From owner-bridge-laws Tue Apr 1 06:42:42 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA01924 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 1 Apr 1997 06:42:42 +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 GAA01919 for ; Tue, 1 Apr 1997 06:42:35 +1000 Received: from coruncanius.demon.co.uk ([194.222.115.176]) by relay-11.mail.demon.net id aa1103498; 31 Mar 97 21:36 BST Message-ID: Date: Mon, 31 Mar 1997 20:03:12 +0100 To: Eric Landau Cc: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Labeo Subject: Re: ACBL to limit score adjustments to 1/4 board? In-Reply-To: <1.5.4.32.19970318132454.0068c3e8@cais.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In message <1.5.4.32.19970318132454.0068c3e8@cais.com>, Eric Landau writes >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. >Eric L. said: >The BoD is the final authority; the ACBL Laws Commission merely advises on >such matters. Labeo: Now I would have said that the final authority is The Laws of Duplicate Contract Bridge. Labeo From owner-bridge-laws Tue Apr 1 06:49:07 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA01962 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 1 Apr 1997 06:49:07 +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 GAA01956 for ; Tue, 1 Apr 1997 06:49:02 +1000 Received: from coruncanius.demon.co.uk ([194.222.115.176]) by relay-10.mail.demon.net id aa1011480; 31 Mar 97 21:36 BST Message-ID: Date: Mon, 31 Mar 1997 19:56:02 +0100 To: Steve Willner Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Labeo Subject: Re: L46B5 In-Reply-To: <199703171544.KAA04335@cfa183.harvard.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In message <199703171544.KAA04335@cfa183.harvard.edu>, Steve Willner writes >> 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. Labeo again: My point was that designation is an active not a passive thing; the player needed to designate by a word or sign etc. In my view the Law requires this and the lead is not a designation. Labeo From owner-bridge-laws Tue Apr 1 07:14:52 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA02126 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 1 Apr 1997 07:14:52 +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 HAA02120 for ; Tue, 1 Apr 1997 07:14:46 +1000 Received: from coruncanius.demon.co.uk ([194.222.115.176]) by relay-6.mail.demon.net id ab0620314; 31 Mar 97 21:36 BST Message-ID: <8sHlhOAi+BQzEwh8@coruncanius.demon.co.uk> Date: Mon, 31 Mar 1997 21:33:38 +0100 To: Paul Barden Cc: David Stevenson , bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Labeo 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 In message <5044wBAPxDOzEwRR@rbarden.demon.co.uk>, Paul Barden writes >In message , David Stevenson > writes >>Paul Barden wrote: >> ...cut...> >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. Labeo: This last is possibly true but not relevant. The judgment is based upon the expected actions of *other* players of like standard. Labeo From owner-bridge-laws Tue Apr 1 07:44:47 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA02291 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 1 Apr 1997 07:44:47 +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 HAA02286 for ; Tue, 1 Apr 1997 07:44:42 +1000 Received: from coruncanius.demon.co.uk ([194.222.115.176]) by relay-5.mail.demon.net id aa0528475; 31 Mar 97 21:37 BST Message-ID: Date: Mon, 31 Mar 1997 21:18:32 +0100 To: Steve Willner Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Labeo Subject: Re: Pass In-Reply-To: <199703251132.GAA08932@cfa183.harvard.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In message <199703251132.GAA08932@cfa183.harvard.edu>, Steve Willner writes >> 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? Labeo: It would be wrong to accuse you of missing anything. But the point underlying the comment is that what you might call the "natural" meaning of 'Pass' extends only to what is in the definition. In other words, it communicates nothing about the hand. Over an opening One Spade, Pass by LHO may include any of these (amongst much else) and fall within the definition: S. x.x. H. Q.10.x.x. D K.J.x.x. C.J.x.x. or S.K.J.9.8.5 H.A.x. D.K.x.x. C. Q.10.x. or S. K.Q.x. H.A.J.x. D.Q.J.x.x. C.A.Q.x. and partner has no information about it. There is no obligation to bid on either of the stronger hands. However, a partnership will almost certainly agree that certain passes do *tell* partner something, or are demanded by the system, and such passes are either conventional (Law 30C) or the subject of a special understanding (Law 40B). Labeo From owner-bridge-laws Tue Apr 1 07:57:00 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA02369 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 1 Apr 1997 07:57:00 +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 HAA02361 for ; Tue, 1 Apr 1997 07:56:51 +1000 Received: from coruncanius.demon.co.uk ([194.222.115.176]) by relay-6.mail.demon.net id aa0620314; 31 Mar 97 21:36 BST Message-ID: Date: Mon, 31 Mar 1997 19:51:55 +0100 To: David Stevenson Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Labeo Subject: Re: New L16A: "demonstrably" In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In message , David Stevenson writes >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. >>> and then David says: > 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? > Labeo: now there's a *real* bridge problem! :-) Labeo From owner-bridge-laws Wed Apr 2 08:21:21 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA11490 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 2 Apr 1997 08:21:21 +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 IAA11485 for ; Wed, 2 Apr 1997 08:21:12 +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 AA23596; Tue, 1 Apr 1997 17:20:56 -0500 Received: from by Panoramix.UQSS.UQuebec.ca with SMTP (1.39.111.2/15.6) id AA124253255; Tue, 1 Apr 1997 17:20:55 -0500 X-Openmail-Hops: 1 Date: Tue, 1 Apr 97 17:20:24 -0500 Message-Id: Subject: Text of 1997 edition To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Item Subject: Texte du message Hello everybody, Would somebody please tell me where I can get the 1997 edition of WBF laws. Does somebody have a WinWord file of this? I know that the text could already change, but the most recent version would be usefull. Please send private mail. Laval Du Breuil Quebec City From owner-bridge-laws Thu Apr 3 06:06:51 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA20043 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 3 Apr 1997 06:06:51 +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 GAA20038 for ; Thu, 3 Apr 1997 06:06:45 +1000 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by relay-10.mail.demon.net id ab1003971; 2 Apr 97 20:34 BST Message-ID: Date: Wed, 2 Apr 1997 18:47:22 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: What's a psyche? MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk FLMaster39@mindspring.com wrote: >In order to be considered a "psych," the rule of thumb is that the >suit must be 2 cards shorter or the hand a King weaker than normally >promised. This is a quote from RGB. What does anyone think of the "rule of thumb"? -- 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 Homepage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk From owner-bridge-laws Thu Apr 3 06:12:59 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA20076 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 3 Apr 1997 06:12:59 +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 GAA20071 for ; Thu, 3 Apr 1997 06:12:53 +1000 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by relay-10.mail.demon.net id ac1003970; 2 Apr 97 20:35 BST Message-ID: Date: Wed, 2 Apr 1997 19:04:20 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Mispull or insufficient bid? In-Reply-To: <199703281233.NAA13015@pip.dknet.dk> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Jens & Bodil wrote: >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. Oh great! I thought L25B was bad enough, but ... So *any* insufficient bid can be changed to a sufficient bid at the option of the player who made it, unless it has been condoned? Is this really bridge? Someone *please* tell me Jens is wrong. *Please*. Unfortunately I cannot see how Jens is wrong. -- 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 Homepage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk From owner-bridge-laws Thu Apr 3 07:28:49 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA20354 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 3 Apr 1997 07:28:49 +1000 Received: from emout11.mail.aol.com (emout11.mx.aol.com [198.81.11.26]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id HAA20348 for ; Thu, 3 Apr 1997 07:28:40 +1000 From: KRAllison@aol.com Received: (from root@localhost) by emout11.mail.aol.com (8.7.6/8.7.3/AOL-2.0.0) id QAA01447; Wed, 2 Apr 1997 16:27:50 -0500 (EST) Date: Wed, 2 Apr 1997 16:27:50 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <970402162651_-535318963@emout11.mail.aol.com> To: newsr@blakjak.demon.co.uk, bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: What's a psyche? Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk >>>In order to be considered a "psych," the rule of thumb is that the >suit must be 2 cards shorter or the hand a King weaker than normally >promised.<< I don't like this at all as a guideline for defining psychic bids. A psyche is more like a gross misstatement of either hand strength or suit length or both. Isn't there a definition in the Laws? I ask because I am currently away from home and don't have a lawbook handy. Karen From owner-bridge-laws Thu Apr 3 08:05:20 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA20464 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 3 Apr 1997 08:05:20 +1000 Received: from lucius.ultra.net (lucius.ultra.net [199.232.56.38]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id IAA20459 for ; Thu, 3 Apr 1997 08:05:11 +1000 Received: from azure-tech.com (mail.azure-tech.com [204.249.180.200]) by lucius.ultra.net (8.8.5/ult1.05) with SMTP id RAA32686 for ; Wed, 2 Apr 1997 17:05:23 -0500 (EST) Received: from Microsoft Mail (PU Serial #1189) by azure-tech.com (PostalUnion/SMTP(tm) v2.1.6 for Windows NT(tm)) id AA-1997Apr03.050100.1189.82655; Wed, 02 Apr 1997 16:58:07 -0500 From: REW@azure-tech.com (Richard Willey) To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au ('bridge-laws') Message-ID: <1997Apr03.050100.1189.82655@azure-tech.com> X-Mailer: Microsoft Mail via PostalUnion/SMTP for Windows NT Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Organization: Azure Technologies, Inc. Date: Wed, 02 Apr 1997 16:58:07 -0500 Subject: RE: What's a psyche? Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk ---------- From: David Stevenson[SMTP:newsr@blakjak.demon.co.uk] Sent: Wednesday, April 02, 1997 3:57 PM To: bridge-laws Subject: What's a psyche? FLMaster39@mindspring.com wrote: >>In order to be considered a "psych," the rule of thumb is that the >>suit must be 2 cards shorter or the hand a King weaker than normally >>promised. >This is a quote from RGB. What does anyone think of the "rule of >thumb"? I assume that this "rule or thumb" only applies to a psychic opening bid? It seems to be of fairly limited utility when evaluating a psychic splinter, a phony cue bid or a psychic lead directing double. This, however, is just minor nit-picking. My major comment is the following. One of my major problems with the organizational bodies which legislate Bridge, especially in the field of regulating permissible conventions, is the rather arbitrary notions which have been adopted that everyone must use precisely the same standards in evaluating hands. The classic example of this is the ACBL which uses the Work point count method as the sole criteria in evaluating hands and bans the use of any conventional calls following an opening 1N which could show fewer than 10 HCP. The entire question regarding whether or not there should be "standards" about what defines a psyche is a very interesting question (my guess is the crux of this question is actually how much faith one has in the judgment of the local tournament directors). Before this can really be addressed, however, I think the more important question is whether or not a single standard for hand evaluation can/should be imposed. If I am strictly using loser trick count to evaluate my bidding, why should I care about your "King weaker" rule of thumb. If I am playing a Arno or some other canape variant, where my rebid is actually my main suit, why should I care if I slightly misrepresent the length of the suit in which I open. From owner-bridge-laws Thu Apr 3 08:14:49 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA20531 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 3 Apr 1997 08:14:49 +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 IAA20525 for ; Thu, 3 Apr 1997 08:14:40 +1000 Received: from mamos.demon.co.uk ([158.152.129.79]) by relay-11.mail.demon.net id aa1104942; 2 Apr 97 23:00 BST Message-ID: <5W6ivHAKatQzEwjJ@mamos.demon.co.uk> Date: Wed, 2 Apr 1997 22:58:34 +0100 To: KRAllison@aol.com Cc: newsr@blakjak.demon.co.uk, bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: michael amos Subject: Re: What's a psyche? In-Reply-To: <970402162651_-535318963@emout11.mail.aol.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In message <970402162651_-535318963@emout11.mail.aol.com>, KRAllison@aol.com writes >>>>In order to be considered a "psych," the rule of thumb is that the >>suit must be 2 cards shorter or the hand a King weaker than normally >>promised.<< > >I don't like this at all as a guideline for defining psychic bids. > >A psyche is more like a gross misstatement of either hand strength or suit >length or both. Isn't there a definition in the Laws? I ask because I am >currently away from home and don't have a lawbook handy. > >Karen yes Karen you remember pretty acurately Psychic Call A deliberate and gross mis-statement of honour srength or suit length Of course this (as so often with the laws) solves absolutely nothing :) What counts as gross depends IMO on the situation and the bid Personally i would regard a 1 No Trump opening with a singleton as a psyche playing 12-14 i would not regard an 11 count as a psyche but i would so regard a 10 count i would regard a 1 Heart opening with three as a psyche, but playing five-card majors opening with four would not be i would not regard a Weak Two advertised as six-cards but made with five as a psyche an overcall on 4 i would not consider a psyche but on three it would be i guess that what i am saying is that each situation needs to be judged within the context of vulnerability and system - no simple rule can be propounded mike :@) -- michael amos From owner-bridge-laws Thu Apr 3 08:26:13 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA20586 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 3 Apr 1997 08:26:13 +1000 Received: from dfw-ix3.ix.netcom.com (dfw-ix3.ix.netcom.com [206.214.98.3]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id IAA20581 for ; Thu, 3 Apr 1997 08:26:07 +1000 Received: (from smap@localhost) by dfw-ix3.ix.netcom.com (8.8.4/8.8.4) id QAA02015; Wed, 2 Apr 1997 16:25:26 -0600 (CST) Received: from sbo-ca3-05.ix.netcom.com(205.184.185.101) by dfw-ix3.ix.netcom.com via smap (V1.3) id sma001938; Wed Apr 2 16:25:08 1997 Message-ID: <3342DBA3.2382@popd.ix.netcom.com> Date: Wed, 02 Apr 1997 14:20:19 -0800 From: B&S Reply-To: jonbriss@ix19.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: What's a psyche? References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk A recent posting: > >In order to be considered a "psych," the rule of thumb is that the > >suit must be 2 cards shorter or the hand a King weaker than normally > >promised. > > This is a quote from RGB. What does anyone think of the "rule of > thumb"? I think it's too narrow and restrictive, and it becomes more so as the HCP content of the hands increases. Some actual examples that came before the AC at ACBL national tournaments: 1. Kx The player opened 3NT, showing a balanced Kx 25-27 HCP. He stated that his hand was best Ax described by this bid, and it accurately AKQJxxx portrayed the trick-taking potential. The matter was appealed on another issue, but the committee recognized that the operant ACBL psyche definition would classify this as a psyche. The AC opined that this would not be deemed psychic because there was no intent to deceive. 2. void The player felt this justified a strong, AKJ109xxxx artificial 2C opening. He argued that he void was not trying to fool anybody; he just Axxx thought he found the best way to describe the hand. I do not agree with the bridge judgment of either of the bidders in the above examples. However, I must recognize that they have the right to evaluate their cards anyway they please and bid consistently with their evaluation. The psyche definition proposed above encompasses these examples, and illustrates the limitations of its application. So, IMO, any psyche definition ought to include the concept of "scienter," a legal term which imputes a mental state embracing intent to deceive, manipulate or defraud. Jon Brissman From owner-bridge-laws Thu Apr 3 08:40:44 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA20729 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 3 Apr 1997 08:40:44 +1000 Received: from mipl7.jpl.nasa.gov (mipl7.jpl.nasa.gov [128.149.177.7]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id IAA20724 for ; Thu, 3 Apr 1997 08:40:39 +1000 Received: from tintin.JPL.NASA.GOV ([137.78.77.70]) by mipl7.jpl.nasa.gov (8.6.12/8.6.6) with ESMTP id OAA03119 for <@mipl7.JPL.NASA.GOV:bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au>; Wed, 2 Apr 1997 14:39:55 -0800 Received: by tintin.JPL.NASA.GOV (940816.SGI.8.6.9/930416.SGI.MIPS) for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au id OAA01240; Wed, 2 Apr 1997 14:40:23 -0800 Date: Wed, 2 Apr 1997 14:40:23 -0800 From: jeff@tintin.JPL.NASA.GOV (Jeff Goldsmith) Message-Id: <199704022240.OAA01240@tintin.JPL.NASA.GOV> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: What's a psyche? Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk John Brissman quoted, then replied: |> >In order to be considered a "psych," the rule of thumb is that the |> >suit must be 2 cards shorter or the hand a King weaker than normally |> >promised. |> |> This is a quote from RGB. What does anyone think of the "rule of |> thumb"? | |I think it's too narrow and restrictive, and it becomes more so as the |HCP content of the hands increases. As I understand it, the definition of psych is "a gross and deliberate misrepresentation of one's hand." Opening a 15-17 NT with 14 points is not gross. Accidentally saying "one spade" with xx AKJxx Axxx Kx is not deliberate. Opening 2C, strong forcing and artificial with a solid 11-card suit is not a gross and deliberate misrepresentation. (Usually, in fact, it's just the failure to understand the ramifications of that choice; sometimes it's due to a full understanding of those ramifications and some further tactical considerations.) Note that the defintion is flexible---what constitutes "gross" in one situation might be irrelevant in others. --Jeff # "I'm a blonde; I'm a blonde: B-L-A-N-D!" # --- # http://muggy.gg.caltech.edu/~jeff From owner-bridge-laws Thu Apr 3 11:11:28 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id LAA21574 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 3 Apr 1997 11:11:28 +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 LAA21569 for ; Thu, 3 Apr 1997 11:11:21 +1000 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by relay-6.mail.demon.net id aa0627927; 3 Apr 97 1:46 BST Message-ID: Date: Wed, 2 Apr 1997 23:25:57 +0100 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 then reposted in March. I am reposting it for anyone who may have missed it, 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 previously posted here and currently on my Homepage. 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] previously posted here and currently on my Homepage. 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. *********************************************************************** 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. *********************************************************************** 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 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 Homepage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk From owner-bridge-laws Thu Apr 3 22:00:55 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id WAA23634 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 3 Apr 1997 22:00:55 +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 WAA23629 for ; Thu, 3 Apr 1997 22:00:47 +1000 Received: (from root@localhost) by tom.compulink.co.uk (8.8.4/8.6.9) id NAA25513 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Thu, 3 Apr 1997 13:00:11 +0100 (BST) Date: Thu, 3 Apr 97 12:59 BST-1 From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: What's a psyche? To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Cc: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Reply-To: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Message-Id: Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In-Reply-To: David Stevenson wrote: > >In order to be considered a "psych," the rule of thumb is that the > >suit must be 2 cards shorter or the hand a King weaker than normally > >promised. > > This is a quote from RGB. What does anyone think of the "rule of > thumb"? > Despite seemingly solid opinion to the contrary I think this it would actually be quite helpful if most players accepted this rule of thumb. 1. A "rule of thumb" implies it will often, but not always, work. 2. It helps exclude all those "couple of points short/1 card short" situations that many players regard (wrongly IMO) as psyches Rewrite the rule slightly A bid will not normally be considered a "psych," if suits are within 1 card of the promised length or the hand a within a queen of the promised strength. Nor will it necessarily be considered a psyche if outside these limits. OK, there are obvious exceptions (eg splinter on a doubleton) but it may help clarify the current confusion. Tim West-Meads From owner-bridge-laws Thu Apr 3 23:24:31 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA23902 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 3 Apr 1997 23:24:31 +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 XAA23897 for ; Thu, 3 Apr 1997 23:24:23 +1000 Received: from catullus.agw.bt.co.uk by mailhub.axion.bt.co.uk with SMTP (PP); Thu, 3 Apr 1997 14:22:42 +0100 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 OAA06393 for ; Thu, 3 Apr 1997 14:22:31 +0100 (BST) Received: by losgate.agw.bt.co.uk with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Server Internet Mail Connector Version 4.0.994.63) id <01BC403A.AD25D5B0@losgate.agw.bt.co.uk>; Thu, 3 Apr 1997 14:24:01 +0100 Message-ID: From: "Burn, David" To: "'Bridge Laws'" Subject: RE: What's a psyche? Date: Thu, 3 Apr 1997 14:18:55 +0100 X-Mailer: Microsoft Exchange Server Internet Mail Connector Version 4.0.994.63 Encoding: 30 TEXT Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Stevenson wrote: > >>>In order to be considered a "psych," the rule of thumb is that the >>>suit must be 2 cards shorter or the hand a King weaker than normally >>>promised. > >>This is a quote from RGB. What does anyone think of the "rule of >>thumb"? Not much; seems restricted only to certain situations, though would do in terms of opening bids I suppose, and is at least free from subjective terminology - unlike what follows, which are my own working definitions. A psyche is a drastic violation of partnership agreements made with the express intent of damaging opponents by causing them seriously to misjudge some aspect of the bidder's hand, and in the express hope that partner, though similarly deceived, will not make a damaging decision for the partnership as a result. A "tactical bid" is a violation of partnership agreements that is less drastic than a psyche, made perhaps in the hope of obtaining some advantage by deception, perhaps in the hope of obtaining some advantage through greater control of the auction for the bidder's side, perhaps both. A "tactical error" is just about any opening bid made by Joe Fawcett. From owner-bridge-laws Fri Apr 4 00:02:10 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA23992 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 4 Apr 1997 00:02:10 +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 AAA23987 for ; Fri, 4 Apr 1997 00:02:05 +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 JAA10450 for ; Thu, 3 Apr 1997 09:01:59 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <1.5.4.32.19970403140045.0069ca48@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, 03 Apr 1997 09:00:45 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: What's a psyche? Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 02:20 PM 4/2/97 -0800, Jon wrote: >I think it's too narrow and restrictive, and it becomes more so as the >HCP content of the hands increases. Some actual examples that came >before the AC at ACBL national tournaments: > >1. Kx The player opened 3NT, showing a balanced > Kx 25-27 HCP. He stated that his hand was best > Ax described by this bid, and it accurately > AKQJxxx portrayed the trick-taking potential. The > matter was appealed on another issue, but the > committee recognized that the operant ACBL > psyche definition would classify this as a > psyche. The AC opined that this would not be > deemed psychic because there was no intent to deceive. Even the idea that "the operant ACBL psyche definition would classify this as a psyche" is a failure of common sense. Nobody would consider bidding to less than 3NT on a hand that will take nine top tricks in NT on any lead; not even the ACBL could expect anyone to open less than 3NT (or equivalent in their methods) on Kx/Ax/Ax/AKQJxxx. Recognizing that that hand is a not merely a legitimate, but an ideal, 3NT opener regardless of nominal HCP requirements, the actual hand doesn't even come close to meeting the ACBL guideline of "a king less". >2. void The player felt this justified a strong, AKJ109xxxx >artificial 2C opening. He argued that he > void was not trying to fool anybody; he just > Axxx thought he found the best way to describe > the hand. Jon doesn't say, but I assume (hope!) that this was not considered a psyche either. The standard definition of an artificial 2C opening encompasses all absolute game forces, and surely any hand that will make a game 100% of the time facing a balanced hand with 0 HCP qualifies as an absolute game force. I wouldn't choose to open 2C on this hand myself, but I'm sure none of the ladies in Aunt Tillie's Thursday afternoon bridge group would consider opening anything else. Surely you're allowed to play certain sequences as promising "game in hand". And sometimes all it takes to evaluate "game in hand" is counting your tricks. IMO the right granted to SOs by the Laws to regulate conventions does not inherently subsume the right to regulate the methodologies by which players choose to evaluate their hands. I therefore question the legality of any regulation or adjudication guideline that explicitly requires the exclusive use of the 4-3-2-1 point count. Does anyone really think that devotees of the Culbertson system should be disciplined by the ACBL for "excessive psyching"? 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 Apr 4 02:05:54 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA26838 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 4 Apr 1997 02:05:54 +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 CAA26833 for ; Fri, 4 Apr 1997 02:05:47 +1000 From: Stephen_Barnfield@europe.notes.pw.com Received: by ivy.tc.pw.com; id IAA02778; Thu, 3 Apr 1997 08:50:12 -0800 (PST) Received: from cactus.tc.pw.com(131.209.7.48) by ivy.tc.pw.com via smap (3.2) id xma002524; Thu, 3 Apr 97 08:49:50 -0800 Received: (from root@localhost) by cactus.tc.pw.com (8.8.4/8.7.3) id IAA17837 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Thu, 3 Apr 1997 08:11:37 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <199704031611.IAA17837@cactus.tc.pw.com> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Thu, 3 Apr 97 17:00:11 GMT Subject: Re: What's a psyche? Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Eric Landau said: >Jon doesn't say, but I assume (hope!) that this was not considered a psyche >either. The standard definition of an artificial 2C opening encompasses >all absolute game forces, and surely any hand that will make a game 100% of >the time facing a balanced hand with 0 HCP qualifies as an absolute game >force. I wouldn't choose to open 2C on this hand myself, but I'm sure none >of the ladies in Aunt Tillie's Thursday afternoon bridge group would >consider opening anything else. In principle I agree that it is not a good idea to try to second-guess hand valuations, but I think for example that to open 2C (FG or 23+) on: QJ1098765432 X X - which makes game opposite most 0 HCP hands, would be a psyche. >Surely you're allowed to play certain >sequences as promising "game in hand". And sometimes all it takes to >evaluate "game in hand" is counting your tricks. Yes but the opponents are entitled to a reasonable explanation of your system, and if it includes opening 2C on the example hand above, I think the opponents are entitled to be notified of that. >IMO the right granted to >SOs by the Laws to regulate conventions does not inherently subsume the >right to regulate the methodologies by which players choose to evaluate >their hands. I therefore question the legality of any regulation or >adjudication guideline that explicitly requires the exclusive use of the 4- >3-2-1 point count. This is a quite different issue. Many years ago, I used to argue that Law40D (regulation of conventions) should be interpreted narrowly, as a matter of law. I now have changed my mind, mainly because practically no-one else agreed! I now think it can be interpreted widely, so as, for example, to prevent psyching of conventional bids. Further, an SO could IMO regulate conventional calls by reference to a 4321 point count, or for that matter 7531 point count, or indeed a 1234 point count. Not that I think any of these would necessarily be sensible. From owner-bridge-laws Fri Apr 4 02:12:31 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA26884 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 4 Apr 1997 02:12:31 +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 CAA26879 for ; Fri, 4 Apr 1997 02:12:26 +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 LAA19090 for ; Thu, 3 Apr 1997 11:12:18 -0500 (EST) Received: by cfa183.harvard.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id LAA00401; Thu, 3 Apr 1997 11:12:37 -0500 Date: Thu, 3 Apr 1997 11:12:37 -0500 From: willner@cfa183.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Message-Id: <199704031612.LAA00401@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Mispull or insufficient bid? X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: David Stevenson > So *any* insufficient bid can be changed to a sufficient bid at the > option of the player who made it, unless it has been condoned? Is this > really bridge? Someone *please* tell me Jens is wrong. *Please*. I'd want to read the actual language before expressing a strong opinion, but if L25B really gives a player the option of changing a call, it would seem that this option would apply _before_ LHO has the option of accepting the insufficient bid. Further, it would seem that the correction could be to a double or redouble unless there is specific language forbidding that. I wonder whether the Laws Commission thought this through. Of course if the call is corrected under L25B (as opposed to L27) -- and again assuming I understand the new rules -- the offending side's maximum score is 40%. Any withdrawn calls will be UI for partner in either case. Questions: 1) Does the non-offending side get a minimum score of 60%? 2) What are the scores at IMPs? From owner-bridge-laws Fri Apr 4 02:44:13 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA26997 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 4 Apr 1997 02:44:13 +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 CAA26992 for ; Fri, 4 Apr 1997 02:44:06 +1000 Received: from innet.innet.be (pool03-140.innet.be [194.7.10.140]) by mail.be.innet.net (8.7.6/8.7.3) with SMTP id SAA00773 for ; Thu, 3 Apr 1997 18:44:00 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <3343A2B7.68D1@innet.be> Date: Thu, 03 Apr 1997 13:29:43 +0000 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01 (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: What's a psyche? References: <5W6ivHAKatQzEwjJ@mamos.demon.co.uk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David S has put a question and I choose the following reply to append my reactions onto : original posting : > >>>>In order to be considered a "psych," the rule of thumb is that the > >>suit must be 2 cards shorter or the hand a King weaker than normally > >>promised.<< Karen answered : > > > >I don't like this at all as a guideline for defining psychic bids. > > > >A psyche is more like a gross misstatement of either hand strength or suit > >length or both. Isn't there a definition in the Laws? I ask because I am > >currently away from home and don't have a lawbook handy. and michael amos wrote: > > > yes Karen you remember pretty acurately > > Psychic Call > > A deliberate and gross mis-statement of honour srength or suit length > > Of course this (as so often with the laws) solves absolutely nothing :) That's where the rule-of-thumb comes into use : to define gross. > > What counts as gross depends IMO on the situation and the bid > No it does not. > Personally i would regard a 1 No Trump opening with a singleton as a > psyche playing 12-14 i would not regard an 11 count as a psyche but i > would so regard a 10 count > i would regard a 1 Heart opening with three as a psyche, but playing > five-card majors opening with four would not be > i would not regard a Weak Two advertised as six-cards but made with five > as a psyche > an overcall on 4 i would not consider a psyche but on three it would be > > i guess that what i am saying is that each situation needs to be judged > within the context of vulnerability and system - no simple rule can be > propounded I don't agree. Both the definition in the Lawbook and the rule-of-thumb refer to the actual meaning of the call or play. That is where all the extraneous factors are embedded that you refer to. To define 'gross' as : a king weaker or two-cards weaker is IMO a good thing. It gives a measure. Two cards is an absolute minimum : to open 1Sp on a four-card is not a psych. Neither is opening 1NT with a singleton !!!! A king below strength is also a minimum, but there you have to check what the agreed minimum is. I would never believe anyone (but a beginner) who said they opened only on 13 HCP. With certain distributions (starting at 5422, say) 11 HCP is a normal opening. Then 8HCP constitutes a psych, according to the rule-of-thumb. Personally, I would make this even more - say an Ace. What I do like about the rule-of-thumb is the idea of saying a King rather than 3HCP. That takes care of anyone who might think of using other systems of card valuation. So to summarize : I like the rule-of-thumb idea, but I'd even consider making it an Ace! -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.club.innet.be/~pub02163/index.htm From owner-bridge-laws Fri Apr 4 19:14:34 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id TAA02184 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 4 Apr 1997 19:14:34 +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 TAA02179 for ; Fri, 4 Apr 1997 19:14:25 +1000 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by relay-11.mail.demon.net id ae1109606; 4 Apr 97 10:10 BST Message-ID: Date: Fri, 4 Apr 1997 10:08:06 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Mispull or insufficient bid? In-Reply-To: <199704031612.LAA00401@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 >> So *any* insufficient bid can be changed to a sufficient bid at the >> option of the player who made it, unless it has been condoned? Is this >> really bridge? Someone *please* tell me Jens is wrong. *Please*. > >I'd want to read the actual language before expressing a strong opinion, >but if L25B really gives a player the option of changing a call, it >would seem that this option would apply _before_ LHO has the option >of accepting the insufficient bid. No, the new L25B gives a *right* to a player to change his call *until* LHO has called. So the following will be **perfectly** **legal**: 1] You bid 4S. LHO looks happy, smiles, and reaches towards a red card: Director!!! I want to change my call to 2S. The Director *must* let you. Admittedly there are further complications, and you may be playing for 40%, but at least you won't be getting 0% in 4Sx. Note that you used mannerisms of opponents in your decision making, which is legal, of course. 2] RHO bid 4S. You look happy, smile, and reach towards a red card: suddenly you realise that RHO is still thinking. Damn!!! He's noticed your smile! He wants to change his call to 2S. Quick! Grab your double card. Hehe! Now it is too late for him to change! Got him! Note that you used mannerisms of opponents in your decision making, which is legal, of course. It may not be Bridge, but it is fun!! > Further, it would seem that the >correction could be to a double or redouble unless there is specific >language forbidding that. Of course, or to a pass etc. >I wonder whether the Laws Commission thought this through. My view is well known: L25B has nothing to do with Bridge, and is a Law designed for the benefit of strong players: to be fair, the only one that I can think of. >Of course if the call is corrected under L25B (as opposed to L27) -- >and again assuming I understand the new rules -- the offending side's >maximum score is 40%. Any withdrawn calls will be UI for partner in >either case. Unless the NOs accept the first change: then the offender's will play for 100%. >Questions: >1) Does the non-offending side get a minimum score of 60%? No. >2) What are the scores at IMPs? Presumably NOs play for a maximum of -3 imps. -- 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 Homepage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk From owner-bridge-laws Fri Apr 4 20:05:42 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id UAA02433 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 4 Apr 1997 20:05:42 +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 UAA02428 for ; Fri, 4 Apr 1997 20:05:36 +1000 Received: from innet.innet.be (pool03-139.innet.be [194.7.10.139]) by mail.be.innet.net (8.7.6/8.7.3) with SMTP id MAA25782 for ; Fri, 4 Apr 1997 12:05:32 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <3343EFF8.5AD9@innet.be> Date: Thu, 03 Apr 1997 18:59:20 +0000 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01 (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Mispull or insufficient bid? References: <199704031612.LAA00401@cfa183.harvard.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Steve Willner wrote: > > > From: David Stevenson > > So *any* insufficient bid can be changed to a sufficient bid at the > > option of the player who made it, unless it has been condoned? Is this > > really bridge? Someone *please* tell me Jens is wrong. *Please*. > > I'd want to read the actual language before expressing a strong opinion, > but if L25B really gives a player the option of changing a call, it > would seem that this option would apply _before_ LHO has the option > of accepting the insufficient bid. Further, it would seem that the > correction could be to a double or redouble unless there is specific > language forbidding that. > > I wonder whether the Laws Commission thought this through. > > Of course if the call is corrected under L25B (as opposed to L27) -- > and again assuming I understand the new rules -- the offending side's > maximum score is 40%. Any withdrawn calls will be UI for partner in > either case. > > Questions: > 1) Does the non-offending side get a minimum score of 60%? No they don't - they keep their bad score > 2) What are the scores at IMPs? Average minus always equals -3IMPs -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.club.innet.be/~pub02163/index.htm From owner-bridge-laws Sat Apr 5 00:32:25 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA05984 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 5 Apr 1997 00:32:25 +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 AAA05979 for ; Sat, 5 Apr 1997 00:32:19 +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 JAA03905 for ; Fri, 4 Apr 1997 09:32:14 -0500 (EST) Received: by cfa183.harvard.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id JAA00912; Fri, 4 Apr 1997 09:32:35 -0500 Date: Fri, 4 Apr 1997 09:32:35 -0500 From: willner@cfa183.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Message-Id: <199704041432.JAA00912@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Mispull or insufficient bid? Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: David Stevenson > No, the new L25B gives a *right* to a player to change his call > *until* LHO has called. I thought that was what I said; why the "No?" I merely pointed out that the right would seem still to be present if the original call is an insufficient bid. In particular, calling the director to deal with the insufficient bid would not appear to compromise the offender's right to change his call under L25B. Of course all this is qualified by my not having read the new Laws. Is this an incorrect understanding? [interesting examples deleted] > Unless the NOs accept the first change: then the offender's will play > for 100%. This is a new wrinkle, I think, or perhaps I've missed it. The NO's have the right to give back the 60% without any benefit to themselves?? Why would they wish to do this, since the changed call will stand regardless? [I'll be away until next Wednesday, so don't expect a reply until then. Cheers to all.] From owner-bridge-laws Sat Apr 5 16:26:03 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id QAA08990 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 5 Apr 1997 16:26:03 +1000 Received: from emout11.mail.aol.com (emout11.mx.aol.com [198.81.11.26]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id QAA08985 for ; Sat, 5 Apr 1997 16:25:57 +1000 From: DBlizzard@aol.com Received: (from root@localhost) by emout11.mail.aol.com (8.7.6/8.7.3/AOL-2.0.0) id BAA05894 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sat, 5 Apr 1997 01:25:23 -0500 (EST) Date: Sat, 5 Apr 1997 01:25:23 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <970405012522_1085634714@emout11.mail.aol.com> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: What is a psyche? Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk << << FLMaster39@mindspring.com wrote: >In order to be considered a "psych," the rule of thumb is that the >suit must be 2 cards shorter or the hand a King weaker than normally >promised. This is a quote from RGB. What does anyone think of the "rule of thumb"? >> I believe the original rule was actually a rule for what was not a psyche. I believe it came from an article in the ACBL Bulletin about psyches. I bellieve it stated that any bid that was within 1 card of expected length & a Queen in expected strength was NOT a psyche. Thus opening a 11-15 Flannery bid with 9 HCP or with 4-4 in the majors would not be considered a psyche (of course there could still be a concealed agreement, that must be disclosed). This was not intended to say that any bid outside those parameters was necessarily a psyche. Although committees may be taking it as so. David A. Blizzard From owner-bridge-laws Sat Apr 5 18:21:06 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id SAA09099 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 5 Apr 1997 18:21:06 +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 SAA09094 for ; Sat, 5 Apr 1997 18:20:59 +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 KAA18086 for ; Sat, 5 Apr 1997 10:20:54 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from default (cph57.ppp.dknet.dk [194.192.100.57]) by pip.dknet.dk (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id KAA18213 for ; Sat, 5 Apr 1997 10:20:50 +0200 Message-Id: <199704050820.KAA18213@pip.dknet.dk> Comments: Authenticated sender is From: "Jens & Bodil" Organization: Alesia Software To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Sat, 5 Apr 1997 10:21:14 +0200 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: David Stevenson > Steve Willner wrote: > > >> From: David Stevenson > >> So *any* insufficient bid can be changed to a sufficient bid at the > >> option of the player who made it, unless it has been condoned? Is this > >> really bridge? Someone *please* tell me Jens is wrong. *Please*. > > > >I'd want to read the actual language before expressing a strong opinion, > >but if L25B really gives a player the option of changing a call, it > >would seem that this option would apply _before_ LHO has the option > >of accepting the insufficient bid. > > No, the new L25B gives a *right* to a player to change his call > *until* LHO has called. So the following will be **perfectly** > **legal**: > > 1] You bid 4S. LHO looks happy, smiles, and reaches towards a red card: > Director!!! I want to change my call to 2S. The Director *must* let > you. Admittedly there are further complications, and you may be playing > for 40%, but at least you won't be getting 0% in 4Sx. Note that you > used mannerisms of opponents in your decision making, which is legal, of > course. > > 2] RHO bid 4S. You look happy, smile, and reach towards a red card: > suddenly you realise that RHO is still thinking. Damn!!! He's noticed > your smile! He wants to change his call to 2S. Quick! Grab your > double card. Hehe! Now it is too late for him to change! Got him! > Note that you used mannerisms of opponents in your decision making, > which is legal, of course. > > It may not be Bridge, but it is fun!! In view of all this, when playing with screens it seems better to have your LHO as screenmate than your RHO. Am I serious? I don't really know. Anyway, I (also) think that L25B has gone from bad to worse in the 1997 laws. -- Jens Brix Christiansen, Denmark From owner-bridge-laws Sun Apr 6 04:23:30 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA12475 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 6 Apr 1997 04:23:30 +1000 Received: from emout16.mail.aol.com (emout16.mx.aol.com [198.81.11.42]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id EAA12470 for ; Sun, 6 Apr 1997 04:23:24 +1000 From: DANDEE4727@aol.com Received: (from root@localhost) by emout16.mail.aol.com (8.7.6/8.7.3/AOL-2.0.0) id NAA09991 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Sat, 5 Apr 1997 13:22:50 -0500 (EST) Date: Sat, 5 Apr 1997 13:22:50 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <970405132250_-501438854@emout16.mail.aol.com> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au, DBlizzard@aol.com Subject: Re: What is a psyche? Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In a message dated 97-04-05 03:09:45 EST, you write: << bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au >> We had a two club (strong) open with S - 8 H - 6 D - AKQJ9876 C - Q86 Opener claimed 3 losing trick count - ergo 10 winners. One of the other directors called ACBL. She was told that winning tricks had to be based on worst possible case. i.e one spade loser, one heart loser, 3 club losers and 1 diamond loser (T5432 off sides). Therefore a forbidden psyche. From owner-bridge-laws Mon Apr 7 01:25:40 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA17000 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 7 Apr 1997 01:25:40 +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 BAA16995 for ; Mon, 7 Apr 1997 01:25:34 +1000 Received: from innet.innet.be (pool03-429.innet.be [194.7.14.129]) by mail.be.innet.net (8.7.6/8.7.3) with SMTP id RAA08496 for ; Sun, 6 Apr 1997 17:25:29 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <33477FA8.565C@innet.be> Date: Sun, 06 Apr 1997 11:49:12 +0000 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01 (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: What is a psyche? References: <970405132250_-501438854@emout16.mail.aol.com> <33477E25.4D59@innet.be> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I wrote: > > > In the case you cite above, the player's intent was to show a hand > capable of reaching game on its own. It was explained like that. > So there can be no question of a psyche. > And certainly not of a forbidden psyche (a contraditio in terminis BTW, > as L40 specifically authorizes psyches). > Oops, I just realized that there are forbidden psyches. In strong openings these can be forbidden (and probably are). But my reaction stays : since player intended to show a strong hand, and thought it was, there is no psyche. Of course when you have to decide on this specific issue, you might start to disbelieve a player, who now may be aware that it is best for him NOT to call it a psyche. Hey, I just discovered the reason for your posting ! So to answer that one : this can only be done by the director at the table : was the player smiling when he said he had 10 winners ? Or just plain stupid ? -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.club.innet.be/~pub02163/index.htm From owner-bridge-laws Mon Apr 7 01:25:30 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA16993 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 7 Apr 1997 01:25:30 +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 BAA16988 for ; Mon, 7 Apr 1997 01:25:21 +1000 Received: from innet.innet.be (pool03-429.innet.be [194.7.14.129]) by mail.be.innet.net (8.7.6/8.7.3) with SMTP id RAA08467 for ; Sun, 6 Apr 1997 17:25:08 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <33477E25.4D59@innet.be> Date: Sun, 06 Apr 1997 11:42:45 +0000 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01 (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: What is a psyche? References: <970405132250_-501438854@emout16.mail.aol.