mispull after partner has bid or, say, five seconds have elapsed, whichever comes first. Especially when the penalties for possibly-conventional insufficient bids were clarified and stiffened, I thought this was going to happen. I was wrong, of course -- not the first time, not the last. Bid-cards that stick together are a fact of life. That happened to me at least five times in one session of a sectional I played in last week. But I caught all five mispulls long before I ever placed the bid-cards on the table; I've only had about three mispulls make it onto the table in my bridge-playing life, and all three of those I left as they sat without comment. I think it is not unreasonable to expect as much from others. Gordon Bower From owner-bridge-laws Fri Mar 28 20:17:14 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id UAA08284 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 28 Mar 1997 20:17:14 +1000 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 UAA08279 for ; Fri, 28 Mar 1997 20:17:01 +1000 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 NAA27994 for ; Fri, 28 Mar 1997 13:12:50 +0300 (MSK) Received: (from fox@localhost) by pent.sci-nnov.ru (8.8.5/Dmiter-4.0.0) id NAA09334; Fri, 28 Mar 1997 13:12:49 +0300 (MSK) Message-Id: <199703281012.NAA09334@pent.sci-nnov.ru> From: "Sergei Litvak" To: "BLML" Date: Fri, 28 Mar 97 13:13:34 +0300 Reply-To: "Sergei Litvak" Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Sergei Litvak's Registered PMMail 1.9 For OS/2 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="koi8-r" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Mispull or insufficient bid? Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I want to continue discussion with mispulls. Let's imagine the situation: N E S W P 1NT P 1H TD!! Should I treat this call as insufficient if W explains me that he wants to bid 2H (transfer), but has taken the wrong card from the bidding box? Should I use 25A or 27B2? Sergei Litvak ------------------- Voice: 7(8312)384255 FAX: 7(8312)362061 ------------------- From owner-bridge-laws Fri Mar 28 22:34:04 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id WAA08679 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 28 Mar 1997 22:34:04 +1000 Received: from ns.dknet.dk (root@ns.dknet.dk [193.88.44.42]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id WAA08674 for ; Fri, 28 Mar 1997 22:33:58 +1000 Received: from pip.dknet.dk (root@pip.dknet.dk [193.88.44.48]) by ns.dknet.dk (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id NAA11188 for ; Fri, 28 Mar 1997 13:33:53 +0100 (MET) Received: from default (cph33.ppp.dknet.dk [194.192.100.33]) by pip.dknet.dk (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id NAA13015 for ; Fri, 28 Mar 1997 13:33:49 +0100 Message-Id: <199703281233.NAA13015@pip.dknet.dk> Comments: Authenticated sender is From: "Jens & Bodil" Organization: Alesia Software To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Fri, 28 Mar 1997 13:34:11 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Re: Mispull or insufficient bid? Priority: normal X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v2.42a) Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: "Sergei Litvak" > N E S W > P 1NT P 1H > TD!! > > Should I treat this call as insufficient if W explains me that he wants to > bid 2H (transfer), but > has taken the wrong card from the bidding box? > Should I use 25A or 27B2? L25A is the right law, assuming that W immediately -- once his attention was drawn to the problem (probably in this case by N's request for the Director) -- made some kind of reaction to support that this was indeed a mispull. Strictly speaking 1H is then not a call, thus not a bid, and thus not an insufficient bid, so L27 does not apply. This ruling is straightforward under the 1997 Laws, and probably also straightforward under the interpretations of the 1987 Laws, supported by all national regulations that I have heard of. Such regulations were discussed at some length earlier on BLML. If West did not react immediately, you should consider the 2H bid as made. Under the 1997 laws, you apply L25B, and W gets a chance to change his bid (restricting his side's score on this board to a maximum of average minus); if he does not, apply L27. Under the 1987 laws, W cannot change his call, and you apply Law 27 directly. -- Jens Brix Christiansen, Denmark From owner-bridge-laws Fri Mar 28 23:08:29 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA08773 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 28 Mar 1997 23:08:29 +1000 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 XAA08767 for ; Fri, 28 Mar 1997 23:08:21 +1000 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 IAA27433 for ; Fri, 28 Mar 1997 08:08:08 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <1.5.4.32.19970328130803.0069f5f0@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, 28 Mar 1997 08:08:03 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: A case where "demonstrably" would probably make a