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk DANDEE4727@aol.com wrote: > > In a message dated 97-04-05 03:09:45 EST, you write: > > << bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au >> > > We had a two club (strong) open with > S - 8 > H - 6 > D - AKQJ9876 > C - Q86 > Opener claimed 3 losing trick count - ergo 10 winners. > One of the other directors called ACBL. > She was told that winning tricks had to be based on worst possible case. > i.e one spade loser, one heart loser, 3 club losers and 1 diamond loser > (T5432 off sides). Therefore a forbidden psyche. Nahh ... What is the basis of this discussion ? Sometimes an actual hand does not fall within the specified parameters that were explained at the table. Now the director must decide which of two is the case : - it is a wrong explanation : so there might be redress. - it is a psyche : so there is no redress possible. Sometimes the player who knows that he has a better chance when going for the psyche will try to explain it as a psyche. Therefor we need a rule(-of-thumb) to decide when something is NOT a psyche. As has been posted, the original rule-of-thumb was just that : something is not a psyche when it falls within a one-card or one-queen range of stated meaning. In the case you cite above, the player's intent was to show a hand capable of reaching game on its own. It was explained like that. So there can be no question of a psyche. And certainly not of a forbidden psyche (a contraditio in terminis BTW, as L40 specifically authorizes psyches). The only question can be if it was a wrong explanation. I don't think so. It may be bad bridge judgment, but that's not an issue. Player wanted to show ten tricks, and he did. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.club.innet.be/~pub02163/index.htm From owner-bridge-laws Mon Apr 7 06:29:32 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA18049 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 7 Apr 1997 06:29:32 +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 GAA18044 for ; Mon, 7 Apr 1997 06:29:25 +1000 Received: from coruncanius.demon.co.uk ([194.222.115.176]) by relay-11.mail.demon.net id aa1119179; 6 Apr 97 20:42 BST Message-ID: Date: Tue, 1 Apr 1997 02:17:22 +0100 To: David Stevenson Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Labeo Subject: Re: ******** defence In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In message , David Stevenson writes >Alan wrote: >>David S. wrote:> >>Alan LeBendig wrote:>> >>> >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;-). David S. then wrote: > >>> To use L12C1 when a result was obtained is illegal. Labeo remarks: True; but the Law allows a 12C2 award in matchpoints which equates to 60-40% if the Director believes this is as close as he can get to the objective in the Law. And the AC can arrive there on the simple basis of 'doing equity'. Labeo From owner-bridge-laws Mon Apr 7 06:42:22 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA18099 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 7 Apr 1997 06:42:22 +1000 Received: from mail2.isys.net ([194.64.236.33]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id GAA18094 for ; Mon, 7 Apr 1997 06:42:17 +1000 Received: from mail1.isys.net[193.96.224.33] by mail2.isys.net with smtp (Smail 3.2 #2 -iSYS-); id m0wDylQ-000HdoC; Sun, 6 Apr 1997 22:42:12 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from meckwell [194.195.202.251] by mail1.isys.net with smtp (Smail 3.2 #3 -iSYS-); id m0wDylQ-001LD3C; Sun, 6 Apr 1997 22:42:12 +0200 (MET DST) Date: Sun, 6 Apr 1997 22:44:57 +0200 (CEST) From: Henk Uijterwaal X-Sender: henk@meckwell Reply-To: Henk Uijterwaal To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: What's a psyche? In-Reply-To: <3342DBA3.2382@popd.ix.netcom.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > > >In order to be considered a "psych," the rule of thumb is that the > > >suit must be 2 cards shorter or the hand a King weaker than normally > > >promised. > > This is a quote from RGB. What does anyone think of the "rule of > > thumb"? > I think it's too narrow and restrictive, and it becomes more so as the > HCP content of the hands increases. Some actual examples that came > before the AC at ACBL national tournaments: > 1. Kx The player opened 3NT, showing a balanced > Kx 25-27 HCP. He stated that his hand was best > Ax described by this bid, and it accurately > AKQJxxx portrayed the trick-taking potential. The > matter was appealed on another issue, but the > committee recognized that the operant ACBL > psyche definition would classify this as a > psyche. Before calling this a psyche, one should look at the system that the player used. If he had a sequence to show about 9 tricks with a long running suit, then you might ask why he didn't use that one instead of opening 3NT. If he had not, then there is a lot to say for 3NT, the trick taking potential of the hands more than compensates the missing points. Is this committee really claiming that opening this hand 3NT is a psyche, but opening 3NT on KQ/Kx/Ax/AKQJxxx is not? > 2. void The player felt this justified a strong, > AKJ109xxxx artificial 2C opening. He argued that he > void was not trying to fool anybody; he just > Axxx thought he found the best way to describe > the hand. The book on bidding 9400's with a solid suit and an ace still hasn't been written. A 9400 shows up once in every 100000 hands, which is something like once every 20 to 30 years for an average player. The player here was (probably) going to follow up with a heart bid. How can you call a reasonable attempt (2C to show the 10 tricks, some number of hearts to show the suit) to describe a hand most of us will never hold, a psyche? > So, IMO, any psyche definition ought to include the concept of > "scienter," a legal term which imputes a mental state embracing intent > to deceive, manipulate or defraud. I don't like this. Yes, a psyche is intended to deceive but how are you going to sort this out without turning the committee room into a court room? 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 Mon Apr 7 12:47:13 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id MAA19147 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 7 Apr 1997 12:47:13 +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 MAA19142 for ; Mon, 7 Apr 1997 12:47:07 +1000 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by relay-6.mail.demon.net id aa0626915; 7 Apr 97 3:42 BST Message-ID: <3vG8rOCR6FSzEwwo@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Mon, 7 Apr 1997 03:40:17 +0100 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 Tim West-meads wrote: >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. You've said this before, and discovered that most people disagree with you. > IMO it is very unusual for a (UK) committee to agree >unanimously on a 'best action' and still rule something else as an LA. It is certainly a common occurrence. It is perfectly normal for an AC to consider one action as 60% and another as 40%. If the 60% action is the one suggested by the UI any competent AC will adjust and frequently do. > Indeed >I have yet to encounter a TD who rules against what *he* considers the 'best >action'. Again, this is a common occurrence in the 60-40 type case quoted above. -- David Stevenson MayDay Swiss Pairs in Liverpool! Nanki Poo is FOUR! Hughes Simultaneous Pairs at end of June! nankipoo@blakjak.demon.co.uk See my Homepage for details Homepage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk From owner-bridge-laws Mon Apr 7 12:54:19 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id MAA19198 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 7 Apr 1997 12:54:19 +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 MAA19192 for ; Mon, 7 Apr 1997 12:54:13 +1000 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by relay-5.mail.demon.net id aa0511456; 7 Apr 97 3:42 BST Message-ID: Date: Mon, 7 Apr 1997 03:40:50 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Mispull or insufficient bid? In-Reply-To: <199704041432.JAA00912@cfa183.harvard.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Steve Willner wrote: >This is a new wrinkle, I think, or perhaps I've missed it. The NO's >have the right to give back the 60% without any benefit to >themselves?? Why would they wish to do this, since the changed call >will stand regardless? Changed call stand regardless? Where have you been since 1987? :))) If I bid 3D and try and change it to 4S, you do not think that I am limited to those two calls, surely? If that happens the next player could accept 4S but there is no penalty. If he doesn't, then I can bid 3D and partner must pass once. Otherwise, I can make any other legal call whatsoever. This silences partner forever, invites lead penalties, and puts a maximum of 40% on my score, but I may feel it is worth it. All of this is unchanged from the current Laws apart from the 40% bit. Oh, and the fact that the player has a right to change, which some organisations did not accept: the new Laws make it clear that he can. Try this, next time you have a whopping penalty double [quickly, before the new Laws come in]: bid 3D, then say I want to pass. The TD will offer the next person the chance to accept [which he won't take] so you get offered the above. Double, and your partner can't take it out! Nah, I am only joking, L23A comes to the TD's aid. -- David Stevenson MayDay Swiss Pairs in Liverpool! Nanki Poo is FOUR! Hughes Simultaneous Pairs at end of June! nankipoo@blakjak.demon.co.uk See my Homepage for details Homepage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk From owner-bridge-laws Mon Apr 7 13:04:51 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id NAA19249 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 7 Apr 1997 13:04:51 +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 NAA19244 for ; Mon, 7 Apr 1997 13:04:46 +1000 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by relay-11.mail.demon.net id aa1104172; 7 Apr 97 3:45 BST Message-ID: <7vM$LgC59FSzEwRL@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Mon, 7 Apr 1997 03:44:09 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: What is a psyche? In-Reply-To: <970405012522_1085634714@emout11.mail.aol.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Forwarded from Patrick Carter At 18:47 2/04/97 +0100, you wrote: >FLMaster39@mindspring.com wrote: > >>In order to be considered a "psych," the rule of thumb is that the >>suit must be 2 cards shorter or the hand a King weaker than normally >>promised. > > This is a quote from RGB. What does anyone think of the "rule of >thumb"? > >-- >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 > Homepage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk > Defining a psyche to be within certain parameters will always be awkward. According to the Laws it is a gross and deliberate misstatement of either suit length or high card strength, but even that very general description has loopholes. For example playing a natural system with weak NT where a club might be a 3 card suit is it a psyche to open 1C on Axx Kx AKQxx xxx with the intention of rebidding NT and averting a club lead? Perhaps a psyche should be defined as a bid made with the intention to deceive the opponents rather than to inform partner. -- Patrick Carter Full-time director Auckland Bridge Club Auckland NEW ZEALAND Chairman, Laws & Ethics NZCBA Email tripack@ihug.co.nz From owner-bridge-laws Mon Apr 7 22:35:25 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id WAA21573 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 7 Apr 1997 22:35:25 +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 WAA21568 for ; Mon, 7 Apr 1997 22:35:11 +1000 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by relay-10.mail.demon.net id aa1019412; 7 Apr 97 13:08 BST Message-ID: Date: Mon, 7 Apr 1997 13:07:23 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Insufficient bid In-Reply-To: <$+Ouv4BPP0NzEw49@blakjak.demon.co.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.01 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 >?? > 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 ------ Eric Landau wrote: >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. L35 refers to an inadmissible call specified below, and then quotes four types in L35A, B, C, D: I believe that it refers to those four types, and as this is not one of them so L35 does not apply. ------ Adam Beneschan wrote: >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: As before, L35 is not relevant here. ------ Robin Barker wrote: >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. I prefer my reading of L35A, B, C, D but the effect is the same since L36 to L39 cover the same set of possibilities. >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 ..". ------ E.Angad-Gaur wrote: >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 think we have effectively discarded L11B as a weapon in the TD's armoury. If it were literally true then there would be no penalties for revokes, hesitations and other similar happenings. The lawmakers have lent support to this view of L11B by dropping it completely from the 1997 Laws. ------ Adam Beneschan wrote: >I had forgotten about 11B. >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. >>I still think the cancelled redouble constitutes UI for redoubler's >>partner. I think you should continue to forget about L11B, though the argument why it should not apply to *this* case is an interesting one. ------ David Martin wrote: >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. Legal, certainly, but probably unnecessary. A judgement matter for the TD. ------ Adam Beneschan wrote: >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. Your timing is a little off. :) In the 1997 Laws, the change in L16C is as you say - but - we are still subject to the 1987 Laws! The 1997 Laws will be operational in the ACBL from May 27th [approx: from memory] and from various unknown times in the RoW. >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). It is my opinion that you do not want to issue PPs except to stop future occurrences of the transgression. When a person is getting a poor result from a ruling there is no need to issue a PP, and there is rarely a need at any time. After all, think of all the other transgressors who do not get PPs! Still, it is a judgement matter for the TD, and not very important for the basic ruling here. If L11D does not apply, L90 will, so a PP may be issued legally, and should be if the TD has any feeling that the players will transgress again otherwise. ------ Herman De Wael wrote: >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. Very cunning. However L19B1 tells us that a player may only redouble the last preceding double, by an opponent, etc. Despite the fact that the double should not have been made, and may be going to be cancelled, the redouble was still made after a double by an opponent. Illegal? Yes! Inadmissible? No! The definition of inadmissible by inference from reading L36 is one that is not admitted by L19: but this is. In other words, an inadmissible redouble is one where there was no double, or it was by partner, or there has been a bid since. It does not say that the double has to be legal. This one is admissible though illegal so L36 does not apply. Furthermore, the redouble was in rotation. That still does not make it legal, but I do not believe it comes under L29A, since it followed a call to the right, albeit illegal. I do not think that cancelling a call that has been made suddenly changes a call made in rotation to one out of rotation because the previous one no longer exists! >And of course, if the director forgot to tell north that he could not >double, an A+/A+ will be the correct solution. I am happy with that! ------ I am pleased we have had this thread. When it started I had no idea what the correct answer was. While I believe now that I know the answer it is because of reading the other articles. According to L27B3 the double is cancelled: his partner must pass throughout and lead penalties may apply. L35 does not apply [see earlier argument]. Robin Barker wrote: >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 agree with this: there is *no* provision to let it stand. The redouble is not inadmissible so L35 does not apply [see earlier argument]. Neither is it out of turn. L11A does not apply [the TD is there!] and we do not use L11B [and one article proved it would not apply anyway]. What do we do with the redouble? Law 10 - Assessment of Penalty B. Cancellation of Payment or Waiver of Penalty The Director may allow or cancel any payment or waiver of penalties made by the players without instructions. This seems one possibility to me. Would you consider the redouble an attempt to waive penalties for the double? It certainly isn't allowed [L9B2]. None of this seems much use. Unless you consider L10B applies [which is a long shot] there does not seem to be any Law covering it. What about the Kaplan doctrine: look for a Law that allows you to do what you think is just? Once you decide that you are not going to allow the double, you will certainly cancel the redouble, and you want it to be UI for redoubler's partner. Since nothing better occurs, I will cancel under L10B. L16C2 permits this redouble to be AI, but I will tell them that if they use it, I shall make a further adjustment at the end under L12A1. For the specific violation of Law of making the redouble, the original side who made the insufficient bid are NOs, ie we have two separate infractions, each one with offenders and NOs. Messy? Certainly. The last bit will be easier under the 1997 Laws when the redouble will be UI under L16C. In effect I am cancelling the double and redouble and making the redouble UI to partner, but I need L12A1 for the last bit. >From the original options offered: > 2) Redouble is cancelled without penalty and rules regarding an >attempt >to substitute double for an insufficient bid apply Nearly: but not completely without penalty. The redouble must be UI for partner [otherwise you should always call to give partner info in this situation: a free play as they call it in American Football] but will be AI for opponents. OK? ------ Robin Barker wrote: >I rule (2). So do I - nearly! ------ Adam Beneschan wrote: >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); On the money! However, the justification in Law is required. >however, I indicated how I could see letting the double and redouble >stand as a possibility. Whoops! -- David Stevenson MayDay Swiss Pairs in Liverpool! Nanki Poo is FOUR! Hughes Simultaneous Pairs at end of June! nankipoo@blakjak.demon.co.uk See my Homepage for details Homepage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk From owner-bridge-laws Tue Apr 8 02:42:32 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA24996 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 8 Apr 1997 02:42:32 +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 CAA24991 for ; Tue, 8 Apr 1997 02:42:25 +1000 Received: from localhost by flash.irvine.com id aa06253; 7 Apr 97 9:41 PDT To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au CC: adam@flash.irvine.com Subject: Re: What is a psyche? In-reply-to: Your message of "Sat, 05 Apr 1997 13:22:50 PST." <970405132250_-501438854@emout16.mail.aol.com> Date: Mon, 07 Apr 1997 09:41:52 PDT From: Adam Beneschan Message-ID: <9704070941.aa06253@flash.irvine.com> Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > > In a message dated 97-04-05 03:09:45 EST, you write: > > << bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au >> > > We had a two club (strong) open with > S - 8 > H - 6 > D - AKQJ9876 > C - Q86 > Opener claimed 3 losing trick count - ergo 10 winners. > One of the other directors called ACBL. > She was told that winning tricks had to be based on worst possible case. > i.e one spade loser, one heart loser, 3 club losers and 1 diamond loser > (T5432 off sides). Therefore a forbidden psyche. I've having a lot of trouble believing that someone would be told that winning tricks has to be based on worst possible case. My guess is that the director called ACBL after closing hours and one of the janitorial staff picked up the phone. Really, whoever at the ACBL told the director this should be taken out and shot, unless this was the director's misinterpretation of something somebody said. No, this is not a 2C opening in my book--not even close. I'm pretty stingy with my 2C openings, anyway. However, this is clearly an 8-trick hand; it is stupid bridge to count it as a 7-trick hand because the trumps could be 5-0-0 offside. If I pick up AKQ1042 AKJ AKQ x, I'm opening 2C. Am I really supposed to treat this as an 8-trick hand because the missing spades could all be on my left with the queen of hearts also offside? Or should I treat it as a 7-trick hand because in the "worst case", LHO could also ruff one of my diamond tricks? -- Adam From owner-bridge-laws Tue Apr 8 06:52:19 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA25939 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 8 Apr 1997 06:52:19 +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 GAA25934 for ; Tue, 8 Apr 1997 06:52:10 +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 AA21541; Mon, 7 Apr 1997 16:52:00 -0400 Received: from by Panoramix.UQSS.UQuebec.ca with SMTP (1.39.111.2/15.6) id AA270196318; Mon, 7 Apr 1997 16:51:58 -0400 X-Openmail-Hops: 1 Date: Mon, 7 Apr 97 16:51:21 -0400 Message-Id: Subject: Calling for a revoke To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Item Subject: Texte du message Hi all. I would like to know when it is too late to call the TD for an established revoke. Law 62D says that a revoke at 12th trick must be corrected if somebody ask for before 4 hands are back in board. I see nothing in 61 to 64 laws saying when it is too late to call the director for a revoke made by opponnents on other tricks. Law 79A says that players must agree on the number of tricks made by each team before hands be returned in board. Law 79B add that TD may change the score if he is called before the round is over. When a player call for a revoke by opponnents after hands are back in board, but the round is not over (defined by Law 8), is it possible for TD to give penality tricks? As it is impossible to check the cards, does it need an agreement by the offending side to change the score? Any other comment on this topic is welcome.... Laval Du Breuil Quebec city From owner-bridge-laws Tue Apr 8 07:25:10 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA26020 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 8 Apr 1997 07:25:10 +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 HAA26014 for ; Tue, 8 Apr 1997 07:25:03 +1000 Received: (from smap@localhost) by msri.org (8.8.2/8.7.2) id OAA09914; Mon, 7 Apr 1997 14:24:58 -0700 (PDT) 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 sma009902; Mon Apr 7 14:24:10 1997 Received: by euclid.msri.org (8.7/MSRI) id OAA07086; Mon, 7 Apr 1997 14:24:12 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 7 Apr 1997 14:24:12 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199704072124.OAA07086@euclid.msri.org> From: David Grabiner To: Laval_DuBreuil@UQSS.UQuebec.CA CC: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au In-reply-to: (Laval_DuBreuil@UQSS.UQuebec.CA) Subject: Re: Calling for a revoke Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk You write: > I would like to know when it is too late to call the TD for an > established revoke. > Law 62D says that a revoke at 12th trick must be corrected if somebody > ask for before 4 hands are back in board. I see nothing in 61 to 64 laws > saying when it is too late to call the director for a revoke made by > opponnents on other tricks. > Law 79A says that players must agree on the number of tricks made by > each team before hands be returned in board. > Law 79B add that TD may change the score if he is called before the > round is over. > When a player call for a revoke by opponnents after hands are back in > board, but the round is not over (defined by Law 8), is it possible for > TD to give penality tricks? As it is impossible to check the cards, does > it need an agreement by the offending side to change the score? Assuuming that the non-offenders have not yet called on the next deal, this revoke is subject to penalty under Law 64B; if there is a dispute about the fact of the revoke, the director must establish the facts, decide whether to impose the penalty, and notify the other side of the right to appeal. And even if the round has ended, the director could still rule to restore equity under Law 64C if he determines that there has been a revoke. -- 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 Apr 8 10:38:55 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA26854 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 8 Apr 1997 10:38:55 +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 KAA26849 for ; Tue, 8 Apr 1997 10:38:48 +1000 Received: from coruncanius.demon.co.uk ([194.222.115.176]) by relay-10.mail.demon.net id aa1001005; 8 Apr 97 1:21 BST Message-ID: Date: Sun, 6 Apr 1997 23:41:53 +0100 To: "Burn, David" Cc: "'Bridge Laws'" From: Labeo Subject: Re: What's a psyche? In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In message , "Burn, David" writes >David Stevenson wrote: >> >>>>In order to be considered a "psych," the rule of thumb is that the >>>>suit must be 2 cards shorter or the hand a King weaker than normally >>>>promised. >> >>>This is a quote from RGB. What does anyone think of the "rule of >>>thumb"? David Burn replied to the question and added: >A "tactical error" is just about any opening bid made by Joe Fawcett. Labeo: Are you standing against Joe in the election David? But to return to the question: I am broadly in agreement with David, although I might express it as "any call which gives partner incorrect information about the hand in a significant respect, and which consequently will also mislead opponents - hopefully to the advantage of the psycher's own side". Some significant breaches of partnership agreement are inadvertent but partner should have no better chance of picking it up than with an intentional psyche. I agree with those who are saying that whether the call misleads 'grossly' is a matter of bridge judgment in each instance. And I am not impressed by players, directors or ACs who need a crutch for making a bridge judgment. Finally, deviations should not be treated as psyches. Labeo From owner-bridge-laws Wed Apr 9 04:37:40 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA02694 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 9 Apr 1997 04:37:40 +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 EAA02689 for ; Wed, 9 Apr 1997 04:37:34 +1000 Received: (from smap@localhost) by msri.org (8.8.2/8.7.2) id LAA24991 for ; Tue, 8 Apr 1997 11:37:30 -0700 (PDT) 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 sma024983; Tue Apr 8 11:37:17 1997 Received: by euclid.msri.org (8.7/MSRI) id LAA07978; Tue, 8 Apr 1997 11:37:19 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 8 Apr 1997 11:37:19 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199704081837.LAA07978@euclid.msri.org> From: David Grabiner To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: ACBL Bulletin article on new Law for penalty cards Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk An article in the ACBL Bulletin appears to create a confusing intepretation of the UI rules for penalty cards. If partner has a penalty card, it is AI that he must play it, but it is UI that he holds it. The example in the Bulletin is that partner has opened 1NT, and corrects a revoke to make his DA a major penalty card. You are counting his points, and know that he cannot hold both the CK and DA; it is UI that declarer holds the CK. And what about the situation when a lead penalty is imposed? Suppose that declarer forbids you to lead a diamond, allowing partner to pick up his DA. Is it now UI that partner has the DA? The interpretation I prefer is that the fact that partner has the card is AI, but the fact that he chose to play the card is UI. If partner leads the DQ out of turn, it is AI that he holds the DQ, but it is UI that he probably holds the DJ and doesn't hold the DK, and also UI that he had some reason to lead diamonds when the auction suggested a spade lead. -- 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 Apr 9 06:10:45 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA03053 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 9 Apr 1997 06:10:45 +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 GAA03048 for ; Wed, 9 Apr 1997 06:10:39 +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 QAA08226 for ; Tue, 8 Apr 1997 16:10:32 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <1.5.4.32.19970408201126.006a2b18@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, 08 Apr 1997 16:11:26 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: ACBL Bulletin article on new Law for penalty cards Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 11:37 AM 4/8/97 -0700, David wrote: >An article in the ACBL Bulletin appears to create a confusing >intepretation of the UI rules for penalty cards. If partner has a >penalty card, it is AI that he must play it, but it is UI that he holds >it. Mr. Blaiss was, I think, trying to clarify the confusion caused by the wording of the new law. Some folks have tried to make sense out of a superficial reading, which appears to say that the requirement for partner to play his penalty card is AI but the fact that he holds it is UI, which simply doesn't make sense. You can't know that partner will play a card which he might not hold at his next legal opportunity. >The example in the Bulletin is that partner has opened 1NT, and corrects >a revoke to make his DA a major penalty card. You are counting his >points, and know that he cannot hold both the CK and DA; it is UI that >declarer holds the CK. I read the new wording somewhat more liberally, i.e. I would prefer that partner's not holding the CK be AI in this example. Mr. Blaiss's reading makes sense logically, but strikes me as neither enforceable nor adjudicable. >And what about the situation when a lead penalty is imposed? Suppose >that declarer forbids you to lead a diamond, allowing partner to pick up >his DA. Is it now UI that partner has the DA? I don't see how it could be. It would mean that I'm allowed to know that partner has the DA at (say) tricks 4 thorugh 8, but must "lose my memory" at trick 9. Even if that could sensibly be enforced through adjudication (which I don't see how it can) it would amount to penalizing a side for having paid a penalty for a previous infraction. It would mean that information I'm entitled to when playing as second hand to a trick would suddenly "disappear" if I get on lead. >The interpretation I prefer is that the fact that partner has the card >is AI, but the fact that he chose to play the card is UI. If partner >leads the DQ out of turn, it is AI that he holds the DQ, but it is UI >that he probably holds the DJ and doesn't hold the DK, and also UI that >he had some reason to lead diamonds when the auction suggested a spade >lead. This is much the same interpretation that we came to in a previous discussion of this point. We suggested the following, which both makes sense and can be applied in practice: If a card falls randomly out of partner's hand onto the table, there is no UI; such cases are treated as they would have been under the old wording. If, however, partner incurs a penalty card when leading or following, you are only entitled to the same information you would have had had it fallen randomly out of his hand. In other words, you are entitled to know that he has the card, and any inferences you can take directly from the fact that he has the card is AI. You may not, however, take advantage of any inferences derived from the circumstances under which the card was exposed (as in David's example, where the fact that he tried to lead the DQ tells you that he holds the DJ but not the DK, or that he has a reason to want to lead diamonds, none of which would be known if the DQ had been exposed accidentally); that is UI. This is new. 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 Apr 9 07:02:33 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA03210 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 9 Apr 1997 07:02:33 +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 HAA03203 for ; Wed, 9 Apr 1997 07:02:24 +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 RAA09858 for ; Tue, 8 Apr 1997 17:02:19 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <1.5.4.32.19970408210312.006a57f4@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, 08 Apr 1997 17:03:12 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: ACBL Bulletin article on new Law for penalty cards Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 04:11 PM 4/8/97 -0400, I wrote: >At 11:37 AM 4/8/97 -0700, David wrote: >>The example in the Bulletin is that partner has opened 1NT, and corrects >>a revoke to make his DA a major penalty card. You are counting his >>points, and know that he cannot hold both the CK and DA; it is UI that >>declarer holds the CK. > >I read the new wording somewhat more liberally, i.e. I would prefer that >partner's not holding the CK be AI in this example. Mr. Blaiss's reading >makes sense logically, but strikes me as neither enforceable nor adjudicable. On second thought, I take it back -- Mr. Blaiss's reading does not make sense, period. The Laws tell us what information we are authorized to use in selecting our calls and plays. The Laws do not, however, distinguish between "authorized" and "unauthorized" use of logic; you may be forbidden, in appropriate circumstances, from making use of specific "facts", or, in logic terminology, specific premises, but where you are authorized to "know" those facts, you cannot be prevented from applying logic to them. So if the proposition "(A and B) implies C" is true by logic alone, and if both A and B are "known" (i.e. AI), then C cannot, by definition, be "unknown" (i.e. UI). The American Heritage Dictionary tells us that "information" is "knowledge derived from study, experience, or instruction". A "conclusion" is "the proposition concluded from one or more premises; a deduction". "Conclusions" are not, by definition, "information"; they are deductions inferred from information. "C" above -- the "conclusion" that partner does not hold the CK -- is not information; it is therefore nonsense to try to label it either "AI" or "UI". Only the premises are information; if they are all "authorized" the conclusion inferred from them is perforce "authorized". 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 Apr 9 07:29:26 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA03271 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 9 Apr 1997 07:29:26 +1000 Received: from mipl7.jpl.nasa.gov (mipl7.jpl.nasa.gov [128.149.177.7]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id HAA03266 for ; Wed, 9 Apr 1997 07:29:19 +1000 Received: from tintin.JPL.NASA.GOV (tintin.jpl.nasa.gov [137.78.77.70]) by mipl7.jpl.nasa.gov (8.6.12/8.6.6) with ESMTP id OAA01158 for <@mipl7.JPL.NASA.GOV:bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au>; Tue, 8 Apr 1997 14:28:44 -0700 Received: by tintin.JPL.NASA.GOV (940816.SGI.8.6.9/930416.SGI.MIPS) for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au id OAA10602; Tue, 8 Apr 1997 14:29:11 -0700 Date: Tue, 8 Apr 1997 14:29:11 -0700 From: jeff@tintin.JPL.NASA.GOV (Jeff Goldsmith) Message-Id: <199704082129.OAA10602@tintin.JPL.NASA.GOV> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: UI from withdrawn whatnot Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk My only information about the new laws is quoted from David Stevenson, to wit: "L50 now makes it clear that a Major Penalty card is unauthorised information for partner, except for the fact that he has to play it." What is the actual text of the law? While it might make sense that information inferred from the fact that partner has to play the penalty card is authorized, that might well depend upon the exact wording of the new law. For all I know, the laws could read, "and the offender's partner may not base any subsequent defense on the knowledge that his partner has the penalty card, but he may play to the trick appropriately, knowing that the penalty card must be played when required." I doubt that it says this, but what does it really say? --Jeff # "I'm a blonde; I'm a blonde: B-L-A-N-D!" # --- # http://muggy.gg.caltech.edu/~jeff From owner-bridge-laws Wed Apr 9 08:23:38 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA03496 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 9 Apr 1997 08:23:38 +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 IAA03491 for ; Wed, 9 Apr 1997 08:23:32 +1000 Received: from elizian.demon.co.uk ([158.152.48.63]) by relay-6.mail.demon.net id aa0600366; 8 Apr 97 22:41 BST Message-ID: <8dLQUEAH9qSzEwiC@elizian.demon.co.uk> Date: Tue, 8 Apr 1997 21:49:11 +0100 To: David Grabiner Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Ian Muir 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 3.03 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In message <199703212257.OAA02577@boole.msri.org>, David Grabiner writes > >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? > Ian Muir writes: I had a similar case at the week-end. N opened 1S; E called 2D; S called 1NT, then corrected to 2H. I was called. Having established the facts, I was asked (by S) if I would like to see his hand; I explained that I *could* not, without passing information to other players. I then made the mistake of asking him what he *meant* to bid when he bid when he pulled 1NT. He said, with a straight face, "2 hearts." Accordingly, I ruled the bid correctable without penalty. After studying the hand away from the table and finding him with a 7 HCP 2-5-3-3 shape, I realise that I should have gone back and ruled it insufficient, or at least adjusted any damage to non-offenders but that, having asked The Question, I could not do so without calling South a liar!! It is clear *from the hand* that S *intended* to bid 1NT and only corrected after he saw (belatedly) the 2D bid. The insufficient bid ruling can only be given after seeing South's hand and the TD *can not* give this unauthorised information to the players. I think my correct procedure was to rule as I did without asking The Question *directly* and stand ready to protect non-offenders from damage, using an adjusted score if necessary, under LAW:27 B.1.(b) Irrelevantly, the score - NS +50 (about average) was mis-scored on the computer as NS +500 and never spotted by the players, even after The Protest Time (My specialist subject, just ask DWS!!) had elapsed. The computer scorer noticed his error but I worked out that it did not affect either pairs final ranking!! I am, your obedient servant, CDBC --> NEBA --> EBU --> BBL --> ??? Ian Muir From owner-bridge-laws Wed Apr 9 10:50:40 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA04143 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 9 Apr 1997 10:50:40 +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 KAA04138 for ; Wed, 9 Apr 1997 10:50:33 +1000 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by relay-6.mail.demon.net id aa0629914; 8 Apr 97 23:57 BST Message-ID: Date: Tue, 8 Apr 1997 23:56:18 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: UI from withdrawn whatnot In-Reply-To: <199704082129.OAA10602@tintin.JPL.NASA.GOV> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Jeff Goldsmith wrote: >My only information about the new laws is >quoted from David Stevenson, to wit: > >"L50 now makes it clear that a Major Penalty card is >unauthorised information for partner, except for the >fact that he has to play it." > >What is the actual text of the law? Where was everyone when we had the previous discussion? It was long, AFAIR inconclusive, and detailed. Mind you, I am not objecting to a re- run, just showing surprise. Law 50 - Disposition of Penalty Card D. Disposition of Major Penalty Card When a defender has a major penalty card, both the offender and his partner may be subject to restriction, the offender whenever he is to play, the partner when he is to lead. 1. Offender to Play A major penalty card must be played at the first legal opportunity, whether in leading, following suit, discarding or trumping (the requirement that offender must play the card is authorized information for his partner; however, other information arising from facing of the penalty card is unauthorized for partner). If a defender has two or more penalty cards that can legally be played, declarer may designate which is to be played. The obligation to follow suit, or to comply with a lead or play penalty, takes precedence over the obligation to play a major penalty card, but the penalty card must still be left face up on the table and played at the next legal opportunity. -- David Stevenson MayDay Swiss Pairs in Liverpool! Nanki Poo is FOUR! Hughes Simultaneous Pairs at end of June! nankipoo@blakjak.demon.co.uk See my Homepage for details Homepage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk From owner-bridge-laws Wed Apr 9 11:37:56 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id LAA04264 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 9 Apr 1997 11:37:56 +1000 Received: from pimaia2w.prodigy.com (pimaia2w.prodigy.com [198.83.19.115]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id LAA04259 for ; Wed, 9 Apr 1997 11:37:50 +1000 Received: from mime3.prodigy.com (mime3.prodigy.com [192.168.253.27]) by pimaia2w.prodigy.com (8.6.10/8.6.9) with ESMTP id TAA29150 for ; Tue, 8 Apr 1997 19:53:05 -0500 Received: (from root@localhost) by mime3.prodigy.com (8.6.10/8.6.9) id UAB82660 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 8 Apr 1997 20:06:02 -0400 Message-Id: <199704090006.UAB82660@mime3.prodigy.com> X-Mailer: Prodigy Internet GW(v0.9beta) - ae01dm04sc03 From: DMFV47B@prodigy.com ( CHYAH E BURGHARD) Date: Tue, 8 Apr 1997 20:06:02, -0500 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: ACBL Bidding Boxes Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I answered someone privately when this question first came out, but: The procedure that the directors use is to call the person away from the table and ask them if they mispulled or made an insufficient bid, or didn't see a bid etc... If it is a "Technical Error", meaning you simply mispulled, it is correctible without penalty, else get out your lawbook and apply it. ============================================== Having said that, I now cross over into the area of personal opinion. If you call a person away from the table to ask them what happened, you are more likely to have an honest discussion of the facts due to the fact that the people left at the table can't hear you, so no one is put on the spot. I can see someone saying, "I was going to choose action A until I saw my RHO's bid, that I didn't see before, now I want action B." Oops! and didn't know they weren't suppose to say that. -Chyah From owner-bridge-laws Wed Apr 9 13:37:29 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id NAA04637 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 9 Apr 1997 13:37:29 +1000 Received: from emout06.mail.aol.com (emout06.mx.aol.com [198.81.11.97]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id NAA04632 for ; Wed, 9 Apr 1997 13:37:23 +1000 From: DBlizzard@aol.com Received: (from root@localhost) by emout06.mail.aol.com (8.7.6/8.7.3/AOL-2.0.0) id XAA17898 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 8 Apr 1997 23:36:48 -0400 (EDT) Date: Tue, 8 Apr 1997 23:36:48 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <970408233428_-1737275455@emout06.mail.aol.com> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: UI from withdrawn whatnot Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In a message dated 97-04-08 21:26:15 EDT, David Stevenson writes: << To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Jeff Goldsmith wrote: >My only information about the new laws is >quoted from David Stevenson, to wit: > >"L50 now makes it clear that a Major Penalty card is >unauthorised information for partner, except for the >fact that he has to play it." > >What is the actual text of the law? Law 50 - Disposition of Penalty Card D. Disposition of Major Penalty Card When a defender has a major penalty card, both the offender and his partner may be subject to restriction, the offender whenever he is to play, the partner when he is to lead. 1. Offender to Play A major penalty card must be played at the first legal opportunity, whether in leading, following suit, discarding or trumping (the requirement that offender must play the card is authorized information for his partner; however, other information arising from facing of the penalty card is unauthorized for partner). If a defender has two or more penalty cards that can legally be played, declarer may designate which is to be played. The obligation to follow suit, or to comply with a lead or play penalty, takes precedence over the obligation to play a major penalty card, but the penalty card must still be left face up on the table and played at the next legal opportunity. >> Interesting wording (I don't believe the exact text was ever quoted in the original discussion, but I could be wrong). My interpretation of the intent was for cases like the following. East leads the heart King out of turn. This implies either the Ace or the Queen. West, now on lead, may act knowing partner must play the King on the trick. He may NOT act on the information that partner has the Ace or Queen, during the hand (even if partner 'leads' it, since the information that partner must lead it is authorized information), since this is 'other information arising from the facing of the card'. I doubt anyone would disagree with the former statement. However, the contentious issue is whether, in counting the hand, West may act on information that partner has the King. Gary Blaiss feels he may not. I feel he may. After all the information that partner must play the card is authorized. So we are allowed to know partner has that card (since he must play it). It is the 'other' information we are not allowed to use, i.e. why he played the card. Has anyone asked the law-makers their intent in making this change? David A. Blizzard From owner-bridge-laws Wed Apr 9 22:09:13 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id WAA06271 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 9 Apr 1997 22:09:13 +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 WAA06266 for ; Wed, 9 Apr 1997 22:09:05 +1000 Received: from port1141-Auck.ihug.co.nz (port1141-Auck.ihug.co.nz [203.29.162.125]) by ihug.co.nz (8.7.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id AAA14582 for ; Thu, 10 Apr 1997 00:11:49 +1200 (NZST) Date: Thu, 10 Apr 1997 00:11:49 +1200 (NZST) Message-Id: <199704091211.AAA14582@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: dealing with psychers Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk The recent discussion on what is a psyche prompted a private discussion concerning whether or not there was any restrictions on the amount of times one could psyche and how various countries dealt with the issue. In New Zealand the National Association (NZCBA) has promulgated a rule concerning this matter, I will go into that shortly and would appreciate comments on that as well. To keep some sort of structure to the comments I hope to generate, it seemed best to set this out as a sort of questionnaire. Please reply to it as such if you are interested, I trust you will not mind the departure from the more chaotic format usually prevalent in discussions on this group. 1. Where do you live? 2. If you had a pair that regularly psyched about 2 times per session what, if anything, would you do about it? 3. If you had a pair that regularly psyched about 6 times per session what, if anything, would you do about it? 4. If you would take positive action to reduce the number of psyches in either question 2 or 3 above what Law do you believe you are applying? If there is a local rule promulgated by your National Association please give full details. The rule in NZ says that persistent psyching is not allowed and then defines that as more than two psyches by any PLAYER in one session, or an average of more than one psyche per session by any player. Furthermore the director is allowed to ask pairs that have a 'history' in this area to call him/her at the end of any hand on which they have either psyched or wish a ruling on whether a specific action will be regarded as a psyche (e.g. opening in 3rd seat on a 7 count but bidding your good 5 card suit) When thus called to the table the director may then check to see if the psycher's partner may have 'fielded' the psyche in any way and may choose to adjust the board even without a specific complaint from the opponents. 5. Do you believe that National Associations have the power to regulate the number of times a player may psyche? 6. Do you think that the amount of psyching permitted by this regulation is fair, or is it too restrictive? 7. Do you believe that players should be asked to call the director at the end of a hand on which they have psyched? 8. Do you think it is fair that individual players can be singled out for this treatment, without it being a general requirement? 