difference Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David and I had one extra round of discussion on this, which we didn't send to BLML so as not to reveal N's hand before others had a chance to react to the hand as David originally gave it. Now that the cat's out of the bag, I am forwarding my comments upon seeing what N held... >At 10:13 AM 3/26/97 -0800, you wrote: > >>North held Kxxxxx xx xx xxx, and was apparently considering 4S. South >>led a spade. The contract makes on a club lead, goes down on a spade >>lead, and makes on the DA lead if South continues diamonds (dummy has >>KQJxxx and declarer a stiff) but not on the DA lead and a spade switch >>because dummy has no entry. >> >>> I have an uncharitable feeling that whatever the winning lead turned out to >>> be, once S found it E-W were going to call the police and contend that it >>> might have been influenced by N's huddle. >> >>That's what I think as well, and North's actual hand allowed E-W to >>conclude that the hesitation suggested the winning spade lead. > >Wow! So this ruling depended entirely on the premise that it would be reasonable for S to assume that when N huddled over 4H-P-P he was thinking about bidding 4S. Even despite the fact that that apparently was what N was thinking about, were I in the S seat it would be the furthest thing from my mind after an auction that started 1C-1D-P. > >On reflection, though, this makes a great example for our topic. Suppose that we knew that this was N's common practice, i.e. he had a history of passing early in auctions like these with a bad hand and long spades, and then coming back in at 4S later. That might well make the suggestion of a spade lead "demonstrable", in which case the ruling wouldn't look so bad at all. Although one might still ask, if this was in fact N's common practice, why did he pass rather than bid 4S this time? > >>> The second aspect of this ruling, which David raises as a side-issue, >>> troubles me even more than the issue under discussion. David's summary of >>> the case ("South chose the right lead to beat the contract...") strongly >>> suggests that the result on the hand swung solely on the choice of opening >>> lead. There is nothing to suggest that once S led whatever he led, E could >>> or should have made 4H. >> >>This is correct. The only case for uncertainty is that the DA lead >>might be a logical alternative, and the contract might or might not make >>on that lead. > >But that uncertainty is clearly covered by L12C2: "the most unfavorable result that was at all probable" is, obviously, for 4H to make. Resolving that uncertainty is precisely what L12C2 is all about. Even a minimally competent committee should have had no trouble with this. /eric 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 Mar 28 23:24:04 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA08827 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 28 Mar 1997 23:24:04 +1000 Received: from mail.be.innet.net (mail.be.innet.net [194.7.1.8]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id XAA08822 for ; Fri, 28 Mar 1997 23:23:57 +1000 Received: from innet.innet.be (pool03-143.innet.be [194.7.10.143]) by mail.be.innet.net (8.7.6/8.7.3) with SMTP id OAA28443; Fri, 28 Mar 1997 14:23:49 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: <333BC2E4.707F@innet.be> Date: Fri, 28 Mar 1997 13:08:52 +0000 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01 (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: nf@glo.be, bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Insufficient bid References: <$+Ouv4BPP0NzEw49@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Stevenson wrote: > > A player made an insufficient bid Director is called , reads the rules > pertaining to the situation . When auction reverts to insufficient > bidder > he says DOUBLE > in spite of being not allowed ( without insufficient bid double would > have > been admissible ) But quicker than director opens his mouth to say > anything next player in rotation says REDOUBLE How this situation be > ruled > ?? > > What do you think? > I have not yet attempted an answer, but now they asked me directly, I will attempt to RTFLB. I shall try to read two Law Books at the same time. I must introduce names. Let's say north has made the insufficient call and the double, and east has redoubled. There has been an insuficient bid and the director has been called. This is not unimportant, as I have often spoken about the case where the Insufficient bid has been changed to double before the director is called. I have always maintained that L25 was of application (so that the double can be accepted), but the new laws have clearly settled this : the double cannot be accepted. So we read L27. The insufficient bid has not been accepted. -> L27B. 'it must be corrected by a sufficient bid or a pass'. This has not been done (double) so we go to L27B3. 'If he attempts to double, the attempted call is cancelled, and there are penalties'. So there has not been any call at this turn yet. So the redouble is both out of turn, and illegal since there was no double. Law 36 inadmissable redouble points us first to Law 32. L32 tells us that the redouble may not be accepted. The redouble is cancelled (there are lead penalties to west !) L32B tells us that to do next : -If north passes, the redouble must be repeated, it now becomes illegal and we go back to L36 : west must pass, and east must bid. -If north bids, east may now make any legal call and west must pass. That settles the redouble : whatever north does, east may bid, west must pass and has lead penalties (26B ones). Back to the insufficient bid then. L27B3 : The double is cancelled, south must pass and has lead penalties (L26B or maybe L26A if the double clearly showed one suit). So after all those explanations, we will ask north and east to continue the bidding, south and west to go to the bar until it's over, and then apply lead penalties to whomever ends up defending. Simple, isn't it ? Question : After all the explanations, shall we still allow east to accept the insufficient bid ? After all, no substitution has yet occured ! And all those penalties would suddenly vanish like snow in the sun ! I do think that should be the case. And of course, if the director forgot to tell north that he could not double, an A+/A+ will be the correct solution. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.club.innet.be/~pub02163/index.htm From owner-bridge-laws Sat Mar 29 01:38:51 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA11451 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 29 Mar 1997 01:38:51 +1000 Received: from relay-finch.mail.demon.net (relay-finch.mail.demon.net [158.152.1.63]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id BAA11446 for ; Sat, 29 Mar 1997 01:38:43 +1000 Received: from rbarden.demon.co.uk ([158.152.169.19]) by relay-finch.mail.demon.net id aa0024067; 28 Mar 97 15:35 GMT Message-ID: <3kdbjAAY$9OzEwwC@rbarden.demon.co.uk> Date: Fri, 28 Mar 1997 15:12:24 +0000 To: Henk Uijterwaal Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Paul Barden Subject: Re: ACBL to limit score adjustments to 1/4 board? In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 1.12 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In message , Henk Uijterwaal writes >On Tue, 25 Mar 1997, Paul Barden wrote: >> David Stevenson >> >Paul Barden wrote: > >> I have been making some assumptions about the motivations behind the >> Laws. What the Laws say is, as you all know: >> >> "the partner may not choose from among logical alternative actions one >> that could reasonably have been suggested over another by the extraneous >> information." >> >> and later that an adjustment should be made if "an infraction of law has >> resulted in damage" >> >> I assume that the motivation for this is the desire to ensure that >> players cannot gain by taking advantage of UI, consciously or otherwise. > >Exactly. > >> However, it is in practice possible for a player to break this law >> without in any way taking advantage of UI. > >> He may be genuinely unaware of the UI, > >This might be true, but how can you (the director) ever decide that? >By asking the player if he noticed the break in tempo or whatever else >created the UI? If you allow this, then it will be a matter of days >before players realize that they always should answer "no" to this >question and leave it up to the director to prove otherwise. We might >as well legalize taking advantage of UI now. > It seems you missed all my previous contributions to the thread. My proposal is that "unless it is clear that UI has been used, we assume that it has not when the resulting contract is clearly inferior to the contract we are considering adjusting to." >> or he may have detailed knowledge about his partner's habits >> which tells him that a hesitation which appears to suggest one action in >> fact suggests the opposite. > >If a partnership has reached a point where A knows what B's habits mean, >then the partnership is communicating through means other than the >bids and cards. I'd suggest that A tells B to change his habits. > > >> Most of the argument against the proposal I am supporting has been along >> the lines of "if you break this Law you are an offender, and offenders >> should be punished". The change I advocate would have the effect of >> allowing such offenders to escape when the evidence of the hands is that >> they have not taken advantage of UI. What's wrong with that? > >Nothing. But this is already the case, there are no penalties for >creating UI, there are only penalties for using it. > Wrong. The penalties are not for using UI, they are for choosing "from among logical alternative actions one that could reasonably have been suggested over another by the extraneous information." >Henk. > -- Paul Barden From owner-bridge-laws Sun Mar 30 01:14:41 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA17305 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 30 Mar 1997 01:14:41 +1000 Received: from ns.dknet.dk (root@ns.dknet.dk [193.88.44.42]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id