9. Is it both legal and reasonable to adjust a board for fielding without any complaint being brought by the opponents? Please bear in mind here that psychers seem to indulge in this practice most frequently against weak opponents whose only notion about fielding is that it something to do with cricket or baseball. We have all seen players who have a psyching partner take very conservative actions in situations such as Pass-Pass-1S-Dbl by choosing to raise to only 2S on a hand where others would raise automatically to 3S, because their antennae are already quivering the moment partner opens in 3rd seat and the next hand has enough points to double. The fact that this is fielding the psyche would not occur to at least 90% of players, particularly not those usually psyched against. Patrick Carter Director, Auckland Bridge Club Chairman, Laws & Ethics, NZCBA Email tripack@ihug.co.nz From owner-bridge-laws Wed Apr 9 22:41:58 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id WAA06358 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 9 Apr 1997 22:41:58 +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 WAA06352 for ; Wed, 9 Apr 1997 22:41:50 +1000 Received: (from root@localhost) by tom.compulink.co.uk (8.8.4/8.6.9) id NAA02405 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Wed, 9 Apr 1997 13:41:16 +0100 (BST) Date: Wed, 9 Apr 97 13:40 BST-1 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: <3vG8rOCR6FSzEwwo@blakjak.demon.co.uk> David Stevenson wrote: > Tim West-meads wrote: > > >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. > > You've said this before, and discovered that most people disagree with > you. > Actually I discovered that some people agreed, some disagreed, and some said "It's not about how the words are written, it's about how they are commonly interpreted." Indeed a leading expert called DWS said: "If 60% of people would bid 4S because they think it is right, and 40% of people would pass because they think it is right, then that is a 60/40 decision. If you get a situation where 99% of people believe that 4S is the winning action 60% of the time, then bidding 4S is a 99% action." Which certainly implied that, if there is consensus on what is the percentage action, then no other bids are LAs. However, you have only to look at the responses to any "bidding challenge" to realise that consensus on what is a percentage action is by no means guaranteed. When a person calculates a percentage action at the table there is only one final answer. This could be wrong (due to errors in calculation, or errors in assumptions) but the person cannot know it is wrong when they select their bid. It seems illogical to assume that your peers will get different results, if you arrive at 60% then all of them will too. > > IMO it is very unusual for a (UK) committee to agree > >unanimously on a 'best action' and still rule something else as an LA. On reflection I could have stopped this statement after the word "action" without in any way detracting from my belief in its truth:-) Cases that clear-cut are unlikely to reach committee that often. > > It is certainly a common occurrence. It is perfectly normal for an AC > to consider one action as 60% and another as 40%. If the 60% action is > the one suggested by the UI any competent AC will adjust and frequently > do. Of course, and so they should. But surely this situation arises because 3 people believe that one action is best and two believe otherwise. If all five members believe a particular action to be 60% likely to succeed the AC should consider the action 100/0 with regard to LAs. To make an adjustment they would have to say "Although we are unanimous on what is the best action we believe that a significant percentage of the players peer's would arrive at different conclusions through errors in their calculations" (I discount the possibility that all five members of the AC have miscalculated!). Tim West-Meads From owner-bridge-laws Wed Apr 9 23:08:40 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA06499 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 9 Apr 1997 23:08:40 +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 XAA06494 for ; Wed, 9 Apr 1997 23:08:34 +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 JAA29432 for ; Wed, 9 Apr 1997 09:08:22 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <1.5.4.32.19970409130901.006b5404@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, 09 Apr 1997 09:09:01 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: dealing with psychers Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 12:11 AM 4/10/97 +1200, patrick wrote: >1. Where do you live? U.S. (Washington DC area). >2. If you had a pair that regularly psyched about 2 times per session what, >if anything, would you do about it? The first time I noticed it I would warn them that they are in violation of ACBL regulations, and must immediately abandon the use of psyches for at least the next several months (in partnership). If they did it again I would take disciplinary action. If I knew that they did it "regularly" I would have a talk with them, and attempt to ascertain their attitude; if I felt that they knew that they were acting improperly and/or being deliberately disrumptive, I would adjust their scores on all of the boards on which they psyched, giving them the worse of their actual score or A-. At a tournament I would then notify the Recorder that this pair had been warned about their excessive psyching. My personal desire would be to do nothing (or perhaps congratulate the pair if their psyches were clever and successful), but as an ACBL TD I would feel obligated to take the actions above. >3. If you had a pair that regularly psyched about 6 times per session what, >if anything, would you do about it? See above. Of course, if they regularly psyched 6 times per session there would be a far stronger presumption that they are being deliberately disruptive. >4. If you would take positive action to reduce the number of psyches in >either question 2 or 3 above what Law do you believe you are applying? If >there is a local rule promulgated by your National Association please give >full details. I don't have the exact wording handy, but the ACBL has ruled that: (a) partnerships may not have any agreement concerning psyches, and (b) psyching more than once with the same partner creates a de facto implicit (and illegal) agreement concerning psyches. Edgar Kaplan has summarized the ACBL's position on psyching as, "It's perfectly legal to psyche provided you never do it." I can't cite from the Laws, and, indeed, believe (along with Mr. Kaplan) that the ACBL policy on psyches violates the Laws. But as an ACBL TD it's my job to enforce their rules and interpretations of law, not my own. > The rule in NZ says that persistent psyching is not allowed and then >defines that as more than two psyches by any PLAYER in one session, or an >average of more than one psyche per session by any player. Furthermore the >director is allowed to ask pairs that have a 'history' in this area to call >him/her at the end of any hand on which they have either psyched or wish a >ruling on whether a specific action will be regarded as a psyche (e.g. >opening in 3rd seat on a 7 count but bidding your good 5 card suit) When >thus called to the table the director may then check to see if the psycher's >partner may have 'fielded' the psyche in any way and may choose to adjust >the board even without a specific complaint from the opponents. >5. Do you believe that National Associations have the power to regulate the >number of times a player may psyche? No. But the National Association under whose rules I direct disagrees with me. >6. Do you think that the amount of psyching permitted by this regulation is >fair, or is it too restrictive? Too restrictive. I personally do not believe that pschyes should be limited at all; they are a legitimate part of the game, and are explicitly protected by the Laws. >7. Do you believe that players should be asked to call the director at the >end of a hand on which they have psyched? No. >8. Do you think it is fair that individual players can be singled out for >this treatment, without it being a general requirement? In theory, any restriction must apply equally to everyone. In practice, however, I don't see how one can avoid "singling out" those violators whom one happens to catch. >9. Is it both legal and reasonable to adjust a board for fielding without >any complaint being brought by the opponents? Please bear in mind here that >psychers seem to indulge in this practice most frequently against weak >opponents whose only notion about fielding is that it something to do with >cricket or baseball. We have all seen players who have a psyching partner >take very conservative actions in situations such as Pass-Pass-1S-Dbl by >choosing to raise to only 2S on a hand where others would raise >automatically to 3S, because their antennae are already quivering the moment >partner opens in 3rd seat and the next hand has enough points to double. The >fact that this is fielding the psyche would not occur to at least 90% of >players, particularly not those usually psyched against. Yes. There is nothing in the Laws that suggests that a TD may only enforce the rules of his game when an at-the-table opponent makes a complaint. 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 Apr 10 00:31:06 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA09113 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 10 Apr 1997 00:31:06 +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 AAA09098 for ; Thu, 10 Apr 1997 00:30:57 +1000 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by relay-11.mail.demon.net id ac1115393; 9 Apr 97 15:08 BST Message-ID: Date: Wed, 9 Apr 1997 14:45:37 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: What is a psyche? In-Reply-To: <7vM$LgC59FSzEwRL@blakjak.demon.co.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Patrick Carter wrote: >I wrote: >>FLMaster39@mindspring.com wrote: >>>In order to be considered a "psych," the rule of thumb is that the >>>suit must be 2 cards shorter or the hand a King weaker than normally >>>promised. >> This is a quote from RGB. What does anyone think of the "rule of >>thumb"? >Defining a psyche to be within certain parameters will always be >awkward. According to the Laws it is a gross and deliberate >misstatement of either suit length or high card strength, but even that >very general description has loopholes. For example playing a natural >system with weak NT where a club might be a 3 card suit is it a psyche >to open 1C on Axx Kx AKQxx xxx with the intention of rebidding NT and >averting a club lead? Perhaps a psyche should be defined as a bid made >with the intention to deceive the opponents rather than to inform >partner. Psychic Call A deliberate and gross misstatement of honour strength or suit length. That is what the Law book says. Now a misstatement must be compared with what the call means in the player's system. It is all very well quoting hands with lots of playing strength but not so many points and arguing whether they are psyches because the posters would/would not open them themselves: that's irrelevant. If a player opens a Culbertson 2S [strong, natural, game-forcing] on QJT9xxxxx KQT9 -- -- then the definition of a whether it is a psyches depends not on what *you* would open a Culbertson 2S on: it depends what the player considers to be correct. If he decides that a 2S bid is any 9 playing trick or better hand, and he considers this 9 playing tricks, then he has *not* psyched. Suppose he opens an artificial 2C on it? What then? Well, he still has not psyched if he believes that any 9 playing trick or better hand should be opened 2C. *But* SOs have the right to regulate conventions: they may have regulated that *any* 2C opening *must* contain 12+HCP: if so this becomes illegal use of a system: still not a psyche. So I do not think that articles in this thread about weak freaks have helped: it just depends what the player thinks is correct. Suppose that a player plays [per his CC] that a 1C or 1D opening shows at least three cards, and he opens 1C on Qx AQJ AKQxx xxx When challenged, he says that he has three clubs so the bid is not a psyche. He is correct, if that is a normal opening for him. However, he would be severely dealt with under disclosure since his opponents were not made aware of this. More controversially, I do not believe this to be a natural bid of 1C, so again it depends on the licensing of the SO whether this is a legal convention. Now let us consider some other cases. xxx AKQJ QJx Qxx Playing 5card majors, if this hand opens 1H, is it a psyche? Surely not, it is a judgement bid, nothing more. The player believes that the heart suit should be treated as five cards long. xxxx AKQ QJx Qxx Playing 5card majors, if this hand opens 1S, is it a psyche? Surely. Do you really believe that he intended this bid as the best way to show partner what he had? The original rule about being two cards out is fairly dubious, and can be seen more clearly by an opening 1S [playing 5 card majors] on xxxx AKQxx QJx Q which is clearly a psyche. >>>In order to be considered a "psych," the rule of thumb is that the >>>suit must be 2 cards shorter or the hand a King weaker than normally >>>promised. If it is nothing more than a guide, this may not be too far off, though it seems to completely forget that psyches may be over-qualified [a 10-12 1NT on a 19 count is a psyche if deliberate] so long as one remembers it is only a guide with many exceptions. However, I believe that it is no substitute for judgement and experience. I think this thread does show the dangers of a cosy little rule like the above because it is so often wrong. I also think the dangers of ascribing the word psyche to a call because the player has not followed your own views has also been shown. Not mentioned in this thread has been that the call must be deliberate to be a psyche. If the last hand opened 2D [Flannery] but then found they were not playing Flannery then that is a Misbid, not a Psyche. To rule that something is a psyche: 1] It must differ from the player's agreed system in a gross way 2] It would be normal for the difference to be 3 HCP or two cards 3] Strength of suit must also be considered 4] Relative lengths of suits must also be considered 5] It must be intentional that it differs 6] It must not be an attempt to follow the system It does not seem that the Law requires a Psyche to be an attempt to mislead opponents. If I pick up a flat 8-count and open 4S for any of these reasons, then it is a psyche: 1] I want to impress my good-looking female LHO 2] I want to teach partner a lesson for misplaying the last hand 3] I want to give my friends a top because they might win if I do 4] I'm bored 5] I love having the TD at the table! -- David Stevenson MayDay Swiss Pairs in Liverpool! Nanki Poo is FOUR! Hughes Simultaneous Pairs at end of June! nankipoo@blakjak.demon.co.uk See my Homepage for details Homepage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk From owner-bridge-laws Thu Apr 10 01:07:39 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA09265 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 10 Apr 1997 01:07:39 +1000 Received: from relay-5.mail.demon.net (punt2.demon.co.uk [194.217.242.1]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id BAA09260 for ; Thu, 10 Apr 1997 01:07:31 +1000 Received: from mamos.demon.co.uk ([158.152.129.79]) by relay-6.mail.demon.net id aa0607650; 9 Apr 97 16:05 BST Message-ID: Date: Wed, 9 Apr 1997 12:38:42 +0100 To: Ian Muir Cc: David Grabiner , bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: michael amos Subject: Re: Official policy on mispulls from bidding box In-Reply-To: <8dLQUEAH9qSzEwiC@elizian.demon.co.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In message <8dLQUEAH9qSzEwiC@elizian.demon.co.uk>, Ian Muir writes >In message <199703212257.OAA02577@boole.msri.org>, David Grabiner > writes >> >>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? >> >Ian Muir writes: >I had a similar case at the week-end. N opened 1S; E called 2D; S called >1NT, then corrected to 2H. I was called. Having established the facts, I >was asked (by S) if I would like to see his hand; I explained that I >*could* not, without passing information to other players. I then made >the mistake of asking him what he *meant* to bid when he bid when he >pulled 1NT. He said, with a straight face, "2 hearts." Accordingly, I >ruled the bid correctable without penalty. > >After studying the hand away from the table and finding him with a 7 HCP >2-5-3-3 shape, I realise that I should have gone back and ruled it >insufficient, or at least adjusted any damage to non-offenders but that, >having asked The Question, I could not do so without calling South a >liar!! > >It is clear *from the hand* that S *intended* to bid 1NT and only >corrected after he saw (belatedly) the 2D bid. The insufficient bid >ruling can only be given after seeing South's hand and the TD *can not* >give this unauthorised information to the players. I think my correct >procedure was to rule as I did without asking The Question *directly* >and stand ready to protect non-offenders from damage, using an adjusted >score if necessary, under LAW:27 B.1.(b) > >Irrelevantly, the score - NS +50 (about average) was mis-scored on the >computer as NS +500 and never spotted by the players, even after The >Protest Time (My specialist subject, just ask DWS!!) had elapsed. The >computer scorer noticed his error but I worked out that it did not >affect either pairs final ranking!! > >I am, your obedient servant, > > CDBC --> NEBA --> EBU --> BBL --> ??? > Ian Muir the point you make - player telling untruths is exactly what i was saying a fortnight or so ago - it has happened to me twice - and i (uncharacteristically??) chickened out Now i have had time to reflect i guess this was wrong (and i am sure you were :) so what should we do - i think the view that says take player away from table and ask him/her what she intended is fine and let play continue if he/she claims mispull - making it clear to the individual and to the whole table that this is provisional at this stage and that you will return to make a final ruling at the completion of the hand - if the player's mispull is then apparent it is likely that all the players at the table will be content but if there is any doubt or in your case certainty that the action was misbid and not mispull we need a form of words that doesn't simply say "LIAR" but which says "Based on your holding, i don't have a clear view of your intention and so i must rule in your opponents favour - and award an assigned adjusted score - now the player can attempt to convince an appeal comittee that he has genuinely mispulled - furthermore if the committee so decide then the table score can stand mike -- michael amos From owner-bridge-laws Thu Apr 10 01:39:14 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA09411 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 10 Apr 1997 01:39:14 +1000 Received: from mipl7.jpl.nasa.gov (mipl7.jpl.nasa.gov [128.149.177.7]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id BAA09405 for ; Thu, 10 Apr 1997 01:38:42 +1000 Received: from tintin.JPL.NASA.GOV (tintin.jpl.nasa.gov [137.78.77.70]) by mipl7.jpl.nasa.gov (8.6.12/8.6.6) with ESMTP id IAA06329 for <@mipl7.JPL.NASA.GOV:bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au>; Wed, 9 Apr 1997 08:38:03 -0700 Received: by tintin.JPL.NASA.GOV (940816.SGI.8.6.9/930416.SGI.MIPS) for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au id IAA11691; Wed, 9 Apr 1997 08:38:31 -0700 Date: Wed, 9 Apr 1997 08:38:31 -0700 From: jeff@tintin.JPL.NASA.GOV (Jeff Goldsmith) Message-Id: <199704091538.IAA11691@tintin.JPL.NASA.GOV> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: dealing with psychers Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk patrick carter writes: | The recent discussion on what is a psyche prompted a private discussion |concerning whether or not there was any restrictions on the amount of times ... |this group. | |1. Where do you live? Pasadena, California. |2. If you had a pair that regularly psyched about 2 times per session what, |if anything, would you do about it? As long as they were not being very disruptive, nothing, but mention to them that they will need to work hard on full disclosure, particularly their pattern of psyching. I might recommend that they write down each psych and make this information available to their opponents. |3. If you had a pair that regularly psyched about 6 times per session what, |if anything, would you do about it? Depends. Probably watch them and see what their psyching style is. If it's the old K/S "must open all 0-3 counts," style, I'd make sure they alert all their opening bids and write down clearly on their convention card what they do. If they are random, poorly-chosen psyches, probably due to inexperience, I'll suggest that their style is probably losing bridge and might get them into arguments with other players. If they are clever, interesting, and fun, I'd treat it as the previous case. I might well suggest that they prealert, "we often psych." |4. If you would take positive action to reduce the number of psyches in |either question 2 or 3 above what Law do you believe you are applying? If |there is a local rule promulgated by your National Association please give |full details. L74A and L90. If they are massively disruptive, I'll try to cut it down, particularly if they gloat rudely, or behave badly as a result. Otherwise, I'm just offering friendly advice; if they think it's required to psych in bridge as it is necessary in poker, I'll happily disabuse them of this notion. |5. Do you believe that National Associations have the power to regulate the |number of times a player may psyche? No. The ACBL feels otherwise, but gives a great deal of latitude to club managers/directors. When I am one, I tend to ignore most ACBL rules that I think are goofy. Interestingly, though I have run many clubs that were populated by experimenters, young people, new players, and the like, I have only rarely had pairs psych excessively. I have had a few pairs start out doing that or try it once, but they've always come to believe that it doesn't work, so they stop. |6. Do you think that the amount of psyching permitted by this regulation is |fair, or is it too restrictive? Too restrictive. |7. Do you believe that players should be asked to call the director at the |end of a hand on which they have psyched? No. Most of the time when I do it, no one notices. They figure I always bid that way :) |8. Do you think it is fair that individual players can be singled out for |this treatment, without it being a general requirement? Fair, no, but that's reality. We don't catch everyone who drives too fast or who kills someone, but we prosecute most of those we catch. If someone gets to choose whom to prosecute from among a list and he does not choose everyone, however, then we have a problem. I don't believe we have that problem here. |9. Is it both legal and reasonable to adjust a board for fielding without |any complaint being brought by the opponents? Please bear in mind here that |psychers seem to indulge in this practice most frequently against weak |opponents whose only notion about fielding is that it something to do with |cricket or baseball. We have all seen players who have a psyching partner |take very conservative actions in situations such as Pass-Pass-1S-Dbl by |choosing to raise to only 2S on a hand where others would raise |automatically to 3S, because their antennae are already quivering the moment |partner opens in 3rd seat and the next hand has enough points to double. The |fact that this is fielding the psyche would not occur to at least 90% of |players, particularly not those usually psyched against. How will anyone know about it if no one complained? I think only weak (or foolish) players psych only against weaker opponents. That is a losing strategy. One ought psych against pairs better than oneself, not weaker, if one is going to psych. Against weak pairs, one already expects to get a good score without psyching. Why risk getting a zero? The odds have to be very good for the psych to succeed for it to be worth doing. Against good opposition, however, the odds change; if one rates to get a bad score (for example, they've opened a big club) already, psyching has much less to lose. As a result, if I noticed that a pair was psyching only against novices, I'd know they are not psyching in order to improve their score, but just to try to intimidate the novices. I will not permit that. Among other remedies, I'll tell the novices that it is allowed for them to do that and that the psychers are just really bad players who think their actions are sensible. I'd ask the novices not to be offended, but rather to enjoy the tops they get as a result. What will then happen is that when the novices are not discomfited, the psychers will stop psyching against them. If I see this pattern, the psychers will be the recipient of a stern talking-to about how to treat other players, intimidation, etc. If they continue to misbehave, I'll start giving them disciplinary penalties. I'm sure this will be very obvious from the start; those who psych to intimidate try other forms of intimidation, too. All club directors should know who is trying to do this without even thinking about it. As far as the example of 3rd seat psyches goes, the remedy is simple. One is fully allowed to have the agreement that one will often psych in 3rd chair and dealer is fully allowed to use that information. One may not, however, have that information without disclosing it to the opponents. If a pair fields a psych and didn't alert the opponents, and if that misinformation damaged them, I'd adjust the score. There is a complication in that if someone regularly opens 1S with AQxxx Jxxx xx xx or such in third chair and tries to claim it's a psych, I'll tell them that in just about every other club and every tournament in the US they can't do this---it's against ACBL rules and against the Laws of bridge. They must have their 8 HCP to open in 3rd chair nearly always, so if they open lots of 6- and 7-counts, they are going to get adjusted scores. If I hear about a problem with this in a tournament, I'll tell them that I will come and testify against them, making it clear that they do have an illegal partnership agreement. Therefore, they are probably best served not doing this, but as long as they alert and explain and remember not to do it anywhere but this club (or rarely: if they hold AKxxxxxx xxxxx --- ---, who am I to tell them that a 1S opening is wrong?) then all is fine. --Jeff # "I'm a blonde; I'm a blonde: B-L-A-N-D!" # --- # http://muggy.gg.caltech.edu/~jeff From owner-bridge-laws Thu Apr 10 03:11:18 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA09924 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 10 Apr 1997 03:11:18 +1000 Received: from pent.sci-nnov.ru (pent.sci-nnov.ru [193.125.71.4]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id DAA09919 for ; Thu, 10 Apr 1997 03:11:04 +1000 Received: (from fox@localhost) by pent.sci-nnov.ru (8.8.5/Dmiter-4.1) id VAA17284; Wed, 9 Apr 1997 21:09:55 +0400 (MSD) Message-Id: <199704091709.VAA17284@pent.sci-nnov.ru> From: "Sergei Litvak" To: "patrick carter" Cc: "BLML" Date: Wed, 09 Apr 97 20:11:19 +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: Re: dealing with psychers Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Thu, 10 Apr 1997 00:11:49 +1200 (NZST), patrick carter wrote: > The recent discussion on what is a psyche prompted a private discussion >concerning whether or not there was any restrictions on the amount of times >one could psyche and how various countries dealt with the issue. In New >Zealand the National Association (NZCBA) has promulgated a rule concerning >this matter, I will go into that shortly and would appreciate comments on >that as well. To keep some sort of structure to the comments I hope to >generate, it seemed best to set this out as a sort of questionnaire. Please >reply to it as such if you are interested, I trust you will not mind the >departure from the more chaotic format usually prevalent in discussions on >this group. > >1. Where do you live? Russia >2. If you had a pair that regularly psyched about 2 times per session what, >if anything, would you do about it? I inform them that it's better to inform their opponents about possible psych before they begin the round. Also they should alert possible psyching sequences!! >3. If you had a pair that regularly psyched about 6 times per session what, >if anything, would you do about it? The same as previous. >4. If you would take positive action to reduce the number of psyches in >either question 2 or 3 above what Law do you believe you are applying? If >there is a local rule promulgated by your National Association please give >full details. We don't have special rule in Russia against psychs. But we use L40A and L40B skipped... >5. Do you believe that National Associations have the power to regulate the >number of times a player may psyche? Law 40A allows player to make any call or play (including intentionally misleading - the definition of psych, hich was discussed a week ago!). So Zonal organizatons are not allowed to regulate number of psychs per player/pair in session/tournament/year etc. >6. Do you think that the amount of psyching permitted by this regulation is >fair, or is it too restrictive? See previous. >7. Do you believe that players should be asked to call the director at the >end of a hand on which they have psyched? For sure not. >8. Do you think it is fair that individual players can be singled out for >this treatment, without it being a general requirement? It's unfair. >9. Is it both legal and reasonable to adjust a board for fielding without >any complaint being brought by the opponents? Please bear in mind here that >psychers seem to indulge in this practice most frequently against weak >opponents whose only notion about fielding is that it something to do with >cricket or baseball. We have all seen players who have a psyching partner >take very conservative actions in situations such as Pass-Pass-1S-Dbl by >choosing to raise to only 2S on a hand where others would raise >automatically to 3S, because their antennae are already quivering the moment >partner opens in 3rd seat and the next hand has enough points to double. The >fact that this is fielding the psyche would not occur to at least 90% of >players, particularly not those usually psyched against. It is a very difficult problem. On one hand I should do nothing when nobody asks for TD. But on the other hand TD is responsible to restore equity and it's unfair to all other players when you violate the Law and nobody can punish youu because of the weakness of your opponents. (The similar situation is when TD suddenly see a revoke at the table and nobody asks for TD!). >Patrick Carter >Director, Auckland Bridge Club >Chairman, Laws & Ethics, NZCBA >Email tripack@ihug.co.nz > Sergei Litvak, RCBL Chief TD. -------------------------------------- Phone: +7(8312)365593(eve),384255(day) FAX: +7(8312)362061 E-mail: fox@appl.sci-nnov.ru -------------------------------------- From owner-bridge-laws Thu Apr 10 04:24:21 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA10349 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 10 Apr 1997 04:24:21 +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 EAA10338 for ; Thu, 10 Apr 1997 04:24:11 +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 UAA27394 for ; Wed, 9 Apr 1997 20:24:04 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from cph4.ppp.dknet.dk (cph4.ppp.dknet.dk [194.192.100.4]) by pip.dknet.dk (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id UAA05409 for ; Wed, 9 Apr 1997 20:24:01 +0200 From: jd@pip.dknet.dk (Jesper Dybdal) To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: dealing with psychers Date: Wed, 09 Apr 1997 20:24:01 +0200 Organization: at home Message-ID: <3354de57.13301356@pipmail.dknet.dk> References: <199704091211.AAA14582@ihug.co.nz> In-Reply-To: <199704091211.AAA14582@ihug.co.nz> 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 Thu, 10 Apr 1997 00:11:49 +1200 (NZST), patrick carter wrote: >1. Where do you live? Copenhagen, Denmark. >2. If you had a pair that regularly psyched about 2 times per session = what, >if anything, would you do about it? I would make sure that these players understand the requirements for disclosure and the risks of creating implicit partnership understandings. Provided they handle those aspects of psyching correctly, there is no problem. >3. If you had a pair that regularly psyched about 6 times per session = what, >if anything, would you do about it? As above. However, if these psyches happened in our own club, and if the club members in general felt that it had a bad effect on their enjoyment of the game (which in practice would depend on whether the psyches were clever and amusing), I might tell the psychers that while their psyching is perfectly legal, they and everybody else might enjoy the game better if they either psyched less or found a different club where such a style is appreciated. But this would clearly be a matter of social laws, not bridge laws. >4. If you would take positive action to reduce the number of psyches in >either question 2 or 3 above what Law do you believe you are applying? None. > If >there is a local rule promulgated by your National Association please = give >full details. In Denmark, the convention cards have a field where you indicate for each player whether he psyches "never", "rarely", or "often". This means that the psyche frequency of partner is considered AI. There are no restrictions on psyches. On the other hand, knowledge that partner often psyches in a particular situation can soon turn a specific psyche into a part of the bidding system; when that happens, it must of course be disclosed and it must be a legal system for the event in question. >5. Do you believe that National Associations have the power to regulate = the >number of times a player may psyche? No. I find it reasonable to require that players actually try to play what we normally understand by the game of bridge; if a pair psyches on almost every hand, for instance, changing the game to one of random luck, I would find it reasonable to take action against that pair. There is no law that clearly allows such action, but some of the points in L74 are close enough to indicate that the lawmakers did not intend bridge to be reduced to such a game. It is clearly against L40A to tell a player that he is not allowed to psyche on a specific deal. >6. Do you think that the amount of psyching permitted by this regulation= is >fair, or is it too restrictive? The "more than two psyches in one session" part is clearly unreasonable as well as illegal (L40A). The question of whether a hand is suitable for a psyche can hardly depend on whether the player happens to have psyched twice before in that session. A restriction on the average number of psyches in the long run might be reasonable under some circumstances, but I do not believe it to be legal. If such a restriction is in effect anyway, the average psyche frequency to allow depends very much on the field. The attitude should not be "you psyche too much", but rather "you belong in a different field where they don't mind your psyches". >7. Do you believe that players should be asked to call the director at = the >end of a hand on which they have psyched? If the SO really wants the TD to spend the time needed to evaluate every psyche to determine whether there might be an irregularity involved, I see nothing wrong in asking the psychers to call the TD themselves, as long as it is made perfectly clear that this in no way implies any suspicion of irregularities. It may help in some otherwise unpleasant situations where inexperienced opponents feel "cheated" but are unable to evaluate for themselves whether there is an irregularity. >8. Do you think it is fair that individual players can be singled out = for >this treatment, without it being a general requirement? Singling them out simply because they psyche often is definitely unfair (psyching is legal). Singling them out because they often commit irregularities in connection with psyches is ok, but difficult since it almost accuses them of cheating. So in practice any such rule probably ought to be a general requirement. >9. Is it both legal and reasonable to adjust a board for fielding = without >any complaint being brought by the opponents? It makes no difference whether there is a complaint by opponents. L81C6 says that the TD has a duty to "rectify any error or irregularity of which he becomes aware in any manner, ...". >Please bear in mind here that >psychers seem to indulge in this practice most frequently against weak >opponents whose only notion about fielding is that it something to do = with >cricket or baseball. We have all seen players who have a psyching = partner >take very conservative actions in situations such as Pass-Pass-1S-Dbl by >choosing to raise to only 2S on a hand where others would raise >automatically to 3S, because their antennae are already quivering the = moment >partner opens in 3rd seat and the next hand has enough points to double.= The >fact that this is fielding the psyche would not occur to at least 90% of >players, particularly not those usually psyched against. Since the psyche frequency is AI in Denmark (and disclosed to the opponents), this situation is not always an irregularity in Denmark. If the opener psyches third hand openings particularly often (more often than should be expected based on the psyche frequency on the CC), his third hand openings should of course be alerted and explained as "quite often a psyche", and a failure to do so is a lack of disclosure. If he psyches them _very_ often, then they are actually a part of the bidding system rather than psyches, and should be treated as such (disclosed, probably forbidden in some events). In practice, we have extremely few cases of fielded psyches in Denmark, perhaps because we have no restrictions. Psyches and psyche-related irregularities do not seem to be a problem in Denmark at all. --=20 Jesper Dybdal, Denmark From owner-bridge-laws Thu Apr 10 04:24:21 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA10348 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 10 Apr 1997 04:24:21 +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 EAA10339 for ; Thu, 10 Apr 1997 04:24:12 +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 UAA27404 for ; Wed, 9 Apr 1997 20:24:07 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from cph4.ppp.dknet.dk (cph4.ppp.dknet.dk [194.192.100.4]) by pip.dknet.dk (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id UAA05413 for ; Wed, 9 Apr 1997 20:24:05 +0200 From: jd@pip.dknet.dk (Jesper Dybdal) To: Bridge Laws Discussion List Subject: Re: ACBL Bulletin article on new Law for penalty cards Date: Wed, 09 Apr 1997 20:24:04 +0200 Organization: at home Message-ID: <3350dd0c.12970480@pipmail.dknet.dk> References: <1.5.4.32.19970408201126.006a2b18@cais.com> In-Reply-To: <1.5.4.32.19970408201126.006a2b18@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, 08 Apr 1997 16:11:26 -0400, Eric Landau wrote: >At 11:37 AM 4/8/97 -0700, David wrote: >>And what about the situation when a lead penalty is imposed? Suppose >>that declarer forbids you to lead a diamond, allowing partner to pick = up >>his DA. Is it now UI that partner has the DA? > >I don't see how it could be. The new L16C seems to say that is it UI if it was led (since it is then a withdrawn action) but L16C says nothing about it if it was dropped on the table. Nevertheless, I agree completely with Eric that there is no logical sense in any interpretation except one where partner is allowed to know that the offender has the card, even if it is withdrawn because declarer chooses a lead restriction. Unless somebody convinces me that it is wrong, I will do what I can to make the interpretation described by Eric the one used in Denmark. Of course, the new laws aren't finished yet - so in principle we can still hope for improvements. --=20 Jesper Dybdal, Denmark From owner-bridge-laws Thu Apr 10 05:27:49 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA10594 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 10 Apr 1997 05:27:49 +1000 Received: from u1.farm.idt.net (lighton@u1.farm.idt.net [169.132.8.10]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id FAA10589 for ; Thu, 10 Apr 1997 05:27:44 +1000 Received: from localhost (lighton@localhost) by u1.farm.idt.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id PAA26860 for ; Wed, 9 Apr 1997 15:27:38 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 9 Apr 1997 15:27:37 -0400 (EDT) From: Richard Lighton X-Sender: lighton@u1.farm.idt.net To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Re: ACBL Bulletin article on new Law for penalty cards In-Reply-To: <3350dd0c.12970480@pipmail.dknet.dk> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Wed, 9 Apr 1997, Jesper Dybdal wrote: > > Of course, the new laws aren't finished yet - so in principle we can > still hope for improvements. The ACBL intend to start using these Laws in about seven weeks and they AREN'T FINISHED YET????? No wonder I haven't been able to buy a copy! -- 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 Thu Apr 10 09:47:34 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA11478 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 10 Apr 1997 09:47:34 +1000 Received: from smtp3.erols.com (smtp3.erols.com [205.252.116.103]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id JAA11473 for ; Thu, 10 Apr 1997 09:47:27 +1000 Received: from hdavis.erols.com (dam-as2s31.erols.com [207.172.26.103]) by smtp3.erols.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id TAA17949 for ; Wed, 9 Apr 1997 19:47:22 -0400 Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19970409194717.006a13a4@pop.erols.com> X-Sender: hdavis@pop.erols.com (Unverified) X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Wed, 09 Apr 1997 19:47:17 -0400 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Hirsch Davis Subject: Re: dealing with psychers In-Reply-To: <199704091211.AAA14582@ihug.co.nz> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 12:11 AM 4/10/97 +1200, you wrote: > The recent discussion on what is a psyche prompted a private discussion >concerning whether or not there was any restrictions on the amount of times >one could psyche and how various countries dealt with the issue. In New >Zealand the National Association (NZCBA) has promulgated a rule concerning >this matter, I will go into that shortly and would appreciate comments on >that as well. To keep some sort of structure to the comments I hope to >generate, it seemed best to set this out as a sort of questionnaire. Please >reply to it as such if you are interested, I trust you will not mind the >departure from the more chaotic format usually prevalent in discussions on >this group. > >1. Where do you live? USA, close to Washington DC >2. If you had a pair that regularly psyched about 2 times per session what, >if anything, would you do about it? I would inform them of ACBL regulations regarding psychs and the possibility of implicit agreements. I would check to see that the psychs were not being fielded. I would pass info about the psychs to the Unit Recorder if requested by opponents. > >3. If you had a pair that regularly psyched about 6 times per session what, >if anything, would you do about it? Same as above. Also, I would inform the Unit Recorder so that he could take any disciplinary action needed. I would caution the pair about use of destructive methods. If continued, I would bar the pair from the game (at least at club level). > >4. If you would take positive action to reduce the number of psyches in >either question 2 or 3 above what Law do you believe you are applying? If >there is a local rule promulgated by your National Association please give >full details. > No basis in law for deterring psychs. ACBL rules do not allow partnership agreements about psychs. Frequent psychers are very likely to have implicit agreements, in which case the psych becomes illegal. In a club setting, I would use the latitude given to local clubs to bar the frequent psychs, only because the rest of the pairs in the game would be upset. In a tournament setting, it would be up to the Recorder to take action after he received the info. > The rule in NZ says that persistent psyching is not allowed and then >defines that as more than two psyches by any PLAYER in one session, or an >average of more than one psyche per session by any player. Furthermore the >director is allowed to ask pairs that have a 'history' in this area to call >him/her at the end of any hand on which they have either psyched or wish a >ruling on whether a specific action will be regarded as a psyche (e.g. >opening in 3rd seat on a 7 count but bidding your good 5 card suit) When >thus called to the table the director may then check to see if the psycher's >partner may have 'fielded' the psyche in any way and may choose to adjust >the board even without a specific complaint from the opponents. > >5. Do you believe that National Associations have the power to regulate the >number of times a player may psyche? > No. there is no basis in law for the regulation of psychs. >6. Do you think that the amount of psyching permitted by this regulation is >fair, or is it too restrictive? > Overly restrictive. >7. Do you believe that players should be asked to call the director at the >end of a hand on which they have psyched? > No. Again, there is no basis in law for this. OTOH, the weaker opponents who do not normally call the director are put at a disadvantage if the director call is not automatic. >8. Do you think it is fair that individual players can be singled out for >this treatment, without it being a general requirement? > ?? One would hope that all pairs are treated equally. >9. Is it both legal and reasonable to adjust a board for fielding without >any complaint being brought by the opponents? Please bear in mind here that >psychers seem to indulge in this practice most frequently against weak >opponents whose only notion about fielding is that it something to do with >cricket or baseball. We have all seen players who have a psyching partner >take very conservative actions in situations such as Pass-Pass-1S-Dbl by >choosing to raise to only 2S on a hand where others would raise >automatically to 3S, because their antennae are already quivering the moment >partner opens in 3rd seat and the next hand has enough points to double. The >fact that this is fielding the psyche would not occur to at least 90% of >players, particularly not those usually psyched against. > It is almost impossible to *know* that a psych has been fielded without a call from the opponents. > >Patrick Carter >Director, Auckland Bridge Club >Chairman, Laws & Ethics, NZCBA >Email tripack@ihug.co.nz > > > > > > > > > From owner-bridge-laws Thu Apr 10 11:28:21 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id LAA11713 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 10 Apr 1997 11:28:21 +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 LAA11708 for ; Thu, 10 Apr 1997 11:28:14 +1000 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by relay-10.mail.demon.net id ab1028348; 10 Apr 97 2:27 BST Message-ID: Date: Thu, 10 Apr 1997 02:02:41 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: dealing with psychers In-Reply-To: <199704091211.AAA14582@ihug.co.nz> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk patrick carter wrote: > The recent discussion on what is a psyche prompted a private discussion >concerning whether or not there was any restrictions on the amount of times >one could psyche and how various countries dealt with the issue. In New >Zealand the National Association (NZCBA) has promulgated a rule concerning >this matter, I will go into that shortly and would appreciate comments on >that as well. To keep some sort of structure to the comments I hope to >generate, it seemed best to set this out as a sort of questionnaire. Please >reply to it as such if you are interested, I trust you will not mind the >departure from the more chaotic format usually prevalent in discussions on >this group. > >1. Where do you live? England. >2. If you had a pair that regularly psyched about 2 times per session what, >if anything, would you do about it? Investigate them and warn them as to the dangers. >3. If you had a pair that regularly psyched about 6 times per session what, >if anything, would you do about it? Now they do seem to be becoming a menace, and action under L74 would seem reasonable. >4. If you would take positive action to reduce the number of psyches in >either question 2 or 3 above what Law do you believe you are applying? If >there is a local rule promulgated by your National Association please give >full details. In England/Wales it is not permitted to psyche frivolously, and it is made clear that frequent psyches provide some evidence that the psyches are frivolous. The Law concerned would be L74A2, or possibly L74C6. Endicott and Hansen in the EBL TD guide have nearly two pages of commentary on the matter. I have recently been trying to find an electronic copy of the guide, though I have not yet succeeded, and I am not up to typing that lot! > The rule in NZ says that persistent psyching is not allowed and then >defines that as more than two psyches by any PLAYER in one session, or an >average of more than one psyche per session by any player. Furthermore the >director is allowed to ask pairs that have a 'history' in this area to call >him/her at the end of any hand on which they have either psyched or wish a >ruling on whether a specific action will be regarded as a psyche (e.g. >opening in 3rd seat on a 7 count but bidding your good 5 card suit) When >thus called to the table the director may then check to see if the psycher's >partner may have 'fielded' the psyche in any way and may choose to adjust >the board even without a specific complaint from the opponents. > >5. Do you believe that National Associations have the power to regulate the >number of times a player may psyche? No, definitely not. It has to be disruptive, against some Law or other. While frequent psyching provides evidence of a problem, it is certainly not sufficient evidence. Suppose after not psyching for thirteen consecutive sessions because no suitable hand appeared, three perfect psyche hands appear in a session. Under what Law can any national authority stop you psyching three times? This sounds a bit like a psyche is at least a king or two cards weaker than normal. As a guide it might be acceptable, but as a rule it is unfair and illegal. >6. Do you think that the amount of psyching permitted by this regulation is >fair, or is it too restrictive? Even if it were legal, to restrict one to two psyches a session is not fair at all. If it is a question of a rule then four psyches a session sounds reasonably fair because it would be very unusual for any pair that was playing sensibly to psyche more than this. On the other hand, an average is rather a better guide, and a pair that psyches more than three times on average every two sessions is looking decidedly dubious. One a session is harsh, but considerably fairer than two in *any* session. >7. Do you believe that players should be asked to call the director at the >end of a hand on which they have psyched? No. I could not find a Law to justify this answer [ie I think it is legal] but it is so unfair. It just feels wrong. >8. Do you think it is fair that individual players can be singled out for >this treatment, without it being a general requirement? It is reasonable to treat players differently who have a relevant history. >9. Is it both legal and reasonable to adjust a board for fielding without >any complaint being brought by the opponents? Please bear in mind here that >psychers seem to indulge in this practice most frequently against weak >opponents whose only notion about fielding is that it something to do with >cricket or baseball. We have all seen players who have a psyching partner >take very conservative actions in situations such as Pass-Pass-1S-Dbl by >choosing to raise to only 2S on a hand where others would raise >automatically to 3S, because their antennae are already quivering the moment >partner opens in 3rd seat and the next hand has enough points to double. The >fact that this is fielding the psyche would not occur to at least 90% of >players, particularly not those usually psyched against. Yes, it is both legal and reasonable to adjust for fielding without a complaint. But it is inhuman for the policy to be that certain pairs are asked to report themselves to see whether they have done anything wrong. It is also demeaning for any TD who has to enforce this policy. While it is legal and reasonable to adjust without a complaint a more humane method of checking for irregularities is required. -- David Stevenson MayDay Swiss Pairs in Liverpool! Nanki Poo is FOUR! Hughes Simultaneous Pairs at end of June! nankipoo@blakjak.demon.co.uk See my Homepage for details Homepage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk From owner-bridge-laws Thu Apr 10 11:33:14 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id LAA11738 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 10 Apr 1997 11:33:14 +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 LAA11733 for ; Thu, 10 Apr 1997 11:33:09 +1000 Received: from coruncanius.demon.co.uk ([194.222.115.176]) by relay-6.mail.demon.net id aa0627736; 10 Apr 97 2:07 BST Message-ID: Date: Thu, 10 Apr 1997 02:04:32 +0100 To: David Stevenson Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Labeo Subject: "1997" Laws MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk It is reported that the President of the WBF has given notice that the proposed law changes will be considered by the WBF Executive at Hammamet during the 1997 World Championships. This indicates that nothing should be considered to be set in stone at this stage - and any move to implement would be premature. It is believed he is indicating that implementation could be held over to 1998. The report comes from one of the copyright holders. Labeo From owner-bridge-laws Thu Apr 10 11:44:20 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id LAA11772 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 10 Apr 1997 11:44:20 +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 LAA11766 for ; Thu, 10 Apr 1997 11:44:15 +1000 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by relay-5.mail.demon.net id ab0511582; 10 Apr 97 2:27 BST Message-ID: Date: Thu, 10 Apr 1997 01:13:38 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: ACBL Bulletin article on new Law for penalty cards In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Richard Lighton wrote: >On Wed, 9 Apr 1997, Jesper Dybdal wrote: >> Of course, the new laws aren't finished yet - so in principle we can >> still hope for improvements. >The ACBL intend to start using these Laws in about seven weeks >and they AREN'T FINISHED YET????? Well, the story is that they haven't been approved yet. That's gossip, not official, but there are theories about November for approval. >No wonder I haven't been able to buy a copy! On the other hand, I received a price list from the EBU today, and it advertises copies of the 1997 Laws! I think this might be optimistic. -- David Stevenson MayDay Swiss Pairs in Liverpool! Nanki Poo is FOUR! Hughes Simultaneous Pairs at end of June! nankipoo@blakjak.demon.co.uk See my Homepage for details Homepage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk From owner-bridge-laws Thu Apr 10 17:36:24 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id RAA12602 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 10 Apr 1997 17:36:24 +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 RAA12597 for ; Thu, 10 Apr 1997 17:36:17 +1000 From: Stephen_Barnfield@europe.notes.pw.com Received: by ivy.tc.pw.com; id BAA23319; Thu, 10 Apr 1997 01:22:36 -0700 (PDT) Received: from cactus.tc.pw.com(131.209.7.48) by ivy.tc.pw.com via smap (3.2) id xma023285; Thu, 10 Apr 97 01:22:19 -0700 Received: (from root@localhost) by cactus.tc.pw.com (8.8.4/8.7.3) id AAA27226 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Thu, 10 Apr 1997 00:36:51 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199704100736.AAA27226@cactus.tc.pw.com> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Thu, 10 Apr 97 08:33:29 GMT Subject: Re: "1997" Laws Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk As DWS suggests, there appears to be some confusion about the status of the new Laws. I have heard both versions, ie: (i) that they are not yet promulgated, and will not be be, until Hammamet (ie not until October or November 1997), and (ii) (repeated as recently as yesterday) that they *had* been promulgated and could now be implemented. Both these (conflicting) pieces of information came from normally authoritative sources. I have heard a third, less formal version, namely that they might be promulgated from July 1997. I am thus confused. Like, I suspect, other members of BLML, I have to contribute towards decisions which depend on the implementation date. My view has thus been to await some formal notification from the WBF, EBL or the BBL (British Bridge League) to the EBU (English Bridge Union) before we (ie the EBU) do anything irreversible, such as print a few thousand copies. From owner-bridge-laws Thu Apr 10 22:28:01 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id WAA13301 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 10 Apr 1997 22:28:01 +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 WAA13296 for ; Thu, 10 Apr 1997 22:27:52 +1000 Received: (from root@localhost) by tom.compulink.co.uk (8.8.4/8.6.9) id NAA08931 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Thu, 10 Apr 1997 13:27:25 +0100 (BST) Date: Thu, 10 Apr 97 13:27 BST-1 From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: dealing with psychers 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: <199704091211.AAA14582@ihug.co.nz> patrick carter wrote: > 1. Where do you live? London, England > 2. If you had a pair that regularly psyched about 2 times per session what, > if anything, would you do about it? Warn them about undisclosed/illegal agreements and ask that they take proper measures with alerts etc to avoid too many issues. > 3. If you had a pair that regularly psyched about 6 times per session what, > if anything, would you do about it? As above, but more so. If I felt that the actions were inappropriate, ie purely designed to intimidate weak opponents/upsetting to the vast majority of players then I would ask them to "tone it down", or only play on evenings where such behaviour was regarded as acceptable. (Note: being based in London the players would have the opportunity to play in more appropriate sessions almost all the time). > 4. If you would take positive action to reduce the number of psyches in > either question 2 or 3 above what Law do you believe you are applying? If > there is a local rule promulgated by your National Association please give > full details. 74A2 - But I would feel really uncomfortable doing this if I offered "the only game in town" > > The rule in NZ says that persistent psyching is not allowed and then > defines that as more than two psyches by any PLAYER in one session, or an > average of more than one psyche per session by any player. Furthermore the > director is allowed to ask pairs that have a 'history' in this area to call > him/her at the end of any hand on which they have either psyched or wish a > ruling on whether a specific action will be regarded as a psyche (e.g. > opening in 3rd seat on a 7 count but bidding your good 5 card suit) When > thus called to the table the director may then check to see if the psycher's > partner may have 'fielded' the psyche in any way and may choose to adjust > the board even without a specific complaint from the opponents. > > 5. Do you believe that National Associations have the power to regulate the > number of times a player may psyche? Yes. Any National Association may declare independence from the International laws and regulate the game to please the players in that country (just as any government can refuse to participate in international agreements). It would be a bad thing for bridge IMO. Of course I can't see the WBF expelling the ACBL, but that's politics not bridge. > > 6. Do you think that the amount of psyching permitted by this regulation is > fair, or is it too restrictive? The NZ (and ACBL) regulations as I have heard them described are way too restrictive for games of a reasonable standard. I regard anything which prevents my opponents from frequent psyching as against my own interests as a player. I don't believe that hands where psyches will be rewarding come up all that often (certainly not six times every session) and am always happy to have opponents chuck tops at me. OTOH, I have no objection to anyone establishing tournaments that will encourage novices to play and expressly forbidding psyches in such situations. A blanket regulation can never meet the needs of the general playing population. > > 7. Do you believe that players should be asked to call the director at the > end of a hand on which they have psyched? No problem with this IMO. A few clubs I know have a regulation that every psyche should be recorded (in order to fairly adjudicate on fielding/concealed understandings/disclosure). Those who seldom psyche are often unaware of this reuirement and I don't have a problem with making psychers responsible for alerting the TD themselves. > > 8. Do you think it is fair that individual players can be singled out for > this treatment, without it being a general requirement? It should be a general requirement, but it only comes into play when a psyche is made. > > 9. Is it both legal and reasonable to adjust a board for fielding without > any complaint being brought by the opponents? Please bear in mind here that > psychers seem to indulge in this practice most frequently against weak > opponents whose only notion about fielding is that it something to do with > cricket or baseball. We have all seen players who have a psyching partner > take very conservative actions in situations such as Pass-Pass-1S-Dbl by > choosing to raise to only 2S on a hand where others would raise > automatically to 3S, because their antennae are already quivering the moment > partner opens in 3rd seat and the next hand has enough points to double. The > fact that this is fielding the psyche would not occur to at least 90% of > players, particularly not those usually psyched against. I think this question only comes into play if you have the regulation from Q7 in effect, otherwise the TD will never know. If the 1S bid had been alerted, or there had been a pre-alert of "frequent psyches" then I would only adjust if this meant that the pair concerned was playing an "illegal system". I can't imagine adjusting if the non-psyching pair insisted that they had not been damaged by the "fielding". Tim West-Meads From owner-bridge-laws Thu Apr 10 23:54:53 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA13725 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 10 Apr 1997 23:54:53 +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 XAA13720 for ; Thu, 10 Apr 1997 23:54:47 +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 JAA16927 for ; Thu, 10 Apr 1997 09:54:41 -0400 (EDT) Received: by cfa183.harvard.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id JAA00884; Thu, 10 Apr 1997 09:54:49 -0400 Date: Thu, 10 Apr 1997 09:54:49 -0400 From: willner@cfa183.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Message-Id: <199704101354.JAA00884@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: dealing with psychers X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > >If you had a pair that regularly psyched about 2 [or 6] times per > >session what, if anything, would you do about it? > From: jd@pip.dknet.dk (Jesper Dybdal) > I would make sure that these players understand the requirements for > disclosure and the risks of creating implicit partnership > understandings. Provided they handle those aspects of psyching > correctly, there is no problem. > However, if these psyches happened in our own club, and if the club > members in general felt that it had a bad effect on their enjoyment of > the game (which in practice would depend on whether the psyches were > clever and amusing), I might tell the psychers that while their > psyching is perfectly legal, they and everybody else might enjoy the > game better if they either psyched less or found a different club > where such a style is appreciated. But this would clearly be a matter > of social laws, not bridge laws. It seems to me that the above is the crux of the matter. If players are psyching two or six times per session, one of two things is true: a) they are "psyching" regularly in certain positions. This is no longer a psych but part of their system, even if only by implicit agreement. The opponents must be fully informed, as for any other aspect of system, and the implicit agreement, if conventional or otherwise subject to regulation, must be in accord with the appropriate convention chart. All this is basically a restatement of L75B with a nod to L40. or b) they are psyching randomly. This is primarily a social offense, which disrupts the game. It seems to be covered under L74A2 and L74B1, but perhaps there's another I'm overlooking. An analogy to b) might be a pair experimenting with some complex system, which they get wrong as often as right. They distribute many tops and a few bottoms randomly around the field. While this pair isn't trying to do anything malicious, it's understandable if the other players don't enjoy the experience. (Ghestem comes to mind, for some reason.) All the above seems obvious, but how exactly one enforces the restrictions implied by a) is not clear. As a practical matter, it seems impossible to keep adequate records. From owner-bridge-laws Fri Apr 11 11:04:44 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id LAA19332 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 11 Apr 1997 11:04:44 +1000 Received: from relay-10.mail.demon.net (punt.demon.co.uk [194.217.242.133]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id LAA19327 for ; Fri, 11 Apr 1997 11:04:38 +1000 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by relay-10.mail.demon.net id aa1029306; 11 Apr 97 2:01 BST Message-ID: Date: Fri, 11 Apr 1997 01:51:33 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Opening lead out of turn MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Well that's easy! You have five options, and ... I was called to the table at out Easter Festival in London twice in ten minutes for an opening lead out of turn. Nice and easy. Well, two small snags. :)) At the first table, I gave them the five options [the LOOT was a diamond] and then one of the NOs said "Does it make any difference that dummy has said before you arrived that he wants to forbid a diamond lead?". Well, does it? At the second table, I saw the opening lead followed by two other cards. "Where's the dummy?" I said, intelligently. "Oh!" they said, unintelligently. You have the picture? Opening LOOT, declarer follows from hand, next player follows [no it wasn't a second opening lead, I checked] and dummy says "Wait a minute!" How about it? I shall read all the answers to these nice and easy problems on my return from Jersey in ten days. Cheers! -- David Stevenson MayDay Swiss Pairs in Liverpool! Nanki Poo is FOUR! Hughes Simultaneous Pairs at end of June! nankipoo@blakjak.demon.co.uk See my Homepage for details Homepage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk From owner-bridge-laws Fri Apr 11 17:36:24 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id RAA20460 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 11 Apr 1997 17:36:24 +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 RAA20455 for ; Fri, 11 Apr 1997 17:36:19 +1000 Received: from rechner16.jura.uni-duesseldorf.de by sirene.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de with SMTP (PP) id <16653-0@sirene.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de>; Fri, 11 Apr 1997 09:05:05 +0000 Message-Id: <1.5.4.16.19970411090608.1ca79c74@mail.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de> X-Sender: bley@mail.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.4 (16) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Richard Bley Subject: Re: Opening lead out of turn Date: Fri, 11 Apr 1997 07:05:09 +0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Hello David wrote: (...) > At the first table, I gave them the five options [the LOOT was a >diamond] and then one of the NOs said "Does it make any difference that >dummy has said before you arrived that he wants to forbid a diamond >lead?". > > Well, does it? Well, they are stupid, arent they? So what they talk is a lot of rubbish anyway. (Dont tell them that way ... :-) So it makes no real difference; give dummy a warning, explain the rules (if u have time enough...) > > At the second table, I saw the opening lead followed by two other >cards. "Where's the dummy?" I said, intelligently. "Oh!" they said, >unintelligently. You have the picture? Opening LOOT, declarer follows >from hand, next player follows [no it wasn't a second opening lead, I >checked] and dummy says "Wait a minute!" > > How about it? > 10 years ago, that was before I looked for a career as a TD, we had a similar story, but they didnt play only 3 cards, but 5 tricks! Let them play whatever they like... OK I suspect that this wasnt a high class event anyway... So u should make it with common sense instead with the ruling book, where this case isnt described anyway. The LOOT is accepted and dummy have to put down his cards now!!! Just remember them of the rules. Perhaps u should start ur tournaments with some beginner lessons next time? So long; nice stories Richard "Nobody plays so badly as his partner thinks; and nobody so good as he thinks of himself" (N.N.) From owner-bridge-laws Fri Apr 11 23:08:26 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA21451 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 11 Apr 1997 23:08:26 +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 XAA21445 for ; Fri, 11 Apr 1997 23:08:20 +1000 From: Stephen_Barnfield@europe.notes.pw.com Received: by ivy.tc.pw.com; id GAA08737; Fri, 11 Apr 1997 06:54:58 -0700 (PDT) Received: from cactus.tc.pw.com(131.209.7.48) by ivy.tc.pw.com via smap (3.2) id xma008507; Fri, 11 Apr 97 06:54:37 -0700 Received: (from root@localhost) by cactus.tc.pw.com (8.8.4/8.7.3) id GAA28932 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Fri, 11 Apr 1997 06:09:08 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199704111309.GAA28932@cactus.tc.pw.com> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Fri, 11 Apr 97 14:03:23 GMT Subject: Re: dealing with psychers Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I hope you will pardon comments "by numbers", ie without the full text of the question. 1) I live in England, near London (NB I am not any sort of TD, although I was many years ago). None-the-less I will reply as if I were one. 2) Psyching twice a session on average. This is far more than I have come across recently, and suggests they may be breaching Law40A. I would warn them of this, and report them to the Sponsoring Organisation (SO). 3) Psyching six times a session on average. Like 2) but even more so. Assuming I knew of their average, then unless I thought the SO would not support such an action, I would would warn them after the first and second reports, and suspend them under Law91A after the third report. 4) Local regulations and source of law permitting action under 3). Law 91A (director's power to maintain order and discipline). In England the National Authority does not, I believe, have any specific rules governing frequency of psyches (although frivolous pysching is not permitted). In my experience, whilst it does cause the occasional problem, the *number* of psyches does not cause a problem. 5) National Authority's powers. NAs certainly have powers in relation to psyches of conventions (Law 40D). They also have powers under Law 80F "to publish ... regulations supplementary to, but not in conflict with, [the] ... Laws". IMO a regulation which, say, prohibited pairs who have a history of excessive psyching (an interesting concept to define(!)) from psyching, say, more than once a session would be permitted by Law 80F. It would not be contrary to Law 40A, since, IMO, pairs who have a history of excessive psyching are not within Law 40A. The frequency would be such as to prevent there being no partnership agreement. Whether such a regulation would be sensible is not for me to say. Certainly I do not think we need one in England. 6) Sorry, I am not sure what regulation you are referring to. 7) Should psychers be obliged to report their psyches? Not IMO. If you do have instances of frequent psychers, then there might be the need for this. Otherwise, like for DWS, this just feels wrong to me. 8) Should specified players be treated differently from the generality? There is no reason why not, IMO. Commonsense suggests this should be done only in exceptional circumstances, and after a fair hearing for the person on whom this obligation is imposed. 9) Can/ should a board be adjusted without a complaint by the opponents? The answer to "can" is surely "yes", either under Law 12 or Law 90 or both. The answer to "should" would depend on other factors, including the extent to which it is possible to find out what happened. From owner-bridge-laws Sat Apr 12 09:39:43 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA26809 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 12 Apr 1997 09:39:43 +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 JAA26803 for ; Sat, 12 Apr 1997 09:39:35 +1000 Received: from elizian.demon.co.uk ([158.152.48.63]) by relay-6.mail.demon.net id aa0623807; 11 Apr 97 22:33 BST Message-ID: Date: Tue, 8 Apr 1997 23:32:39 +0100 To: Bridge Laws List From: Ian Muir Subject: Strange Major Penalty Card MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.03 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk This will introduce a lighter note into the proceedings ... ... and DWS will tell me to take the story elsewhere!! I was called to the table by West, a defender, to determine the status of his exposed card, the H.10. I was a little concerned that everyone at the table seemed to be on the brink of hysterics but set about establishing The Facts. South, the declarer, had won tricks 1 to (through, for the US) 7 and before he could lead to Trick 8, West sat up with a start and displayed the H10, saying that he could have played it to Trick 7. Inspection of Trick 7, by West, to which South had led a Heart, revealed that West had in fact played the H8!!! Sadly I had to rule that the H10 was a Major Penalty Card, brought about by West atttempting to correct a non-existent revoke!! His excuse was sheer boredom (!) and I was relieved to discover that the ruling made not one jot of difference to the result on the board. I am, your obedient servant, CDBC --> NEBA --> EBU --> BBL --> ??? Ian Muir From owner-bridge-laws Sat Apr 12 18:59:53 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id SAA27873 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 12 Apr 1997 18:59:53 +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 SAA27868 for ; Sat, 12 Apr 1997 18:59:44 +1000 Received: from innet.innet.be (pool03-463.innet.be [194.7.14.163]) by mail.be.innet.net (8.7.6/8.7.3) with SMTP id KAA13851 for ; Sat, 12 Apr 1997 10:59:39 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <334F59F9.765B@innet.be> Date: Sat, 12 Apr 1997 10:46:33 +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: dealing with psychers References: <199704091211.AAA14582@ihug.co.nz> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk patrick carter wrote: > > > 1. Where do you live? > Antwerp, Flanders, Belgium > 2. If you had a pair that regularly psyched about 2 times per session what, > if anything, would you do about it? > I would do nothing. However, in many clubs in this area, even one psyche is frowned upon. In some clubs, psyching is specifically forbidden. I have told these people that this is illegal, but they do it ... Anyway, psyching is not all that common in Flanders. I psyche about once every six months, and I'm considered a notorious psycher for it. > 3. If you had a pair that regularly psyched about 6 times per session what, > if anything, would you do about it? > I wouldn't know. But since this pair would by now be booed out of the tournament, I would have my hands full with explaining that psyching is allowed, whilst at the same time asking the pair to stop. > 4. If you would take positive action to reduce the number of psyches in > either question 2 or 3 above what Law do you believe you are applying? If > there is a local rule promulgated by your National Association please give > full details. > As I said, many clubs have a no-psych rule. Otherwise, since there is not a problem, we don't have any rules. I believe nothing can be done, or needs to be done. If a pair decide to outdo one another by psyching every other hand, I would probably expell them under L91A. They would certainly be causing unorder among the other contestants. > > 5. Do you believe that National Associations have the power to regulate the > number of times a player may psyche? > I don't think they could limit the number of psyches. That is contrary to L40. But I do think persistant psyching is another thing. Since this is not in the rules, I do think the NCBO may call persistant psyching a breach of procedure. Then of course they could define 'persistant', but this definition should not be too minimal. Personally, I always psyche in certain situations (No, I won't tell you which - my partners don't know either). If that situation were to arise twice in the same tournament (a highly unlikely event), I would want to psyche both times. I guess it all depends on the situation, and whether or not the psycher has let his first psyche influence his second. > 6. Do you think that the amount of psyching permitted by this regulation is > fair, or is it too restrictive? > Just about right, but see above. > 7. Do you believe that players should be asked to call the director at the > end of a hand on which they have psyched? > Yes, and I am baffled by the number of negative responses to this question. Since there has been a difference between the hand and the explanation, this should be brought to the directors attention. I would always inform my opponents, and I would ask if they wanted to tell the director. Also if rules concerning persistant psyching exist, these can only be implemented if there is also an obligation to report psyches. Furthermore, many things are called psyches that actually aren't. Only the director can tell the difference. So in the whole, I would not just condone, but actually promote regulations calling for reporting of psyching. > 8. Do you think it is fair that individual players can be singled out for > this treatment, without it being a general requirement? > If everyone is treated similarly, it can be fair. But the singling out must be done fairly. > 9. Is it both legal and reasonable to adjust a board for fielding without > any complaint being brought by the opponents? Please bear in mind here that > psychers seem to indulge in this practice most frequently against weak > opponents whose only notion about fielding is that it something to do with > cricket or baseball. We have all seen players who have a psyching partner > take very conservative actions in situations such as Pass-Pass-1S-Dbl by > choosing to raise to only 2S on a hand where others would raise > automatically to 3S, because their antennae are already quivering the moment > partner opens in 3rd seat and the next hand has enough points to double. The > fact that this is fielding the psyche would not occur to at least 90% of > players, particularly not those usually psyched against. > That is what I meant when I said there are some things that are called psyches that really aren't. If there is a regulation telling this pair to report their own psych, they will have to do so or risk a further procedural penalty (an a more harsher treatment). Then the director can rule that since partner's action was manifestly influenced by the third seat opening, this auction was part of their system (and thus not a psyche), so it had to be alerted and a possible rectification would be the result. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.club.innet.be/~pub02163/index.htm From owner-bridge-laws Sat Apr 12 21:42:52 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id VAA28077 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 12 Apr 1997 21:42:52 +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 VAA28071 for ; Sat, 12 Apr 1997 21:42:46 +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 NAA09406 for ; Sat, 12 Apr 1997 13:42:39 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from default (cph20.ppp.dknet.dk [194.192.100.20]) by pip.dknet.dk (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id NAA22178 for ; Sat, 12 Apr 1997 13:42:34 +0200 Message-Id: <199704121142.NAA22178@pip.dknet.dk> Comments: Authenticated sender is From: "Jens & Bodil" Organization: Alesia Software To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Sat, 12 Apr 1997 13:42:55 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: (Fwd) Re: dealing with psychers Priority: normal X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v2.42a) Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk I am posting this, since everyone else seems to be posting theirs. ------- Forwarded Message Follows ------- From: Self To: patrick carter Subject: Re: dealing with psychers Date: Wed, 9 Apr 1997 19:38:29 +0200 Patrick, In view of the form, I am not posting this to bridge-laws. If it is your intention that this should be posted, feel free to do so. Also, you can use this any way you wish in your work with bridge laws and ethics. /Jens > From: patrick carter > 1. Where do you live? Denmark > > 2. If you had a pair that regularly psyched about 2 times per session what, > if anything, would you do about it? Check that they had declared themselves as frequent psychers on their convention cards. > > 3. If you had a pair that regularly psyched about 6 times per session what, > if anything, would you do about it? Nothing else immediately, but worry about the pattern of such frequent psyches forming a de facto partnership understanding, where players tend to protect themselves against partner's possible psyche. I would probably have a word with the players about this possibility. > > 4. If you would take positive action to reduce the number of psyches in > either question 2 or 3 above what Law do you believe you are applying? If > there is a local rule promulgated by your National Association please give > full details. Law 75 B. The DBF regulations are as follows (translated into English on the fly): 9.4 Psychic calls 9.4.1 A psychic call is a deliberately misleading, gross overbid or underbid in relation to the high card strength and/or shape of the hand. 9.4.2 Psychic calls are recognized as a legal part of the game. 9.4.3 The frequency of psychic calls for each individual player must be declared on the convention card. If this is not done, Law 40 or Law 75 may apply. > > The rule in NZ says that persistent psyching is not allowed and then > defines that as more than two psyches by any PLAYER in one session, or an > average of more than one psyche per session by any player. Furthermore the > director is allowed to ask pairs that have a 'history' in this area to call > him/her at the end of any hand on which they have either psyched or wish a > ruling on whether a specific action will be regarded as a psyche (e.g. > opening in 3rd seat on a 7 count but bidding your good 5 card suit) When > thus called to the table the director may then check to see if the psycher's > partner may have 'fielded' the psyche in any way and may choose to adjust > the board even without a specific complaint from the opponents. > > 5. Do you believe that National Associations have the power to regulate the > number of times a player may psyche? No. > > 6. Do you think that the amount of psyching permitted by this regulation is > fair, or is it too restrictive? Too restrictive and in conflict with Law 40A. > > 7. Do you believe that players should be asked to call the director at the > end of a hand on which they have psyched? No. > > 8. Do you think it is fair that individual players can be singled out for > this treatment, without it being a general requirement? Viewed in isolation from the other questions above, I guess so. > > 9. Is it both legal and reasonable to adjust a board for fielding without > any complaint being brought by the opponents? Please bear in mind here that > psychers seem to indulge in this practice most frequently against weak > opponents whose only notion about fielding is that it something to do with > cricket or baseball. We have all seen players who have a psyching partner > take very conservative actions in situations such as Pass-Pass-1S-Dbl by > choosing to raise to only 2S on a hand where others would raise > automatically to 3S, because their antennae are already quivering the moment > partner opens in 3rd seat and the next hand has enough points to double. The > fact that this is fielding the psyche would not occur to at least 90% of > players, particularly not those usually psyched against. Fielding a psychic call is tantamount to a partnership understanding. Thus it is usually an infraction of L40B and/or L75B. As such, the TD is obliged to act (see Law 81C6) no matter how his attention is drawn to the irregularity. It is both legal and reasonable to adjust the score if the opponents are damaged. Procedural penalties are also in order. -- Jens Brix Christiansen, Denmark From owner-bridge-laws Sat Apr 12 21:43:01 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id VAA28083 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 12 Apr 1997 21:43:01 +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 VAA28078 for ; Sat, 12 Apr 1997 21:42:55 +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 NAA09416 for ; Sat, 12 Apr 1997 13:42:49 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from default (cph20.ppp.dknet.dk [194.192.100.20]) by pip.dknet.dk (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id NAA22183 for ; Sat, 12 Apr 1997 13:42:40 +0200 Message-Id: <199704121142.NAA22183@pip.dknet.dk> Comments: Authenticated sender is From: "Jens & Bodil" Organization: Alesia Software To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Sat, 12 Apr 1997 13:42:55 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Re: Opening lead out of turn Priority: normal X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v2.42a) Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > Subject: Opening lead out of turn > > Well that's easy! You have five options, and ... > > I was called to the table at out Easter Festival in London twice in > ten minutes for an opening lead out of turn. Nice and easy. > > Well, two small snags. :)) > > At the first table, I gave them the five options [the LOOT was a > diamond] and then one of the NOs said "Does it make any difference that > dummy has said before you arrived that he wants to forbid a diamond > lead?". > > Well, does it? Of course it does. Dummy is in violation of L43A1c. Through no fault of his own (but rather through dummy's fault), declarer is in conflict with L10C2. I rule that declarer must accept the LOOT, using L54C. Admittedly, declarer has not had the possiblity of seeing any of dummy's cards, but the information he has received about dummy's cards amounts to just about the same thing. To be on the safe side, unless the players seem to be the sort that are likely to be confused by it, I will inform the players that I am interpreting L54C somewhat freely, and that they have the right to appeal my ruling. > > At the second table, I saw the opening lead followed by two other > cards. "Where's the dummy?" I said, intelligently. "Oh!" they said, > unintelligently. You have the picture? Opening LOOT, declarer follows > from hand, next player follows [no it wasn't a second opening lead, I > checked] and dummy says "Wait a minute!" > > How about it? This looks like L53A, textbook example. Declarer has accepted the LOOT by playing a card. Ruling: Please table the dummy. Declarer, please play to the first trick from dummy. Everyone, please play on. Is there a snag here? The only hint of one would be to consider whether any player should be allowed to take back a card played to the trick. But that would be ridiculous. -- Jens Brix Christiansen, Denmark From owner-bridge-laws Tue Apr 15 14:23:22 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id OAA17410 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 15 Apr 1997 14:23:22 +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 OAA17405 for ; Tue, 15 Apr 1997 14:23:13 +1000 Received: from coruncanius.demon.co.uk ([194.222.115.176]) by relay-5.mail.demon.net id aa0511681; 15 Apr 97 5:13 BST Message-ID: Date: Tue, 15 Apr 1997 04:43:33 +0100 To: Eric Landau Cc: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Labeo Subject: Re: ACBL Bulletin article on new Law for penalty cards In-Reply-To: <1.5.4.32.19970408210312.006a57f4@cais.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In message <1.5.4.32.19970408210312.006a57f4@cais.com>, Eric Landau writes >At 04:11 PM 4/8/97 -0400, I wrote: > >>At 11:37 AM 4/8/97 -0700, David wrote: > >>>The example in the Bulletin is that partner has opened 1NT, and corrects >>>a revoke to make his DA a major penalty card. You are counting his >>>points, and know that he cannot hold both the CK and DA; it is UI that >>>declarer holds the CK. >> >>I read the new wording somewhat more liberally, i.e. I would prefer that >>partner's not holding the CK be AI in this example. Mr. Blaiss's reading >>makes sense logically, but strikes me as neither enforceable nor adjudicable. > >On second thought, I take it back -- Mr. Blaiss's reading does not make >sense, period. > >The Laws tell us what information we are authorized to use in selecting our >calls and plays. The Laws do not, however, distinguish between "authorized" >and "unauthorized" use of logic; you may be forbidden, in appropriate >circumstances, from making use of specific "facts", or, in logic >terminology, specific premises, but where you are authorized to "know" those >facts, you cannot be prevented from applying logic to them. > and so on.... Labeo comments: My understanding of the position taken up by the WBF Laws Committee is that the player may use the knowledge that partner must play the penalty card but may not use any other knowledge gained from either awareness that partner sought to play the card or from having seen the face of the card. He may not draw conclusions as to the placing of other cards, for example. I have consulted on this. Labeo From owner-bridge-laws Tue Apr 15 14:42:37 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id OAA17450 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 15 Apr 1997 14:42:37 +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 OAA17445 for ; Tue, 15 Apr 1997 14:42:30 +1000 Received: from coruncanius.demon.co.uk ([194.222.115.176]) by relay-6.mail.demon.net id aa0611408; 15 Apr 97 5:13 BST Message-ID: <5CUEaOA+7vUzEwDB@coruncanius.demon.co.uk> Date: Tue, 15 Apr 1997 05:07:26 +0100 To: Richard Lighton , bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Labeo Subject: Re: ACBL Bulletin article on new Law for penalty cards In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In message , Richard Lighton writes > >On Wed, 9 Apr 1997, Jesper Dybdal wrote: > >> >> Of course, the new laws aren't finished yet - so in principle we can >> still hope for improvements. > >The ACBL intend to start using these Laws in about seven weeks >and they AREN'T FINISHED YET????? > >No wonder I haven't been able to buy a copy! Labeo sends this info.... I heard reliably last week that the WBF Executive will consider these draft laws at Hammamet whilst the Bermuda Bowl is on. That makes their status until then as proposals from the WBF Laws Committee. There is talk of promulgating them maybe in 1998 rather than 1997. The ACBL, and maybe others, would seem to be ahead of the game, and there is a real possibility that some further change might be made in the text. "Reliably" means from an official who has seen (he says) a fax from the WBF President on the subject. Labeo From owner-bridge-laws Tue Apr 15 23:03:36 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA19037 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 15 Apr 1997 23:03:36 +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 XAA19032 for ; Tue, 15 Apr 1997 23:03:29 +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 JAA14339 for ; Tue, 15 Apr 1997 09:03:20 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <1.5.4.32.19970415130454.00691898@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, 15 Apr 1997 09:04:54 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: ACBL Bulletin article on new Law for penalty cards Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 04:43 AM 4/15/97 +0100, Labeo wrote: >Labeo comments: My understanding of the position taken up by the WBF >Laws Committee is that the player may use the knowledge that partner >must play the penalty card but may not use any other knowledge gained >from either awareness that partner sought to play the card or from >having seen the face of the card. He may not draw conclusions as to the >placing of other cards, for example. I have consulted on this. As I read the Bulletin article, this is the position of the ACBL as well. But consider its implications. What this interpretation does is to introduce a totally new concept not previously seen in bridge law: unauthorized conclusions deduced entirely from authorized information. Even if one believes that this makes sense, I see nothing in the Laws to suggest that it exists, and do not believe that the parenthetical addition to Law 50 was intended to introduce such a wholly new and unprecedented notion with no further guidance as to what it means or implies, or how to deal with adjudications resulting from it. We all agree that POSSESSION of unauthorized information is not, by itself, against the law. Rather, it is the USE of unauthorized information that is forbidden. This interpretation would mean that there are cases where the use of AUTHORIZED information is forbidden. If we accept it, we lose the operational distinction between authorized and unauthorized information, and bring chaos to this whole area of the law. 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 Apr 16 07:51:47 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA23389 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 16 Apr 1997 07:51:47 +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 HAA23384 for ; Wed, 16 Apr 1997 07:51:37 +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 RAA23302 for ; Tue, 15 Apr 1997 17:51:34 -0400 (EDT) Received: by cfa183.harvard.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id RAA03284; Tue, 15 Apr 1997 17:51:23 -0400 Date: Tue, 15 Apr 1997 17:51:23 -0400 From: willner@cfa183.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Message-Id: <199704152151.RAA03284@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Strange Major Penalty Card X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: Ian Muir > South, the declarer, had won tricks 1 to > (through, for the US) 7 and before he could lead to Trick 8, West sat up > with a start and displayed the H10, saying that he could have played it > to Trick 7. Inspection of Trick 7, by West, to which South had led a > Heart, revealed that West had in fact played the H8!!! > > Sadly I had to rule that the H10 was a Major Penalty Card, brought about > by West atttempting to correct a non-existent revoke!! His excuse was > sheer boredom (!) and I was relieved to discover that the ruling made > not one jot of difference to the result on the board. An interesting story, but I don't see any doubt about the ruling. At the risk of introducing another case where we simply disagree about the language, what if the exposed card had been the H-9? Would you rule (L50C) it was "exposed inadvertently" or "exposed through deliberate play?" Neither seems exactly right, and none of the parenthetical examples applies. The card was deliberately exposed but not through deliberate play. Further, there was certainly a fair degree of inadvertence involved here, though not directly in the exposure. So would this be a major or minor penalty card? From owner-bridge-laws Wed Apr 16 08:24:08 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA23506 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 16 Apr 1997 08:24:08 +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 IAA23500 for ; Wed, 16 Apr 1997 08:24:01 +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 SAA21349 for ; Tue, 15 Apr 1997 18:23:58 -0400 (EDT) Received: by cfa183.harvard.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id SAA03297; Tue, 15 Apr 1997 18:23:47 -0400 Date: Tue, 15 Apr 1997 18:23:47 -0400 From: willner@cfa183.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Message-Id: <199704152223.SAA03297@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Opening lead out of turn X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > > At the first table, I gave them the five options [the LOOT was a > > diamond] and then one of the NOs said "Does it make any difference that > > dummy has said before you arrived that he wants to forbid a diamond > > lead?". > From: "Jens & Bodil" > Of course it does. Dummy is in violation of L43A1c. Through no > fault of his own (but rather through dummy's fault), declarer is in > conflict with L10C2. I rule that declarer must accept the LOOT, > using L54C. Admittedly, declarer has not had the possiblity of > seeing any of dummy's cards, but the information he has received > about dummy's cards amounts to just about the same thing. To be on > the safe side, unless the players seem to be the sort that are > likely to be confused by it, I will inform the players that I am > interpreting L54C somewhat freely, and that they have the right to > appeal my ruling. It seems to me that there might be some grounds for appeal. I'd have ruled under L45F ("Dummy Indicates Card") rather than L54C. Declarer can do whatever he wants, as long as what he wants is not to forbid the lead. :-) Seriously, L45F requires that play continue with a possible adjusted score at the end. I don't think an adjusted score would be very likely if declarer accepts the lead, whether he chooses to become dummy or not. Also probably not if he requires a diamond lead from the correct hand. An adjustment would be very likely if a diamond lead is forbidden and possible if the diamond is treated as a penalty card. Of course my ruling is also subject to appeal because L45F specifically applies only after dummy's hand is faced. Perhaps the only solution is L12A1. > > At the second table, I saw the opening lead followed by two other > > cards. "Where's the dummy?" I said, intelligently. "Oh!" they said, > > unintelligently. You have the picture? Opening LOOT, declarer follows > > from hand, next player follows [no it wasn't a second opening lead, I > > checked] and dummy says "Wait a minute!" > This looks like L53A, textbook example. Declarer has accepted the > LOOT by playing a card. Ruling: Please table the dummy. Declarer, > please play to the first trick from dummy. Everyone, please play on. > > Is there a snag here? Could the correct declarer still choose to lay his hand down as dummy? Other than that, this does seem straightforward. From owner-bridge-laws Wed Apr 16 09:42:30 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA23862 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 16 Apr 1997 09:42:30 +1000 Received: from relay-9.mail.demon.net (punt.demon.co.uk [194.217.242.129]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id JAA23857 for ; Wed, 16 Apr 1997 09:42:24 +1000 Received: from mamos.demon.co.uk ([158.152.129.79]) by relay-10.mail.demon.net id aa1010327; 16 Apr 97 0:15 BST Message-ID: Date: Wed, 16 Apr 1997 00:05:58 +0100 To: Steve Willner Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: michael amos Subject: Re: Strange Major Penalty Card In-Reply-To: <199704152151.RAA03284@cfa183.harvard.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In message <199704152151.RAA03284@cfa183.harvard.edu>, Steve Willner writes >> From: Ian Muir > >> South, the declarer, had won tricks 1 to >> (through, for the US) 7 and before he could lead to Trick 8, West sat up >> with a start and displayed the H10, saying that he could have played it >> to Trick 7. Inspection of Trick 7, by West, to which South had led a >> Heart, revealed that West had in fact played the H8!!! >> >> Sadly I had to rule that the H10 was a Major Penalty Card, brought about >> by West atttempting to correct a non-existent revoke!! His excuse was >> sheer boredom (!) and I was relieved to discover that the ruling made >> not one jot of difference to the result on the board. > >An interesting story, but I don't see any doubt about the ruling. > >At the risk of introducing another case where we simply disagree about >the language, what if the exposed card had been the H-9? Would you >rule (L50C) it was "exposed inadvertently" or "exposed through >deliberate play?" Neither seems exactly right, and none of the >parenthetical examples applies. The card was deliberately exposed but >not through deliberate play. Further, there was certainly a fair >degree of inadvertence involved here, though not directly in the >exposure. > >So would this be a major or minor penalty card? > major this IMHO is easy too the player concerned meant to expose this card it certainly was deliberate and his intention - in no sense could the EXPOSURE of the card be said to be inadvertent ok we have some sympathy (but not much :) -- michael amos From owner-bridge-laws Thu Apr 17 04:52:59 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA00347 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 17 Apr 1997 04:52:59 +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 EAA00336 for ; Thu, 17 Apr 1997 04:52:49 +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 UAA12361 for ; Wed, 16 Apr 1997 20:52:43 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from default (cph33.ppp.dknet.dk [194.192.100.33]) by pip.dknet.dk (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id UAA26660 for ; Wed, 16 Apr 1997 20:52:41 +0200 Message-Id: <199704161852.UAA26660@pip.dknet.dk> Comments: Authenticated sender is From: "Jens & Bodil" Organization: Alesia Software To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Wed, 16 Apr 1997 20:50:34 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Re: Strange Major Penalty Card Priority: normal X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v2.42a) Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: willner@cfa183.