BAA17293 for ; Sun, 30 Mar 1997 01:14:31 +1000 Received: from pip.dknet.dk (root@pip.dknet.dk [193.88.44.48]) by ns.dknet.dk (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id QAA16985 for ; Sat, 29 Mar 1997 16:14:24 +0100 (MET) Received: from cph62.ppp.dknet.dk (cph62.ppp.dknet.dk [194.192.100.62]) by pip.dknet.dk (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id QAA07972 for ; Sat, 29 Mar 1997 16:14:20 +0100 From: Jesper Dybdal To: Bridge Laws Discussion List Subject: Re: ACBL to limit score adjustments to 1/4 board? Date: Sat, 29 Mar 1997 16:14:19 +0100 Organization: at home Message-ID: <333f3153.3983668@pipmail.dknet.dk> References: <1.5.4.32.19970325145952.00698eb4@cais.com> In-Reply-To: <1.5.4.32.19970325145952.00698eb4@cais.com> X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.0/32.390 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 Mar 1997 09:59:52 -0500, Eric Landau wrote: >I do not dispute Paul's logic; I merely disagree with his definitions. = If >the use of UI leads to a better score for the offenders (and, to avoid = the >red-herring side issue, we stipulate that the NOs couldn't have done >anything about it), I would call that "advantage" to the offenders and >"damage" to the NOs. I do not believe that these terms ought to be = defined >statistically based solely on the offenders' hands. "Advantage" and >"damage", IMO, accrue to the result on the actual hand, not to its >"single-dummy" expected value. > >Results at the bridge table do not always follow statistical = expectations. >If I bid a slam that can't be beaten because three finesses win and two >suits break 3-3, I'd say that it was to my advantage to have bid it. I agree completely. In order to adjust under L16A, we need "an infraction of law" that results in "damage". If somebody chooses a logical alternative that is not allowed by L16A, that is an infraction of law. If the offender thereby gets to a slam that wins on three finesses and two 3-3 breaks, the opponents get a score of -980 instead of the -480 they would get without the infraction; this is damage directly caused by the infraction. The slam is actually a 100% slam - when you look at all four hands, that is. And there is no relevance at all in looking at the hands of the two offenders in isolation. A quite different argument against the "do not adjust when the slam they bid on UI is bad" attitude is that it would be completely impossible to handle in practice. Those who say that the TD should not adjust when the slam (seen as a single-dummy situation) is a 2% chance, but that he should adjust when it is a 75% chance, need to tell us exactly where the borderline is. And even if such a borderline could be defined, we'd still need to educate all TDs and ACs in the mathematics needed to calculate chances precisely; and even if we also did that, there would still be the impossible question of evaluating the changes of probabilities produced by opponents' calls and mannerisms. --=20 Jesper Dybdal, Denmark From owner-bridge-laws Sun Mar 30 01:14:41 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA17306 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 30 Mar 1997 01:14:41 +1000 Received: from ns.dknet.dk (root@ns.dknet.dk [193.88.44.42]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id BAA17295 for ; Sun, 30 Mar 1997 01:14:32 +1000 Received: from pip.dknet.dk (root@pip.dknet.dk [193.88.44.48]) by ns.dknet.dk (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id QAA16989 for ; Sat, 29 Mar 1997 16:14:27 +0100 (MET) Received: from cph62.ppp.dknet.dk (cph62.ppp.dknet.dk [194.192.100.62]) by pip.dknet.dk (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id QAA07978 for ; Sat, 29 Mar 1997 16:14:25 +0100 From: Jesper Dybdal To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: When can you ask questions Date: Sat, 29 Mar 1997 16:14:24 +0100 Organization: at home Message-ID: <333e2d10.2893110@pipmail.dknet.dk> References: <199703251127.GAA08919@cfa183.harvard.edu> In-Reply-To: <199703251127.GAA08919@cfa183.harvard.edu> X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.0/32.390 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 Mar 1997 06:27:55 -0500, willner@cfa183.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) wrote: >Something Kaplan once wrote about an unrelated situation seems relevant = here. > >Suppose a different player in the same situation happens to be >completely familiar with the opponents' methods. Clearly he can use >his knowledge in making his choice. Aren't all players entitled to >be in the same position? This is IMO exactly the point. Even though the laws about asking questions may not be perfectly phrased to cover all situations including those with irregularities involved, I expect that there is general agreement that the intention of the laws is that players should - as far as practically possible - have all possibly relevant information about the opponents' methods available when they make a choice. I would certainly allow East to ask questions here. --=20 Jesper Dybdal, Denmark