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) > > From: Ian Muir > > > South, the declarer, had won tricks 1 to > > (through, for the US) 7 and before he could lead to Trick 8, West sat up > > with a start and displayed the H10, saying that he could have played it > > to Trick 7. Inspection of Trick 7, by West, to which South had led a > > Heart, revealed that West had in fact played the H8!!! > > > > Sadly I had to rule that the H10 was a Major Penalty Card, brought about > > by West atttempting to correct a non-existent revoke!! His excuse was > > sheer boredom (!) and I was relieved to discover that the ruling made > > not one jot of difference to the result on the board. > > An interesting story, but I don't see any doubt about the ruling. > > At the risk of introducing another case where we simply disagree about > the language, what if the exposed card had been the H-9? Would you > rule (L50C) it was "exposed inadvertently" or "exposed through > deliberate play?" Neither seems exactly right, and none of the > parenthetical examples applies. The card was deliberately exposed but > not through deliberate play. Further, there was certainly a fair > degree of inadvertence involved here, though not directly in the > exposure. > > So would this be a major or minor penalty card? Major. Action is no accident, but definitely deliberate. True, he isn't *playing* it. Still I feel so certain that I would not consider it necessary to inform about the right to appeal. -- Jens Brix Christiansen, Denmark From owner-bridge-laws Thu Apr 17 04:52:58 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA00346 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 17 Apr 1997 04:52:58 +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 EAA00337 for ; Thu, 17 Apr 1997 04:52:51 +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 UAA12341 for ; Wed, 16 Apr 1997 20:52:40 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from default (cph33.ppp.dknet.dk [194.192.100.33]) by pip.dknet.dk (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id UAA26655 for ; Wed, 16 Apr 1997 20:52:35 +0200 Message-Id: <199704161852.UAA26655@pip.dknet.dk> Comments: Authenticated sender is From: "Jens & Bodil" Organization: Alesia Software To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Wed, 16 Apr 1997 20:50:34 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Comments: Sender has elected to use 8-bit data in this message. If problems arise, refer to postmaster at sender's site. Subject: Interpreting "a point of law" (L93B3] Priority: normal X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v2.42a) Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-MIME-Autoconverted: from 8bit to quoted-printable by ns.dknet.dk id UAA12341 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Your opinions are requested. In the group involved in translating=20 the 1997 Laws into Danish, we turn out to disagree on what the=20 significance of the words "a point of law" is in L93B3. You know: ... except that the committee may not overrule the Director on a=20 point of law or regulations, ... Party A (all power to the AC) wants "m=E5 ikke underkende turneringslederens fortolkning af lovene og turneringsbestemmelserne", which translates back into English as "may not overrule the Director's interpretation of the laws or regulations." Of course, party A recognizes the AC's right to=20 recommend to the TD that he should change his ruling. Party D (more power to the TD) wants "m=E5 ikke underkende turneringslederen i sp=F8rgsm=E5l vedr=F8rende lovene eller turneringsbestemmelserne", which translates back into English as "may not overrule the Director in questions/issues regarding the laws or regulations." Roughly, party D says that the AC may overrule the TD except in cases where he has made an obviously correct application of the Law. An example where this makes a difference is currently up for=20 discussion here on BLML: Steve Willner has asked whether the H9=20 deliberately but mistakenly shown to correct a non-existing revoke=20 becomes a major or a minor penalty card. Both parties will (I think)=20 agree that this calls for an interpretation of the Laws. Party A=20 does not allow the AC to overrule the Director's interpretation, but=20 party D does allow this. The parties agree that the National Authority may overrule the TD in=20 any case, under L93C. The EBU Commentary (Endicott and Hansen) is not very helpful in=20 settling the dispute. =20 Which do you BLML'ers think is the better translation? -- Jens Brix Christiansen, Denmark From owner-bridge-laws Thu Apr 17 06:24:10 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA00871 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 17 Apr 1997 06:24:10 +1000 Received: from electra.cc.umanitoba.ca (root@electra.cc.umanitoba.ca [130.179.16.23]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id GAA00865 for ; Thu, 17 Apr 1997 06:24:04 +1000 Received: from ankaa.cc.umanitoba.ca (root@ankaa.cc.umanitoba.ca [130.179.16.47]) by electra.cc.umanitoba.ca (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id PAA13575 for ; Wed, 16 Apr 1997 15:23:56 -0500 (CDT) Received: by ankaa.cc.umanitoba.ca (4.1/25-eef) id AA16875; Wed, 16 Apr 97 14:29:33 CDT Message-Id: <9704161929.AA16875@ankaa.cc.umanitoba.ca> Date: Wed, 16 Apr 97 14:29 CDT From: Barry Wolk To: Subject: What's inadvertent? Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Another director called me about the following: 1S p 3S p ; 4NT p 5H p ; ? At this point opener thought for a while, and then pulled out the PASS card, instead of 5S. The error was noticed quickly enough to satisfy the "without pause for thought" restriction of L25A. However, this was obviously a slip of the mind, and not a mechanical error (or a slip of the tongue, in pre-bidding-box days). Is this still considered to be an inadvertent call? Under current Laws, this question is of academic interest only. If the change from P to 5S is not allowed under L25A, then it is certainly allowed by L25B2b2, and the penalty specified in that Law is meaningless here. However, when the 1997 Laws take effect, this distinction becomes important, because the new L25B2b2 specifies a significant penalty. So, what's inadvertent? -- Barry Wolk | pi r^2 Dept of Mathematics | That is wrong. University of Manitoba | Cakes are square. Winnipeg Manitoba Canada | Pie are round. From owner-bridge-laws Thu Apr 17 06:43:36 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA00946 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 17 Apr 1997 06:43:36 +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 GAA00941 for ; Thu, 17 Apr 1997 06:43:27 +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 QAA27617 for ; Wed, 16 Apr 1997 16:43:22 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19970416164503.006bdb50@cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Wed, 16 Apr 1997 16:45:03 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: What's inadvertent? In-Reply-To: <9704161929.AA16875@ankaa.cc.umanitoba.ca> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 02:29 PM 4/16/97 CDT, Barry wrote: >Another director called me about the following: > > 1S p 3S p ; 4NT p 5H p ; ? > >At this point opener thought for a while, and then pulled out the >PASS card, instead of 5S. The error was noticed quickly enough to >satisfy the "without pause for thought" restriction of L25A. >However, this was obviously a slip of the mind, and not a mechanical >error (or a slip of the tongue, in pre-bidding-box days). Is this >still considered to be an inadvertent call? No. >Under current Laws, this question is of academic interest only. >If the change from P to 5S is not allowed under L25A, then it is >certainly allowed by L25B2b2, and the penalty specified in that Law >is meaningless here. However, when the 1997 Laws take effect, this >distinction becomes important, because the new L25B2b2 specifies a >significant penalty. > >So, what's inadvertent? A purely mechanical error, i.e. the player must have been literally reaching for a particular bid card but pulled a different one accidentally. Mistaking the auction, even momentarily, or any similar "slip of the mind", does not constitute a mechanical error; L25A does not 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 Thu Apr 17 13:32:56 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id NAA02358 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 17 Apr 1997 13:32:56 +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 NAA02353 for ; Thu, 17 Apr 1997 13:32:48 +1000 Received: from mamos.demon.co.uk ([158.152.129.79]) by relay-6.mail.demon.net id aa0613113; 17 Apr 97 1:00 BST Message-ID: <9d1TdAAhfWVzEwbS@mamos.demon.co.uk> Date: Thu, 17 Apr 1997 00:59:29 +0100 To: bridge-laws From: michael amos Subject: Communication between defenders MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk if one defender begins to extract a card as if to lead - out of turn - which Law says his partner can tell him / her not to ? -- michael amos From owner-bridge-laws Thu Apr 17 15:18:55 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id PAA02690 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 17 Apr 1997 15:18:55 +1000 Received: from relay01.iafrica.com (relay01.iafrica.com [196.7.0.160]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id PAA02685 for ; Thu, 17 Apr 1997 15:18:48 +1000 Received: from 196-7-195-91.iafrica.com [196.7.195.91] by relay01.iafrica.com with smtp (Exim 1.59 #1) id 0wHjaT-0000ty-00; Thu, 17 Apr 1997 07:18:26 +0200 Comments: Authenticated sender is From: "RUSTY COURT" Organization: Internet Africa To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Wed, 16 Apr 1997 23:13:04 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: dealing with psychers Reply-to: ruscourt@iafrica.com CC: tripack@ihug.co.nz Priority: normal X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v2.01) Message-Id: Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In reply to your questionnaire about psychers. In the interests of brevity, I will quote only part of the questions. >1 Where do your live? South Africa >2 ... regularly psyched about 2 times per session As I run most of the major tournaments in this country I have a standard set of supplementary regulations, Law 80F This includes a section which states that "Employment of psychic bids more than once a session may be construed as an implicit partnership understanding, especially if such bids show any similarity. Fielding of any psychic bid before it becomes apparent through the bidding process, will establish a partnership under- -standing which contravenes the definition of a psychic bid." This regulation does not limit players to one psychic bid, nor is it intended to. It is there to make those players who psyche regularly aware that action will be taken by my directors. We have a substantial amount of players who psyche frequently and there is definitely some partnership understanding, and this regulation has curbed that substantially. In terms of this regulation my directors, when they believe that a psyche, or psyches, contravene the regulations of the Law will warn the players concerned that they are obliged to state before the start of play at a table, that they psyche frequently, and that if any psyche appears to have been fielded by the partner (except when it has been exposed), it will be immediately deemed to be a partnership understanding and penalised under Laws 40 and 73 and possibly retrospectively for any known similar psyche. Psyches still happen here, usually by the same people, but they have been reduced to one or two a session. >3 ..regularly psyched about 6 times per session... Logic says that if a pair psyches this often there must be a partnership understanding. After all that's about every fourth board. The above regulation would be applied very stringently and, if necessary, I would use a monitor. If the psyching got to the point where I considered it disruptive or obstructive, I would not hesitate to suspend the pair. Early on in my directing career I nearly had a tournament ruined by just this type of psyching > 4....local rule promulgated.... I covered this in answer to question 2 because it seemed necessary to my answer to the question >5...believe that National Associations have the power to regulate... No. Psyches are bids that are defined in Law 40A and regulations made in terms Law 80F may not be in conflict with the Laws, however I do not believe that this prevents SO's from making regulations for preventing the use of illegal 'psychic' bids. >6..amount of psyching....fair, or...too restrictive. It would be difficult for me to describe the regulation as fair or too restrictive, seeing that I made it. What I can say is that any regulation should only be made in the interests of the whole field and I believe that unbridled psyching cannot serve that interest. This regulation is solely to establish some kind of parameter for whichever director(s) is on duty and so far we have not had to wield the whip and it has diminished the number of psyches by 'known' psychers. We try to use coercion rather than force. In the context of the 'whole field' I do not believe it is too restrictive >7...players should be asked to call the director... We request that psyches be reported by anyone at the table, but I do not believe that it is very effective. As is mentioned in your e-mail this practice is usually exercised against weaker players who either do not know that they have been psyched or are too intimidated to report the psyche. I also believe that the requirement for the psychers to report the psyche themselves is of little or no value. The only times that I have been called by a psycher to report their psyche, has been from ethical players who had made a genuine psyche. >8...fair that individual players can be singled out.... As far as I am concerned the regulation is general. It applies to every player, but only a small number of players are really affected by it. Thus, whilst it may seem that certain players are being singled out, that is because they try to indulge in practices that are not in the interests of bridge. Psyching is legal and part of the game and it must be allowed, but any departure from the definition of a psyche is illegal. Players who indulge in this must be singled out. If they didn't indulge, we wouldn't require any regulations about it. >9...without a complaint being brought... Yes, it is the directors duty to 'rectify any error or irregularity, of which he becomes aware in any manner,' according to Law 81C6 If this question is in the context of psyching, this may not be so apparent to the director without some complaint, but if it does come to the director's attention, then I believe that the director must act. Rusty Court Tournament Director South African Bridge Federation From owner-bridge-laws Thu Apr 17 23:31:24 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA04153 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 17 Apr 1997 23:31:24 +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 XAA04148 for ; Thu, 17 Apr 1997 23:31:17 +1000 Received: from sat411.ihug.co.nz (sat411.ihug.co.nz [207.212.239.157]) by ihug.co.nz (8.7.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id BAA18277 for ; Fri, 18 Apr 1997 01:34:06 +1200 (NZST) Date: Fri, 18 Apr 1997 01:34:06 +1200 (NZST) Message-Id: <199704171334.BAA18277@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: random leads Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk The following situation arose today. I was called to a table where two experienced pairs were playing. Not top class players but players of sufficient experience and ability to play, and occasionally do well, in open tournaments. The point of dispute was that declarer had asked about the opponent's leads and been told that they deliberately led a random spot card to the first trick to avoid giving information to declarer. The defensive pair claimed they had been playing this for a long time (they almost always play together) but although I have directed them many times in tournaments (they are members of a different club) this 'treatment' had never come to my notice. Declarer was quite upset, saying that as they have been playing together for years they must have developed some understanding, to which she would then be entitled. I have struck pairs before who led the bottom of everything to avoid giving information away and while I personally think that's crazy, I have no problem with it as a director. This however was something different. I checked what I was being told by writing down K5432 and asking what they would expect their partner to lead, but the reply was "whichever one she feels like, we lead at random." My ruling was that there was nothing illegal about the agreement as far as I could tell, but that if there was any pattern that there would be an infraction. As the only way I could check that was to look at their leads over a period time, that whenver they were playing under my direction in future they were to ensure that the lead was always entered on the scoresheet (some players are lax about this) and that failure to do this would result in a procedural penalty. There is a comparison to be drawn here with random bids, at one stage there was a fad for playing a 1S 'wonder bid' as an overcall over a strong club, so called because you wondered what your partner had. This was banned on the grounds that prolonged use lead to a partnership understanding. Partner would know what sort of hands this was more likely to be done on, so therefore after the first time such a bid had been used partner would have to give a case history of all hands on which it had been bid before in order to meet the requirements of Law 75C. Whether this should apply to random leads or not is another matter. Anybody know of any other pairs with a similar understanding about their opening leads? Any suggestions on the best way to handle this (including ignoring it if you think that is right) would be appreciated. Patrick Carter Director, Auckland Bridge Club Chairman, Laws & Ethics, NZCBA Email tripack@ihug.co.nz From owner-bridge-laws Fri Apr 18 01:19:00 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA06990 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 18 Apr 1997 01:19:00 +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 BAA06985 for ; Fri, 18 Apr 1997 01:18:52 +1000 Received: (from root@localhost) by tom.compulink.co.uk (8.8.4/8.6.9) id QAA21724 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Thu, 17 Apr 1997 16:18:25 +0100 (BST) Date: Thu, 17 Apr 97 16:17 BST-1 From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: What's inadvertent? 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: <3.0.1.32.19970416164503.006bdb50@cais.com> Eric Landau wrote: > At 02:29 PM 4/16/97 CDT, Barry wrote: > > >Another director called me about the following: > > > > 1S p 3S p ; 4NT p 5H p ; ? > > > >At this point opener thought for a while, and then pulled out the > >PASS card, instead of 5S. The error was noticed quickly enough to I thought a call was only made when the card was placed on the table (though UI can be applied to actions with the bidding box) not when pulled from the box. Am I wrong, or was the Pass card actually placed? > >satisfy the "without pause for thought" restriction of L25A. > >However, this was obviously a slip of the mind, and not a mechanical > >error (or a slip of the tongue, in pre-bidding-box days). Is this > >still considered to be an inadvertent call? > > No. > > >Under current Laws, this question is of academic interest only. > >If the change from P to 5S is not allowed under L25A, then it is > >certainly allowed by L25B2b2, and the penalty specified in that Law > >is meaningless here. However, when the 1997 Laws take effect, this > >distinction becomes important, because the new L25B2b2 specifies a > >significant penalty. > > > >So, what's inadvertent? > > A purely mechanical error, i.e. the player must have been literally > reaching for a particular bid card but pulled a different one accidentally. > Mistaking the auction, even momentarily, or any similar "slip of the > mind", does not constitute a mechanical error; L25A does not apply. > > I am not so sure. It seems to me that L25, in pre-bidding box days, allowed the correction of "mental slips/absentmindedness". A "slip of the tongue" is not a "mechanical" error. The possibility of "purely mechanical" errors introduced by bidding boxes was squeezed, somewhat uncomfortably, into the existing laws. I think this was done to allow for the possible time-lag between making and noticing such an error. I do not think it was ever intended to change the ability to undo immediately *any* inadvertent action. Tim West-Meads (It seems awfully quiet around here when DWS is on holiday:-)) From owner-bridge-laws Fri Apr 18 02:47:20 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id CAA07613 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 18 Apr 1997 02:47:20 +1000 Received: from cadillac.meteo.fr (cadillac.meteo.fr [137.129.1.4]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id CAA07596 for ; Fri, 18 Apr 1997 02:43:56 +1000 Received: from phedre.meteo.fr (phedre.meteo.fr [137.129.12.11]) by cadillac.meteo.fr (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id QAA13047 for ; Thu, 17 Apr 1997 16:43:11 GMT Message-Id: <199704171643.QAA13047@cadillac.meteo.fr> Received: from rubis.meteo.fr by phedre.meteo.fr with SMTP (1.37.109.4/16.2) id AA29095; Thu, 17 Apr 97 16:43:09 GMT Date: Thu, 17 Apr 97 16:43:09 GMT X-Sender: rocafort@phedre.meteo.fr 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: Jean-Pierre Rocafort Subject: Re: random leads Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk >Date: Thu, 17 Apr 1997 18:00:54 >To: patrick carter >From: Jean-Pierre Rocafort >Subject: Re: random leads > >At 01:34 18/04/97 +1200, you wrote: > > >> The following situation arose today. I was called to a table where two >>experienced pairs were playing. Not top class players but players of >>sufficient experience and ability to play, and occasionally do well, in open >>tournaments. The point of dispute was that declarer had asked about the >>opponent's leads and been told that they deliberately led a random spot card >>to the first trick to avoid giving information to declarer. The defensive >>pair claimed they had been playing this for a long time (they almost always >>play together) but although I have directed them many times in tournaments >>(they are members of a different club) this 'treatment' had never come to my >>notice. Declarer was quite upset, saying that as they have been playing >>together for years they must have developed some understanding, to which she >>would then be entitled. I have struck pairs before who led the bottom of >>everything to avoid giving information away and while I personally think >>that's crazy, I have no problem with it as a director. This however was >>something different. I checked what I was being told by writing down K5432 >>and asking what they would expect their partner to lead, but the reply was >>"whichever one she feels like, we lead at random." My ruling was that there >>was nothing illegal about the agreement as far as I could tell, but that if >>there was any pattern that there would be an infraction. As the only way I >>could check that was to look at their leads over a period time, that whenver >>they were playing under my direction in future they were to ensure that the >>lead was always entered on the scoresheet (some players are lax about this) >>and that failure to do this would result in a procedural penalty. >> >> There is a comparison to be drawn here with random bids, at one stage >>there was a fad for playing a 1S 'wonder bid' as an overcall over a strong >>club, so called because you wondered what your partner had. This was banned >>on the grounds that prolonged use lead to a partnership understanding. >>Partner would know what sort of hands this was more likely to be done on, so >>therefore after the first time such a bid had been used partner would have >>to give a case history of all hands on which it had been bid before in order >>to meet the requirements of Law 75C. Whether this should apply to random >>leads or not is another matter. >> >> Anybody know of any other pairs with a similar understanding about their >>opening leads? Any suggestions on the best way to handle this (including >>ignoring it if you think that is right) would be appreciated. >> >> >>Patrick Carter >>Director, Auckland Bridge Club >>Chairman, Laws & Ethics, NZCBA >>Email tripack@ihug.co.nz >> >> >> My opinion is that this leading method should not be banned because it doesn't violate any rule. The real problem is that players who use it are very suspect of incomplete disclosure or secret agreements, not to say cheating, because it is very difficult to prove their culpability if they do so: it's the human nature, people violate laws more often when risks are weak and, on the other side, they are more suspected by their neighbours. With the random leads, their truly random nature cannot be checked on a single deal, but only on a very long sample of deals, and with a very sharp analysis. I think however that, in the absence of evidence, players should be supposed not guilty but should be asked to explicit more deeply what they call "random": do they use a random number generator? do they shuffle their cards, face down, before choosing one? Do they systematically choose one card in a certain situation (when opponents know or don't know their method? according to the precedent choice made against the same opponents?, according to the opponents'strength?...) With a holding such as K 10 8 5 2, is the probability of the lead of each single card the same? A player must not be suspected of incorrect behaviour only because of the nature of his methods but "confidence doesn't exclude checking" and, like in a previous discussion about psyches, it can be necessary to look after single players more than others. JP Rocafort ________________________________________________________________ Jean-Pierre Rocafort METEO-FRANCE SCEM/TTI/DAC 42 Avenue Gaspard Coriolis 31057 Toulouse CEDEX Tph: 05 61 07 81 02 (33 5 61 07 81 02) Fax: 05 61 07 81 09 (33 5 61 07 81 09) e-mail:Jean-Pierre.Rocafort@meteo.fr ________________________________________________________________ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Apr 18 05:45:41 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA08510 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 18 Apr 1997 05:45:41 +1000 Received: from electra.cc.umanitoba.ca (root@electra.cc.umanitoba.ca [130.179.16.23]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id FAA08505 for ; Fri, 18 Apr 1997 05:45:34 +1000 Received: from ankaa.cc.umanitoba.ca (root@ankaa.cc.umanitoba.ca [130.179.16.47]) by electra.cc.umanitoba.ca (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id OAA29281 for ; Thu, 17 Apr 1997 14:45:25 -0500 (CDT) Received: by ankaa.cc.umanitoba.ca (4.1/25-eef) id AA22523; Thu, 17 Apr 97 14:45:26 CDT Message-Id: <9704171945.AA22523@ankaa.cc.umanitoba.ca> Date: Thu, 17 Apr 97 14:45 CDT From: Barry Wolk To: Subject: When is a bid made? (was: What's inadvertent?) Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk This is another issue, so I'll use a new subject line, and snip liberally. twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) wrote: > > > 1S p 3S p ; 4NT p 5H p ; ? > > > > > >At this point opener thought for a while, and then pulled out the > > >PASS card, instead of 5S. The error was noticed quickly enough to > > I thought a call was only made when the card was placed on the table (though U I > can be applied to actions with the bidding box) not when pulled from the box. > Am I wrong, or was the Pass card actually placed? > > > >satisfy the "without pause for thought" restriction of L25A. I see my choice of words has been misinterpreted. When I wrote "pulled out the PASS card" I meant "pulled out the PASS card and placed it on the table." However, this raises an interesting point. Here in ACBL-land, we have an interpretation from the head office that a call is considered made when the card has been removed from the bidding box with intent. This seems sensible, since the card can usually be seen by other players at that time. It is not required that the bidding card be placed on the table before the call is legally "made." What are the rules elsewhere? -- Barry Wolk | pi r^2 Dept of Mathematics | That is wrong. University of Manitoba | Cakes are square. Winnipeg Manitoba Canada | Pie are round. From owner-bridge-laws Fri Apr 18 08:18:59 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA09092 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 18 Apr 1997 08:18:59 +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 IAA09087 for ; Fri, 18 Apr 1997 08:18:51 +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 SAA15673 for ; Thu, 17 Apr 1997 18:18:46 -0400 (EDT) Received: by cfa183.harvard.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id SAA04301; Thu, 17 Apr 1997 18:18:43 -0400 Date: Thu, 17 Apr 1997 18:18:43 -0400 From: willner@cfa183.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Message-Id: <199704172218.SAA04301@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Opening lead out of turn X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > > At the first table, I gave them the five options [the LOOT was a > > diamond] and then one of the NOs said "Does it make any difference that > > dummy has said before you arrived that he wants to forbid a diamond > > lead?". A few days ago I wrote: > I'd have > ruled under L45F ("Dummy Indicates Card") rather than L54C. Declarer > can do whatever he wants, as long as what he wants is not to forbid the > lead. :-) Seriously, L45F requires that play continue with a possible > adjusted score at the end. I don't think an adjusted score would be > very likely if declarer accepts the lead, whether he chooses to become > dummy or not. Also probably not if he requires a diamond lead from the > correct hand. An adjustment would be very likely if a diamond lead is > forbidden and possible if the diamond is treated as a penalty card. > > Of course my ruling is also subject to appeal because L45F specifically > applies only after dummy's hand is faced. And of course the last sentence renders the whole paragraph utter nonsense. This is a common mistake. One knows what the ruling "ought" to be, so one find a law that looks about right, even if it explicitly doesn't apply. How ridiculous! > Perhaps the only solution is L12A1. This at least isn't completely ludicrous, but why isn't the situation just an ordinary, boring L16A question? Dummy's remark suggests one action over another, etc. As it happens, this will have essentially the same result as my absurd suggestion. From owner-bridge-laws Fri Apr 18 18:06:31 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id SAA10814 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 18 Apr 1997 18:06:31 +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 SAA10809 for ; Fri, 18 Apr 1997 18:06:23 +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 KAA16597 for ; Fri, 18 Apr 1997 10:06:16 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from cph16.ppp.dknet.dk (cph16.ppp.dknet.dk [194.192.100.16]) by pip.dknet.dk (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id CAA22568 for ; Fri, 18 Apr 1997 02:11:58 +0200 From: Jesper Dybdal To: Subject: Re: When is a bid made? (was: What's inadvertent?) Date: Fri, 18 Apr 1997 02:11:57 +0200 Organization: at home Message-ID: <335fbc40.3806663@pipmail.dknet.dk> References: <9704171945.AA22523@ankaa.cc.umanitoba.ca> In-Reply-To: <9704171945.AA22523@ankaa.cc.umanitoba.ca> 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 Thu, 17 Apr 97 14:45 CDT, Barry Wolk wrote: >However, this raises an interesting point. Here in ACBL-land, we have an >interpretation from the head office that a call is considered made when >the card has been removed from the bidding box with intent. This seems >sensible, since the card can usually be seen by other players at that = time. >It is not required that the bidding card be placed on the table before = the >call is legally "made." What are the rules elsewhere? The rule is the same in Denmark. --=20 Jesper Dybdal, Denmark From owner-bridge-laws Fri Apr 18 23:50:31 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA11840 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 18 Apr 1997 23:50:31 +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 XAA11835 for ; Fri, 18 Apr 1997 23:50:24 +1000 Received: from casewise.demon.co.uk ([158.152.187.206]) by relay-10.mail.demon.net id aa1002006; 18 Apr 97 14:36 BST Received: by bridge.casewise.demon.co.uk with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Server Internet Mail Connector Version 4.0.994.63) id <01BC4C00.22C61890@bridge.casewise.demon.co.uk>; Fri, 18 Apr 1997 13:55:12 -0000 Message-ID: From: David Martin To: "'bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au'" Subject: FW: Opening lead out of turn Date: Fri, 18 Apr 1997 13:55:06 -0000 X-Mailer: Microsoft Exchange Server Internet Mail Connector Version 4.0.994.63 Encoding: 20 TEXT Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk >> > At the first table, I gave them the five options [the LOOT was a >> > diamond] and then one of the NOs said "Does it make any difference that >> > dummy has said before you arrived that he wants to forbid a diamond >> > lead?". It seems to me that the first law to apply is 10C2 which states that ''If a player has an option after an irregularity, he must make his selection without consulting partner.'' Dummy's remark clearly constitutes consultation and therefore, IMO, declarer cannot apply any penalty to the lead out of turn, hence, the options provided by Laws 54D, 56 and 50E are not available to declarer. Declarer is left with the options provided by Law 54 parts A, B and C and is subject to Law 16A as Dummy's remark is clearly unauthorised information. Thus, the Diamond lead will stand and the only question (subject to Law 16A) is whether Declarer plays the hand himself or elects to let his partner play it. > > > From owner-bridge-laws Sat Apr 19 04:18:43 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA15378 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 19 Apr 1997 04:18:43 +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 EAA15366 for ; Sat, 19 Apr 1997 04:18:33 +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 UAA16685 for ; Fri, 18 Apr 1997 20:18:27 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from default (cph30.ppp.dknet.dk [194.192.100.30]) by pip.dknet.dk (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id UAA27535 for ; Fri, 18 Apr 1997 20:18:23 +0200 Message-Id: <199704181818.UAA27535@pip.dknet.dk> Comments: Authenticated sender is From: "Jens & Bodil" Organization: Alesia Software To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Fri, 18 Apr 1997 20:18:49 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Re: Communication between defenders Priority: normal X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v2.42a) Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: michael amos > if one defender begins to extract a card as if to lead - out of turn - > which Law says his partner can tell him / her not to ? L72A1? Otherwise, I suppose it isn't explicitly allowed, and one could read L73A1 as forbidding it. However, in this neck of the woods, case law clearly allows it. -- Jens Brix Christiansen, Denmark From owner-bridge-laws Sat Apr 19 04:18:43 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA15376 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 19 Apr 1997 04:18:43 +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 EAA15365 for ; Sat, 19 Apr 1997 04:18:30 +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 UAA16678 for ; Fri, 18 Apr 1997 20:18:22 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from default (cph30.ppp.dknet.dk [194.192.100.30]) by pip.dknet.dk (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id UAA27528 for ; Fri, 18 Apr 1997 20:18:18 +0200 Message-Id: <199704181818.UAA27528@pip.dknet.dk> Comments: Authenticated sender is From: "Jens & Bodil" Organization: Alesia Software To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Fri, 18 Apr 1997 20:18:49 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Re: When is a bid made? (was: What's inadvertent?) Priority: normal X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v2.42a) Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: Barry Wolk > However, this raises an interesting point. Here in ACBL-land, we have an > interpretation from the head office that a call is considered made when > the card has been removed from the bidding box with intent. This seems > sensible, since the card can usually be seen by other players at that time. > It is not required that the bidding card be placed on the table before the > call is legally "made." What are the rules elsewhere? Denmark: Same rule. Of course, if it is a mispull (i.e., an inadvertent pick of a card different from the one the player had in mind when taking the card out of the box), it isn't made after all, and when the 1997 laws take effect the mispull continues to be a call not made until partner calls. Our existing rules (which Jesper will have to revise soon) time out applicability of L25A when LHO calls. -- Jens Brix Christiansen, Denmark From owner-bridge-laws Sat Apr 19 14:21:56 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id OAA17461 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 19 Apr 1997 14:21:56 +1000 Received: from pent.sci-nnov.ru (pent.sci-nnov.ru [193.125.71.4]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id OAA17453 for ; Sat, 19 Apr 1997 14:21:46 +1000 Received: (from fox@localhost) by pent.sci-nnov.ru (8.8.5/Dmiter-4.1) id IAA15229; Sat, 19 Apr 1997 08:21:34 +0400 (MSD) Message-Id: <199704190421.IAA15229@pent.sci-nnov.ru> From: "Sergei Litvak" To: "bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au" Date: Sat, 19 Apr 97 08:10:21 +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: Re: When is a bid made? (was: What's inadvertent?) Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Fri, 18 Apr 1997 02:11:57 +0200, Jesper Dybdal wrote: >On Thu, 17 Apr 97 14:45 CDT, Barry Wolk wrote: >>However, this raises an interesting point. Here in ACBL-land, we have an >>interpretation from the head office that a call is considered made when >>the card has been removed from the bidding box with intent. This seems >>sensible, since the card can usually be seen by other players at that time. >>It is not required that the bidding card be placed on the table before the >>call is legally "made." What are the rules elsewhere? > >The rule is the same in Denmark. >-- as far as I know in 1994 there was the World Championship in ACBL-land. The rule there was that the bid is made when player put the bidding card in the proper position on the tray and then remove his hand, The same regulation is in The Conditions of the contest in European Championship. So we in Russia use this regulation. Sergei Litvak, RCBL Chief TD. ----------------------- Phone:+7(8312)365593(eve),384255(day) FAX: +7(8312)362061 From owner-bridge-laws Sat Apr 19 20:56:11 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id UAA17862 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 19 Apr 1997 20:56:11 +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 UAA17857 for ; Sat, 19 Apr 1997 20:56:03 +1000 Received: from phobos.glo.be (phobos.glo.be [206.48.176.11]) by dns.glo.be (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id MAA09984; Sat, 19 Apr 1997 12:55:44 +0200 Received: from gi31451 (p5-09.z03.glo.be [206.48.186.137]) by phobos.glo.be (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id MAA01218; Sat, 19 Apr 1997 12:55:50 +0200 (MET DST) Message-Id: <199704191055.MAA01218@phobos.glo.be> From: "Fornoville Norbert" To: "Jens & Bodil" Cc: Subject: Re: Communication between defenders Date: Fri, 18 Apr 1997 12:52:49 +0200 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: Jens & Bodil > To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au > Subject: Re: Communication between defenders > Date: 18 apr 97 8:18 > > > From: michael amos > > if one defender begins to extract a card as if to lead - out of turn - > > which Law says his partner can tell him / her not to ? > > L72A1? > > Otherwise, I suppose it isn't explicitly allowed, and one could read > L73A1 as forbidding it. However, in this neck of the woods, case law > clearly allows it. > -- > Jens Brix Christiansen, Denmark What about Law 9A2b ?? Norbert , Belgium From owner-bridge-laws Sun Apr 20 03:14:46 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA21328 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 20 Apr 1997 03:14:46 +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 DAA21323 for ; Sun, 20 Apr 1997 03:14:38 +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 TAA04774 for ; Sat, 19 Apr 1997 19:14:33 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from default (cph40.ppp.dknet.dk [194.192.100.40]) by pip.dknet.dk (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id TAA23064 for ; Sat, 19 Apr 1997 19:14:28 +0200 Message-Id: <199704191714.TAA23064@pip.dknet.dk> Comments: Authenticated sender is From: "Jens & Bodil" Organization: Alesia Software To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Sat, 19 Apr 1997 19:14:18 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Re: When is a bid made? (was: What's inadvertent?) Priority: normal X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v2.42a) Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: "Sergei Litvak" > On Fri, 18 Apr 1997 02:11:57 +0200, Jesper Dybdal wrote: > >On Thu, 17 Apr 97 14:45 CDT, Barry Wolk wrote: > >>However, this raises an interesting point. Here in ACBL-land, we have an > >>interpretation from the head office that a call is considered made when > >>the card has been removed from the bidding box with intent. This seems > >>sensible, since the card can usually be seen by other players at that time. > >>It is not required that the bidding card be placed on the table before the > >>call is legally "made." What are the rules elsewhere? > > > >The rule is the same in Denmark. > >-- > as far as I know in 1994 there was the World Championship in ACBL-land. The > rule there was that the bid is made when player put the bidding card in the > proper position on the tray and then remove his hand, The same regulation is > in The Conditions of the contest in European Championship. > So we in Russia use this regulation. Ah yes! We also follow this regulation in Denmark -- but that is when playing with screens. I am sure customs vary all over the world, so let me clarify: * Screens are used in Denmark only for national teams championships, international events, etc. The DBF has, I believe only a dozen tables with screens, and I have not heard of any clubs that have tables with screens. * Bidding boxes but no screens are used almost everywhere. I have not played in a club or tournament in Denmark without bidding boxes since 1980. -- Jens Brix Christiansen, Denmark From owner-bridge-laws Mon Apr 21 00:59:31 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA26209 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 21 Apr 1997 00:59:31 +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 AAA26204 for ; Mon, 21 Apr 1997 00:59:24 +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 QAA00282 for ; Sun, 20 Apr 1997 16:59:19 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from cph59.ppp.dknet.dk (cph59.ppp.dknet.dk [194.192.100.59]) by pip.dknet.dk (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id QAA13236 for ; Sun, 20 Apr 1997 16:59:15 +0200 From: Jesper Dybdal To: Bridge Laws List Subject: L31A and the English language Date: Sun, 20 Apr 1997 16:59:14 +0200 Organization: at home Message-ID: <335b208c.1326567@pipmail.dknet.dk> 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 L31A begins: >When the offender has bid (or has passed partner's call when it is a >convention, in which case section A2b applies) at his RHO's turn to >call, then:=20 What does the word "it" in the parenthesis refer to? Does it refer to partner's call, so that the meaning is (a) "or has passed partner's conventional call, ..." or does it refer to the pass, so that the meaning is (b) "or has conventionally passed partner's call, ..."? As I read the English text, it seems to me that "it" most naturally refers to the pass, giving meaning (b). On the other hand, that does not make much sense: I've never heard of a pass that could be conventional following partner's call when the opponent in-between has not kept the bidding open. However, there doesn't seem to be much sense in the parenthesis with meaning (a), either. The EBL "Commentary" by Grattan Endicott and Bent Keith Hansen chooses meaning (b). In the original translation of the 1987 laws to Danish, it is translated as (b) (by Bent Keith Hansen). However, in 1989 somebody must have been very convinced that Bent was wrong and (a) was right, since the 1989 correction sheet to the Danish laws includes a change of L31A to meaning (a). Now that we are translating the 1997 laws, in which the parenthesis is unchanged, we'd like to get it right - so we'd appreciate opinions on this. --=20 Jesper Dybdal, Denmark From owner-bridge-laws Mon Apr 21 05:35:09 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA27059 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 21 Apr 1997 05:35:09 +1000 Received: from pent.sci-nnov.ru (pent.sci-nnov.ru [193.125.71.4]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id FAA27053 for ; Mon, 21 Apr 1997 05:35:00 +1000 Received: (from fox@localhost) by pent.sci-nnov.ru (8.8.5/Dmiter-4.1) id XAA06711; Sun, 20 Apr 1997 23:34:53 +0400 (MSD) Message-Id: <199704201934.XAA06711@pent.sci-nnov.ru> From: "Sergei Litvak" To: "Bridge Laws List" Date: Sun, 20 Apr 97 22:37:15 +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: Re: L31A and the English language Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Sun, 20 Apr 1997 16:59:14 +0200, Jesper Dybdal wrote: >L31A begins: >>When the offender has bid (or has passed partner's call when it is a >>convention, in which case section A2b applies) at his RHO's turn to >>call, then: >What does the word "it" in the parenthesis refer to? >Does it refer to partner's call, so that the meaning is > (a) "or has passed partner's conventional call, ..." >or does it refer to the pass, so that the meaning is > (b) "or has conventionally passed partner's call, ..."? >As I read the English text, it seems to me that "it" most naturally >refers to the pass, giving meaning (b). On the other hand, that does >not make much sense: I've never heard of a pass that could be >conventional following partner's call when the opponent in-between has >not kept the bidding open. >However, there doesn't seem to be much sense in the parenthesis with >meaning (a), either. >The EBL "Commentary" by Grattan Endicott and Bent Keith Hansen chooses >meaning (b). >In the original translation of the 1987 laws to Danish, it is >translated as (b) (by Bent Keith Hansen). However, in 1989 somebody >must have been very convinced that Bent was wrong and (a) was right, >since the 1989 correction sheet to the Danish laws includes a change >of L31A to meaning (a). >Now that we are translating the 1997 laws, in which the parenthesis is >unchanged, we'd like to get it right - so we'd appreciate opinions on >this. In Russian translation we use such interpretation | When the offender has bid (or has passed conventionally partner's | call, in which case section A2b applies) at his RHO's turn to call... I think that the interpretation of Endicott and Hansen is the corrext one, because Endicott as one of the authors of the Lawbook knows better what they want to say with this words! On my opinion it's very rare situation when player passed conventionally partners bid out of rotation. (I don't think that pass over take-out double is conventional!) Can anybody give me an example? Sergei Litvak, RCBL Chief TD. -------------------------------------- Phone: (8312)365593(eve),384255(day) FAX: (8312)362061 E-mail: fox@appl.sci-nnov.ru -------------------------------------- From owner-bridge-laws Mon Apr 21 14:27:49 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id OAA28397 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 21 Apr 1997 14:27:49 +1000 Received: from emout17.mail.aol.com (emout17.mx.aol.com [198.81.11.43]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id OAA28392 for ; Mon, 21 Apr 1997 14:27:43 +1000 From: KRAllison@aol.com Received: (from root@localhost) by emout17.mail.aol.com (8.7.6/8.7.3/AOL-2.0.0) id AAA18559 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au(bridgelawslist); Mon, 21 Apr 1997 00:27:09 -0400 (EDT) Date: Mon, 21 Apr 1997 00:27:09 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <970421002708_673132782@emout17.mail.aol.com> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au (bridgelawslist) Subject: Re: Law 31A Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk This response is from Ralph Cohen, Co Chair of the ACBL Laws Commission. << If you will refer to Law 30C,you will note that it saysLaw 31 will apply if the pass out of rotation is conventional.Therefore Law 31A is that section of the law previously referenced.It is offender's "pass" being conventional that is referenced in parenthetical phrase in Law 31A,and since he cannot repeat a denomination partner is barred under 31A2(b), and a lead penalty (declarer may prohibit the lead of a specified suit by offender's partner at offender's partner's 1st turn to lead)would apply if offender's side become defenders. Got anymore problems?REGARDS. RALPH >> Karen From owner-bridge-laws Mon Apr 21 16:49:58 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id QAA28682 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 21 Apr 1997 16:49:58 +1000 Received: from kronos.sron.rug.nl (kronos.sron.rug.nl [129.125.20.2]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id QAA28677 for ; Mon, 21 Apr 1997 16:49:52 +1000 Received: from pc_yvon (pc_yvon [129.125.20.132]) by kronos.sron.rug.nl (8.7.3/8.7.3) with SMTP id IAA22978; Mon, 21 Apr 1997 08:49:54 +0200 (MET DST) Message-Id: <199704210649.IAA22978@kronos.sron.rug.nl> Comments: Authenticated sender is From: "J.C.Lohmann" Organization: Space Research Organisation Netherlands To: "Sergei Litvak" , "Bridge Laws List" Date: Mon, 21 Apr 1997 08:49:23 +1 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Re: L31A and the English language Priority: normal X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v2.42a) Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > On my opinion it's very rare situation when player passed > conventionally partners bid out of rotation. (I don't think that pass > over take-out double is conventional!) Can anybody give me an example? Take this one: 1NT 2S 2NT* p 3C .. p * 2NT is the Lebensohl convention, a puppet to 3C. The 2NT bidder may pass or correct to another (weak) suit, bid 3NT etc. Passing indicates a club suit, so it (the pass) is a convention. Joep Lohmann From owner-bridge-laws Mon Apr 21 21:17:19 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id VAA29308 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 21 Apr 1997 21:17:19 +1000 Received: from helium.btinternet.com (helium.btinternet.com [194.72.6.229]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id VAA29303 for ; Mon, 21 Apr 1997 21:17:08 +1000 Received: from snow.btinternet.com [194.72.6.226] by helium.btinternet.com with esmtp (Exim 0.57 #1) id 0wJHB0-0003Fe-00; Mon, 21 Apr 1997 11:22:30 +0000 Received: from default (host-73-36-142.btinternet.com [194.73.36.142]) by snow.btinternet.com (8.7.1/8.7.1) with ESMTP id MAA19897 for ; Mon, 21 Apr 1997 12:22:46 +0100 (BST) Message-Id: <199704211122.MAA19897@snow.btinternet.com> From: "David Burn" To: "Bridge Laws" Subject: Re: L31A and the English language (long and pedantic) Date: Mon, 21 Apr 1997 12:16:59 +0100 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet Mail 4.70.1161 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Jesper wrote: >L31A begins: >>When the offender has bid (or has passed partner's call when it is a >>convention, in which case section A2b applies) at his RHO's turn to >>call, then: >What does the word "it" in the parenthesis refer to? >Does it refer to partner's call, so that the meaning is > (a) "or has passed partner's conventional call, ..." >or does it refer to the pass, so that the meaning is > (b) "or has conventionally passed partner's call, ..."? >As I read the English text, it seems to me that "it" most naturally >refers to the pass, giving meaning (b). On the other hand, that does >not make much sense: I've never heard of a pass that could be >conventional following partner's call when the opponent in-between has >not kept the bidding open. >However, there doesn't seem to be much sense in the parenthesis with >meaning (a), either. >The EBL "Commentary" by Grattan Endicott and Bent Keith Hansen chooses >meaning (b). >In the original translation of the 1987 laws to Danish, it is >translated as (b) (by Bent Keith Hansen). However, in 1989 somebody >must have been very convinced that Bent was wrong and (a) was right, >since the 1989 correction sheet to the Danish laws includes a change >of L31A to meaning (a). >Now that we are translating the 1997 laws, in which the parenthesis is >unchanged, we'd like to get it right - so we'd appreciate opinions on >this. There is in English a rule that in cases of possible ambiguity, a pronoun refers to the last preceding noun. Thus, the sentence: "The dog will chase the cat when it gets home" means: "The dog will chase the cat when the cat gets home" and not: "The dog will chase the cat when the dog gets home." But this is a weak rule in the sense that it is often ignored in both spoken and written English, since cases of possible ambiguity are comparatively rare. For example, even the most pedantic among us would not object to a sentence such as: "The dog frightened the cat when it barked" on the grounds that cats don't bark. Of course "it" in this sentence refers to the dog, rule or no rule. Equally, if my first example sentence had been spoken by somebody who was at home, where the cat was but the dog was not, the meaning would be clear though contrary to the rule. In the case of Law 31A, the rule gives us this meaning: "When the offender has bid, or has passed his partner's call when it [his partner's call] is a convention..." Indeed, according to a much stronger rule of English grammar, this is the only possible meaning. A pronoun stands in place of a noun, and in the phrase quoted there are only two nouns: "offender" and "call". Since "call" is the last preceding noun, and since the pronoun "it" would not be used to refer to "offender" in any case, there is no doubt. The pronoun "it" refers to "his partner's call" and to nothing else, so that Jesper's interpretation (a) is the correct one. But Rule 1 of English grammar says this: "If the meaning of what you say is clear, you can say what you like, regardless of Rules 2 to 1,000,000 which follow." Law 30C refers to conventional passes, and says that they are to be treated under Law 31 and not Law 30. It is my opinion that the phrase in question clearly refers to the way in which conventional passes as defined in Law 30 are to be treated under Law 31. I conclude, therefore, that meaning (b) is more likely to have been what was intended. I draw this conclusion with some reluctance, since it implies that the phrase in question is incorrectly worded. [Note: in the preceding sentence, the pronoun "it" refers to "conclusion" and not "reluctance", which indicates the weakness of the rule that I have cited!] The problem is probably not as acute as it may appear at first sight. It appears to me that Law 31 deals with passes that show or deny some specific feature of the hand, and not merely passes which deny the wish to make some other call. Such passes, in themselves conventional, will almost always apply in "response" to partner's conventional call, so that whether interpretaion (a) or (b) is chosen, they will end up being dealt with under the correct Law. I realise that this does not help in translating the Law into other languages, and I would tentatively suggest that translations be worded in a way that encompasses both possible interpretations. Since my field of expertise is the English language and not the Danish one, I have no suggestion to offer in this regard! David Burn From owner-bridge-laws Mon Apr 21 23:20:18 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA29740 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 21 Apr 1997 23:20:18 +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 XAA29734 for ; Mon, 21 Apr 1997 23:20:03 +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 NAA07693 for ; Mon, 21 Apr 1997 13:51:06 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from default (cph34.ppp.dknet.dk [194.192.100.34]) by pip.dknet.dk (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id NAA12780 for ; Mon, 21 Apr 1997 13:50:58 +0200 Message-Id: <199704211150.NAA12780@pip.dknet.dk> Comments: Authenticated sender is From: "Jens & Bodil" Organization: Alesia Software To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Mon, 21 Apr 1997 13:48:50 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Re: L31A and the English language Priority: normal X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v2.42a) Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk J.C.Lohmann wrote: > > On my opinion it's very rare situation when player passed > > conventionally partners bid out of rotation. (I don't think that pass > > over take-out double is conventional!) Can anybody give me an example? > Take this one: > > 1NT 2S 2NT* p > 3C .. p > > * 2NT is the Lebensohl convention, a puppet to 3C. The 2NT bidder may > pass or correct to another (weak) suit, bid 3NT etc. > Passing indicates a club suit, so it (the pass) is a convention. Good effort, but IMO not good enough. The pass shows willingness to play in the last denomination named (clubs). According to the definition of "convention" in the 1997 Laws, this is *not* a convention. Similarly, in the 1987 Laws, the definition of a conventional pass was expressed by reference to L30C. For a pass to be conventional under L30C, it must either show more than a specified amount of strength (which your example does not) or artificially deny or promise values other than in clubs (which your example does not). Sergei Litvak wrote: >(I don't think that pass over take-out double is conventional!) I agree with Sergei here. Again, such a pass shows willingness to play in the last denomination named, so it is surely not a convention according to the 1997 Laws. And I believe that most players would be passing a take-out double on a yarborough with 6 cards in opener's suit and nothing else (willing to play the contract, but not necessarily expecting to defeat it), so the pass does not show more than a specified amount of strength, and is thus not conventional according to the 1987 laws. All of which leaves us back where we started: Can anyone dream up an example where this law applies? -- Jens Brix Christiansen, Denmark From owner-bridge-laws Mon Apr 21 23:47:13 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA29852 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 21 Apr 1997 23:47:13 +1000 Received: from helium.btinternet.com (helium.btinternet.com [194.72.6.229]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id XAA29847 for ; Mon, 21 Apr 1997 23:47:05 +1000 Received: from snow.btinternet.com [194.72.6.226] by helium.btinternet.com with esmtp (Exim 0.57 #1) id 0wJJWL-0006PK-00; Mon, 21 Apr 1997 13:52:41 +0000 Received: from default (host-73-38-152.btinternet.com [194.73.38.152]) by snow.btinternet.com (8.7.1/8.7.1) with ESMTP id OAA21668; Mon, 21 Apr 1997 14:52:55 +0100 (BST) Message-Id: <199704211352.OAA21668@snow.btinternet.com> From: "David Burn" To: "Jesper Dybdal" Cc: "Bridge Laws" Subject: Re: L31A and the English language (long and pedantic) Date: Mon, 21 Apr 1997 14:47:08 +0100 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet Mail 4.70.1161 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Hi Jesper I'm glad what I wrote was helpful. I could have stated the last paragraph more clearly thus: "Since a conventional pass will always be a reply to partner's conventional call, never partner's natural call, the ambiguity (if such there be) in Law 31 is irrelevant for practical purposes." However, a subsidiary question occurs to me. In the sequence: South West North East 2D (Multi) Pass 2S Pass Pass (spades) is South's pass natural or conventional? It appears clear to me that if the auction were to proceed: South West North East 2D (Multi) Pass 2S Pass (spades) so that South had passed before East had called, the director should deal with the situation under Law 31A. Suppose this happened: South West North East 2D (Multi) Pass 2S Pass (spades) and East on being given his call back now bids 3C (strong takeout of spades, Hackett style). Unless South is systemically forced to bid 3H with hearts and pass with spades - a highly dangerous agreement! - North has UI by virtue of South's pass out of turn, and the lead penalties of Law 26 should certainly apply when West bids 3NT and all pass. But the director cannot deal with the situation under Law 31 unless South's pass of 2S is deemed conventional. I don't have a problem with that, yet I can understand people being extremely confused by the notion that a pass of partner's 2S when you want the final contract to be 2S is other than natural. I don't want to reopen the "What is a convention?" debate, but there is a potential difficulty here. With best wishes David From owner-bridge-laws Tue Apr 22 04:11:50 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA03546 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 22 Apr 1997 04:11:50 +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 EAA03541 for ; Tue, 22 Apr 1997 04:11:43 +1000 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by relay-11.mail.demon.net id ab1124508; 21 Apr 97 18:17 BST Message-ID: Date: Mon, 21 Apr 1997 17:42:23 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: What's inadvertent? In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Tim West-meads wrote: >Eric Landau wrote: >> Barry wrote: >> >Another director called me about the following: >> > >> > 1S p 3S p ; 4NT p 5H p ; ? >> > >> >At this point opener thought for a while, and then pulled out the >> >PASS card, instead of 5S. The error was noticed quickly enough to >I thought a call was only made when the card was placed on the table (though UI >can be applied to actions with the bidding box) not when pulled from the box. >Am I wrong, or was the Pass card actually placed? When a call is made is subject to regulation not Law and differs with different SOs. In England/Wales a call is made when it is placed on the table: in the ACBL when it is taken from the bidding box apparently intentionally. The new Laws have an appendix with *recommended* regulations for bidding boxes: they follow the ACBL approach. My best guess is the England/Wales will revert to that approach when the new Laws appear [assuming that appendix is still there]. >> >satisfy the "without pause for thought" restriction of L25A. >> >However, this was obviously a slip of the mind, and not a mechanical >> >error (or a slip of the tongue, in pre-bidding-box days). Is this >> >still considered to be an inadvertent call? >> No. >> >Under current Laws, this question is of academic interest only. >> >If the change from P to 5S is not allowed under L25A, then it is >> >certainly allowed by L25B2b2, and the penalty specified in that Law >> >is meaningless here. However, when the 1997 Laws take effect, this >> >distinction becomes important, because the new L25B2b2 specifies a >> >significant penalty. >> > >> >So, what's inadvertent? >> A purely mechanical error, i.e. the player must have been literally >> reaching for a particular bid card but pulled a different one accidentally. >> Mistaking the auction, even momentarily, or any similar "slip of the >> mind", does not constitute a mechanical error; L25A does not apply. >I am not so sure. It seems to me that L25, in pre-bidding box days, allowed >the correction of "mental slips/absentmindedness". A "slip of the tongue" is >not a "mechanical" error. The possibility of "purely mechanical" errors >introduced by bidding boxes was squeezed, somewhat uncomfortably, into the >existing laws. I think this was done to allow for the possible time-lag between >making and noticing such an error. I do not think it was ever intended to >change the ability to undo immediately *any* inadvertent action. The term mechanical error is merely the modern equivalent of slips of the tongue. Changes of mind have never been permitted [however quick], but an error in transmitting the call that has been decided by the brain may be changed now and in the past. >Tim West-Meads >(It seems awfully quiet around here when DWS is on holiday:-)) Holiday? -- David Stevenson MayDay Swiss Pairs in Liverpool! Nanki Poo is FOUR! Hughes Simultaneous Pairs at end of June! nankipoo@blakjak.demon.co.uk See my Homepage for details Homepage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk From owner-bridge-laws Tue Apr 22 04:44:42 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA03749 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 22 Apr 1997 04:44:42 +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 EAA03743 for ; Tue, 22 Apr 1997 04:44:36 +1000 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by relay-5.mail.demon.net id ab0503337; 21 Apr 97 18:17 BST Message-ID: Date: Mon, 21 Apr 1997 17:57:39 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Communication between defenders In-Reply-To: <199704181818.UAA27535@pip.dknet.dk> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Jens & Bodil wrote: >> From: michael amos >> if one defender begins to extract a card as if to lead - out of turn - >> which Law says his partner can tell him / her not to ? > >L72A1? > >Otherwise, I suppose it isn't explicitly allowed, and one could read >L73A1 as forbidding it. However, in this neck of the woods, case law >clearly allows it. It has been my opinion for some time that the player does not have the right to do so according to the Laws. You surely cannot read L72A1 that way, without wrecking the game with so many other strange inferences. However, I agree that it is allowed by custom and practice. Fornoville Norbert wrote: >What about Law 9A2b ?? L9A2B2 allows dummy to prevent an irregularity. It does not allow the defenders to do so. It seems to me to strengthen the case *against* allowing defenders to do so because why does it specifically give dummy a right? Why does it not say that any player may warn partner? As in other cases discussed fairly recently I cannot believe that the Lawmakers mean what they say *and* what they do not say: it does not make sense. I believe this is a matter of commonsense. No-one would normally mind if a player does warn his partner [except BLs, and who cares about them?] but you should keep in mind that is actually illegal in case there is any further possible abuse. -- David Stevenson MayDay Swiss Pairs in Liverpool! Nanki Poo is FOUR! Hughes Simultaneous Pairs at end of June! nankipoo@blakjak.demon.co.uk See my Homepage for details Homepage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk From owner-bridge-laws Tue Apr 22 10:30:23 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA05292 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 22 Apr 1997 10:30:23 +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 KAA05287 for ; Tue, 22 Apr 1997 10:30:18 +1000 Received: from soundconnex (t38.dialup.peg.apc.org [192.203.176.166]) by clothes.peg.apc.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id KAA26722 for ; Tue, 22 Apr 1997 10:28:57 +1000 (EST) Date: Tue, 22 Apr 1997 10:28:57 +1000 (EST) Message-Id: <199704220028.KAA26722@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: From: Roger Penny and Jane Stapleton Subject: Re: Opening lead out of turn Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Stevenson wrote: >>Well that's easy! You have five options, and ... >> >>I was called to the table at out Easter Festival in London >>twice in ten minutes for an opening lead out of turn. Nice >>and easy. >> >>Well, two small snags. :)) >> >>At the first table, I gave them the five options [the LOOT was >>a diamond] and then one of the NOs said "Does it make any >>difference that dummy has said before you arrived that he >>wants to forbid a diamond lead?". >> >>Well, does it? Of course it does! I know what decision I WANT to give in this situation - require the LOOT to be accepted and dummy to be tabled now, with declarer being advised that he has lost all rights to exercise any of the other four LOOT options. That should fix DWS's "dummy" - and, more importantly, restore equity in this unfortunate situation. Can I justify this ruling in Law, though? Law 43.A.1.(c): "Dummy's Limitations"? It's tempting to consider "dummy" as being in violation of this law, as Jens has suggested, but I suspect there could well be a fundamental problem here: when there's been a LOOT, is there, strictly speaking, a "dummy" at this point? After all, without "dummy's" infraction, the player who was to be declarer when the auction ended would have automatically been given his usual five options by the TD - and one of those options would have been that HE could have become dummy. Thus, I suggest that there is, legally speaking, no dummy yet and therefore Law 43 should not be applied. Law 54.C: "Declarer Must Accept Lead"? Jens also suggested applying this law, perhaps because the heading is right, but I find I can't accept that as an option either because "dummy" has not exposed any of his cards yet such that declarer "could have seen" any of them. I suspect that Jens himself has identified the problem in logic here by saying: >I will inform the players that I am interpreting L54C somewhat >freely, and that they have the right to appeal my ruling. Law 11: "Forfeiture of the Right to Penalize"? The heading suggests that this might be just right for the ruling I want to give: "The right to penalize an irregularity may be forfeited if either member of the non-offending side takes any action before summoning the Director". I suspect, though, that "extraneous information" from a player who may have become dummy was not the sort of "action" envisaged by the law makers when drafting this particular Law, so I'd prefer to look further. Law 10: Assessment of Penalty"? This seems the appropriate Law to apply in that the "dummy" player has effectively assessed one of declarer's penalty options before the Director has had the chance to offer any of those options after the LOOT (Law 10.A). He has also breached Law 10.C.2 in that declarer can no longer "make his selection [from amongst options after an irregularity] without consulting partner". On this basis, I apply Law 10 and confirm the decision I gave at the start of this posting. This ruling would include the fact that declarer has lost any right to choose the option which would allow him to choose to become dummy as a logical extension of the application of Law 10. >> >>At the second table, I saw the opening lead followed by two >>other cards. "Where's the dummy?" I said, intelligently. >>"Oh!" they said, unintelligently. You have the picture? >> >>Opening LOOT, declarer follows from hand, next player follows >>[no it wasn't a second opening lead, I checked] and dummy says >>"Wait a minute!" > >[Jens wrote] This looks like L53A, textbook example. Declarer >has accepted the LOOT by playing a card. Ruling: Please table >the dummy. Declarer, please play to the first trick from dummy. >Everyone, please play on. I agree with Jens' decision - and can see no snag in ruling thus. Roger Penny From owner-bridge-laws Tue Apr 22 23:53:42 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA07862 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 22 Apr 1997 23:53:42 +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 XAA07857 for ; Tue, 22 Apr 1997 23:53:36 +1000 Received: from innet.innet.be (pool03-462.innet.be [194.7.14.162]) by mail.be.innet.net (8.7.6/8.7.3) with SMTP id PAA09635 for ; Tue, 22 Apr 1997 15:53:27 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <335CB6D4.4F18@innet.be> Date: Tue, 22 Apr 1997 14:02:12 +0000 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01 (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: L31A and the English language (long and pedantic) References: <199704211352.OAA21668@snow.btinternet.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Let's see what happens when we apply two possible interpretations of L30C to David Burn's example : David Burn wrote: > > > However, a subsidiary question occurs to me. In the sequence: > >. Suppose this happened: > > South West North East > 2D (Multi) Pass 2S > Pass (spades) > > and East on being given his call back now bids 3C (strong takeout of > spades, Hackett style). Two possibilities : A) the pass is judged to be natural (wanting to play in the last mentioned suit) L30B applies : the pass must be repeated and L26 lead penalties apply. B) the pass is judged to be conventional : L31A applies, in L31A2 (b) is specifically in application, Lead penalties apply AND partner must pass. Therefor I think that B should be the correct interpretation. After all, by passing, offender has described his hand to partner. Surely he must now not be allowed to use that information ! Which leaves us with the question as to how we are supposed to use the definition in L30C to call this pass conventional ? It does not promise more than a specified amount of strength. It does promise spades, but that is the last suit named. It also denies hearts. And it does do so artificially. I would read L30C to the players, attach my conclusion that I find the pass conventional (while stressing the word artificially) and tell them they can appeal. I doubt if an AC would rule against an obvious looking penalty (partner shall pass). Unless South is systemically forced to bid 3H with > hearts and pass with spades - a highly dangerous agreement! - North has UI > by virtue of South's pass out of turn, and the lead penalties of Law 26 > should certainly apply when West bids 3NT and all pass. > > But the director cannot deal with the situation under Law 31 unless South's > pass of 2S is deemed conventional. I don't have a problem with that, yet I > can understand people being extremely confused by the notion that a pass of > partner's 2S when you want the final contract to be 2S is other than > natural. I don't want to reopen the "What is a convention?" debate, but > there is a potential difficulty here. > > With best wishes > > David -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.club.innet.be/~pub02163/index.htm From owner-bridge-laws Wed Apr 23 00:59:55 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA10371 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 23 Apr 1997 00:59:55 +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 AAA10366 for ; Wed, 23 Apr 1997 00:59:47 +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 QAA07221 for ; Tue, 22 Apr 1997 16:59:37 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from default (cph43.ppp.dknet.dk [194.192.100.43]) by pip.dknet.dk (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id QAA06109 for ; Tue, 22 Apr 1997 16:59:14 +0200 Message-Id: <199704221459.QAA06109@pip.dknet.dk> Comments: Authenticated sender is From: "Jens & Bodil" Organization: Alesia Software To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Tue, 22 Apr 1997 16:59:31 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Becoming Dummy (was: Opening lead out of turn) Priority: normal X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v2.42a) Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: Roger Penny and Jane Stapleton > > Law 43.A.1.(c): "Dummy's Limitations"? It's tempting to > consider "dummy" as being in violation of this law, as Jens has > suggested, but I suspect there could well be a fundamental > problem here: when there's been a LOOT, is there, strictly > speaking, a "dummy" at this point? After all, without "dummy's" > infraction, the player who was to be declarer when the auction > ended would have automatically been given his usual five options > by the TD - and one of those options would have been that HE > could have become dummy. Thus, I suggest that there is, > legally speaking, no dummy yet and therefore Law 43 should not > be applied. Well, I disagree, but I know that this is a contested topic. I suggest that we have a thread on it, so that we might reach useful consensus. My view is that the partner of the presumed declarer becomes dummy once an opening LOOT is faced. If the presumed declarer then exercises his option under L54A, the roles of dummy and declarer instantly switch. The laws do not seem to be explicit in this matter, but I feel that they support my case: 1. Definition of dummy. Declarer's partner becomes dummy when the opening lead is faced. In my view a opening LOOT is an opening lead. 2. In L54A, the wording is "... he becomes dummy, and dummy becomes declarer...". An alternate wording could have been "... he becomes dummy and his partner becomes declarer ..." Since the alternate wording was not chosen, there is some evidence that a dummy already exists. OTOH, I realize that my view creates an awkward situation, as follows: 3. There is a faced opening LOOT, which dummy immediately realizes. Under my interpretation, he may not draw attention to the irregularity. This leaves him lost: If he spreads his hand, he is instructing declarer to accept the LOOT, and if he does not he is drawing attention to the irregularity. In Denmark, case law certainly allows dummy to refrain from spreading his hand, and I do not think anyone would chastise a dummy that calls attention to a faced opening LOOT. I want the best of both worlds: I would like it to be legal for dummy to draw attention to the LOOT and then do nothing, but otherwise the Limitations on Dummy should be in effect when an opening LOOT is faced. -- Jens Brix Christiansen, Denmark From owner-bridge-laws Wed Apr 23 04:57:41 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA11721 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 23 Apr 1997 04:57:41 +1000 Received: from electra.cc.umanitoba.ca (root@electra.cc.umanitoba.ca [130.179.16.23]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id EAA11716 for ; Wed, 23 Apr 1997 04:57:34 +1000 Received: from ankaa.cc.umanitoba.ca (root@ankaa.cc.umanitoba.ca [130.179.16.47]) by electra.cc.umanitoba.ca (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id NAA03327 for ; Tue, 22 Apr 1997 13:57:16 -0500 (CDT) Received: by ankaa.cc.umanitoba.ca (4.1/25-eef) id AA16331; Tue, 22 Apr 97 13:57:16 CDT Message-Id: <9704221857.AA16331@ankaa.cc.umanitoba.ca> Date: Tue, 22 Apr 97 13:57 CDT From: Barry Wolk To: Subject: Re: What's inadvertent? Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Stevenson wrote: > >>Tim West-Meads >>(It seems awfully quiet around here when DWS is on holiday:-)) > > Holiday? I guess no one else noticed the following article. >Subject: The Lambourne Jersey Festival of Bridge >From: "David Muller" >Date: 1997/04/17 >Message-Id: <01bc4b7a$0d644660$LocalHost@default> >Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge > [snip] > >Midweek Teams (33 teams) >Jersey Tourism Trophy (A Final) >1. David Stevenson (Merseyside), Geoffrey Collins (Surrey), > William Kendrick (Lancs), Patricia Scares (Berks & Bucks) So that's where you've been. Congratulations, David. -- Barry Wolk Dept of Mathematics University of Manitoba Winnipeg Manitoba Canada From owner-bridge-laws Wed Apr 23 16:07:21 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id QAA15276 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 23 Apr 1997 16:07:21 +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 QAA15271 for ; Wed, 23 Apr 1997 16:07:14 +1000 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by relay-10.mail.demon.net id ab1020990; 23 Apr 97 2:57 BST Message-ID: Date: Wed, 23 Apr 1997 01:42:56 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: What's inadvertent? In-Reply-To: <9704221857.AA16331@ankaa.cc.umanitoba.ca> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Barry Wolk wrote: >David Stevenson wrote: >> >>>Tim West-Meads >>>(It seems awfully quiet around here when DWS is on holiday:-)) >> >> Holiday? > >I guess no one else noticed the following article. > >>Subject: The Lambourne Jersey Festival of Bridge >>From: "David Muller" >>Date: 1997/04/17 >>Message-Id: <01bc4b7a$0d644660$LocalHost@default> >>Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge >> >[snip] >> >>Midweek Teams (33 teams) >>Jersey Tourism Trophy (A Final) >>1. David Stevenson (Merseyside), Geoffrey Collins (Surrey), >> William Kendrick (Lancs), Patricia Scares (Berks & Bucks) > >So that's where you've been. Congratulations, David. Thanks. It was dreadfully hard work. We played two sessions on three of the ten days, and I only got one day off [I went to the zoo]. All those dinners, and eight bottles of Asti Spumante and one of Champagne, not to mention all the large malt whiskies. Of course I did sunbathe in the afternoon to recover. Seriously, I was extremely pleased. My partner took up duplicate at the age of 68, and now he is 76. I was really happy for him, and our team-mates had no expectation of winning anything either. -- David Stevenson MayDay Swiss Pairs in Liverpool! Nanki Poo is FOUR! Hughes Simultaneous Pairs at end of June! nankipoo@blakjak.demon.co.uk See my Homepage for details Homepage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk From owner-bridge-laws Wed Apr 23 16:31:28 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id QAA15380 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 23 Apr 1997 16:31:28 +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 QAA15368 for ; Wed, 23 Apr 1997 16:31:22 +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 CAA28102 for ; Wed, 23 Apr 1997 02:31:14 -0400 (EDT) Received: by cfa183.harvard.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id CAA06721; Wed, 23 Apr 1997 02:31:22 -0400 Date: Wed, 23 Apr 1997 02:31:22 -0400 From: willner@cfa183.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Message-Id: <199704230631.CAA06721@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: L31A and the English language (long and pedantic) Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Herman De Wael wrote: > Let's see what happens when we apply two possible interpretations of > L30C to David Burn's example : > David Burn wrote: > > South West North East > > 2D (Multi) Pass 2S > > Pass (spades) > > > > and East on being given his call back now bids 3C (strong takeout of > > spades, Hackett style). > Two possibilities : > A) the pass is judged to be natural (wanting to play in the last > mentioned suit) L30B applies : the pass must be repeated and L26 lead > penalties apply. > > B) the pass is judged to be conventional : L31A applies, in L31A2 (b) is > specifically in application, Lead penalties apply AND partner must pass. > > Therefor I think that B should be the correct interpretation. After > all, by passing, offender has described his hand to partner. Surely he > must now not be allowed to use that information ! > > Which leaves us with the question as to how we are supposed to use the > definition in L30C to call this pass conventional ? Do we need to call the pass conventional to solve the problem under the new Laws? The withdrawn pass -- the one that shows spades -- will be UI for North. Is that not good enough? It is surely _necessary_, even if not adequate. North must not be allowed to defend on the basis of knowing South's suit unless that becomes obvious from the rest of the auction and play. L26 fixes the problem for the opening lead, but not for the rest of the defense. In terms of restoring equity, I don't see any need to require North to pass, as long as his action is not based on the withdrawn pass. Of course in practice, it's very hard to imagine a hand where North would be able to do anything but pass. I suppose EW might bid a slam, though; why (in equity) shouldn't North be allowed to double if looking at two tricks? Of course Herman may well be right that the pass is conventional, but I don't think it's so obvious. I'm not sure how we would solve this problem under the current Laws, where the withdrawn pass is AI. Perhaps we need L12A1 (laws provide no indemnity) if the L26 lead penalties do not restore equity??? From owner-bridge-laws Thu Apr 24 06:41:43 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA21390 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 24 Apr 1997 06:41:43 +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 GAA21385 for ; Thu, 24 Apr 1997 06:41:35 +1000 Received: from coruncanius.demon.co.uk ([194.222.115.176]) by relay-11.mail.demon.net id aa1111106; 23 Apr 97 21:31 BST Message-ID: <9bbVsFAP9mXzEwKd@coruncanius.demon.co.uk> Date: Wed, 23 Apr 1997 21:21:35 +0100 To: patrick carter Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: Labeo Subject: Re: random leads In-Reply-To: <199704171334.BAA18277@ihug.co.nz> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In message <199704171334.BAA18277@ihug.co.nz>, patrick carter writes > The following situation arose today. I was called to a table where two experienced pairs were playing. Not top class players but players of sufficient experience and ability to play, and occasionally do well, in open tournaments. The point of dispute was that declarer had asked about the opponent's leads and been told that they deliberately led a random spot card to the first trick to avoid giving information to declarer. > > {.....and more.....} Labeo comments: I believe that regulating authorities do well to stop so-say "random" leads. After a while partnerships learn their habits and know too much. In some cases there are hidden understandings and an added risk at times that these are not merely the product of partnership experience. Partnerships playing alleged 'random' methods have a difficulty: they are required to disclose all they have learnt from partnership experience (see Law 75C) and it is not credible to suggest they have learnt nothing. > > > Labeo From owner-bridge-laws Thu Apr 24 07:00:14 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA21433 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 24 Apr 1997 07:00:14 +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 HAA21428 for ; Thu, 24 Apr 1997 07:00:08 +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 AA12913; Wed, 23 Apr 1997 17:00:03 -0400 Received: from localhost by Panoramix.UQSS.UQuebec.ca with SMTP (1.39.111.2/15.6) id AA038779193; Wed, 23 Apr 1997 16:59:53 -0400 X-Openmail-Hops: 1 Date: Wed, 23 Apr 97 16:59:41 -0400 Message-Id: Subject: UI in law 75 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 At a recent sectionnal, the bidding went: W: 1N N: 2D! E: P S: 2H P 3D P 3H P 4D All pass S alerted N 2D saying both majors (Capelletti) as written on N-S CC. In fact, N made a false bid, having 6 cards in D, and only 1 H. S bid twice in H having some cards in that suit, but finally passed on 4 D, clearly understanding the mistake of his pd. The TD said he can do nothing on a false bid when explanations are correct, and let the score hold: 4D made. N knows that S can bid H with only some small cards in the suit. Does this fact is UI as explained in law 75? Does he have to pass on 2H? When S finally realised the mistake, does this information becomes UI? Please comment and explain your ruling. Laval Du Breuil Quebec city From owner-bridge-laws Thu Apr 24 07:36:43 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA21552 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 24 Apr 1997 07:36:43 +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 HAA21547 for ; Thu, 24 Apr 1997 07:36:38 +1000 Received: from localhost by flash.irvine.com id aa27527; 23 Apr 97 14:36 PDT To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au CC: adam@flash.irvine.com Subject: Re: random leads In-reply-to: Your message of "Wed, 23 Apr 1997 21:21:35 PDT." <9bbVsFAP9mXzEwKd@coruncanius.demon.co.uk> Date: Wed, 23 Apr 1997 14:36:02 PDT From: Adam Beneschan Message-ID: <9704231436.aa27527@flash.irvine.com> Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > Received: from octavia.anu.edu.au by flash.irvine.com id aa25949; > > Labeo comments: I believe that regulating authorities do well to > stop so-say "random" leads. After a while partnerships learn their > habits and know too much. In some cases there are hidden > understandings and an added risk at times that these are not merely > the product of partnership experience. > Partnerships playing alleged 'random' methods > have a difficulty: they are required to disclose all they have learnt > from partnership experience (see Law 75C) and it is not credible to > suggest they have learnt nothing. I don't get it. Why is this not credible (in the case of random leads)? Say someone playing "random" leads holds K5432, and decides that's the best suit to lead. Theoretically, if you look at all the times the leader is in that situation, he'll lead the 5 approximately one quarter of the time, and similarly for the 4, 3, and 2. (Naturally, he'll rarely lead the king and only with a very good reason, but this doesn't make the lead system non-"random".) Do you have any evidence to suggest that this isn't the case? I.e. do you have any evidence that players who say they play "random" leads will actually lead one spot more often than the others? I would be suspicious of some other "random" methods. Somewhere on this subject, someone mentioned a (perhaps hypothetical) pair who "randomly" bid 1S over a strong club regardless of their hand. But one would be right to suspect that it isn't totally random; for example, with a strong balanced hand they probably wouldn't do that. Also, if someone said their opening lead from two touching honors is a random choice between the honors, I think I'd want to watch them for a while and make sure it really was random (mainly because information about honor location is SO important to the defense that I'd be dubious about anyone concealing that info). But when it comes to choosing between a bunch of spot cards, when leading and signaling, I don't have any problem believing it when someone says they play randomly. IMHO, it's pretty common to do this in the middle of the hand, to avoid giving declarer information at a point where you think it would be more valuable to declarer than to the defense. (As another example, sometimes it's necessary to play randomly when following suit with touching honors.) This is just my intuition. If your intuition is different, I can understand that. But I'd like to know, what is your basis for your assumption that random leads aren't really random? Is it based on experience, on a study of actual cases, or on something else? -- Adam From owner-bridge-laws Thu Apr 24 08:00:53 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA21619 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 24 Apr 1997 08:00:53 +1000 Received: from helium.btinternet.com (helium.btinternet.com [194.72.6.229]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id IAA21614 for ; Thu, 24 Apr 1997 08:00:46 +1000 Received: from snow.btinternet.com [194.72.6.226] by helium.btinternet.com with esmtp (Exim 0.57 #1) id 0wKABE-0000xG-00; Wed, 23 Apr 1997 22:06:24 +0000 Received: from default (host-73-38-13.btinternet.com [194.73.38.13]) by snow.btinternet.com (8.7.1/8.7.1) with ESMTP id XAA20480 for ; Wed, 23 Apr 1997 23:06:37 +0100 (BST) Message-Id: <199704232206.XAA20480@snow.btinternet.com> From: "David Burn" To: "Bridge Laws" Subject: Re: L31A and the English language (long and pedantic) Date: Wed, 23 Apr 1997 23:00:48 +0100 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet Mail 4.70.1161 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Steve Willner wrote: > > Herman De Wael wrote: > > Let's see what happens when we apply two possible interpretations of > > L30C to David Burn's example : > > > David Burn wrote: > > > South West North East > > > 2D (Multi) Pass 2S > > > Pass (spades) > > > > > > and East on being given his call back now bids 3C (strong takeout of > > > spades, Hackett style). > > > Two possibilities : > > A) the pass is judged to be natural (wanting to play in the last > > mentioned suit) L30B applies : the pass must be repeated and L26 lead > > penalties apply. > > > > B) the pass is judged to be conventional : L31A applies, in L31A2 (b) is > > specifically in application, Lead penalties apply AND partner must pass. > > > > Therefor I think that B should be the correct interpretation. After > > all, by passing, offender has described his hand to partner. Surely he > > must now not be allowed to use that information ! > > > > Which leaves us with the question as to how we are supposed to use the > > definition in L30C to call this pass conventional ? > > Do we need to call the pass conventional to solve the problem under the > new Laws? The withdrawn pass -- the one that shows spades -- will be > UI for North. Is that not good enough? It is surely _necessary_, even > if not adequate. North must not be allowed to defend on the basis of > knowing South's suit unless that becomes obvious from the rest of the > auction and play. L26 fixes the problem for the opening lead, but not > for the rest of the defense. > > In terms of restoring equity, I don't see any need to require North to > pass, as long as his action is not based on the withdrawn pass. Of > course in practice, it's very hard to imagine a hand where North would > be able to do anything but pass. I suppose EW might bid a slam, > though; why (in equity) shouldn't North be allowed to double if looking > at two tricks? Of course Herman may well be right that the pass is > conventional, but I don't think it's so obvious. > > I'm not sure how we would solve this problem under the current Laws, > where the withdrawn pass is AI. Perhaps we need L12A1 (laws provide no > indemnity) if the L26 lead penalties do not restore equity??? There isn't actually a problem here. Law 30B1 tells us what to do, and reinforces the interpretation of Law 31A which treats "it" as applying to our conventional pass of partner's call, rather than our pass of partner's conventional call. The Laws are OK. It is only the English which is deficient, and thanks to Jesper, the Danish won't be :) From owner-bridge-laws Thu Apr 24 10:56:46 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA22513 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 24 Apr 1997 10:56:46 +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 KAA22507 for ; Thu, 24 Apr 1997 10:56:40 +1000 Received: from coruncanius.demon.co.uk ([194.222.115.176]) by relay-6.mail.demon.net id aa0614696; 23 Apr 97 21:31 BST Message-ID: Date: Wed, 23 Apr 1997 21:04:00 +0100 To: Eric Landau Cc: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Labeo Subject: Re: ACBL Bulletin article on new Law for penalty cards In-Reply-To: <1.5.4.32.19970415130454.00691898@cais.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In message <1.5.4.32.19970415130454.00691898@cais.com>, Eric Landau writes >At 04:43 AM 4/15/97 +0100, Labeo wrote: > >ELandau then wrote: >As I read the Bulletin article, this is the position of the ACBL as well. >But consider its implications. What this interpretation does is to >introduce a totally new concept not previously seen in bridge law: >unauthorized conclusions deduced entirely from authorized information. Even >if one believes that this makes sense, I see nothing in the Laws to suggest >that it exists, and do not believe that the parenthetical addition to Law 50 >was intended to introduce such a wholly new and unprecedented notion with no >further guidance as to what it means or implies, or how to deal with >adjudications resulting from it. > >We all agree that POSSESSION of unauthorized information is not, by itself, >against the law. Rather, it is the USE of unauthorized information that is >forbidden. This interpretation would mean that there are cases where the >use of AUTHORIZED information is forbidden. If we accept it, we lose the >operational distinction between authorized and unauthorized information, and >bring chaos to this whole area of the law. Labeo replies: Where I think the argument lies is in the view of the WBF and the ACBL that the information is in fact UI.The intention of the revised text is that the only AI in the case is that the player has to play the card. That he has it, and the consequent info about the hand more generally, as is often so in other situations, is certainly info in the possession of the player but is info which by definition of the laws is UI and may not be used. I wonder if Eric is giving full weight to the fundamental change in the laws which this new Code makes - i.e. that it is no longer the case that after paying any due penalty the Offending Side is entitled to use any iformation it has gained from its own withdrawn actions; this entitlement is blown away. From owner-bridge-laws Thu Apr 24 16:13:26 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id QAA23603 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 24 Apr 1997 16:13:26 +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 QAA23598 for ; Thu, 24 Apr 1997 16:13:13 +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 CAA14334 for ; Thu, 24 Apr 1997 02:12:52 -0400 (EDT) Received: by cfa183.harvard.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id CAA07333; Thu, 24 Apr 1997 02:13:02 -0400 Date: Thu, 24 Apr 1997 02:13:02 -0400 From: willner@cfa183.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Message-Id: <199704240613.CAA07333@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: L31A and the English language Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > > > David Burn wrote: > > > > South West North East > > > > 2D (Multi) Pass 2S > > > > Pass (spades) I wrote (in small part): > > I'm not sure how we would solve this problem under the current Laws, > > where the withdrawn pass is AI. Perhaps we need L12A1 (laws provide no > > indemnity) if the L26 lead penalties do not restore equity??? > From: "David Burn" > There isn't actually a problem here. Law 30B1 tells us what to do, and > reinforces the interpretation of Law 31A which treats "it" as applying to > our conventional pass of partner's call, rather than our pass of partner's > conventional call. The Laws are OK. It is only the English which is > deficient, and thanks to Jesper, the Danish won't be :) Sorry, my message was badly written, even though I mentioned L26. David B. is right that there is little or no problem in the bidding (L31) or at North's first turn to lead (L26). These are likely in practice to cover most cases, but occasionally it will be some other play that is affected by North's knowing South's suit. I don't see any easy solution under current Laws, but the new Laws solve the problem by making the out-of-turn pass UI. From owner-bridge-laws Thu Apr 24 21:44:08 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id VAA24533 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 24 Apr 1997 21:44:08 +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 VAA24527 for ; Thu, 24 Apr 1997 21:44:00 +1000 Received: from mamos.demon.co.uk ([158.152.129.79]) by relay-6.mail.demon.net id aa0623999; 24 Apr 97 11:50 BST Message-ID: Date: Thu, 24 Apr 1997 11:41:14 +0100 To: Adam Beneschan Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: michael amos Subject: Re: random leads In-Reply-To: <9704231436.aa27527@flash.irvine.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk In message <9704231436.aa27527@flash.irvine.com>, Adam Beneschan writes > >> Received: from octavia.anu.edu.au by flash.irvine.com id aa25949; >> >> Labeo comments: I believe that regulating authorities do well to >> stop so-say "random" leads. After a while partnerships learn their >> habits and know too much. In some cases there are hidden >> understandings and an added risk at times that these are not merely >> the product of partnership experience. >> Partnerships playing alleged 'random' methods >> have a difficulty: they are required to disclose all they have learnt >> from partnership experience (see Law 75C) and it is not credible to >> suggest they have learnt nothing. > >I don't get it. Why is this not credible (in the case of random >leads)? > >Say someone playing "random" leads holds K5432, but Adam what about K8432 or K9432 ?? I agree with Labeo - it just is not possible to make random leads unless you conduct a private lottery or consult a random number generator each time - try writing down 100 "random" numbers in sequence - i bet that many patterns will be there - truly random numbers look very weird to the untrained eye - that is why so many punters think that there are patterns in roulette - there are generally not of course eg if i asked you to choose random digits i doubt that you would select the same digits consecutively so perhaps in the random leading pair we might get to know that if he leads 4th this time he does not lead 4th the next (or whatever) or 4th the past two times .... :) it's my view that from past experience a "random" leading pair will know more about the lead of a 7 or an 8 than i do if they just tell me random - that is contrary to the Laws of the Game - >and decides that's the >best suit to lead. Theoretically, if you look at all the times the >leader is in that situation, he'll lead the 5 approximately one >quarter of the time, and similarly for the 4, 3, and 2. (Naturally, >he'll rarely lead the king and only with a very good reason, but this >doesn't make the lead system non-"random".) Do you have any evidence >to suggest that this isn't the case? I.e. do you have any evidence >that players who say they play "random" leads will actually lead one >spot more often than the others? > >I would be suspicious of some other "random" methods. Somewhere on >this subject, someone mentioned a (perhaps hypothetical) pair who >"randomly" bid 1S over a strong club regardless of their hand. But >one would be right to suspect that it isn't totally random; for >example, with a strong balanced hand they probably wouldn't do that. >Also, if someone said their opening lead from two touching honors is a >random choice between the honors, I think I'd want to watch them for a >while and make sure it really was random (mainly because information >about honor location is SO important to the defense that I'd be >dubious about anyone concealing that info). > >But when it comes to choosing between a bunch of spot cards, when >leading and signaling, I don't have any problem believing it when >someone says they play randomly. IMHO, it's pretty common to do this >in the middle of the hand, to avoid giving declarer information at a >point where you think it would be more valuable to declarer than to >the defense. (As another example, sometimes it's necessary to play >randomly when following suit with touching honors.) > >This is just my intuition. If your intuition is different, I can >understand that. But I'd like to know, what is your basis for your >assumption that random leads aren't really random? Is it based on >experience, on a study of actual cases, or on something else? > > -- Adam -- michael amos From owner-bridge-laws Thu Apr 24 22:54:47 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id WAA24797 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 24 Apr 1997 22:54:47 +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 WAA24792 for ; Thu, 24 Apr 1997 22:54:41 +1000 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by relay-5.mail.demon.net id aa0510139; 24 Apr 97 12:51 BST Message-ID: Date: Thu, 24 Apr 1997 03:46:53 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: random leads In-Reply-To: <9704231436.aa27527@flash.irvine.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Adam Beneschan wrote: > >> Received: from octavia.anu.edu.au by flash.irvine.com id aa25949; >> >> Labeo comments: I believe that regulating authorities do well to >> stop so-say "random" leads. After a while partnerships learn their >> habits and know too much. In some cases there are hidden >> understandings and an added risk at times that these are not merely >> the product of partnership experience. >> Partnerships playing alleged 'random' methods >> have a difficulty: they are required to disclose all they have learnt >> from partnership experience (see Law 75C) and it is not credible to >> suggest they have learnt nothing. > >I don't get it. Why is this not credible (in the case of random >leads)? > >Say someone playing "random" leads holds K5432, and decides that's the >best suit to lead. Theoretically, if you look at all the times the >leader is in that situation, he'll lead the 5 approximately one >quarter of the time, and similarly for the 4, 3, and 2. (Naturally, >he'll rarely lead the king and only with a very good reason, but this >doesn't make the lead system non-"random".) Do you have any evidence >to suggest that this isn't the case? I.e. do you have any evidence >that players who say they play "random" leads will actually lead one >spot more often than the others? > >I would be suspicious of some other "random" methods. Somewhere on >this subject, someone mentioned a (perhaps hypothetical) pair who >"randomly" bid 1S over a strong club regardless of their hand. But >one would be right to suspect that it isn't totally random; for >example, with a strong balanced hand they probably wouldn't do that. >Also, if someone said their opening lead from two touching honors is a >random choice between the honors, I think I'd want to watch them for a >while and make sure it really was random (mainly because information >about honor location is SO important to the defense that I'd be >dubious about anyone concealing that info). > >But when it comes to choosing between a bunch of spot cards, when >leading and signaling, I don't have any problem believing it when >someone says they play randomly. IMHO, it's pretty common to do this >in the middle of the hand, to avoid giving declarer information at a >point where you think it would be more valuable to declarer than to >the defense. (As another example, sometimes it's necessary to play >randomly when following suit with touching honors.) > >This is just my intuition. If your intuition is different, I can >understand that. But I'd like to know, what is your basis for your >assumption that random leads aren't really random? Is it based on >experience, on a study of actual cases, or on something else? Experience and commonsense, I would say. For one thing, I very much doubt that from K5432 players would lead the 5 4 3 2 equal numbers of times. Knowing that the aim of their leads was to confuse, I would take a bet that the 2 is led less often. But why are you talking about K5432? What about the more obvious cases where there are problems? You say that we do not consider the K lead with K5432, and I agree with you. But how about the ten lead from K10432? or from K10932? K10982? I bet you it is a more frequent lead from K10982 than from K10432. If you give players an easy choice of random lead, like K5432, then they will pick fairly at random, and patterns will not develop very much. But as the cards become more relevant players will have more difficulty making a random choice, and thus it will be less random, and more conforming to a pattern: suddenly it isn't random any more! This, of course, is additional to the possibility that a pair is merely lying. As you have seen many times in my posts to RGB and BLML, I am very loth to believe pairs ever do things intentionally that are wrong, and have several times decried the suspicious nature of many posts. But even for me, if a good pair plays "random" leads, then my first instinct is "Do they, or do they just say they do?". Somehow, it reminds me of a top British pair who tell their opponents they play "only natural methods": I can assure you this pair plays more conventions than I do [and at least three times as many as Steve Barnfield, at a guess ]. In my experience and knowledge of the game, a good or medium pair that claims to be playing random leads probably isn't. -- David Stevenson MayDay Swiss Pairs in Liverpool! Nanki Poo is FOUR! Hughes Simultaneous Pairs at end of June! nankipoo@blakjak.demon.co.uk See my Homepage for details Homepage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk From owner-bridge-laws Thu Apr 24 23:28:02 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA24911 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 24 Apr 1997 23:28:02 +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 XAA24906 for ; Thu, 24 Apr 1997 23:27:57 +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 JAA06583 for ; Thu, 24 Apr 1997 09:27:52 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19970424092854.006bfca8@cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Thu, 24 Apr 1997 09:28:54 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: UI in law 75 In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 04:59 PM 4/23/97 -0400, Laval wrote: >At a recent sectionnal, the bidding went: > >W: 1N N: 2D! E: P S: 2H > P 3D P 3H > P 4D All pass > >S alerted N 2D saying both majors (Capelletti) as written on N-S CC. >In fact, N made a false bid, having 6 cards in D, and only 1 H. >S bid twice in H having some cards in that suit, but finally passed on 4 >D, clearly understanding the mistake of his pd. > >The TD said he can do nothing on a false bid when explanations are >correct, and let the score hold: 4D made. > >N knows that S can bid H with only some small cards in the suit. >Does this fact is UI as explained in law 75? Does he have to pass on 2H? >When S finally realised the mistake, does this information becomes UI? > >Please comment and explain your ruling. (1) S's alert is UI for N. N must continue the auction as though S were responding to 2D meaning whatever N thought it meant when he bid it; he may not act on the knowledge that 2D was systemically for the majors. Whether or not he must pass 2H depends on what 2H would mean over a 2D bid that meant whatever N thought it meant when he opened it; if 2H in that situation would call for a pass, he must pass. (2) S's position is more delicate. He may be allowed to "work out" that N has misbid (if, for example, N's 4D bid is totally impossible playing 2D as Capelletti), but may do this ONLY if N has not made any UI available ("by means of a remark, a question...", etc. etc. [L16A]) that would suggest that he misbid. Luckily, except in the very unlikely case where N's hand is such that his 4D bid was legitimate (he'd probably need something like 0-8 in the reds to convince me), this point wouldn't need to be adjudicated. Given that N was 1-6 in the reds, he was clearly out of line to bid 4D, and we can base our ruling solely on point (1). Without the full hands and the N-S CC, we can't know precisely what the ruling should be. If, for instance, N had a normal weak 2 in Ds, and N-S were playing new suits to play over their (major suit) weak 2s, I'd probably adjust to the likely result in 2H (assuming damage, i.e. that E-W would rate to score better against 2H than they did against 4D). If they played new suit forcing over weak 2s, I'd look at N's hand and decide what he'd be likely to do over 3H (probably pass or 3NT with 1 H), and adjust accordingly. The TD ruled that since S's explanation was correct, E-W are not entitled to any adjustment under L75. That's true, but completely irrelevant. L75 governs misinformation infractions. Here there was no misinformation. The infraction was N's use of UI from S's alert and explanation. L75 should never have come into the picture, and the ruling should have been based on L16A. 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 Apr 25 00:38:30 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA27547 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 25 Apr 1997 00:38:30 +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 AAA27541 for ; Fri, 25 Apr 1997 00:38:23 +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 KAA18490 for ; Thu, 24 Apr 1997 10:38:19 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19970424102818.006c8128@cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Thu, 24 Apr 1997 10:28:18 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: ACBL Bulletin article on new Law for penalty cards In-Reply-To: References: <1.5.4.32.19970415130454.00691898@cais.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 09:04 PM 4/23/97 +0100, Labeo wrote: >Where I think the argument lies is in the view of the WBF and the ACBL >that the information is in fact UI.The intention of the revised text is >that the only AI in the case is that the player has to play the card. >That he has it, and the consequent info about the hand more generally, >as is often so in other situations, is certainly info in the possession >of the player but is info which by definition of the laws is UI and may >not be used. One can't make a logical impossibility true by legislating it. I can't accept Labeo's interpretation of the WBF/ACBL position unless or until someone offers an explanation of how it is logically possible to know, for example, that partner must play the HA at his next legal opportunity without knowing that partner holds the HA. >I wonder if Eric is giving full weight to the fundamental change in the >laws which this new Code makes - i.e. that it is no longer the case that >after paying any due penalty the Offending Side is entitled to use >any iformation it has gained from its own withdrawn actions; this >entitlement is blown away. ...This doesn't mean that the OS is entitled to use ANY information it has gained from its own withdrawn actions. Suppose, for example, that the HA became a penalty card due to a LOOT. Since it is logically possible for a player to know that his partner must play the HA at his next legal opportunity without knowing that his partner would have liked to lead it, it is logically possible to legislate that the former is AI while the latter is UI. My view is that this is what the change in the law does (under the current law, both are AI). Eric Landau elandau@cais.com APL Solutions, Inc. elandau@acm.org 1107 Dale Drive (301) 589-4621 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 From owner-bridge-laws Fri Apr 25 01:58:27 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA28040 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 25 Apr 1997 01:58:27 +1000 Received: from mipl7.jpl.nasa.gov (mipl7.jpl.nasa.gov [128.149.177.7]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id BAA28035 for ; Fri, 25 Apr 1997 01:58:20 +1000 Received: from tintin.JPL.NASA.GOV (tintin.jpl.nasa.gov [137.78.77.70]) by mipl7.jpl.nasa.gov (8.6.12/8.6.6) with ESMTP id IAA28259 for <@mipl7.JPL.NASA.GOV:bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au>; Thu, 24 Apr 1997 08:57:41 -0700 Received: by tintin.JPL.NASA.GOV (940816.SGI.8.6.9/930416.SGI.MIPS) for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au id IAA11478; Thu, 24 Apr 1997 08:58:07 -0700 Date: Thu, 24 Apr 1997 08:58:07 -0700 From: jeff@tintin.JPL.NASA.GOV (Jeff Goldsmith) Message-Id: <199704241558.IAA11478@tintin.JPL.NASA.GOV> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: random leads Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au David Stevenson said: | In my experience and knowledge of the game, a good or medium pair that |claims to be playing random leads probably isn't. I've never seen a good or medium pair play "random" leads. I concur that their leads are not random, and that is in a way an infraction. On the other hand, the reason these pairs choose to play random leads is that one partner realizes that his partner isn't paying attention to his spot cards. He thinks, "well, if he's not going to pay attention anyway, why should we play lead conventions and give declarer information?" After a few sessions, he realizes that he isn't watching his partner's spots (thinking, "he never gives accurate count anyway") so they just agree to lead "randomly" and not give declarer information that the defense wasn't using anyway. Is this an infraction? They do have implicit agreements about leads, but they don't receive any information through them---they aren't paying attention! My take is that it's OK, but if they are any good, they'll learn to do better. In my experience, that's not happened. --Jeff # "I'm a blonde; I'm a blonde: B-L-A-N-D!" # --- # http://muggy.gg.caltech.edu/~jeff From owner-bridge-laws Fri Apr 25 04:47:03 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA29053 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 25 Apr 1997 04:47:03 +1000 Received: from duct.mail.pipex.net (duct.mail.pipex.net [158.43.128.21]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id EAA29048 for ; Fri, 25 Apr 1997 04:46:50 +1000 Received: from Q.icl.co.uk by duct.mail.pipex.net with SMTP (PP); Thu, 24 Apr 1997 19:46:26 +0100 Received: from tutartis.x400.icl.co.uk (mailhost.et.icl.co.uk) by Q.icl.co.uk (4.1/icl-2.12-server) id AA14384; Thu, 24 Apr 97 19:47:52 BST Received: by tutartis.x400.icl.co.uk id UAA12839; Wed, 23 Apr 1997 20:48:34 +0100 X400-Received: by mta tutartis in /PRMD=ICL/ADMD=GOLD 400/C=GB/ ; Relayed ; Wed, 23 Apr 97 20:43:33 +0100 X400-Received: by /PRMD=iclexpo/ADMD=gold 400/C=GB/ ; Relayed ; Wed, 23 Apr 97 20:42:56 +0100 X400-Received: by /PRMD=ICL/ADMD=GOLD 400/C=GB/ ; Relayed ; Wed, 23 Apr 97 20:41:33 +0100 X400-Received: by /PRMD=ICL/ADMD=GOLD 400/C=PL/ ; Relayed ; Wed, 23 Apr 97 21:43:00 +0200 Date: Wed, 23 Apr 97 21:43:00 +0200 X400-Mts-Identifier: [/PRMD=ICL/ADMD=GOLD 400/C=PL/;G100210C200600000101031BC1F7042E] X400-Originator: "Jan Romanski" X400-Recipients: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au X400-Content-Type: P2-1984 (2) Original-Encoded-Information-Types: Undefined Priority: normal Message-Id: <12815.283145480@x400.icl.co.uk> From: "Jan Romanski" To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Importance: normal Subject: Simple Convention Card Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/plain Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk It's not a TD problem. I need some suggestions, advises, maybe templates on simple convention card (SCC). I'll be a TD of tournaments during bridge holidays in Augustow, Poland in July. We've started 5 years ago with no more than 10 tables events, but this year it should be 100 pairs every evening - not only Polish, but also from Finland, Latvia, Lithuania, Dennmark, France and Italy. The condition of overall classification is to change partners. And there will be many peoples with no experience in duplicate bridge. And here arises the problem of SCC. Official WBF card (valid in Poland) is very complicated. It is almost impossible to fill it properly in, say, half an hour. As the rule of thumb: if somebody has many to write then he(she) writes nothing. Of course, I've 20 years of practice and I think I know what should placed in such a SCC. But I think this problem is general and maybe interesting to many TDs. I've try to compile yours answers and send the result back. Jan Romanski ---> j.romanski@x400.icl.co.uk From owner-bridge-laws Fri Apr 25 06:55:52 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id GAA29824 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 25 Apr 1997 06:55:52 +1000 Received: from emout12.mail.aol.com (emout12.mx.aol.com [198.81.11.38]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id GAA29818 for ; Fri, 25 Apr 1997 06:55:37 +1000 From: KRAllison@aol.com Received: (from root@localhost) by emout12.mail.aol.com (8.7.6/8.7.3/AOL-2.0.0) id QAA13214 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au(bridgelawslist); Thu, 24 Apr 1997 16:55:29 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 24 Apr 1997 16:55:29 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <970424165352_839919809@emout12.mail.aol.com> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au (bridgelawslist) Subject: Re: UI in law 75 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk >>The TD said he can do nothing on a false bid when explanations are correct, and let the score hold: 4D made.<< I think the director got it wrong. If a player receives UI via an explanation of a bid (whether the explanation is right or wrong) and then acts upon it (rebidding diamond three times in the face of heart bids from his partner, assuming he held any hearts and didn't have, say, nine solid diamonds) then an infraction has occurred. Basically, the player who hears an explanation MUST remove that explanation from his knowledge. He must bid as if he were on the other side of a screen and he has heard nothing. In such a case, it would take a lot of persuasion to allow a player to rebid diamonds for the third time in the face of heart bids from his partner. I'd need, of course, to see the hand of the player in question but my presumption is for the nonoffending side. But from what I've seen, the contract should be reverted to 3h and the result of that contract given to N/S. Karen From owner-bridge-laws Fri Apr 25 12:47:31 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id MAA01375 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 25 Apr 1997 12:47:31 +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 MAA01369 for ; Fri, 25 Apr 1997 12:47:22 +1000 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by relay-5.mail.demon.net id ac0507900; 25 Apr 97 3:12 BST Message-ID: Date: Fri, 25 Apr 1997 02:34:26 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: ACBL Bulletin article on new Law for penalty cards In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19970424102818.006c8128@cais.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Eric Landau wrote: >...This doesn't mean that the OS is entitled to use ANY information it has >gained from its own withdrawn actions. Suppose, for example, that the HA >became a penalty card due to a LOOT. Since it is logically possible for a >player to know that his partner must play the HA at his next legal >opportunity without knowing that his partner would have liked to lead it, >it is logically possible to legislate that the former is AI while the >latter is UI. My view is that this is what the change in the law does >(under the current law, both are AI). Them's fighting words, pardner. Where does it say that they are both AI under the current Law? -- David Stevenson MayDay Swiss Pairs in Liverpool! Nanki Poo is FOUR! Hughes Simultaneous Pairs at end of June! nankipoo@blakjak.demon.co.uk See my Homepage for details Homepage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk From owner-bridge-laws Fri Apr 25 12:51:27 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id MAA01403 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 25 Apr 1997 12:51:27 +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 MAA01398 for ; Fri, 25 Apr 1997 12:51:22 +1000 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by relay-10.mail.demon.net id ac1017815; 25 Apr 97 3:12 BST Message-ID: Date: Fri, 25 Apr 1997 02:44:30 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: UI in law 75 In-Reply-To: <970424165352_839919809@emout12.mail.aol.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Karen wrote: >>>The TD said he can do nothing on a false bid when explanations are correct, >and let the score hold: 4D made.<< > >I think the director got it wrong. If a player receives UI via an >explanation of a bid (whether the explanation is right or wrong) and then >acts upon it (rebidding diamond three times in the face of heart bids from >his partner, assuming he held any hearts and didn't have, say, nine solid >diamonds) then an infraction has occurred. > >Basically, the player who hears an explanation MUST remove that explanation >from his knowledge. He must bid as if he were on the other side of a screen >and he has heard nothing. In such a case, it would take a lot of persuasion >to allow a player to rebid diamonds for the third time in the face of heart >bids from his partner. > >I'd need, of course, to see the hand of the player in question but my >presumption is for the nonoffending side. But from what I've seen, the >contract should be reverted to 3h and the result of that contract given to >N/S. When the description of a hand and the hand disagree, whatever damage the players claim, a competent TD always checks both for UI and for MI damage. 3H making whatever seems reasonable. In England/Wales we also check for fielding of misbids, which is an infraction under L40A. If the pass of 4D was crazy, then we might take action on this basis. So when South explains North's hand as something different from what he has, then we look at North's bidding for UI, East/West's for MI and South's for fielding a misbid. -- David Stevenson MayDay Swiss Pairs in Liverpool! Nanki Poo is FOUR! Hughes Simultaneous Pairs at end of June! nankipoo@blakjak.demon.co.uk See my Homepage for details Homepage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk From owner-bridge-laws Fri Apr 25 22:53:01 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id WAA03067 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 25 Apr 1997 22:53:01 +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 WAA03062 for ; Fri, 25 Apr 1997 22:52:55 +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 IAA25724 for ; Fri, 25 Apr 1997 08:52:51 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19970425085400.006c3ab4@cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Fri, 25 Apr 1997 08:54:00 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: ACBL Bulletin article on new Law for penalty cards In-Reply-To: References: <3.0.1.32.19970424102818.006c8128@cais.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 02:34 AM 4/25/97 +0100, David wrote: >Eric Landau wrote: > >>...This doesn't mean that the OS is entitled to use ANY information it has >>gained from its own withdrawn actions. Suppose, for example, that the HA >>became a penalty card due to a LOOT. Since it is logically possible for a >>player to know that his partner must play the HA at his next legal >>opportunity without knowing that his partner would have liked to lead it, >>it is logically possible to legislate that the former is AI while the >>latter is UI. My view is that this is what the change in the law does >>(under the current law, both are AI). > > Them's fighting words, pardner. > > Where does it say that they are both AI under the current Law? Since there's (now) nothing in L48-52 to say that they aren't, I would assume that the situation is governed by L72A5, which explicitly allows the offenders, having paid the prescribed penalty, to take advantage of whatever they know. My view is that the new addition to L50 creates a specific exception to L72A5 for penalty cards. 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 Apr 25 23:42:18 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA03360 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 25 Apr 1997 23:42:18 +1000 Received: from hera.frw.uva.nl (hera.frw.uva.nl [145.18.122.36]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id XAA03355 for ; Fri, 25 Apr 1997 23:42:10 +1000 Received: from atlas.frw.uva.nl (atlas.frw.uva.nl [145.18.122.30]) by hera.frw.uva.nl (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id PAA22555 for ; Fri, 25 Apr 1997 15:42:03 +0200 (MET DST) X-Organisation: Faculty of Environmental Sciences University of Amsterdam Nieuwe Prinsengracht 130 NL-1018 VZ Amsterdam X-Phone: +31 20 525 5820 X-Fax: +31 20 525 5822 Received: From STUD/WORKQUEUE by atlas.frw.uva.nl via Charon-4.0A-VROOM with IPX id 100.970425154100.256; 25 Apr 97 15:43:20 -0100 Message-ID: From: "J.P. Pals" Organization: frw To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Fri, 25 Apr 1997 15:43:00 MET-1 Subject: Opening after pd's opening OOT Reply-to: Jan Peter Pals X-Confirm-Reading-To: Jan Peter Pals X-pmrqc: 1 Priority: normal X-mailer: Pegasus Mail v3.22 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Hi all, Consider the following: West is dealer. East opens 1H out of turn. This is not noticed by West, who opens 1D. W N E S ... ... 1H 1D The lawbook does not offer a straightforward way of dealing with this situation. IMO, you should go to the first infraction, i.e. East's 1H. This may be accepted by South (L29B). a. South does not accept (the easy solution). In this case the bidding goes back to West, who is obliged to pass (L31B, with reference to L23A and L26). According to L37, East is now also obliged to pass, with reference to L23A and L26 as well. Agree? b. South accepts, in which case *no punishment is applied*. But what does this mean for West's 1D? Should it now just be treated as an insufficient bid? Or is it an insufficient bid out of turn? Or is it completely 'disappeared' by South's acceptance? You cannot let West's 1D go unpunished. In this case it was clearly unintentional, but otherwise it would be an easy way to deal with your partner's bid-out-of-turn (BOOT?). I would very much appreciate your comments. JP * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Jan Peter Pals * * e-mail: j.p.pals@frw.uva.nl * * Faculty of Environmental Sciences, dept. European Archaeology * * University of Amsterdam * * Nieuwe Prinsengracht 130, NL-1018 VZ Amsterdam * * Tel: (31)-20-525 5811/5172/5830, Fax: (31)-20-525-5822 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * From owner-bridge-laws Sat Apr 26 12:49:08 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id MAA08905 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 26 Apr 1997 12:49:08 +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 MAA08899 for ; Sat, 26 Apr 1997 12:49:00 +1000 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by relay-6.mail.demon.net id ab0616824; 26 Apr 97 3:21 BST Message-ID: Date: Fri, 25 Apr 1997 16:11:48 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: ACBL Bulletin article on new Law for penalty cards In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19970425085400.006c3ab4@cais.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Eric Landau wrote: >At 02:34 AM 4/25/97 +0100, David wrote: > >>Eric Landau wrote: >> >>>...This doesn't mean that the OS is entitled to use ANY information it has >>>gained from its own withdrawn actions. Suppose, for example, that the HA >>>became a penalty card due to a LOOT. Since it is logically possible for a >>>player to know that his partner must play the HA at his next legal >>>opportunity without knowing that his partner would have liked to lead it, >>>it is logically possible to legislate that the former is AI while the >>>latter is UI. My view is that this is what the change in the law does >>>(under the current law, both are AI). >> >> Them's fighting words, pardner. >> >> Where does it say that they are both AI under the current Law? > >Since there's (now) nothing in L48-52 to say that they aren't, I would >assume that the situation is governed by L72A5, which explicitly allows the >offenders, having paid the prescribed penalty, to take advantage of >whatever they know. My view is that the new addition to L50 creates a >specific exception to L72A5 for penalty cards. Oh? Has the penalty "been paid" while the penalty card is still lying on the table? In what way does L72A5 suggest that the card is AI? -- David Stevenson MayDay Swiss Pairs in Liverpool! Nanki Poo is FOUR! Hughes Simultaneous Pairs at end of June! nankipoo@blakjak.demon.co.uk See my Homepage for details Homepage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk From owner-bridge-laws Sat Apr 26 17:25:43 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id RAA09478 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 26 Apr 1997 17:25:43 +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 RAA09473 for ; Sat, 26 Apr 1997 17:25:35 +1000 Received: from innet.innet.be (pool03-190.innet.be [194.7.10.190]) by mail.be.innet.net (8.7.6/8.7.3) with SMTP id JAA24906 for ; Sat, 26 Apr 1997 09:25:25 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <336098B0.6B66@innet.be> Date: Fri, 25 Apr 1997 12:42:40 +0000 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01 (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: UI in law 75 References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Just a minor point : David Stevenson wrote: > damage. 3H making whatever seems reasonable. > Are you serious, David ? I would say 2H making something. You cannot allow the 3D bid and then disallow the 4D. Or can you, just in the intrest of punishing as harshly as possible ? Please clarify ! -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.club.innet.be/~pub02163/index.htm From owner-bridge-laws Sat Apr 26 20:25:40 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id UAA09857 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 26 Apr 1997 20:25:40 +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 UAA09851 for ; Sat, 26 Apr 1997 20:25:32 +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 GAA27784 for ; Sat, 26 Apr 1997 06:25:28 -0400 (EDT) Received: by cfa183.harvard.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id GAA08648; Sat, 26 Apr 1997 06:25:48 -0400 Date: Sat, 26 Apr 1997 06:25:48 -0400 From: willner@cfa183.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Message-Id: <199704261025.GAA08648@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: L25 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk As we all know, L25B is BLML's favorite :-), and the new version is much improved. :-) :-) Since a copy of the new version has fallen into my hands, I thought I'd send it along for the amusement of the group. The text comes from someone else; I don't have any more of the new Laws myself. It might expedite getting the new Laws online to email a request to Henry Francis at acbl@compuserve.com. Of course I have no way to know for sure that the following is the official text or that it won't change. On the basis of reports, I had thought that the new L25B might change the ruling for insufficient bids. Now that I've seen the text, I no longer think so. The change of call under L25B2b2 is only allowed if the first call was legal. If a call is substituted for an insufficient bid, I think 25B1 allows LHO to accept either the original (insufficient) bid (via L27) or the substituted call; do others agree? Hmmm... maybe this does change the ruling for an insufficient bid after all. The bidder presumably has the option of offering a new call, which LHO has the option of accepting. But if it's not accepted, the mechanics of the ruling are just the same as before. On the basis of this Law alone, there seem to be some questions about which withdrawn calls are AI and which UI. The answers must depend on the text of the new L16 and on who counts as an offender. -----Begin quotation----- Law 25 - Legal and Illegal Changes of Call A. Immediate Correction of Inadvertency Until his partner makes a call, a player may substitute his intended call for an inadvertent call but only if he does so, or attempts to do so, without pause for thought. If legal, his last call stands without penalty; if illegal, it is subject to the applicable Law. B. Delayed or Purposeful Correction Until LHO calls, a call may be substituted when section A does not apply: 1. Substitute Call Condoned The substituted call may be accepted (treated as legal) at the option of offender's LHO; [*] then, the second call stands and the auction proceeds without penalty. If offender's LHO has called before attention is drawn to the infraction, and the Director determines that LHO intended his call to apply over the offender's original call at that turn, offender's substituted call stands without penalty, and LHO may withdraw his call without penalty (but see Law 16C2). 2. Not Condoned If the substituted call is not accepted, it is cancelled; and: (a) First Call Illegal If the first call was illegal, the offender is subject to the applicable Law (and the lead penalties of Law 26 may apply to the second call). (b) First Call Legal If the first call was legal, the offender must either, (1) Let First Call Stand Allow his first call to stand, in which case (penalty) his partner must pass when next it is his turn to call (see Law 23 when the pass damages the non-offending side), or, (2) Substitute Another Call Make any other legal call, in which case (penalty) the auction proceeds normally (but offender's partner may not base calls on information from withdrawn calls); the offending side [+] may receive no score greater than average-minus. (c) Lead Penalties In either case (b) (1) or (b) (2) above, the offender's partner will be subject to a lead penalty (see Law 26) if he becomes a defender. [*] When the original bid was insufficient, apply Law 27 [+] The non-offending side receives the score achieved at the table. From owner-bridge-laws Sat Apr 26 22:28:16 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id WAA10196 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 26 Apr 1997 22:28:16 +1000 Received: from einstein.tronet.de (einstein.tronet.de [194.231.97.17]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id WAA10190 for ; Sat, 26 Apr 1997 22:28:09 +1000 Received: from localhost (ppp03.tronet.de [194.231.97.67]) by einstein.tronet.de (8.7.2/8.7.2) with SMTP id MAA06645 for ; Sat, 26 Apr 1997 12:58:41 +0200 (MET DST) Message-Id: <199704261058.MAA06645@einstein.tronet.de> From: "Gyoergy Fazekas" To: "bridge laws" Date: Sat, 26 Apr 97 12:38:34 Reply-To: "Gyoergy Fazekas" Priority: Normal X-Mailer: PMMail 1.91 Evaluation Version For OS/2 (Unregistered) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk hello, ad 1: N is dealer & bids 1D, but just the same time S puts the STOP card= on the table, then recognises that it was not his turn. what should TD decide? ad 2: Dummy has 2 diamond cards, but when he gives a spade card, another= diamond card can suddenly be seen. LO calls TD & says he made a plan for double D, against 3 D cards= he should have used an other strategy. I said, bad luck; when he made his plan, he should have realised, = that only 12 cards he could see! Is it OK? Mit freundlichen Gr=FC=DFen: G.FAZEKAS fazekas@tronet.de url: http://home.tronet.de/fazekas From owner-bridge-laws Sat Apr 26 23:51:10 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA10411 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 26 Apr 1997 23:51:10 +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 XAA10406 for ; Sat, 26 Apr 1997 23:51:04 +1000 From: KRAllison@aol.com Received: (from root@localhost) by emout03.mail.aol.com (8.7.6/8.7.3/AOL-2.0.0) id JAA17397 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Sat, 26 Apr 1997 09:50:59 -0400 (EDT) Date: Sat, 26 Apr 1997 09:50:59 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <970426095057_-1903535483@emout03.mail.aol.com> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: UI in law 75 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk << You cannot allow the 3D bid and then disallow the 4D. >> Certainly you can if the 3d bid is normal given the intent of the 2d bid (natural) and the 4d bid is an obvious attempt to rescue a situation uncovered by the illegal use of UI. In the case mentioned, with a singleton heart and six diamonds, it's normal to remove 2h to 3d, but definitely abnormal to continue to 4d in the face of two hearts bids by partner. Karen From owner-bridge-laws Sun Apr 27 00:17:06 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA12771 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 27 Apr 1997 00:17:06 +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 AAA12766 for ; Sun, 27 Apr 1997 00:17:00 +1000 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by relay-10.mail.demon.net id aa1027497; 26 Apr 97 15:11 BST Message-ID: Date: Sat, 26 Apr 1997 14:17:44 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: L25 In-Reply-To: <199704261025.GAA08648@cfa183.harvard.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Steve Willner wrote: >As we all know, L25B is BLML's favorite :-), and the new version is much >improved. :-) :-) > Since a copy of the new version has fallen into my >hands, I thought I'd send it along for the amusement of the group. > >The text comes from someone else; I don't have any more of the new Laws >myself. It might expedite getting the new Laws online to email a >request to Henry Francis at acbl@compuserve.com. Of course I have no >way to know for sure that the following is the official text or that it >won't change. > >On the basis of reports, I had thought that the new L25B might change >the ruling for insufficient bids. Now that I've seen the text, I no >longer think so. The change of call under L25B2b2 is only allowed if >the first call was legal. If a call is substituted for an insufficient >bid, I think 25B1 allows LHO to accept either the original >(insufficient) bid (via L27) or the substituted call; do others agree? >Hmmm... maybe this does change the ruling for an insufficient bid after >all. The bidder presumably has the option of offering a new call, which >LHO has the option of accepting. But if it's not accepted, the >mechanics of the ruling are just the same as before. My view is that Insufficient bids has gone the other way. The footnote says >When the original bid was insufficient, apply Law 27 but considering where it appears I believe it clearly stops the TD offering the next player the chance to accept the substituted bid. The current Law book has no such footnote in the non-ACBL versions. The ACBL added a similar footnote [actually saying 27B, but that was obviously a mistake] without WBF sanction [according to my sources]. As a result current ACBL practice is not to allow the next player the chance to accept the substituted call [I checked this with Gary Blaiss]. European practice, however, seems to be inconsistent. Some countries follow the ACBL [without their footnote] and do not allow the change: some countries [including the EBU/WBU] do allow it. I understand this difference in approach was brought out in Milan. My sources have also suggested to me that, in the confusion over whether the footnote should refer to L27B or L27, European representatives *may* have taken their eye off the ball, and failed to get the Lawmakers to consider whether this footnote should be there at all, and whether both calls [original and attempted substituted] should be offered. If you read the current American Law book, and consider the effects of the footnote saying L27B, it is clear that *neither* call should be offered to the next player. This does not happen, and as I said earlier is clearly a mistake: an interesting one, nevertheless. -- David Stevenson MayDay Swiss Pairs in Liverpool! Nanki Poo is FOUR! Hughes Simultaneous Pairs at end of June! nankipoo@blakjak.demon.co.uk See my Homepage for details Homepage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk From owner-bridge-laws Sun Apr 27 00:32:00 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA12829 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 27 Apr 1997 00:32:00 +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 AAA12824 for ; Sun, 27 Apr 1997 00:31:53 +1000 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by relay-11.mail.demon.net id aa1113589; 26 Apr 97 15:11 BST Message-ID: Date: Sat, 26 Apr 1997 14:02:21 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: UI in law 75 In-Reply-To: <336098B0.6B66@innet.be> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Herman De Wael wrote: >Just a minor point : > >David Stevenson wrote: >> damage. 3H making whatever seems reasonable. >> > >Are you serious, David ? > >I would say 2H making something. > >You cannot allow the 3D bid and then disallow the 4D. > >Or can you, just in the intrest of punishing as harshly as possible ? > >Please clarify ! > To be technical, there were two bids that were illegal because the player chose amongst ... consider the 4D bid. We do not allow it, and we adjust as a result to 3H-3 [say]. Consider the 3D bid. If we do not allow it, then we would adjust to 2H-2. *But* this will give the NOs a poorer score than 3H-3: therefore there is no damage accruing to the NOs from the 3D bid so we do not adjust. Ruling: 3H-3. -- David Stevenson MayDay Swiss Pairs in Liverpool! Nanki Poo is FOUR! Hughes Simultaneous Pairs at end of June! nankipoo@blakjak.demon.co.uk See my Homepage for details Homepage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk From owner-bridge-laws Sun Apr 27 05:36:28 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA13950 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 27 Apr 1997 05:36:28 +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 FAA13945 for ; Sun, 27 Apr 1997 05:36:23 +1000 Received: (from smap@localhost) by msri.org (8.8.2/8.7.2) id MAA02181; Sat, 26 Apr 1997 12:36:20 -0700 (PDT) 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 sma002179; Sat Apr 26 12:35:45 1997 Received: by euclid.msri.org (8.7/MSRI) id MAA04859; Sat, 26 Apr 1997 12:35:58 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sat, 26 Apr 1997 12:35:58 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199704261935.MAA04859@euclid.msri.org> From: David Grabiner To: fazekas@tronet.de CC: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au In-reply-to: <199704261058.MAA06645@einstein.tronet.de> (fazekas@tronet.de) Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk You write: > hello, > ad 1: > N is dealer & bids 1D, but just the same time S puts the STOP card= > on the table, then recognises that it was not his turn. > what should TD decide? The STOP card is not a bid, so it is not penalized under any specific Law; it's just ordinary UI for North. > ad 2: > Dummy has 2 diamond cards, but when he gives a spade card, another > diamond card can suddenly be seen. > LO calls TD & says he made a plan for double D, against 3 D cards > he should have used an other strategy. > I said, bad luck; when he made his plan, he should have realised, > that only 12 cards he could see! I think it is correct to say that this play was made based on the player's own misunderstanding, and thus there is no adjustment. The alternative argument is that dummy committed misinformation, but the defender should have known that he was receiving misinformation, and thus he was not damaged by it. If dummy had revoked before the thirteenth card was discovered, and adjusted score would be in order; there's no automatic penalty if dummy revokes, but a revoke not subject to penalty still requires an adjusted score to restore equity. -- 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 Apr 27 08:44:30 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA14365 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 27 Apr 1997 08:44:30 +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 IAA14360 for ; Sun, 27 Apr 1997 08:44:23 +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 SAA29668; Sat, 26 Apr 1997 18:44:17 -0400 (EDT) Received: by cfa183.harvard.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id SAA08855; Sat, 26 Apr 1997 18:44:37 -0400 Date: Sat, 26 Apr 1997 18:44:37 -0400 From: willner@cfa183.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) Message-Id: <199704262244.SAA08855@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au, newsr@blakjak.demon.co.uk Subject: Re: UI in law 75 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > To be technical, there were two bids that were illegal because the > player chose amongst ... Or the first (2H) bid may have been legal, as Karen Allison suggested. Surely no problem then. Suppose it wasn't: > consider the 4D bid. We do not allow it, and we adjust as a result to > 3H-3 [say]. > > Consider the 3D bid. If we do not allow it, then we would adjust to > 2H-2. *But* this will give the NOs a poorer score than 3H-3: therefore > there is no damage accruing to the NOs from the 3D bid so we do not > adjust. > > Ruling: 3H-3. This is surely right for the offenders, but L12C2 has a different rule for the non-offenders. They get the most favorable result that was likely _had the irregularity not occurred_ (emphasis mine). It's not clear what this means when there are two or more irregularities, but one reading would be "had no irregularity occurred." If so, the NO's would get 2H-2. Another reading (David's) would be something like "had at least one irregularity not occurred." Any thoughts on which reading is better? Uncharacteristically, I don't have an opinion. From owner-bridge-laws Sun Apr 27 13:25:55 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id NAA15114 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 27 Apr 1997 13:25:55 +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 NAA15109 for ; Sun, 27 Apr 1997 13:25:49 +1000 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by relay-5.mail.demon.net id aa0527518; 27 Apr 97 4:23 BST Message-ID: Date: Sun, 27 Apr 1997 03:45:00 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: UI in law 75 In-Reply-To: <199704262244.SAA08855@cfa183.harvard.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Steve Willner wrote: >> To be technical, there were two bids that were illegal because the >> player chose amongst ... > >Or the first (2H) bid may have been legal, as Karen Allison suggested. >Surely no problem then. > >Suppose it wasn't: > >> consider the 4D bid. We do not allow it, and we adjust as a result to >> 3H-3 [say]. >> >> Consider the 3D bid. If we do not allow it, then we would adjust to >> 2H-2. *But* this will give the NOs a poorer score than 3H-3: therefore >> there is no damage accruing to the NOs from the 3D bid so we do not >> adjust. >> >> Ruling: 3H-3. > >This is surely right for the offenders, but L12C2 has a different rule >for the non-offenders. They get the most favorable result that was >likely _had the irregularity not occurred_ (emphasis mine). It's not >clear what this means when there are two or more irregularities, but >one reading would be "had no irregularity occurred." If so, the NO's >would get 2H-2. Another reading (David's) would be something like "had >at least one irregularity not occurred." That is definitely *not* my reading. My reading is that it means "had the irregularity not occurred." When I am considering one irregularity, this refers to that irregularity. >Any thoughts on which reading is better? Uncharacteristically, I don't >have an opinion. I disagree with both readings. -- David Stevenson MayDay Swiss Pairs in Liverpool! Nanki Poo is FOUR! Hughes Simultaneous Pairs at end of June! nankipoo@blakjak.demon.co.uk See my Homepage for details Homepage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk From owner-bridge-laws Mon Apr 28 07:09:42 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id HAA21316 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 28 Apr 1997 07:09:42 +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 HAA21311 for ; Mon, 28 Apr 1997 07:09:34 +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 XAA01782 for ; Sun, 27 Apr 1997 23:09:28 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from default (cph36.ppp.dknet.dk [194.192.100.36]) by pip.dknet.dk (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id XAA03525 for ; Sun, 27 Apr 1997 23:09:21 +0200 Message-Id: <199704272109.XAA03525@pip.dknet.dk> Comments: Authenticated sender is From: "Jens & Bodil" Organization: Alesia Software To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Sun, 27 Apr 1997 21:49:30 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Re: (hidden card in dummy) Priority: normal X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v2.42a) Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: David Grabiner > You write: [problem 1 snipped; I agree with David] > > ad 2: > > > Dummy has 2 diamond cards, but when he gives a spade card, another > > diamond card can suddenly be seen. > > LO calls TD & says he made a plan for double D, against 3 D cards > > he should have used an other strategy. > > I said, bad luck; when he made his plan, he should have realised, > > that only 12 cards he could see! > > I think it is correct to say that this play was made based on the > player's own misunderstanding, and thus there is no adjustment. I disagree. The player has assumed that there are 13 cards in dummy. It is not his responsibility to count dummy's hand: L7B1 explicitly places this responsibility with the player whose hand this is (the current dummy player). By spreading his hand in an unorderly manner, dummy is has failed to follow the procedure laid out in L41D. If the defenders are damaged by this (and at least they appear to feel damaged, but the TD needs to pass judgement on the merit of that feeling), an adjusted score is in order under L12A1. > The > alternative argument is that dummy committed misinformation, but the > defender should have known that he was receiving misinformation, and > thus he was not damaged by it. I thought "misinformation" was used only as a short term for "failure to give a complete and correct explanation of a partnership agreement, including failure to alert properly", but rereading L21 I find that this may just be my (stupid) assumption. Still, this is misinformation during the play period, and that is covered by L47; especially by L47E (according to the heading of that section). L47 happens to list misinformation cases explicitly, so I find it difficult to apply the term "misinformation" to dummy's sloppiness. Nitpicking aside, my disagreement with David is quite simple: I do not hold a defender accountable when one of dummy's cards is hidden. David, OTOH, finds that a defender who fails to count dummy's cards is damaged by his own lack of action, not by dummy's sloppiness. The rest is TD mechanics as can be read out of the law book. > > If dummy had revoked before the thirteenth card was discovered, and > adjusted score would be in order; there's no automatic penalty if dummy > revokes, but a revoke not subject to penalty still requires an adjusted > score to restore equity. This is L64C. We assume, of course, that the revoke damages the defenders. --- For what it's worth, (not much in this forum, maybe) this is similar to problem 37A in the advanced TD course given by the DBF in 1989. No one disputed the solution given above. -- Jens Brix Christiansen, Denmark From owner-bridge-laws Mon Apr 28 08:21:14 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA21565 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 28 Apr 1997 08:21:14 +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 IAA21560 for ; Mon, 28 Apr 1997 08:21:08 +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 SAA03712 for ; Sun, 27 Apr 1997 18:21:03 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19970427182232.0069b6b8@cais.com> X-Sender: elandau@cais.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Sun, 27 Apr 1997 18:22:32 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: ACBL Bulletin article on new Law for penalty cards In-Reply-To: References: <3.0.1.32.19970425085400.006c3ab4@cais.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk At 04:11 PM 4/25/97 +0100, David wrote: >Eric Landau wrote: >>Since there's (now) nothing in L48-52 to say that they aren't, I would >>assume that the situation is governed by L72A5, which explicitly allows the >>offenders, having paid the prescribed penalty, to take advantage of >>whatever they know. My view is that the new addition to L50 creates a >>specific exception to L72A5 for penalty cards. > Oh? Has the penalty "been paid" while the penalty card is still lying >on the table? In what way does L72A5 suggest that the card is AI? I hadn't thought about the timing issue, so L72A5 might not be all that explicit here. But I'm sure I've never seen anyone making use of this law in practice actually make any distinction between penalty imposed and paid. The suggestion comes from the language: "any call or play advantageous to their side, even though they appear to profit...", which is rather atypically broad, and seems to say that inadvertent offenders who commit the sorts of infractions for which specific penalties are provided (things like penalty card infractions, as opposed to UI- or MI-type infractions), once the director has been called and the penalty dealt with, are effectively off the hook. The suggestion is reinforced by the lack (until now) of any language in L48-52 (or L16) that would sound like it qualified under L12A's "only when these Laws empower him to do so". I suppose a further suggestion comes from the change itself, which introduces into the Part on penalty cards language referring to UI. That doesn't prove that the applicability of UI rules to penalty card situations wasn't previously implied, but does suggest 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 Tue Apr 29 00:35:04 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA28197 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 29 Apr 1997 00:35:04 +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 AAA28182 for ; Tue, 29 Apr 1997 00:34:55 +1000 Received: from casewise.demon.co.uk ([158.152.187.206]) by relay-10.mail.demon.net id aa1024612; 28 Apr 97 14:40 BST Received: by bridge.casewise.demon.co.uk with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Server Internet Mail Connector Version 4.0.994.63) id <01BC53DA.6D949040@bridge.casewise.demon.co.uk>; Mon, 28 Apr 1997 13:45:26 -0000 Message-ID: From: David Martin To: "'bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au'" Subject: RE: Opening after pd's opening OOT Date: Mon, 28 Apr 1997 13:45:21 -0000 X-Mailer: Microsoft Exchange Server Internet Mail Connector Version 4.0.994.63 Encoding: 50 TEXT Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk >>Hi all, > >>Consider the following: > >>West is dealer. >>East opens 1H out of turn. >>This is not noticed by West, who opens 1D. > >> W N E S >>... ... 1H >>1D > >>The lawbook does not offer a straightforward way of dealing >>with this situation. > >>IMO, you should go to the first infraction, i.e. East's 1H. SNIP I know that this is far from universally accepted but IMO it works better if you unravel things in *reverse order* as you do not get West's 'left over' ID bid to deal with but no Law to apply. I would rule as follows. Offer North the opportunity to accept the 1D bid under Law 29B. If he does then the auction can proceed without any further penalty. If North does accept the 1D bid then cancel it and give South the opportunity to accept 1H under Law 29B. If South does accept the 1H bid then treat the 1D as a bid out of rotation at RHO's turn and apply Law 31A. Thus, if South passes, West must repeat the 1D bid which is now insufficient and gets dealt with under Law 27. If South bids or doubles then Law 31A2 applies to West's 1D which can now be made good to any Diamond bid silencing East for one round or else West can silence East for the entire auction by Passing, Redoubling (if appropriate) or making any other bid. If South does not accept the 1H bid then cancel this and treat it as a bid out of rotation at partner's turn to call thus apply Law 31B, ie. the auction returns to West who is now silenced for the entire auction. East can now do what he likes for the rest of the auction but if EW become defenders then Law 26 lead penalties will apply to East in Diamonds and to West in Hearts unless East subsequently bids Hearts again. IMO, this approach gives the non-offenders more opportunities to take advantage of the situation and does not leave a problematic 1D bid to be dealt with. > From owner-bridge-laws Tue Apr 29 04:52:21 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA29803 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 29 Apr 1997 04:52:21 +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 EAA29794 for ; Tue, 29 Apr 1997 04:52:13 +1000 Received: from localhost by flash.irvine.com id aa02803; 28 Apr 97 11:51 PDT To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au CC: adam@flash.irvine.com Subject: Re: UI in law 75 In-reply-to: Your message of "Sat, 26 Apr 1997 09:50:59 PDT." <970426095057_-1903535483@emout03.mail.aol.com> Date: Mon, 28 Apr 1997 11:51:30 PDT From: Adam Beneschan Message-ID: <9704281151.aa02803@flash.irvine.com> Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > > << You cannot allow the 3D bid and then disallow the 4D. >> > > Certainly you can if the 3d bid is normal given the intent of the 2d bid > (natural) and the 4d bid is an obvious attempt to rescue a situation > uncovered by the illegal use of UI. > > In the case mentioned, with a singleton heart and six diamonds, it's normal > to remove 2h to 3d, but definitely abnormal to continue to 4d in the face of > two hearts bids by partner. We're all agreed that the 4D bid is illegal. I think that although 3D might be reasonable (personally, I think it isn't), it's also illegal. The reason is that passing 2H is also a reasonable call. (Partner is not likely to be overriding you with 5=1 in the red suits.) In other words, 3D and pass are both logical alternatives. Now, overcaller has the UI that someone forgot the system, and this UI demonstrably suggests removing to 3D. Therefore, according to the Laws, overcaller is not allowed to bid 3D, and must pass. So 3D is illegal even if it's "normal", and if the auction had ended there, the score should be adjusted as if the contract were 2H. In this case, where overcaller made two illegal bids, though, I think David made a very good case for adjusting to 3H. -- Adam From owner-bridge-laws Tue Apr 29 10:19:52 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA01258 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 29 Apr 1997 10:19:52 +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 KAA01253 for ; Tue, 29 Apr 1997 10:19:43 +1000 Received: (from root@localhost) by tom.compulink.co.uk (8.8.4/8.6.9) id BAA28200 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Tue, 29 Apr 1997 01:19:11 +0100 (BST) Date: Mon, 28 Apr 97 23:22 BST-1 From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: UI in law 75 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: <9704281151.aa02803@flash.irvine.com> > We're all agreed that the 4D bid is illegal. Even me, and I'm more lenient than most:-) > I think that although 3D > might be reasonable (personally, I think it isn't), it's also illegal. I don't actually know what the standard agreement about the 2H bid is after a natural 2D but I would interpret it as a semi constructive 1 round force (implied diamond tolerance) with certain partners. However, since it is unlikely that we can deduce the agreements on a system they are not playing I think it is an infraction, but not necessarily a deliberate or gross one. > > The reason is that passing 2H is also a reasonable call. (Partner is > not likely to be overriding you with 5=1 in the red suits.) In other > words, 3D and pass are both logical alternatives. Now, overcaller has > the UI that someone forgot the system, and this UI demonstrably > suggests removing to 3D. Therefore, according to the Laws, overcaller > is not allowed to bid 3D, and must pass. > > So 3D is illegal even if it's "normal", and if the auction had ended > there, the score should be adjusted as if the contract were 2H. In > this case, where overcaller made two illegal bids, though, I think > David made a very good case for adjusting to 3H. Most vitally because the infraction of bidding 3D did not damage opponents as the auction then continued to 3H, thus no need to adjust. 4D is still an infraction (a very stupid one) which does damage opponents (assuming 3H goes down). Passing thought - suppose that both 4D and 3H make, opponents are complaining because the misbid kept them out of a cold 3S (or par 4Sx-1). Is the director now correct in refusing to adjust:-) Tim West-Meads From owner-bridge-laws Tue Apr 29 10:47:39 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA01422 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 29 Apr 1997 10:47:39 +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 KAA01417 for ; Tue, 29 Apr 1997 10:47:32 +1000 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by relay-10.mail.demon.net id aa1000520; 29 Apr 97 1:46 BST Message-ID: Date: Tue, 29 Apr 1997 00:46:50 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Opening lead out of turn In-Reply-To: <1.5.4.16.19970411090608.1ca79c74@mail.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Richard Bley wrote: > >Hello >David wrote: >(...) >> At the first table, I gave them the five options [the LOOT was a >>diamond] and then one of the NOs said "Does it make any difference that >>dummy has said before you arrived that he wants to forbid a diamond >>lead?". >> >> Well, does it? > >Well, they are stupid, arent they? So what they talk is a lot of rubbish >anyway. (Dont tell them that way ... :-) >So it makes no real difference; give dummy a warning, explain the rules (if >u have time enough...) > >> >> At the second table, I saw the opening lead followed by two other >>cards. "Where's the dummy?" I said, intelligently. "Oh!" they said, >>unintelligently. You have the picture? Opening LOOT, declarer follows >>from hand, next player follows [no it wasn't a second opening lead, I >>checked] and dummy says "Wait a minute!" >> >> How about it? >> > >10 years ago, that was before I looked for a career as a TD, we had a >similar story, but they didnt play only 3 cards, but 5 tricks! >Let them play whatever they like... >OK I suspect that this wasnt a high class event anyway... Why ever not? These occurred at the Easter Festival, probably England's best-known event in the rest of Europe. >So u should make it with common sense instead with the ruling book, where >this case isnt described anyway. While cases may not directly be in the Law book, it makes sense to consider possible interpretations of the Law book that cover such cases. >The LOOT is accepted and dummy have to put down his cards now!!! >Just remember them of the rules. >Perhaps u should start ur tournaments with some beginner lessons next time? Do you have those at the start of top German tournaments? :)) -- David Stevenson MayDay Swiss Pairs in Liverpool! Nanki Poo is FOUR! Hughes Simultaneous Pairs at end of June! nankipoo@blakjak.demon.co.uk See my Homepage for details Homepage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk From owner-bridge-laws Tue Apr 29 10:56:20 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id KAA01471 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 29 Apr 1997 10:56:20 +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 KAA01466 for ; Tue, 29 Apr 1997 10:56:14 +1000 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by relay-6.mail.demon.net id aa0604347; 29 Apr 97 1:46 BST Message-ID: Date: Mon, 28 Apr 1997 19:14:18 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Opening after pd's opening OOT In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Martin wrote: > >>>Hi all, >> >>>Consider the following: >> >>>West is dealer. >>>East opens 1H out of turn. >>>This is not noticed by West, who opens 1D. >> >>> W N E S >>>... ... 1H >>>1D >> >>>The lawbook does not offer a straightforward way of dealing >>>with this situation. >> >>>IMO, you should go to the first infraction, i.e. East's 1H. > >SNIP > >I know that this is far from universally accepted but IMO it works >better if you unravel things in *reverse order* as you do not get West's >'left over' ID bid to deal with but no Law to apply. I would rule as >follows. In England/Wales, our current interpretation of the Laws of bridge is that where mechanical errors are concerned we deal with them in the order that they occurred. To say it works better not to is no help whatever: that is like the TD on a recent RGB thread who had a difficult decision to make. Rather than make it he gave average to both pairs. Well, that may be easier but it is not how rulings are done. Why do we deal with them in order of occurrence, and why do I say mechanical errors? If West bids 1H OOT and the TD is called then he will deal with that immediately: so how he would deal with it should not be altered by any later happening [unless the Laws state otherwise, as in L11A, and various "condoning" Laws]. Thus we should continue to deal with it *first*. Why mechanical errors? If there is UI available, even if the TD is called, he will correctly let the hand be completed before taking any action. Therefore the logic in the last paragraph does not apply to such a case. -- David Stevenson MayDay Swiss Pairs in Liverpool! Nanki Poo is FOUR! Hughes Simultaneous Pairs at end of June! nankipoo@blakjak.demon.co.uk See my Homepage for details Homepage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk From owner-bridge-laws Tue Apr 29 11:07:26 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id LAA01516 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 29 Apr 1997 11:07:26 +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 LAA01511 for ; Tue, 29 Apr 1997 11:07:21 +1000 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by relay-5.mail.demon.net id aa0521090; 29 Apr 97 1:46 BST Message-ID: Date: Mon, 28 Apr 1997 19:17:11 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Abbreviations MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk ABF Australian Bridge Federation AC Appeals committee ACBL American Contract Bridge League AI Authorised information ArtAS Artificial adjusted score AssAS Assigned adjusted score BBL British Bridge League BLML Bridge-laws mailing list BoD Board of directors [ACBL] BoG Board of governors [ACBL] BOOT Bid-Out-Of-Turn BTW By the way C&E Conduct and ethics [often hearings] CC Convention card COOT Call-Out-Of-Turn CPU Concealed partnership understanding CTD Chief Tournament director DBF Danish Bridge Federation DIC Director in charge EBL European Bridge League EBU English Bridge Union IMHO In my humble opinion [included under protest] IMO In my opinion LA Logical alternative L&EC Laws & Ethics Committee [English, Welsh or Scottish] Lnn Law number nn LOOT Lead-Out-Of-Turn MI Misinformation NABC ACBL North American Bridge Championships NBB Nederlandse Bridge Bond [Dutch Bridge League] NBO National Bridge organisation NCBO National Contract Bridge organisation NG Newsgroup NIBU Northern Ireland Bridge Union NO Non-offender NP No problem OKB OKBridge OKBD OKBridge discussion group OOT Out-Of-Turn PP Procedural penalty RGB rec.games.bridge [newsgroup] r.g.b. rec.games.bridge [newsgroup] RGBO rec.games.bridge.okbridge [newsgroup] rgbo rec.games.bridge.okbridge [newsgroup] RLB Real Life Bridge [to distinguish from OKBridge] RoC Rule of coincidence RTFLB Read the [fabulous] Law book! SBU Scottish Bridge Union SO Sponsoring organisation TBW The Bridge World [magazine] TD Tournament director TDic Tournament director in charge UI Unauthorised information WBF World Bridge Federation WBU Welsh Bridge Union Emails only: FFTQFTE Feel free to quote from this email -- David Stevenson MayDay Swiss Pairs in Liverpool! Nanki Poo is FOUR! Hughes Simultaneous Pairs at end of June! nankipoo@blakjak.demon.co.uk See my Homepage for details Homepage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk From owner-bridge-laws Tue Apr 29 11:23:11 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id LAA01566 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 29 Apr 1997 11:23:11 +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 LAA01561 for ; Tue, 29 Apr 1997 11:23:03 +1000 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by relay-11.mail.demon.net id aa1104058; 29 Apr 97 2:17 BST Message-ID: Date: Tue, 29 Apr 1997 02:01:16 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Opening lead out of turn In-Reply-To: <199704220028.KAA26722@clothes.peg.apc.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Roger Penny wrote: >Jens wrote: >>David Stevenson wrote: >>>Well that's easy! You have five options, and ... >>> >>>I was called to the table at out Easter Festival in London >>>twice in ten minutes for an opening lead out of turn. Nice >>>and easy. >>> >>>Well, two small snags. :)) >>> >>>At the first table, I gave them the five options [the LOOT was >>>a diamond] and then one of the NOs said "Does it make any >>>difference that dummy has said before you arrived that he >>>wants to forbid a diamond lead?". >>> >>>Well, does it? >Of course it does! I know what decision I WANT to give in >this situation - require the LOOT to be accepted and dummy to be >tabled now, with declarer being advised that he has lost all >rights to exercise any of the other four LOOT options. That >should fix DWS's "dummy" - and, more importantly, restore equity >in this unfortunate situation. But why do you want to give this ruling? In what way does it restore equity? OK, dummy wanted to forbid a diamond lead, so perhaps we could not allow that to happen. But why on earth should we insist on a diamond lead? Or accept it? Now we are playing bridge instead of the players. Even if this was acceptable, how do you decide to accept a diamond lead rather than require one from the other hand? No, you have started wrong. While it can be a reasonable approach to decide what you want to do and look for a Law to do it [I understand that Edgar Kaplan has recommended this] you have to be sure what you want, and it is in no way equitable to decide one particular option rather than the others, except the actual option recommended by dummy. [s] >Thus, I suggest that there is, >legally speaking, no dummy yet and therefore Law 43 should not >be applied. There is a dummy: see separate thread and the definitions. Facing an opening lead creates a dummy. >>I will inform the players that I am interpreting L54C somewhat >>freely, and that they have the right to appeal my ruling. It is also clear that L54C does not apply, despite attempts to bend it to the situation. Nor does L11A seem relevant. >Law 10: Assessment of Penalty"? This seems the appropriate Law >to apply in that the "dummy" player has effectively assessed one >of declarer's penalty options before the Director has had the >chance to offer any of those options after the LOOT (Law 10.A). >He has also breached Law 10.C.2 in that declarer can no longer >"make his selection [from amongst options after an irregularity] >without consulting partner". > >On this basis, I apply Law 10 and confirm the decision I gave at >the start of this posting. This ruling would include the >fact that declarer has lost any right to choose the option which >would allow him to choose to become dummy as a logical extension >of the application of Law 10. Now the problem with this is that while this could easily be described as a breach of L10C2 I cannot see how you then give the ruling you cite. I am happy that consultation has occurred, even if declarer did not wish it, but why should you then get rid of the particular four of the five options that you have? --------- David Martin started a new thread and wrote: >It seems to me that the first law to apply is 10C2 which states that >''If a player has an option after an irregularity, he must make his >selection without consulting partner.'' Dummy's remark clearly >constitutes consultation and therefore, IMO, declarer cannot apply any >penalty to the lead out of turn, hence, the options provided by Laws >54D, 56 and 50E are not available to declarer. Declarer is left with >the options provided by Law 54 parts A, B and C and is subject to Law >16A as Dummy's remark is clearly unauthorised information. Thus, the >Diamond lead will stand and the only question (subject to Law 16A) is >whether Declarer plays the hand himself or elects to let his partner >play it. The same problem: why on earth does a breach of L10C2 get rid of the options in L54D, L56 and L50E, but allow the options in L54A, L54B and L54C? --------- There only seem to me two credible approaches. Either treat it as consultation, and disallow anything suggested by the consultation, or give him his five options but treat it as a L16A problem. In the first case, which of the five options are suggested by dummy's remark? He suggested banning a diamond lead, so that is one option. You might also feel he suggested that he should play it, so there is another option. So it follows that the TD should give him three options: accept the lead and play it himself: require a diamond lead: have the diamond as a major penalty card. Which Law do we use? There is a breach of L10C2, but that Law gives no penalties. However, I put it to you that there is no other Law that actually allows you to only offer three options. The only Law I think you can use are L12A1, which says: The Director may award an assigned adjusted score when he judges that these Laws do not provide indemnity to the non-offending contestant for the particular type of violation of law committed by an opponent. ... and that means that you give five options, and assign a score at the end if necessary. Alternatively, L90 gives you the right to penalise dummy: of course you will warn him, but you could fine him as well. --------- Steve Willner wrote: Jens wrote: >> Perhaps the only solution is L12A1. >This at least isn't completely ludicrous, but why isn't the situation >just an ordinary, boring L16A question? Dummy's remark suggests one >action over another, etc. As it happens, this will have essentially >the same result as my absurd suggestion. So we come at last to this. How does it differ from L12A1? Hardly at all. In both cases you give five options, and then adjust by assigning if necessary at the end. The difference is that L16A gives you a real basis: L12A1 means you have to decide what is fair and what isn't. Furthermore, L12A1 only applies if there is Laws do not provide indemnity, and surely L16A does? Yes, I believe this to be a simple [err, well, perhaps not simple!] UI problem. Explain about LAs to declarer, then give him his five options, and return at the end of the hand. If that doesn't confuse him, nothing will! -- David Stevenson MayDay Swiss Pairs in Liverpool! Nanki Poo is FOUR! Hughes Simultaneous Pairs at end of June! nankipoo@blakjak.demon.co.uk See my Homepage for details Homepage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk From owner-bridge-laws Tue Apr 29 11:40:27 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id LAA01650 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 29 Apr 1997 11:40:27 +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 LAA01637 for ; Tue, 29 Apr 1997 11:40:21 +1000 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by relay-10.mail.demon.net id aa1007619; 29 Apr 97 2:17 BST Message-ID: Date: Tue, 29 Apr 1997 02:01:43 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Becoming Dummy (was: Opening lead out of turn) In-Reply-To: <199704221459.QAA06109@pip.dknet.dk> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Jens & Bodil wrote: >> From: Roger Penny and Jane Stapleton >> >> Law 43.A.1.(c): "Dummy's Limitations"? It's tempting to >> consider "dummy" as being in violation of this law, as Jens has >> suggested, but I suspect there could well be a fundamental >> problem here: when there's been a LOOT, is there, strictly >> speaking, a "dummy" at this point? After all, without "dummy's" >> infraction, the player who was to be declarer when the auction >> ended would have automatically been given his usual five options >> by the TD - and one of those options would have been that HE >> could have become dummy. Thus, I suggest that there is, >> legally speaking, no dummy yet and therefore Law 43 should not >> be applied. > >Well, I disagree, but I know that this is a contested topic. I >suggest that we have a thread on it, so that we might reach useful >consensus. > >My view is that the partner of the presumed declarer becomes dummy >once an opening LOOT is faced. If the presumed declarer then >exercises his option under L54A, the roles of dummy and declarer >instantly switch. The laws do not seem to be explicit in this matter, >but I feel that they support my case: > >1. Definition of dummy. Declarer's partner becomes dummy when the >opening lead is faced. In my view a opening LOOT is an opening >lead. 1a. Definition of declarer. The player who, for the side that makes the final bid, first bid the denomination named in that bid. He becomes declarer when the opening lead is faced (but see Law 54A when the opening lead is made out of turn). >2. In L54A, the wording is "... he becomes dummy, and dummy becomes >declarer...". An alternate wording could have been "... he becomes dummy >and his partner becomes declarer ..." Since the alternate wording >was not chosen, there is some evidence that a dummy already exists. Once you include the definition of declarer as well I cannot believe that any other reading of the Laws makes any sense. An opening LOOT is an opening lead, in the same way that a rotten apple is an apple [though possibly not an edible one]. I am sure that when an opening LOOT is faced, dummy and declarer spring into being. If L54A is enabled, then they switch. >OTOH, I realize that my view creates an awkward situation, as >follows: > >3. There is a faced opening LOOT, which dummy immediately realizes. >Under my interpretation, he may not draw attention to the >irregularity. This leaves him lost: If he spreads his hand, he is >instructing declarer to accept the LOOT, and if he does not he is >drawing attention to the irregularity. In Denmark, case law >certainly allows dummy to refrain from spreading his hand, and I do >not think anyone would chastise a dummy that calls attention to a >faced opening LOOT. I agree with this. >I want the best of both worlds: I would like it to be legal for >dummy to draw attention to the LOOT and then do nothing, but >otherwise the Limitations on Dummy should be in effect when an >opening LOOT is faced. -- David Stevenson MayDay Swiss Pairs in Liverpool! Nanki Poo is FOUR! Hughes Simultaneous Pairs at end of June! nankipoo@blakjak.demon.co.uk See my Homepage for details Homepage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk From owner-bridge-laws Tue Apr 29 11:46:18 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id LAA01702 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 29 Apr 1997 11:46:18 +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 LAA01697 for ; Tue, 29 Apr 1997 11:46:13 +1000 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by relay-6.mail.demon.net id aa0619831; 29 Apr 97 2:17 BST Message-ID: Date: Tue, 29 Apr 1997 02:01:54 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Opening lead out of turn In-Reply-To: <199704220028.KAA26722@clothes.peg.apc.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Roger Penny wrote: >Jens wrote: >>David Stevenson wrote: >>>Well that's easy! You have five options, and ... >>> >>>I was called to the table at out Easter Festival in London >>>twice in ten minutes for an opening lead out of turn. Nice >>>and easy. >>> >>>Well, two small snags. :)) >>> >>>At the second table, I saw the opening lead followed by two >>>other cards. "Where's the dummy?" I said, intelligently. >>>"Oh!" they said, unintelligently. You have the picture? >>> >>>Opening LOOT, declarer follows from hand, next player follows >>>[no it wasn't a second opening lead, I checked] and dummy says >>>"Wait a minute!" >> This looks like L53A, textbook example. Declarer >>has accepted the LOOT by playing a card. Ruling: Please table >>the dummy. Declarer, please play to the first trick from dummy. >>Everyone, please play on. >I agree with Jens' decision - and can see no snag in ruling thus. I am happy with this one. -- David Stevenson MayDay Swiss Pairs in Liverpool! Nanki Poo is FOUR! Hughes Simultaneous Pairs at end of June! nankipoo@blakjak.demon.co.uk See my Homepage for details Homepage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk From owner-bridge-laws Wed Apr 30 00:05:44 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA03851 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 30 Apr 1997 00:05:44 +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 AAA03846 for ; Wed, 30 Apr 1997 00:05:38 +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 AA20197; Tue, 29 Apr 1997 10:05:27 -0400 Received: from localhost by Panoramix.UQSS.UQuebec.ca with SMTP (1.39.111.2/15.6) id AA067072726; Tue, 29 Apr 1997 10:05:26 -0400 X-Openmail-Hops: 1 Date: Tue, 29 Apr 97 10:05:18 -0400 Message-Id: Subject: UI in Law 75 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 Just remembering that the auction was: W: 1N - N: 2D - E: P - S: 2H 2D was not an opening but an overcall of 1N, aleted as Capeletti as on their CC (both majors) but having 6 cards in D and only 1 H (N forgot the convention). IMHO, 3D by N is clearly an illegal rescue (knowing that S can have bid 2H with only 2 cards). Laval Du Breuil Quebec City From owner-bridge-laws Wed Apr 30 03:08:38 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id DAA07007 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 30 Apr 1997 03:08:38 +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 DAA07001 for ; Wed, 30 Apr 1997 03:08:31 +1000 Received: from casewise.demon.co.uk ([158.152.187.206]) by relay-10.mail.demon.net id ac1015419; 29 Apr 97 16:43 BST Received: by bridge.casewise.demon.co.uk with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Server Internet Mail Connector Version 4.0.994.63) id <01BC54BB.ED2713F0@bridge.casewise.demon.co.uk>; Tue, 29 Apr 1997 16:39:37 -0000 Message-ID: From: David Martin To: "'bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au'" Subject: RE: Opening after pd's opening OOT Date: Tue, 29 Apr 1997 16:39:35 -0000 X-Mailer: Microsoft Exchange Server Internet Mail Connector Version 4.0.994.63 Encoding: 56 TEXT Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk DWS wrote: > >>David Martin wrote: > >>> >>>>>Hi all, >>>> >>>>>Consider the following: >>>> >>>>>West is dealer. >>>>>East opens 1H out of turn. >>>>>This is not noticed by West, who opens 1D. >>>> >>>>> W N E S >>>>>... ... 1H >>>>>1D >>>> >>>>>The lawbook does not offer a straightforward way of dealing >>>>>with this situation. >>>> >>>>>IMO, you should go to the first infraction, i.e. East's 1H. >>> >>>SNIP >>> >>>I know that this is far from universally accepted but IMO it works >>>better if you unravel things in *reverse order* as you do not get West's >>>'left over' ID bid to deal with but no Law to apply. I would rule as >>>follows. > >> In England/Wales, our current interpretation of the Laws of bridge is >>that where mechanical errors are concerned we deal with them in the >>order that they occurred. To say it works better not to is no help >>whatever: that is like the TD on a recent RGB thread who had a difficult >>decision to make. Rather than make it he gave average to both pairs. >>Well, that may be easier but it is not how rulings are done. > >> Why do we deal with them in order of occurrence, and why do I say >>mechanical errors? If West bids 1H OOT and the TD is called then he >>will deal with that immediately: so how he would deal with it should not >>be altered by any later happening [unless the Laws state otherwise, as >>in L11A, and various "condoning" Laws]. Thus we should continue to >deal >>with it *first*. > >> Why mechanical errors? If there is UI available, even if the TD is >>called, he will correctly let the hand be completed before taking any >>action. Therefore the logic in the last paragraph does not apply to >>such a case. > Following this approach, what would your full ruling be? Presumably you will silence West because of East's bid out of rotation at West's turn and apply lead penalties, if appropriate, to West's 1D bid. But is East >subsequently free to call as he pleases and is West's 1D bid AI or UI? As a separate additional issue, what would you do if North also does not see East opening out of turn and calls over West's 1D bid before attention is drawn to the 1H bid? From owner-bridge-laws Wed Apr 30 04:06:12 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA07269 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 30 Apr 1997 04:06:12 +1000 Received: from mail1.halcyon.com (mail1.halcyon.com [206.63.63.40]) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id EAA07262 for ; Wed, 30 Apr 1997 04:06:06 +1000 Received: from coho.halcyon.com by mail1.halcyon.com (5.65v3.2/1.1.10.5/10Nov96-0444PM) id AA06585; Tue, 29 Apr 1997 11:06:15 -0700 Date: Tue, 29 Apr 1997 11:05:39 -0700 (PDT) From: "Barbara B. Odlin" To: Laval_Dubreuil@UQSS.UQuebec.CA Cc: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: UI in Law 75 In-Reply-To: Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk On Tue, 29 Apr 1997 Laval_Dubreuil@uqss.uquebec.ca wrote: > Just remembering that the auction was: > > W: 1N - N: 2D - E: P - S: 2H > > 2D was not an opening but an overcall of 1N, aleted as Capeletti as on > their CC (both majors) but having 6 cards in D and only 1 H (N forgot > the convention). > > IMHO, 3D by N is clearly an illegal rescue (knowing that S can have bid > 2H with only 2 cards). We had this exact sequence at our table at a sectional this last weekend! The diamond bidder attempted 3D, and before the director could be summoned, it wnet pass, and partner, thinking there was a great red-suiter opposite him, bid 4H!! Should the Director cancel the 3D bid, or let them roast in 4H!?!? Rich Odlin From owner-bridge-laws Wed Apr 30 04:21:08 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id EAA07386 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 30 Apr 1997 04:21:08 +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 EAA07381 for ; Wed, 30 Apr 1997 04:21:01 +1000 Received: from casewise.demon.co.uk ([158.152.187.206]) by relay-10.mail.demon.net id ab1015308; 29 Apr 97 16:43 BST Received: by bridge.casewise.demon.co.uk with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Server Internet Mail Connector Version 4.0.994.63) id <01BC54B6.D0671990@bridge.casewise.demon.co.uk>; Tue, 29 Apr 1997 16:03:01 -0000 Message-ID: From: David Martin To: "'bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au'" Subject: RE: Opening lead out of turn Date: Tue, 29 Apr 1997 16:02:58 -0000 X-Mailer: Microsoft Exchange Server Internet Mail Connector Version 4.0.994.63 Encoding: 33 TEXT Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk DWS wrote SNIP > > --------- > >>David Martin started a new thread and wrote: > >>>It seems to me that the first law to apply is 10C2 which states that >>>''If a player has an option after an irregularity, he must make his >>>selection without consulting partner.'' Dummy's remark clearly >>>constitutes consultation and therefore, IMO, declarer cannot apply any >>>penalty to the lead out of turn, hence, the options provided by Laws >>>54D, 56 and 50E are not available to declarer. Declarer is left with >>>the options provided by Law 54 parts A, B and C and is subject to Law >>>16A as Dummy's remark is clearly unauthorised information. Thus, the >>>Diamond lead will stand and the only question (subject to Law 16A) is >>>whether Declarer plays the hand himself or elects to let his partner >>>play it. > > > The same problem: why on earth does a breach of L10C2 get rid of the >>options in L54D, L56 and L50E, but allow the options in L54A, L54B and >>L54C? Because, IMO, a breach of Law 10C2 prevents declarer enforcing any of >the *penalty* provisions of the laws (cf. Endicott & Hansen) and L54D, L56 >and L50E are penalties applied to the defenders (ie. PENALTY cards) but L54A, L54B and L54C are NOT penalties on the defenders and only specify actions for dummy and declarer. >SNIP From owner-bridge-laws Wed Apr 30 05:16:29 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA07633 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 30 Apr 1997 05:16:29 +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 FAA07628 for ; Wed, 30 Apr 1997 05:16:23 +1000 Received: from casewise.demon.co.uk ([158.152.187.206]) by punt-2.mail.demon.net id aa1017705; 29 Apr 97 18:45 BST Received: by bridge.casewise.demon.co.uk with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Server Internet Mail Connector Version 4.0.994.63) id <01BC54C8.72294170@bridge.casewise.demon.co.uk>; Tue, 29 Apr 1997 18:09:14 -0000 Message-ID: From: David Martin To: "'bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au'" Subject: RE: UI in law 75 Date: Tue, 29 Apr 1997 18:09:09 -0000 X-Mailer: Microsoft Exchange Server Internet Mail Connector Version 4.0.994.63 Encoding: 22 TEXT Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk >---------- >From: David Martin >Sent: 29 April 1997 17:17 >To: 'bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au' >Subject: RE: UI in law 75 > > >Various people have written on this thread and someone included the following >remark: > >> << You cannot allow the 3D bid and then disallow the 4D. >> > >Law 12 says that whilst the non-offenders are entitled to ''the most >favourable result that was likely *had the irregularity not occurred*'', the >offenders are to be given the ''most unfavourable result that is at all >probable''. I seem to recall that Endicott & Hansen point out that this >wording in Law 12 permits the offenders to get their bad score either through >the infraction route or through its correction. This, IMO, totally justifies >allowing the 3D bid and then disallowing the 4D bid. > From owner-bridge-laws Wed Apr 30 05:52:52 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id FAA07808 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 30 Apr 1997 05:52:52 +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 FAA07803 for ; Wed, 30 Apr 1997 05:52:45 +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 VAA05637 for ; Tue, 29 Apr 1997 21:52:37 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from default (cph59.ppp.dknet.dk [194.192.100.59]) by pip.dknet.dk (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id VAA29645 for ; Tue, 29 Apr 1997 21:52:31 +0200 Message-Id: <199704291952.VAA29645@pip.dknet.dk> Comments: Authenticated sender is From: "Jens & Bodil" Organization: Alesia Software To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Date: Tue, 29 Apr 1997 21:52:26 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Re: UI in Law 75 Priority: normal X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v2.42a) Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk > From: "Barbara B. Odlin" > On Tue, 29 Apr 1997 Laval_Dubreuil@uqss.uquebec.ca wrote: > > > Just remembering that the auction was: > > > > W: 1N - N: 2D - E: P - S: 2H > > > > 2D was not an opening but an overcall of 1N, aleted as Capeletti as on > > their CC (both majors) but having 6 cards in D and only 1 H (N forgot > > the convention). > > > > IMHO, 3D by N is clearly an illegal rescue (knowing that S can have bid > > 2H with only 2 cards). > > We had this exact sequence at our table at a sectional this last weekend! > The diamond bidder attempted 3D, and before the director could be > summoned, it wnet pass, and partner, thinking there was a great red-suiter > opposite him, bid 4H!! > > Should the Director cancel the 3D bid, or let them roast in 4H!?!? > > Rich Odlin The director shall require the auction and play to continue ... (this was a quote from L16B). This ain't over yet, and we could see a 5D call interpreted as a cue bid, leading to the entertaining contract of 7Hx. Note the word "shall" above. Many of you know this, of course, but in Denmark we would not expect the director to be called until the diamond bidder's hand becomes visible. We go by that other sentence in the book (L16B again): When a player has substantial reason to believe* (footnote: when play ends ...). If called when the 3D bid was made, I would probably greet the player with a cheerful "Ah, welcome, you must be our visitor from North America! Please play on and call me after the play if you think there is a problem." -- Jens Brix Christiansen, Denmark From owner-bridge-laws Wed Apr 30 09:38:28 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA08867 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 30 Apr 1997 09:38:28 +1000 Received: (from markus@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id JAA08860 for bridge-laws@rgb; Wed, 30 Apr 1997 09:38:24 +1000 Date: Wed, 30 Apr 1997 09:38:24 +1000 From: Markus Buchhorn Message-Id: <199704292338.JAA08860@octavia.anu.edu.au> To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au Subject: Administrivia: Happy Birthday BLML :-) Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Happy 1st Birthday to BLML - (albeit belated). Since it started on 25th April 96 we have had 2060 postings (at time of writing this), and there are currently 172 subscribers. If you add in the people who joined and later left you get well over 200. There's about 7MB of archived material from this list. I'm not going to provide stats of (i) number of bounces, problem addresses, misaddressed BLML mail, etc. (ii) who the biggest, or most frequent, posters are (iii) the longest threads (iv) anything else... ? (unless asked to :-) ). Back to our regular discussions... Cheers, Markus Markus Buchhorn, Advanced Computational Systems CRC |* Ph: +61 6 2798810** email: markus@acsys.anu.edu.au, snail: ACSys, RSISE Bldg,|*Fax: +61 6 2798602** Australian National University, Canberra 0200, Australia | Mobile: 017 970715 From owner-bridge-laws Wed Apr 30 11:39:59 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id LAA09357 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 30 Apr 1997 11:39:59 +1000 Received: from punt-2.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 LAA09351 for ; Wed, 30 Apr 1997 11:39:54 +1000 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by punt-2.mail.demon.net id aa1115098; 30 Apr 97 2:38 BST Message-ID: <6CZvQJABWoZzEw70@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Wed, 30 Apr 1997 00:34:25 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Opening after pd's opening OOT In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Martin wrote: >DWS wrote: >>>David Martin wrote: >>>>>>West is dealer. >>>>>>East opens 1H out of turn. >>>>>>This is not noticed by West, who opens 1D. >>>>> >>>>>> W N E S >>>>>>... ... 1H >>>>>>1D >Following this approach, what would your full ruling be? Presumably you >will silence West because of East's bid out of rotation at West's turn >and apply lead penalties, if appropriate, to West's 1D bid. But is East >>subsequently free to call as he pleases and is West's 1D bid AI or UI? L29B. Offer S the chance to accept. If he does then treat W's 1D as a BOOT [I *had* to use that acronym ] at RHO's turn: offer N the chance to accept the 1D: if he does no further penalties [despite it being insufficient]: if not then L31A. If S passes then 1D is repeated [L31A1] and is subject to L27, so as with any insufficient bid it may be accepted [L27A], corrected to 2D without penalty [L27B1] or corrected to any other sufficient bid or pass [L27B2, there may be lead penalties]. If S does not pass then L31A2 applies and W can bid diamonds [E has to pass once] or anything else [E has to pass throughout, there may be lead penalties]. This is all if S accepts the 1H. Suppose he does not. L29A refers you to L31B. The 1H is cancelled, E must pass throughout, there may be lead penalties, the 1D stands. "Ahh", you say, but at the time W bid 1D, he did not know his partner would be silenced. "Tough", I reply, "there is nothing in the Laws to allow you to take that bid back [check L9B2 and L11A, for example]". >As a separate additional issue, what would you do if North also does not >see East opening out of turn and calls over West's 1D bid before >attention is drawn to the 1H bid? Humph. Now you are getting tricky. While L11A is normally used to stop opponent's getting two bites at the cherry, I think I apply it here and cancel the 1H bid without penalty under L11A. -- David Stevenson MayDay Swiss Pairs in Liverpool! Nanki Poo is FOUR! Hughes Simultaneous Pairs at end of June! nankipoo@blakjak.demon.co.uk See my Homepage for details Homepage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk From owner-bridge-laws Wed Apr 30 11:42:20 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id LAA09374 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 30 Apr 1997 11:42:20 +1000 Received: from punt-1.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 LAA09369 for ; Wed, 30 Apr 1997 11:42:09 +1000 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by punt-1.mail.demon.net id aa0509598; 30 Apr 97 2:38 BST Message-ID: Date: Wed, 30 Apr 1997 00:06:04 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Opening lead out of turn In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk David Martin wrote: >DWS wrote >> > The same problem: why on earth does a breach of L10C2 get rid of the >>>options in L54D, L56 and L50E, but allow the options in L54A, L54B and >>>L54C? >Because, IMO, a breach of Law 10C2 prevents declarer enforcing any of >>the *penalty* provisions of the laws (cf. Endicott & Hansen) and L54D, L56 >>and L50E are penalties applied to the defenders (ie. PENALTY cards) but L54A, >L54B and L54C are NOT penalties on the defenders and only specify >actions for dummy and declarer. I am not sure that the EBL guide had really considered this position. Anyway, with due respect to Messrs Endicott and Hansen, their words are not Law, and to be certain we need to find a relevant Law, or some other authority, or custom and practice. L10C2 **does not use the word "penalty"**. It says: If a player has an option after an irregularity, he must make his selection without consulting partner. So it is not referring solely to penalties, but to a selection of an option. Now there is no penalty given for a breach of L10C2, so we have to decide how we shall enforce this. Of course, we can issue a PP under L90. But it seems more reasonable to make some sort of effort to link the penalty to the actual choice: if so, we need a Law that permits it. If there is no other Law then we can use L12A1. This does not give us the right to do anything we feel like [that right is only given in bridge to ***** *** ***** ******** ******* ********** *** ***** *****: fill in your own blanks ]. All it gives us is the right to adjust by assigning if there appears to be damage. To apply this we should have to adjust afterwards if the player chooses an option unfairly, defining unfairly as [presumably] the selection suggested. How else can we proceed? As noted elsewhere in this thread, it is easier [and possibly more correct] to treat this as a breach of L16A. Going back to the EBL guide [which I have difficulty quoting because I still have not found an electronic copy: any offers?] I am afraid that while it sounds reasonable to disallow penalties [a] it should refer to the selection of options rather than rights to penalise and [b] it needs a Law to give that right: can we find one? -- David Stevenson MayDay Swiss Pairs in Liverpool! Nanki Poo is FOUR! Hughes Simultaneous Pairs at end of June! nankipoo@blakjak.demon.co.uk See my Homepage for details Homepage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk From owner-bridge-laws Wed Apr 30 20:26:01 1997 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by octavia.anu.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.12) id UAA10728 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 30 Apr 1997 20:26:01 +1000 Received: from punt-2.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 UAA10723 for ; Wed, 30 Apr 1997 20:25:55 +1000 Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by punt-2.mail.demon.net id aa1103376; 30 Apr 97 10:29 BST Message-ID: Date: Wed, 30 Apr 1997 02:44:08 +0100 To: bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Administrivia: Happy Birthday BLML :-) In-Reply-To: <199704292338.JAA08860@octavia.anu.edu.au> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Version 3.01 Sender: owner-bridge-laws Precedence: bulk Markus Buchhorn wrote: >Happy 1st Birthday to BLML - (albeit belated). Since it started on >25th April 96 we have had 2060 postings (at time of writing this), and >there are currently 172 subscribers. If you add in the people who joined >and later left you get well over 200. There's about 7MB of archived >material from this list. > >I'm not going to provide stats of > >(i) number of bounces, problem addresses, misaddressed BLML mail, etc. Boring! >(ii) who the biggest, or most frequent, posters are How do you define the biggest poster? Weight? Height? >(iii) the longest threads I seem to remember a simple little claim from somewhere in russia ... >(iv) anything else... ? What else is ther? >(unless asked to :-) ). Oh, go on ... :)) >Back to our regular discussions... I should like to thank Markus for making BLML available for us. -- David Stevenson MayDay Swiss Pairs in Liverpool! Nanki Poo is FOUR! Hughes Simultaneous Pairs at end of June! nankipoo@blakjak.demon.co.uk See my Homepage for details Homepage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk